Purpose The purpose of this paper is to carry out a review of the academic literature about corporate social irresponsibility (CSIR) highlighting aspects that help us to define socially irresponsible behaviour and its relationship with socially responsible behaviour. Design/methodology/approach Through a Boolean search of studies related to terms of irresponsibility undertaken from 1956 to October 2016, the authors develop a review of the literature focussing on the main perspectives used for defining the term of CSIR. Findings The paper provides a framework of three main dimensions for understanding the differences in the literature that defines CSIR: who defines irresponsible behaviour, an impartial observer or a specific group of stakeholders, whether it is a firm strategy or a punctual action and which is the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and CSIR, continuity vs orthogonal relationship. Originality/value The paper provides and extensive and original review of a key construct, CSIR, and develops some insights about its antecedents and consequences. The authors try to provide light to the contradictory situation where a growing interest in CSR and the increase in voluntary commitments adopted by company leaders incorporating CSR into their strategies are, paradoxically, increasingly associated with CSIR.

In this conceptual article, we argue that defining corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) as opposite constructs produces a lack of clarity between responsible and irresponsible acts. Furthermore, we contend that the treatment of the CSR and CSI concepts as opposites de-emphasizes the value of CSI as a stand-alone construct. Thus, we reorient the CSI discussion to include multiple aspects that current conceptualizations have not adequately accommodated. We provide an in-depth exploration of how researchers define CSI and both identify and analyze three important gray zones between CSR and CSI: (a) the role of harm and benefit, (b) the role of the actor and intentionality, and (c) the role of rectification. We offer these gray zones as factors contributing to the present lack of conceptual clarity of the term CSI, as a concept in its own right, leading to difficulties that researchers and managers experience in categorizing CSI acts as distinct from CSR.

Corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) is a critical issue for managers and researchers. In fact, the number of studies on this subject from diverse literature is rapidly increasing, seeking to answer questions regarding the core elements of CSI, its antecedents, and consequences. This paper offers a comprehensive literature review of this topic, identifying and assessing previous studies, synthesizing their findings, and highlighting knowledge gaps. Additionally, it offers recommendations regarding how to move forward. Our review identified 155 studies published from 1962 to 2020 that describe the antecedents, outcomes, mediators, and moderators of CSI according to different levels of analysis. We contribute to the social issues in management literature in that we analyze the facilitators and inhibitors of CSI and the consequences for firms using a multilevel approach. Finally, we provide guidance for future research by assessing the core elements that define the level of irresponsibility-harm to others and intentionality.

No abstract