CSR has lately become a hugely popular concept (see, for example, Görpe and Öksüz, Chapter 2 in this volume). As Görpe and Öksüz (Chapter 2 in this volume) note, the more irresponsible organizations are, the more reason there could be said to be for organizations to develop plans and strategies for CSR (see also Athanasopoulou and Selsky, Chapter 4 in this volume). Something which is often the case with popular ideas is that in the literature they are described as if they were universally applicable. The following quotes show that this may also be the case for CSR, in at least some of the literature: 'A company that intends to remain competitive in its industry must be seen to be socially responsible' (Idowu and Papasolomou 2007, p. 145); 'We can turn to more independent research about the benefits of CSR. The positive reports in a wide range of examples and in a variety of industries are worth considering. I have not been able to find any research that shows CSR to be a bad thing' (Holme 2010, p. 181); 'Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is of increasing concern and holds strategic implications to companies across industries' (Hsu 2012, p. 189). However, if any organization believes that CSR could work for them, without actors first reflecting upon it, then there is a risk that the organization might adopt elements that could prove to be fatal. For this reason there is a need to explore whether a broad, general model of CSR is relevant for organizations in various generalized contexts and, if not, then there is also reason to suggest what kind of CSR model would fit organizations in the generalized contexts where the general model of CSR has shown not to fit fully. Another thing that is common among popular ideas is that they are vague, which also has been argued to be true for CSR (for example,