《企业力量和社会责任》(Corporate Power and Social Responsibility)一书的作者、加州大学洛杉矶分校(UCLA)教授内尔•贾克比是第三种方式的早期支持者。“我并不是要求企业光干活，不挣钱，”伯克援引贾克比的话说。“但政治力量就像市场力量一样真实，企业必须对它做出回应。”
对于旧金山Levi Strauss & Co.面临的选择，伯克就是这样定性的。“许多仰慕这家公司的人也都注意到了，它有3%的税后净利润来自精心挑选的社会责任项目，”伯克写道。但“Levi Strauss显然从这3%中得到了很多。它在一个非常开明的城市经营，市场品味受到年轻人的高度影响。因此，不管公司高管内心信奉什么，他们的社会责任支出看上去是相当有效的公关。”
四十年后，Levi Strauss的许多企业社会责任项目仍注重涉及旧金山政治的相关事宜。Levi Strauss & Co负责社会和环境可持续发展的副总裁迈克尔•柯博瑞说：“80年代初，我们是第一批认同、推行艾滋病教育和工作场所政策的公司之一。”1991年，“我们是第一家制订全面供应商规范的服装公司，要求合作伙伴达到劳工、环境、卫生和安全相关标准。”
What businesses owe the world: Then and now
What is the role of a corporation? To make money, or something else?
It's a heady debate these days, with the rise of "Benefit Corporations" -- a new class of corporation that requires a positive impact on society -- and calls for companies to police their supply chains in the wake of April's deadly factory collapse in Bangladesh.
But it's not a new debate. Forty years ago this month, in the June 1973 issue of Fortune, Gilbert Burck wrote about "The Hazards of 'Corporate Responsibility.'" On one side, he quoted Milton Friedman, arguing that the purpose of a business was to maximize profit rather than, in Burck's words, "tackle social problems with money belonging to other people (i.e. their stockholders)."
As Friedman said, "No businessman has money to spend on social responsibility unless he has monopoly power. Any businessman engaged in social responsibility ought to be immediately slapped with an antitrust suit."
On the other side of this yawning chasm you had idealists, who "tend to extreme forms of self-righteousness," Burck wrote. In addition to "mere compliance with the law, say the advocates, business should actively initiate measures to abate pollution, to expand minority rights, and in general to be an exemplary citizen, and should cheerfully accept all the costs associated with this good citizenship."
But perhaps, Fortune hinted, there was a third way; a recognition that things termed social responsibility might not just translate into money out the door. They could impact, in their own way, the bottom line of businesses operating in a real and often messy world. Forty years later, looking at some of the companies mentioned in Burck's piece and the broader state of corporate social responsibility, this view seems to have won out.
Neil Jacoby, author of Corporate Power and Social Responsibility and a professor at UCLA, was an early proponent of this approach. "I don't really ask companies to do a single thing that isn't profitable," Burck quoted Jacoby. "But political forces are just as real as market forces, and business must respond to them."
That's how Burck characterized the choices facing Levi Strauss & Co. of San Francisco. "As its many admirers note, the company contributes 3 percent of its net after taxes to carefully chosen social programs," Burck wrote. But "Levi Strauss is obviously getting a lot for that 3 percent. It does business in an intensely liberal city and has a market in which tastes are heavily influenced by young people. And so, whatever its top executives believe in their heart of hearts, their social-responsibility outlays would appear to be rather effective public relations."
Forty years later, many of Levi Strauss's CSR programs still focus on issues that fit with San Francisco's politics. Michael Kobori, vice president of social and environmental sustainability at Levi Strauss & Co reports, "In the early '80s, we were one of the first companies to acknowledge and address HIV/AIDS education and work-place policies." In 1991, "We were the first apparel company to establish a comprehensive supplier code requiring our business partners to meet standards related to labor, the environment, and health and safety."