Carroll’s Four Responsibilities of Business

The debate surrounding corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a longstanding one, with divergent perspectives from notable thought leaders such as Milton Friedman and Archie Carroll. While Friedman emphasized profit maximization as the primary goal of businesses, Carroll proposed a more comprehensive framework that underscores the multidimensional responsibilities of corporations. This article explores Carroll's Four Responsibilities of Business—economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary—and demonstrates how this framework aligns with evolving societal expectations, contrasting it with Friedman’s position.

Profit Maximization: A Means, Not an End
Milton Friedman argued that the main objective of businesses is to maximize profits while adhering to laws and regulations. He believed that prioritizing profits ensures efficiency and resource allocation, benefiting shareholders and the economy at large.
However, William J. Byron, an esteemed ethics professor, offered a nuanced perspective: profits are akin to food for survival, necessary but not the ultimate purpose. Just as individuals require sustenance to achieve higher goals, businesses need profits to thrive and contribute meaningfully to society. Byron's analogy reframes the debate, suggesting that profit maximization should support broader organizational and societal goals rather than being an end in itself.

Carroll’s Four Responsibilities of Business
Archie Carroll’s model presents a pyramid of business responsibilities, prioritizing economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary obligations. These responsibilities reflect the multifaceted role businesses play in society.
1. Economic Responsibilities
At the base of Carroll’s pyramid are economic responsibilities, the foundation of a business’s existence. Companies must produce goods and services of value, generate revenue, repay creditors, and provide returns to shareholders.
This aligns with Friedman’s perspective, as a firm cannot sustain itself without profitability. For example, Tesla’s ability to innovate in the electric vehicle market depends on its profitability, allowing it to fund research and development and expand operations.
2. Legal Responsibilities
Above economic responsibilities are legal obligations, which require businesses to operate within the framework of laws and regulations. Compliance ensures fairness and accountability in areas such as labor practices, environmental protection, and anti-discrimination policies.
For instance, U.S. businesses must hire and promote based on merit rather than race, gender, or religion. Legal adherence not only safeguards societal interests but also mitigates risks of penalties, which can harm a company’s reputation and financial performance.
3. Ethical Responsibilities
Ethical responsibilities address behaviors and practices that society expects but may not yet be codified into law. Businesses are urged to act in ways that reflect societal values, such as transparency, fairness, and environmental stewardship.
For example, organizations planning layoffs are expected to engage with employees and communities to minimize disruption, even if not legally required. Companies like Patagonia exemplify ethical leadership by prioritizing sustainability and advocating for climate action, gaining consumer trust and loyalty.
4. Discretionary Responsibilities
At the top of the pyramid are discretionary responsibilities, which are voluntary actions beyond societal expectations. These include philanthropic contributions, community engagement, and initiatives supporting underprivileged groups.
An illustrative example is Cisco Systems’ innovative severance package during mass layoffs, where employees working for nonprofits received a portion of their salary, stock options, and benefits. This approach not only supported affected employees but also strengthened Cisco’s corporate reputation and talent pool.

Evolving Social Expectations
Societal values are dynamic, and discretionary responsibilities today may become ethical obligations tomorrow. The shift in perceptions surrounding obesity illustrates this evolution. In 1990, most Americans attributed obesity to individual choices. By 2003, societal awareness of corporate marketing and government policies as contributing factors grew significantly, prompting food companies to prioritize healthier options.
Similarly, schools across the U.S. removed soda machines and introduced nutritious meals to address childhood obesity. These actions, once considered voluntary, are increasingly expected by stakeholders.

The Role of Government in Shaping CSR
Carroll posited that neglecting ethical and discretionary responsibilities invites stricter government regulations, which can hinder profitability. For instance, environmental non-compliance often results in legal mandates that require additional resources for compliance and monitoring.
Companies proactive in addressing societal concerns, however, can avoid such constraints. Programs promoting environmental sustainability not only reduce waste but also enhance corporate reputation, as seen in companies like Stonyfield Yogurt and Whole Foods.

The Business Case for CSR
Contrary to Friedman’s assertion that CSR undermines efficiency, empirical evidence suggests that socially responsible actions can enhance financial performance. Studies, including meta-analyses, reveal a positive correlation between CSR and profitability.
Benefits of CSR
1. Brand Loyalty and Premium Pricing: Consumers are willing to pay more for products from socially responsible companies, such as Ben & Jerry’s or Whole Foods.
2. Talent Attraction and Retention: Companies like Starbucks attract top talent by fostering inclusive and ethical workplace cultures.
3. Community and Government Support: Firms with strong CSR initiatives enjoy goodwill from local communities and policymakers, facilitating smoother operations.
4. Investor Confidence: Socially responsible firms attract investments, with CSR-focused mutual funds outperforming traditional indices.

CSR as Competitive Advantage
Michael Porter and Mark Kramer argue that social and economic goals are interconnected. CSR initiatives create social capital, fostering goodwill among stakeholders and positioning firms for long-term success.
For instance, Target collaborates with ethical brands to appeal to socially conscious consumers. Similarly, environmentally responsible practices help businesses preempt criticism, reduce costs, and improve resource efficiency. A study of 70 ecological initiatives found an average payback period of just 18 months.

Shifting Executive Mindsets
Business executives increasingly recognize the importance of balancing profitability with societal contributions. A 2006 McKinsey survey revealed that 84% of global executives believed businesses should integrate public good with investor returns. Initiatives like the United Nations Global Compact, signed by over 6,800 companies by 2012, demonstrate this shift toward aligning corporate practices with global sustainability goals.

Conclusion
Carroll’s Four Responsibilities of Business provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the evolving role of corporations in society. While economic and legal responsibilities ensure survival and compliance, ethical and discretionary actions foster trust, innovation, and long-term growth.
Friedman’s profit-centric model, though foundational, no longer suffices in a world where stakeholders demand accountability and transparency. By embracing Carroll’s framework, businesses can align profitability with societal well-being, creating value for shareholders and communities alike. This balanced approach ensures not just survival, but a legacy of positive impact.

Reference :
1. Carroll, A. B. (1979). "A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance." Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.
2. Carroll, A. B. (1991). "The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders." Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.
3. Carroll, A. B. (2004). "Managing Ethically with Global Stakeholders: A Present and Future Challenge." Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 114–120.
4. Byron, W. J. (n.d.). Quoted in Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility.
5. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). "Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business." Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.
6. Friedman, M. (1970). "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits." The New York Times Magazine.
7. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). "Strategy & Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility." Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
8. McKinsey & Company. (2006). "The Business of Sustainability: McKinsey Global Survey Results."