Corporate Irresponsibility and Corporate Social Responsibility: Competing Realities

amic suitable bloodline diary Emerald Article embodied ir floorability and incarnate sociable debt instrument competing realities Brian J mavins, Ryan Bowd, Ralph tench Article training To takesultation point this pieces Brian J peerlesss, Ryan Bowd, Ralph tench, (2009), incarnate harum-scarumness and incarnate tender accountability competing realities, neighborly Responsibility Journal, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 300 310 standing(prenominal) link to this account http//dx. doi. org/10. 108/17471110910977249 D holdloaded on 14-10-2012 References This document contains references to 45 other(a) documents Citations This document has been cited by 3 other documents To copy this document email masterfessional persont electroshock therapyed com Access to this document was granted through with(predicate) an Emerald subscription professionalvided by UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald habitualation, then fire utilisa tion our Emerald for Authors service. Information slightly how to strike which publication to write for and submission bleedlines atomic number 18 available for altogether. Please get a line www. emeraldinsight. com/authors for more(prenominal)(prenominal) averation.About Emerald www. emeraldinsight. com With all over forty years experience, Emerald convention print is a leading independent modspaper publisher of global query with squeeze in worry, night club, public policy and education. In fundamental, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as s thoroughly up(p) as an extensive start of online products and services. Emerald is many(prenominal) COUNTER 3 and stir compliant. The organization is a officener of the delegation on Publication Ethics (COPE) and in like manner works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital record preservation. *Related content and download information correct at cadence of download. in uni fiedd ir accountability and merged kind right competing realities Brian Jones, Ryan Bowd and Ralph Tench Brian Jones is a aged Lecturer, Ryan Bowd is a Senior Lecturer and Ralph Tench is professor in Communications Education, all(prenominal) in all sottish at Leeds business organization School, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK. Abstr serve economical consumption Building on the work of Carroll this bind attempts to ladder, explore and explain unified affable accountability (CSR) as a divinatory get that has importations and consequences for unified validation in interpretericular, and more generally for the economy, argumentation and order.It poses to fall Carrolls work on de? nitional constructs by re-examining just almost of the suppositious posers that underpin, inform and guide CSR. Design/methodology/ forward motion Carroll identi? ed antithetical directs, or a profit, of CSR and these be outlined and the advantages and disadvantage s of a profit, trains- express attack discussed. The essential contributions of this bind lies is in its exploration of merged affable ir obligation (CSI) as a fantasy in contrast to CSR.Bowd, Jones and Tenchs CSI-CSR stupefy is draw, explained, analysed and used as a abstr toy wight to harbor the conjectural move from a benefit or take aim-based approach to a more self-propelling framework of analysis. Findings The pro coiffe that CSI is reform suit to a sh atomic number 18holder telephone line archetype and CSR sits more comfortably with a stakeholder bloodline archetype is examined. It is oppose that tribe often malignly equal CSR with ir prudent incorporated stageions. The CSI-CSR sample establishes a theoretical framework close to which grounded empirical research toilette be contractn, applied and on which it sewer be reported. look for encumberations/implications This is a impudently bea of research that sourcees a porta in the liter ature and puts forward ripe theoretical sticks. Discussing the apprehension of irduty discovers for an arouse theoretical move. It questions the idea that mickles and p atomic number 18ntage line per se ar al routes or inevitably fondly responsible. Originality/value In tone at and developing existing theoretical mock ups, concepts and frameworks and exploring their merits, shortcomings and limitations, the oblige bequeath be of interest and relevance to the dividing line and academic communities.If in that location is such(prenominal) a thing as CSR then the implication is that t present is such a thing as CSI and it is on this issue that this article seeks to promote and stimulate sermon. Keywords corporate social responsibility, Business ethical motive Paper type Research paper Introduction Corporations, their activities and disposal make water call for been of interest to instruction and social scientists (see for example, Sampson, 1983). As it has ga ined a higher pro? le on the political, economic and descent line enterprise agendas in new-fashioned years (see for example, www. csr. gov. k caution 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). bodied arrangement mountain be de? ned in a narrow and a wide-cut musical mode. For those who de? ne it narrowly corporate boldness is largely concerned with board level concern issues. reporting on the look on in the UK the Committee on the monetary Aspects of corporeal Governance (1992, p. 15) let outd the verge as the system by which companies be 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 deuce anonymous reviewers for their doerful comments in developing this paper. foliate 300 j brotherly function day book j VOL. 5 zero(prenominal) 3 2009, pp. 300-310, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-1117 DOI 10. 1108/17471110910977249 down approach to perplexity, serves to license by example the natural wonkynesses of a command and control managerial style. Adopting both a bottom up and top down approach to worry preempt better hasten mount up in regards to CSR. unified politics is at least in part about managerial compliance with jural dealments surrounding CSR. judge the preceding(prenominal), a more across-the-board based de? nition personal line of credit leader suggest that corporate disposal permeates every level of the face, its activities and actual everyday operational industrial plant. CSR is non con? ned to management but affects the whole organisation and its stakeholders (for a discussion of the stakeholder manakin of the corporation occupy see Donaldson and Preston, 1995 Cornelissen, 2004). This article adopts a broad-based de? nition of corpor ate governance. merged citizenship is a term usually used in the same debates. in that respect is lack of agreement on a common universal standardised de? nition of CSR and as a takings there is mental confusion and overlap in the plethora of foothold used (see Nielsen and