Paper 3: To what extent is
business and society literature
idealistic?
By Dentchev
Purpose of article is to investigate to what extent business and society literature idealistic as it
advocates the adoption of high moral norms for business performance.
Idealistic = strong belief in perfect standards and their achievement, even when not realistic. Social
responsibility unrealistic and ideal believe but impossible in practice. Questions quality of theories
and suggests need for more realistic solutions. Recent research shows customers do not use CSR as
criterion for purchase.
CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility.
Donaldson and Preston’s Typology
3 approaches:
- Normative
- Descriptive
- Instrumental
Using this typology to analyze the descriptive accuracy, normative validity and instrumental power of
central thesis of B & S themes.Distinction here is imperfect and idealism a variable ranging from very
much to not at all. Analysis will provide insights of extent of idealism in branch indicated by no
instrumental relevance in promotion of ideal norm for business conduct.
Related Concepts in the CSP Construct
Three interellated concepts: CSR2 (actions) is a reflection of CSR1 (principles) when dealing with
social issues (problems).
CSR1 = principles
Corporate performance that is normatively correct with respect to all constituents of the firm and
implies correspondence between corporate action and societal expectations. Social expectations
translated into four characteristics of corporate social responsibility: economic, legal, ethical and
distretionary. Attributing morality to organizations requires corporate decisionmaking processed
being based on responsibility principles. Corporate performance associated with morality of
employees. Personal values and ethics determine individual principles of CSR1 and shape
organization-related decision making of corporate agents. CSR1 helpful to unify differences in
individual responsibility interpretations, attempts to accomplisch congruency among principles which
is essential to ensure credibility of claims of social responsibility of company.organizations are
expected to contribute to social prosperity. Moval view on organizations fail to explain contribution
of self-interest but innovative companies to social prosperity of EU and beyond.
CSR1 is idealistic, tradition prescribes perfect standard for business conduct but no insights on
business logic of CSR1 and on the challenges or risks of its implementation.
, Social Issues (problems)
Exist objectively but become issues requiring managerial attention when defined as problematic to
society or institution within society by a group of actors or stakeholders capable of influencing either
governmental action of company policy.
Defined as problems and not opportunities and have enough impact to make structures fail where
social actors search to resolve problem of institutional order. Isseus are a subject of interpretation of
stakeholder’s perceptions on social developments. Solution requires collaboration of parties
associated with issue (refers to inappropriateness of stress corporate responsibility to natural
environment, without stressing responsibility of others).
In conception of social issues not much idealism as they only require managerial attention when
pinned on political or corporal agenda. Many believe that organizations have impact to resolve
problematic-for-society issues which is a bit idealistic. Unlikely that organizations would try to solve
social issues unless perceived to directly influence corporate operations as opportunities and
threaths of if solution requires insignificant effort.
Corporate issue are a necessary extension of identification and management of social issues but both
social and corporate issues are seen as problems. Strategic issue is a development that can have an
impact on ability to meet objectives. Consider importance of these issues to managers as the
conception neglects the opportunities of social development.
CSR2 = actions
The ability to manage the company’s relations with various social groups; the measures a company
takes to resolve problems which it is deemed accountable for. Either utilitarian approach by doing
nothing or humanitarian approach by doing much. Four responsiveness strategies: reaction (doing
less than resuired and denying responsibility), defense (the least required where admitting to
responsibility but tend to fight it), accommodation (all that is required and accepting responsibility)
and proaction (anticipating claims and doing more than is required). Unless social issues processed at
reasonable speed it can pile up and put company in a position to not function properly. Companies
need to distribute wealth and value among primary stakeholders. CSR2 are the moral obligations to
address and resolve issues beyond boundaries of the organization and by responding you improve
organizational performance.
CSR2 not idealistic but provides business rationale for corporate responsiveness to social issues. Not
fully supported by empirical research as most find positive link between social and financial
performance but other find a neutral or negative relationship. So, this relationship is concluded to be
regarded as inconclusive, complex, and nuanced.
CSP = Corporate social performance
Principle-problem-action framework to enrich profit orientation of management with broader
attention to stakeholder and issues; The programs companies use to implement responsibility and/or
responsiveness/ policies developed to handle social issues and stakeholder interests.
Tradition criticizes organizations who maximize their profit and don’t consider other consequences or
actions.
Responsibility literature barely acknowledges organizations positive influences on society and this
negative perspective emphasizes idealism of CSP. Descriptive issues and instrumental responsiveness
are underdeveloped and vague, instrumental value is not in the differentiation between four
strategies but in the advice on when and how to adopt every one of them but this knowledge
business and society literature
idealistic?
