Corporate Irresponsibility and Corporate Social Responsibility: Competing Realities

Social Responsibility Journal Emerald Article: Corporate irresponsibility and corporate social responsibility: competing realities Brian Jones, Ryan Bowd, Ralph Tench Article information: To cite this document: Brian Jones, Ryan Bowd, Ralph Tench, (2009),†Corporate irresponsibility and corporate social responsibility: competing realities†, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 5 Iss: 3 pp. 300 – 310 Permanent link to this document: http://dx. doi. org/10. 108/17471110910977249 Downloaded on: 14-10-2012 References: This document contains references to 45 other documents Citations: This document has been cited by 3 other documents To copy this document: [email  protected] com Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write f or and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www. emeraldinsight. com/authors for more information.About Emerald www. emeraldinsight. com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.Corporate irresponsibility and corporate social responsibility: competing realities Brian Jones, Ryan Bowd and Ralph Tench Brian Jones is a Senior Lecturer, Ryan Bowd is a Senior Lecturer and Ralph Tench is Professor in Communications Edu cation, all based at Leeds Business School, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK. Abstract Purpose – Building on the work of Carroll this article attempts to unravel, explore and explain corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a theoretical construct that has implications and consequences for corporate governance in particular, and more generally for the economy, business and society.It aims to extend Carroll’s work on de? nitional constructs by re-examining some of the theoretical frameworks that underpin, inform and guide CSR. Design/methodology/approach – Carroll identi? ed different levels, or a pyramid, of CSR and these are outlined and the advantages and disadvantages of a pyramid, levels-based approach discussed. The main contributions of this article lies is in its exploration of corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) as a concept in contrast to CSR.Bowd, Jones and Tench’s CSI-CSR model is described, explained, analysed and used as a concept ual tool to make the theoretical move from a pyramid or level-based approach to a more dynamic framework of analysis. Findings – The proposition that CSI is better suited to a shareholder business model and CSR sits more comfortably with a stakeholder business model is examined. It is contested that people often wrongly equate CSR with irresponsible corporate actions. The CSI-CSR model establishes a theoretical framework around which grounded empirical research can be undertaken, applied and on which it can be reported.Research limitations/implications – This is a new area of research that addresses a gap in the literature and puts forward innovative theoretical models. Discussing the concept of irresponsibility makes for an interesting theoretical move. It questions the idea that corporations and business per se are always or necessarily socially responsible. Originality/value – In looking at and developing existing theoretical models, concepts and frameworks a nd exploring their merits, shortcomings and limitations, the article will be of interest and relevance to the business and academic communities.If there is such a thing as CSR then the implication is that there is such a thing as CSI and it is on this issue that this article seeks to promote and stimulate discussion. Keywords Corporate social responsibility, Business ethics Paper type Research paper Introduction Corporations, their activities and governance have long been of interest to management and social scientists (see for example, Sampson, 1983). As it has gained a higher pro? le on the political, economic and business agendas in recent years (see for example, www. csr. gov. k; Commission of the European Communities, 2001, 2002), corporate social responsibility (CSR) has received increased attention from academics (see Whetten et al. , 2002; Arpan, 2005; Evuleocha, 2005; Riese, 2007; Birch, 2008). Corporate governance can be de? ned in a narrow and a broad way. For those who d e? ne it narrowly corporate governance is largely concerned with board level management issues. Reporting on the situation in the UK the Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance (1992, p. 15) described the term as ‘‘the system by which companies are directed and controlled’’.Such a narrow de? nition, adopting and advocating as it does a top The authors would like to thank David Crowther and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments in developing this paper. PAGE 300 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009, pp. 300-310, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-1117 DOI 10. 