Corporate Social Responsibility: A Conceptualization Based on Organizational Literature

Author(s): Thomas J. Zenisek

Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Jul., 1979), pp. 359-368
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/257192 .
Accessed: 12/06/2014 22:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:56:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Academyof ManagementReview1979, Vol.4, No.3, 359-368.

Corporate Social Responsibility:

A Conceptualization Based On
Organizational Literature1
THOMAS J. ZENISEK
University of Calgary
Several definitions and models of the phenomenon of corporate social
responsibility are reviewed. These conceptualizations and definitions are
found to lack either empirical and/or theoretical support; they have not
provided a basis for a clear understanding of the phenomenon. They have,
in fact, led to confusion in the literature. I propose a definition of social
responsibility based on the notion of a "fit"between the two components of
a "business ethic" and societal expectations of the private economic
sector. A typology of social responsibility which incorporates this defini-
tion, and which is based on the Blau and Scott "primebeneficiary" and the
Emery and Trist "causal texture of organizational environment" typologies
is also presented.

Social comment, a leading indicator of evolving see it as a mere synonym for "legitimacy";a few see
social values or expectations, has borrowed heavily it as a sort of fiduciary duty. Even the antonyms,
in recent years from that portion of the advertising socially "irresponsible" and "nonresponsible,"
industry specializing in the promotion of laundry have multiple interpretations (29, pp. 11-13).
detergents. Both contents and their efficacy are Whatever the interpretation, the term has re-
usually underanalyzed, and oversold. Like the ceived a great deal of attention during the past few
brand names of the best-selling detergents, the years. Corporation presidents rarely make public
labels affixed to social issues are often chosen as statements without giving it prominence. The edi-
much to titillate as to inform (29). tors of business periodicals devote whole issues to
One of the issues in the area of business and it and every new oil spill brings it to the frontpages of
organization which is presently in this stage of de- newspapers. It has become the title of college
velopment carries the label "corporate social re- courses and purports to be a proper subject for
sponsibility." The term means something, but not scholarly research. With few exceptions, however,
always the same thing, to just about everyone. To the literature contains little that might truly be de-
some it conveys the idea of legal responsibility or scribed as analysis. Peter Drucker (7) has stated
liability; to others it means socially responsible be- that, the time for sensations and manifestos is
havior in an ethical sense; to still others the mean- about over; now we need rigorous analysis, united
ing transmitted is that of "responsible for" in a effort, and hard work.
causal mode; many simply equate it with "charita- It is easy to say that the time has come to get
ble contributions"; many of those who embrace it down to work; it is not at all easy to say where we
ought to begin. However, there should be no major
1The authoracknowledgesthe commentsand suggestions of disagreement over the desirability of obtaining a
Dr.Julie Rowney. clearer idea of what it is we intend to observe by
? 1979 by the Academyof Management 0363-7425

359

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:56:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
creating a conceptual model of the phenomenon. tion, suffers from one of the same problems as the
This paper is an attempt to create a conceptual Eells and Walton models. It is a historically-based
model of the phenomenon of social responsibility, set of descriptive models that does not draw the
based on the literature of the field of organizational support of any related conceptual or theoretical
behavior. works. In addition, the unit of analysis of this model
is "managerial attitudes or values," not organiza-
Models of Social Responsibility
tional behaviors.
A check of the early social responsibility literature Eells (8) conceptualized social responsibility as a
reveals only two authors, Eells (8) and Walton (30), continuum of real organizational behaviors which
who have attempted to model the concept in a ranged from irresponsible to responsible. The plac-
descriptive manner. The models provided in more ing of any specific behavior of an organization or the
contemporary literature have added little to the aggregate of its behaviors along the continuum was
work of Eells and Walton. These newer models are determined by comparison of the exhibited beha-
either political or prescriptive in approach - e.g., vior with societal norms. Thus, organizational be-
Adizes and Weston (1), Shanklin (22) - or repre- haviors which are considered socially responsible
sent elaborations of the earlier works. For example, at time T1 may or may not be considered as such at
Keim's (14) work is an elaboration and justification time T2. Eells describes only the polar ends of his
of Walton's (30) "investment" model. The model by continuum, the "traditional corporation" and the
Hay and Gray (13), a three-celled conceptualiza- "metro corporation," as depicted in Figure 1.

