This paper examines the parallel evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and modern advertising practices, tracing organizational development from the command-and-control era through post-Depression reforms to the emergence of team-based, stakeholder-focused management. The paper argues that CSR functions less as genuine ethical commitment and more as a strategic marketing tool designed to project a humanistic corporate image. It also critiques contemporary digital advertising—particularly on social media platforms—for prioritizing promotion over product quality, enabling deceptive claims, and failing to align with actual consumer needs. Drawing on social exchange theory, resource dependency, and classical marketing frameworks, the paper calls for greater government regulation and a fundamental reorientation of marketing toward authentic consumer value creation.
An organization is a sophisticated social entity. People work together to perform different interrelated functions so that they can achieve common strategic and operational goals. Organizations take inputs from the surrounding society, process raw materials into finished goods, and then sell their products and services to the public. Organizations operate under the rule of social exchange. Commitment to self-interest is an integral human motive (Alvord, Brown, & Letts, 2004). People expect a benefit in exchange for their services, and organizational relationships are therefore grounded in social dealings. Organizations form contracts and agreements with their external and internal stakeholders in order to legitimize their relations with the concerned parties (Auger, Burke, Devinney, & Louviere, 2003).
However, traditional organizational science did not accommodate the needs of the external environment or broader stakeholders. The conventional corporate mindset defined business as an entity with the sole purpose of creating wealth for shareholders. Employees were commonly referred to as labor and had few civil rights — they lacked the freedom of collective bargaining and were forced to work in inhumane and hazardous conditions. The core concept of organizational science was efficiency, and companies were tall and bureaucratic in structure. The era before the Great Depression was one of command and control, in which organizational authority rested in a few hands and lower-level employees had no awareness of company strategy (Badelt & Weiss, 1990).
The Great Depression sent a shockwave through the entire socioeconomic system. America was a primary target, and the rest of the world followed. In time, modern management practices and a culture of teamwork spread globally. Strategic choice theory became a guiding framework for the business world. Modern scholars such as Michael Porter emphasized the need to establish a link between the external environment and the strategic outlook of the company. Neoclassical economic theories argued that governments must intervene in corporate affairs to regulate operations and standardize competitive forces so that industrialists cannot reap undue profits. Additionally, companies were required to pay taxes of various kinds, and governments were expected to use those funds to serve public needs (Baron, 2007).
The taxation system proposed by modern economic philosophers helped reveal a hidden link between organizations and societies. Further research highlighted the fact that organizations operate by processing resources drawn from surrounding communities (Canda, 1988), and that in doing so, companies damage those communities while serving their own economic interests. After considerable debate, policymakers acknowledged the need for a correlated mechanism that would encourage organizations to benefit their surrounding societies as well (Crisp & Turner, 2007). Years later, the practical approach that emerged from this theoretical development became known as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).
As the saying goes, charity begins at home (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Early practitioners of CSR focused primarily on external stakeholders — building schools and planting trees in order to appear socially concerned — while continuing to exploit their own employees. Scholars raised concerns about this imbalance (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975), and the term "internal stakeholders" was coined to refer to the workforce (Edvardsson & Gruber, 2011). Organizations were increasingly required to accommodate the needs and wants of their employees in order to operate as legally and socially legitimate entities. Governments of developed nations granted employees the right to collective bargaining, and employers were obligated to provide safe working conditions.
Organizations went further still, offering profit sharing, flexible scheduling, and training and development programs in order to cultivate a committed workforce and reduce turnover rates (Herbst, Hannah, & Allan, 2013). Pressure from lower-ranking employees prompted companies to reevaluate their culture and structure (Leppäniemi & Karjaluoto, 2005). As a tactical response, many companies promoted team development — partly to improve working conditions, and partly to foster employee engagement through the perception of greater respect from management. Scholars who examined this shift found team-based management superior to the previous bureaucratic model (Merisavo et al., 2007). Organizational collaboration and interdisciplinary communication improved, and the role of the Human Resource Manager emerged to hire people whose skills align with the company's strategic objectives.
The advent of information technology transformed the world into a global village, enabling cross-border exchange of knowledge and information. The world came to recognize Japan for a workplace culture built on teamwork. Japanese organizations operated with a decentralized chain of command, consisting of independent and self-managed teams that collaborated to fulfill shared objectives. Participatory management emerged as a concept to describe these practices. The modern organization consists of a network of teams whose efforts are coordinated to produce a synergistic effect — one that drives company-wide success and effectiveness (Morsing & Schultz, 2006). The organizational philosophy of the current era focuses on the group rather than the individual. The key question for an HR manager is no longer merely whether a candidate has the right skills, but whether that person can function effectively within the existing team dynamics of the organization.
Based on the preceding discussion, the present organizational focus is ostensibly on human development. However, in many cases, companies are pursuing only superficial measures in order to appear more concerned about societal well-being. The core practices of CSR often amount to little more than another strategic plan designed to enhance organizational profitability. Consumers in advanced economies factor social and environmental considerations into their purchasing decisions and are reluctant to patronize companies perceived as socially irresponsible. Organizations therefore maintain a minimum image as a community-conscious entity. In developing nations, by contrast, consumers tend to be less aware of the deeper realities of 21st-century business, and the incentive for CSR signaling is correspondingly weaker.
"Digital ad ethics and consumer deception online"
"Calls for product and price focus over promotion"
Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T., & Louviere, J. (2003). What will consumers pay for social product features? Journal of Business Ethics, 42(3), 281–304.
Badelt, C., & Weiss, P. (1990). Specialization, product differentiation and ownership structure in personal social services: The case of nursery schools. Kyklos, 43(1), 69–89.
Baron, D. P. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and social entrepreneurship. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 16(3), 683–717.
Canda, E. (1988). Conceptualizing spirituality for social work: Insights from diverse perspectives. Social Thought, 14(1), 30–46.
Crisp, R., & Turner, R. (2007). Essential social psychology. Sage Publications.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(5), 874–900.
Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. The Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–136.
Edvardsson, B., & Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding understanding of service exchange and value co-creation: A social construction approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 327–339.
Herbst, K. C., Hannah, S. T., & Allan, D. (2013). Advertisement disclaimer speed and corporate social responsibility: "Costs" to consumer comprehension and effects on brand trust and purchase intention. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(1), 297–311.
Leppäniemi, M., & Karjaluoto, H. (2005). Factors influencing consumers' willingness to accept mobile advertising: A conceptual model. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 3(3), 197–213.
Merisavo, M., Kajalo, S., Karjaluoto, H., Virtanen, V., Salmenkivi, S., Raulas, M., & Leppäniemi, M. (2007). An empirical study of the drivers of consumer acceptance of mobile advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 7(2), 41–50.
Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 323–338.
Smith, N. C. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: Not whether, but how? London Business School.
You’re 59% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.