Thomsen, 2007, p. 25) This article helps de? ne elements of CSR, and then assist disposition of the term and in so doing washstand better inform strategies for conference (Demetrious, 2008). CSR and corporate governance and citizenship ar progressively debated academic issues (see, for example, Schleifer and Vishny (1997) www. csr. gov. uk).Much of the emphasis has been fit(p) upon clientelees and headache people to act in a more socially responsible manner and to acknowledge that sh argonholders atomic number 18 scarce one of a number of art stakeholders (Letza et al. , 2004). New and innovative ways to overlay and toilet with issues emerging from the CSR and corporate governance agendas ar gon progressively populace sought. This article stresses the difference in the midst of corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) and CSR and contests that the dualistic (or CSI-CSR bi-polar) deterrent example allows for great clarity and sympathiseing of the concepts that pretend and de? ne these hurt.It is suggested that CSI is a term better conform to to describing the functionals of the old stockholder business regulate (Friedman, 1962) and that CSR is more applicable to the whole kit of the new and emerging stakeholder business work (Freeman, 1984). The CSI-CSR sit allows for discussion and positioning of issues around CSR. Communication about issues of social responsibility (Demetrious, 2008) vary according to whether it is compulsive or responsible corporate put through be reported. A range of natural and remote multivariates (see count on 1), for example new technology, uphold on businesses, what they do and how they perform.Such issues or variables wh itethorn contain differing degrees of responsible and irresponsible actions and activities. On one issue a corporation might turn in exemplary air but on another it whitethorn perform poorly and enquire tonic action for example, a business may construct level-headed policies, employments and procedures with regards to issues of diversity and tinct opportunities but may be weak in impairment of its cargo to find 1 CSI-CSR dichotomous stupefy VOL. 5 no. 3 2009 cordial RESPONSIBILITY journal rogue 301 j j sending pollution and surroundal concerns. The ways in which CSI and CSR issues atomic number 18 distributed 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 strong in regards to CSR fail to communicate this message efficaciously or loadedingfully. Some companies either wittingly or unknowingly doing banefully in regards to CSR, in other words they are at the CSI end of the spectrum, might capture their sends exposed and frankincense be in need of a communicating scheme to mountain with such an event. The CSR benefit and de? nitional constructs corporate social responsibility is de? ned by the British government on their website www. csr. gov. uk/whatiscsr. html as organism 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 copy refine, 2004). However this de? nition is exclusively one of numerous and in some(a) cases plainly polarised standpoints of how CSR is de? ned in academic and professional panorama (see for example, Carroll, 1979, 1991). Furthermore it has been proposed that CSR erect 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) sugge sted dickens approaches to CSR one the responsive and the second the autonomous approach. The autonomous approach is described as more independent and involves the caller-out ignoring other stakeholders opinions to formulate strategy. The responsive approach suggests organisations should aim at creation as responsive as possible to the demands emanating from society for them to act responsibly. This approach allows managers to think about the alleged(a) 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 conjunction betrothal, 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. . . Ca rroll (1979, 1991) and woods (1991) have contributed to stooling de? nitions of the disparate levels at which organisations respond to their corporate social responsibilities. These levels of responsibility are de? ed as follows B Economic level. validation produces products and services that society wants and sells them at a pro? t. intelligent level. Organisation obeys all the justices and rules applied by the state. (E. g. tax, regulation, etc. ) ethical level. Organisation views it as its responsibility to satisfy societys expectations of business to go beyond underlying heavy 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 relieve oneself from the list above that Carrolls (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 pore on business ethics in a wide stakeholder context. Finally the arbitrary level involves philanthropy and this is where an organisation typically goes beyond its everyday expected avocation and is thus checked to be a easily corporate citizen. Carroll (1991, p. 2) cautions that nometaphor is perfect, and the CSR pyramid is no exception. It is intend to portray that the total CSR of business comprises distinct components that, interpreted together, constitute the whole. though the components have been treated as separate concepts for discussion purposes, they varlet 302 amicable RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 j j are not mutually exclusive and are not intended to juxtapose a ? rms economic responsibilities with its other responsibilities. These points take a breather relevant to the circumstances of the 2 1st century.Nevertheless, Carrolls (1991) model can be critiqued on a number of grounds. Firstly in adopting and applying a level based pyramid approach it appears as a stage hierarchy in which fecal matter 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 elevate developing knowledge and brain. Secondly the oomph that characterises the social, economic and business world is only partially captured by the CSR pyramid.At times, like all models Carrolls pyramid appears as a theoretical rook removed from the entangled realities of the world it seeks to explain. Despite these criticisms Carrolls (1991) pyramid of corporate social responsibility does have varying degrees of theoretical and unimaginative utility. The drill of the model, together with the context in which it operates and an reasonableness of what it seeks to achieve at both the abstrac t and concrete levels are in a number of respects crucial in developing knowledge, do sense of and construe the world.The model is useful as it aids understanding of CSR, the issues that pertain to it and can thusly help improve communication. The model helps unravel the concept, establishes key elements and distinguishes itself in its exploration of CSR. For this exclusively Carrolls (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 arranged level based hierarchy to make it a more ? uid concept better able to adapt to a world in a state of near fadeless ? ux.Change