Review and Discussion of the Article The Future of Corporate Social Responsibility by Duane Windsor

This reading essay is a review of the following article:

Windsor, D. (2001). The future of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9 (3): 225-256.

Duane Windsor, via the aforementioned article regarding the future of social responsibility, purports “there are three emerging alternatives or competitors to responsibility: (1) an economic conception of responsibility; (2) global corporate citizenship; and (3) stakeholder management practices (pg. 225).” Windsor first provides a historical reflection of social responsibility beginning in the Progressive Era through the twentieth century and concludes with predictions for the future of corporate social responsibility. Corporate social responsibility, although not widely discussed or defined until post World War II, can be dated back to Ancient Rome as citizens exhibited a sense of civic responsibility. Andrew Carnegie, a man now compared to modern business tycoons/philanthropists such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, published this concept in the 19th century. Windsor does note, however, Carnegie’s philanthropic acts and published views followed his extensive success and wealth as a business mogul. Despite early literature discussing the importance of businesses responsibility to societal success rather than solely on shareholder profits, Windsor shares his interpretation of “anti-responsibility trends” in recent literature. He emphasizes, throughout this article, a concern regarding “wealth-oriented practices” dominating the future of corporate social responsibility. Windsor reviews prominent corporate social responsibility theorists who all contributed greatly to the distinctions between responsibility and responsiveness businesses have to ...

... middle of paper ...

...cision on what is acceptable behavior and what the acceptable response to those who violate the set norm. In my research during this past week, I found an audio clip of Duane Windsor. He made a statement, which I ultimately discussed in our discussion groups regarding the emphasis on the meaning behind philanthropic deeds of businesses. Windsor stated that he believed it was “okay to comply with corporate social responsibility for the wrong reason as long as they (businesses) comply.” He explained that, although not ethical, the deed itself sufficed as “CSR progress.” I found that to be a compelling point. I compared that to my theory on compliance with traffic laws. I would rather people comply with the traffic laws than believe in them. I suppose that puts me in the corner of advocating for responsiveness leading fulfillment of corporations’ social responsibility.