Traditional Metro
Corporation Corporation
Directionof Directionof
Minimum Maximum
Responsibility Responsibility

Figure 1
Eells' Continuum of Social Responsibility

At one extreme of the continuum is the traditional The traditional corporation is concerned only with
corporation which is backed by the position that the the "economic man"; but the metro corporation
corporation is nothing but the organizational arm of thinks of the "whole man" in much the same way as
its stockholders as private property owners. Profit the all-embracing political community is parens pat-
maximization for the owners is the sole legitimate riae and the guardian of the welfare of citizens.
function of corporate enterprise in this theory. At the Walton (30) expanded and clarified much of
other extreme is the model of the social corporation Eells' (8) work. He expanded Eells' continuum con-
with a wide range of social purposes and objectives. cept to include six models of social responsibility:
Itis a kind of "metro corporation" (a mother corpora- (a) austere, (b) household, (c) vendor, (d) invest-
tion) with a host of interest groups under its protec- ment, (e) civic, and (f) artistic. Walton's austere
tion. Its professional managers maintain a balance model is essentially equal to Eells' traditional cor-
of interest among competing claimants; but more poration, while his civic model represents Eells'
than this, they become "socially responsible" for metro corporation. These six models are shown in
the welfare of these claimants in numerous ways. Figure 2.
360

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:56:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Austere Household Vendor Investment Civic Artistic
Directionof Directionof
Minimum
Responsibility I Maximum
Responsibility

Figure 2
Walton's Continuumof Social Responsibility

Walton's division of the continuum of social re- Chamberlain's definition and Frederick's more
sponsibility into these six models, though a great recent one reveal two differences of meaning. They
conceptual step forward at the time of its creation, is are (a) in terms of the recipient (prime beneficiary)
lacking as a basis for empirical investigation. This to whom responsibility is due and (b) in terms of
stems from the fact that the six models merely de- what initiative triggers corporate action. In addition,
scribe, in time sequence, clustered bodies of Frederick's definition involves a point of view
thought which seek to rationalize observed orga- toward society that suggests more initiative on the
nizational behaviors. The models are based on ab- part of business leadership. It suggests proaction
stract rationalizations for behavior rather than and is thus in tune with Walton's (30) artistic model.
actual organizational behaviors. Proactive types of definitions have been elabo-
rated on more recently by several authors (3, 4, 21)
Definitions of Social Responsibility - most notably by Sethi (21) under the banner of
Over two decades ago, Neil Chamberlain (6) de- social responsiveness. He has presented a three-
fined social responsibility in terms of action that the state schema for classifying corporate behavior. In
leadership in business and unions are expected to this schema (a) "state one" behaviors are called
take with respect to their following in a given situa- "social obligation" and are depicted as being pro-
tion (actions that can be and are demanded) as scriptive in nature; (b) "state two" behaviors are
matters of right, whether legal or nonlegal. Because called "social responsibility" and are depicted as
it is a response mechanism, social responsibility being prescriptive in nature. Both "state one" and
"can be satisfied only by performance of obligations "state two" types of behavior are conceptualized as
to particular individuals, and not to society as a response mechanisms; and (c) "state three" beha-
whole" (6, p. 13). Against the response notion and viors are called "social responsiveness" and are
against the particularistic feature of Chamberlain's depicted as being anticipatory and preventive -
definition is the view expressed by William Freder- proaction mechanisms. However, proactive defini-
ick. He sees in social responsibility a requirement tions contain an "ought" element that critics find
for business to: infuriating. Milton Friedman (11) and Theodore
Levitt (17) resent being put in a "bind"that, seem-
Oversee the operationof an economic system that
fulfills the expectations of the public. And this ingly, forces them into an antiresponsibility role.
means, inturn,thatthe means of productionshould Philip Klein (15) seeks to explain the meaning of
be employed in such a way that productionand social responsibility as it relates to internal and ex-
distributionwould enhance total socio-economic ternal organizational problems, respectively. In-
welfare. Social responsibility... is a willingnessto cluded in the internal problems are stockholder and
see that those (human and economic) resources
are utilizedforbroadsocial ends and notsimplythe worker rights. Under the external problems are re-
narrowlycircumscribedinterestof privatepersons sponsibilities dealing with the impact of the product
and firms(10, p. 60). or service on the community, the relationship of the
361

