Instrumental, Strategic and Political Conception of Corporate Social Responsibility

Secil Deren Van Het Hof 1 *, Sibel Hostut 1
More Detail
1 Akdeniz University, Turkey
* Corresponding Author
Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp. 126-146.
OPEN ACCESS   2658 Views   2108 Downloads   Published online: 26 Jan 2017
Download Full Text (PDF)


The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) literature defines instrumental, strategic and political approaches to CSR. The strategic approach to CSR in transnational corporations goes beyond the customer orientated short time issue management, persuasion and financial performance, but emphasizes a long time perspective based on planned, implemented and evaluated projects to create business value. The research in this paper focuses on the corporate communication directors conception of corporate social responsibility. Participants from transnational and Turkish national corporations have been interviewed and qualitatively analysed. Thefindingsshowthatallinterviewedparticipantsare enthusiastic about the concept of social responsibility. They define CSR as the “raison d'etre of the company” or “the sine qua non of sustainability is social responsibility”. Two of three Turkish national corporations’ CSR conception can be defined as a stage between instrumental and strategic, because CSR in these corporations is more customer orientated with limited or short time influence at the one side, but also implemented for sustainability and to create business value on the other side. The CSR perspective of a Turkish national company based on a farmers union established half a century in order to serve the interests of the local community and stimulate development is clearly political. The conception of sustainability and responsiveness to stakeholders was inherent in the establishment of this particular firm. We conclude that there is a remarkable agreement between the CSR directors’ perspective and the firm’s organizational behaviour and that the cases follow the classification described in the literature to some extent.


Deren Van Het Hof, S., & Hostut, S. (2017). Instrumental, Strategic and Political Conception of Corporate Social Responsibility. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 7(1), 126-146.


