Corporate Irresponsibility and CSR - Competing Realities

Corporate irresponsibility and corporatesocial responsibility: competing realities

Brian Jones, Ryan Bowd and Ralph Tench

Abstract

Purpose – Building on the work of Carroll this article attempts to unravel, explore and explain corporate

social responsibility (CSR) as a theoretical construct that has implications and consequences for

corporate governance in particular, and more generally for the economy, business and society. It aims to

extend Carroll’s work on definitional constructs by re-examining some of the theoretical frameworks that

underpin, inform and guide CSR.

Design/methodology/approach – Carroll identified different levels, or a pyramid, of CSR and these are

outlined and the advantages and disadvantages of a pyramid, levels-based approach discussed. The

main contributions of this article lies is in its exploration of corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) as a

concept in contrast to CSR. Bowd, Jones and Tench’s CSI-CSR model is described, explained, analysed

and used as a conceptual tool to make the theoretical move from a pyramid or level-based approach to a

more dynamic framework of analysis.

Findings – The proposition that CSI is better suited to a shareholder business model and CSR sits more

comfortably with a stakeholder business model is examined. It is contested that people often wrongly

equate CSR with irresponsible corporate actions. The CSI-CSR model establishes a theoretical

framework around which grounded empirical research can be undertaken, applied and on which it can

be reported.

Research limitations/implications – This is a new area of research that addresses a gap in the

literature and puts forward innovative theoretical models. Discussing the concept of irresponsibility

makes for an interesting theoretical move. It questions the idea that corporations and business per se

are always or necessarily socially responsible.

Originality/value – In looking at and developing existing theoretical models, concepts and frameworks

and exploring their merits, shortcomings and limitations, the article will be of interest and relevance to

the business and academic communities. If there is such a thing as CSR then the implication is that there

is such a thing as CSI and it is on this issue that this article seeks to promote and stimulate discussion.

Keywords Corporate social responsibility, Business ethics

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Corporations, their activities and governance have long been of interest to management and

social scientists (see for example, Sampson, 1983). As it has gained a higher profile on the

political, economic and business agendas in recent years (see for example, www.csr.gov.uk;

Commission of the European Communities, 2001, 2002), corporate social responsibility

(CSR) has received increased attention from academics (see Whetten et al., 2002; Arpan,

2005; Evuleocha, 2005; Riese, 2007; Birch, 2008).

Corporate governance can be defined in a narrow and a broad way. For those who define it

narrowly corporate governance is largely concerned with board level management issues.

Reporting on the situation in the UK the Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate

Governance (1992, p. 15) described the term as ‘‘the system by which companies are

directed and controlled’’. Such a narrow definition, adopting and advocating as it does a top

PAGE 300 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009, pp. 300-310, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-1117 DOI 10.1108/17471110910977249

Brian Jones is a Senior

Lecturer, Ryan Bowd is a

Senior Lecturer and

Ralph Tench is Professor in

Communications

Education, all based at

Leeds Business School,

Leeds Metropolitan

University, Leeds, UK.

The authors would like to thankDavid Crowther and twoanonymous reviewers for theirhelpful comments indeveloping this paper.

down approach to management, serves to demonstrate by example the inherent

weaknesses of a command and control managerial style. Adopting both a bottom up and

top down approach to management can better facilitate progress in regards to CSR.

Corporate governance is at least in part about managerial compliance with legal

requirements surrounding CSR. Accepting the above, a more broad based definition might

suggest that corporate governance permeates every level of the organisation, its activities

and actual day-to-day operational workings. CSR is not confined to management but affects

the whole organisation and its stakeholders (for a discussion of the stakeholder model of the

corporation please see Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Cornelissen, 2004). This article

adopts a broad-based definition of corporate governance. ‘‘Corporate citizenship’’ is a term

commonly used in the same debates. There is lack of agreement on a common universal

standardised definition of CSR and as a result there is confusion and overlap in the plethora

of terms used (see Nielsen and Thomsen, 2007, p. 25) This article helps define elements of

CSR, thus aids understanding of the term and in so doing can better inform strategies for

communication (Demetrious, 2008).

