This reading essay is a critique of the following article: Windsor, D. (2001). The future of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9 (3): 225-256. Duane Windsor, via the aforementioned article regarding the future of social responsibility, claims “that there are three emerging alternatives or competitors to responsibility: (1) an economic conception of responsibility; (2) global corporate citizenship; and (3) stakeholder management practices (p. 225). Windsor first provides a historical reflection of social responsibility from the Progressive Era through the 20th century and concludes with predictions about the future of corporate social responsibility. Corporate social responsibility, although not widely discussed or defined until after World War II, dates back to ancient Rome as citizens demonstrated a sense of civic responsibility. Andrew Carnegie, a man today compared to modern business magnates and philanthropists such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, published this concept in the 19th century. Windsor notes, however, that Carnegie's philanthropic acts and published opinions followed his great success and wealth as a business magnate. Despite early literature discussing the importance of corporate responsibility for societal success rather than solely shareholder profits, Windsor shares his interpretation of “anti-responsibility trends” in recent literature. He highlights, throughout this article, a concern about the “wealth-driven practices” that dominate the future of corporate social responsibility. Windsor reviews prominent theorists of corporate social responsibility who have all contributed greatly to the distinctions between responsibility and responsiveness that businesses must...... middle of document ...... decision on what is acceptable behavior and what is the acceptable response to those who violate the established norm. While researching over the past week, I found an audio clip from Duane Windsor. He made a statement, which I ultimately discussed in our focus groups, regarding the emphasis on the significance of corporate philanthropic acts. Windsor said he believed it was “acceptable to comply with corporate social responsibility for the wrong reasons, as long as they (companies) comply”. He explained that, although it was unethical, the act itself was enough to constitute “progress in CSR”. I found this to be a compelling argument. I compared this to my theory about following the rules of the road. I'd rather people follow the rules of the road than believe them. I suppose this puts me in the position of an advocate for responsiveness and respect for corporate social responsibility..