Identify commonalities and differences in the CSR theories and methodologies.

If we retrospect and review the definitions, we will find that CSR theories and methodologies have become more boarder and with the passage of time they have incorporated more areas, intermediaries and have become responsive and sensitive. The major proposition of CSR is based on the pyramid as stated by the Carroll’ model, i.e. legal, ethical, economic and philanthropic. Similarly, the three pillar mode advocates economic, social and environmental. There is not exact, concise and standard definition about CSR and sustainability and with time scholar’s researches has brought changes in the concept of defining CSR.

The similarities that the theories to name i.e. Corporate Social Responsibility (Carroll,1979), The Triple Bottom(Freeman,1984) and Stakeholder Theory(Freeman,1984) shares are the fundament and rudimentary philosophy for their survival, i.e. they need profit.  The other remaining domains like complying legality, ethics, environments can be fulfilled only after its achievement of economic opulence. Than onwards these theories progress to legality, society, and environmentalism. The basis of the CSR steams in giving back to the society since the organization does for, with and along the society, all the theories steam from and with societal interaction. Rather it be an IT behemoth like Google or blue-chip Amazon there CSR dimensions starts from the economic dimension; profitability. Similarly, Bill Gates has pledged a significant portion of his earnings in philanthropy, he along with his wife has founded “Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation” to combat global poverty and illiteracy.

But these theories also have discrepancies, the earlier theory as of Carroll was more myopic for the organization. It covered the three pillars (economic, legal and ethical) but it was more concerned within organization periphery. But with the movement of consumerization, environmentalism and regulatory pressure, the theories have become more heterogeneous. The triple bottom theory goes beyond the organizational dimensions into the planet and people also. And the stakeholder theory emphasizes even greater domains. All the stakeholders, i.e. employee, consumer, competitors, government, national and international partners are acknowledged and rather focus on the stakeholder value maximization rather than the shareholder value maximization. These give company strategic competitive advantages, it enhances corporate performance et cetera. In the contemporary scenario, the focus is made more on the environmental and societal construct. As per (Thiel, 2016) the five distinctions of CSR are voluntariness, responsibility, creation of value, plural objective and respect for man and nature. Some scholars have echoed CSR as an organization being corporate citizen and depicting corporate social performance. Some focus on the philanthropy as the prime objective of CSR whereas some has highlighted legal compliance as the prime one.

Contemporary, the state of California is leaping way ahead when it comes about environmentalism. The state has made it a compulsion for the energy providers to divert their 50% of energy sales through renewable energy by 2030. These dimensions of CSR acted by the government or states if far more way head than the stereotype CSR theories and methodology. The state has come across the bureaucratic couch of just collecting taxes and become more competitive by being more responsible towards immigrants, environments, and employees.

Bibliography

Thiel, M. (2016). The Social Domain in CSR and Sustainability: A Critical Study of Social Responsibility among Governments, Local Communities and Corporations. New York: Routledge.