Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 199–206 | Cite as

A retrospective examination of CSR orientations: Have they changed?

  • Tammie S. Pinkston
  • Archie B. Carroll


This study has been designed to investigate whether Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) orientations have shifted in their priority in response to society's changing expectations. For this sample of U.S.-based multinational chemical subsidiaries, it appears that the top priority continues to be economic responsibilities, followed closely by legal responsibilities.

A socially accountable corporation ... must be a thoughtful institution, able to rise above economic interest to anticipate the impact of its actions on all individuals and groups, from shareholders to employees to customers, to fellow-breathers of the air and fellow-sharers of the land. A successful business organization must possess a moral sense as well as an economic sense (Thornton Bradshaw, President of Atlantic Richfield Co. inBusiness and Society: Strategies for the 1980's, 1980, p. xiv).


Economic Growth Corporate Social Responsibility Social Responsibility Economic Interest Business Organization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aupperle, K. E.: 1982, An empirical inquiry into the social responsibilities as defined by corporations: An examination of various models and relationships (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1982).Google Scholar
  2. Bhambri, A. and J. Sonnenfeld: 1988, ‘Organizational Structure and Corporate Social Performance’,Academy of Management Journal 31, 642–662.Google Scholar
  3. Brenner, S. N. and E. A Molander: 1977, ‘Is the Ethics of Business Changing’,Harvard Business Review, Jan.–Feb., 57–71.Google Scholar
  4. Business and Society: Strategies for the 1980's: 1980 (Department of Commerce, Washington).Google Scholar
  5. Carroll, A. B.: 1991, ‘The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders’,Business Horizons, July–Aug., 39–48.Google Scholar
  6. Carroll, A. B.: 1979, ‘A Three Dimensional Model of Corporate Performance’,Academy of Management Review 4, 497–505.Google Scholar
  7. Corson, J. J. and G. A. Steiner: 1974,Measuring Business Social Performance: The Corporate Social Audit (Committee for Economic Development, New York).Google Scholar
  8. Cowton, C.: 1987, ‘Corporate Philanthropy in the United Kingdom’,Journal of Business Ethics 6, 553–558.Google Scholar
  9. Dierkes, M.: 1980, ‘Corporate Social Reporting and Performance in Germany’, in L. E. Preston (ed.),Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, vol. 2 (JAI, Greenwich, CT), pp. 251–289.Google Scholar
  10. Elibert, H. and R. I. Parket: 1973, ‘The Practice of Business: The Current Status of Corporate Social Responsibility’,Business Horizons 16, 5–14.Google Scholar
  11. Friedman, M.: 1962, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits’,New York Times, Sept., p. 126.Google Scholar
  12. Holmes, S. L.: 1977, ‘Corporate Social Performance: Past and Present Area of Commitment’,Academy of Management Journal 20, 433–538.Google Scholar
  13. Lerner, L. D. and G. E. Fryxell: 1988, ‘An Empirical Study of the Predictors of Corporate Social Performance: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis’,Journal of Business Ethics 7, 951–959.Google Scholar
  14. Longnecker, J. G.: 1985, ‘Management Priorities and Management Ethics’,Journal of Business Ethics 4, 65–70.Google Scholar
  15. MacMillan, I.: 1980, ‘Corporate Social Responsiveness to the Unemployment Issue: A British Perspective’, in L. E. Preston (ed.),Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, vol. 2 (JAI, Greenwich, CT), pp. 327–352.Google Scholar
  16. Moore, C. and J. Richardson: 1988, ‘The Politics and Practice of Corporate Responsibility in Great Britain’, in L. E. Preston (ed.),Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, vol. 10 (JAI, Greenwich, CT), pp. 267–290.Google Scholar
  17. Ostlund, L. E.: 1977, ‘Attitudes of Managers toward Corporate Social Policy’,California Management Review 19, 35–49.Google Scholar
  18. Paluszek, J. L.: 1976,Business and Society: 1976–2000 (AMACOM, New York).Google Scholar
  19. Pinkston, T. S.: 1991, ‘“Corporate Citizenship”: A Comparative Analysis of Foreign Affiliates Located in the U.S. and Their Domestic Counterparts’ (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1991).Google Scholar
  20. Public Affairs in the United States and Europe: 1971 (The Conference Board, New York).Google Scholar
  21. The Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility: Profiles in Involvement: 1975 (Chilton Book Co., Radnor, PA).Google Scholar
  22. Wartick, S. L. and P. L. Cochran: 1985, ‘The Evolution of the Corporate Social Performance Mode’,Academy of Management Review 10, 758–769.Google Scholar
  23. Wood, D. J.: 1991, ‘Corporate Social Performance Revisited’,Academy of Management Review 16, 691–718.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tammie S. Pinkston
    • 1
  • Archie B. Carroll
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Business Strategy and Legal StudiesUniversity of OklanomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations