[{'type': 'p', 'content': 'Two lenses on who matters and who can be trusted CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) today is no longer a voluntary program that is hard to measure, because an entire ecosystem now shapes, guides, and judges it. There are standards and guidance such as the ISO family on social responsibility and governance practices, impact-oriented certifications such as B Corp, and global reference points from the United Nations in the form of principles, commitments, and development agendas. There are also ESG reporting standards that push companies to disclose impact data, along with ESG ratings and indexes that influence reputation, access to capital, and investor perception. Because CSR is increasingly observed through standards, audits, disclosure, and market benchmarks, the question is no longer simply whether a company does CSR or not. The question becomes what motive is driving it. That question matters even more in a tough economy. It is encouraging to see many business owners continue to practice CSR, but it is essential to understand what truly drives their choices.<o:p></o:p>'}, {'type': 'p', 'content': 'Behind every CSR program sits a belief system, even when leaders do not state it explicitly. Those beliefs show up in two classic debates in business theory. The first debate is shareholder theory versus stakeholder theory, which answers the question of who matters. Entrepreneurs shaped by shareholder theory tend to prioritize owners and profit first. In simple terms, this is the ego entrepreneur. Success is measured mainly by what returns to the owner. Entrepreneurs shaped by stakeholder theory prioritize a wider circle, including employees, customers, communities, and society. This is the socio entrepreneur. Success is measured not only by private gain, but by shared value. The point is not to judge, but to recognize that these orientations naturally produce different motives for CSR.<o:p></o:p> The second debate is agency theory versus stewardship theory, which answers the question of who can be trusted, and therefore how the organization should be designed. In agency theory, people are assumed to be self-interested, so they must be controlled. Leaders and employees are treated as agents who cannot be fully trusted, making monitoring and rules central. In stewardship theory, people are assumed capable of acting for the organization and the greater good. Leaders and employees are treated as stewards who can be trusted, making empowerment and responsibility central. In your organization, are people treated more like agents or more like stewards?<o:p></o:p>'}, {'type': 'p', 'content': 'When these two lenses are combined, they produce a four-quadrant map of CSR motives. This explains why CSR can look very different across companies, even when activities appear similar on the surface.<o:p></o:p>'}, {'type': 'p', 'content': 'Quadrant 1: Transactional calling<o:p></o:p>Transactional calling appears when an ego entrepreneur meets an agent-based system. CSR is dominated by a take-and-give logic. What does the company get, and what does it give. CSR is often linked to quick visibility, publicity, access, or regulatory convenience. Donations may still happen, but the logic is clear. CSR must pay back, directly or indirectly. This is not automatically immoral, because it can be pragmatic. The risk, however, is real. CSR becomes a short-term marketing tool rather than a long-term commitment.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Quadrant 2: Competitive calling<o:p></o:p>Competitive calling appears when an ego entrepreneur meets a steward-led system. Managers and employees may genuinely want to deliver high-quality CSR, but they must constantly prove that CSR supports performance. CSR is designed to strengthen brand, protect reputation, build customer loyalty, or reduce business risk. It becomes competitive because it must be justified as a strategic asset. The motive remains economic, but execution can be smarter, more integrated, and more sustainable than a purely transactional approach.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Quadrant 3: Philanthropy calling<o:p></o:p>Philanthropy calling appears when a socio entrepreneur meets an agent-based system. The owner or top leader cares about society, but the internal system still relies on control and compliance. CSR often shows up as charity, donations, relief programs, and short-term support, because these actions are easier to manage and monitor. It can be generous and meaningful, especially during crises, but it often stays at the level of relief rather than deep change. The risk is episodic CSR, strong when disasters hit and quiet when attention fades.