International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies


:: International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies

ISSN 2228-9860
eISSN 1906-9642



  • A Bird's Eye View of Corporate Social Responsibility Theoretical Framework

    Vikram Jeet (University of Jeddah, College of Business, Department of Business Administration, Jeddah, SAUDI ARABIA).

    Disciplinary: Management Science (CSR).

    ➤ FullText

    doi: 10.14456/ITJEMAST.2022.64

    Keywords: Corporate social responsibility (CSR); Community Development; Business ethics; Stakeholder management; Corporate Social Performance.

    This paper attempts to describe and classify various theories and related approaches to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). The stakeholder theory emphasizes maintaining equilibrium between the expectations of all stakeholders through operating activities. Whereas relational theory highlights the complex firm-environment relationships. Besides this, the managerial theory emphasizes that all things outside the scope of the organization (external factors) should be considered while making decisions. Legitimacy theory tries to legitimize the business operations through CSR initiatives as per society requirements (societal approach) and hence, ensure corporate sustainability. Whereas Social contract theory discussed in the paper expresses the relationship between society and business and involves indirect commitments toward the community. Resource dependence theory explains the procurement of external resources and their influence on the company's tactical and strategic management. Agency theory highlights the separation between company ownership and its control. Whereas utilitarian theory designates CSR as an economic system, to maximize profits. The in-depth study of these theories represents diverse and complex relationships that are contradictory, controversial, and unclear. The findings of this suggest the urgency to formulate a new CSR theory, which would integrate all the dimensions.

    Paper ID: 13A4A

    Cite this article:

    Jeet, V. (2022). A Bird's Eye View of Corporate Social Responsibility Theoretical Framework. International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies, 13(4), 13A4A, 1-12. http://TUENGR.COM/V13/13A4A.pdf DOI: 10.14456/ITJEMAST.2022.64


