Another day, another call of some kind — from outsiders — to change the practices or direction of a corporation. Sometimes it’s about CEO pay, sometimes it’s about the environment or some other form of corporate accountability dear to the hearts of progressives.

Grouped loosely around the name Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), these individuals and organizations want corporate accountability to extend beyond shareholders (I’m also using the term business social responsibility, since this issue can affect all businesses, and not just corporations). Activists believe the current and traditional position, that management should only be accountable to shareholders, is outdated. I disagree with their position, but that’s an argument I’ll take up elsewhere, at another article on business social responsibility .

In this article, we’ll look at the subject from a communication perspective. I’m interested in knowing why business social responsibility gets such good media coverage and so much general attention. I’m also interested in knowing what we, as communicators, can learn from them.

For starters, the anti-corporate movement has a simple message: “Corporations have too much money and power; working people or consumers don’t have enough,” or some variation on that theme. On the other hand, an honest defence of corporations is anything but simple.

The business social responsibility movement also enjoys the luxury of making a good versus bad (poor working people vs rich businesses) argument. That’s a moral argument, one that adds spice to any news story. On the other hand, the ‘pro’ side tries to string together a stream of ideas from economics (hardly an easy, or exciting task, at the best of times).

Third, the protestors bring passion to the business social responsibility message. After all, this is a battle of good against evil, isn’t it? Again, the defenders of modern corporations and globalization have to rely on the prosaic science of economists.

Fourth, the label ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ also helps the corporate accountability movement. Not only does the name act as a unifying point for its advocates, but it also implies that CSR is a good thing. After all, who could be against ‘social’ and ‘responsibility’?

Now, despite their high media profile and ubiquitous presence, the advocates of business social responsibility have a problem, and it’s a big one. They may be able to win the attention of reporters and editors, but they haven’t had much clout with the real decision makers, the people who run companies, pension plans, and mutual funds.

And, the decision makers aren’t likely to be swayed. They understand the role of corporations, and they know where their responsibilities lie. Even widespread public sympathy for corporate accountability isn’t likely to have much effect, since they report to shareholders, not to society as a whole.

So, perhaps the final lesson we’ll take from the business social responsibility movement today is that, sometimes, great communication can only take you so far.

New at the Employee-Communication site: An article with 21 reasons why you should do an employee engagement survey now. And, in the same vein, see my updated article on Squidoo, explaining how data builds credibility .