CSR As Aspirational Talk Christensen Et Al

Citations: http://org.sagepub.com/content/20/3/372.refs.html >> Version of Record - Apr 17, 2013 What is This? Downloaded from org.sagepub.com by guest on May 20, 2013 Morsing, 2011; Matten and Moon, 2008). Throughout its history, the meaning of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been in constant flux (Carroll, 1979, 1999), a moving target (Churchill, 1974), shaped by interpretations, enactments and negotiations of legislators, corporations and other agenda-setters (Christensen and Cheney, 2011; Okoye, 2009) of exploration (Lockett et al., 2006) where ideals, standards and goals are continuously expanding and evolving (Gilbert et al., 2011; Scherer and Palazzo, 2007, 2010). Porcelænshaven 18A, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark. Email: ltc.ikl@cbs.dk Downloaded from org.sagepub.com by guest on May 20, 2013 Khan et al., 2007), we argue that aspirational talk under certain circumstances has the potential to produce positive developments within the field of CSR and beyond. Every, 2000; see also Weick, 1979). Following this tradition, we argue that CSR communication is essentially aspirational and therefore not a perfect reflection of organizational CSR practices. perspective, communication is seen as secondary and inferior to action (Grant et al., 1998). CSR, we are told again and again, means doing something good to society, not just talking about it (Aras and Crowther, 2009; Fernando, 2010; Fougère and Solitander, 2009; HolderWebb et al., 2009; May et al., 2007) regarded as superficial (e.g. Mintzberg, 1983; Porter and Kramer, 2006) and frequently described as a powerful means to ward off criticism or give the false impression that organizations have nothing to hide (e.g by the massive investment in CSR messages—described by Newell (2008: 1064) as ‘deafening’—critics tend to focus their critique on corporations that publicly celebrate their CSR engagement (Jahdi and Acikdilli, 2009; Morsing and Schultz, 2006) scholars suggest that CSR communication means ‘nothing more than business as usual’ (Hopwood et al., 2005), expresses policies and intentions ‘without any real substance’ (Kolk, 2003), is simply ‘corporate spin’ to gain legitimacy (Jahdi and Acikdilli, 2009) or a cheap ‘prosthesis, readily attached to the corporate body, that repairs its appearance, but in no way changes its actual conduct’ (Roberts, 2003: 250). In line with such descriptions, Banerjee (2008: 51) suggests that expressions of CSR are nothing but symbols of an ideological movement stated that the triple bottom line is ‘a license to obfuscate’ and that corporate social responsibility is ‘merely cosmetic’ (Crook, 2005: 2; see also Stern, 2009). Downloaded from org.sagepub.com by guest on May 20, 2013