企业社会责任是将企业自我规制的方法与企业模式相结合。企业社会责任政策是一种自我治理的制度，在这种制度下，企业观察员会严格遵守法律、伦理价值观、国家和全球标准(Aluchna & Idowu, 2017)。因此，本研究将Kramar和Porter的方法与Donaldson和Walsh在CSR及其与商业成功的关系上的方法进行比较和对比。
Kramar & Porter(2006)认为，通过实施战略企业社会责任，可以同时获得商业成功和企业社会责任。另一方面，唐纳森和沃尔什(2015)发展了一种“规范”的商业理论。
Donaldson & Walsh(2015)谈到了四个含义，即目标、责任、控制和成功。该理论关注的是企业在发展社会福利方面所扮演的角色。按照规范理论，企业的目的是提高集体价值。企业应对影响企业过去、现在和未来活动的因素和受其影响的人负责。业务控制必须禁止任何形式的打击业务参与者的自尊。企业的成功表现为集体价值的优化。然而Kramar & Porter(2006)评论说，企业对CSR的强烈关注不是自愿的。许多组织在收到来自社区和客户的负面回应后，会尝试企业社会责任活动，因为他们没有考虑到自己的商业活动对环境造成的问题。例如，耐克经历了一场广泛的抵制消费者的运动，因为他们滥用劳工。Kramar & Porter(2006)对CSR提供了四种常见的解释，包括道德责任、可持续性、授权运营和声誉。道德要求认为，企业有责任成为良好的居民，并以有效的方式进行商业活动。这在美国最重要的非盈利企业社会责任组织“企业为社会责任”的商业目标中表现得尤为突出。这个协会的成员通过尊重道德标准、社区、自然环境和人的方式获得企业的成功。可持续发展的重点是社区和环境管理。可持续性是指在满足当前需求的同时，不牺牲下一代满足需求的能力。经营许可的概念源于这样一个事实，即每个公司都需要一种策略来公开获得政府、社区和其他利益相关者的许可来开展业务。最后，许多企业利用声誉，在提升品牌形象、强化品牌、增强信心、甚至增加股票价值的基础上，验证企业社会责任倡议。
Corporate social responsibility is the method of business self-regulation combined into a business model. CSR policy acts as a self-governing system in which business observers and confirms its vigorous obedience with the essence of the law, ethical values, national and global standards (Aluchna & Idowu, 2017). Hence, the present study involves comparing and contrasting the approach of Kramar and Porter with the approach of Donaldson and Walsh toward CSR and its relation to business success.
According to Kramar & Porter (2006), business success and CSR can be obtained concurrently through implementing strategic CSR. On the other hand, Donaldson and Walsh (2015) have developed a ‘normative’ theory of business.
Donaldson & Walsh (2015) have talked about the four implications that are purpose, accountability, control, and success. The theory is focused on the role played by a business for developing the well-being of the society. As per the normative theory, the purpose of a business is to improve collective value. Business is accountable for the factors that affect and those who are affected by the past, present and future activities of the business. Business control must prohibit any kind of battering on the self-esteem of the business participants. The business success is denoted by the optimisation of collective value. Whereas Kramar & Porter (2006) commented that sharp business attention toward CSR is not voluntary. Many organisations attempt CSR activities after getting negative responses from the community and customers due to not thinking about the issues they are creating on the environment through their business activities. For example, Nike experienced a broad boycott of customers for their abusive labour practices. Kramar & Porter (2006) have provided four usual explanations for CSR including, moral duties, sustainability, authorization to operate and reputation. The moral demand argues that firms have an accountability to be good inhabitants and to conduct the business activities in an effective manner. This is prominent in the business goal of ‘Business for Social Responsibility’ that is the foremost not-for-profit CSR business organisation of United States. The members of this association achieve corporate success through ways that respect ethical standards, communities, natural environment and people. Sustainability focuses on community and environmental stewardship. Sustainability refers to the fulfilling the current needs without conceding the capability of future generation in fulfilling their needs. The concept of license to operate is originated from the fact that every firm needs a strategy to overt permission from the government, communities other stakeholders to conduct business. Lastly, reputation is utilised by many corporations to validate CSR initiatives based on enhancing the brand image, strengthen the brand, invigorate confidence, and even increase the stock value.