University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

392
Donna Woods (Wood , 1991) uses both the models definitions of Carroll and of
Wartick & Cochran to propose an evolution of the social model of the organization’s
performance, arguing that the model to insert the social responsibility in the
organization should possess 3 dimensions (see Figure 11): the first dimension of
principles; the second, of processes and the third, of results. This third dimension of
results may have a function similar to the social politics dimension defined for
Wartick & Cochran. For Wood, the corporate social responsibility would be a
consequence of the principles of the organization to its social responsibility. In this
context, these principles will be reflected through the processes of the organization
and might be analyzed through the results given by the organization.
Woods still increases this model proposal the relationships of the organization, in its
different contexts of performance. These relationships are: the responsibility of the
organization to the society (social contract), the responsibility of the organization to
the products and services offered and, lastly, the responsibility of the organization to
the individuals that work in it (Figure 12).
Figure 12: Woods’ Model of Corporate Social Responsibility
Source: (Wood , 1991)
Another model that complements this vision regarding the integral management of
the corporate social responsibility is the integral model of Wilber (Wilber, 1997),
(Varey , 2008), (Varey, 2008b), known as AQAL (All quadrants All Levels). This
model indicates that the concepts and definitions used by the organization in relation
to the corporate social responsibility has to include 4 performance quadrants (see
Figure 13); these 4 quadrants have to be treated jointly so that the organization could
put itself in the corporate social responsibility road.