• Academy ol Managemeni Review. 1986 Vol. 11. No. 4. 815-827.

Strategic Management of the

Socially Responsible Firm:
Integrating Management and
Marketing Theory
KEITH B. MURRAY
Northeastern University
JOHN R. MONTANARI
Arizona State University
Corporate social responsibility is conceptualized as a "product" offered
to key publics of the firm. A model is proposed that integrates the
content and process considerations of social responsibility using a
"marketing" orientation. This approach is designed to increase the
firm's relative competitive advantage and enhance the benefits of
socially responsive behaviors.

Corporate social responsibility has attracted
considerable attention during the past three
decades. However, discussions of social respon-
sibility have, for the most part, been very limited
in scope (Alexander & Buchholz, 1978; Carroll,
1979; Edmunds, 1977; Fitch, 1976; Ford & Mc-
Laughlin, 1981; Gate wood & Carroll, 1981; Good-
paster & Matthews, 1982; Keim, 1978; Miller &
Sturdivant, 1977; Rudd, 1981; Sethi, 1975; Shocker
& Sethi, 1973;Tuzzolino&Armandi, 1981; Zenisek,
1979). Little consideration has been given to the
development of a corporate social responsibility
framework that integrates both con fen ^ and pro-
cess concepts. Therefore, management is ham-
pered by the lack of a paradigm which addresses
both the "what" and the "how" of social corpo-
rate behavior. Futhermore, although manage-
ment scholars recognize that corporate social
responsibility has strategic implications for the
firm, few have focused on the interdependent
and dynamic relationships among the firm and
the relevant actors in its social environment. This
paper explores the dimensions of the social re-
sponsibility paradigm and develops a theoretical
framework for management to use for planning,
implementing, and controlling social responsibil-
ity activities.
To accomplish this objective, social responsi-
bility management will be viewed as the man-
agement of exchanges between the firm and its
environment. This perspective proposes the "mar-
keting concept" as a management heuristic to
guide the decisions and actions of the socially
responsible firm. Thus, social responsibility man-
agement is seen as a form of product manage-
ment that strives to determine appropriate corpo-
rate behavior with respect to its moral, ethical,
and social obligations, both within and outside
of the firm. The social responsibility manage-
ment perspective put forth here is consistent with
Drucker's (1974) argument that the marketing
department would be the natural organizational
unit to assess what social impact the firm can
have. However, he stops short of developing

