2021/06/16 by Cynthia E. Clark, Marta Riera, María Iborra · 101 citations
Business, Management and Accounting · Decision Sciences · Psychology · #Business #CLARITY #Conceptual framework #Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting #Corporate social responsibility #Environmental Sustainability in Business #Ethics in Business and Education #Gray (unit) #Harm #Political science #Psychology #Public relations #Social psychology #Social science #Sociology
paper · open access · doi:10.1177/00076503211015911
published in Business & Society 61(6), 1473-1511 (SAGE Publishing)
openalex publication_date 2021/06/16 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
In this conceptual article, we argue that defining corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) as opposite constructs produces a lack of clarity between responsible and irresponsible acts. Furthermore, we contend that the treatment of the CSR and CSI concepts as opposites de-emphasizes the value of CSI as a stand-alone construct. Thus, we reorient the CSI discussion to include multiple aspects that current conceptualizations have not adequately accommodated. We provide an in-depth exploration of how researchers define CSI and both identify and analyze three important gray zones between CSR and CSI: (a) the role of harm and benefit, (b) the role of the actor and intentionality, and (c) the role of rectification. We offer these gray zones as factors contributing to the present lack of conceptual clarity of the term CSI, as a concept in its own right, leading to difficulties that researchers and managers experience in categorizing CSI acts as distinct from CSR.