1108/17471110910977249 down approach to management, serves to demonstrate by example the inherent weaknesses of a command and control managerial style. Adopting both a bottom up and top down approach to management can better facilitate progress in regards to CSR.Corporate governance is at least in part about managerial compliance with legal requi rements surrounding CSR. Accepting the above, a more broad based de? nition might suggest that corporate governance permeates every level of the organisation, its activities and actual day-to-day operational workings. CSR is not con? ned to management but affects the whole organisation and its stakeholders (for a discussion of the stakeholder model of the corporation please see Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Cornelissen, 2004). This article adopts a broad-based de? nition of corporate governance. ‘Corporate citizenship’’ is a term commonly used in the same debates. There is lack of agreement on a common universal standardised de? nition of CSR and as a result there is confusion and overlap in the plethora of terms used (see Nielsen and Thomsen, 2007, p. 25) This article helps de? ne elements of CSR, thus aids understanding of the term and in so doing can better inform strategies for communication (Demetrious, 2008). CSR and corporate governance and citizenship are increasingly debated academic issues (see, for example, Schleifer and Vishny (1997); www. csr. gov. uk).Much of the emphasis has been placed upon businesses and business people to act in a more socially responsible manner and to acknowledge that shareholders are only one of a number of business stakeholders (Letza et al. , 2004). New and innovative ways to address and deal with issues emerging from the CSR and corporate governance agendas are increasingly being sought. This article stresses the difference between corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) and CSR and contests that the dualistic (or CSI-CSR bi-polar) model allows for greater clarity and understanding of the concepts that constitute and de? ne these terms.It is suggested that CSI is a term better suited to describing the workings of the ‘‘old’’ shareholder business model (Friedman, 1962) and that CSR is more applicable to the workings of the new and emerging stakeholder business model (Freeman, 1984). The CSI-CSR model allows for discussion and positioning of issues around CSR. Communication about issues of social responsibility (Demetrious, 2008) vary according to whether it is irresponsible or responsible corporate action being reported. A range of internal and external variables (see Figure 1), for example new technology, impact on businesses, what they do and how they perform.Such issues or variables may contain differing degrees of responsible and irresponsible actions and activities. On one issue a corporation might have exemplary behavior but on another it may perform poorly and need corrective action; for example, a business may have good policies, practices and procedures with regards to issues of diversity and equal opportunities but may be weak in terms of its commitment to Figure 1 CSI-CSR dichotomous model VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 301 j j addressing pollution and environmental concerns. The ways in which CSI and CSR issues are commu nicated differ.Quite simply responsible actions are, or ought to be trumpeted and irresponsible actions should be acknowledged. This is not always so. Some companies doing well in regards to CSR fail to communicate this message effectively or meaningfully. Some companies either knowingly or unknowingly doing badly in regards to CSR, in other words they are at the CSI end of the spectrum, might have their practices exposed and thus be in need of a communication strategy to deal with such an event. The CSR pyramid and de? nitional constructs Corporate social responsibility is de? ned by the British government on their website www. csr. gov. uk/whatiscsr. html as being about how: business takes account of its economic, social and environmental impacts in the way it operates – maximising the bene? ts and minimising the downsides’’ (Crown copyright, 2004). However this de? nition is only one of numerous and in some cases apparently polarised viewpoints of how CSR is de? ned in academic and professional thought (see for example, Carroll, 1979, 1991). Furthermore it has been proposed that CSR can be seen to be a construct that is individual to the stakeholder that de? nes it, and has been referred to as the social contract organisations have with their stakeholders (Bowd et al. 2005). Tullberg (2005) suggested two approaches to CSR; one the ‘‘responsive’’ and the second the ‘‘autonomous’’ approach. The autonomous approach is described as more independent and involves the company ignoring other stakeholders’ opinions to formulate strategy. The responsive approach suggests organisations should aim at being as responsive as possible to the demands emanating from society for them to act responsibly. This approach allows managers to think about the hypothetical public reaction to situations and to consider strategies to deal with them. In carrying out an analysis of CSR de? itions in academic and professional literature Bowd et al. (2006, p. 150) captured a variety of points and attributes that are believed to make up CSR and suggest it involves: . . . proactive community involvement, philanthropy, corporate governance, corporate citizenship, addressing of social issues, a commitment to the quality of its products and services, human rights, health, safety and the environment. . . Carroll (1979, 1991) and Wood (1991) have contributed to building de? nitions of the different levels at which organisations respond to their corporate social responsibilities. These levels of responsibility are de? ed as follows: B Economic level. Organisation produces products and services that society wants and sells them at a pro? t. Legal level. Organisation obeys all the