CSR and corporate governance and citizenship are increasingly debated academic issues

(see, for example, Schleifer and Vishny (1997); www.csr.gov.uk). Much of the emphasis has

been placed upon businesses and business people to act in a more socially responsible

manner and to acknowledge that shareholders are only one of a number of business

stakeholders (Letza et al., 2004). New and innovative ways to address and deal with issues

emerging from the CSR and corporate governance agendas are increasingly being sought.

This article stresses the difference between corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) and CSR

and contests that the dualistic (or CSI-CSR bi-polar) model allows for greater clarity and

understanding of the concepts that constitute and define these terms. It is suggested that

CSI is a term better suited to describing the workings of the ‘‘old’’ shareholder business

model (Friedman, 1962) and that CSR is more applicable to the workings of the new and

emerging stakeholder business model (Freeman, 1984).

The CSI-CSR model allows for discussion and positioning of issues around CSR.

Communication about issues of social responsibility (Demetrious, 2008) vary according to

whether it is irresponsible or responsible corporate action being reported. A range of internal

and external variables (see Figure 1), for example new technology, impact on businesses,

what they do and how they perform. Such issues or variables may contain differing degrees

of responsible and irresponsible actions and activities. On one issue a corporation might

have exemplary behavior but on another it may perform poorly and need corrective action;

for example, a business may have good policies, practices and procedures with regards to

issues of diversity and equal opportunities but may be weak in terms of its commitment to

Figure 1 CSI-CSR dichotomous model

VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 jSOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNALj PAGE 301

addressing pollution and environmental concerns. The ways in which CSI and CSR issues

are communicated differ. Quite simply responsible actions are, or ought to be trumpeted and

irresponsible actions should be acknowledged. This is not always so. Some companies

doing well in regards to CSR fail to communicate this message effectively or meaningfully.

Some companies either knowingly or unknowingly doing badly in regards to CSR, in other

words they are at the CSI end of the spectrum, might have their practices exposed and thus

be in need of a communication strategy to deal with such an event.

The CSR pyramid and definitional constructs

Corporate social responsibility is defined by the British government on their website www.

csr.gov.uk/whatiscsr.shtml as being about how:

business takes account of its economic, social and environmental impacts in the way it operates

– maximising the benefits and minimising the downsides’’ (Crown copyright, 2004).

However this definition is only one of numerous and in some cases apparently polarised

viewpoints of how CSR is defined in academic and professional thought (see for example,

Carroll, 1979, 1991). Furthermore it has been proposed that CSR can be seen to be a construct

that is individual to the stakeholder that defines it, and has been referred to as the social

contract organisations have with their stakeholders (Bowd et al., 2005). Tullberg (2005)

suggested two approaches to CSR; one the ‘‘responsive’’ and the second the ‘‘autonomous’’

approach. The autonomous approach is described as more independent and involves the

company ignoring other stakeholders’ opinions to formulate strategy. The responsive approach

suggests organisations should aim at being as responsive as possible to the demands

emanating from society for them to act responsibly. This approach allows managers to think

about the hypothetical public reaction to situations and to consider strategies to deal with them.

In carrying out an analysis of CSR definitions in academic and professional literature Bowd

et al. (2006, p. 150) captured a variety of points and attributes that are believed to make up

CSR and suggest it involves:

. . . proactive community involvement, philanthropy, corporate governance, corporate citizenship,

addressing of social issues, a commitment to the quality of its products and services, human

rights, health, safety and the environment. . .

Carroll (1979, 1991) andWood (1991) have contributed to building definitions of the different

levels at which organisations respond to their corporate social responsibilities. These levels

of responsibility are defined as follows:

B Economic level. Organisation produces products and services that society wants and

sells them at a profit.

B Legal level. Organisation obeys all the laws and rules applied by the state. (E.g. tax,

regulation, etc.)

B Ethical level. Organisation views it as its responsibility to satisfy society’s expectations of

business to go beyond basic legal requirements and do what is just and fair, and their

practice is reflective of this.

B Discretionary level. Organisation goes beyond stakeholder views of what is just and fair,

and is an exemplary corporate citizen (adapted from Carroll (1979, 1991)).

It is clear from the list above that Carroll’s (1991) pyramid has at its base starting point the

economy and economic performance. This is seen as pivotal and from this the second level

concerned as it is with the law and legal rights, duties, rules and obligations are built. The

third level is focused on business ethics in a wide stakeholder context. Finally the

discretionary level involves philanthropy and this is where an organisation typically goes

beyond its everyday expected duty and is thus deemed to be a good corporate citizen.

