Distinctive Profiles of CSR Practices: Business Case, Social Values, and Syncretism Stewardship

Two companies donate to the same cause: one builds schools near its factories because a government audit is coming up, another has been funding education since the day it was founded. Both check the same CSR box on paper, but the reasoning driving each decision is completely different. Management researchers have spent years studying this gap and have mapped it into three distinct profiles that explain why companies “do” corporate social responsibility so differently: the business case model, the social values model, and syncretism stewardship.

Understanding these three profiles isn’t just an academic exercise. It explains why some firms treat CSR as a compliance checkbox, why others build an entire brand identity around a cause, and why a select few manage to do both at once without either side feeling like an afterthought.

Where these three profiles come from 🔗

The framework was developed through research on how companies “mainstream” CSR, meaning how they move social responsibility from a side project into an accepted part of everyday business decisions. Researchers interviewing corporate managers found that firms did not follow one universal best practice. Instead, their approaches clustered into three distinct orientations shaped by external pressure, internal culture, and how the company defines its own purpose, as foundational research on mainstreaming CSR describes it.

None of the three profiles is inherently “correct.” Each reflects a different relationship between profit and purpose, and each carries its own strengths and blind spots.

The business case profile: CSR as a strategic calculation 🔗

The business case profile treats social responsibility the way a finance team treats any other investment decision. Before a company commits resources to a CSR initiative, it asks a simple question: what does this do for our bottom line? Initiatives are pursued only when there is a demonstrable link between the activity and financial performance, whether that’s cost reduction, risk management, or a competitive edge, as Harvard Law School’s Forum on Corporate Governance outlines in its discussion of this model.

Why it tends to be reactive 🔗

Companies operating on this model rarely go looking for social problems to solve. They respond when regulators, investors, customers, or activist groups apply pressure. A factory improves its emissions only after a compliance notice. A retailer audits its supply chain only after a labour scandal makes headlines. The CSR activity exists, but it is triggered from the outside rather than driven by internal conviction.

The Indian compliance angle 🔗

India offers a particularly clear example of this dynamic. Under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, eligible companies are legally required to spend at least 2 percent of their average net profits from the preceding three years on approved CSR activities listed under Schedule VII. This was a landmark move that made India the first country to mandate corporate CSR spending through legislation, as documented in official Ministry of Corporate Affairs guidance on the provision. For many firms, this statutory obligation is exactly what turns CSR into a business-case exercise: the spend happens because the law requires it, and the amount is calculated to the last rupee rather than driven by a deeper mission.

The limitation of this profile is obvious once you see it. Because initiatives are chosen for measurable payoff, companies following this model can end up doing the minimum required, treating CSR spending as a cost centre to be managed down rather than a genuine commitment.

The social values profile: purpose comes before profit 🔗

At the opposite end sits the social values profile. Here, companies commit to a specific social or environmental cause for reasons that go beyond return on investment. The cause is adopted because it reflects the values of the founders, the culture of the organisation, or a belief about what the company owes to society, not because a spreadsheet justifies it.

A proactive, identity-driven approach 🔗

This model is proactive rather than reactive. Instead of waiting for external pressure, socially values-led companies go looking for problems to address because doing so is consistent with who they are. The social cause is integrated into the company’s core rather than bolted on as a public relations exercise, and financial return, while welcome, is not the deciding factor in whether the initiative continues.

A long-standing Indian example 🔗

The Tata Group is frequently cited as an example of this orientation, and its structure makes the point unusually literal. Roughly two-thirds of the equity in Tata Sons, the group’s principal holding company, is held by philanthropic trusts rather than private shareholders, a structure that traces back to the founding family’s stated belief that industry should serve national development, not just private wealth. Institutions such as the Tata Institute of Social Sciences and Tata Memorial Hospital were established decades before India’s CSR law existed, reflecting what one historical study of Indian corporate philanthropy describes as a philosophy of “constructive philanthropy” baked into the group from its earliest years.

The trade-off with this profile is that it demands genuine, sustained commitment. A social values orientation that isn’t backed by real organisational culture can look performative, and companies that overcommit to a cause without commercial discipline can struggle to sustain the initiative when business conditions tighten.

The syncretism stewardship profile: balancing both worlds 🔗

The third profile, syncretism stewardship, tries to have it both ways, and does so deliberately rather than accidentally. Companies following this model recognise that business and society are interdependent rather than opposed, and they design CSR strategies that pursue profit and social good as complementary goals instead of competing ones. This is often described as the broad view of the business case for CSR, compared with the narrow, purely financial calculation of the business case profile, according to the same Harvard Law School analysis referenced earlier.

Harmonising competing stakeholder demands 🔗

This is the most demanding profile to execute well. A syncretic company has to satisfy shareholders who want returns, employees who want fair treatment, communities who want investment, and regulators who want compliance, all at the same time, without treating any one group’s interests as an afterthought. Stakeholder theory research on CSR points out that this balancing act requires companies to move past the older idea of charity as a one-way transfer, and instead build ongoing stewardship relationships with the groups affected by their operations, as explored in recent work on stakeholder theory and CSR.

A well-documented Indian case 🔗

ITC’s e-Choupal initiative is one of the most studied examples of this balancing act in an Indian context. Launched in 2000 to fix an inefficient rural agricultural supply chain, e-Choupal set up internet kiosks in villages that gave farmers direct access to real-time prices and market information, cutting out layers of middlemen. The initiative was conceived primarily to solve ITC’s own sourcing problem, yet it simultaneously gave farmers better prices and more reliable market access, creating value on both sides of the transaction, as detailed in a case study from the Asia Case Research Centre at the University of Hong Kong. Business decisions did not need to be framed as pure altruism to end up benefiting the community.

Comparing the three profiles at a glance 🔗

Why this typology matters for Indian businesses 🔗

India’s regulatory environment adds a layer that most global CSR frameworks were not originally built around. Because Section 135 makes CSR spending compulsory for eligible companies, a significant share of Indian corporate CSR activity starts life as a business-case obligation. The interesting question for management students is what happens next. Some companies stop at compliance. Others use the mandatory spend as a launchpad to build something closer to the syncretic stewardship model, aligning statutory CSR spending with a broader strategy that also serves the business, much as ITC did with e-Choupal well before the law even existed.

Understanding which profile a company falls into also helps explain criticism that gets levelled at CSR more broadly. Programmes that look inconsistent or short-lived often belong to companies stuck in a purely reactive, business-case mindset. Programmes that feel deeply embedded and durable, even through leadership changes, usually reflect a genuine social values or syncretic orientation.

What do you think? When you look at CSR programmes run by companies you know, do they look reactive and compliance-driven, or do they seem genuinely built into the company’s identity? And do you think a company can move from the business case model toward syncretism stewardship over time, or does that shift usually require a change in leadership or ownership first?

References

1. https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2007/08/49-4-mainstreaming-corporate-social-responsibility-developing-markets-for-virtue
2. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/06/26/the-business-case-for-corporate-social-responsibility/
3. https://coal.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-04/FAQ_CSR.pdf
4. https://histphil.org/2016/02/25/tata-philanthropy-and-the-making-of-modern-india/
5. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40991-024-00094-y
6. https://www.acrc.hku.hk/Case/Detail/767