The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has a long and varied history.

It is possible to trace evidences of the business communitys concern for society for centuries. Formal writing on social responsibility, however, is largely a product of the 20th century, especially the past 50 years. A significant challenge is to decide how far back into the literature to delve to begin discussing the concept of CSR. A good case could be made for about 50 years because so much has occurred since that time that has shaped our theory, research, and practice. Using this as a general guideline for this article, I note that references to a concern for social responsibility appeared earlier than this, and especially during the 1930s and 1940s.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR, also called corporate conscience, corporate citizenship, social performance, or sustainable responsible business/ Responsible Business) is a form of corporate self-regulation integrated into a business model. CSR policy functions as a built-in, self-regulating mechanism whereby a business monitors and ensures its active compliance with the spirit of the law, ethical standards, and international norms. The goal of CSR is to embrace responsibility for the company's actions and encourage a positive impact through its activities on the environment, consumers, employees, communities, stakeholders and all other members of the public sphere who may also be considered as stakeholders. The term "corporate social responsibility" came into common use in the late 1960s and early 1970s after many multinational corporations formed the term stakeholder, meaning those on whom an organization's activities have an impact. It was used to describe corporate owners beyond shareholders as a result of an influential book by R. Edward Freeman, Strategic management: a stakeholder approach in 1984. Proponents argue that corporations make more long term profits by operating with a perspective, while critics argue that CSR distracts from the economic role of businesses. Others argue CSR is merely window-dressing, or an attempt to pre-empt the role of governments as a watchdog over powerful multinational corporations. CSR is titled to aid an organization's mission as well as a guide to what the company stands for and will uphold to its consumers. Development business ethics is one of the forms of applied ethics that examines ethical principles and moral or ethical problems that can arise in a business environment. ISO 26000 is the recognized international standard for CSR. Public sector organizations (the United Nations for example) adhere to the triple bottom line (TBL). It is widely accepted that CSR adheres to similar principles but with no formal act of legislation. The UN has developed the Principles for Responsible Investment as guidelines for investing entities. The scale and nature of the benefits of CSR for an organization can vary depending on the nature of the enterprise, and are difficult to quantify, though there is a large body of literature exhorting business to adopt measures beyond financial ones (e.g., Deming's Fourteen Points, balanced scorecards). Orlitzky, Schmidt, and Rynes[11] found a correlation between social/environmental performance and financial performance. However, businesses may not be looking at short-run financial returns when developing their CSR strategy. The definition of CSR used within an organization can vary from the strict "stakeholder impacts" definition used by many CSR advocates and will often include charitable efforts and volunteering. CSR may be based within the human resources, business development or public relations departments of an organisation,[12] or may be given a separate

unit reporting to the CEO or in some cases directly to the board. Some companies may implement CSR-type values without a clearly defined team or programme. Managing risk is a central part of many corporate strategies. Reputations that take decades to build up can be ruined in hours through incidents such as corruption scandals or environmental accidents.[16] These can also draw unwanted attention from regulators, courts, governments and media. Building a genuine culture of 'doing the right thing' within a corporation can offset these risks. Milton Friedman and others have argued that a corporation's purpose is to maximize returns to its shareholders, and that since only people can have social responsibilities, corporations are only responsible to their shareholders and not to society as a whole. Although they accept that corporations should obey the laws of the countries within which they work, they assert that corporations have no other obligation to society. Some people perceive CSR as in-congruent with the very nature and purpose of business, and indeed a hindrance to free trade. Those who assert that CSR is contrasting with capitalism and are in favor of the free market argue that improvements in health, longevityand/or infant mortality have been created by economic growth attributed to free enterprise.[20] Critics of this argument perceive the free market as opposed to the well-being of society and a hindrance to human freedom. They claim that the type of capitalism practiced in many developing countries is a form of economic and cultural imperialism, noting that these countries usually have fewer labour protections, and thus their citizens are at a higher risk of exploitation by multinational corporations.[21] A wide variety of individuals and organizations operate in between these poles. For example, the REALeadership Alliance asserts that the business of leadership (be it corporate or otherwise) is to change the world for the better.[22] Many religious and cultural traditions hold that the economy exists to serve human beings, so all economic entities have an obligation to society (see for example Economic Justice for All). Moreover, as discussed above, many CSR proponents point out that CSR can significantly improve long-term corporate profitability because it reduces risks and inefficiencies while offering a host of potential benefits such as enhanced brand reputation and employee engagement. Some critics believe that CSR programs are undertaken by companies such as British American Tobacco (BAT),[23] the petroleum giant BP(well known for its high-profile advertising campaigns on environmental aspects of its operations), and McDonald's (see below) to distract the public from ethical questions posed by their core operations. They argue that some corporations start CSR programs for the commercial benefit they enjoy through raising their reputation with the public or with government. They suggest that corporations which exist solely to maximize profits are unable to advance the interests of society as a whole.[24] Another concern is that sometimes companies claim to promote CSR and be committed to sustainable development but simultaneously engage in harmful business practices. For example, since the 1970s, the McDonald's Corporation's association with Ronald McDonald Househas been viewed as CSR and relationship marketing. More recently, as CSR has become mainstream, the company has beefed up its CSR programs related to its labor, environmental and other practices[25] All the same, in McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel, Lord Justices Pill, May and Keane ruled that it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide 'do badly in terms of pay and conditions'[26]and true that 'if one eats enough McDonald's food, one's diet may well become high in fat etc., with the very real risk of heart disease.'[27] Royal Dutch Shell has a much-publicized CSR policy and was a pioneer in triple bottom line reporting, but this did not prevent the 2004 scandal concerning its misreporting of oil reserves, which seriously damaged its reputation and led to charges of hypocrisy. Since then, the Shell Foundation has become involved in many projects across the world, including a partnership with Marks and Spencer (UK) in three flower and fruit growing communities across Africa.