laws and rules applied by the state. (E. g. tax, regulation, etc. ) Ethical level. Organisation views it as its responsibility to satisfy society’s expectations of business to go beyond basic legal requirements and do what is just and fair, and their practice is re? ective of this. Discretionary level. Organisation goes beyond stakeholder views of what is just and fair, and is an exemplary corporate citizen (adapted from Carroll (1979, 1991)).B B B It is clear from the list above that Carroll’s (1991) pyramid has at its base starting point the economy and economic performance. This is seen as pivotal and from this the second level concerned as it is with the law and legal rights, duties, rules and obligations are built. The third level is focused on business ethics in a wide stakeholder context. Finally the discretionary level involves philanthropy and this is where an organisation typically goes beyond its everyday expected duty and is thus deemed to be a good corporate citizen. Carroll (1991, p. 2) cautions that: No metaphor is perfect, and the CSR pyramid is no exception. It is intended to portray that the total CSR of business comprises distinct components that, taken together, con stitute the whole. Though the components have been treated as separate concepts for discussion purposes, they PAGE 302 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 j j are not mutually exclusive and are not intended to juxtapose a ? rm’s economic responsibilities with its other responsibilities. These points remain relevant to the circumstances of the 21st century.Nevertheless, Carroll’s (1991) model can be critiqued on a number of grounds. Firstly in adopting and applying a level based pyramid approach it appears as a staged hierarchy in which movement is based on ? xed criteria. It is contested here that this is not necessarily the case and that the concept of a levels based approach and ? xed criteria can act as a hindrance to further developing knowledge and understanding. Secondly the dynamism that characterises the social, economic and business world is only partially captured by the CSR pyramid.At times, like all models Carroll’s pyramid appears as a t heoretical abstract removed from the complex realities of the world it seeks to explain. Despite these criticisms Carroll’s (1991) pyramid of corporate social responsibility does have varying degrees of theoretical and practical utility. The application of the model, together with the context in which it operates and an understanding of what it seeks to achieve at both the abstract and practical levels are in a number of respects crucial in developing knowledge, making sense of and interpreting the world.The model is useful as it aids understanding of CSR, the issues that pertain to it and can therefore help improve communication. The model helps unravel the concept, establishes key elements and distinguishes itself in its exploration of CSR. For this alone Carroll’s (1979, 1991) pyramid deserves plaudits. Nevertheless, despite the merits of the model it is suggested here (see Figure 2) that it can be improved by addressing the staged level based hierarchy to make it a more ? uid concept better able to adapt to a world in a state of near perennial ? ux.Change is constant and theoretical models are required to re? ect this universal truism. The CSI-CSR framework The CSI-CSR model As previously discussed in relation to the various component parts and models available, CSR can mean different things to different people. It might be suggested that a clear de? nition of the term should be provided for policy makers, practitioners, activists, business and the community. This issue has already been alluded to in terms of the existing plethora of de? nitions in existence and it is unlikely that one unifying de? ition will be agreed upon given the competing agendas of different stakeholders. Figure 2 CSI-CSR environmental dynamic model VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 303 j j It is contested here that traditionally CSR has been confused and equated with CSI. For many, CSR is understood as, or de? ned in relation to, CSI; for example dis cussion of social responsibility issues often occurs when things are perceived as having ‘‘gone wrong’’ such as the recent Bear Stearns and Northern Rock crises.It is therefore necessary at the level of policy and practice and important at a conceptual level to separate out and de? ne the terms. CSI can be de? ned in relation to the issues that encompass it. For the key differences between CSI and CSR please see Table I. CSI is about being reactive as opposed to proactive in addressing corporate issues and the ways and means by which they relate to wider society. At its extreme CSI may entail breaking the law (e. g. Conrad Black, Robert Maxwell, Ernest Saunders). Companies such as Enron, Worldcom, and amongst others Union Carbide typify CSI.Getting it wrong in relation to CSR, in other words operating in a CSI manner, can have disastrous social, economic and business consequences as the aforementioned companies demonstrate so well. The bi-polar model develo ped here is not a one-dimensional linear process, as depicted below, in which investors, producers and consumers move from being irresponsible to being socially responsible. The trajectory proposed in Figure 3, based as it is on the Whig view of history in which the march of progress is seen as inevitable, is an ideal to be striven