‘We are all responsible now’: Governmentality and responsibilized subjects in corporate social responsibility

Abstract

The corporate social responsibility promise is a fascinating one: companies are able and willing to regulate themselves, and self-regulation is manifested in collaborative efforts that promote individual well-being. Yet, this macro-level promise has a silenced flip side in organizational contexts. We argue that corporate social responsibility has diffused the idea of employee responsibilization into organizational environments, so it entails a dual role for employees: employees become both the objects and the subjects of corporate social responsibility. The primary aim of this article is thus to develop a theoretical understanding that acknowledges the role of individual members of the organization in communicating and defining corporate social responsibility while taking into consideration the well-being perspective. We draw on critical management studies as a form of counter-conduct towards mainstream theorizing and seek an alternative to Freirean critical dialogue as a tool to promote empowerment alongside ethics in corporate social responsibility.

Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility to Internal Stakeholders: Walking the Walk or Just Talking the Talk?

“…However, although employees did acknowledge that some action was being taken towards credible solutions, there also appeared to be issues with the perceived responsibility of organizations towards their employees in the in the form of CSR employee initiatives provided. Thus, it is evident that merely communicating CSR without taking contextual factors into account is likely to create barriers to employee buy‐in (Siltaoja et al ., ). As Costas and Kärreman () have argued, employees may well resist the attempts to co‐opt them into CSR initiatives if they feel ambivalent about the organizational activity.…”

One Rule to Rule Them All? Organisational Sensemaking of Corporate Responsibility

“…Drawing on Peterson ' (ibid.). This finding also illustrates another problem: even though CR should be voluntary to practitioners of CR, CR rules also responsibilise employees in an organisation over the firm's CR targets (Siltaoja et al, 2014).…”

“…The studies in this stream approach organisational rules critically to disclose power relations between various sub-cultures and/or acknowledge the ambiguity and complexity of CR rules in organisational practices. The studies elaborate on how defining CR is a power-laden process, characterised by confusion, uncertainty, tension or conflict that may call into question the very nature of responsibility (e.g., Banerjee, 2007Banerjee, , 2011Costas and Kärreman, 2013;de Colle et al, 2014;Helin et al, 2011;Siltaoja et al, 2014). According to this approach, CR rules are (1) dominated by uncertainty, (2) constructed around ambiguity and (3) subject to different and highly individual interpretations that complicate or hinder their adoption.…”

Drama and Discounting in the Relational Dynamics of Corporate Social Responsibility

“…For example, Van Aaken et al 2013highlight CSR work as a way to accumulate social and cultural capital, recognising the noneconomic motivations of managers that drive CSR efforts. Alternatively, Siltaoja et al (2015) recognise that employees must also enact corporate claims to do good, drawing from Foucault to argue that CSR involves governmentality, where employees internalise CSR discourse and are so denied a critical engagement with CSR that might allow 'authentic' individual ethics may emerge. Wright et al (2012) have also researched the experiences of managers, highlighting that grand discourses such as climate change result in tensions, conflicts and denials, as businesses try to maintain legitimacy and present themselves as good corporate citizens.…”