- 上一篇：带式输送机技术英文文献和中文翻译
- 下一篇：大型高压泵列车英文文献和翻译
CSR in the social issues in management field. Due to the acceptance and impact
of Carroll's CSR contributions, it may be appropriate to re-examine his model to
determine whether it can be modified or improved or if there is a possible alterna-
tive approach to conceptualizing corporate social responsibility.
In a quest to propose an alternative approach to CSR that strives to augment
and amend the Carroll model, the following paper will consist of four parts: (1)
a brief discussion of some issues or limitations of Carroll's model; (2) a presen-
tation of the new alternative model, the "Three-Domain Model of CSR"; (3) a
discussion of the limitations of the new model; and (4) future teaching and re-
search implications of the new model. Three issues with respect to the Carroll model are identified and discussed as
they are items upon which the proposed three-domain model proposes changes.
The three issues include: (1) the use of a pyramid to depict the relationships
among the four components of the model; (2) the role of philanthropy as a sepa-
rate component in the model; and (3) the incomplete theoretical development of
the economic, legal, and ethical domains.
Use of a Pyramid Framework
Although there is considerable value in Carroll's four-part model, his use of
a pyramid framework to depict his CSR domains may be confusing or inappro-
priate for some applications. First, to some, the pyramid framework suggests a
hierarchy of CSR domains. One may be led to conclude that the domain at the
top of the pyramid, philanthropic responsibilities, is the most important or highly
valued domain, that should be strived for by all corporations, while the eco-
nomic domain at the base of the pyramid is the least valued CSR domain. For
example, Reidenbach and Robin (1991: 274) use a pyramid to depict their con-
ceptual model of corporate moral development, and suggest that the top of the
pyramid represents the highest or most advanced stage of moral development
(i.e., the "ethical" corporation), while the base of the pyramid portrays the low-
est or least advanced stage (i.e., the "amoral" corporation). This is clearly not
the perspective of the pyramid's rankings of CSR priorities that Carroll intended,
since he stipulates that the economic and legal domains are the most fundamen-
tal while philanthropic responsibilities are considered less important than the
other three domains (1991: 42). However, the pyramid framework could lead
one to misunderstand the priorities of the four CSR domains.
Second, a pyramid framework cannot fully capture the overlapping nature of
the CSR domains, a disadvantage recognized by Carroll (1993: 34). Such mutu-