Though there are still proponents of Milton Friedman stance that “there is only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits”, it is quite evident that the concept of “responsibility” has become an inevitable part of policy and strategy for corporations in postindustrial society, and is gradually being absorbed by corporations in the developing world.

As it often happens with concepts, there is no universal definition of corporate social responsibility (CSR), and different companies have created their own understandings of what responsibility means for them. Generally the definitions used by different corporations try to figure out how the pursuit of profits, or other strategic goals, can be balanced with the company’s desire to contribute to the welfare and development of the affected local, national, or even international community.

Corporate social responsibility has existed in some form since the transformation from a feudal agricultural society to an industrial one. We all are well aware of such names as Carnegie, Rockefeller or Nobel who made great contributions to community development. It is noteworthy, that only after the shift to postindustrial phase of development does CSR become widespread, obtaining a form of tradition rather than exception from usual practice.

However, why did this happen? Of course, there were a lot of different trends that helped businesses recognize the benefits of advancing the social environment in communities that they operate or around; among them—globalization, the development of information and communication technologies, and the spread of democracy… In my opinion however, most cause of CSR is the shift of values in postindustrial society, or specifically, the emergence of so-called post materialist values.

The lead social values of a society play a vital role in its leadership’s decision-making process. The most developed part of the world - the Western World - has brought up a generation of decision-makers that have experienced high living standards, stable social and political environment, and excellent education systems. As a result, survival and basic needs are taken for granted by them. And this is the point where the well-known pyramid of Maslow proved to be viable; as soon as a big share of the society didn’t have to worry about physical and economic security a shift of priorities occurred. Specifically, a shift toward the idea of a subjective well-being, defined not in terms of material wealth alone, but in terms of the ability for self-expression. The culture of self-expression has led to the spread of tolerance, respect to diversity and human rights, and for the pursuit of a sense of life.

Look around, no one today convinces us to get an education because it can lead to a stable salary and material wealth. Instead, we are all told to find something where our passion lies, where we can use our naturally-given potential. We pass Meyers Briggs test to understand what could bring or not bring us satisfaction and pleasure, in a bookstore we find ourselves surrounded by numerous books on how to become happy through the discovery of our personal niche in life. People are not in a hurry to have children – they want understand first who they are and what they are doing here in this world. What does it all mean for business and powerful corporations?

In addition, even in a period of crisis some companies donate up to 1.7% of their incomes for social responsibility programs. As the research shows, corporations cannot afford strong backsliding from these programs, for it would damage the morale of the staff and company’s reputation. Indeed, the 2009 Edelman Trust Barometer reveals that 62% of the public in the twenty surveyed countries trust corporations less than they did a year ago.

The trend that corporations have to become more and more “responsible” for their activities towards the society can perhaps most evidently be seen in the example of the tobacco industry. For instance, when one looks at the website of Phillip Morris – one will see that half of site’s information is devoted to data about harm of smoking for health and methods to give up smoking. In order to prevent the loss of influence and credibility the tobacco industry had to recognize that profits are not above public welfare.

While in many cases CSR serves as a way to strengthen corporate brand, CEOs start to see real financial advantages in “sustainable” behavior. This year, Mars and Cadbury announced that they are concerned about future shortages of coca beans and their new strategy to increase the supply to sustainable sources. IKEA is going to rely more on responsibly managed forests. In addition, Intel managed to cut its fuel spending by $50 million, while the investment in energy efficiency projects over the same period accounted for $23 million. Overwhelmingly beloved Starbucks, which incorporates CSR into its products, engages its customers in socially responsible behavior, and highlights its brand’s differentiation from the companies offering the same services.

Perhaps in the past CSR was mainly used as a defense mechanism to ensure a company’s strategy was aligned with social expectation, but today CSR is seen by modern nations in a new light- one shining with opportunity.