The CSR Navigator: Determine Your Location, Correct Your Course

CSR sounds promising. Archie Carroll once defined it as follows: “Corporate social responsibility encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and voluntary expectations that society places on organizations.” But words like these are easy to say; putting them into practice, however, proves to be much more difficult. Research shows that all too often, CSR gets stuck in virtue washing or is reduced to a pure business case. But can that still be called responsibility? Managers who strive for responsible action should therefore examine the reality of CSR in their companies.

One possible starting point is the maturity model developed by Maon, Lindgreen, and Swaen (2010). It describes seven cultural development stages in corporate CSR practices, from defensiveness to a sense of duty to actual transformation. This allows managers to assess their current position and companies to obtain a diagnosis. What the model lacks, however, is the silent background variable: companies never act without ideology, and their understanding of CSR is not neutral either. Why do CEOs often see their interpretation as the only correct one? Because we are all anchored in an ideology – as a worldview and a logic that guides our actions.

Four understandings of responsibility
Four understandings of responsibility can be distinguished. In an authoritarian logic, CSR primarily means coercion: compliance, risk protection, adherence to rules. Here, the world is seen as dangerous and in need of control, and responsibility is reduced to avoiding punishment and self-protection. James Johnston of R.J. Reynolds summed it up succinctly: “We support the law, and that is our responsibility.” Especially in times of crisis, even enlightened companies quickly fall back into this pattern.

The neoliberal logic, on the other hand, views CSR primarily as a business case. Responsibility is good when it promotes growth, strengthens reputation, or retains talent. The world appears as a permanent competition in which success is legitimized by performance. Jeff Bezos puts it this way: “Your margin is my opportunity.” Responsibility thus becomes a by-product of successful business. This attitude shapes much of corporate practice today, but it has its limits: it only works in stable markets and clear win-win situations

The social democratic logic, on the other hand, sees CSR as a social contract. Society is a community with equal rights and obligations, and companies are part of it. In this understanding, responsibility means avoiding harm, respecting rights, and balancing profit with social contribution. Paul Polman, former CEO of Unilever, emphasized: “Business cannot prosper in a world that fails.” This understanding requires a long-term perspective and strong relationships with stakeholders.

Finally, there is the post-liberal logic, in which companies are understood as places of shared development. CSR becomes the raison d’être here: it’s about co-creation, regenerative economic practices, and products with meaning. Rose Marcario of Patagonia put it radically: “We’re in business to save our home planet.” This understanding requires a rethink that fundamentally changes not only business practices but also business models.

The three steps for Manager
For managers, the question arises: How can the former promise of CSR be fulfilled? The path leads through diagnosis, criticism, and development. First, it is important to honestly determine where you stand: Which CSR issues end up on the board’s agenda—and why these in particular? When was the last time a sustainability project was stopped due to lack of profitability? How do you respond to stakeholder criticism – defensively, strategically, or in a dialogue-oriented manner? And how do internal experiences match up with the officially communicated purpose?

This is followed by critical reflection: Which stakeholders are being ignored, which issues are being systematically avoided? Where is unintended damage being done, and what contradictions exist between aspiration and reality? How authentic is your own understanding of CSR?

Only on this basis is development possible. This is not about immediate transformation, but about realistic steps: from the pressure to create a business case through pilot projects with measurable benefits; from the business case to a social contract through genuine stakeholder dialogue; from the social contract to transformation through the integration of purpose into the business model. Each stage has its justification, setbacks are possible, and not every logic fits every industry or company phase. What is crucial is conscious further development – not a quick label.

A tabular overview of their characteristics makes these four logics recognizable and comparable.

Glossar
Virtue-Washing: CSR is used to polish image and reputation without achieving any substantial effect. Similar to “greenwashing” – lots of marketing, little real change.
Maturity level according to Kohlberg/Greiner: Kohlberg describes moral development from avoiding punishment (pre-conventional) to following rules (conventional) to following principles (post-conventional). Greiner shows organizational growth through crises. CSR follows similar development patterns.
raison d’être: French for “right to exist” – the deeper meaning and purpose of a company beyond profit-making
CSR: Four levels according to Carroll: economic, legal, ethical, philanthropic