815
a theoretical framework to operationalize his
idea. Such a framework is presented in subse-
quent sections of this article.
Definition oi
Corporate Social Responsibility
The topic of the social responsibilities of busi-
ness has been a subject of intense controversy
and interest for three decades. In part, this debate
is an outgrowth of different definitions of "social
responsibility." A wide variety of definitions have
been proposed. These definitions emphasize dif-
fering dimensions of a firm's socially responsive
activities. A sample of such activities includes:
profit-making only (Friedman, 1962); going beyond
profit-making (Backman, 1975; Davis, 1960); going
beyond economic/legal requirements (McGuire,
1963); voluntary activities (Manne & Wallich,
1972); economic, legal, and voluntary activities
(Steiner, 1972); concentric, ever-widening circles of
influence (Committee for Economic Development,
1971; Davis & Blomstrom, 1975); concern for the
broader social system (Eells & Walton, 1961);
responsibility in a number of social problem
areas (Hay, Gray, & Gates, 1976); giving way to
social responsiveness (Ackerman & Bauer, 1976;
Sethi, 1975); and doing what society and the cus-
tomer pays us for (Drucker, 1977). Since business
receives its legitimation from society, the definition
employed here is: A socially responsible firm is
one that accomplishes—and is perceived to
accomplish—the desired ends of society in terms
of moral, economic, legal, ethical, and discre-
tionary expectations.
Strategic Relevance of
Corporate Social Responsibility
Strategic management scholars and practition-
ers recognize that decisions regarding the fund-
ing level and the benefactors of socially respon-
sive corporate projects are the domain of the
firm's top decision makers (Elkins, 1977; Carroll,
1979; Keim, 1978). Strategic management litera-
ture suggests that there are several diverse
816
motives for the organization to enter into social
responsibility activities. In some instances, man-
agement merely has capitulated to social and
governmental pressures ( Fritsche & Ehler, 1982;
Slatter, 1980). In contrast, a survey of Fortune
500 executives revealed that many CEOs believed
that corporate social action was in the long-run,
self-interest of the firm (Ostlund, 1977). Other
studies indicated that managerial ego satisfac-
tion (Elkins, 1977) and the dictates of "corporate
morality" (Goodpaster & Matthews, 1982) also
act to motivate socially responsive actions.
Regardless of the precipitating factors or the
decision makers' motivations, corporate social
responsibility actions have long-range strategic
implications that influence the successful opera-
tion of the firm (Drucker, 1954). Many utility
companies, for example, have strong consumer
resistance to the building of nuclear power plants,
resulting in costly litigation, long construction
delays, and large cost overruns. Compared to
foreign firms, the failure of the utility industry to
anticipate and address this resistance has had a
profound effect on utility firms' ability to main-
tain cost-effective, state-of-the-art generating
facilities in the U. S. On the one hand, social
responsibility actions could preclude or minimize
restrictive government action; social programs
likewise might decrease adverse public reaction
and opinion toward business. On the other hand,
social responsibility actions of the firm hold the
potential for promoting positive acceptance of
the organization, thus increasing its competitive
position in relationship to its industry rivals.
Social Responsibility Models
Given the strategic importance of social re-
sponsibility considerations to the firm, it is criti-
cal that conceptually meaningful and practically
useful models exist to provide the needed guid-
ance in social responsibility management. To
date, no single, comprehensive model has been
developed to guide top-level decision makers in
the integration of social responsibility manage-
ment into the overall strategic management of
 the firm. This contention is supported by the fol-
lowing brief review of the social responsibility
content and process literature.
Sethi (1975; 1979) viewed corporate responses
in terms of the environmental context of corpo-
rate behavior. His taxonomy theoretically ad-
dressed the content of the interactions between
the firm and its social environment but failed to
discuss the decision processes involved in this
information exchange. Zenisek (1979) proposed
a model for analyzing social responsibility action
in terms of environmental demands, manage-
rial attitudes, and organizational behaviors. Car-
roll (1979) constructed a three-dimensional model
of corporate performance, while Tuzzolino and
Armandi (1981) proposed a need-hierarchy frame-
work for assessing social responsibility. These
authors made a contribution to the knowledge
base by specifying content dimensions of social
responsibility. However, their formulations are
primarily taxonomies. Therefore, they fail to pro-
vide guidelines to manage the social responsibil-
ity process in organizations.
Process-oriented theories are fewer in number
and less specific than content-oriented models.
Edmunds (1977), for example, discussed process
considerations associated with participative deci-
sion structure and social decision process flow.
However, additional clarification relative to how
actual implementation would occur is needed
before his formulations can be applied in an
organizational setting. Keim (1978) provided a
theoretical description of a socially responsible
portfolio investment strategy for the socially ori-
ented firm. His discussion addressed resource
allocation issues for private versus public goods
but provided little insight into the management
of the socially responsive firm. The most sophisti-
cated process-oriented approach to social respon-
sibility functions was provided by Shocker and
Sethi (1973). Their model attempted to incorpo-
rate societal preferences in the development of
corporate action strategies. However, their model
presupposes a universal set of social responsibil-
ity objectives for all firms. The assumptions of
noncontingent social and ethical demand appear
817
to deny the complex and dynamic nature of the
social environment faced by most modern or-
ganizations.
In sum, the literature for social responsibility
theory is dominated by studies espousing one of
two perspectives, process or content. It is argued
here that both perspectives should be incorpo-
rated mto a single paradigm. Crawford and
Gram (1978) indirectly supported such an ap-
proach by viewing socially responsive behavior
of the firm in terms of interorganizational trans-
actions with its publics. Drucker (1974) also sup-
ported the need for an integrative perspective.
He argued that two key aspects of managing
social responsibility are the identification of the
social impact of the firm and dealing with this
impact. This implies knowing what to look for
and making decisions about how to manage
what you have found. The exchange perspec-
tive for social responsibility management is
based on recognizing the dynamic relationships
between the firm and its environment rather than
thinking in terms of the static descriptions pre-
viously presented in the literature. The concep-
tual model developed here will attempt to build
a sound, yet pragmatic approach to social respon-
sibility management.
Marketing Approach to
Responsible Corporate Management
The major tenet of the approach proposed in
this article is that corporate social policies and
behavior are amenable to analysis as a "product"
which is offered implicitly by the firm to its vari-
ous publics and is, therefore, the focus of an
exchange process between the firm and society.
This can be conceptualized as a marketing ap-
proach to responsive management (MARM).
The concept of corporate social responsibility
as a product follows from the notion that society
is the set of actual and potential markets for all of
the goods and/or services rendered by the firm.
The range of products of the firm could be ex-
tended to include all positive or negative social
goods (e.g., ecological-environmental by-prod-
ucts or philanthropic contributions) or services
(e.g., hiring or occupational safety practices) typi-
cally associated with a corporation's social re-
sponsibility activities.
The use of a product approach to social respon-
sibility modeling addresses a heretofore ambigu-
ous management issue. Outside of a "product"
context, management perspectives largely have
