A LITERATURE REVIEW OF THE HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REVUE DE LA LITTÉRATURE SUR L'HISTOIRE ET L'ÉVOLUTION DE LA RESPONSABILITÉ SOCIALE DES ENTREPRISES

: The belief that corporations have responsibility towards society is not new. Indeed, it is possible to trace the concern of companies with regard to society to several centuries ago. The role of managers and corporate social performance began to appear in literature and writers began to debate what specific corporate social responsibilities were in the 1930s and 1940s. Over the decades, social expectations of corporate behavior have changed, as the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has. The objective of this article is to know what the main factors and/or events that influenced the evolution of CSR were and how they shaped the understanding of this notion. This will make it possible to recognize CSR as a concept that reflects the social expectations of each decade and to be able to explore future avenues of research in this field. This literature review focuses on the most relevant academic studies. We have surveyed historical publications and events that have incorporated the evolution of CSR as a conceptual paradigm. This article begins with the historical roots of social responsibility, then explores the early stages of academic writing on corporate social responsibilities and describes its evolution over time. Finally, we address the surrounding CSR concepts. as … that, Direct, Google Scholar, Sage...


REMSES
http://revues.imist.ma/?journal=REMSES&page=index 284 of profit. It is of great theoretical and practical importance to examine and revise the literature on CSR as well as the theoretical and institutional foundations of it.
Corporate social responsibility has its roots in the early 1950s. Despite its recent growth and popularity, there is centuries of evidence that corporations care about their community. To understand the context in which socially responsible business evolved, we will consider the late 1800s, or the Industrial Revolution, as a starting point.
This review of corporate social responsibility helps to provide an overview of how it has developed over time. It comes down to considering how the concept has transformed in practice from its focus on a few stakeholders to being more broad and inclusive.
This review focuses on the most relevant academic publications and historical events that have shaped the evolution of CSR. It begins with the historical roots of social responsibility and then explores the early stages of the formal and academic writings about CSR.
We also present all the surroundings concepts and current thoughts around which CSR thinking is articulated. This paper also contributes to the current understanding of CSR by including a review of the development of CSR in the early twenty-first century, a period that has not been reviewed as much as earlier periods of the development of the concept.

Research method :
It's as early as the 1930's that publications on CSR has started. In fact, literature on this subject is broad and a specific method is needed to achieve a comprehensive review. For this reason, we carried out a systematic literature review (SLR), defined as « a systematic, explicit, comprehensive and reproducible method » (Okoli & Schabram, 2012). The SLR is used « to summarize the existing literature and identify gaps, to describe the available body of knowledge to guide professional practice, to identify effective research and development methods, to identify experts within a given field and to identify unpublished sources of information » (Okoli & Schabram, 2012).
Taking into account the extensive literature on CSR, we limited the scope of the research to thematic areas directly related to the evolution and history of the concept. Furthermore, we only consulted publications which undergone a rigorous and serious peer review that indicates a satisfactory quality for our systematic literature review. We searched for journal articles using specific key words as : corporate social responsibility, CSR, social performance, history of CSR, evolution of CSR, sustainable development … For that, we used different online databases like Science Direct, Google Scholar, Sage...
Once the search made, we went through the introduction and the scope to determine either the article is suitable or not. Also, we based our evaluation on the journal with high impact factor level and high citations amount. We could select multiple articles for review and exclude some as they were not relevant for our SLR. The following paper is presented in a way to reflect each particular period of CSR evolution.

Evolution of the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility throughout history
CSR as we know it today is primarily a product of the 20th century, taking shape in the early 1950s. However, the history of corporate social responsibility spans more than two centuries.

