CSR and the strait‐jacket of economic rationality

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to argue that the corporate social responsibility (CSR) discourse has taken a wrong turn in its historical development, which risks a restriction of our thinking.Design/methodology/approachThe paper has two main sections followed by a concluding discussion. First, the way in which even proponents of CSR have allowed a search for a link between engagement in CSR and firm performance to become a predominant strand of the debate is explored. Second, the way that economic rationality has developed through the sociology of economic behaviour is examined to provide a novel lens through which to view CSR.FindingsIt is contended that arguments for CSR based in morality and ethics have been at least partially foreclosed by the CSR academy's response to pronouncements on the topic made by Milton Friedman in 1970. It is argued that, in responding to his arguments largely in the terms dictated by those arguments, the critical potential of CSR is diminished.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper suggests alternative intellectual resources that might help to re‐balance this debate, drawing on what might broadly be called the sociology of economic behaviour. The paper concludes by calling for a re‐moralised CSR, reminding one that economic activity is embedded in social relations.Originality/valueAttempts to critique CSR through lenses afforded by sociology are comparatively rare. This paper shows how the true nature of predominant preoccupations in the mainly business‐related debates on CSR can be more openly seen as being economically rational when examined using theoretical frames and language from sociology.

Constructing the Meaning of Social Licence

“…Scherer and Palazzo (2007) argue that many CSR studies adopt the positivist paradigm, leading to an instrumental interpretation consistent with an economic theory of the firm. Others propose that a "strait-jacket of economic rationality" (Brooks 2010) and a "glass ceiling" of the instrumental business case (Nijhof and Jeurissen 2010) have constrained CSR discourse by marginalising moral arguments. Social contract theory, meanwhile, differs from CSR and a stakeholder orientation through its metaphorical nature; no actual contract exists, making interpretation problematic (Hasnas 1998, 29-33).…”

A reconstruction of Carroll’s pyramid of corporate social responsibility for the 21st century

“…Indeed, almost as prevalent in CSR textbooks as Carroll's pyramid of CSR is Friedman's assertions that "the social responsibility of business is to make a profit" ( (Friedman 1970), p. 13). Brooks (2010) argues that the response of the CSR academy to Friedman's pronouncement led to a wrong turn in the development of the CSR construct, as rather than justifying CSR on moral grounds, the academic community (of which Carroll was a part), responded by attempting to justify CSR in economic terms. Brooks argues that this has resulted in an almost obsessive quest to find a positive relationship between corporate social performance (CSP) and CFP that has dominated the CSR discourse ever since, leading to a marginalization of moral considerations.…”

“…Brooks argues that this has resulted in an almost obsessive quest to find a positive relationship between corporate social performance (CSP) and CFP that has dominated the CSR discourse ever since, leading to a marginalization of moral considerations. It has been argued that CSR has won the battle, but lost the war in the sense that although Carroll's business-friendly model may have allowed CSR to have become accepted and even embraced by the business community, it does not allow ethical or even legal arguments to take precedence over economic arguments (Brooks 2010). Indeed if CSR was truly a moral responsibility then its relationship to CFP should be moot, yet while there are numerous articles relating to the relationship between CSR and CFP, there are very few exploring the social and environmental impacts of CSR (Baden & Harwood 2013), providing an indication of how far Carroll's conception of CSR is from being a model of genuine social responsibility.…”

Bank customers’ preferences and responses to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives in Ghana

“…Beyond the pressures that compel firms to engage in CSR, there is increasing evidence that links CSR to favourable stakeholder responses and firm performance indicators such as enhanced reputation, a motivated workforce, favourable consumer evaluations and increased purchases, the ability to attract potential employees and investors, and superior financial performance (Fombrun & Shanley 1990;Albinger & Freeman, 2000;Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001;Sen, Bhattacharya & Korschun, 2006;Brooks, 2010). Hence, beyond those factors that push firms into engaging in CSR (e.g.…”