failed to establish social responsibility considera-
tions in the profit and loss context that is familiar
to most firms. This approach does not argue that
the moral justifications for socially responsive
actions should be discounted. Rather, it posits
that, in addition to doing something "for society"
(Drucker, 1977), socially responsive projects can
be evaluated and justified on a cost-effectiveness
basis. The failure to supplement the moral justifi-
cation for social responsibility with economic con-
siderations may be why many corporate execu-
tives view social responsiveness as a strictly
"nonproductive cost." This reflects a short-term
perspective that, in the long run, is probably
neither accurate nor prudent. Viewed as a pro-
duct, social responsibility begins to take on the
properties associated with more conventional
goods and services. That is, it can be managed
based on its role in the operation of the firm and
its impact on the success of the firm in the market-
place.
Social Responsiveness Morality
and the Marketing Concept
A topic as value-laden as organizational social
responsibility is capable of generating consider-
able debate as to its advisability and related mer-
its (e.g., "Leaders of Firms," 1971; Legro, 1971;
Levitt, 1970; Rockefeller, 1971). To incorporate
social-environmental policy into the formal stra-
tegic plan of the firm is to invite objections from
both prosocial responsibility advocates as well
as those who favor a more neutral, or indifferent,
position with respect to specific social policies.
On the one hand, some would argue that social
programs of business are antithetical to sound
business practices and hinder the pursuit of
profits. Levitt (1970), for example, proposed that
the goal of business is to generate profit and that
818
social responsibility is the function of govern-
ment. On the other hand, prosocial proponents
might be skeptical, suggesting that if a firm's
social responsibility policy were solely a func-
tion of the marketplace and the strategic inter-
ests of the firm, then any resulting program may
be defined narrowly and engaged in merely to
serve the financial and strategic interests of the
firm. Both of these extreme views fail to capture
the interdependence of the organization and its
eco-social environment. Furthermore, these per-
spectives ignore the notion that marketing, as
proposed by the MARM model, serves the inter-
ests of both the organization and its publics
(Sweeney, 1972).
Ultimately, the focus of marketing is on the
determinants, structure, and performance of the
processes which evolve to facilitate exchanges
required among interdependent producing and
consuming units in the social system. From a
social system perspective, exchange transactions
(e.g., production of goods and services by the
firm for consumption, validation, and legitimiza-
tion of the firm by society) are the natural result
of an inherent need for exchange among interde-
pendent members of society (Arndt, 1979). It is
marketing processes which promote an effective
and efficient resolution of society's needs (Bartels,
1968). Indeed, Drucker (1954) argued that it "is
management's public responsibility to make
whatever is genuinely in the public good become
the enterprise's own self-interest" (p. 390).
Does a systematic appraisal of the strategic
interests of the firm taint, or preclude serving,
the best interests of the firm's publics? Probably
not, since a careful assessment of the long-range
strategic interests of the firm are irretrievably
intertwined with the long-range interests of the
firm's ecosocial environment. That is, the disre-
gard of the prevailing social morality is not in
the long-run interests of the firm. The social
responsibility marketing concept, as represented
in the MARM approach, provides an effective
methodology to assess all of the needs of the
firm's publics, especially the need for social
morality in exchange relationships. The MARM
 model—like education and govemment—is not
something that is done to consumers or publics
by strategic planners and managers, but de-
scribes a process which is participated in collec-
tively by thoughtful and informed publics and
organizations. Contrary to advocating the ad-
vancement of the firm at the expense of constitu-
ent groups, the MARM approach explicitly seeks
to maximize the exchange relationships which
flow from a dynamic view of social reality:
From this perspective "social responsibility" is not
an obligation imposed on marketing, but an inher-
ent asp>ect of the nature of marketing; not a ra-
tionalization for marketing activity, but a reason
for marketing activity. The issue of social responsi-
bility is not how an organization can employ a
technology without violating socially imposed
constraints, but what kinds of organizations em-
ploying what kinds of technology will most effec-
tively meet the consumption needs and carry out
the basic goals and values of a social system.
Stated differently, if marketing is recognized as
an effective instrument of society, then there would
be no perceived difference between the goals and
values of the marketing system and those of soci-
ety in general. Marketing activity would not be
considered exploitive behavior, but as a medium
through which society's values are fulfilled.
(Sweeney, 1972, p. 8).
Thus, the firm which employs the MARM ap-
proach to incorporate social responsibility into
its strategic planning would not ask "what kinds
of activities can this firm get away with?" or "how
can constituent publics be indoctrinated to be-
lieve that this firm is managed in a responsible
and socially prudent manner?" Instead, the firm
would ask "what kinds of organizational activi-
ties will have the greatest positive impact on
fulfilling society's goals, values, and needs?" It
is only in addressing these considerations that
the firm can engender the long-term support and
legitimization of its social environment.
The planning and behavior of many public
and nonprofit organizations exemplify an MAFIM
onentation. To formalize this process for busi-
ness firms is to transpose what other types of
organizations do implicitly. For example, local
governments must, at some point, be responsive
to their environments or new officials are em-
819
powered. School boards must govern their orga-
nizations in a manner that directly solicits the
legitimation of the greater social environment.
Health-care institutions show increasing sophisti-
cation in incorporating the interests of the social
environment with those of the firm in their for-
mal strategic planning and operation.
Social Responsibility Marketing Concept
The marketing approach to a responsive man-
agement model is predicated on a business phi-
losophy which focuses on the "marketing con-
cept," in contrast to a selling philosophy or a
production philosophy. These philosophies
are described in Table 1 in terms of important
social responsibility dimensions.
A selling philosophy, briefly, is characterized
by an almost exclusive emphasis on promoting
a good or service for which the customer lacks a
recognized need and interest; a production phi-
losophy is predicated on the notion that the firm
operates best when it engages in the most effi-
cient production process, providing goods and
services at the least possible cost.
The MARM philosophy focuses on providing
long-run social benefit as a key to attracting and
holding customers and societal support. Com-
pared to a selling or production orientation, this
market-oriented philosophy espouses that a key
task of the organization is to determine the needs,
wants, interests, and moral expectations of tar-
get publics and to adapt the organization to deliv-
ering the desired satisfactions more effectively
and efficiently than its competitors. The firm
should do this in a way that preserves or en-
hances the consumer's and society's well-being
(Kotler, 1980).
In seeking societal support, the firm should
apply an integrated marketing approach that first
identifies various publics of the firm and then
addresses the important social morality needs of
these groups within the framework of the four
"Ps" (product, price, place/distribution, pro-
motion) of marketing. This philosophy is based
on the notion that the publics of the company
can be grouped into different segments depend-
 0
0
cn 0) > $ .2 a
C g c o c -
O B ^ -5. C -"
C 0) O r-
c >0 o -5
D
0 >• d)
It 0 "? o
o o b g O -p; i ^ 3
O
"Q.
E
IH
C
tn
Q)
O
»-
O
iS
sDi §c
CO O
- U C >- C Tl
S SI o 2 S
0 ^3 (B