Before the fifties:
Considering the writings on social responsibility that influenced consideration of the subject prior to the 1950s, it should be noted that the references that looked at social responsibility appeared in the 1930s and 40s in the United States. Research from this period included Chester Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (McNally, 2018), Corporate Social Control (Gray, 1939 and Measurement of Corporate Social Performance (Kreps, 1940), etc.
Hay and Gray (Behling, 1974)  The 1960s marked a considerable growth in attempts to formalize or more precisely indicate what CSR means. In the 1960s, we began to see scholars do their best to find meaning in CSR.
One of the first and most prominent writers of this period to define CSR was Keith Davis, who subsequently wrote extensively on the subject (Carroll, 2009). Davis (1960) laid out his definition of social responsibility by arguing that it refers to: « businessmen's decisions and actions taken for reasons at least in part beyond the direct economic interests of the enterprise or of technical interests ». Davis argued that social responsibility was a nebulous idea but needed to be placed in a managerial context. Moreover, he claimed that some socially responsible decisions can be justified through a long process of reasoning as having a good chance of bringing long-term economic gain to the company, thus making its vision socially responsible.

The period 1970 -1980: CSR and management
George Steiner was another writer who made a great contribution to corporate social responsibility in the 1970s, notably through the first edition of his book "Business and Society" in 1971. Other authors who succeeded him include: Harold Johnson (1971), Clarence Walton (1974) and Carroll (1979). The CDE introduced this topic by noting that: "businesses operate with the consent of the public and their fundamental purpose is to respond constructively to the needs of society and to their satisfaction". The CDE noted that the "social contract" between business and society has changed substantially and significantly.
During the 1970s, many researchers suggested a managerial approach to CSR. The latter refers to the idea of applying traditional management functions to CSR issues. According to Carroll (1979): « Corporate social responsibility encompasses the economic, legal, ethical and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at any given time ». Its definition has been described as a "CSR pyramid" with economic responsibility forming the base or the foundation of the pyramid.
In the 1980s, the focus shifted to developing new, more refined definitions of CSR. Thomas M.
Jones entered the CSR debate in 1980 with an interesting perspective. First, he defined CSR as: « the notion that companies have an obligation to constitute other groups in society other than shareholders and beyond what is prescribed by law and the union contract » . Two facets of this definition are essential. First, the obligation must be adopted voluntarily; behavior influenced by the coercive forces of law or union contract is not voluntary. Second, the obligation is broad, extending beyond the traditional obligations of duty to shareholders and other groups in society such as customers, employees, suppliers and neighboring communities (Jones, 1980) .

From the 1990s: globalisation and CSR
The 1990s marked the beginning of a broad endorsement of CSR. The CSR concept provided the basis for other complementary concepts and themes, many of which embraced CSR thinking and were fully compatible with the concept.
In the late 1980s and 1990s, philanthropy grew considerably. Chandler and Werther had their own perspective of the implementation of strategic CSR, based on five major components, adding the optimization of created value to the four existing ones : incorporation of CSR perspective into the company's strategic planning process, understanding that all company's actions are directly related to the core operations, responsiveness to stakeholders' needs and finally moving from a short term to a mid and long term perspective.
In 2015 It is fundamental to mention that the academic publications on CSR available since 2015 cocnentrate on the implementation of CSR and its impact on specific areas of performance but do not necessarily contribute to the definitional construct or the evolution of the concept (Latapí Agudelo et al., 2019).

CSR : a multidimensional concept
As mentioned earlier, companies carried out several philanthropic actions in the 1950s, without linking them to corporate social responsibility. Bowen, through his book on the social We found several definitions of CSR in the literature. We have kept the most cited:

Davis, 1960
Decisions of businessmen and actions taken for reasons going at least in part beyond its direct economic or technical interest. (Davis, 1976)

McGuire, 1963
The idea of social responsibility implies that the company has not only economic and legal obligations, but also social obligations towards society that go beyond these obligations. (

McWilliams et Siegel, (2001)
Actions that appear to promote a social good, going beyond the interests of the company and those required by law.

