**2. CSR evolution**

There is no doubt that CSR has witnessed a steady growth in importance and significance, which enabled academics to admit a universal definition of CSR, especially when considering the specificity of the context in which it occurs. In the present section, the first subsection highlighted the absence of a universal definition of CSR because of its multidimensional and dynamic character. The second subsection reviewed the evolution of the CSR over time. And the third subsection dealt with CSR motivations.

#### **2.1 The absence of a universal definition**

The first definition of social responsibility was provided in 1953 by Bowen in his book entitled "Social Responsibilities of the Businessman" as "the obligation of a businessman to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society" [1]. This definition has been subject to a series of refinements and redefinitions that enriched the CSR meaning [2].

In 1979, Carroll defines CSR as "the social responsibility of business that encompasses the economic, legal, ethical and discretionary expectations society has of organizations at a given point in time" [3]. In 1983, he provided one of the most popular definitions of CSR stating that "CSR involves the conduct of a business so that it is economically profitable, law abiding, ethical and socially supportive. To be socially responsible then means that profitability and obedience to the law are foremost conditions when discussing the firm's ethics and the extent to which it supports the society in which it exists with the contribution of money, time and talent" [4].

Since then, several enrichments and modifications have occurred on CSR. In fact, the absence of a consensus on the definition of CSR has resulted in a multitude of definitions. Carroll [5] notes that in one study conducted by Dahlsrud in 2006, 37 definitions of CSR have been identified and analyzed and that the study did not capture all of them [6].

*CSR: A Moral Obligation or a Strategic Behavior? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94471*

Despite the variety of CSR definitions provided over the last 60 years, the fundamental idea that recurs from one definition to another is about the firm's commitment to behave properly, fairly and responsibly in order to contribute to economic, social and environmental development.

Despite all the debates and efforts to define CSR and specify what its real meaning, it has no unique universal definition since each definition is related to a specific context [5, 7–9]. In addition, it also has an interchangeable character with other terminologies like "corporate sustainability", "corporate citizenship" and "the ethical corporation" [10].

The works in the literature dealing with CSR and its meaning started in the United States. Later, many developing countries around the world embraced the idea under different names and in one form or another. It is this worldwide growth of interest in CSR that made it important and significant.

#### **2.2 CSR: an evolving concept**

The CSR's origins date back to the 1950s especially with the publication of Howard R. Bowen's book in 1953 announcing the modern era of CSR [5, 11]. In the 1980s, further themes related to CSR dominated the era such as the stakeholders' theory, CSR performance and business ethics. In the beginning of the 1990s, the CSR concept expanded with the implementation of the strategic dimension, according to which firms intentionally consider and stakeholders' interest to gain potential competitive advantages. In fact, many empirical studies highlight that CSR may enhance the firm's financial performance, on the one hand, and reduce its business risks, on the other, [12, 13].

With globalization and digitalization firms had to comply with the changing social requirements. In fact, the complexity of the environment caused by globalization made firms easily exposed to diversified, contradictory and potential social expectations. Digitalization has made the community influence easier and the new technologies have posed new challenges related to the interaction between human and non-human actors [14, 15].

Therefore, CSR has emerged as a theme of substantial and progressive relevance, which emphasizes its dynamic and evolving nature. Carroll [5] states that there has been an explosion of rigorous theory and research on CSR across many disciplines and this is expected to continue and grow. In the light of a strategic CSR idea, several studies focus on factors driving the CSR strategy trying to highlight the motivations that determine CSR attitude.

Furthermore, scandals like the one that hit Volkswagen in 2015 have shown that the growing attention to CSR does not prove a real change in business practices. In fact, researchers have tried to identify the reasons why managers respond to social issues in different ways.

#### **3. CSR motivations**

Several studies have been conducted in order to investigate and identify the real underlying motives of CSR motivations, rather considered as an academic puzzle [16]. Attention has been paid to understand why or why not companies and managers act in socially responsible ways.

Prior studies have proposed some different ways of thinking about CSR motivation including, whether motivation arises from the outside (extrinsic) or the inside (intrinsic) of the individual.

#### **3.1 Extrinsic motives**

Extrinsic motives occur when the executives are motivated to behave in a socially responsible way in order to gain advantage in return or to avoid punishments. Therefore, executives may act responsibly for various reasons. Considering the instrumental theories, CSR has been considered as a mere instrument to achieve economic objectives and create wealth [17]. Many of the previously conducted studies have dealt with the financial motives according to which CSR contributes to the long term financial performance of the firm [18]. Several empirical investigations find a positive relationship between CSR and profitability [19], and shareholders' value [20]. A good number of these studies revealed that CSR is considered as an instrument to achieve economic goals. Executives often resort to CSR to reduce costs [21], increase sales and market share by differentiating the firm from competitors and influencing social impression [19, 20], gain consumer support and enhance the firm's reputation [22], and ultimately facilitate the positioning of their products in international markets [23].

While the instrumental theories consider only the economics aspects of the interaction between business and society according to which only the social activity that increases profits should be considered, the political theories focus on CSR as a duty towards society rather than an opportunity [24, 25]. This leads the firm to accept social duties and rights and participate in some social cooperation [17]. As a social institution, firms have to use business power in a responsible way in order to maintain power and legitimacy. Stakeholders should be treated as an end and not a means to something else.

In addition to the instrumental and political theories, the integrative theories insist that firms should integrate social demands in their policies since they depend on society to exist, continue and grow. Thereby, social demands should be taken into account and integrated in such a way that a firm operates in accordance with social values [17]. Consequently, firms have to value to societal, NGOs and regulatory pressure bodies.

Furthermore, there are still some other motivations that are closely tied to the firm's characteristic that may be considered as CSR drivers. Among these, we can point out the firm's size and its industrial sector. Large firms tend to be more visible, so, they are more likely to be actively involved in CSR activities because highly visible firms are under greater pressure to contribute more to socially responsible activities than firms with lower visibility [26–30]. Indeed, polluting industries are usually more sensitive to CSR since they are directly involved in environmental issues [31] and their economic activities result in a negative environmental impact [32–35].

#### **3.2 Intrinsic motives**

The intrinsic motivation arises from the inside and occurs when engaging in a behavior or an activity because it is personally rewarding and for its own sake rather than for an external reward. Some empirical studies highlight that executives are significantly more driven by intrinsic motivation than by the extrinsic ones [18]. The intrinsic motives can be considered as non-financial ones that perceive CSR as an end in itself making managers consider such a responsibility for non-financial reasons. The personal values and beliefs may encourage managers to act in a responsible way and for the well-being of others.

While the extrinsic motives consider CSR as an opportunity to gain an advantage in return, the intrinsic ones perceive CSR as an altruistic concern with the

*CSR: A Moral Obligation or a Strategic Behavior? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94471*

well-being of others or as a moral obligation (duty) [36]. From religious and ethical principles, the individual feels obliged to do right and good something even if it is not enjoyable and requires an effort that people might not undertake unless the act is dictated by religion or morality. Moreover, managers may contribute to CSR to express their altruism. They seem to enjoy contributing to the common good of society and helping others for the sake of their well-being [18].

Whether the manager is intrinsically or extrinsically motivated is often hard to determine. Some research works argue that firms which are intrinsically motivated to CSR are more likely to invest in both increasing CSR strengths and in decreasing CSR concerns. However, firms that look for economic advantages would be concerned only by a CSR investment that maximizes profits [18, 37].