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:56:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
selling process to social values, and the meaning of be compatible with prevailing social ideology. The
corporate citizenship. Klein's dichotomy requires ideologies of a society organize prevailing views of
clarification because it does not suggest prioritiesof the world into a "logical" system. There is an inti-
obligations to internal claimants, nor does it specify mate relation between social ideology and the
the external claimants, who may be growing in num- operational aspect of a business ethic. The opera-
ber and who differ in kind. tional aspect of a business ethic must be reason-
The Managerial Ethic ably consistent with societal expectations.
The above discussion might iead one to the con-
An ethic is a system of standards of conduct and clusion that any definition of the phenomenon of
moral judgment. Thus, behaviors and belief sys- corporate social responsibility must include the re-
tems are components of an ethic. Petit (18) has lationship between social ideology and both the
referred to these two ethical components as the ideological and operational aspects of a business
operational aspect and the ideological aspect re- ethic. Thus, corporate social responsibility is con-
spectively. ceptualized as the degree of "fit"between society's
The operational aspect is a guideline for practical expectations of the business community and the
behavior. Underlying it is an ideology. For example, ethics of business.
the Ten Commandments are the operational aspect This "fit"has two components: The first is beha-
of the Christian ethic which is based on the Judeo- vioral. Itis the fit between societal expectations and
Christian conception of God, man, and the universe a firm's actions. Thus, the first component of social
- the ideological aspect. The difference between responsiblity is what a firm does in relation to what
the operational and ideological aspects of an ethic society expects it to do. A firmcould be placed along
is the difference between action and belief. An indi- a responsible/nonresponsible continuum by com-
vidual acts in a certain way because of a particular paring organizational behaviors to societal norms of
set of beliefs. However, action does not always what the organization's behavior should be.
correspond to ideology. In fact, people often-act in The second component is attitudinal. It is the fit
ways which are inconsistent with the ideologies between societal expectations and what a firm's
they hold. managers consider to be legitimate societal de-
Thus, it is possible for individuals to employ an mands. This represents the ideological aspect of
operational ethic of behavior that does not corres- the firm's ethics. It revolves around managerial atti-
pond to their ideological ethic. When this happens, tudes as to what are or are not socially responsible
the individual faces what Petit (18) has called a organizational behaviors.
"moral crisis," straddling two incompatible ethics. Note that this two component conceptualization
The individual counterpoises the operational as- is compatible with both the reactive and proactive
pect of one ethic against the ideological aspect of trails of previous social responsibility definitions.
another. To resolve the crisis, ideological beliefs, Reaction vs. proaction can be conceptualized as a
behavior, or both must change. societal expectation.
The business community as an interest group Given this conceptualization, an understanding
strongly influences the ideological aspect of busi- of the phenomenon of corporate social responsibil-
ness ethics. Business leaders are in the position to ity would require an investigation of: (a) managerial
influence adoption or rejection of new ideas about attitudes concerning, and (b) organizational beha-
business and economics. Whether they support or viors resulting from:
oppose new ideological concepts will depend to a
great extent on whether in their judgment those
That set of demands and expectations, regarding
concepts will have a favorable or unfavorable effect the productionof goods and services of both a
on their own welfare. The topical area of the "ideo-
physicaland social nature,whichsociety places on
logical aspect" of a business ethic is vast. Several privateenterpriseas personifiedby Galbraith's(12)
authors such as Sutton et al. (24), Petit (18), and "mature"corporation.
Hay and Gray (13) have modeled the phenomenon.
To be acceptable to society a business ethic must
362