I 1 3 JJ
•s;
>3 c
D o

^
011 ^a I
<^ f l CO O -J^
^ 8
a s-c 8
6 cn Tl D
cn
D c o 0 ^ .gj M
0

in a -a u :ess. a^s^ i; — y cn
n O C 0 0
-a ^
u
3 tn ^ tn c
c
DJ Q*
tn 0 m
D 'o Cn 5 D
C O w X n 0 D
c

I II '^ I I g'
^

U ^
t
S- tn

D C

CO
S i - C
O .S
.^ 0 » .... 0

c M P oc o 5 5 P> c . 5 g C tn
D o to 2 h o ^ 0 ^ 0 iZ
0
C IS t i 3 P S
— CO

I e £ 81 2 - 6 '^^-„ to S -
TJ •£ 'to
_Q 0 t;
a
o
to " 0 0 ^ S 3 .d
O XI 0 o B 0 &• •2. g
.a •£ .2 ^
0
u
S 0 'I a
. . 0
a
a >
XI
--• In SI
I D
a
u
C D 0
to ^
1a CO
U 0 "• S 0 U .
HT.
0 2 - j ^ 0 — .S"
S^ § 3 2
3
^
.S ^ -o 2 0 p. ^
S
g .2 >, T3 t:
c o
q | a Q.
.S .2 g
Ol g . T5 8 l
y 3 t 5 "0 0*- ..C
"" — -
3 5 ^ ^
2 _^ ^ °-§ 0 a
a, 0 •== ;::3 fe " I) to
•£ "o Q; (/] Ufl m ^ -2 u
•5 0 -^ Q) D i-i

