Corporate social responsibility: analysis of theories and models

Pavlo Brin, Mohamad Nassif Nehme


Various definitions, forms, and theories related to Corporate Social Responsibilities (CSR) are presented in this article. Nowadays most corporations follow different methodologies to implement CSR approach. But in most cases corporation follow CSR methodology that reflects only its shareholders’ interest neglecting its community interest. Critical analysis and comparison for the main CSR theories are presented also, followed by a conclusion about a comprehensive form of CSR that targets both shareholders and community interest.
Three of the main CSR theories and models have been represented and analyzed in this article: The Carroll Theory, The Triple Bottom Line Theory, and The Stakeholder Theories. Since any business corporation has to adopt one of these theories, this study reveals the strength and challenges of every theory. There is no doubt that every theory has been well analyzed by its founder or scholar, but an advanced understanding for every theory will make it possible for a corporation’s managers and decision makers to implement long term social and environmental strategies with more accurate achievements.
This article is divided into four main sections, the first section presents Carroll’s model for CSR, followed by the second, which is about the Triple Bottom Line theory for CSR, and the third represents the Stakeholder theory. The fourth section analyzes three CSR theories and sheds light on the core responsibility of every theory. Comprehensive analysis for the three recognized CSR models was represented in a table to help readers to locate and clarify systemic differences and common features between the three theories.
The last section of the article reveals three main outcomes, the first outcome represents a recommendation for the implementation process of adopting any of the three theories, and which is divided into an internal and external level. The second outcome reveals the importance of addressing a specialized committee for CSR by a company, followed by the third outcome that discusses some of the implications of this analysis for future CSR research and studies.


corporate social responsibility; business corporations; welfare

Full Text:



Safarzad, R. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility Theories and Models, Applied mathematics in engineering. Management and technology journal, 5, 38.

Friedman, M. (1962). The Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press.

Brussaeau, J. (2011). The Business Ethics Workshops. Boston Academic Publishing. Vol. 1.

Carroll, A. B. (2016). Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: taking another look. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 1 (1). doi:

Freeman, R. E., Dmytriyev, S. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility and Stakeholder Theory: Learning from each other. SYMPHONYA Emerging Issues in Management, 1. doi:

Garriga, E., Melé, D. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53 (1/2), 51–71. doi:

Maryna Saprykina promotes corporate social responsibility in Ukraine (2018). Available at:

Ukraine’s IT firms embrace CSR as key path to success (2018). Available at:

Jamali, D., Karam, C. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility in Developing Countries as an Emerging Field of Study. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20 (1), 32–61. doi:

Soylu, S., Azizzadeh, S. (2018). Is Corporate Social Responsibility Always A Function Of Good Management? Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018 (1), 11219. doi:

Bhardwaj, P., Chatterjee, P., Demir, K. D., Turut, O. (2018). When and how is corporate social responsibility profitable? Journal of Business Research, 84, 206–219. doi:

Crane, A., Matten, D. (2016). Business ethics: managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press, 87.

Wayne, V. (2010). The age of responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the new DNA of business. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 231.

Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environmental Quality Management, 8 (1), 37–51. doi:

Slaper, T. F., Hall, T. J. (2011). The Triple Bottom Line: What Is It and How Does It Work? Indiana Business Review, 86 (1). Available at:

Freeman, E. (2010). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge University Press. doi:

Brenner, S. N., Cochran, P. (1991). The Stakeholder Theory of the Firm. Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society, 2, 897–933. doi:

Kotter, J. P., Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate Culture and Performance. Free Press, 45. Available at:,+J.P.+and+Heskett&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbht271_nfAhWF3iwKHal3B1oQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=Corporate%20Culture%20and%20Performance%20Kotter%2C%20J.P.%20and%20Heskett&f=false

Case Summary. Available at:

Brin, P., Nehme, M. (2018). Corporate Social Responsibility: Possible Approaches for Unemployment Production. Business Navigator Scientific Journal, 2-2 (45).


Copyright (c) 2019 Pavlo Brin, Mohamad Nassif Nehme

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ISSN 2504-5571 (Online), ISSN 2504-5563 (Print)