Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become an integral part of modern business philosophy, emphasizing that corporations are not only economic entities but also social institutions with obligations to a range of constituencies. Over time, two broad perspectives have emerged in the understanding and practice of CSR: the shareholder-centric model and the stakeholder-centric model. Both models seek to define the purpose of business and its moral responsibilities, yet they differ fundamentally in their focus, objectives, and ethical underpinnings. A clear distinction between these two approaches reveals divergent views on corporate purpose, accountability, and ethical responsibility in the business world. The shareholder-centric CSR model is rooted in classical economic theory and finds its strongest philosophical foundation in Milton Friedman’s argument that “the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.” According to this view, corporations exist primarily to serve the interests of their owners or shareholders. The central duty of management, therefore, is to maximize shareholder wealth within the boundaries of the law and ethical custom. CSR activities under this model are justified only to the extent that they contribute to long-term profitability or shareholder value. In this framework, ethical behavior and social responsibility are seen as instrumental means to an end—enhancing corporate reputation, building customer loyalty, avoiding legal penalties, or securing sustainable market positions that ultimately lead to higher financial returns. For example, a company might invest in environmental sustainability initiatives not necessarily out of a moral commitment to ecological preservation