o
a
8
2
D
o
O
C3
6
I
820
ing on their social responsibility interests and
needs, and that these publics will support those
organizations that satisfy their societal interests.
In sum, the MARM philosophy posits that soci-
etal support is directly related to a firm's recogni-
tion and anticipation of societal needs and its
ability to tailor socially responsive actions to meet
those needs.
The strategic implications of MAFIM are also
noteworthy. MARM provides a firm with the
opportunity to achieve a preeminent industry
pxjsition (regardless of size) in exerting societal
influence through its social responsibility contri-
butions and leadership. This stature could have
potentially important strategic ramifications in
terms of attracting personnel and providing the
company with a highly visible and attractive pub-
lic profile. Thus, a positive social image would
serve to influence such strategic considerations
as recruitment capacity, investment trends, staff
morale, and similar factors.
The MARM Model
The model herein proposed addresses criti-
cisms of content (Carroll, 1979; Sethi, 1975, 1979;
Tuzzolino & Armandi, 1981; Zenisek, 1979) and
process (Edmunds, 1977; Keim, 1978; Shocker &
Sethi, 1973) of several previously discussed
models. Specifically, the MARM model incorpo-
rates both the process and content aspects of
social responsibility in organizations. The corpo-
rate social responsibility process proposed here
is a systematic application of a societal market
approach. The content of the corporate social
responsibility program can be determined only
after the firm has engaged the initial stage of the
MARM process which identifies the relevant pub-
lics and their social responsibility expectations.
Therefore, the MARM model describes how the
contingent social responsibility context is deter-
mined and acted on. In other words, the model
outlines a n approach to identifying the relevant
societal issues (content) confronting a particular
firm and the specific sequence of events (process)
that constitutes the application of the model. An
821
illustration of the MARM model is shown in Fig-
ure 1.
This blending of content and process elements
was anticipated by Drucker (1954) thirty years
ago:
No one but the management of each particular
business can decide what the objectives in the
area of public responsibibty should be. . . . Objec-
tives in this area, while extremely tangible, have
to be set according to the social and political con-
ditions which affect each individual enterprise and
are affected by it, on the basis of the beliefs of
each management. It is this that makes the area
so important; for in it managers go beyond the
confines of their own little world and participate
responsibly in society. But the overriding goal is
common for every business: to strive to make
whatever is productive for our society, whatever
strengthens it and advances its prosperity, a
source of strength, prosperity and profit for the
enterprise (p. 82).
An additional tenet of the MARM theoretical
framework is that it assigns managerial account-
ability for social responsibility activities to the
marketing department of the firm rather than to
the staff departments that traditionally have
taken it on as an additional duty. Under the mar-
keting function umbrella, social responsiveness
assumes a market orientation. Thus, socially
responsive projects can benefit from the mar-
keter's arsenal of competitive methodologies, for
example, capabilities for cost accounting (Jackson
& Ostrom, 1980; Mossman, Fischer, & Crissy,
1974), market research, and promotion, to name
only a few. As Drucker (1974) argued, the meth-
odologies and techniques employed in routine
environmental data collection by the typical mar-
keting department makes this unit the logical
choice in which to locate the social responsibility
function.
Identifying Product-Markets
First, it IS important for the firm to identify rele-
vant societal values, attitudes, needs, desires,
interests, and to identify the firm's important
publics. Referred to as social responsibility "pro-
duct-markets," these publics may be conceptual-
ized as social interest groups. Relevant social
 Control

r
1
Determine
Identify
Product/
1 Strategic
Social Strategic Im-
Markets 1 Objectives plications of
1 Environment

1 i

\r 1
1
Determine 1
Identify
Social Res-
I
0
Mktg Mix
1
ponsibility
S& W I
1 i i

1r 1
Determination 1 Identify Monitor
and Implemen- 1^ Publids) Impact
tation of Soc- Response on
ial Activities 1 Measures Publids)
1

Marketing
Orientation
I I
Implementation

Figure 1. Continuous management model of social responsibility activities.

product-market groups also may be composed
of a cross-section of the population, individuals
unified by similar values, attitudes, or interests
about specific social issues.
In a general context, the identification of social
responsibility product-markets is a process of seg-
menting the sociopolitical environment into dis-
tinct expectation and value groups, or publics.
Each value group, then, can be associated with
particular needs, problems, and potential strate-
gic threats to the firm. In a more restricted sense,
relevant groups may include publics composed

