the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders
the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders
Introduction
This paper provides a review of the article The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders by Archie B. Carroll (1991). It provides a summary of the article, which discusses the various facets and components of corporate social responsibility. In addition, this paper provides an evaluation of the article’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as the writer’s views with regards to the author’s claims.
Background Information
The emergence of the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) resulted in some confusion over what it really meant, which in turn led many authors to present their own definitions and perspectives for the term. In an effort to provide some clarity on this matter and to provide organizations with a framework on how they can practice social responsibility, Carroll (1991) proposed the pyramid of corporate responsibility, which consisted of the various components that he believed would enable organizations to truly become socially responsible.
In evaluating this article, the writer will try to gauge the soundness of the author’s claims, how well he was able to support his claims, and if there were any areas that he failed to address in his discussion.
Summary
In his proposed pyramid of CSR, Carroll (1991) identified the components of CSR to include the economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities of an organization. Among these, the economic responsibilities are at the bottom of the pyramid while the philanthropic responsibilities are at the topmost level of the pyramid.
According to Carroll (1991), an organization’s economic responsibilities are the most important of its responsibilities, and they serve as the foundation on which the other responsibilities rest. In particular, an organization’s economic responsibilities consist of their responsibilities to provide the goods and services that their customers need and to gain a profit for the organization as well.
On the other hand, an organization’s legal responsibilities consist of its responsibility to abide by the law and regulations being implemented by the government in the location where the business operates. In the same regard, an organization’s ethical responsibilities consist of their responsibility to conform to the unwritten expectations, norms, and standards of society.
Finally, an organization’s philanthropic responsibilities consist of the actions that allow the organization to become a good corporate citizen. In particular, an organization can achieve this through humanitarian and charitable activities.
Because CSR consists of an organization’s responsibility towards its stakeholders, Carroll (1991) identified the stakeholders to whom an organization is obliged. These groups included the owners, customers, employees, community, competitors, suppliers, social activist groups, and the public at large. Carroll (1991) also asserted that for an organization to effectively manage its stakeholders, it should be able to identify who its stakeholder are; what their stakes are; what challenges and opportunities they present; what specific corporate social responsibilities the organization has towards them; and what strategies, decisions, and actions would enable the organization to effectively deal with these responsibilities.
Finally, in an attempt to demonstrate how various organizations fulfill their social responsibilities, Carroll (1991) described three types of management and indicated how each management type would address these responsibilities. According to Carroll (1991), these types of management are the immoral, amoral, and moral management, of which only the moral management type is capable of truly conforming to the various components of CSR.
Evaluation
The writer thinks that the article is able to achieve its goal of providing organizations with a framework that would guide them in their efforts to fulfill their social responsibilities. The writer thinks that Carroll (1991) was able to provide a holistic view of these corporate social responsibilities where the different facets of these responsibilities were discussed briefly yet clearly.
However, one weakness of the article was that Carroll (1991) failed to point out that becoming socially responsible could also have an impact on the organization’s bottom line and that it was possible for the organization to also get something in return. Nonetheless, the central lesson of the article is that an organization is responsible not only for itself but also for the society where it operates and that only by being genuinely ethical and moral can an organization fulfill these responsibilities.
With regards to the writer’s personal experience in relation to this topic, the writer has worked for companies that actively got involved in the community. Examples of activities would include holding donations drives during times of calamities and forgoing company parties in exchange for donating the party funds to orphanages or foster homes. These resulted in tax cuts for the company and also allowed the employees to get involved in meaningful activities.
Conclusion
This paper discussed the four components of CSR as posited by Carroll (1991). These included the economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities that organizations have towards their stakeholders. This paper also discussed the immoral, amoral, and moral types of management where only the moral type of management is capable of genuinely becoming socially responsible.
For future research, it would be recommended that the impact of CSR on an organization’s bottom line be investigated. These studies are important because more organizations should become socially responsible. While innovations and technology help improve our lives, they can also end up destroying our societies. As such, only if organizations become socially responsible can these possible negative affects be prevented.
References
Carroll, A. B. (1991, July-August). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward
the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 39-48.