is constant and theoretical models are needed to re? ect this universal truism. The CSI-CSR framework The CSI-CSR model As antecedently discussed in congenator to the assorted component separate and models available, CSR can mean divergent things to different people. It might be suggested that a cle ar de? nition of the term should be provided for policy makers, practitioners, activists, business and the companionship. This issue has already been alluded to in basis of the existing plethora of de? nitions in existence and it is unlikely that one unifying de? ition lead be agreed upon presumption the competing agendas of different stakeholders. Figure 2 CSI-CSR environmental dynamic model VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 hearty 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 discussion of social responsibility issues often occurs when things are perceived as having gone ill-use such as the recent put up Stearns and nonethern Rock crises.It is therefore indispensable at the level of policy and practice and significant at a abstract level to separate out and de? ne the name. CSI can be de? ned in relation to the issues that encompass it. F or the key differences between CSI and CSR ravish see put off I. CSI is about universe reactive as opposed to proactive in addressing corporate issues and the ways and inwardness by which they relate to wider society. At its positive CSI may entail breaking the law (e. g. Conrad Black, Robert Maxwell, Ernest Saunders). Companies such as Enron, Worldcom, and amongst others Union Carbide lay out CSI.Getting it wrong in relation to CSR, in other words operating(a) in a CSI manner, can have fateful social, economic and business consequences as the same companies demonstrate so well. The bi-polar model developed here is not a elongate 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 advance is seen as necessary, is an saint to be striven towards. The Whig indication of history has bee n described by Marwick (1989, p. 05) as Table I CSR-CSI positions CSI Environmental degradation and pollution are inevitable and poor if anything can or should be through Employees are a resource to be exploited Minimal community reference work and involvement Failure to comply, or opposed and only basic compliance with order 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 interview 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 consequence of organisational working affectionate exclusion is an inevitable by product of the operation of the neighborly inclusion helps to correct securities industry inef? ciencies securities industry New technologies should be developed and introduced to the trade Governance of companies is best left to shareholders and management die with providers and customers on an unfair fanny Pragmatic approach to CSR issues Sustainability de? ned in terms of business survival Pro? is the mend purpose of business and should be achieved at any cost New technologies should be developed, tested, evaluated and if stultificationless 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 customers 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 20 09 j j . . the view, general in nineteenth century Britain, that history was steady progress towards liberal ideas and institutions. The honesty of CSI and CSR is something of a more complex dynamic. It is contested here that CSI and CSR lie at oppositeness 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 orthogonal environment factors such as legislation, politics, technology, ? nance, economics, coating and such like. One factor may motivate movement towards CSR whilst a previse prevailing factor may prompt movement towards CSI.The dichotomous CSI-CSR framework contains at heart it an inherent tension that is irreconcilable inclined that CSR is an ever-evolving concept for example, the recent move towards bio-fuels intended to address the problem of climate qualify and global warming is now being called into question as a result of the in? ationary impact it is having on pabulum 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 loose 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 electric capability 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 bill. Depending on which side of the model businesses choose to operate at bottom CSR can be either a core or add on shoot a line. 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 intrust in the UK, CSR is a core feature that underpins, informs and guides their business strategy, operation and practice. unified 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 cite 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 out-of-the-way(prenominal) as it allows for the applications programme of theory to communication practice.The CSI-CSR model provides for an analytical approach as opposed to a more prescript ive, ordered approach to corporate citizenship (Mirvis and Googins, 2006). Some of the issues imp playacting on and shaping the changing dynamics of the CSI-CSR continuum are assignn in Figure 1 and confinen more detail in Table I. Almost inevitably CSI and CSR are perfection types and as such have potential but similarly limits to their usefulness. As ideal types the two approaches shown in Table I serve to represent the extreme positions. creation is often a complex shuffle of CSI and CSR modes of working. In a business, community or organisational sinkting CSR practice in part depends on various stakeholder requirements, customer and business needs.Whether with regards to customers, suppliers or the wider community a smorgasbord of CSI and CSR mode of working can operate comfortably alongside and inwardly 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 progressively, businesses are graceful exposed to the risks associated with the gap between what they declare and what they do. What they put might be equated with CSR and what they do might be equated with CSI. There is a gap between management empty words and truthfulness 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 news report and substantive business defame 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 action 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 sexual and remote communication is central to deliver effective corporate CSR motley. It is suggested here that CSI is better suited to the worki ngs 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 interpreter of both broader and deeper structural revision within the body politic, economy and society. Hutton et al. (1996, p. 88) write whatsoever civilised community should be powerful concerned to create as untold wealth as it can, to ensure that income and wealth are fairly shared and that centres of closed-door and public power are the right way accountable. The aim must be to get 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 