Whose Responsibility is it to Address Social Problems Anyway?
Assessing Perceived Importance of Institutions’ Responsibilities for Addressing Social Issues
Introduction
The call for submissions for the 2014 IABS conference has as its theme “Reclaiming the Societal
Dimension: New Perspectives on Society and Business. The call asks the questions “What
happens when we take society’s perspective? What social issues, challenges and
impacts should business address?” Meanwhile, the 2012 IABS conference had as its theme
“Personal Responsibility for Improving Society.” Taken together, these themes suggest that
research in our field need not be restricted to primarily focusing on the role of business in
society.
The 2012 call for submissions drew attention to considering what responsibilities individuals
have to society. Furthermore, it suggested that it is possible that teaching and research in
business and society has contributed not only to an increased perception that corporations have
social responsibilities, but to a decreased perception that individuals have social responsibilities.
Extending this question further, we might ask how students (and citizens generally) perceive the
comparative responsibilities of various institutions for addressing social issues, and to what
degree these perceptions are changing. Somewhat surprisingly, this question does not appear to
have received much, if any, research investigation.
In this submission we suggest that the question “what degree of responsibility for addressing
social problems different institutions are perceived as having” is a meaningful investigative area
for business and society scholars. We begin to explore what research in our field and related
fields has to say about this question, and suggest that the development of a research instrument
contributing to our understanding in this area is needed. We further suggest some of the criteria
that such an instrument should fulfill.
Significance
The question of individuals’ perceptions of the comparative responsibilities of different
institutions for addressing social problems would appear to be central to how any society
organizes its efforts to deal with these problems. Over time the degree to which different
institutions have addressed problems facing society has evolved. For millennia, the primary
responsibility appears to have been on the individual and family, as well as on small groups of
people living in close proximity to one another (bands, tribes, neighbors, communities, etc.),
frequently bound together by a common religion. With the growth of a landed aristocracy,
eleemosynary activities increasingly fell to that group, under the concept of noblesse oblige. In
the 1300s, as societies became increasingly large and complex and the feudal system began to
break down, governments increasingly played a role, largely to protect the social order. The
spread of Renaissance ideals, later fostered by the heightened social expectations following the
American Revolution, increased the role of guilds and other community associations in
providing social welfare. At least in the United States, it wasn’t until the late 1800s that
governments began to engage in significant socially benevolent and regulatory activities for
altruistic reasons (Reed, n.d.). The role of the United States federal government in addressing
social problems through such activities expanded dramatically with the progressive programs
and regulations of the early 1900s, 1930s, 1960s and 1970s. Similarly, while the history of
wealthy business people engaging in charity reaches far back into antiquity, the notion that
businesses as organizations should themselves engage in charity only began to emerge in the
mid-1800s (Soskis, 2010), and the idea that businesses have social responsibilities extending
beyond charity only surfaced in the 1950s (Carroll, 1999).
While this cursory review may seem to suggest that there is a natural and unstoppable evolution
away from primary responsibility being held by individuals and voluntary associations
(including religion), toward primary responsibility being held by governments and businesses,
such a view is too simplistic. Various social movements and counter movements have
increasingly called into question the scope of government’s responsibility for addressing social
problems. Notable among these movements in the United States have been the anti-tax
movement of the late 1970s, the “Reagan revolution” of the 1980s, and the emergence of the Tea
Party at the end of the past decade. Paradoxically, the reduction in the growth of government in
the 1980s had the effect of increasingly turning the attention of progressive social movements
toward business, and helped strengthen support for the concept of social responsibility.
If governments are unable to raise new revenues in the future, their ability to address social
issues through programmatic initiatives will likely be increasingly limited, particularly
considering increased social welfare expenditures as baby boomers age. Similarly, the likelihood
of significantly expanding government regulation of business in the face of strong conservative
representation in government seems unlikely, at least in the United States, and might even grow
to such an extent that the social regulatory programs of the past fifty-plus years could begin to be
dismantled as well.
Should government social and regulatory programs be significantly scaled back, will this lead to
further demands on corporations in the form of new expectations of corporate citizenship? Or
will such expectations themselves reach a limit, or even begin to be reversed? If such a
dismantling occurs with respect to business and/or government, however, the social problems
will not go away. Society would have to decide how to increasingly allocate responsibility for
addressing these problems to voluntary associations, religious organizations, individuals,
families, and more local levels of government. One suspects that opposition to governments
and/or corporations assuming more responsibilities for these issues has not been accompanied by
much consideration of which institutions should correspondingly take on greater responsibility.
Failure to consider these questions could lead to increased individual suffering and societal
disruption if other institutions with the collective capability of adequately addressing the issues
are not assigned this responsibility.
For business and society scholars, this question of perceived responsibility for addressing social
problems is an important one. Asking students to consider what responsibilities businesses have
for addressing social issues has been a primary topic in our courses. As suggested earlier, our
emphasis on this topic has presumably had an effect on students’ attitudes regarding the social
responsibilities of corporations. But what affect has it had, if any, on students’ views of the
responsibilities of governments, various types of non-governmental organizations, and on
individuals and families? We may never know what past effects our attention to CSR has had,
since this question has not been investigated. But unless we determine how to explore this topic,
and begin to do so, we will never know what broad effects our teaching and research is having,
let alone whether these impacts benefit society.
