Developing a Stakeholder Framework to Analyze and Evaluate Corporate Social Performance
This article presents conclusions from a 10-year research program, the purpose of which has been to develop a framework and methodology, grounded in the reality of corporate behavior, for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. There are three principal sections: (a) a summary of the approaches, models, and methodologies used in conducting more than 70 field studies of corporate social performance from 1983-1993; (b) a discussion of the principal conclusions derived from the data that (1) corporations manage relationships with stakeholder groups rather than with society as a whole, (2) it is important to distinguish between social issues and stakeholder issues, and (3) it is necessary to identify the appropriate level of analysis in order to evaluate CSP; and (c) a discussion of propositions and areas for further research.
A fundamental problem in the field of business and society has been that there are no definitions of corporate social performance (CSP), corporate social responsibility (CSR1), or corporate social responsiveness (CSR2) that provide a framework or model for the systematic collection, organization, and analysis of corporate data relating to these important concepts. No theory has yet been developed that can provide such a framework or model, nor is there any general agreement about the meaning of these terms from an operational or a managerial viewpoint. Wood 's (1991) concern that the "definition of corporate social performance (CSP) is not entirely satisfactory" is shared by many scholars and managers. CSP, together with CSR1 and CSR2, carry no clear meaning and remain elusive constructs. They have defied definition for reasons that are set forth in the second section.
I propose that corporate social performance can be analyzed and evaluated more effectively by using a framework based on the management of a corporation 's relationships with its stakeholders than by using models and methodologies based on concepts concerning
A fundamental problem in the field of business and society has been that there are no definitions of corporate social performance (CSP), corporate social responsibility (CSR1), or corporate social responsiveness (CSR2) that provide a framework or model for the systematic collection, organization, and analysis of corporate data relating to these important concepts. No theory has yet been developed that can provide such a framework or model, nor is there any general agreement about the meaning of these terms from an operational or a managerial viewpoint. Wood 's (1991) concern that the "definition of corporate social performance (CSP) is not entirely satisfactory" is shared by many scholars and managers. CSP, together with CSR1 and CSR2, carry no clear meaning and remain elusive constructs. They have defied definition for reasons that are set forth in the second section.
I propose that corporate social performance can be analyzed and evaluated more effectively by using a framework based on the management of a corporation 's relationships with its stakeholders than by using models and methodologies based on concepts concerning
References: Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. 1985. An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2): 446-463. Carroll, A. B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4: 497-505. Clarkson, M. B. E. 1988. Corporate social performance in Canada, 1976-86. In L. E. Preston (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy, vol. 10: 241-265. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Clarkson, M. B. E. 1991. Defining, evaluating, and managing corporate social performance: The stakeholder management model. In L. E. Preston (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy, vol. 12: 331-358. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Clarkson, M. B. E., & Deck, M. C. 1993. Applying the stakeholder management to the analysis and evaluation of corporate codes. In D. C. Ludwig (Ed.), Business and society in a changing world order: 55-76. New York: Mellen Press. Clarkson, M. B. E., Deck, M. C., & Shiner, N. J. 1992. The stakeholder management model in practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Las Vegas, NV. Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman/Ballinger. Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, Sept. 13. Kelly, D., & McTaggart, T. 1979. Research in corporate social performance and policy, vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. McAdam, T. W. 1973. How to put corporate responsibility into practice. Business and Society Review/Innovation, 6: 8-16. Preston, L. E. (Ed.). 1988. Research in corporate social performance and policy (Vol. 10). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Preston, L. E. 1990. Stakeholder management and corporate performance. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(4): 361-375. The Royal Commission on Corporate Concentration (RCCC). 1977. Corporate social performance in Canada (Study No. 21). Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services. Starik, M., Pinkston, T. S., & Carroll, A. B. 1989. Evolutionary and performance aspects of performance management. Unpublished paper, College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens. Vincent, J., Olliers, I., & Starasts, J. 1986. A social audit of Bank of Montreal. Unpublished paper, Faculty of Management, University of Toronto. Votaw, D. 1973. Genius becomes rare. In D. Votaw & S. P. Sethi (Eds.), The corporate dilemma: Traditional values versus contemporary problems: 11-45. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wall Street Journal. 1993. Shawmut settles charges of bias in its lending. December 14: A2. Wall Street Journal. 1994. Family friendly: Many companies go farther than the law requires. January 11: Al. Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. 1985. The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 4: 758-769. Wood, D. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16: 691-718.