Social Responsibility Journal Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a well-developed concept in the West. However, in many developing nations CSR for social good is considered a luxury, mainly because their constituencies and institutions are less well-resourced than their wealthier counterparts (Dobers and Halme, 2009). The different interpretations and implementations of CSR across different contexts make it a challenging and controversial topic. According to Jamali and colleagues (2017), it is important to take into consideration general cultural notions of spiritualism and specific religious doctrines when examining CSR practices in specific contexts. CSR has been aligned variously with Confucian cultural traditions of harmony, prosperity, solidary and consensus (Yin and Zhang, 2012), with collectivist culture (Shafer et al, 2007), and with Indian cultural and spiritual values which emphasise a duty of care to local communities as well as providing for one's material needs/profit (Arevalo and Aravind, 2011; Condosta, 2011). In China, CSR practice is guided by codes of conduct relating to Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism (Gao, 2011; Ip, 2009). For instance, Confucian philosophy is hostile to profit making (Lin, 2010) and regards selling low quality products as unethical (Zheng et al, 2014). In India, religious principles emphasise the importance of charity which supports benevolant business practices because 'giving is good' (Arevalo and Arayind, 2011, p.402; Gupta, 2007). Accordingly, spirituality has much to offer the study and practice of CSR, but it has not received the attention it deserves. This paper introduces a Buddhist skilful means approach to contribute to the scholarly conversation on spirituality and CSR. The intent of the paper is four-fold: (1) to explore critical issues of CSR; (2) to justify the relationship of spirituality, and Buddhism in particular, to CSR; (3) to introduce Buddhist approaches to CSR; and (4) to propose a practical and skilful means approach to CSR practice. Critical perspectives on corporate social responsibility Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a well-recognised concept among academics. However, due to the complex nature of the systems involved, it is difficult to come up with a definitive definition (Sheehy, 2015). According to Ireland and Pillay (2009), the difficulty of defining CSR arises from the four distinct agendas or specific interests of the various actors, involved. Sheehy (2015) highlights four complicating factors for CSR: business and industry tend to contextualise CSR to specific cases in their own organisational and industrial context;