Carroll (1991, p. 42) cautions that:

No metaphor is perfect, and the CSR pyramid is no exception. It is intended to portray that the

total CSR of business comprises distinct components that, taken together, constitute the whole.

Though the components have been treated as separate concepts for discussion purposes, they

PAGE 302 jSOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNALj VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009

are not mutually exclusive and are not intended to juxtapose a firm’s economic responsibilities

with its other responsibilities.

These points remain relevant to the circumstances of the 21st century. Nevertheless,

Carroll’s (1991) model can be critiqued on a number of grounds. Firstly in adopting and

applying a level based pyramid approach it appears as a staged hierarchy in which

movement is based on fixed criteria. It is contested here that this is not necessarily the case

and that the concept of a levels based approach and fixed criteria can act as a hindrance to

further developing knowledge and understanding. Secondly the dynamism that

characterises the social, economic and business world is only partially captured by the

CSR pyramid. At times, like all models Carroll’s pyramid appears as a theoretical abstract

removed from the complex realities of the world it seeks to explain. Despite these criticisms

Carroll’s (1991) pyramid of corporate social responsibility does have varying degrees of

theoretical and practical utility.

The application of the model, together with the context in which it operates and an

understanding of what it seeks to achieve at both the abstract and practical levels are in a

number of respects crucial in developing knowledge, making sense of and interpreting the

world. Themodel is useful as it aids understanding of CSR, the issues that pertain to it and can

therefore help improve communication. The model helps unravel the concept, establishes key

elements and distinguishes itself in its exploration of CSR. For this alone Carroll’s (1979, 1991)

pyramid deserves plaudits. Nevertheless, despite the merits of the model it is suggested here

(see Figure 2) that it can be improved by addressing the staged level based hierarchy to make

it a more fluid concept better able to adapt to a world in a state of near perennial flux. Change

is constant and theoretical models are required to reflect this universal truism.

The CSI-CSR framework

The CSI-CSR model

As previously discussed in relation to the various component parts and models available,

CSR can mean different things to different people. It might be suggested that a clear

definition of the term should be provided for policy makers, practitioners, activists, business

and the community. This issue has already been alluded to in terms of the existing plethora of

definitions in existence and it is unlikely that one unifying definition will be agreed upon given

the competing agendas of different stakeholders.

Figure 2 CSI-CSR environmental dynamic model


It is contested here that traditionally CSR has been confused and equated with CSI. For

many, CSR is understood as, or defined in relation to, CSI; for example discussion of social

responsibility issues often occurs when things are perceived as having ‘‘gone wrong’’ such

as the recent Bear Stearns and Northern Rock crises. It is therefore necessary at the level of

policy and practice and important at a conceptual level to separate out and define the terms.

CSI can be defined in relation to the issues that encompass it. For the key differences

between CSI and CSR please see Table I. CSI is about being reactive as opposed to

proactive in addressing corporate issues and the ways and means by which they relate to

wider society. At its extreme CSI may entail breaking the law (e.g. Conrad Black, Robert

Maxwell, Ernest Saunders). Companies such as Enron, Worldcom, and amongst others

Union Carbide typify CSI. Getting it wrong in relation to CSR, in other words operating in a

CSI manner, can have disastrous social, economic and business consequences as the

aforementioned companies demonstrate so well.

The bi-polar model developed here is not a one-dimensional linear process, as depicted

below, in which investors, producers and consumers move from being irresponsible to being

socially responsible.

The trajectory proposed in Figure 3, based as it is on the Whig view of history in which the

march of progress is seen as inevitable, is an ideal to be striven towards. The Whig

interpretation of history has been described by Marwick (1989, p. 405) as:

Table I CSR-CSI positions

CSI CSR

Environmental degradation and pollution are inevitable and little ifanything can or should be done

Environmental degradation and pollution are not inevitable, shouldnot be tolerated and it is important to raise awareness and committo action

Employees are a resource to be exploited Employees are a resource to be valued

Minimal community consultation and involvement Maximise opportunities for community consultation andinvolvement

Failure to comply, or reluctant and only basic compliance withlegislation pertaining to CSR

Compliance with, as well as policy and practical actions that gobeyond the minimum legislative requirements for CSR