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:56:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A Four-Celled Partition of organizations which are similarto the organization
of interest.
The Social Responsibility Continuum These firstthree types of environmenthave been
This set of societal demands and expectations identifiedand described in the literatureof biology,
clusters into four phases, when viewed in a time economics, and mathematics. The fourthtype of
frame, or from the point of view of Blau and Scott's environment,however,was new to Emeryand Trist
(5) concept of prime beneficiary and Emery and and the subject of theirendeavors. Thisfourthtype
Trist's (9) concept of the causal texture of organiza- of environmentis called a turbulentfield. Dynamic
tional environments. processes "arisefromthe fielditself"and not mere-
ly from the interactionsof the field's components;
the actions of component organizationsand linked
The Emery and Trist Typology sets of them withinthe environment"areboth per-
A major problem in understanding social respon- sistent and strongenough to induceautochthonous
sibility is that the environmental contexts in which processes withinthe environment"(9, p. 26).
organizations exist are themselves changing, and An alternatedescriptionof a turbulentfieldis that
becoming increasingly complex. This means that the accelerating rate and complexityof interactive
they demand consideration for their own sake. One effects exceeds the organization'scapacityfor pre-
such consideration is the work of Emery and Trist diction and hence control of the compounding con-
(9). sequences of its actions.
They state that to consider environments for their Turbulence is characterized by complexity as
own sake requires a redefinition, at a social level of well as rapidity of change in causal interconnec-
analysis, of the "causal texture" of the environment. tions in the environment. A critical implicationof the
This is a concept introduced by Tolman and Bruns- turbulent field type of environment is that individual
wik (27). Emery and Trist (9, pp. 20-26) contend that organizations, however large, cannot adapt suc-
organizational environments differ in causal texture cessfully simplythroughtheirdirectactions.
in regard to the degree of uncertainty and in certain Emery and Tristcontend that achieving organi-
other aspects. They suggest a typology which iden- zational stabilitybecomes precariouswithina tur-
tifies four "ideal types" of organizational environ- bulent field - the prevalenttype in our industrial
ments, approximations which exist simultaneously society (25). Nevertheless, there are some indica-
in the world of many organizations. tions that a solution lies withinthe emergence of
In Emery and Trist's terms, interdependencies values that have overriding significance for all
within an organization's environment comprise the members of the field. EmeryandTristregardvalues
environment's causal texture. The four ideal types as coping mechanisms that make itpossible to deal
of environment, which these authors postulate, can withpersistingareas of uncertainty.Unableto trace
be ordered according to the degree of system con- out the consequences of their actions as they are
nectedness, or interdependence that exists among amplifiedthroughtheirextended social fields, deci-
the environment's component parts. The first is the sion makers in all societies have sought rules,
placid randomized environment: Goods and bads sometimes categorical,such as the Ten Command-
(i.e., those environmental elements or processes ments, to provideguidance.
which have either positive or negative implications Fromthe perspective of "The ManagerialEthic"
for the organization) are relatively unchanging in section above, it appears that Emery and Trist are
themselves and are randomly distributed. The sec- indicating that the dominant means that the busi-
ond ideal type is a placid clustered environment: ness community has at its disposal for dealing with
Goods and bads are relatively unchanging in them- a turbulentenvironmentis to develop a business
selves but clustered. The thirdtype is the disturbed- ethic which has a strong ideological aspect - a set
reactive environment and constitutes a significant of values that have overriding significance for all
qualitative change over the two previous and simp- members of the field.
ler types of environments. This type of environment As a strong ideological aspect of a business ethic
is characterized by the fact that it contains other emerges, the character of turbulent business envi-
363

