Corporate irresponsibility and corporate social responsibility: competing realities

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.

Multinational enterprises and the Sustainable Development Goals: An institutional approach to corporate engagement

“…Companies can act in socially responsible and in socially irresponsible ways (e.g. Giuliani, Macchi, & Fiaschi, 2014;Jones, Bowd, & Tench, 2009;Strike, Gao, & Bansal, 2006). Socially responsible behaviour is a prerequisite for contributing to sustainable development, yet can take different forms.…”

The Structural Contradictions and Constraints on Corporate Social Responsibility: Challenges for Corporate Social Irresponsibility

“…If CSR exists at one end of a spectrum however, at the other end must exist Corporate Social Irresponsibility (CSI) (Jones et al 2009;Jones 2010;Clark and Grantham 2012). It is claimed that CSI can help to recognize that business is not always 'responsible' and also to theoretically account for that empirical reality.…”

Shaping Virtues Leadership to Enhance Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability. Insights from a Case Study

“…In order to face urgent societal and ecological challenges companies are called to apply core competencies and foster social innovations (Schmidpeter, 2014). Previous literature pointed out that a critical factor to prevent corporate social irresponsibility (Jones et al, 2009;Lin-Hi & Müller, 2013) and avoid the gap between theory and practice of corporate responsibility and sustainability is represented by the leadership model (Herlyn & Radermacher, 2014;Shepherd & Patzelt, 2017) and the entrepreneur/top management's intrinsic orientation (Looser & Wehrmeyer, 2015;Del Baldo, 2018).…”