  • Ararat, M. (2008). A development perspective for “Corporate Social Responsibility: Case of Turkey. Corporate Governance, 8(3), 271-285.
  • Bansal, P., Jiang, G. F., & Jung, J. C. (2015). Managing responsibly in tough economic times: Strategic and tactical CSR during the 2008-2009 global recession. Long Range Planning, 48, 69-79.
  • Barnett, M., & Salomon, R.(2006). Beyond dichotomy: The curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 1101-1122.
  • Baur, D., & Palazzo, G.(2011). The moral legitimacy of NGOs as partners of corporations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(4), 579-604.
  • Bhattacharyya, S.S.(2010). Exploring the concept of strategic corporate social responsibility for an integrated perspective. European Business Review, 22, No. 1, 2010, 82-101, doi: 10.1108/09555341011009025
  • Carroll, A.B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505.
  • Chen, J.C., Patten, D.M. & Roberts, R.W.(2008). Corporate charitable contributions: A corporate social performance or legitimacy strategy? Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 131e144.
  • Clark, C. E. (2000). Differences between public relations and corporate social responsibility: An analysis. Public Relations Review, 26(3), 363-380.
  • Committee Encouraging CorporatePhilanthropy.(2014). Giving in numbers: 2014 Edition. Retrieved on November 29, 2014, from
  • Dahlsrud, A.(2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 1-13. doi: 10.1002/csr.132.
  • Elving, W. J. L., Golob, U., Podnar, K., Ellerup-Nielsen, A., & Thomson, C. (2015). The bad, the ugly and the good: new challenges for CSR Communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 20(2), 118-127. doi: 10.1108/CCIJ-02- 2015-0006
  • Esrock, S., & Leichty, G.(1998).Social responsibility and web pages: Self presentation or agenda setting? Public Relation Review, 24(3), 305-319.
  • Friedman, M. (September 13, 1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 32-33, 122-24.
  • Frynas, J. G., & Stephens, S. (2014). Political corporate social responsibility: reviewing theories and setting new agendas. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1-27. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12049
  • Gilbert, D. U., & Rasche, A. (2007). Discourse ethics and social accountability: The ethics of SA 8000. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17, 187-216.
  • Gocenoglu, C., & Onan, I.(2008). Turkey social responsibility report baseline report. Retrieved on May 28, 2014, from library/poverty/corporate-socialresponsibility.html
  • Godfrey, P. C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30, No. 4, 777-798.
  • GRI. (2015). Sustainability disclosure database. Retrieved on October 20, 2015, from
  • Hoştut, S., & Deren Van HetHof, S. (2015). A decadeintosustainabilityreporting in Turkey. In: A. Catellani, A. Zerfass, & R. Tench (Eds.), Communication Ethics in a Connected World: Research in Public Relations and Organisational Communication. Brussels: Peter Lang Publishing, 115-134.
  • Husted, B., & Salazar, J. D. J. (2006). Taking Friedman seriously: Maximizing profits and social performance. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 75-91.
  • Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24, 206-221.
  • Lantos, G. P. (2001). The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 595-632.
  • Leisinger, K. M., & Schmitt, K. (2011). Corporate responsibility and corporate philanthropy. Retrieved on November 04, 2015, from leisingerschmitt_corporate_responsibility_and_corporate_philanthropy.pdf
  • Levitt, T. (1958). The dangers of social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, September October, 41-50.
  • Mäkinen, J., & Kourula, A.(2012). Pluralism in political corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(4), 649-678.
  • Martinuzzi, A., & Krumay, B.(2013). The good, the bad, and the successful – how corporate social responsibility leads to competitive advantage and organizational transformation. Journal of Change Management, 13(4), 424-443, doi: 10.1080/14697017.2013.851953
  • Matten, D., & Crane, A.(2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166-179.
  • Orhaner, B., & Doğan, F.(2010). CSR Baseline Report Turkey. Retrieved on November May, 28, 2014, from
  • Pollach, I., Johansen, T. S., Ellerup Nielsen, A., & Thomsen, C. (2012). The integration of CSR into Corporate Communication in large European companies. Journal of Communication Management, 16(2), 204-216. doi: 10.1108/13632541211217605
  • Poret, S. (2014). Corporate-NGO partnerships in CSR activities: why and how? Retrieved On November 06, 2015, from
  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R.(2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92.
  • Reynolds, M. A., & Yuthas, K. (2008). Moral discourse and corporate social responsibility Reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(1/2), 47-64.
  • Scherer, A.G. & Palazzo, G.(2011). The New Political Role of Business in a Globalized World: A Review of a New Perspective on CSR and its Implications for the Firm, Governance, and Democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), June 2011. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00950.x
  • Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32, 10961120.
  • Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Bauman, D. (2006). Global rules and private actors: towards a new role of the transnational corporation in global governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16, 505-532.
  • Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G., & Matten, D. (2014). The business firm as a political actor: A new theory of the firm for a globalized world. Business & Society, 53(2), 143-156. doi: 10.1177/0007650313511778
  • Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503-530.
  • Teegen, H., Doh, J. P., & Vachani, S. (2004). The importance of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in global governance and value creation: An international business research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 463-483.
  • Tench, R., Sun, W., & Jones, B. (2014). Introduction: CSR communication as an emerging field of study. In: R. Tench, & W. Sun, (Eds.), Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility: Perspectives and Practice. UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited,3- 21.
  • Tench, R., Sun, W., & Jones, B. (2012). The challenging concept of corporate social irresponsibility: An introduction. In: R. Tench, W. Sun, & B. Jones (Eds.), Critical Studies on Corporate Responsibility, Governance and Sustainability. UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 3-22.
  • The European Commission. (2011). Corporate social responsibility: A new definition, a new agenda for action. Brussels, MEMO/11/730.
  • Van Den Berghe, L., & Louche, C. (2005). The link between corporate governance and corporate social responsibility in insurance. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 30, 425-442.
  • Vogel, D. (2005). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
  • Wood, D. J., & Logsdon, J. M. (2002). Business citizenship: From individuals to organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12, 59-94.