Bridging Corporate Social Responsibility and Stakeholder Theory: Towards an Integrated Conceptual Framework
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51325/g3bcz761Keywords:
Corporate Social Responsibility, Stakeholder Theory, Business Ethics, Stakeholder Salience, Legitimacy Theory, Normative IntegrationAbstract
One of the best-known and most fragmented approaches to the study of business ethics is that of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Another one is stakeholder theory, which for decades developed in tandem with CSR but whose linkages between stakeholders and its practice were not elaborated sufficiently enough. This paper aims at creating a conceptual framework, combining elements of both stakeholder theory and CSR. Based on Freeman’s (1984) seminal stakeholder model, Carroll’s (1991) CSR pyramid, and recent developments in instrumental, political, and integrative stakeholder theory, we propose a multi-level framework of three interacting layers: stakeholder salience mapping, CSR domain alignment, and ethical value creation. It addresses three longstanding theoretical gaps: the instrumentalization of stakeholder relationships in CSR practice, the under-theorisation of stakeholder conflict and trade-offs, and the lack of dynamic feedback mechanisms between firm behaviour and stakeholder expectations. We further argue that CSR legitimacy is not a static outcome, but an iterative, co-constructed process shaped by stakeholder power, urgency, and the moral ecology of the institutional environment. Theoretical implications for business ethics research are discussed, and directions for future empirical testing of the framework are suggested.
References
Bowen, H.R. (1953). Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. Harper & Row, New York.
Carroll, A.B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G
Crane, A. and Matten, D. (2016). Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization (4th ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management Review, 2(3), 70-76. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166246 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/41166246
Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16(2), 312-322. https://doi.org/10.2307/255331 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/255331
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Donaldson, T., and Preston, L. E. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91. https://doi.org/10.2307/258887 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258887
Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Boston.
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.
Matten, D. and Moon, J. (2008). 'Implicit' and 'explicit' CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404-424. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193458 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193458
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and 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. https://doi.org/10.2307/259247 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/259247
Neville, B.A., Bell, S.J. and Whitwell, G.J. (2011). Stakeholder salience revisited: Refining, redefining, and refueling an underdeveloped conceptual tool. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(3), 357-378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0818-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0818-9
Palazzo, G. and Scherer, A.G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9044-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9044-2
Phillips, R., Freeman, R.E. and Wicks, A.C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479-502. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200313434 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200313434
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62-77.
Scherer, A.G. and Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and democracy in a globalized world. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096-1120. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26585837 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26585837
Schwartz, M.S. and Carroll, A.B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503-530. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200313435 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200313435
Suchman, M.C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 EuroMid Journal of Business and Tech-Innovation (EJBTI)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
