BUSINESS

Visser's (2007) criticism of Carroll's CSR pyramid

Visser's (2007) criticism of Carroll's CSR pyramid

Summary of Visser's Criticism

Visser exclaims that Carroll lacks consistency when it comes to explaining the concepts of CSR and also lacks flow when it comes to explaining why CSR is incorporated in to a hierarchy. He says that at one instance Carroll says that CSR has developed gradually and that it has its history on the other hand Carroll says that CSR has an order of dependence. Carroll has also provided empirical evidence which refutes the earlier statements about CSR. Through his empirical evidence Carroll further states that CSR is said to be the degree of importance that the managers hold. Carroll further changes his opinion and then states the pyramid model was simply developed to lay importance to the economic and ethical obligations and that both the obligations should be fulfilled in a simultaneous manner.

Visser further criticizes saying that Carroll has made an attempt whereby he has tried incorporating the important concepts like stakeholder management, business ethics, as well as corporate citizenship but then in te entire process of incorporation Carroll has been unsuccessful in doing justice to the three themes. At one point Carroll tries to make a connection amidst CSR and philanthropy and then later he says both are moreover the same thing. Visser further bugs the question asking what Carroll wants to depict.

Visser states that Carroll has made an unsuccessful attempt in establishing descriptive accuracy in terms of making his model universal. The model has not been tested for America. It is obvious those different cultures have different degrees of importance for different themes and that this model by any stance cannot be termed universal. Visser further states that Carroll has not been able to capture the complexity of CSR and that his model is static as well as simplistic by nature (Huniche, 2006).

My Standpoint

CSR is defined as the obligation of a company to exert a positive impact and to reduce its negative impact on the society (Turban 2001: 293). Several studies have demonstrated how information about CSR affects consumers such as their attitudes towards a company, brand, and retail store; purchase behaviors, identification with the company; and causal attributions (Piga 2002: 13).

Schwartz et al. (2003) examined the definitions of corporate social responsibility, and concluded that it is a social contract between corporations and society, based on long-term social demands and expectations. Harrison et al. (1999) defined CSR image as the consumers' associations arising from corporate activities related to public affairs, literature and arts, social welfare, and so on. CSR is, therefore, differentiated from fulfillment of a firm's core profit-making responsibility and the social responsibilities of a government (Reinhardt 1999: 150). Asmus (2005) proposed three general principles of corporate social responsibility: stakeholder driven, performance driven and motivation driven. These broader concepts can be reinterpreted as: a) consumer-behavior driven: treating all consumers equally, doing no harm to and being honest with stakeholders; b) corporate-strategy driven: establishment by an enterprise of a system ...