Corporate Social Responsibility Debate

The assignment presents an argumentative essay about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). It outlines both the positive impacts of CSR, such as enhanced community relations and environmental benefits, as well as the criticisms levied against it, including concerns about exploitation and lack of genuine commitment. The writer ultimately defends CSR as a valuable tool for organizations to connect with their communities and contribute positively to society.

Critics of CSR claim it is little more than Greenwashing 1
“Some Critics of CSR claim it is little more than Greenwashing; to what extend do you agree or
disagree”
Student’s Name
Course Code and Name
Instructor’s Name
Institution’s Name
City State
Date of Submission

Critics of CSR claim it is little more than Greenwashing 2
Introduction
Greenwashing refers to an action by an organization or company to spend more money or
time through claiming to be green through marketing and advertising as opposed to
implementation of business practices that minimize or reduce environmental impacts. It also
refers to a practice in which an organization engages in the creation of misleading or
unsubstantiated claims regarding the environmental benefits of a technology, service, or product.
In essence, it involves a form of spin in which green marketing or green Public Relations (PR) is
used deceptively in promotion of a deception that the products, policies, or aims of an
organization are environmentally friendly (Tsagas, 2012).
Why I agree with the critics
I highly concur with the arguments put forth by critics that CSR is more than
Greenwashing since despite the fact that it is deemed by some of the organizations as being a
new management idea, the truth is that it is just a recycled fashion. It is true because some of the
companies, governments, or even groups across the world engage in Greenwashing through
promotion of “green-based environmental” images or initiatives but actually operates in a
manner which is damaging or harmful to the environment or in a very opposite manner to the
goals and objectives of the initiatives which were announced. The claims by critics of Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) that such practices are little more than Greenwashing are right
because it is just like in the proverbial preaching wine and drinking water. Some organizations
do not actually do the right thing or actions as regards to what are meant by CSR. The critics’
argument that CSR is old wine which has been put in the new wine bottles is quite genuine
because some of the practices which are categorized under CSR in the contemporary

Critics of CSR claim it is little more than Greenwashing 3
organizations were already important business issues even from the start of the Industrial
Revolution.
Why I disagree with the critics
I highly disagree with the critics’ assertion that CSR is little more than Greenwashing
because CSR is doing a lot in enhancing the lives of communities in which organizations operate
in. Most organizations across the world have advocated for CSR in that has greatly risen to high
popularity in the business community. As a result, most of the organizations across the globe
feature Corporate Social Responsibility reports and projects and indeed, CSR is now being
promoted as being a core and valuable management area besides finance, accounting, and
marketing (Steger et al, 2005).. However, it cannot be generalized that all companies involved in
CSR are engaged in the issue of brainwashing (Frynas, 2005). This is attributed to the fact that
some of the reputable organizations or firms such as Tata pride themselves in more than 100
years in carrying out responsible business practices such as community involvement and
philanthropic activities. On the other hand, it can also be argued that CSR is more than
Greenwashing because some of the individual practices, programs, and policies are not entirely
new since some of the firms in the contemporary society are addressing their roles and
responsibilities in the society in a more professional, comprehensive, and coherent manner in
approaches which are summarized contemporarily through CSR.
Even though majority of the arguments both for and against Corporate Social
Responsibility are based on how an organization makes attempts at being socially responsible
and the impact on the bottom line, it can genuinely be asserted that some companies are
genuinely and truly committed to creation of positive impacts using CSR. This is true because

Critics of CSR claim it is little more than Greenwashing 4
some of the organizations use CSR in order to enhance financial performance, non-financial
rewards, as well as benefits to social welfare and the environment.
Why I agree with the critics
On the other hand, I agree by the assertion by critics that CSR is little or more than
Greenwashing. This is because critics of Corporate Social Responsibility usually tend to regard
the element of “voluntarism” as being a major flaw in the practice. They argue that “legally
mandated accountability” is actually where more attention and accountability should be placed as
demonstrated by the core definition (Husted & Allen, 2006). While proponents of CSR claim
that the term is just about philanthropy where the major aim ought to caring for the less fortunate
in their communities, critics of CSR argue that CSR should be more than just community giving
and philanthropy and also include the core business functions and the impact that they have on
the societies in which such firms operate.
On one hand, I highly agree with the critics of CSR that it is actually little more than
Greenwashing since despite the fact CSR is actually supposed to be a win-win deal in which the
companies involved in it make profits while the society around such companies benefit, this is
not the case now (Jamali & Keshishian, 2009) . For instance, the involvement of a cooperate
entity in philanthropic work or through making donations to various charity endeavors really
implies that that they are only giving out money that belongs to shareholders, and they can only
do this if their companies have made substantial profits (Warren et al, 2009). This is attributed
to the fact that such organizations are only interested in enhancing their organizational image
through associating or relating themselves with some worthy causes then using them to exploit
cheap vehicles that they can use for advertising and even countering the “claims of pressure”. In
addition to that, CSR is also just a corporate reaction towards public mistrust as well as calls for

Critics of CSR claim it is little more than Greenwashing 5
regulation. This is based on the fact that regulations could hinder the voluntary efforts on an
organization’s part to enhance their behaviour has been accepted by governments which are very
keen to avoid their regulatory duties especially when it comes to issues of curbing corporate
power.
Why I disagree with the critics
CSR is the best in helping an organization or firm to effectively relate or associate with
the community that it operates in. This is because it helps organizations to effectively embrace
the responsibility for their actions and also encourage positive effect using its activities on the
consumers, communities, employees, the environment, as well as other stakeholders (Shabana &
Carroll, 2009). Some of the organizations like Safaricom have engaged some of their resources
to invest in “environmentally sound practices” that re beneficial to the environment. This has not
only helped some of the organizations across the world to shape the perception that the public
has about them, but also benefited the environment.
Conclusions
Based on the above information, it can truly be asserted that the issue of Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) is quite hard to pin down because of the numerous implications, meanings,
and applications that it has in the contemporary world. It is the responsibility of all organizations
to ensure that CSR achieves the aims and goals that it is meant for and ensure that it benefits
both the society and the company that it is involved in.

Critics of CSR claim it is little more than Greenwashing 6
Reference List
Frynas, J. G. (2005) ‘The false developmental promise of corporate social responsibility:
Evidence from multinational oil companies’, International Affairs, 81(3): 581–598.
Husted, B. W. & Allen, D. B. (2006) ‘Corporate social responsibility in the multinational
enterprise: strategic and institutional approaches’, Journal of International Business
Studies, 37(6): 838–849.
Jamali, D. & Keshishian, T. (2009) ‘Uneasy alliances: lessons learned from partnerships between
businesses and NGOs in the context of CSR’, Journal of Business Ethics, 84(2): 277–
295.
Kuznetsov, A., Kuznetsova, O., & Warren, R., (2009) ‘CSR and the legitimacy of business in
transition economies: the case of Russia’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(1):
37–45
Shabana, Kareem & Carroll, Archie, 2009. The Business Case for Corporate Social
Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice. London: British Academy
of Management.
Steger, Ulrich, et al, 2005. The Business Case for Corporate Sustainability: Literature Review
and Research Options. Elsevier: London.
Tsagas, Georgina, 2012. Reflecting on the Value of Socially Responsible Practices Post Takeover
of Cadbury’s Plc by Kraft Foods Inc: Implications for the Revision of the EU Takeover
Directive. Oslo: University of Oslo.