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:56:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ronments changes in a striking fashion. The rele- expectations being placed on the business sector
vance of large classes of events no longer has to be by society. It indicates that society has continually
sought in a mesh of diverging causal strands, but is increased its expectations of who should be includ-
given directly in the ideological aspect of the ethical ed within the prime beneficiary group of private
code. By this transformation, an environment is enterprise.
created which is no longer turbulent but simplified The model (Figure 3) of social responsibility
and relatively static with the degree of simplification which I propose, like the typologies it incorporates,
being determined by how adequately the emergent is a heuristic typology (2, 31). It represents a parti-
ideological aspect of the business ethic reflects so- tion of the continuum of social responsibility into
cietal expectations. four phases, each phase represented by a model -
Thus there is a congruence of logic between the each model being an ideal type. The four models
above presented definition of social responsibility are: (a) owner/manager, (b) organization partici-
and the Emery and Trist typology.
pant, (c) task environment, and (d) societal.
The Blau and Scott Typology There are two major reasons why this four-celled
partition of the social responsibility continuum ap-
Blau and Scott (5, p. 43) describe their typology of pears to be superior to its predecessors. First, the
organizations with four basic categories of persons four phases of the typology represent a Guttman
that can be distinguished in relation to any given scale in that each succeeding phase contains within
organization: it all of the characteristics of all preceding phases.
a The owners or managersof the organization This Guttman-scale effect appears in at least three
b The members or rank-and-fileparticipants ways: First, in relation to the prime beneficiary of the
c The clients or, more generally, the "public-in- organization, the owner/manager model specifies
contact,"which means the people who are tech- this group as the prime beneficiary; the organization
nically "outside" the organization yet have participant model specifies all organizational par-
regulardirect contact with it (e.g., J. D. Thomp-
son's (26) task environment) ticipants (including owners/managers) as the prime
d The public-at-large;that is, the members of the beneficiaries; and so on. Second, the set of de-
society in whichthe organizationoperates. mands/expectations, regarding the production of
goods and services of both a physical and social
These authors propose to classify organizations on nature, which society places on private enterprise is
the basis of cui bono - who benefits; i.e., which of cumulative. Third, each successive environmental
the above four categories represents the prime type encompasses all of the characteristics of its
beneficiary of the organization's existence. predecessors. The significance and value of this
Four ideal types of organizations result from the Guttman-scale effect becomes clearer when one is
confronted with the problem of operationally mea-
application of the cui bono criterion: (a) businesses
where the owners and/or managers are the prime suring the ideological aspect of social responsibil-
beneficiaries; (b) mutual-benefit associations, ity. The psychometric problems of measurement
where the prime beneficiary is the membership; (c) are greatly reduced (16, 28).
service organizations, where the client group is the The second reason why the four-celled partition
prime beneficiary; and (d) commonweal organiza- is superior stems from the appearance of multiple
tions, where the prime beneficiary is the public-at- congruency between the historical development of
large. societal demands and expectations. The environ-
The relationship of the prime beneficiary concept mental types of Emery and Trist, the prime benefi-
to societal expectations and the phenomenon of ciaries of Blau and Scott, primary organizational
social responsibility becomes clearer when one ex- goals, and the primarytypes of business policy are
amines the list of demanded and requested social congruent. This congruence, which is observable in
actions on the part of private enterprise which have each of the columns of Figure 3, represents rea-
appeared since 1870. There is a pattern in this list of sonably strong heuristic support for a four-celled
an ever-increasing and cumulative set of demands/ partition of the social responsibility continuum.
364

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:56:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Direction of a Continuum of Social
Social Responsibilitya a Direction of
Continuum of
Decreased Responsibility ResponsibilitIncreased Responsibility
PHASE
ELEMENTS I III IV
Ideal type (name) Owner/Manager Organization participant Task environment Societal

Historical period 1850-1910 1900-1950 1945-1965 1960-

(approximate)