Critics concerned with corporate hypocrisy and insincerity generally suggest that better governmental and international regulation and enforcement, rather than voluntary measures, are necessary to ensure that companies behave in a socially responsible manner. A major area of necessary international regulation is the reduction of the capacity of corporations to sue states under investor state dispute settlement provisions in trade or investment treaties if otherwise necessary public health or environment protection legislation has impeded corporate investments.[28] Others, such as Patricia Werhane, argue that CSR should be considered more as a corporate moral responsibility, and limit the reach of CSR by focusing more on direct impacts of the organization as viewed through a systems perspective to identify stakeholders. For a commonly overlooked motive for CSR, see also Corporate Social Entrepreneurship, whereby CSR can also be driven by employees' personal values, in addition to the more obvious economic and governmental drivers. The concept of CSR has had a long and diverse history in the literature. Although references to CSR occurred a number of times prior to the 1950s, that decade ushered in what might be called the modern era with respect to CSR definitions. Howard Bowens (1953) book Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, stands out during this period. It was proposed that Bowen deserves the appellation of the Father of Corporate Social Responsibility. In the 1960s, the literature on CSR developed considerably. Most of this definitional literature was promulgated by academics, and the names that seemed to dominate that period included Davis, Frederick, McGuire, and Walton. Definitions of CSR began to proliferate in the 1970s. The definitions of CSR became more specific; also during this time, alternative emphases, such as corporate social responsiveness and CSP, became commonplace. The most notable contributions to the definitional construct during the 1970s included the works of Johnson, the CED, Davis, Steiner, Eells and Walton, Sethi, Preston and Post, and Carroll. In the 1980s, we witnessed fewer original definitions of CSR, more attempts to measure and conduct research on CSR, and alternative thema t i c f r amewo r k s . I n t e rms o f d e fi n i t i o n a l c o n t r i bu t i o n s , t h e contributions of Jones, Drucker, Wartick and Cochran, and Epstein stood out. Finally, in the 1990s, the CSR concept transitioned significantly to alternative themes such as stakeholder theory, business ethics theory, CSP, and corporate citizenship. During that period, it should be noted that writers did not reject the CSR concept, but there were no new definitions added to the body of literature. Wood (1991) expanded and set forth a CSP model that captured CSR concerns. During that time, there was a continuation of a trend begun earlier to operationalize the CSR concept and to articulate other concepts that were consistent with CSR theory but that took alternative emphases or themes as their centerpiece. In virtually all cases, these new directions and themes were consistent with and built on the CSR definitions and constructs discussed in this article. Furthermore,

the language of CSR remains in active use today. As we close out the 1990s and look ahead to the new millennium, it is expected that attention will be given increasingly to measurement initiatives as well as theoretical developments. For these concepts to develop further, empirical research is doubtless needed so that practice may be reconciled with theory. The CSR concept will remain as an essential part of business language and practice, because it is a vital underpinning to many of the other theories and is continually consistent with what the public expects of the business community today. As theory is developed and research is conducted, scholars may revise and adapt existing definitions of CSR or new definitions may come into the literature; however, at the present time, it is hard to imagine that these new concepts could develop apart and distinct from the groundwork that has been established over the past half century. More than likely, we will see new realms in which to think about businesses responsibilities to our stakeholder society, particularly at the global level, and in new and emerging technologies, fields, and commercial applications. In this context, it appears that the CSR concept has a bright future because at its core, it addresses and captures the most important concerns of the public regarding business and society relationships.