Ethical issues, if relevant at all are on the periphery of organisationalworking

Ethical issues are central to and at the heart of organisationalworking

Social exclusion is an inevitable by product of the operation of themarket

Social inclusion helps to correct market inefficiencies

New technologies should be developed and introduced to themarket

New technologies should be developed, tested, evaluated and ifharmless introduced to the market

Governance of companies is best left to shareholders andmanagement

Governance of companies involves shareholders, managers and awide range of stakeholders including unions, works councils etc

Work with suppliers and customers on an unfair basis Work fairly with suppliers and customers

Pragmatic approach to CSR issues Principled and pragmatic approach to CSR issues

Sustainability defined in terms of business survival Sustainability defined in terms of business, environmental andcommunity survival and mutual growth

Profit is the sole purpose of business and should be achieved atany cost

Profit is one of many purposes of business and should be achieved,but not at any cost

Figure 3 Linear CSI-CSR model


. . . the view, prevalent in nineteenth century Britain, that history was steady progress towards

liberal ideas and institutions.

The reality of CSI and CSR is something of a more complex dynamic. It is contested here that

CSI and CSR lie at opposite ends of a continuum. On the CSI-CSR continuum individuals,

groups and organisations are not static but move between the two extremes. Movement

between the positions is two directional and is driven by external environment factors such as

legislation, politics, technology, finance, economics, culture and such like. One factor may

prompt movement towards CSR whilst a counter prevailing factor may prompt movement

towards CSI. The dichotomous CSI-CSR framework contains within it an inherent tension that

is irreconcilable given that CSR is an ever-evolving concept; for example, the recent move

towards bio-fuels intended to address the problem of climate change and global warming is

now being called into question as a result of the inflationary impact it is having on food prices.

It is a two way variable process and movement is back, forwards and multi-directional

depending on the factors driving the issues. CSI and CSR need to be unpackaged in order to

better understand the complex nature of their components, function, operation and practice.

The model outlined in Figure 1 depicts the two-way flow of CSI and CSR and has the potential

to act as a tool for un-packaging and better understanding of the terms. The CSI-CSR model

contributes to theoretical analysis and practical description and explanation.

Depending on which side of the model businesses choose to operate within CSR can be

either a ‘‘core’’ or ‘‘add on’’ feature. For companies at the left of the spectrum and although

there is other recent examples (e.g. Bear Stearns) nothing typifies this better than Enron,

CSR is an ‘‘add on’’ feature to their business operation – an afterthought rather than

forethought. For companies at the right of the spectrum, such as the Co-operative Bank in

the UK, CSR is a core feature that underpins, informs and guides their business strategy,

operation and practice. Corporate communication practitioners could use the model to map

and monitor CSR issues as they impact on their organisation. The model can be used in both

a reactive and a proactive way. For example management might undertake a mapping and

monitoring exercise, in other words a CSR audit, whereby they identify where their

organisation lies on the CSI-CSR spectrum according to profit, ethical standards, human

resources, community involvement and so on. Such an exercise will help practitioners

identify areas in which their organisation is performing well with regards to CSR and identify

areas for improvement. The model is useful in so far as it allows for the application of theory

to communication practice. The CSI-CSR model provides for an analytical approach as

opposed to a more prescriptive, staged approach to corporate citizenship (Mirvis and

Googins, 2006). Some of the issues impacting on and shaping the changing dynamics of the

CSI-CSR continuum are shown in Figure 1 and given more detail in Table I.

Almost inevitably CSI and CSR are ideal types and as such have potential but also limits to

their usefulness.

As ideal types the two approaches shown in Table I serve to represent the extreme positions.

Reality is often a complex mix of CSI and CSR modes of working. In a business, community

or organisational setting CSR practice in part depends on various stakeholder requirements,

customer and business needs. Whether with regards to customers, suppliers or the wider

community a mix of CSI and CSR mode of working can operate comfortably alongside and

within the various functional areas of management and the actual practices of the business

itself. The CSI versus CSR framework allows managerial practitioners, theoreticians and

others to discuss, contextualise and reflect on their own practice in relation to CSR. In itself

the model does not provide answers but as a managerial tool of analysis it allows for

exploration of issues that may otherwise be ignored, or simply forgotten.

