As the webcast beamed out live to an audience of over a thousand viewers, thought leaders including The Economist’s Matthew Bishop, ThomsonReuters’ Chrystia Freeland, UN Global Compact’s George Kell, BSR’s Aaron Cramer, Campbell Soup’s Dave Stangis and GE Foundation’s Bob Corcoran argued about concept that evidently means different things to different people. As moderator of the debate, my intent was to “navigate” the conversation to the point where a “side” would “prevail.” But within the first few minutes, I realized why efforts in this direction were futile.

“What do we mean by corporate social responsibility (CSR)?” asked Karnani. “It’s not just that the terminology is clunky. It is also unclear.”

Indeed, it is unclear. According to a study published by Wiley InterScience, there are approximately thirty-seven different definitions of CSR floating about the business world. This problem is compounded by dozens of competing CSR or sustainability-related measurement and certification programs. Do well-meaning corporations adopt Cradle-to-Cradle or B-Corp standards? Should they join the Global Compact or Social Accountability 8000? Do Fair Trade or Ethical Trade models make the bigger difference? Who knows?

What we do know is that the old-school CSR rhetoric utterly fails to resonate. At least that was something both sides could agree on. “The problem with the rhetoric is that it can create confusion about what a business is doing in it’s core, versus what it likes to talk about or claim public credit for,” said Freeland, who pointed to campaigns issued by BP, PepsiCo and Goldman Sachs as examples of marketing hypocrisy.

Beyond the language and clear instances of greenwashing, however, there was a deeper point to be made, particularly by practitioners on the panel. When so-called CSR is most effective – when it generates so much value for stakeholders and shareholders that corporations cannot afford to stop investing in it – then it is no longer regarded as CSR, but good business strategy. GE’s multi-billion dollar investments in clean energy and affordable health care stand as a testament to this.

“If you label CSR or corporate citizenship as purely a philanthropic activity, then I agree that’s misguided,” said GE’s Corcoran. “[Authentic CSR] is about the core of what a business does, how it does that, and what it sells that is of value, that helps to meet unmet needs.”

Campbell’s Soup’s Dave Stangis agreed. “CSR is there [at Campbell’s] not because it’s nice to do, but because it makes the company better. It takes money from the supply chain, makes us more nimble and drives innovation.”

Still, despite the demonstrable move toward CSR-driven business models, Karnani insisted that corporations have no obligation to solve society’s ills. “That is the role of government regulation,” he said. “Governments are a far more effective protector of the public good than any campaign for corporate social responsibility.”

Here is where a second key distinction lies. It is one thing for corporations to conduct business ethically – trading within boundaries set by law. However, it is quite another thing for corporations to use laws as a strategic compass. Those that do will be playing catch up forever.

There is also the matter of our transformed society. “We don’t live in a world where government’s only job is to set and enforce rules and businesses only job is to sell products and services within those boundaries,” said Cramer. “We live in a transparent world, a globally connected world, a world where civil society plays a big role, where global markets exist but global governance does not.”  Despite the clunky language, today’s CSR is fundamentally about collaboration, which means getting to optimal solutions faster than if we waited around for regulation or business to advance independently, Cramer explained.

“What is really going on here is a struggle to determine what tomorrow’s markets are going to be in a world that’s changing very fast, where all the old boundaries are breaking down,” said Bishop. “Now we’re all workers, consumers, capitalists and voters. And we’re trying to work out the right institutional arrangements to govern in that new world.”

So where does the “Great CSR Debate” leave divided minds? Perhaps right back where they started, or perhaps pondering the following choice: respond to the new reality, or don’t. Stangis put it this way: “This isn’t a debate about right or wrong, winning or losing. For me, it’s about changing the world, one company at a time – or sitting on the outside describing why that can’t happen.”

Klein is a proponent of a “contrasting, more hopeful perspective” on capitalism. He optimistically points to purpose-driven companies that create value for stakeholders as well as shareholders, and books like Firms of Endearment: How World-Class Companies Profit from Passion and Purpose (Wharton School Publishing: 2007).

Being the author of several books on purpose-driven companies myself, I am familiar with the territory and can certainly appreciate where Klein is coming from. Still, even the most enlightened corporate responsibility professional has to acknowledge that, alongside the Whole Foods and Honest Teas of the world, there are the Citigroups and Halliburtons. Which companies control the most wealth? We cannot ignore the truths that Moore dramatizes, because they will not dissipate on their own.

Some of you reading this may vehemently disagree with Moore’s premise and approach. I encourage you to see the film and join the debate. To inspire further conversation I have included the following comment of mine, written in response to Klien’s original post. Please have at it:

Jeff, as someone who has been researching the matter of conscious capitalism for the past five years, I can tell you that we are on the same page with respect to our admiration of companies that stand for a meaningful purpose, and that integrate that purpose into everything they do – from the products they sell to the way they treat people and the planet. My second book, The High-Purpose Company (Collins: 2007), beat Firms of Endearment to the market by just a few months. I thought it was interesting how, although we had no way of sharing data or knowing how each other’s methodologies were structured, our two research-based books came to strikingly similar conclusions. I took this as an optimistic sign, and I am glad to see so many purpose-driven companies thriving in our economy.

Where you and I seem to differ is in our takeaway of Michael Moore’s main thesis. I believe Moore is telling a more prolific story, and that more of us involved in the CSR community might benefit by listening carefully.

Moore’s core message is not that all capitalism is evil. In fact, in Moore’s movie he features several purpose-driven companies, including Alvarado Street Bakery, as examples of what can be done when business leaders decide to embrace socially just business models.

Moore’s main message is that we live in a fundamentally imbalanced society – a plutonomy – where the top one percent of the population controls the vast majority of the Nation’s wealth. Upholding the top one percent are the nation’s premier financial institutions, which is why Moore points the finger at Wall Street.

Let’s be honest about the current circumstances our Nation faces, and Moore’s depiction thereof. Our premier financial institutions accepted $700 billion in no-strings bailout money. The banks have not disclosed where the bailout money went, though we know a portion of it was used to pay executive bonuses. The banks also continue to oppose proposed consumer protection reforms and other measures that would shield citizens against unfair industry practices. In all, I’d say Wall Street has shown itself to be less than honorable during a period of peaked economic stress for America’s middle class.

Given the widening gap between America’s “haves” and “have nots” (in addition to the reasons for that gap), some might characterize the current financial crisis as a social justice issue. That is one of the key points in Moore’s film. It is also a key point made by many in our industry who we consider leaders: Dr. Muhammud Yunus, Robert Glassman and Hazel Henderson to name a few. It’s just that these leaders deliver the message in a very different way from Moore.

We in the CSR industry need to ask ourselves what our role should be in all of this. I agree it is wonderful to continue to promote and protect the interests of legitimately responsible and purpose-driven companies. At a certain point, however, more force is necessary. This industry needs rebels, too.

There is a part of me that believes that if we continue to allow Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and others to continue be traded in our SRI funds and flouted on our “Best Citizens” lists, as they are today, then we will not be promoting justice, and we will not be doing our jobs.