  1. Adams, R., & Mehran, H. (2008). Corporate performance, board structure, and their determinants in the banking industry. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports, no. 330.
  2. Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of management review, 32(3), 836-863.
  3. Nalband, N., & Al-Amri, M. S. (2013). Corporate social responsibility: Perception, practices and performance of listed companies of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 23(3), 284-295.
  4. Annan, K. (1999). UN Global Compact. In World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. UN Press Release SG/SM/6881.
  5. Aravind, D., & Christmann, P. (2011). Decoupling of standard implementation from certification: Does quality of ISO 14001 implementation affect facilities' environmental performance?. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(1), 73-102.
  6. Bansal, P., & Clelland, I. (2004). Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 93-103.
  7. Beesley, M. E., & Evans, T. (1978). Corporate social responsibility: A reassessment. Taylor & Francis.
  8. Bloom, R. (2003). Ethical funds change with the times. The Globe and Mail's Weekly Report on Personal Finance.
  9. Bortree, D. S. (2009). The impact of green initiatives on environmental legitimacy and admiration of the organization. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 133-135.
  10. Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2007). Positioning stakeholder theory within the debate on corporate social responsibility. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies.
  11. Brummer, J. J. (1991). Corporate responsibility and legitimacy: An interdisciplinary analysis.
  12. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business horizons, 34(4), 39-48.
  13. Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & society, 38(3), 268-295.
  14. Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. (2006). Firm self-regulation through international certifiable standards: Determinants of symbolic versus substantive implementation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 863-878.
  15. Davis, G. F., & Adam Cobb, J. (2010). Chapter 2 Resource dependence theory: Past and future. In Stanford's organization theory renaissance, 1970-2000 (pp. 21-42). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  16. Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management journal, 16(2), 312-322.
  17. Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures-a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282-311.
  18. Delmas, M. (2003). In search of ISO: An institutional perspective on the adoption of international management standards. Research paper No.1784, Stanford Graduate School of Business and University of California Santa Barbara, 51p.
  19. Donaldson, T. (1999). Making stakeholder theory whole. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 237-241.
  20. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999). Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics.
  21. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
  22. Frederick, W. C. (2006). Corporation, be good!: the story of corporate social responsibility. Dog Ear Publishing.
  23. Freeman, R. E., & Phillips, R. A. (2002). Stakeholder theory: A libertarian defence. Business ethics quarterly, 12(3), 331-349.
  24. Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder theory and "the corporate objective revisited". Organization science, 15(3), 364-369.
  25. Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, Cambridge university press, Boston, MA.
  26. Friedman, M. (1982). Capitalism and Freedom Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  27. Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and practice. Oxford University Press on Demand.
  28. Garriga, E., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of business ethics, 53(1-2), 51-71.
  29. Gautam, R., & Singh, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility practices in India: A study of top 500 companies. Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 2(1), 41-56.
  30. Guarnieri, R., & Kao, T. (2008). Leadership and CSR-a perfect match: How top companies for leaders utilize CSR as a competitive advantage. People and Strategy, 31(3), 34.
  31. Guler, I., Guillen, M. F., & Macpherson, J. M. (2002). Global competition, institutions, and the diffusion of organizational practices: The international spread of ISO 9000 quality certificates. Administrative science quarterly, 47(2), 207-232.
  32. Ip, P. K. (2009). The challenge of developing a business ethics in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 211-224.
  33. Johnson, H. L. (1971). Business in contemporary society: Framework and issues. Wadsworth Pub. Co.
  34. Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of management review, 20(2), 404-437.
  35. Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of management review, 24(2), 206-221.
  36. Khan, N., & Malik, Q. A. (2020). Impacts of Corporate Social Responsibility on Firm Performance Mediating Role of Investment Inefficiency. International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies, 11(12), 11A12M, 1-8.
  37. King, A. A., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). Self-regulatory institutions for solving environmental problems: Perspectives and contributions from the management literature. Governance for the environment: New perspectives, 98-115.
  38. Korhonen, J. (2003). Should we measure corporate social responsibility?. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 10(1), 25-39.
  39. Lee, M. (1997). Responsible Business Development through Community Economic Development and Corporate Social Responsibility, Burnaby, BC: CED Centre, Simon Fraser University.
  40. Lenway, S. A., & Rehbein, K. (1991). Leaders, followers, and free riders: An empirical test of variation in corporate political involvement. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 893-905.
  41. Lindblom, C. K. (1994). The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. In Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference, New York, 1994.
  42. Litz, R. A. (1996). A resource-based-view of the socially responsible firm: Stakeholder interdependence, ethical awareness, and issue responsiveness as strategic assets. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(12), 1355-1363.
  43. Logan, D. (1997). Community involvement of foreign-owned companies, Conference Board, DC: The Hitatchi Foundation.
  44. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American journal of sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
  45. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of management review, 22(4), 853-886.
  46. Potoski, M., & Prakash, A. (2002). Protecting the environment: voluntary regulations in environmental governance. Policy Currents, 11(4), 9-14.
  47. Preston, L. E., & O'bannon, D. P. (1997). The corporate social-financial performance relationship: A typology and analysis. Business & Society, 36(4), 419-429.
  48. Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R. M., Janney, J. J., & Paul, K. (2001). An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: A stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of business ethics, 32(2), 143-156.
  49. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative science quarterly, 224-253.
  50. Schaefer, A. (2007). Contrasting institutional and performance accounts of environmental management systems: three case studies in the UK water & sewerage industry. Journal of Management Studies, 44(4), 506-535.
  51. Secchi, D. (2006). The Italian experience in social reporting: an empirical analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13(3), 135-149.
  52. Secchi, D. (2007). Utilitarian, managerial and relational theories of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 347-373.
  53. Walsh, J. P. (2004). Taking stock of stakeholder management, Academy of Management Review, 30, 1-22.
  54. Weiser, J., & Zadek, S. (2000). Conversations with disbelievers. Persuading Companies to Address Social Challenges. New York: The Ford Foundation.
  55. Weiss, J. W. (2014). Business ethics: A stakeholder and issues management approach. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
  56. Williams, B. (2002). Oil industry adapting to evolving new paradigm on corporate governance, accountability. Oil & gas journal, 100(44), 20-20.
  57. Windsor, D. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Three key approaches. Journal of management studies, 43(1), 93-114.
  58. Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of management review, 16(4), 691-718.

Other issues:


Call-for-Scientific Papers
Call-for-Research Papers:
ITJEMAST invites you to submit high quality papers for full peer-review and possible publication in areas pertaining engineering, science, management and technology, especially interdisciplinary/cross-disciplinary/multidisciplinary subjects.

To publish your work in the next available issue, your manuscripts together with copyright transfer document signed by all authors can be submitted via email to Editor @ (please see all detail from Instructions for Authors)

Publication and peer-reviewed process:
After the peer-review process, articles will be on-line published in the available next issue. However, the International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies cannot guarantee the exact publication time as the process may take longer time, subject to peer-review approval and adjustment of the submitted articles.