Rochlin and Googins (2005, p. 2) write:

Increasingly, businesses are becoming exposed to the risks associated with the gap between

what they say and what they do.

‘‘What they say’’ might be equated with CSR and ‘‘what they do’’ might be equated with CSI.

There is a gap between management rhetoric and reality as it is experienced and lived on

the ground. The CSI-CSR framework allows management to acknowledge company


mistakes, errors, as well as misjudgements and thereby help minimise reputation and

substantive business damage from the rhetoric-reality gap. Increasingly business

recognises the need to move from an irresponsible to a responsible position on

CSR/corporate citizenship issues, such as community involvement.

The CSI-CSRmodel can be described as a conduit of corporate governance in that it acts as

an enabler to action. As a problem-solving tool it can assist planning and thus help facilitate

a potentially better managed, more productive and socially responsible, profitable business.

As previously mentioned a CSR audit can help pre-empt and react to problems and in this

sense the model acts as a problem-solving tool by identifying business and organisational

areas for improvement. Having identified areas that need addressing the business or

organisation needs to establish a CSR plan of action to limit potential damage and maximise

potential gain. The plan will need to be monitored and reviewed and ought to have short,

medium and long-term aims and objectives. In all of this both internal and external

communication is central to deliver effective corporate CSR change. It is suggested here

that CSI is better suited to the workings of the ‘‘old’’ shareholder business model with the

CSR approach being better suited to the needs of the new stakeholder business model (see

for example, Hutton, 1995, 1999). The ‘‘old’’ shareholder business model (Friedman, 1962)

with its overwhelming focus on profit and little or no regard to issues such as the environment

is prone to the adoption of irresponsible business practices, a current example being the

case of American banks and the sub-prime lending crisis. In contrast, the ‘‘new’’ stakeholder

business model (Freeman, 1984) focuses on profit but also seeks to address other issues of

concern. As such, the CSI versus CSR model is representative of both broader and deeper

structural change within the body politic, economy and society. Hutton et al. (1996, p. 88)

write:

Any civilised community should be justly concerned to create as much wealth as it can, to ensure

that income and wealth are fairly shared and that centres of private and public power are properly

accountable. The aim must be to build a free, moral, socially cohesive society based on universal

membership, social inclusion and organised around the market economy. This is what we mean

by the stakeholder economy and society.

It can be argued that there has been a paradigmatic shift from a business model and way of

working in which shareholder interests and issues such as return on investment reign

supreme, to one whereby different stakeholders compete to influence and shape the

business agenda, so that shareholder interests are simply one of many. Holding this thought

in mind another way of conceptualising the CSI-CSR model and its relationship with internal

and external environmental factors is detailed below.

Figure 2 serves to show that internal and external variables as well as mixing with and

affecting each other also interact and impact on the CSI-CSR continuum. The model

conceived here is a rotating sphere intersected by its axis, the continuum. Business does

not operate in a vacuum, it has rights as well as obligations and has competing needs to

meet and address. Rights (see, amongst others, Locke, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1979 and

Steiner, 1994), obligations (see Turner, 1986) and needs (see Ignatieff, 1990) change over

time and between contexts. Customer needs do not always equate with supplier needs, for

example in terms of delivery of goods. Compared to even the relatively recent past

businesses today have obligations to address environmental and sustainability issues, for

example by sourcing all or part of their energy needs from renewable sources. Businesses

do have a right and are expected as well as encouraged to make a profit but not at any

cost, for example by the use of child labour. Increasingly businesses have to meet

increasing public expectations and to address legal obligations around environmental and

sustainability issues. The need of business to make profit can, and does at times, coincide

as well as conflict with its stated ethical aims and objectives. Competing stakeholders with

differing needs, rights and obligations have to be managed to ensure conflict is minimised,

the business survives, grows and is able to meet its commitments to CSR. How needs,

rights and obligations are prioritised and met in the context of changing internal and

external environmental factors can determine business, life, death and growth. Rotating as

it does on its axis serves to demonstrate that external as well as internal factors can at


times buffet direction of the sphere and movement on the axis. Equally so, movement on

the CSI-CSR continuum, or axis, can affect change and direction in the external and

internal environment.