Societal demands/ expecta- Sherman Act 1870 Workmen's Compensation 1938 Wheeler-Lea 1938 Water Pollution
tations (represented by laws Clayton Act 1914 Wool Labelling 1939 Control 1961
enacted)--representative, Income Tax - Taft Hartley 1947 Clean Air 1963
not inclusive (corporate) 1917 F A. A. Civil Rights 1965
Blue Eagle 1925 C. A. B. Air Quality 1967
Morris-LaGuardia 1932 F D. A. . S. H. A. 1970
Wagner Act H. E. W. Environmental
Wage Hour Law 1936 Flour Products 1951 Quality 1970
Social Security 1941 Flammable Products 1953 E. P. A. 1970
O. P A. 1940-45 Textile Fiber 1958 Amendment to Civil
Rights 1972
Landrum Griffin 1959 No Discrimination
I. C. C. in Age
Equal Pay

Social milieu Industrial era; days of Rise of unionism, people are "Marketing concept;" a Pressure to internalize eco-
"robber barons" and more than a "factor of pro- firm can no longer sell all nomic and social exter-
muckrakers; gospel of duction" that it can produce nalities
wealth; social Darwinism

Environmental type (approx- Placid randomized (e.g., Placid clustered (e.g., imper- Disturbed-reactive (e.g., Turbulent field (no economic
imately those of Emery and classic market) fect competition) oligopoly) concept as yet; however,
Trist) symptoms are present, e.g.,
"stagflation")

Prime beneficiary group Owners/Managers Owners/Managers, plus em- Owners/Managers/Employ- Owners/Managers/Employ-

(Blau and Scott) ployees (organization partici- ees, plus ees/Task environment, plus
pants) Suppliers Public at large (society as a
Task
Distributors environ- whole)
Creditors i ment
etc.

Primary organizational goals Profit Profit Profit Profit

Resource utilization Resource utilization Resource utilization
Sales volume Sales volume
Welfare of society

Primary type of policies Financial Financial Financial Financial

Industrial Industrial Industrial
Market Market
Social

Figure 3
A Four-Celled Model (Partition)of the Social Responsibility Continuum
As personified by societal demands/expectations of private enterprise (surrogate objective measures are the laws affecting private
enterprise during the historical period).

Emery and Trist (9) and Terreberry (25) have ment which existed in phases I, II, and IIIof the
pointed out that the economic concepts of classical model. In addition Terreberry has developed a con-
market, imperfect competition, and oligopoly are vincing argument, based on over 25 theoretical and
respectively examples of placid random, placid empirical works, that the extant environments of
clustered, and disturbed reactive environments. large organizations are represented by turbulent
These three economic concepts are seen to be fields. This set of relations is shown in the sixth row
respectively representative of the market environ- of Figure 3.

365

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:56:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Implicationsfor Research Owner-Manager Type
a A firmbest serves society bystickingto business.
Explicit in the introduction to this paper is the b The only objective of business in society is to
contention that the proposed model provides a ba- make profits.
sis for the empirical investigation of the phenome- c The only roleof business in society is to produce
non of social responsibility. The model indicates goods and services.
d Business is strictlyan economic institution.
that to obtain a more comprehensive and accurate e Laboris a commodityto be boughtand sold.
schema of social responsibility, researchers must
look at both managerial attitudes and organization- Organizational Participant Type
al behaviors within a framework encompassing a Employees are more than a mere factorof pro-
societal expectations. These three components, duction.
depicted in Figure 4, are both independent and b A firmhas an obligationto providea stimulating
interactive, and as such must be viewed simulta- workatmosphere.
c A firm has an obligationto develop and utilize
neously. employee talentsto the fullestpossible extent.
The model represents a design partition(i.e., the d A firmshould recognize all of the other "bread
subdivision of a continuum via theoretical criteria)of and butter" employee rights promulgated by
the social responsibility continuum into four ideal unions.
types - abstract models of the phenomenon, ap- Task Environment Type
proximations of which are thought to exist in reality.
An ideal type is delineated by a set of characteris- a A firmmustsupplycompleteproductinformation.
b A firm must not engage in deceptive product
tics. Tentatively, some examples of such a set of
qualitycutting.
characteristics for each of the model's four phases c A firmmust not be abusive in its pricingpolicies.
would include: d A firmmust not marketunsafe products.

