UNIVERISTY OF THE PHILIPPINES MINDANAO

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Prof. Stella Libre
Alphabet G. Gulanes
August 18, 2012

CSR Evolution and Evolution of Management

Theories
I.

CSR Evolution and Management Theories

How did the concept of Corporate Social responsibility

really came about?
Table 1 is a summary of the evolution of CSR from a
definitional construct
(Sbarcea, 2007),
along with the evolution of management
theories presented by Jones, George, and Hill (1998) in their
book, Contemporary Management. Table 2 on the other hand
shows some of the details of the definitional construct of the
evolution of CSR (Caroll, 1999; http://www.corporatewatch.org/?
lid=2682; Sbarcea, 2007) indicating the significant happenings
during those times.
These information is an attempt to analyze if CSR is a
result of the development of management theories or is it the
other way around? Although this summary may not be enough to
explain fully the relationship of the two, but it simply hopes to
provide insights on the evolution of CSR.
Moreover, the following are brief descriptions of different
management theories lifted from Jones, George, and Hill (1998)
used in this paper to see its probable impact on CSR evolution.
A, Scientific management theories which started in
1890s focused on job specialization just like in the Ford car
assembly line.
B. Administrative management theory. Max Weber and
Henri Fayol outlined the principles of bureaucracy and
administration or how managers should deal with all levels to
keep the workforce productive and efficient at all times. Through

the years, managers improved on this by introducing crossdepartmental teams and empowerment of workers.
C. Behavioral management theory deals with of how
managers should behave in order to motivate employees
and encourage them to perform at high levels and be
committed to the achievement of organizational goals (p. 47).
Behavioral management theory includes concepts such as
Theory X, Y, and Z; Hawthorne effect wherein a managers
behavior or leadership approach can affect workers level of
performance; human relations movement advocating the idea
that supervisors should be behaviorally trained to manage
subordinates in ways that elicit their cooperation and therefore
increase their productivity.
D. Management science theory uses rigorous
quantitative techniques to help managers make maximum use of
organizational resources.
This includes concepts such as
operations management, operations research, Total
Quality management, and Management Information
Systems.
D. Organizational Environment theory focused on
how managers acquire scarce and valuable resources from
outside the organization which includes support of customers
who buy their goods and services and therefore provide the
organization with financial resources.
Open-system, closedsystem, mechanistic and organic structures, and the contingency
theory are the major concepts included in this management
theory.
The first four theories dealt with the internal
environment of the company alone, from efficiency to
motivation. There were no mention of looking into the external
environment as of those times. It is only during the 1960s, at the
onset of organizational environment theory when organizations
gave attention to its external environment and how it impacts
the organization. The contingency concept theory in particular is
unique in that the choice of organizational structure considers
the external environment to be able to respond to changes in the
environment as quickly as possible.

Table 1. Charting the CSR Evolution and Evolution of Management

Theories.

Year

Events /
Publications

189
0

Development of Management Theory3 (focus

areas of the theories)

SCIENTIFI
C
MANAGE
MENT
Theory

190
0
191
0
192
0

ADMINI
STRATIV
E
MANAG
EMENT
THEORY

BEHAVI
ORAL
MGT
Theory

193
0
194
0

193
8

Chester
Barnards 1938
publication,
The Functions
of the
Executive,

MANAG
EMENT
SCIENC
E
Theory

Theodore
Kreps,
Measurement
of the Social
Performance
of Business
195
0

196
0

195
0s

Saw the start of

the modern era
of CSR when it
was more
commonly
known as SR or
social
responsibility

195
3

Howard
Bowen
published his
book, Social
Responsibilities
of the
Businessman

195
6

Eells work,
Corporate
Giving in a Free
Society

195
7

Morrell Healds
publication,
Managements
Responsibility
to Society: The
Growth of an
Idea

196
0s

Keith Davis
definition of
CSR as referring

ORGANI
ZATIONENVIRO
NMENT
THEORY

to
..businessmen
s decisions and
actions taken
for reasons at
least partially
beyond the
firms direct
economic or
technical
interest
196
3

Joseph W
McGuire book:
Business and
Society

196
7

Clarence C
Waltons book,
Corporate
Social
Responsibilities

197
0

197
0

198
0

198
0

Saw attention
being focused
on
articulating
with more
clarity exactly
what were the
responsibilitie
s of a
corporation in
the society.

198
4

Peter Drucker
gave his first
opinion on CSR

198

Ice-cream

manufacturer
s, Ben &
Jerrys, were
the first
company to
publish a
social report.

