Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is everywhere today, from coffee cups to billion-dollar energy companies, but what it actually achieves is far less clear than the glossy branding suggests. Companies promise to “give back” or “go green”, yet evidence shows a recurring gap between what they say and what they really do. This credibility problem is the starting point of my research and the motivation for asking a simple but uncomfortable question: Is CSR genuine or is it strategic deception?

To answer this, I start by tracing how CSR developed, particularly not as a modern invention, but as an idea shaped over centuries. What began as early criticism of industrial exploitation in the 19th century slowly matured into a broader social expectation placed on companies. Thinkers, reformers, and later academics progressively transformed CSR from mere philanthropy into a claim that businesses should align their operations with societal values. This history matters because it shows CSR was always about more than PR, at least in theory.

But the story changes when we look at what companies actually do. CSR is often presented as an ethical commitment, yet the motivations behind it today are far more complex. Firms respond not just to moral concerns but to investor expectations, consumer pressure, Non-Governmental Organisation scrutiny, competitive branding, and Environmental, Social and Governance scoring systems. This mix creates a reality where genuine ethical intentions coexist with reputation management and strategic positioning.

The key question, then, is whether CSR delivers what it promises. And here, the evidence becomes uncomfortable. Across sectors and case studies, a consistent pattern emerges, particularly that many companies talk more than they act.

Take Starbucks, which is often celebrated as a CSR leader. It is a powerful example, but also a revealing one. When comparing symbolic CSR with substantive CSR, the findings show that symbolic gestures dominate far more than we like to admit. This gap is worsened by selective reporting, which allows firms to highlight their successes while keeping failures out of sight.

In the end, CSR too often operates as branding first and responsibility second. When companies can curate their own narratives, public trust erodes, communities receive less than they were promised, and progress on social and environmental issues slows. What we get is a credibility gap which only grows when firms can celebrate achievements while masking harm.

So, what’s the way forward? My research argues that voluntary commitments are no longer enough. Real progress requires auditable promises, stronger incentives for responsible leadership, meaningful stakeholder participation, targeted regulation when harms are persistent, and better transparency in how impact is measured. Fixing the unreliable metrics market and improving the quality of CSR research are equally necessary.

CSR is not doomed but it is at a crossroads. With clearer standards and genuine accountability, it can shift from strategic deception toward real social impact. The future of responsible business depends on whether we finally close the gap between promise and practice or keep letting the companies hide behind it.

Related Blogs

• 

  The international playground of nation states: does international law protect small states?

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by our bloggers and those providing comments are personal, and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of Lancaster University. Responsibility for the accuracy of any of the information contained within blog posts belongs to the blogger.