Motivations for CSR Moral obligation/Common good
Legitimacy License to operate Brand aspects & Consumer preference
Reputation and risk management
Control Attracting and retaining employees
Total Quality Management
Mentioned in the literature by Garriga & Melé (2004), Lantos (2001), Porter & Kramer (2006), Robin & Reidenbach (1987) Garriga & Melé (2004), Middlemiss (2002), Porter & Kramer (2006) Carroll (1991), Lantos (2001) Middlemiss (2002), Porter & Kramer (2006) Becker-Olsen et al. (2005), Bhattacharya & Sen (2001), Bhattacharya & Sen (2004), Hansted Blomqvist & Posner (2004), Blumenthal & Bergström (2002), Du et al. (2007), Garriga & Melé (2004), Hardjono & Marrewijk (2001), Kitchin (2002), Klein & Dawar (2004), Lantos (2001), Mark-Herbert, & von Schantz (2007), McWilliams & Siegel (2001), Middlemiss (2002), Mohr et al. (2001), Simcic Brønn & Vrioni (2001), Svedberg Nilsson (2004), Willmott (2002) Burke & Logsdon (1996), Chun (2005), Middlemiss (2002), Porter & Kramer (2006), Svedberg Nilsson (2004), Werther & Chandler (2005) Aguilera et al. (2004), Svedberg Nilsson (2004) Aguilera et al (2004), Bevan & Wilmott (2002), Bhattacharya et al (2007), Burke & Logsdon (1996), Collier (2007), Hardjono & Marrewijk (2001), Joyner & Payne (2002), Kohli & Jaworski (1990), Middlemiss (2002) Castka et al. (2004), Hardjono & Marrewijk (2001), Hazlett et al (2007), McAdam & Leonard (2003), Svensson & Wood (2005)
Figure 3: Groups of motivations for CSR.
5.1.1 Normative motivations for CSR: In this section we present the three main normative motivations for a company to perform CSR activities: moral obligation, sustainability and legitimacy.
220.127.116.11 Moral obligation One of the motivations for CSR derived from the literature is that of moral obligation/responsibility
and common good. This approach maintains that business, as with any other group or individual in society, has to contribute to the common good.174 This obligation is regarded as threefold: capability-, causal- and role responsibility.175 Capability responsibility is a main argument for humanitarian CSR as a company, if it has the capability to solve societal ills, should do so. Causal responsibility implies that everyone is morally responsible or accountable for the consequences of their actions. Role-related responsibility are the duties or proper behavior that go along with a given role or particular position within a societal group or society. Porter & Kramer176 regard this stance as leading to problems in decision making and limiting a company’s CSR approach, because all the different views have to be balanced.
Garriga, E. & Melé, D. (2004).
Lantos, G. (2001).
Porter, M. & Kramer, M. (2006).