Self elaboration
The best known and most widely used CSR model in the literature is that of Carroll (1971). He provided a multidimensional definition of CSR: « Corporate social responsibility encompasses the economic, legal, ethical and discretionary (philanthropic) expectations that society has of organizations at any given time » (Carroll, 2016). This set of four responsibilities creates a foundation that helps to delineate in detail and frame the nature of corporate responsibilities to society. In 1991, Carroll extracted the four-part definition and reformulated it as a CSR pyramid.
Alexander Dahlsrud in 2006 conducted a literature review on CSR. He found 37 definitions of CSR and analyzed them. They came from 27 authors and dated from 1980 to 2003. The definitions found covered at least one of the following five dimensions: the economic dimension, the environmental dimension, the social dimension, the proactive dimension and the stakeholder dimension (Dahlsrud, 2006). He didn't build the model with a pyramid, as he said "all dimensions are key to understanding CSR." Several organizations have also attempted to define CSR. We have grouped them in the table below:

ISO 26000
Responsibility of an organization for the impacts of its decisions and activities on society and the environment, resulting in transparent and ethical behavior that:

• contributes to sustainable development including the health and well-being of society • takes into account the expectations of stakeholders • complies with applicable laws and is compatible with international standards • is integrated throughout the organization and implemented in its relationships
(AFNOR, 2010)

Concepts related to CSR
The review of the literature related to the evolution of CSR has highlighted a certain number of concepts that are close to it. In what follows, we will try to remove the confusion around them.

Sustainable development
The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) has defined sustainable development (SD) as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs" (Brundtland, 1987).
CSR and SD are often used interchangeably, except that they are not exactly alike. A major difference is in the type of equity they focus on. CSR focuses more on stakeholder equity, while sustainable development focuses more on social equity and more specifically on how to foster socio-economic development (Makati, 2019).
Finally, we can say that CSR is imbued with the principles of sustainable development and formulates them into corporate actions.

Business ethics
Before analyzing the relationship between social responsibility, corporate governance and business ethics, we must first define them separately. Corporate governance is about enforcing accountability (Tayşir & Pazarcık, 2013).
CSR and business ethics can be defined from two perspectives: normative and descriptive.
According to the normative perspective, business ethics relates to the principles, values and norms concerning organizational decisions. Descriptively, business ethics in an organization refer to codes, standards of conduct, and systems of compliance and generally relate to decisions that can be deemed right or wrong by society.
CSR from a normative perspective focuses on the values and principles of a company in order to fulfill its economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities (Carroll, 2009). Therefore, CSR issues are associated with assessments of concepts such as social issues, sustainability, Considering the above definitions, it can be said that the concepts of corporate governance, social responsibility and business ethics have common characteristics and that these three concepts are interdependent. Corporate governance requires leaders to make their companies more transparent and accountable; social responsibility requires companies to support society in their activities, and business ethics clarifies moral standards for employees.

Socially Responsible Investment
The field of SRI has been marked by a lack of consensus on definitions. Thus, broadly similar or related terms that appear in the literature allude to an investment: social, creative, ethical, green, targeted, or even strategic (Hill et al., 2007). A relevant definition of this construct has been put forward by the UK Investment Forum, which describes SRI as "investments that allow investors to combine objectives with their social values" (Hill et al., 2007). These individuals are said to mix money and morality in their decisionmaking. Their goal remains to receive a fair return while simultaneously achieving CSR-related objectives.
In short, SRI funds are interested in and invest in firms with the best social practices and which are financially solid.

Social legitimacy (Social license to operate)
Suchman (1995) defines social legitimacy as "the shared impression that the actions of the organization are desirable, proper or appropriate in relation to the socially constructed system of social norms, values or beliefs".
In most countries, business licenses are granted to companies by government authorities on the basis of their professional skills and their ability to meet certain standards set by law or regulation. However, in a CSR context, the concept of "social license to operate" has emerged as a more relevant concept that highlights the growing societal dimension embedded in business management and operations. SLO is considered a right to operate depending on "the degree to which a company and its activities are accepted by local communities, society at large and various constituent groups" (Delgado & Castelo, 2013). Under this notion, a "social license to operate" becomes a complement to the legally established, government-issued official license in that a social license is granted beyond compliance.
The social license to operate is an "informal license". It consists of three elements: legitimacy, credibility and trust.
• Legitimacy: this is the extent to which an organization respects the "rules of the game".
That is, community norms, whether legal, social, cultural, formal or informal.
• Credibility: this is the company's ability to provide true and clear information to the community and to respect the commitments made.
• Trust: This is the willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of another. This is a very high quality relationship and it takes time and effort to create.
Businesses -and business leaders -are increasingly expected to take a more active role in driving positive change. There is a belief that companies should strive to eliminate harm and maximize benefits, not just for shareholders or customers, but for everyone. To do this, companies would actively engage with stakeholders, including the most marginalized voices.

