istinguished as Instrumental (descriptive) Theory and Normative (prescriptive) Theory (Donaldson and Preston, 1995, p. 65-91). These two theories are very much different from each other. Instrumental CSR theory explains CSR phenomena by using empirical data. This theory helps us to understand the different CSR policies of different companies and the correlation between CSR and other social economical performances which are motivational factors for the organisation. Normative CSR theory is more theoretical in nature. It provides basic principals for CSR and also explains that why firms should undertake CSR and why they should have certain social responsibilities. Other than these two theories there are many other theories but all of them are not acceptable. Instrumental theory is considered valid as it has been proved through a number of tests whereas the normative theory got accepted due to its rationality and internal consistency (Melé, 2006, p. 1). But even so there exists some difficulties in understanding and organising the varity of approach in CSR (Garriga and Melé, 2004, p. 51-71).
There are some main stream normative theories of CSR which are as follow:
Corporate social performance theory
This theory has developed from several previous approaches and its root being found in Howard R. Bowen of 1953. He referred to a businessman's responsibility to follow those policies, practices or actions that leads to social welfare (Bowen, 1953, p. 6).
In the 1970's new direction emerged between social relationship and business. A protest developed against capitalism. The growing concern for social welfare resulted into increased government regulation and formalisation of procedures. It referred to development of social responsibility in a proactive manner. The concept provided by Carroll was taken further by Wartick and Cochran (1985). They suggested that corporate social involvement directly depend on principles of social responsibilities and policy related to issue management (Wartick & Cochran, 1985, p. 758-769).
Wood brought a new development by introducing a basic model of CSP. This model comprised:
Principle of CSR consisting of three levels: institutional, organisational and individual.
Principal of corporate social responsiveness
Outcome of corporate behaviour (Melé, 2006, p. 3).
This theory explained that in the long run those who do not use power in the way which society demand, they will lose their power. The theory also explained that business should stick to a standard of performance that is prescribed by law and public policies. It also proclaims that managers are moral actors hence it should be their obligation to exercise social responsibility. In modern day, many groups have interest in CSR of a company. These groups are stakeholders, non-government organisations, activities, media, community and government along with other institutional forces. They all question the company regarding their CSR policies and process. To handle this pressure many companies are publishing their annual CSR reports that disclose their performances related to economy, society and environment (Elkington, 1998).
In 2006, the latest edition of Global Initiative Report (GIR) was introduced. This became highly popular while making certification and reports. This made the CSR process more complex but the conce
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。