Literature Review
The most closely related area of research in the business and society field would appear to be
that of Kenneth Aupperle’s work on “corporate social responsibility orientation” (Aupperle,
1984; Aupperle, et. al, 1985). This work, based on Carroll’s three-dimensional concept of
corporate social responsibility (Carroll, 1979), developed a ten-question forced-choice
instrument. The instrument examines respondents’ perceptions of the relative importance of the
four CSR categories suggested by Carroll: economic, legal, ethical and discretionary/
philanthropic. This instrument has been used by many scholars investigating topics related to
CSR. Aupperle later collaborated with others to extend this work beyond business to various
types of non-governmental organizations (Acar, et. al, 2001).
Since proposed governmental involvement is often disputed by claims that other institutions
should instead bear this responsibility, we would expect to see this topic treated in the political
science literature. A search of Google Scholar identifies a number of articles relating to this
topic. These studies have tended to focus on how the news media frames emerging public issues
such as obesity (Lawrence, 2004), breast cancer (Brown, et. al, 2001), and gun violence (Haltom
& McCann, 2010). Lawrence (2004) suggests that who is responsible for causing unfortunate
events or problems relates to the responsibility for solving the problems. Frames that emphasize
individual causation tend to attribute solution responsibility to individuals, while frames that
suggest systemic causes tend to attribute solution responsibility to government and business. A
related study from the field of psychology examines the relationship between framing an issue as
either an individual or societal responsibility, respondents’ locus of control, and the
persuasiveness of messages regarding the issue (Kong, 2007).
While media framing of responsibilities for solving social problems may help shape public
opinion regarding which institutions should address these issues, the number of issues that have
been studied is relatively limited. In addition, we have so far found no studies specifically
examining individuals preferences for assigning responsibilities for multiple issues to different
institutions. Having such information could be beneficial on several fronts.
First, it could give policy makers guidance regarding general levels of support for different areas
of public policy. Second, a series of such studies might provide insight into the volatility of
preferences for assigning responsibility to different institutions. Such information might better
inform efforts to gain support for different public policies. Third, awareness of the nature of
preferences might be helpful in framing public discussion of how to address social issues.
Should research reveal that although a social problem is deemed important to address, it is not
perceived as important to assign responsibility for it to any institution, individuals might be
prompted to reassess their preferences. Finally such information could be useful in courses in
government, social problems, mass communication, public relations, as well as business and
society. Accordingly, we suggest that a research instrument should be developed to study this
question.
Toward an Instrument for Assessing Institutional Social Responsibility Orientation
Ideally, an effective instrument assessing individual preferences in allocating responsibility for
addressing social problems could help provide the following types of understanding, either alone
or as one part of a study in conjunction with other data collection instruments.





Preferences for the relative allocation of responsibility for different social issues to
different institutions, or to no institution at all.
Perceptions of the relative importance of social responsibilities in relation to other
responsibilities of each institution.
Preferences for different general ways in which a given institution could address an issue;
e.g., government regulation vs. government programs vs. government subsidies. (This is
to some extent what Aupperle’s CSRO instrument addresses for the business sector).
Perceptions of the relative importance of society addressing different social issues,
regardless of institution.
Peoples’ logic for preferences in allocating more responsibility to one institution than
another. For instance, is perceived responsibility for addressing a problem related to the
level at which the problem was caused, to the perceived cost to the individual, or to
demographic factors such as age, gender, race, income, residence, religion, political
ideology, party affiliation/voting behavior, personal involvement (donations, time), or
family status
We intend to work on developing an initial version of such an instrument over the coming
months, and hope to be able to collect some initial data using this version, utilizing a student
sample. Should this proposal be accepted for discussion, we will bring this draft version and
data to the session to further advance discussion of this research idea. Our hope is that
acceptance of this proposal for inclusion in a discussion session would not only contribute to the
development of this instrument and research project, but would help initiate a new and valuable
area of investigation by business and society researchers and educators.
Reference List
Acar, W., Aupperle, K. E., & Lowy, R. M. (2001). An empirical exploration of measures of
social responsibility across the spectrum of organizational types.International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 9(1), 26-57.
Aupperle, K. E. (1984). An empirical measure of corporate social orientation.Research in
corporate social performance and policy, 6, 27-54.
Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. (1985). An empirical examination of the
relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of management
Journal, 28(2), 446-463.
Brown, P., Zavestoski, S. M., McCormick, S., Mandelbaum, J., & Luebke, T. (2001). Print
media coverage of environmental causation of breast cancer.Sociology of health and
illness, 23(6), 747-775.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy
of management review, 4(4), 497-505.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility evolution of a definitional
construct. Business & society, 38(3), 268-295.
Haltom, W., & McCann, M. (2010). Litigation, Reputation, and Vilification How Gun Activists
Cannot Lose for Winning. Paper presented at the Western Political Science Association, San
Francisco, CA.
Kong, Y. (2007). The impact of the individual’s locus of control on message
persuasiveness. (Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University).
Lawrence, R. G. (2004). Framing Obesity: The Evolution of News Discourse on a Public Health
Issue. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 9(3), 56-75.
Reed, P. N. (n.d.). Social welfare history, uncp.edu/home/marson/348_history.html Accessed
December 16, 2013.
Soskis, B. (2010). The pre- and early history of American corporate philanthropy, Working
Paper #3, History of Corporate Responsibility Project, Center for Ethical Business Cultures,
University of St. Thomas Opus College of Business, Minneapolis, MN.