The Debate over Corporate Social Responsibility

Citation

Tench, R. (2010), "The Debate over Corporate Social Responsibility", Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 96-98. https://doi.org/10.1108/13632541011017843

Responsibility, accountability, sustainability, governance – call it what you like, it is absolutely clear that these topics grouped around the label of corporate social responsibility (CSR) are dominating business leaders' and business schools' agendas. This is currently reflected in business reports (Edelman Trust Barometer, 2009) as well as academic trend surveys of communications professionals such as the recent European Communication Monitor (Zerfass et al., 2009). The Debate over Corporate Social Responsibility is an academic book which re‐emphasises this point and adds a great deal more. Why? Well first, it is exactly what the topic requires – a comprehensive, mulit‐disciplinary analysis and debate about the subject in the context of communications. It covers history, legal issues, economic perspectives, social and environmental perspectives, and attempts to integrate alternative social and cultural perspectives for the subject. And then there are case studies on top. Sounds a lot in one book and it is. However this strength in depth is a potential weakness, if there is one. To put it simply this is the combined effort of 50 contributors and editors. Having worked on similar multi‐authored books I know the challenges this brings. And while The Debate over Corporate Social Responsibility does not attempt to find uniformity either in the writing style or message this was clearly a major undertaking. I must say the experienced editors, May, Cheney and Roper have, however, applied their knowledge and skills expertly. For example, it is gratifying to see the cross referencing between arguments in different chapters picked up by the editors but also by the contributors as the iterative methodology appears to have been employed in the production and writing process for the contributing authors.

One of the front line challenges for CSR is the whole issue of name and label. Is it simply corporate responsibility? Or should we also include in that label the word social? What does responsibility mean? Here, at the starting point of the debate, we see evidence of interesting differences of opinion in the book and exploration of the issue. For many academics, writers and practitioners the recent trend has been to drop the social. Werhane, in her discussion of discretionary as opposed to moral responsibility in chapter 32 at the end of the book, draws out this debate and leaves the reader with challenges and questions as well as some answers. Similarly, the word responsibility promotes further discussion as the reader is invited to consider perspectives ranging from the individual to the collective. So through the book we get an appreciation of such discussions and debates about terminology, which are important in helping us to understand organisational behaviour and whether we are witnessing responsible or irresponsible actions.

The book was first published in 2007 so some of the turmoil and corporate challenges of the last two years are not reflected in the contextual analysis. What the book does provide instead is thought provoking discussions on the issue of CSR and some real depth. With 32 chapters it would be inappropriate to break each one down so instead I will try and capture the whole. That said the whole is multi‐dimensional for the reasons already discussed. This is not a single voice book. It is an edited collection of exploratory and challenging ideas on the communication dimensions of CSR. For instance there is a critical approach to the history and evolution of CSR. There are Marxist and critical theory perspectives, debates on business ethics, globalisation and sustainable development. Some of the chapters tackle the issue from an organizational theory perspective and others from narrative and discourse approach. The divergent perspectives of the contributors means there is some positional jumping which is on occasion difficult but also a positive reflection on the plurality of the book. The debates are therefore frequently held within chapters rather than across them in a comparative way although as stated the editors and contributors have attempted to cross‐fertilize and reference their ideas, concepts and contributions. As a further observation the book provides a healthy multinational field of contributors, which avoids the pitfalls of some books which become too bound up in one national or regional setting. This can be particularly dispiriting to read and troublesome for generalising out the debate. So well done to the editors in selecting their contributors.

The structure and format of the book is clear. It is broken up into seven sections with three to five chapters in each. The chapters are text based and simple and clear to read. It is not a book with many visual references i.e. models or diagrams – in fact the final chapter is the only one to include any line‐drawn figures. Each chapter has its own reference section at the end. It would perhaps have been interesting to see a combined reference at the end to identify the cross‐referencing and overlaps in the book. To save space perhaps on a large book, which runs to 32 chapters, the publisher, Oxford, has used a double column layout on each page. This does make the book easy to read and helps keep the pagination down to 490 pages. At over £80 the hard‐back version was always going to be a stretch for most individuals but with a more realistic £28.99 cover price this book is more attainable and better value.

I sense and trust we will see more books like this one on corporate social responsibility and its related issues, names and labels. It's a welcome contribution to the topic which will be a valuable resource for a range of readers from dissertation and thesis scholars at all levels to academics grappling with a much talked about but limited field of publishing – particularly from a communications perspective. I welcome the book into the field and the debates it undoubtedly already has and will continue to promote.