822
 of employees, environmental groups, consumer-
action organizations, community residents, so-
cially conscious investors, as well as a wide vari-
ety of others. This identification process is car-
ried out in a number of ways, including the use
of marketing research techniques, general and
historical information available to the firm, and
managenal judgment.
This step in the MARM model recognizes that
the firm operates in an environment composed
of a wide variety of important and overlapping
publics with differing social morality expectations
that are of varying degrees of strategic impor-
tance to the firm. This step implies that a univer-
sal approach to social responsibility will not be
as effective in providing a strategic advantage
relative to other firms in the same social environ-
ment. Neither will a universal approach neces-
sarily address the specific interests of constituent
publics.
The identification of social responsibility pro-
duct-markets is a process of segmenting the socio-
political environment into distinct groups, or
publics. Subsequently, each group can be asso-
ciated with particular needs, problems, and
potential strategic threats to the firm. Groups may
include social publics composed of employees,
environmental groups, consumer-action organi-
zations, residents in the community, socially con-
scious investors, as well as a wide variety of
others. This identification process is carried out
in a number of ways, including the use of mar-
keting research techniques, general and histori-
cal information available to the firm, and mana-
gerial judgment. At this stage, it is important to
be as complete as possible m identifying social
responsibility product-markets so that key social
elements to the strategic success of the firm are
not overlooked.
Determining the Marketing Mix Variables
Subsequent to the identification of relevant
markets for the firm's social responsibility activi-
ties, it IS necessary to specify the marketing mix
variables to be associated with each relevant
public.
823
Product. This marketing element defines the
sp>ecific social responsibility activities that will
favorably address the needs, desires, and wants
of each relevant market segment. This aspect of
the MARM paradigm is consistent with Drucker
(1954):
The first responsibility which management owes
to the enterprise in respect to public opinion, pol-
icy and law is to consider such demands made
by society on the enterprise (or likely to be made
within the near future) as may affect attainment
of its business objectives. It is management's job
to find a way to convert these demands from
threats to, or restrictions on, the enterprise's free-
dom of action into opportunities for sound growth,
or at least to satisfy them with the least damage to
the enterprise (p. 384).
Offerings by the firm should focus on important
social morality issues that can be addressed by
the firm and may include such actions as energy
conservation, supporting local charities, engag-
ing in fair hiring practices, sponsoring employee-
community health programs, or contributing to
the fine arts. Initially, all economic, legal, and
discretionary corporate responsibilities should be
reviewed for each relevant public group.
Place. Distribution considerations (i.e., deter-
mination of the most appropriate channels
needed in the delivery of the socially responsive
activity) involve the determination of which and
how many of the firm's organizational units are
instrumental in providing the various social
responsibility offerings. The social responsibility
activity may suggest that corporate executives
and line management are the most appropriate
vehicles for delivering the activity. Or, the activ-
ity may dictate that the delivery vehicle should
be the operating units and staff personnel. In
many instances, both may be required to pro-
vide the socially responsible offerings. In the case
of corporate management, policy decisions or
investment strategies may be necessary (e.g.,
ecological impact of product processes, hiring
policy, and affirmative action). In the case of cor-
porate operations and staff personnel, various
manufacturing units may be affected, or specific
departments may be particularly prominent (e.g.,
the personnel department). Typically, a combi-
 nation of several organizational elements will
be associated with the delivery of social respon-
sibility activities. In any case, it is important to
identify these organizational units so that coordi-
nation issues can be addressed and managed.
Price. Although social responsibility product
offerings are not "sold" in the same sense that
more conventional goods and services are, it is,
nonetheless, theoretically possible to associate
costs with each social responsibility offering. The
"price" that both the firm "pays" (i.e., in terms of
short-term opportunity costs or profitability which
may be foregone) and the customer "pays" (i.e.,
higher prices on goods and services) needs to be
assessed. Only in this manner can a proper
determination be made about their relative value
in terms of satisfying the objectives of the firm.
Furthermore, objectives should be associated
with the social responsibility demands of spe-
cific publics (Drucker, 1974). Although it is not
currently possible to determine precisely the per-
ceived value to the public of a specific social
responsibility activity, it is possible to employ
market research techniques to assess public atti-
tudes toward the firm both before and after the
announcement and implementation of a socially
responsive endeavor. This information will pro-
vide baseline data to evaluate future projects on
the basis of cost to the firm versus returns on
important sociopolitical variables (i.e., cost vs.
benefit). Retum on investment measures are pos-
sible and may be useful in assessing the "costs"
to both the firm as well as relevant publics for
which the sociai responsibility products are
offered.
Promotion. Without properly disseminating
information about the social responsibility activi-
ties offered by the firm, much of the effect of such
activities is lost in terms of their positive impact
