Unpacking the Narrative Decontestation of CSR: Aspiration for Change or Defense of the Status Quo?

Abstract

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has repeatedly been described as an “essentially contested concept,” which means that its signification is subject to continuous struggle. We argue that the “CSR institution” (CSRI; i.e., the set of standards and rules regulating corporate conduct under the banner of CSR) is legitimized by narratives which “decontest” the underlying concept of CSR in a manner that safeguards the CSRI from calls for alternative institutional arrangements. Examining several such narratives from a structuralist perspective, we find them to be permeated with six recurrent ambiguities that we show to be reflective of three deep-set taboos: the taboo of the noncongruency between corporate profit objectives and societal needs, the taboo of multinational firms’ continued contribution to the emergence of global socioenvironmental issues, and the taboo of the CSRI’s moderate results in solving these problems. We contend that the perpetuation of these taboos contributes to inhibiting substantial change in the way of doing business, and we sketch out possibilities for initiating a “recontestation” of CSR’s meaning.

Formative Perspectives on the Relation Between CSR Communication and CSR Practices: Pathways for Walking, Talking, and T(w)alking

“…In line with the t(w)alking view, Cooren's understanding of organization and organizing practices is inseparable from their continuous re-enactment in and through communicative events. While Cooren's main concern is the ontology of the organization as a communicatively created entity or actor, the article by Feix and Philippe (2018), in contrast, is primarily concerned with CSR as an (cross-organizational) institution and how this institution is discursively constituted. This article empirically traces how CSR as a discursive institution has become shielded by what the authors refer to as "decontestation".…”

“…Within this Special Issue, the articles by Cooren (2020) and Feix and Philippe (2020) can be seen as exemplars of the t(w)alking view. Both are characterized by a tendency to focus on fundamental questions of organizational and institutional existence, albeit in different ways.…”

CSR politics of non‐recognition: Justification fallacies marginalising criticism, society, and environment

“…It may appear that all agents share the same objectives. Companies are disinclined to acknowledge that they face opposition, and pretend that demand for responsible business is not deeply critical (Feix & Philippe, 2020, p. 16). CSR justifications do not mention that companies need to adjust their behaviour according to the interests of shareholders.…”

CSR Communication Research: A Theoretical-cum-Methodological Perspective From Semiotics

“…"Preston recognised the fact that firms would first, be aware and/or recognise a social issue; second, the firm plans to solve the issue and incorporate such plans into its corporate goals; third, the firm responds in terms of policy development; and, finally, it implements the policy" (Yekini, 2017, p.244). Nevertheless, we argue that, in order to achieve a logical and comprehensive taxonomy of discourses that would reveal the underlying values of reality, a real act of social responsibility should not be a one-off event but should take into consideration future targets and commitments (Feix & Philippe, 2018;Penttilä, 2019). The reports should not only be outward looking, but also forward-looking (Crowther, 2002).…”

“…For example, Freedman & Stagliano (2008) argued that quantity or location of reports cannot be an adequate measure of quality. Sensemaking from CSRRs, we argue, will be more relevant to the information users than the quantity and location and/or the ratings of the reports, more so given the decontestation function of the narratives as recently uncovered by Feix & Philippe (2018).…”