A BUSINESSETHIC

Degree of congruence?
(Petit'smanagerialmoralcrisis)

IDEOLOGICAL ASPECT C o PERATIONAL

ASPECT
(managerial attitudes (rn
eifiedorganizational
as to what constitutes b/ehaviors)
legitimatedemands)

/
Degree of congruence? Degree of congruence?
(second dimension of -- B A - (first dimension of
social responsibility) social responsibility)

SOCIETALDEMANDS/EXPECTATIONS

Figure 4
Points of InteractionIndicated by the
Social Responsibility Model

366

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:56:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 e A firmmust not engage indeceptive practices. ity of life scale," obtained from the marketing
f A firmmust supportthe local communitywelfare
withboth money and effort. literature, or (b) the multidimensional scaling of
g A firmmust always cooperate to the best of its preferences technique outlined by Shocker and
abilitywithlocal government. Sethi (23), would fully operationalize the model's
h A firm must seek only mutualbenefit relations constructs. Thus, one could empirically test the
with other firms (e.g., it should not use its eco- model for external consistency and then go on to
nomic power to extractunjustagreements from relate its constructs with other organizational varia-
less powerfulfirms).
bles and models.
Societal Type
a A firmmustcooperateto the best of its abilitywith
the federal government.
b A firmmust not degrade the environment. Implications for Practice
c A firm must do all that is possible to provide As was the case with research, the model indi-
minoritygroups with an opportunityto become cates the areas of managerial focus required in
active and importantmembers of the free enter-
order to achieve greater degrees of organizational
prise system.
d A firm(likea citizen)is a free participantin socie- effectiveness in the social responsibility arena. Or-
ty withall the responsibilitieswhichare associa- ganizations must attempt to achieve harmony be-
ted withthatcitizenship. tween managerial attitudes and behaviors in
e A firm must actively and openly participatein relation to environmental demands (i.e., congru-
politics. ence at points A, B, and C in Figure 4). For example,
f A corporation'sexistence depends on its public
charter; therefore, it must yield to societal de- where an organization desired to achieve a balance
mands. between the model's three constructs, and such
g A firmmust activelyworkto promotesocial jus- was not the case, the model would be indicative of
tice. the types of changes required. This could include
h A firmis as much a social institutionas it is an
such actions as increasing the social awareness of
economic one.
management regarding major environmental influ-
Such a set of characteristics would represent an ences, or bridging the gap between attitudes and
empirical partition of the phenomenon of manage- behavior through simulation, role playing, and so
rial attitudes toward social responsibility. After such forth. The model also allows for a diagnosis of the
a pool of items is subjected to factor analysis or organization's phase of development, and for as-
other scale-building techniques, a tool for the mea- sessment of the degree of fit between the level of
surement of the ideological aspect of social respon- societal expectation and organizational practice, as
sibility will have been developed. well as the areas of change that would be required
In addition if factor analytic techniques are em- in order to achieve a state of congruence.
ployed, those scale items which obtained a unique The three points of interaction within the model
and invariant factor loading on one of the four become important in helping managers better un-
phases of the model would provide a means of derstand their task because the model indicates
classifying an organization's behavior. that a lack of congruence at one or more of the
Combining data obtained via such a "social re- points of interaction is a sign of organizational path-
sponsibility scale" with that provided by (a) a "qual- ology.