By Dentchev
Purpose of article is to investigate to what extent business and society literature idealistic as it
advocates the adoption of high moral norms for business performance.
Idealistic = strong belief in perfect standards and their achievement, even when not realistic. Social
responsibility unrealistic and ideal believe but impossible in practice. Questions quality of theories
and suggests need for more realistic solutions. Recent research shows customers do not use CSR as
criterion for purchase.
CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility.
Donaldson and Preston’s Typology
3 approaches:
- Normative
- Descriptive
- Instrumental
Using this typology to analyze the descriptive accuracy, normative validity and instrumental power of
central thesis of B & S themes.Distinction here is imperfect and idealism a variable ranging from very
much to not at all. Analysis will provide insights of extent of idealism in branch indicated by no
instrumental relevance in promotion of ideal norm for business conduct.
Related Concepts in the CSP Construct
Three interellated concepts: CSR2 (actions) is a reflection of CSR1 (principles) when dealing with
social issues (problems).
CSR1 = principles
Corporate performance that is normatively correct with respect to all constituents of the firm and
implies correspondence between corporate action and societal expectations. Social expectations
translated into four characteristics of corporate social responsibility: economic, legal, ethical and
distretionary. Attributing morality to organizations requires corporate decisionmaking processed
being based on responsibility principles. Corporate performance associated with morality of
employees. Personal values and ethics determine individual principles of CSR1 and shape
organization-related decision making of corporate agents. CSR1 helpful to unify differences in
individual responsibility interpretations, attempts to accomplisch congruency among principles which
is essential to ensure credibility of claims of social responsibility of company.organizations are
expected to contribute to social prosperity. Moval view on organizations fail to explain contribution
of self-interest but innovative companies to social prosperity of EU and beyond.
CSR1 is idealistic, tradition prescribes perfect standard for business conduct but no insights on
business logic of CSR1 and on the challenges or risks of its implementation.
, Social Issues (problems)
Exist objectively but become issues requiring managerial attention when defined as problematic to
society or institution within society by a group of actors or stakeholders capable of influencing either
governmental action of company policy.
Defined as problems and not opportunities and have enough impact to make structures fail where
social actors search to resolve problem of institutional order. Isseus are a subject of interpretation of
stakeholder’s perceptions on social developments. Solution requires collaboration of parties
associated with issue (refers to inappropriateness of stress corporate responsibility to natural
environment, without stressing responsibility of others).
In conception of social issues not much idealism as they only require managerial attention when
pinned on political or corporal agenda. Many believe that organizations have impact to resolve
problematic-for-society issues which is a bit idealistic. Unlikely that organizations would try to solve
social issues unless perceived to directly influence corporate operations as opportunities and
threaths of if solution requires insignificant effort.
Corporate issue are a necessary extension of identification and management of social issues but both
social and corporate issues are seen as problems. Strategic issue is a development that can have an
impact on ability to meet objectives. Consider importance of these issues to managers as the
conception neglects the opportunities of social development.
CSR2 = actions
The ability to manage the company’s relations with various social groups; the measures a company
takes to resolve problems which it is deemed accountable for. Either utilitarian approach by doing
nothing or humanitarian approach by doing much. Four responsiveness strategies: reaction (doing
less than resuired and denying responsibility), defense (the least required where admitting to
responsibility but tend to fight it), accommodation (all that is required and accepting responsibility)
and proaction (anticipating claims and doing more than is required). Unless social issues processed at
reasonable speed it can pile up and put company in a position to not function properly. Companies
need to distribute wealth and value among primary stakeholders. CSR2 are the moral obligations to
address and resolve issues beyond boundaries of the organization and by responding you improve
organizational performance.
CSR2 not idealistic but provides business rationale for corporate responsiveness to social issues. Not
fully supported by empirical research as most find positive link between social and financial
performance but other find a neutral or negative relationship. So, this relationship is concluded to be
regarded as inconclusive, complex, and nuanced.
CSP = Corporate social performance
Principle-problem-action framework to enrich profit orientation of management with broader
attention to stakeholder and issues; The programs companies use to implement responsibility and/or
responsiveness/ policies developed to handle social issues and stakeholder interests.
Tradition criticizes organizations who maximize their profit and don’t consider other consequences or
actions.
Responsibility literature barely acknowledges organizations positive influences on society and this
negative perspective emphasizes idealism of CSP. Descriptive issues and instrumental responsiveness
are underdeveloped and vague, instrumental value is not in the differentiation between four
strategies but in the advice on when and how to adopt every one of them but this knowledge
