In this conceptual article, we argue that defining corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) as opposite constructs produces a lack of clarity between responsible and irresponsible acts. Furthermore, we contend that the treatment of the CSR and CSI concepts as opposites de-emphasizes the value of CSI as a stand-alone construct. Thus, we reorient the CSI discussion to include multiple aspects that current conceptualizations have not adequately accommodated. We provide an in-depth exploration of how researchers define CSI and both identify and analyze three important gray zones between CSR and CSI: (a) the role of harm and benefit, (b) the role of the actor and intentionality, and (c) the role of rectification. We offer these gray zones as factors contributing to the present lack of conceptual clarity of the term CSI, as a concept in its own right, leading to difficulties that researchers and managers experience in categorizing CSI acts as distinct from CSR.

在这篇概念性文章中，我们认为将企业社会责任 (CSR) 和企业社会不负责任 (CSI) 定义为相反的结构会导致负责任行为和不负责任行为之间缺乏明确性。此外，我们认为将 CSR 和 CSI 概念作为对立面的处理弱化了 CSI 作为独立结构的价值。因此，我们重新调整 CSI 讨论的方向，以包括当前概念化尚未充分适应的多个方面。我们深入探讨了研究人员如何定义 CSI 以及识别和分析 CSR 和 CSI 之间的三个重要灰色地带：(a) 伤害和利益的作用，(b) 行为者和意图的作用，以及 (c) )的作用。