2008 Volume 5 Pages 121-132
This paper attempts to evaluate ecological communications of the CSR by examining arguments over an article in The Economist journal that criticized the CSR as delusional and pernicious. On one hand, the delusional CSR, which was indicted for uncertain knowledge about environment, may pose a semantic problem for meaningful communication. On the other hand, the pernicious CSR, which was accused for leaving public values on the market for which no objective criteria are existed, may associate with a pragmatic problem in effective communication. Given that environmental science entails uncertainty, and also given imperfect information in the real market, trust in science and the market would be important for advancing the CSR. A questionnaire survey for staffs of CSR departments in 55 companies about the attitudes against the criticism, in fact, indicated that trust in science and the market may independently affect the degrees of considering social evaluation of their firms as important. In addition, such attitudes may depend on the position of a firm in the 'market for virtue', i. e. the market in which ecological and societal values are transacted, because firms at the intermediate position in the course of the CSR progress, from a rather narrow responsibility only for an environmental aspect to a wider responsibility for society, tended to have weaker trust in both science and the market.
