Content area
Full Text
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 (CSR sub 1 ), or corporate social responsiveness (CSR sub 2 ) 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 a 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 CSR sub 1 and CSR sub 2 , 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 corporate social responsibilities and responsiveness. The stakeholder framework has been derived from data contained in more than 70 field studies of CSP, conducted from 1983-1993.
During this research program there have been three principal stages in the development of the methodologies for data collection, analysis, and evaluation: (a) 1983-1985: 30 field studies; (b) 1986-1988: 28 studies; and (c) 1989-1993: 20 studies.
A RESEARCH PROGRAM TO ANALYZE AND EVALUATE CSP
Stage 1: 1983-1985
When this research and teaching program on CSR sub 1 was initiated in 1983, there had been only one significant empirical study of CSP in Canada, Corporate Social Performance in Canada (the Royal Commission on Corporate Concentration [RCCC], 1977). The situation in the United States was very much the same: "actual empirical research designed to test the multitude of definitions, propositions, concepts, and theories that have been advanced has been scarce" (Aupperle, Carroll, & Hatfield, 1985). To develop a methodology in 1975, the researchers in Canada had used the corporate social response matrix, which had been developed by Preston (1977), who was then the academic consultant to the group responsible for the research and writing of Corporate Social Performance...