on strategic publics. Therefore, it is important to
translate the social responsiveness of the firm
into public information which will reinforce and
is consistent with the commitment of the firm to
the well-being of its relevant publics.
824
Determining and Implementing
Social Responsibility
After identification of relevant product-markets
and the appropriate marketing mix elements
associated with each, it is possible for a firm to
determine what will constitute the "line" of social
responsibility activities. This set of social respon-
sibility activities will be established on the basis
of technological feasibility, management capa-
city, cost-effectiveness, and strategic relevance.
Thus, the MARM model assists corporate execu-
tives in managing social responsibility activities
that address the interest of relevant publics in
(he context of their strategic relevance to the firm.
Implementing the
Social Responsibility Program
The conventional notion persists that the im-
plementation of social responsibility activities
is essentially an isolated event, occurring at a
fixed point in time. In contrast, the MARM model
calls for ongoing management involvement
with this strategic issue. In addition, the MARM
model shifts the operational responsibility for
social responsiveness to the marketing unit of
the firm, rather than to the planning or person-
nel functions. This shift provides for a perma-
nent locus for these types of strategic decisions
and assigns social responsibility policy determi-
nation to an operating unit rather than to a staff
unit. In addition, the marketing unit, with its stan-
dard methodologies and techniques for gather-
ing environmental data, is well suited for the
assessment of the social performance of the firm
(Drucker, 1974).
It is essential that the firm engaged in satisfy-
ing critical societal expectations monitor the
impact of its activities on key publics. Unique
social environmental dynamics exist for each
industry at any given point in time. Therefore, it
is important to identify accurate measures of pub-
lic response to socially responsible activities in
order to evaluate the impact of these policies
and practices. This assessment process would
involve a range of market research methods and
survey techniques which would provide valu-
able information to management. Another bene-
fit of ongoing data collection is the ability to evalu-
ate continuously the relative position of the firm
in the sociopolitical environment. The evalua-
tion process should reveal the success of the firm
in meeting the demands of its social and politi-
cal environment.
In the final analysis, the monitoring and eval-
uation processes lead to the control phase of
social responsibility management. With continu-
ous input regarding the effectiveness of the firm
in addressing the social responsibility expecta-
tions of key publics, alterations m the social
responsibility mix are possible. These alterations
are necessary because of the dynamic nature of
the firm's societal environment that will influence
the social responsibility objectives of the firm.
Figure 1 explicitly recognizes the three strategic
management aspects of planning, implementa-
tion, and evaluation/control contained in the
MARM model.
Clearly, aii societal needs and values cannot
be provided for by business, much less by a sin-
gle firm. Nonetheless, it is advantageous—both
from a societal and organizational perspective—
that firms explicitly recognize these social expec-
tations and address the inherent conflicts and
trade-offs which accompany a responsive ap-
proach to management. Instead of ignoring or
engaging capricious or arbitrary management
decision processes, the MARM model focuses
more directly on the idea that "the corporation
and society are interdependent. Hence the be-
havior of both—and their interaction—is to be
explained in terms of mutual goal achievements,
based upon underlying technical possibilities
and preferences that are altered over time"
(Preston, 1975, p. 446).
Corporations can address many societal ex-
pectations in a manner that is efficient and
effective, potentially increasing strategic respon-
825
siveness relative to the social environment. Here-
tofore, social responsibility activities of the firm
have been addressed within the limited context
of viewing the firm as placating general societal
demands. Typically, such an approach has been
described, for the most part, in a static and
descriptive fashion.
This paper attempts to show that social influ-
ence can be viewed as an exchange process,
whereby the firm can respond to specific publics
and social expectations in a direct and organ-
ized manner. The MARM model developed here
serves to maximize the social influence endeav-
ors of the firm and, at the same time, optimize
corporate social responsibility costs. This is ac-
complished by outlining a management process
that efficiently allocates corporate socially re-
sponsive resources.
Other benefits of the MARM model to the firm
include: a focus on proactively influencing the
social environment and increasing the strategic
options of the firm in a sociopolitical context; an
emphasis on quantification and measurement of
social responsibility management; and an as-
signment of an operational base, namely the
marketing unit. This base brings to bear the full
complement of marketing methodologies and
technologies that can be used to advance the
legitimation and long-run interests of the firm.
Social responsibility management is not a
one-time event, but rather an ongoing manage-
ment responsibility, which must be viewed as a
two-way, dynamic process. Social responsibility
management, as represented in the MARM
model, offers the firm added strategic advan-
tage and efficiencies through the corporate social
responsibility function. This conceptual model
merits further consideration and development to
ensure the effective management of social re-
sponsibility projects. Only by proving the merits
of such activities can social responsibility become
a common business practice that is embraced
by all organizations.
 References
Ackerman, R. W., & Bauer, R. A. (1975) Corporate social
