Bound to Fail? Exploring the Systemic Pathologies of CSR and Their Implications for CSR Research

Abstract

Among critics of corporate social responsibility (CSR), there is growing concern that CSR is largely ineffective as a corrective to the shortcomings of capitalism, namely, the negative effects of business on society and the undersupply of public goods. At the same time, researchers suggest that despite the shortcomings of CSR, it is possible to make it more effective in a stepwise manner. To explain the frequent failures of current CSR practices and to explore the possibilities of remedying them, I examine the close relationship between CSR, the persistent expansion of capitalism, and the pressure that capitalism puts on companies to legitimize their business operations. My analysis shows that the failure of CSR to serve as a corrective to the problematic effects of capitalism is, in fact, an inevitable consequence of the problematic dynamics of the capitalist system. On this basis, I suggest that capitalism limits the possibilities of making CSR more effective, argue for change on the systemic level of capitalism, and explore the ways in which CSR research can contribute to this political endeavor.

Fostering Workplace Innovation through CSR and Authentic Leadership: Evidence from SME Sector

“…Thus, they are expected to support their organization through their extra-roles such as IWB. CSR has received a growing focus from academicians and practitioners of different sectors during the last two decades [28]. CSR continues to be defined as a business's actions and policies that consider various kinds of stakeholders along with the three pillars of economic, societal, and ecological operation as initially articulated by Carroll [29] to create a theoretical foundation for CSR.…”

“…CSR continues to be defined as a business's actions and policies that consider various kinds of stakeholders along with the three pillars of economic, societal, and ecological operation as initially articulated by Carroll [29] to create a theoretical foundation for CSR. There is an increasing recognition that the interests of the society and organizations tend to be more closely coordinated than is fre- CSR has received a growing focus from academicians and practitioners of different sectors during the last two decades [28]. CSR continues to be defined as a business's actions and policies that consider various kinds of stakeholders along with the three pillars of economic, societal, and ecological operation as initially articulated by Carroll [29] to create a theoretical foundation for CSR.…”

Keystone actors do not act alone: A business ecosystem perspective on sustainability in the global clothing industry

“…Internally, clothing companies produce corporate sustainability reports that define goals and targets, and provide a roadmap of where a company is heading in its efforts to tackle sustainability within its supply chain. However, companies often do not disclose the data they use to determine how they are performing with respect to their targets [ 58 ]. In response, there is increasing pressure from policymakers and consumers for clothing companies to be transparent, and to adopt trackable industry reporting metrics that capture aspects of biosphere stewardship, circular economy, and planetary boundaries [ 59 ].…”

Discourse and power in the institutionalisation of corporate social responsibility (CSR): A comparative perspective

“…The critical literature on CSR has shown that CSR promotes understandings of companies' role in society that are corporate-centred, restrict issues to those that suit company perspectives, and do little to address the negative aspects of business activities (see for instance, Banerjee, 2008;Fleming & Jones, 2013;Nyberg et al, 2013;Schneider, 2020). Under the banner of CSR, companies communicate the idea that their actions imply an alteration of practices in the global capitalist system whereas in fact CSR can be seen to uphold unchanged and unsustainable practices (Banerjee, 2008;Hanlon, 2008;Valentin & Murillo, 2011;Waddock, 2018).…”