ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT. The Corporate Social R.c5pomibility (CSR) field presents not only a landscape of theories but also a proliferation of approaches, \vhich are controversial, con1plex and unclear. This article tries to cbrit)r the situation, "nupping the territory'' by classif)-ing the nuin CSR theories and related approaches in four groups: (1) instnunental theories, in vYhich the corporation is seen as only an instnnnent for wealth creation, and its social
po\ver of corporations in society and a responsible use of
this power in the political arena; (3) integrative theories, in \vhich the corporation is fOcused on the satisf.:1ction of social demands; and (4) ethical theories, based on ethical J-c'>ponsibilitics of corporation-; to society. In practice, each CSR theory presents four din1ensions related to
values. The findings suggest the necessity to develop a
ne\v theory on the business and society relationship,
KEY WOlWS: corporate social responsibility, corporate responsiveness, corporate citizenship, stakeholder nunage n1ent, corporate social perfOnnance, issues m_;uugeinent, sustainable developn1_ent, the cmmnon good
Introduction
Since the second half of the 20th century a long debate on corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been taking place. ln 1953, Bowen (1953) wrote the seminal book Social Responsibilities of the Husinessmmr. Since then there has been a shift in terminology from the social responsibility of business to CSR. Additionally, this field has grown significantly and today contains a great proliferation of theories, approaches and tern1inologies. Society and business, social issues management, public policy and business, stakeholder management, corporate accountability are just some of the terms used to describe the phenomena related to corporate responsibility in society. Recently, renewed interest for corporate social responsibilities and new alternative concepts have been proposed, including corporate citizenship and corporate sustainability. Some scholars have compared these new concepts with the classic notion of CSR (see van Man·ewijk, 2003 for corporate sustainability; and Matten et al., 2003 and Wood and Lodgson, 2002 for corporate citizenship).