REFERENCES
1. Adizes, I., and J. F. Weston."ComparativeModelsof Social 3. Bauer, R. A. "The CorporateSocial Audit:Gettingon the
Responsibility,"Academyof ManagementJournal,Vol.16, LearningCurve,"CaliforniaManagementReview, Vol. 16,
No. 1 (1973), pp. 112-127. No. 1 (1973), pp. 5-10.
2. Bailey, K. D. "Monotheticand PolytheticTypologies and 4. Bauer, R. A., and D. H. Fenn. "Whatis a CorporateSocial
theirRelationto Conceptualization,"AmericanSociological Audit?,"HarvardBusiness Review, Vol. 51, No. 1 (1973),
Review, Vol.38, No. 1 (1973), pp. 18-33. pp. 37-48.
367

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:56:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 5. Blau, P. M., and W. R. Scott. Formal Organizations: A 20. Runkel, P. J., and J. E. McGrath. Research on Human
Comparative Approach (Scranton, Penn.: Chandler, 1962). Behavior (New York: Holt, 1972).
6. Chamberlain, N. W. Social Responsibility and Strikes (New 21. Sethi, S. P. "Dimensions of Corporate Social Performance:
York: Harper & Row, 1953). An Analytical Framework," Califomia Management Re-
7. Drucker, P. F. "Saving the Crusade," Harper's Magazine, view, Vol. 17, No. 3 (1975), pp. 58-64.
Vol. 244, No. 1460 (1972), pp. 66-71. 22. Shanklin, W. L. "Corporate Social Responsibility: Another
8. Eells, R. The Meaning of Modern Business (New York: View," Journal of Business Research, Vol. 4, No. 1 (1976),
Columbia University Press, 1960). pp. 75-84.
23. Shocker, A. P., and S. P. Sethi. "AnApproach to Incorporat-
9. Emery, F. E., and E. L. Trist. "The Causal Texture of Organi-
zational Environments," Human Relations, Vol. 18, No. 1 ing Societal Preferences in Developing Corporate Action
(1965), pp. 21-31. Strategies," Califomia Management Review, Vol. 15, No. 4
(1973), pp. 97-105.
10. Frederick, W. "The Growing Concern Over Business Re-
24. Sutton, F. X., et al. The American Business Creed (Cam-
sponsibility," California Management Review, Vol. 2, No. 4
(1960), pp. 54-61. bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956).
25. Terreberry, S. "The Evolution of Organizational Environ-
11. Friedman, M. Capitalism and Freedom (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1962). ment," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 4
(1968), pp. 590-613.
12. Galbraith, J. K. The New Industrial State (New York:Signet
26. Thompson, J. D. Organizations in Action (New York: Mc-
Books, 1968).
Graw-Hill, 1967).
13. Hay, R., and E. Gray. "Social Responsibilities of Business
27. Tolman, E. C., and Brunswik, E. "The Organism and the
Managers," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 17, No. Causal Texture of the Environment," Psychological Re-
1 (1974), pp. 135-143.
view, Vol. 42, No. 1 (1935), pp. 43-72.
14. Keim, G. D. "Corporate Social Responsibility: An Assess-
28. Torgerson, W. S. "Theory and Methods of Scaling," (New
ment of the Enlightened Self-Interest Model," Academy of
York: Wiley, 1958).
Management Review, Vol. 3, No. 1 (1978), pp. 32-39.
29. Votaw, D., and Sethi, S. P. The Corporate Dilemma (Engle-
15. Klein, P. Unpublished paper cited in C. Walton, Corporate
wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973).
Social Responsibilities (Belmont, Calif.:Wadsworth, 1967).
30. Walton, C. Corporate Social Responsibilities (Belmont,
16. Lemon, N. Attitudes and Their Measurement, (New York:
Calif.: Wadsworth, 1967).
Wiley, 1973).
31. Winch, R. F. "Heuristic and EmpiricalTypologies: A Job for
17. Levitt, T. "The Dangers of Social Responsibility," Harvard
Factor Analysis," American Sociological Review, Vol. 12,
Business Review, Vol. 36, No. 5 (1958), pp. 41-50.
No. 1 (1947), pp. 68-75.
18. Petit, T. A. The Moral Crisis in Management (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1967).
19. Rummel, R. J. Applied Factor Analysis (Evanston, III.:
Northwestern University Press, 1970).

Thomas J. Zenisek is Assistant Professor of Organi-

zational Behavior, Faculty of Management, University
of Calgary, Canada.
Received 4/7/78

368

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:56:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions