Read the following papers which offer different explanations as to why firms engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR): Dimaggio, PJ & Powell, WW 1983, ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’ (Links to an external site.), American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 147-160. Freeman, ER 2008, ‘Managing for stakeholders’ (Links to an external site.), in T Donaldson & P Werhane (eds), Ethical issues for Business, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, pp. 39-53. Matten, D & Moon, J 2008,’ ‘Implicit and explicit’ CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility’ (Links to an external site.), Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404-424. Mitchell, RK, Agle, BR & Wood, DJ 1997, ‘Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts’ (Links to an external site.), Academy of Management Review, 22: 853-886. Suchman, MC 1995, ‘Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches’, (Links to an external site.) Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610. Compare and contrast these course readings and produce a 1000 word critical reflection on course literature about what corporate social responsibility is, what it is not, and what drives corporations to engage in CSR. In this critical reflection you should provide a reasoned explanation for choosing the perspective(s) that you believe best explain why firms engage in CSR. Assessment criteria: Responds originally, clearly and directly to the question. The work shows good evidence of original insight. Evidence of the selection of high quality information/references. The work demonstrates a high level of understanding and curiosity in analysing the question and clearly addresses the task requirements. Material is deployed in a disciplined way and demonstrates a sophisticated comprehension of key issues of debate. Advanced ability to critically review, analyse, synthesise and apply theoretical and technical body knowledge in a broad and creative way to a range of areas and diverse contexts. Highly effective use of a range of literature to build a strong argument. Highly developed and appropriate structure designed to effectively present argument. Meaning is communicated clearly and effectively through consistent and sophisticated use of academic style, unambiguous language and correct and appropriate grammar, vocabulary, punctuation and spelling. Appropriate Harvard style referencing (in text and list of references) References consistently conform to the appropriate conventions. Excellent reference list in terms of quantity and quality. Effective citation in text, both in terms of style and content.