Thus far the article has proposed a move away from a definition, explanation and analysis of

CSR as a staged hierarchy; as espoused by Carroll (1991) in his pyramid of corporate social

responsibility. Here, an alternative conceptualisation is suggested based on the notion that

CSI should be separated out from CSR to facilitate greater understanding of the terms, their

meaning, nature and purpose. Issues interspersed and feeding into the CSI-CSR continuum

are affected by internal and external environmental factors. Such factors give shape, form

and context to corporate governance and CSR. Placing Carroll’s (1991) pyramid of

corporate social responsibility in a sphere (see above, Figure 2) as well as on and

intersected by the CSI-CSR axis makes for an interesting theoretical and conceptual move.

Putting the pyramid metaphorically in the sphere recognises that the levels of responsibility

are intrinsic to the way in which CSR is conceived. However, in suggesting that the pyramid

and by implication the levels, can be rotated the inference is that the levels are neither

hierarchical or static but fluid and necessary to the other. In this model the levels move and

take on differing degrees of importance according to internal and external environmental

factors and the issues impacting on the directional movement of the CSI-CSR continuum.

Contextual factors mean that economic, legal, ethical and discretionary levels change

position inside the pyramid and that one cannot be fully understood without reference to the

other. There is almost structured chaos within the model and thus lends itself to ideas

emanating from chaos and complexity theories (see for example Marion, 1999; Byrne, 1998;

Rowley and Roevens, 2000).

The significance of this article’s theoretical contribution is that it addresses the discussion

and definition of CSR. By introducing the concept of CSI it counteracts the tendency to treat

the concept of CSR as a one-dimensional single entity and unpacks the terms to reveal

multi-faceted layers of complexity that are shaped by context. The idea of corporations

acting irresponsibly is theoretically validated by the arguments posited here. As an

analytical tool the CSI-CSR typology is of use to academics and practitioners as it facilitates

the development of pro-active as well as re-active internal and external communication

strategies. It is increasingly the case that CSR and CSI are issues about which corporations

are required and expected to communicate. To do this effectively tools of analysis are

required and herein lies the unique contribution of this article.

Concluding remarks

This article has explored and analysed CSR and its antithesis CSI. That businesses act both

irresponsibly and responsibly is highlighted in the distinction made by the terms. The terms

themselves are often conflated and a greater distinction ought to be drawn between CSR

and CSI. It is wrong to equate irresponsible business practice with CSR. Writing about the

issue of social responsibility Milton Friedman (1962:133) asserted that it was ‘‘fundamentally

subversive’’. More than 40 years on since making those claims it is interesting to speculate

as to how Friedman would describe the concept of CSI. The concept may act as an

affirmation of his original statement and could well be described by some as being ‘‘totally

subversive’’. However, this description only tells part of the story, for the reality is that CSI

allows for greater understanding and clarity of the processes and practices by which

businesses operate in doing good as well as doing wrong. The CSI-CSR framework acts as a

tool of support for management to identify issues that may do harm to the business,

pre-empt or react to them, and thus not only place the business in a better position to survive

but to also better meet customer needs. What somemay deem to be a subversive concept is

in fact a practical tool of analysis for an increasingly competitive business environment. The

CSI-CSR framework enables businesses to better meet existing and emerging needs in a

dynamic, highly competitive, ever-changing business environment.

The proposed bi-polar, dualistic model enables analysis of CSR business practice and

allows for change and measurement to be reported on in terms of a sliding scale of ‘‘doing

good’’ as well as ‘‘doing bad’’. As well as operating as a theoretical conceptual model the


proposed framework is also a tool of analysis that can be applied and used to enhance and

make more transparent systems and practices of CSR.

Analysed at a superficial, linguistic level CSR is a concept that is hard to disagree with. It

has a ‘‘warm’’ and ‘‘positive’’ feel to it and is something to which stakeholders are happy to

sign up to in one way, shape or form. The sub-textual message inferred by the term CSR is

that corporations are socially responsible. The term CSI challenges this CSR sub-text and

poses questions around how corporations communicate these issues. That corporations

can act irresponsibly is not something easily refuted. CSI and CSR are politically infused

language based terms that surround and are about the roles of business, corporations and

the politics and discourse of the workplace. The language used is soothing, calming and

designed to ameliorate dissenting points of view. It is about building consent. At the same

time however it is important for business to acknowledge when things go wrong in regards

to issues of social responsibility, know how to deal with and manage the communication

issues surrounding them with a view to mounting a damage limitation exercise. One term

cannot be conceived without the other, they are intertwined, belong to and are about each

other. It is suggested here that CSI and CSR are part and parcel of the fabric of the ideal of

a free, democratic, stakeholding, capitalist economy and society. As such, they are issues

that require debate, monitoring and the engagement of individual and corporate active

citizenship (see Marshall, 1963). Communication and dialogue are of critical importance for

developing understanding and building knowledge of how to be a good individual and

corporate citizen.