towards. The Whig interpretation of history has been described by Marwick (1989, p. 05) as: Table I CSR-CSI positions CSI Environmental degradation and pollution are inevitable and little if anything can or should be done Employees are a resource to be exploited Minimal community consultation and involvement Failure to comply, or reluctant and only basic compliance with legislation pertaining to CSR Ethical issues, if relevant at all are on the periphery of organisational working CSR Environmental degradation and pollution are not inevitable, should not be tolerated and it is important to raise awareness and commit to action Employees are a resource to be valued Maximise opportunities for community consultation and involvement Compliance with, as well as policy and practical actions that go beyond the minimum legislative requirements for CSR Ethical issues are central to and at the heart of organisational working Social exclusion is an inevitable by product of the operation of the Social inclusion helps to correct market inef? ciencies market New technologies should be developed and introduced to the market Governance of companies is best left to shareholders and management Work with suppliers and customers on an unfair basis Pragmatic approach to CSR issues Sustainability de? ned in terms of business survival Pro? is the sole purpose of business and should be achieved at any cost New technologies should be developed, tested, evaluated and if harmless introduced to the market Governance of companies involves shareholders, managers and a wide range of stakeholders including unions, works councils etc Work fairly with suppliers and cu stomers Principled and pragmatic approach to CSR issues Sustainability de? ned in terms of business, environmental and community survival and mutual growth Pro? t is one of many purposes of business and should be achieved, but not at any cost Figure 3 Linear CSI-CSR model PAGE 304 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 j j . . the view, prevalent in nineteenth century Britain, that history was steady progress towards liberal ideas and institutions. The reality of CSI and CSR is something of a more complex dynamic. It is contested here that CSI and CSR lie at opposite ends of a continuum. On the CSI-CSR continuum individuals, groups and organisations are not static but move between the two extremes. Movement between the positions is two directional and is driven by external environment factors such as legislation, politics, technology, ? nance, economics, culture and such like. One factor may prompt movement towards CSR whilst a counter prevailing factor may prompt movement towards CSI.The dichotomous CSI-CSR framework contains within it an inherent tension that is irreconcilable given that CSR is an ever-evolving concept; for example, the recent move towards bio-fuels intended to address the problem of climate change and global warming is now being called into question as a result of the in? ationary impact it is having on food prices. It is a two way variable process and movement is back, forwards and multi-directional depending on the factors driving the issues. CSI and CSR need to be unpackaged in order to better understand the complex nature of their components, function, operation and practice. The model outlined in Figure 1 depicts the two-way ? ow of CSI and CSR and has the potential to act as a tool for un-packaging and better understanding of the terms.The CSI-CSR model contributes to theoretical analysis and practical description and explanation. Depending on which side of the model businesses choose to operate within CSR can be either a â⠂¬ËœÃ¢â‚¬Ëœcore’’ or ‘‘add on’’ feature. For companies at the left of the spectrum and although there is other recent examples (e. g. Bear Stearns) nothing typi? es this better than Enron, CSR is an ‘‘add on’’ feature to their business operation – an afterthought rather than forethought. For companies at the right of the spectrum, such as the Co-operative Bank in the UK, CSR is a core feature that underpins, informs and guides their business strategy, operation and practice.Corporate communication practitioners could use the model to map and monitor CSR issues as they impact on their organisation. The model can be used in both a reactive and a proactive way. For example management might undertake a mapping and monitoring exercise, in other words a CSR audit, whereby they identify where their organisation lies on the CSI-CSR spectrum according to pro? t, ethical standards, human resources, community involvement and so on. Such an exercise will help practitioners identify areas in which their organisation is performing well with regards to CSR and identify areas for improvement. The model is useful in so far as it allows for the application of theory to communication practice.The CSI-CSR model provides for an analytical approach as opposed to a more prescriptive, staged approach to corporate citizenship (Mirvis and Googins, 2006). Some of the issues impacting on and shaping the changing dynamics of the CSI-CSR continuum are shown in Figure 1 and given more detail in Table I. Almost inevitably CSI and CSR are ideal types and as such have potential but also limits to their usefulness. As ideal types the two approaches shown in Table I serve to represent the extreme positions. Reality is often a complex mix of CSI and CSR modes of working. In a business, community or organisational setting