In recent weeks, the United States has witnessed a disturbing rise in political tensions, including an assassination shaped by extreme ideological divides. This should give us pause, not only because of the act itself, but because of what fuels the atmosphere that allows such acts to fester. Social media companies, driven by the logic of engagement and profit, have normalized polarization, amplified disinformation, and monetized hostility.
We tend to promote corporate social responsibility (CSR) as the ideal positive relationship between a business and society. CSR is about businesses giving back, doing good, and recognizing their obligations to the communities in which they serve and operate. However, what we rarely discuss is the inverse: corporate social irresponsibility, where companies knowingly exploit society for economic gain, leaving long-term harm in their wake.
Unfortunately, this is not a new phenomenon. In the 1960s, tobacco companies targeted children in their advertisements while hiding the truth about cancer and addiction. For decades, oil companies denied or downplayed the role of fossil fuels in accelerating climate change, even as their own scientists raised alarms. Both industries maximized profit with the long-term price being paid in human suffering and environmental degradation.
What is new is the global reach and speed of today’s social irresponsibility. Social media corporations are not just selling cigarettes or gasoline; they are selling outrage, division, and mistrust at a planetary scale. Their products, driven by algorithms optimized for engagement, erode democratic institutions and weaken societal trust everywhere from the United States to Brazil to Myanmar. The fact that political polarization is now both a domestic crisis and an international export tells us something about the globalized nature of social irresponsibility.
Consider the youth who are the biggest users of these online platforms. Mental health research continues to reveal how endless scrolling, online harassment, and curated unreality contribute to anxiety, depression, and self-harm. Yet these online platforms double down, incentivizing clicks over the mental health of our youth. Much like the cigarette ads of the past, the goal is not to inform or uplift society; it is to addict them for a consistent flow of profit.
Another example of corporate social irresponsibility is the exploitation of labor and the environment. Fast fashion brands exploit labor in one country, pollute rivers in another, and flood landfills in yet another. The profits are concentrated at the corporate level, but the irresponsibility is globalized. Consumers in wealthy nations may see only low prices, while workers in the Global South see only hazardous conditions.
This is the paradox of globalization: there are benefits of interconnection, but so are the harms. When companies globalize irresponsibility—whether through misinformation, exploitative supply chains, or environmental neglect—the damage is more complicated to trace, easier to dismiss, and far more difficult to hold accountable.
Some might argue that consumers hold the power to demand better from these companies. To an extent, that’s true. Campaigns against plastic straws, child labor, and tobacco advertising did make a difference. However, consumer choice alone is no match for trillion-dollar corporations with lobbying arms that are larger than some governments. Social irresponsibility persists precisely because responsibility has been outsourced to consumers, activists, and underfunded regulators.
What is needed is a reframing. Suppose we hold up corporate social responsibility as the gold standard in business. In that case, we must also be willing to call out its opposite, not as isolated “scandals” but as part of a systemic pattern. Naming it global social irresponsibility helps us see that it is not just a local problem, not just “bad apples,” but a structural issue in the global economy.
This reframing does not absolve governments or individuals from responsibility. Political leaders must resist the temptation to exploit disinformation for short-term gains. Consumers must remain vigilant about where they place their trust and money. However, the real accountability lies with corporations themselves, whose decisions have a ripple effect far beyond national borders.
History shows that companies often fail to regulate themselves. Tobacco only changed when lawsuits, regulations, and social pressure converged. Oil companies are only now facing meaningful accountability because of international climate agreements, activism, and litigation. Social media, fast fashion, and other industries driving irresponsibility today will likewise require external pressure through legislation, global cooperation, and civic demand for transparency.
The danger of inaction is clear. If we allow corporations to continue profiting from division, disinformation, and exploitation, we normalize irresponsibility as the global standard. If this becomes the norm worldwide, the next generation will not inherit a world of shared prosperity, but one of shared instability.
The question we must ask ourselves is simple: If corporations can be rewarded for responsibility, with bonuses and tax breaks, why are they not equally punished for irresponsibility? Until we answer that, the cycle of profit over people will continue.
The stakes are high in today’s interconnected world. The world cannot afford more decades of denial, delay, and damage. Recognizing and resisting global social irresponsibility is not just a moral duty; it is a long-term strategy to ensure future generations do not have to deal with the consequences.
Assad Raza is an assistant professor in global leadership and U.S. Army veteran with multiple deployments across the Middle East. Follow him on X @AssadRaza12 and on LinkedIn.