For some the shift from a CSI to a CSR position is a perceptual rather than a substantive

change. This critique of the CSR agenda is the voice of cynicism and belies what for others is

an actual change in attitude and business practice. This of course is not to say that more

could not be done. Such a critique is not without some merit in so far as CSI, even in today’s

‘‘open’’ and ‘‘transparent’’ organisations, remains somewhat hidden from view. It should not

be forgotten that CSI can impact on and harm companies’ bottom line and it is primarily for

this reason that a conspiracy of silence pervades organisations and workplace cultures

where irresponsible practices exist. Communication using open and transparent dialogue

within organisations can facilitate the breaking of silence around irresponsible corporate

practices and might limit future damage and/or create new business opportunities. The

majority of companies are keen to embrace CSR issues and of their own volition go beyond

legal minimum requirements. Not only do companies want to do well by doing good, but also

some want to do good because they believe it to be the right and proper thing to do. Not all

businesses are communicating what it is they do in regards to CSR to best effect. Regarding

their social responsibility practices a CSI-CSR audit can help businesses identify areas of

strength and areas for improvement. In itself such an exercise can act as a useful vehicle of

and for communication. It is increasingly recognised that adopting a CSR approach can be

both an ethical and profitable way to manage a business. Ethics and profit are not mutually

exclusive terms but have a symbiotic relationship in the form of CSR. Though nevertheless,

at the end of the day and as Friedman (1962) rightly noted, the purpose of business is to

make profit.

In revisiting the work by Carroll (1979, 1991, 1999) and his exposition of CSR this article has

sought to build on and further develop the concept, from both an academic and practitioner

perspective. In applying the CSI-CSR framework as a legitimate tool of application and

analysis it has established the premise that business does not always act in a responsible

manner and does at times, given a particular set of circumstances, act irresponsibly. The

import of the CSI-CSRmodel is in establishing this idea and recognising that from a theoretical

and communication practice based world viewpoint action can be taken to address and

minimise opportunities for irresponsible corporate actions and to maximise opportunities for

responsible social behavior. The broad definition of good, ethically driven corporate

governance strives towards CSR and away from CSI. Behaving in a CSR way makes sound

business sense, as Enron, Worldcom and others bear testimony. The challenge for the future

(http://www.foresight.gov.uk/) is to move mindsets away from CSI and to CSR proper.


References

Arpan, L.M. (2005), ‘‘Integration of information about corporate social performance’’, Corporate

Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 83-98.

Birch, D. (2008), ‘‘Analysis of CSR: principles and concepts’’, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 4 Nos

1-2, pp. 129-35.

Bowd, R., Bowd, L. and Harris, P. (2006), ‘‘Communicating corporate social responsibility: an

exploratory case study of a major UK retail centre’’, Journal of Public Affairs,, May, pp. 147-55.

Bowd, R., Jones, B. and Tench, R. (2005), CSR and the Media, Summary Research Report, Leeds

Metropolitan University and Connectpoint, Leeds.

Byrne, D. (1998), Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: An Introduction, Routledge, London.

Carroll, A. (1979), ‘‘A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance’’, Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505.

Carroll, A. (1991), ‘‘The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of

organizational stakeholders’’, Business Horizons, July-August.

Carroll, A. (1999), ‘‘Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitional construct’’, Business and

Society, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 268-95.

Commission of the European Communities (2001), Promoting a European Framework for Corporate

Social Responsibility, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.

Commission of the European Communities (2002), Communication from the Commission Concerning;

Corporate Social Responsibility: A Business Contribution to Sustainable Development, Commission of

the European Communities, Brussels.

Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance (1992), Cadbury Report, Committee on

the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance, London.

Cornelissen, J. (2004), Corporate Communications, Theory and Practice, Sage, London.