CSR practice in part depends on various stakeholder requirements, customer and business needs.Whether wit h regards to customers, suppliers or the wider community a mix of CSI and CSR mode of working can operate comfortably alongside and within the various functional areas of management and the actual practices of the business itself. The CSI versus CSR framework allows managerial practitioners, theoreticians and others to discuss, contextualise and re? ect on their own practice in relation to CSR. In itself the model does not provide answers but as a managerial tool of analysis it allows for exploration of issues that may otherwise be ignored, or simply forgotten. Rochlin and Googins (2005, p. 2) write: Increasingly, businesses are becoming exposed to the risks associated with the gap between what they say and what they do. ‘What they say’’ might be equated with CSR and ‘‘what they do’’ might be equated with CSI. There is a gap between management rhetoric and reality as it is experienced and lived on the ground. The CSI-CSR framework allows management to acknowledge company VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 305 j j mistakes, errors, as well as misjudgements and thereby help minimise reputation and substantive business damage from the rhetoric-reality gap. Increasingly business recognises the need to move from an irresponsible to a responsible position on CSR/corporate citizenship issues, such as community involvement. The CSI-CSR model can be described as a conduit of corporate governance in that it acts as an enabler to action.As a problem-solving tool it can assist planning and thus help facilitate a potentially better managed, more productive and socially responsible, pro? table business. As previously mentioned a CSR audit can help pre-empt and react to problems and in this sense the model acts as a problem-solving tool by identifying business and organisational areas for improvement. Having identi? ed areas that need addressing the business or organisation needs to establish a CSR plan of actio n to limit potential damage and maximise potential gain. The plan will need to be monitored and reviewed and ought to have short, medium and long-term aims and objectives.In all of this both internal and external communication is central to deliver effective corporate CSR change. It is suggested here that CSI is better suited to the workings of the ‘‘old’’ shareholder business model with the CSR approach being better suited to the needs of the new stakeholder business model (see for example, Hutton, 1995, 1999). The ‘‘old’’ shareholder business model (Friedman, 1962) with its overwhelming focus on pro? t and little or no regard to issues such as the environment is prone to the adoption of irresponsible business practices, a current example being the case of American banks and the sub-prime lending crisis. In contrast, the ‘‘new’’ stakeholder business model (Freeman, 1984) focuses on pro? but also seeks to address other issues of concern. As such, the CSI versus CSR model is representative of both broader and deeper structural change within the body politic, economy and society. Hutton et al. (1996, p. 88) write: Any civilised community should be justly concerned to create as much wealth as it can, to ensure that income and wealth are fairly shared and that centres of private and public power are properly accountable. The aim must be to build a free, moral, socially cohesive society based on universal membership, social inclusion and organised around the market economy. This is what we mean by the stakeholder economy and society.It can be argued that there has been a paradigmatic shift from a business model and way of working in which shareholder interests and issues such as return on investment reign supreme, to one whereby different stakeholders compete to in? uence and shape the business agenda, so that shareholder interests are simply one of many. Holding this thought in mind anot her way of conceptualising the CSI-CSR model and its relationship with internal and external environmental factors is detailed below. Figure 2 serves to show that internal and external variables as well as mixing with and affecting each other also interact and impact on the CSI-CSR continuum. The model conceived here is a rotating sphere intersected by its axis, the continuum. Business does not operate in a vacuum, it has rights as well as obligations and has competing needs to meet and address.Rights (see, amongst others, Locke, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1979 and Steiner, 1994), obligations (see Turner, 1986) and needs (see Ignatieff, 1990) change over time and between contexts. Customer needs do not always equate with supplier needs, for example in terms of delivery of goods. Compared to even the relatively recent past businesses today have obligations to address environmental and sustainability issues, for example by sourcing all or part of their energy needs from renewable sources. Busi nesses do have a right and are expected as well as encouraged to make a pro? t but not at any cost, for example by the use of child labour. Increasingly businesses have to meet increasing public expectations and to address legal obligations around environmental and sustainability issues. The need of business to make pro? can, and does at times, coincide as well as con? ict with its stated ethical aims and objectives. Competing stakeholders with differing