responsiveness. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing.
Alexander, G. J., & Buchholz, R. A. (1978) Corporate social
responsibility and stock market performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 21, 479-486.
Arndt, ]. (1979) Toward a concept of domesticated markets.
Journal of Marketing, 43(4), 69-75.
Backman, J. (1975) Social responsibility and accountability.
New York: New York University Press.
Bartels, R. (1968) The general theory of marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 32(4), 29-33.
Carroll, A. B. (1979) A three-dimensional conceptual model
of corporate performance. Academy of Management
Review, 4, 497-505.
Committee for Economic Development. (1971) Social respon-
sibilities of business corporations. New York: Committee
for Economic Development.
Crawford, R. L, & Gram, H. A. (1978) Social responsibility
as interorganizational transaction. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 3, 880-888.
Davis, K. (1960) Can business afford to ignore social respon-
sibilities? Caij/ornia Managemenf fleview, 2(3), 70 — 76.
Davis, K., & Blomstrom, R. L. (1975) Business and society:
Environment and responsibility (3rd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Drucker, P. F. (1954) The practice o/managemenf. New York:
Harper & Row.
Drucker, P. F. (1974) Management: Tasks, resp>onsibilities,
practices. New York: Harper & Row.
Drucker, P. F. (1977) People and performance. New York:
Harper & Row.
Edmunds, S. W. (1977) Unifying concepts in social responsi-
bility. Academy of Management Review, 2, 38 — 45.
Eells, R., & Walton, C. (1961) Concep^uai foundations of
business. Homewood, LL: Irwin.
Elkins, A. (1977) Toward a positive theory of corporate social
involvement. Academy of Management Review, 2,
128-132.
Fitch, H. G. (1976) Achieving corporate social responsibility.
Academy of Management Review, 1, 38 — 46.
Ford, R., & McLaughlin, F. (1981) Defining corporate social
responsibility: A three group survey, fleview of Business
& Economic Research, 17(1), 72 — 77.
Friedman, M. (1962) Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
826
Fritsche, D. J., & Ehler, W. (1982) How 'ethical' investors
attempt to influence corporate social behavior. Business
Forum, 7(1), 19-25.
Gatewood, E., & Carroll, A. B. (1981) The anatomy of corpo-
rate social response: The Rely, Firestone 500, and Pinto
cases. Business Horizons, 24(5), 9—16.
Goodpaster, K. E., & Matthews, J. B. (1982) Can a corpora-
tion have a conscience? Harvard Business Review, 60(1),
132-141.
Hay, R. D., Gray, E. R., & Gates, ]. E. (1976) Business and
society. Cincinnati: Southwestern.
Jackson, D. W., Jr., & Ostrom, L. (1980) Grouping segments
for profitability analysis. Michigan State University Busi-
ness Topics, 28(2), 39-44.
Keim, G. (1978) Corporate social responsibility: An assess-
ment of the enlightened self-interest model. Academy of
Management Review, 3, 32—39.
Kotler, P. (1980) Principles of marketing. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Leaders of firms who pollute go to prison. (1971, April 19)
The Wall Street Journal, p. 23.
Legro, R. (1971, July 27) Ecology plus sabotage adds up to
bad news for polluting firms. The Wall Street Journal, p. 1.
Levitt, T. (1970) The dangers of social responsibility. In T.
Meloan, S. Smith, & J. Whecrtly (Eds.), Managerial market-
ing policies and decisions (pp. 461 -475). Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Manne, H., & Wallich, H. C. (1972) The modern corporation
and social responsibility. Washington, DC: American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
McGuire, J. W. (1963) Business and society. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Miller, K. E., & Sturdivant, F. D. (1977) Consumer responses
to socially questionable corporate behavior: An empirical
test. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(1), 1-7.
Mossman, F. H., Fischer, P. M., & Crissy, W.J.E. (1974) New
approaches to analyzing marketing profitability. Journal
of Marketing. 38(1), 43-48.
Ostlund, L. E. (1977) Attitudes of managers toward corporate
social responsibility. California Management Review, 19(4),
35-49.
Preston, L. E. (1975) Corporation and society: The search for
a paradigm. Journal of Economic Literature, 13, 434- 453.
Rockefeller, D. (1971, July 7) Environment: Beyond easy
answers. The Wall Street Journal, p. 10.
Rudd, A. (1981) Social responsibility and portfolio perior-
mance. California Management Review. 23(4), 55—61.
Sethi, C.F.S. (1975) Dimensions of corporate social perfor-
mance: An analytical framework. California Management
Review, 17(1), 58-64.
Sethi, C.F.S. (1979) A conceptual framework for envirorunen-
tal analysis of social issues and evaluation of business
response pattems. Academy of Management Review, 4,
63-74.
Shocker, A. D., & Sethi, P. S. (1973) An approach to incorpo-
rating societal preference in developing corporate action
strategies. California Management Review, 15(4), 97- 105.
Slatter, S. St. P. (1980) Strategic planning for public relations.
Long Range Planning. 13(3), 57-60.
Sweeney, D. (1972) Marketing: Management technology or
social process? Journal of Marketing, 36(4), 3—10.
Stemer, G. A. (1972) Social policies for business. California
Management Review, 15(2), 17-24.
Tuzzolino, F., & Armandi, B. R. (1981) A need-hierarchy for
assessing corporate social responsibility. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 6, 21-28.
Zenisek, T. J. (1979) Corporate social responsibility: A con-
ceptualization based on organizational literature. Academy
of Management Review, 4, 359—368.

Keith B. Murray is an Assistant Professor of Marketing

at Northeastern University. He received his Ph.D.
degree in marketing and strategic management from
Arizona State University. Correspondence regarding
this article may be sent to him at: Department of
Marketing, College of Business Administration, North-
eastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston.
MA 02115.
John R. Montanari is an Associate Professor of Man-
agement at Arizona State University. He received his
D.B.A. degree from the University of Colorado.

827