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Quadrant 4: Transformational calling<o:p></o:p>Transformational calling appears when a socio entrepreneur meets a stewardship system. This is the highest-ambition form of CSR. The goal is not only to help, but to transform lives. CSR becomes capability building through education, health systems, livelihood strengthening, community infrastructure, empowerment, and partnerships that shift long-term outcomes. The organization becomes a channel of impact not only through money, but through skills, systems, and consistent commitment. Many societies long for this form of CSR because it does not only reduce pain, it increases dignity and expands opportunity.<o:p></o:p>'}, {'type': 'p', 'content': '<h2 style="font-size: 16pt; margin: 6pt 0cm; line-height: 32px; break-after: avoid; font-family: "Aptos Display", sans-serif; color: rgb(15, 71, 97);"></h2><h2 style="font-size: 16pt; margin: 6pt 0cm; line-height: 32px; break-after: avoid; font-family: "Aptos Display", sans-serif; color: rgb(15, 71, 97);"></h2><h2 style="font-size: 16pt; margin: 6pt 0cm; line-height: 32px; break-after: avoid; font-family: "Aptos Display", sans-serif; color: rgb(15, 71, 97);"></h2><h2 style="font-size: 16pt; margin: 6pt 0cm; line-height: 32px; break-after: avoid; font-family: "Aptos Display", sans-serif; color: rgb(15, 71, 97);">The second layer Four mindsets that power CSR</h2>The quadrant map explains CSR structurally through orientation and trust assumptions. The next layer explains CSR psychologically through leadership mindset. This is where the four intelligence mindsets help, because they explain why CSR can look different and still be reasonable.<o:p></o:p> The Thinker sees CSR as a logical consequence. A company survives through social license and stakeholder support, so when business activity creates negative impact, CSR becomes a legitimate mechanism to reduce, restore, or compensate for that impact. CSR is a way of paying back benefits received from the ecosystem and an investment to reduce long-term costs. When stakeholders feel treated fairly, friction falls, risk drops, compliance becomes easier, and social costs such as conflict, boycotts, or regulatory barriers are reduced.<o:p></o:p> The Challenger sees CSR as leverage. The focus is not only on doing good, but on ensuring the company’s interests gain approval to move forward. CSR becomes an instrument to build legitimacy, expand access, accelerate permits, and strengthen negotiating space with key stakeholders. The foundation here is not trust as a moral anchor, but alignment of interests as a practical basis for social agreements. Sustainable competitiveness depends on how well the company aligns its interests with stakeholder interests, creating stable room to grow.<o:p></o:p> The Lover sees CSR as an ethical drive and a commitment to build trust. The starting point is a moral question. Does the company’s presence make other people’s lives more decent? CSR becomes a way to protect human dignity, sustain long-term relationships, and build a healthier ecosystem. For the Lover, sustainable advantage grows from reputation, trust, and loyalty that cannot be purchased through short campaigns. When trust is strong, the organization becomes more resilient in crises, more attractive to talent, and more credible in the communities where it operates.<o:p></o:p> The Dreamer sees CSR as a trigger for creativity and innovation. CSR is not merely a social program, but a value laboratory that forces the company to design new solutions for real stakeholder problems. Social needs become a source of innovation in products, business models, technology, and ways of working. The impact is double. Stakeholders gain more meaningful benefits, and the company builds differentiation that is difficult to copy. In the Dreamer’s logic, the strongest CSR is not the one that donates most often, but the one that turns social problems into innovation that strengthens long-term competitiveness.<o:p></o:p>'}, {'type': 'p', 'content': 'Putting it all together, the four CSR quadrants can be read as four leadership styles. Transactional calling aligns with the Thinker, where CSR is treated as a logical consequence and a mechanism to manage impact and risk. Competitive calling aligns with the Challenger, where CSR strengthens legitimacy, negotiation space, and alignment of interests. Philanthropy calling aligns with the Lover, where CSR is driven by ethics and empathy, protecting dignity and building trust through direct help. Transformational calling aligns with the Dreamer, where CSR becomes an innovation laboratory that creates new solutions and long-term change. Seen this way, CSR is not only a program. It is a mirror of a company’s dominant mindset. The more whole-minded the leadership is, the more likely CSR will evolve from simple giving into sustainable impact that lasts.<o:p></o:p>'}, {'type': 'p', 'content': 'Make it a good day!Greeting transformation'}]

Subscribe for
Weekly Newsletter

Other Insights

1. What is Fear?

2. Freedom!

3. Meaning of Love

4. Meaning of Work

5. Meaning of Money

CSR: Is It Really About Caring, or Still About Returns?

Subscribe forWeekly Newsletter

Other Insights

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Subscribe for
Weekly Newsletter