needs, rights and obligations have to be managed to ensure con? ict is minimised, the business survives, grows and is able to meet its commitments to CSR. How needs, rights and obligations are prioritised and met in the context of changing internal and external environmental factors can determine business, life, death and growth. Rotating as it does on its axis serves to demonstrate that external as well as internal factors can at PAGE 306 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 j j times buffet direction of the sphere and m ovement on the axis.Equally so, movement on the CSI-CSR continuum, or axis, can affect change and direction in the external and internal environment. Thus far the article has proposed a move away from a de? nition, explanation and analysis of CSR as a staged hierarchy; as espoused by Carroll (1991) in his pyramid of corporate social responsibility. Here, an alternative conceptualisation is suggested based on the notion that CSI should be separated out from CSR to facilitate greater understanding of the terms, their meaning, nature and purpose. Issues interspersed and feeding into the CSI-CSR continuum are affected by internal and external environmental factors. Such factors give shape, form and context to corporate governance and CSR.Placing Carroll’s (1991) pyramid of corporate social responsibility in a sphere (see above, Figure 2) as well as on and intersected by the CSI-CSR axis makes for an interesting theoretical and conceptual move. Putting the pyramid metaphorically i n the sphere recognises that the levels of responsibility are intrinsic to the way in which CSR is conceived. However, in suggesting that the pyramid and by implication the levels, can be rotated the inference is that the levels are neither hierarchical or static but ? uid and necessary to the other. In this model the levels move and take on differing degrees of importance according to internal and external environmental factors and the issues impacting on the directional movement of the CSI-CSR continuum.Contextual factors mean that economic, legal, ethical and discretionary levels change position inside the pyramid and that one cannot be fully understood without reference to the other. There is almost structured chaos within the model and thus lends itself to ideas emanating from chaos and complexity theories (see for example Marion, 1999; Byrne, 1998; Rowley and Roevens, 2000). The signi? cance of this article’s theoretical contribution is that it addresses the discussion and de? nition of CSR. By introducing the concept of CSI it counteracts the tendency to treat the concept of CSR as a one-dimensional single entity and unpacks the terms to reveal multi-faceted layers of complexity that are shaped by context. The idea of corporations acting irresponsibly is theoretically validated by the arguments posited here.As an analytical tool the CSI-CSR typology is of use to academics and practitioners as it facilitates the development of pro-active as well as re-active internal and external communication strategies. It is increasingly the case that CSR and CSI are issues about which corporations are required and expected to communicate. To do this effectively tools of analysis are required and herein lies the unique contribution of this article. Concluding remarks This article has explored and analysed CSR and its antithesis CSI. That businesses act both irresponsibly and responsibly is highlighted in the distinction made by the terms. The terms themselves a re often con? ated and a greater distinction ought to be drawn between CSR and CSI.It is wrong to equate irresponsible business practice with CSR. Writing about the issue of social responsibility Milton Friedman (1962:133) asserted that it was ‘‘fundamentally subversive’’. More than 40 years on since making those claims it is interesting to speculate as to how Friedman would describe the concept of CSI. The concept may act as an af? rmation of his original statement and could well be described by some as being ‘‘totally subversive’’. However, this description only tells part of the story, for the reality is that CSI allows for greater understanding and clarity of the processes and practices by which businesses operate in doing good as well as doing wrong.The CSI-CSR framework acts as a tool of support for management to identify issues that may do harm to the business, pre-empt or react to them, and thus not only place the business in a better position to survive but to also better meet customer needs. What some may deem to be a subversive concept is in fact a practical tool of analysis for an increasingly competitive business environment. The CSI-CSR framework enables businesses to better meet existing and emerging needs in a dynamic, highly competitive, ever-changing business environment. The proposed bi-polar, dualistic model enables analysis of CSR business practice and allows for change and measurement to be reported on in terms of a sliding scale of ‘‘doing good’’ as well as ‘‘doing bad’’. As well as operating as a theoretical conceptual model the VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 307 j j roposed framework is also a tool of analysis that can be applied and used to enhance and make more transparent systems and practices of CSR. Analysed at a super? cial, linguistic level CSR is a concept that is hard to disagree with. It has a ‘à ¢â‚¬Ëœwarm’’ and ‘‘positive’’ feel to it and is something to which