CSR politics of non‐recognition: Justification fallacies marginalising criticism, society, and environment

• Published date: 01 October 2020
• Author: Peter Norberg
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12307
• Date: 01 October 2020

694  

|

  wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/beer Business Ethics: A Eur Rev. 2020;29:694–705.© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

1 | INTRODUCTION

Climate desta bilisation and t he exploitati on of workers in devel-

oping countrie s have evolved into topic s for business (Shaf er &

Lucianetti , 2018, p. 274). NGOs (Valor & Merin o de Diego, 2009),

the media (Dobe le, Westberg, Steel, & Fl owers, 2014; Koch, Denner,

Viererbl, & Himmelreich, 2019), politicians, trade unions (Song,

Chun, Brodma nn, & Song, 2020), a nd the public cri ticise business

for ecological a nd social irres ponsibility ( Wright & Nyberg , 2017,

p. 1635). Together with interna l motivation for t aking adequate

CSR action (D itlev-Simonsen & Mid ttun, 2011; Heikkur inen &

Mäkinen, 2018:594–595), such negative attention compels compa-

nies not only to make su bstantial CS R efforts , but also to produ ce

much jargon. Th e focus on social responsibilit y not only represents

a shift in corpo rate practice , but also in corpo rate communicat ion

(Castelló, Mor sing, & Schultz, 2013).

Many observer s attest to a fear that societ y suffers from increas-

ing affective polarisation (Iyengar & Westwood, 2015). People tolerate

opposing views less (Rothman, Kelly-Woessner, & Woessner, 2010).

When divergent p ositions less fre quently come in co ntact with

each other, it is difficult to maintain constructive conversations.

This makes dialog ue a scarce commod ity and somet hing to care for

(Habermas, [1962] 1974). Does business suffe r from this conditi on,

and even increase p olarisation? I wish t o contribute to this li terature

on polarisation, by elaborating on how business plays a rhetorical role

in society for creating good discourse or creating polarisation. In this

article, I foc us on one particular typ e of encounter between busines s

and its stakeholders, one type of corporate communication that I name

“CSR justif ications.” The obje ct of this study i s: How do companies

justify themselves against criticism? How do they choose to present

their stance v is-à-vis CSR? I use CSR j ustificati ons for investigat ing

to what degree comp anies respond to p ublic criticis m. This questio n

is importa nt because much e thically well-fou nded criticism i s posed

on corporate be haviour. A moral case is of ten made for res ponsibil-

ity and sust ainability vis-a-vis the bu siness case (Lever & Evans, 2017).

The responsib ility of companie s and their manage rs to society an d

Received: 15 Nove mber 2018 

|

  Revised: 20 June 20 20 

|

  Accepted: 26 June 202 0

DOI: 10 .1111/bee r.12307

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

CSR politics of non-recognition: Justification fallacies

marginalising criticism, society, and environment

Peter Norberg

Institute fo r Organisationa l and Worklife

Ethics, Ers ta Sköndal Bräcke Un iversity

College, Stockholm, Sweden

Correspondence

Peter Norberg, Institute for Organisational

and Worklife Eth ics, Ersta Skönd al Bräcke

University College, Stockholm, Snäckvägen

32, S-41475 GÖTEBORG, Swed en.

Email: epnorberg@gmail.com

Abstract

Business is frequen tly criticized for not ta king social and environ mental responsibi l-

ity. Large companies re spond with CSR ac tivities and som e also with formulatin g

justification s for their actions. This could indic ate that business opens up to the criti-

cism. I do, however, not observe such o penness in the current study, but how com pa-

nies use “CSR just ifications” to fend off criticism. Whi le companies use justifications

as tool for creating legit imacy, I distinguish five justifi cation fallacies. These f ailures in

dealing with critic ism cause a marginalis ation of criticism, soc iety, and environment.

The fallacies found are neglecting criticism, shareholder primacy, organisation-cen-

tricity, conflict avoidan ce, and progressivism. I contribute to the us e of Habermasian

ethics in the busine ss ethics literature by showing how CSR jus tifications could play

a part in a rational d iscourse. The concept j ustification f allacy, and the five fallac ies

can provide a framework for analysing corporate rhetoric more gen erally. Managers

have fundamental dif ficulties in han dling ethics and do not re flect on their reas ons

for working with CS R. They should be m ore careful when for mulating justific ations.

In our situation of increa sing affective po larisation, busine ss needs to be more con-

structive tha n merely to marginalise criticism.