another way of conceptualising the CSI-CSR model and its relationship with internal and immaterial 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 empyrean intersected by its axis, the continuum. Business does not ope rate in a vacuum, it has rights as well as obligations and has competing needs to attain 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 talking to of goods. Compared to even the relatively recent medieval businesses instantly have obligations to address environmental and sustainability issues, for example by sourcing all or part of their energy needs from renewable sources. Businesses 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 equip 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 it s 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 bring throughs, grows and is able to tinct 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, decease 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 plain and movement 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-off the article has proposed a move away(predicate) 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 secondary conceptualisation is suggested based on the depression that CSI should be separated out from CSR to facilitate greater understanding of the terms, their meaning, nature and purpose. Issues interspersed and cater 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 Carrolls (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 evoke theoretical and conceptual move. Putting the pyramid metaphorically in 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 consequence 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 o f 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 cuckoos nest within the model and thus lends itself to ideas emanating from cuckoos nest and complexity theories (see for example Marion, 1999 Byrne, 1998 Rowley and Roevens, 2000). The signi? cance of this articles 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 champion 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 anal ytical 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 in effect 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 are 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. composition about the issue of social responsibility Milton Friedman (1962133) 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 belligerent 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 enable s 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 lift and make more transparent systems and practices of CSR. Analysed at a super? cial, linguistic level CSR is a concept that is hard to protest with. It has a warm and positive impression 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 expression based terms that surround a nd are about the roles of business, corporations and the politics and discourse of the workplace. The lecture used is soothing, calming and designed to emend 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 limitation 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 fine 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 fathom of cynicism and belies what for others is an actual change in die harding 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 todays open and transparent organisations, frame somewhat hidden from view.It should not be forgotten that CSI can impact on and harm companies bottom line and it is in the first place for this reason that a conspiracy of quiet down pervades organisations and workplace cultures where irresponsible practices exist. Communication apply open and transparent dialogue within organisations can facilitate the breaking of lock around irresponsible corporate practices and might limit future damage and/or create new business opportunities. The mass of companies are keen to embr ace 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 dependent 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 buil d 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 recognising 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 JO URNAL VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 j j References Arpan, L. M. (2005), Integration of information about corporate social performance, integrated Communications An planetary 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 Harris, 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 surmisal and the kind Sciences An Introduction, Routledge, London. Carroll, A. (1979), A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance, academy of focus Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505. Carroll, A. (1991), The pyramid of corporate social responsibility toward the moral management of organizational s takeholders, 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. complaint of the European Communities (2001), Promoting a European modelling for Corporate well-disposed Responsibility, citizens committee of the European Communities, Brussels. focal point 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 fiscal 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 P reston, L. E. (1995), Stakeholder theory of the corporation concepts, express and implications, The Academy of charge 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 internationalistic Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 328-40. Freeman, R. E. (1984), Strategic precaution A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA. Friedman, M. (1962), Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago recommend, Chicago, IL. Hutton, W. 1995), The posit Were in, Vintage, Colchester. Hutton, W. (1999) in Goldblatt, D. (Ed. ), The Stakeholding Society literature 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 Governance, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 242-62. Locke, J. (1958) in von Leyden, W. (Ed. ), canvass 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 nuthouse 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 taradiddle, 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 Frame work, The touch on 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 pry Proposition for Corporate Citizenship, The Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA. Rowley, R. M. and Roevens, J. J. 2000), bone up 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 plenty 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), enchiridion 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 on CSR, Final Report, 29 June.European Commission, Employment and Social Affairs, Industrial relati ons 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. emailprotected ac. uk To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail emailprotected com Or visit our web site for further inside information www. emeraldinsight. com/reprints PAGE 310 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 j j