University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

106
The ‘flexibility’ in the language of CSR allows for easy movement by organisations
in challenging times, such as a recession, leading to what Cheney refers to as a
“strategic sensitivity to the language chosen” (Cheney et al 2007: p9). This strategic
sensitivity allows for a cause-effect relationship between the language of
sustainability/CSR and practice (ibid 2007). As Cheney describes:
“Definitions and terms are not static, despite our desire to fix labels
and identities in an elusive yet compelling search to say “what
something really is”
(Cheney et al 2007: p8).
This flexibility and fluidity in the definitions and terms used in CSR, allows CSR
actors (policy makers, practitioners, corporate actors, business media), to use terms
interchangeably, as deemed appropriate to satisfy other strategic or operational goals.
In the wider context, businesses have a sphere of influence wider than their own
practices and operations and business leaders are influenced by factors other than
market mechanisms.
UK Policy Context
Language is relevant in this setting due to its importance in relation to agenda-setting
in the wider context. In addition to affecting the way corporations approach CSR,
language is also important in a wider policy context, hence, it is important that
research does not merely focus on the operationalisation of CSR but also looks at the
discursive construction of the topic. Previous research has shown that within UK
policy decision-making, the language of CSR has played a pivotal role in shaping
sustainable development policy (Ellis, 2008).
The emphasis placed on CSR demonstrated the use of corporate-centric language and
adoption within the policy process. This research finds that throughout, CSR (and
CR) has begun to be used interchangeably with sustainable development, by a wide
range of policy actors. Moon (2007) argues that “Both terms [sustainable
development and CSR] are often used vaguely and interchangeably” (ibid: p 297)
and also argues that there are “weaknesses, limitations and challenges” relating to
CSR as an appropriate mechanism to achieve sustainable development. Following
this line of reasoning, the dominance of corporate-centric language, based on the
broader CSR agenda in policy-making, raises questions regarding the
appropriateness of the policy agenda and subsequent policy recommendations.
Where terms are seen as interchangeable by various CSR actors, but in practice are
not, is it wise to influence policy without further clarification?
So, taking the stance that the way CSR is discussed is important in a wider policy
context, we investigate whether the economic downturn has changed the language of
CSR.