198
0s
and
199
0s
199
5

Shell was
accused of
complicity in
the execution of
Ken SaroWiwa
and eight other
activists in
Nigeria

200
1

Collapse of
Enron

Table 2. CSR Evolution

(Some Details)
Year

Events / Publications

194
0

193
8

Chester Barnards 1938

publication, The Functions of
the Executive, Theodore
Kreps, Measurement of the
Social Performance of
Business

195
0

195
0s

Saw the start of the modern

era of CSR when it was more
commonly known as SR or
social responsibility

195
3

Howard Bowen published his

book, Social Responsibilities of
the Businessman

Other Remarks

195

Eells work, Corporate Giving in

largely credited with coining the phrase corporate

social responsibility1,2
Bowen asked: what responsibilities to society can
business people be reasonably expected to assume?
1,2

Bowen also provided a preliminary definition of

CSR: its refers to the obligations of businessmen to
pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to
follow those lines of action which are desirable in
terms of the objectives and values of our society.
These are other landmark books during the 1950s on

196
0

a Free Society

CSR

195
7

Morrell Healds publication,

Managements Responsibility to
Society: The Growth of an Idea

196
0s

Keith Davis definition of CSR

as referring to ..businessmens
decisions and actions taken for
reasons at least partially
beyond the firms direct
economic or technical interest

Davis established the so-called Iron Law of

Responsibility, which held that social responsibilities
of businessmen need to be commensurate with their
social power.

196
3

Joseph W McGuire book:

Business and Society

The idea of social responsibilities supposes that the

corporation has not only economic and legal
obligations but also certain responsibilities to society
which extend beyond these obligations

196
7

Clarence C Waltons book,

Corporate Social
Responsibilities

He linked CSR with the idea that companies need to

voluntarily acknowledge and accept they have
relationships of responsibility beyond the corporate
fortress
This is perhaps the notion of voluntarism was first
seen.

197
0

197
0

Saw attention being

focused on articulating with
more clarity exactly what
were the responsibilities of

a corporation in the
society.
198
0
198
4

Peter Drucker

198
9

Ice-cream manufacturers,
Ben & Jerrys, were the first
company to publish a social
report.

198
0s
and
199
0s

Corporate giants had woken

up to the fact that attempts
were being made to regulate
them and the corporate
backlash began. Most notably,
corporate meddling in the 1992
Earth Summit in Rio impeded
the Summits aim of finding
ways to halt the destruction of
the natural environment and its
resources. 48 companies were
specifically formed to

The grand old man of management theory, stepped

onto the CSR stage when he wrote, in the California
Management Review in 1984.
about the imperative to turn social problems into
economic opportunities

participate in and influence the

Summits outcomes,
particularly trying to shift
towards voluntary reporting.
199
5

Shell was accused of

complicity in the execution of
Ken SaroWiwa and eight other
activists in Nigeria

200
1

Collapse of Enron, once a

paragon of CSR2.

Corporations started to realise the importance

of their public image and reputation. They
began to understand that they needed a
strategy to convince the public that they could
play a very valuable and socially meaningful
role within the ecosystem they occupied.
What happened to Shell made corporations
realize that capitalism had to be given a
human face. Shell had to spend 20 million on
its PR offensive to rebuild its reputation33. One of the
things Shell did was to pioneer CSR reports coupled
with a global advertising campaign focusing on
environmental issues and a new website
encouraging stakeholders to 'Tell Shell', enabling
the company to appear to involve the community
in its decision-making whilst making no definite
commitments39. This conveys to its critics that it is
doing something good for the soceity2.
The claims of an organisation against the reality of its
conduct entered the bright spotlight of public scrutiny.
The call for greater accountability and
transparency has also led to the current focus

on CSR.
It is not just mere CSR now but emphasis on corporate
accountability (to society) has now become the trend2.

Did CSR evolve as a result of the evolution of

management theories,
from inside out, as a
marketing strategy? Comparing the information
gathered here, it could be noted that CSRs wheel has long
been running along with the evolution of management
theories. While management theories evolved based on
need and assessment of corporate management and
management gurus, there were people like Chester
Barnard in 1938 who wrote The Functions of the
Executive and Theodore Krep who wrote Measurement
of the Social Performance of Business who were
starting to educate people of social responsibilities of
businesses about their social responsibilities. But it was
only in 1950s when CORPORATIONS recognized the
power of its environment as seen n the evolution of
management
theories.
At
the
time
when
the
ORGANIZATION-ENVIRONMENT management theory was
given emphasis, this was also the same time when modern
CSR begun (Carroll, 1999, p. 269). Modern CSR in the
sense that as Caroll (1999, p. 269) has stated, that
perhaps before this year, the prominence and dominance
of corporations in the business sector had not yet occurred
or been noted to quote the term corporate social
responsibility, it was more as only social responsibility.
This maybe only definitive in nature but this has great
implication on the force of corporations on social
responsibility. Emphasis after 1950s is on corporations
not just mere social responsibility of any entity.
Moreover, this was the time when Howard Bowen posted the
question, what responsibilities to society can business people be
reasonably expected to assume 1,2,3? What if management did not
recognize society as a powerful force in their operations during those
times?
Would Bowens question be significant?
Would it have
changed the way corporations handle their CSR? Hence, in this
juncture, CSR will not be CSR today if management did not recognize
its force. It is now not a case of whichever came first, but more of an
interaction between society and corporations itself. This now defines
how CSR will be in the future.