Demetrious, K. (2008), ‘‘Corporate social responsibility, new activism and public relations’’, Social

Responsibility Journal, Vol. 41 Nos 1/2, pp. 104-19.

Donaldson, T. and Preston, L.E. (1995), ‘‘Stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence and

implications’’, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 65-91.

Evuleocha, S.U. (2005), ‘‘Managing indigenous relations corporate social responsibility in a new age of

activism’’, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 328-40.

Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA.

Friedman, M. (1962), Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Hutton, W. (1995), The State We’re in, Vintage, Colchester.

Hutton, W. (1999) in Goldblatt, D. (Ed.), The Stakeholding Society: Writings on Politics and Economics,

Polity Press, Cambridge.

Hutton, W., Field, F., Kay, J., Marquand, D. and Gray, J. (1996), ‘‘Tony and the Tories: this is what we

mean’’, Observer, 7 July 1996, pp. 88-92.

Ignatieff, M. (1990), The Needs of Strangers, The Hogarth Press, London.

Letza, S., Sun, X. and Kirkbride, J. (2004), ‘‘Shareholding versus stakeholding: a critical review of

corporate governance’’, Corporate Governance, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 242-62.

Locke, J. (1958) in von Leyden, W. (Ed.), Essays on the Law of Nature, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Locke, J. (1959), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 2 vols, Dover, New York, NY.

Locke, J. (1960) in Laslett, P. (Ed.), Two Treatises of Government, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Locke, J. (1979) in Sherman, C.L. (Ed.), Treatise on Civil Government and A Letter Concerning

Toleration, Irvington, New York, NY.

Marion, R. (1999), The Edge of Organisation: Chaos and Complexity Theories of Formal Social Systems,

Sage, Newbury Park, CA.


Marwick, A. (1989), The Nature of History, 3rd ed., Macmillan Press Ltd, Basingstoke.

Marshall, T.H. (1963), Sociology at the Crossroads, Heinemann Educational Books, London.

Mirvis, P. and Googins, B. (2006), Stages of Corporate Citizenship: A Developmental Framework, The

Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA.

Nielsen, A.E. and Thomsen, C. (2007), ‘‘Reporting CSR – what and how to say it?’’, Corporate

Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 25-40.

Riese, J. (2007), ‘‘Thou shalt not be good enough: (mis)understanding CSR’’, Social Responsibility

Journal, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 15-20.

Rochlin, S.A. and Googins, B.K. (2005), The Value Proposition for Corporate Citizenship, The Center for

Corporate Citizenship at Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA.

Rowley, R.M. and Roevens, J.J. (2000), Organise with Chaos: Putting Modern Chaos Theory to Work in

Your Organisation, Management Books, Chalford.

Sampson, A. (1983), The Sovereign State: Secret History of International Telephone and Telegraph,

Coronet Books, Philadelphia, PA.

Schleifer, A. and Vishny, R.W. (1997), ‘‘A survey of corporate governance’’, The Journal of Finance,

Vol. 52, pp. 727-83.

Steiner, H. (1994), An Essay on Rights, Blackwell, Oxford.

Tullberg, J. (2005), ‘‘What should companies be responsible for?’’, Business Ethics: A European View,

Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 261-3.

Turner, B.S. (1986), Citizenship and Capitalism: The Debate over Reformism, Allen and Unwin, London.

Wood, D. (1991), ‘‘Corporate social performance revisited’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16

No. 4, pp. 758-69.

Whetten, D., Rands, G. and Godfrey, P. (2002), ‘‘What are the responsibilities of business to society’’, in

Pettigrew, A., Howard, T. and Whittington, R. (Eds), Handbook of Strategy and Management, Sage,

pp. 373-408.

Further reading

Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College and The US Chamber of Commerce Center for

Corporate Citizenship (2005), The State of Corporate Citizenship in the US Business Perspectives in

2005, The Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA.

European Commission (2004), European Multistakeholder Forum on CSR, Final Report, 29 June.

European Commission, Employment and Social Affairs, Industrial relations and industrial change,

European Commission Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs (2004), ABC of the Main

Instruments of Corporate Social Responsibility, European Commission.

Little, A.D. (2003), The Business Case for Corporate Responsibility, Beacon Press, Uckfield.

Corresponding author

Brian Jones can be contacted at: [email protected]


To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Documents

Corporate Irresponsibility and CSR - Competing Realities