stakeholders are happy to sign up to in one way, shape or form. The sub-textual message inferred by the term CSR is that corporations are socially responsible. The term CSI challenges this CSR sub-text and poses questions around how corporations communicate these issues. That corporations can act irresponsibly is not something easily refuted.CSI and CSR are politically infused language based terms that surround and are about the roles of business, corporations and the politics and discourse of the workplace. The language used is soothing, calming and designed to ameliorate dissenting points of view. It is about building consent. At the same time however it is important for business to acknowledge when things go wrong in regards to issues of social responsibility, know how to deal with and manage the communication issues surrounding them with a view to mounting a damage limitati on exercise. One term cannot be conceived without the other, they are intertwined, belong to and are about each other. It is suggested here that CSI and CSR are part and parcel of the fabric of the ideal of a free, democratic, stakeholding, capitalist economy and society.As such, they are issues that require debate, monitoring and the engagement of individual and corporate active citizenship (see Marshall, 1963). Communication and dialogue are of critical importance for developing understanding and building knowledge of how to be a good individual and corporate citizen. For some the shift from a CSI to a CSR position is a perceptual rather than a substantive change. This critique of the CSR agenda is the voice of cynicism and belies what for others is an actual change in attitude and business practice. This of course is not to say that more could not be done. Such a critique is not without some merit in so far as CSI, even in today’s ‘‘open’’ and â⠂¬ËœÃ¢â‚¬Ëœtransparent’’ organisations, remains somewhat hidden from view.It should not be forgotten that CSI can impact on and harm companies’ bottom line and it is primarily for this reason that a conspiracy of silence pervades organisations and workplace cultures where irresponsible practices exist. Communication using open and transparent dialogue within organisations can facilitate the breaking of silence around irresponsible corporate practices and might limit future damage and/or create new business opportunities. The majority of companies are keen to embrace CSR issues and of their own volition go beyond legal minimum requirements. Not only do companies want to do well by doing good, but also some want to do good because they believe it to be the right and proper thing to do. Not all businesses are communicating what it is they do in regards to CSR to best effect.Regarding their social responsibility practices a CSI-CSR audit can help businesses identify areas of strength and areas for improvement. In itself such an exercise can act as a useful vehicle of and for communication. It is increasingly recognised that adopting a CSR approach can be both an ethical and pro? table way to manage a business. Ethics and pro? t are not mutually exclusive terms but have a symbiotic relationship in the form of CSR. Though nevertheless, at the end of the day and as Friedman (1962) rightly noted, the purpose of business is to make pro? t. In revisiting the work by Carroll (1979, 1991, 1999) and his exposition of CSR this article has sought to build on and further develop the concept, from both an academic and practitioner perspective.In applying the CSI-CSR framework as a legitimate tool of application and analysis it has established the premise that business does not always act in a responsible manner and does at times, given a particular set of circumstances, act irresponsibly. The import of the CSI-CSR model is in establishing this idea and rec ognising that from a theoretical and communication practice based world viewpoint action can be taken to address and minimise opportunities for irresponsible corporate actions and to maximise opportunities for responsible social behavior. The broad de? nition of good, ethically driven corporate governance strives towards CSR and away from CSI. Behaving in a CSR way makes sound business sense, as Enron, Worldcom and others bear testimony.The challenge for the future (http://www. foresight. gov. uk/) is to move mindsets away from CSI and to CSR proper. PAGE 308 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 j j References Arpan, L. M. (2005), ‘‘Integration of information about corporate social performance’’, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 83-98. Birch, D. (2008), ‘‘Analysis of CSR: principles and concepts’’, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 4 Nos 1-2, pp. 129-35. Bowd, R. , Bowd, L. and Har ris, P. (2006), ‘‘Communicating corporate social responsibility: an exploratory case study of a major UK retail centre’’, Journal of Public Affairs,, May, pp. 147-55. Bowd, R. , Jones, B. nd Tench, R. (2005), CSR and the Media, Summary Research Report, Leeds Metropolitan University and Connectpoint, Leeds. Byrne, D. (1998), Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: An Introduction, Routledge, London. Carroll, A. (1979), ‘‘A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505. Carroll, A. (1991), ‘‘The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders’’, Business Horizons, July-August. Carroll, A. (1999), ‘‘Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a de? nitional construct’’, Business and Society, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 68-95. Commission of the European Communiti es (2001), Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. Commission of the European Communities (2002), Communication from the Commission Concerning; Corporate Social Responsibility: A Business Contribution to Sustainable Development, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance (1992), Cadbury Report, Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance, London. Cornelissen, J. (2004), Corporate Communications, Theory and Practice, Sage, London. Demetrious, K. 2008), ‘‘Corporate social responsibility, new activism and public relations’’, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 41 Nos 1/2, pp. 104-19. Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. E. (1995), ‘‘Stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence and implications’’, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 65-91. Evuleocha, S. U. (2005), ‘‘Managing indigenous relations corporate social responsibility in a new age of activism’’, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 328-40. Freeman, R. E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA. Friedman, M. (1962), Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Hutton, W. 1995), The State We’re in, Vintage, Colchester. Hutton, W. (1999) in Goldblatt, D. (Ed. ), The Stakeholding Society: Writings on Politics and Economics, Polity Press, Cambridge. Hutton, W. , Field, F. , Kay, J. , Marquand, D. and Gray, J. (1996), ‘‘Tony and the Tories: this is what we mean’’, Observer, 7 July 1996, pp. 88-92. Ignatieff, M. (1990), The Needs of Strangers, The Hogarth Press, London. Letza, S. , Sun, X. and Kirkbride, J. (2004), ‘‘Shareholding versus stakeholding: a critical review of corporate governance’’, Corporate Governan ce, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 242-62. Locke, J. (1958) in von Leyden, W. (Ed. ), Essays on the Law of Nature, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Locke, J. 1959), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 2 vols, Dover, New York, NY. Locke, J. (1960) in Laslett, P. (Ed. ), Two Treatises of Government, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Locke, J. (1979) in Sherman, C. L. (Ed. ), Treatise on Civil Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration, Irvington, New York, NY. Marion, R. (1999), The Edge of Organisation: Chaos and Complexity Theories of Formal Social Systems, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 309 j j Marwick, A. (1989), The Nature of History, 3rd ed. , Macmillan Press Ltd, Basingstoke. Marshall, T. H. (1963), Sociology at the Crossroads, Heinemann Educational Books, London. Mirvis, P. nd Googins, B. (2006), Stages of Corporate Citizenship: A Developmental Framework, The Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA. Nielsen, A. E. and Thomsen, C. (2007), ‘‘Reporting CSR – what and how to say it? ’’, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 25-40. Riese, J. (2007), ‘‘Thou shalt not be good enough: (mis)understanding CSR’’, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 15-20. Rochlin, S. A. and Googins, B. K. (2005), The Value Proposition for Corporate Citizenship, The Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA. Rowley, R. M. and Roevens, J. J. 2000), Organise with Chaos: Putting Modern Chaos Theory to Work in Your Organisation, Management Books, Chalford. Sampson, A. (1983), The Sovereign State: Secret History of International Telephone and Telegraph, Coronet Books, Philadelphia, PA. Schleifer, A. and Vishny, R. W. (1997), ‘‘A survey of corporate governance’’, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 52, pp. 727-83. Steiner, H. (1994), An Essay on Rights, Blackwell, Oxford. Tullberg, J. (2005), ‘‘What should companies be responsible for? ’’, Business Ethics: A European View, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 261-3. Turner, B. S. (1986), Citizenship and Capitalism: The Debate over Reformism, Allen and Unwin, London. Wood, D. 1991), ‘‘Corporate social performance revisited’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 758-69. Whetten, D. , Rands, G. and Godfrey, P. (2002), ‘‘What are the responsibilities of business to society’’, in Pettigrew, A. , Howard, T. and Whittington, R. (Eds), Handbook of Strategy and Management, Sage, pp. 373-408. Further reading Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College and The US Chamber of Commerce Center for Corporate Citizenship (2005), The State of Corporate Citizenship in the US Business Perspectives in 2005, The Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA. European Commission (2004), European Multistakeholder Forum o n CSR, Final Report, 29 June.European Commission, Employment and Social Affairs, Industrial relations and industrial change, European Commission Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs (2004), ABC of the Main Instruments of Corporate Social Responsibility, European Commission. Little, A. D. (2003), The Business Case for Corporate Responsibility, Beacon Press, Uck? eld. Corresponding author Brian Jones can be contacted at: b. t. [email  protected] ac. uk To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email  protected] com Or visit our web site for further details: www. emeraldinsight. com/reprints PAGE 310 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 j j