In the recent years, most significant events where environmental

pressures were felt were the Shell and Enron cases. If society did not
put pressure on Shell which was accused of complicity in the execution
of Ken SaroWiwa and eight other activists in Nigeria, if nobody from
outside stood up for the victims, there would not have been any
development on how companies also deal with the environment which
has now become part of CSR programs of more corporations.
It could also be noted that there were already several
publications before 1960s on CSR or any other term like social
performance or social responsibility and the like. Authors of several
publications before 1960s had long before envisioned that
corporations or businesses have far more responsibilities to society
than profit alone.
However, the fact that organizations gave attention to pressure
from its external environment paved the way to the development of
CSR especially of large corporations. This has become a part of their
management system. Recently, when society begun to take concern
on the environment, sustainability projects are now included as CSR
projects.
Reduction of carbon footprint is one, reduce water
consumption is another and many more to come. Nevertheless, the
total impact is beneficial for society as a whole.
Dole Food Company CSR activities is one concrete example of
the evolution of CSR. Consistent with the trend from philanthropic
activities starting in 1924 with managing a hospital in La Cieba
Honduras, designing a school in Mazapan, Honduras in 1927, donation
of a stadium and the San Isidro church in 1954 still in Honduras, and
Dole has consistently developed its CSR activities. Social accountability and
environmental sustainability have been included in its CSR programs. In fact,
as a sign of its commitment to CSR it created a Department of Worldwide
Corporate Responsibility in 2005, and in 2010, Dole CSR was renamed

CORPORATE
RESPONSIBILITY
&
SUSTAINABILITY.
(http://dolecrs.com/approach/history/ accessed in July 2012).
From a former insiders view, the complex impact of the
external environment might have an impact on Dole but CSR activities
of the company are more voluntary rather than as a mere result of any
pressure from the civil society.
II.

What could we learn from the evolution of CSR?

Knowing this, we may now look at development of CSR now is

more from the organizations itself as voluntary action, as a way of
corporate life, with some sort of coercion from the environment or civil
society where corporations operate. It has become an interaction of
the competitive forces affecting a firm. But how come organizations
allow these somewhat coercion from outside is because either there is
a lot more at stake on their side or there is a genuine goal to help the
society as a whole.
III.

If I were an entrepreneur, or a manager of a corporation,

will I give emphasis on CSR? Why?

With this enlightenment, I would have a different way of looking

at CSR as a manager. I will be more inclined to implement a CSR
program practicing the shared value concept rather than just any
philanthropic CSR activities, unless, resources for the philanthropic
CSR will be donated by other organizations and not from the pockets
of the organization. This is so because as a manager of a certain
company, I should be able to manage well scares resources of the
company. But if the owner of the company will indulge in CSR
wholeheartedly, without thinking much of the resources and if it is
more beneficial on the side of the company, I will be more than willing
to implement such because it came from the head.
But if I were an owner of a corporation, as one of my values as
the owner, I will allocate budget for the development of the society
where I will be operating without thinking that this is an additional cost
from the company, and I will encourage my managers to do the same.
As a person, I believe that if God gave us better opportunities in
life, we should give back in return through effective and much needed
CSR program for the community.

References:
1.

Kim Sbarcea, The Evolution of CSR. March 27, 2007, amthinkingshift,

accessed July, 2012. Taken from
http://thinkingshift.wordpress.com/author/thinkingshift/
2

. Evolution of CSR. Taken from http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=2682

. Archie B. Caroll. Corporate Social Responsibility. Evolution of a

Definitional Construct. 1999. Business and Society, Vol. 38 No. 3,
September 1999.268-295. Sage Publications, Inc.
3

. Gareth R. Jones, Jennifer M. George, and Charles W. L. Hill.

Contemporary Management. Irwin Mc-Graw-Hill. 1998.
3

. http://dolecrs.com/approach/history/ accessed July 2012.