The social responsibility of business is the subject of four main theories: political theory, instrumental theory, ethical theory, and integrative theory. In instrumental theory, the company is regarded as an income-generating mechanism and social businesses are only ways of achieving economic results. Political theory is interested in the influence of companies in the community and a mature use of political dominance. The inclusive theory is about how the company focuses on meeting social demands (Garriga, Elisabet, and Domenec Mele).
The ethical theory is based on the doctrines that emphasize the appropriate actions to take or the requirement to bring about a great community.
The theory I support the most is the instrumental theory because it mostly concentrates on creating and multiplying the wealth of everyone involved in the business within the ethical customs and legal framework of the country. Instrumental theories are widely accepted among businessmen where they insist that creation of wealth continuously dominates the managerial conception of responsibility. The instrumental theories are subdivided into three groups. The first one concentrates on maximizing the value of the shareholder, which is quantified by the share price; the actions in this group lead to an orientation of profits in the short term. The second one centers on the critical target of gaining a competitive advantage; an action that produces profits in the long-term. In both cases, corporate social responsibility is simply a matter of liberal self-interest since they are just profit instruments. The third group is analogous to marketing that is cause-related and extremely proximate to the second one.
Further research could analyze these theories and their connection in the most appropriate theories and consider their limitations and contributions. What seems most challenging, however, is developing a fresh theory that would conquer these limitations.
Garriga, Elisabet, and Domènec Melé. “Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping The Territory”. Journal of Business Ethics, vol 53, no. 1/2, 2004, pp. 51-71. Springer Nature, doi:10.1023/b:busi.0000039399.90587.34.