Social Responsiveness
Corporate social responsiveness has been defined as "a company's ability to cope with social pressures" (Ase, 2007). It was qualified as CSR2 in the 1970s. For some researchers, this notion has replaced CSR1 social responsibility (William C. Frederick, 1978). Other researchers have considered that CSR2 and CSR1 are not different terms (Carroll, 2009). Carroll and Wood explained that "social responsiveness is not an alternative to CSR but rather the action phase of socially responsive management". Social reactivity constitutes a continuum from non-response to proactive response: reaction, defense, accommodation or adaptation and pro action (El Yaagoubi, 2019), illustrated as follows: 2. Defense: the company defends itself against criticism.
3. Accommodate: the company acknowledges the criticisms and declares that it improves its behavior.

Pro action: the company acknowledges criticism and strives to improve its behavior beyond
what is expected.

Discussion
We aimed through this paper to provide a distinctive historical perspective on the evolution of CSR by an exhaustive literature review. We found that Corporate Social Responsibility, as a concept, has evolved from being limited to the profits generation to the creation of a shared value.
CSR has evolved based on academic research but also because of society's expectations This is to underline the fact that the evolution of CSR has not only been influenced by academic contributions but also by some isolated international events.

Conclusion
The objective of this paper is to give an exhaustive historical perspective on the evolution of the concept of Corporte Social Responsibility through a literature review of the academic contributions as well as the most relevant events that have shaped its understanding and evolution.
Our review traces back CSR to the 1930's, a time when started the debate around the social responsibilities of the private sector. Many autors brought a certain perspective of CSR and contributed in their own way to the CSR framing : Bowen (1953), Frederick 1960, Walton (1967) but also Carroll (1979), Cochran and Wood (1984); Strand (1983); Tuzzolino and Armandi (1981), Burke and Logsdon (1996), Husted and Allen (2007), Porter and Kramer (2006) Werther and Chandler (2005). It is fundamental to mention that the academic publications on CSR available since 2015 concentrate on the implementation of CSR and its impact on specific areas of performance but do not necessarily contribute to the definitional construct or the evolution of the concept (Latapí Agudelo et al., 2019).
In this article, we explored the conceptual fields and managerial foundations of CSR in order to better understand this concept. In this sense, we went to the contemporary discovery of the concept of CSR and tried to provide it with a definition. At the end of the review of the different definitions of CSR, it turns out that CSR is a dynamic and "catch-all" concept that would apply to very varied practices (Pasquero, 2005b). We have therefore proposed our own definition of CSR as: "the consideration by the company of the expectations of its various stakeholders and the declination of the latter into actions that respect people and the natural environment".
On the theoretical level, it seems that stakeholders theory is the most mobilized to address the issue of CSR, in particular its instrumental approach. In this perspective, the stakeholders theory sees the company as an entity integrated in an environment of relationships and social networks. It places the company in continuous interaction with its stakeholders (Donaldson and Prestion, 1995). In addition, it offers a more advantageous and extended framework which makes it possible to better approach CSR and which replaces the Friedman approach. Finally, it assumes that the pursuit of profit is a purpose that is integrated into a more global framework that takes into account the different expectations of stakeholders (Bachy and Harache, 2010).
The chronological timeline we established through this paper makes it easier to observe the way the concept evolved. As a systematic literature review, the paper synthesizes and analysizes the academic publications refering to CSR along with events that have influenced the social expectations of corporate behavior. Results show that there is a linkage between social expectations of corporate behavior and the way in which CSR is understood and implemented.
Based on this review, it seems that the literature on CSR seems lacks specific research regarding the way the core business activities are addressed. Also the reasons given why CSR can be implemented are just partial and may raise questions about its potential benefits. Therefore, this paper offer practical contributions to use not only to explore CSR but also to address the latest social expectations, seen as a shared value.