Business is frequently criticized for not taking social and environmental responsibility. Large companies respond with CSR activities and some also with formulating justifications for their actions. This could indicate that business opens up to the criticism. I do, however, not observe such openness in the current study, but how companies use “CSR justifications” to fend off criticism. While companies use justifications as tool for creating legitimacy, I distinguish five justification fallacies. These failures in dealing with criticism cause a marginalisation of criticism, society, and environment. The fallacies found are neglecting criticism, shareholder primacy, organisation‐centricity, conflict avoidance, and progressivism. I contribute to the use of Habermasian ethics in the business ethics literature by showing how CSR justifications could play a part in a rational discourse. The concept justification fallacy, and the five fallacies can provide a framework for analysing corporate rhetoric more generally. Managers have fundamental difficulties in handling ethics and do not reflect on their reasons for working with CSR. They should be more careful when formulating justifications. In our situation of increasing affective polarisation, business needs to be more constructive than merely to marginalise criticism.

中文翻译：

---

企业社会责任的不承认政治：辩解谬论将批评，社会和环境边缘化

人们经常批评企业不承担社会和环境责任。大型公司以企业社会责任活动作为回应，有的还以其行动依据为依据。这可能表明该行业容易受到批评。但是，我的确没有在当前研究中观察到这种开放性，而是在公司如何利用“ CSR理由”抵制批评的情况下。虽然公司使用理由作为创建合法性的工具，但我区分了五个理由谬论。这些处理批评的失败导致批评，社会和环境的边缘化。发现的谬论忽视了批评，股东至高无上，以组织为中心，避免冲突和进步主义。通过展示CSR证明如何在理性话语中发挥作用，我为哈贝马斯伦理学在商业伦理学文献中的使用做出了贡献。概念论证谬误和五个谬论可以为更广泛地分析公司言论提供一个框架。管理人员在处理道德操守方面存在根本性困难，因此没有考虑与企业社会责任合作的原因。他们在制定理由时应格外小心。在我们的情感两极分化日益加剧的情况下，业务需要更具建设性，而不仅仅是边缘化批评。管理人员在处理道德操守方面存在根本性困难，因此没有考虑与企业社会责任合作的原因。他们在制定理由时应格外小心。在我们的情感两极分化日益加剧的情况下，业务需要更具建设性，而不仅仅是边缘化批评。管理人员在处理道德操守方面存在根本性困难，因此没有考虑与企业社会责任合作的原因。他们在制定理由时应格外小心。在我们的情感两极分化日益加剧的情况下，业务需要更具建设性，而不仅仅是边缘化批评。