Introduction The following paper is a review of the article “The truth about CSR“ by Rangan, Chase, and Karim. The aim of the review is to analyze main points of the article, validate the integrity of claims, and conclude on its value for business practices. The main point of the article is a misunderstanding of the ultimate goals of CSR initiatives by the majority of companies and the resulting discrepancies in its implementation. To address the issue, the article outlines a four-step framework aimed at improving the situation. Background Information Nowadays, corporate social responsibility (CSR) is widely recognized as both necessary and beneficial for business practices. Managerial departments implement it at certain stages of their company’s operations to improve corporate image, align the organization’s goals with a broader range of responsibilities, and achieve specific milestones. Nevertheless, on many occasions the goals of CSR get misinterpreted – most often they are perceived as means to directly affect the success of business practices and increase profitability of the firm. As a result, the implementation process is uneven, fragmented, misdirected, uncoordinated, and ultimately faulty. An even more common scenario is the implementation of CSR with a specific outcome in mind, which may or may not be consistent with its intended goal of addressing the environmental and social specificities and improving the overall corporate image. Thus, there is a growing demand for a revision of the current approach in the form of reconsidered meaning of the term, its core goals, and essential steps for its implementation. Consequently, a research highlighting the common misinterpretations and reasons behind the shortcomings of CSR implementation could be utilized for the creation of meaningful guidelines to streamline the process and eliminate unnecessary steps. Summary An article by Rangan, Chase, and Karim provides an overview of perception of CSR by the managers engaged in its implementation. According to the survey conducted by the authors, most of the companies which utilize the approach display inconsistencies in its understanding and execution. To illustrate them, the authors suggest categorization of the CSR activities in three distinct theaters: focus on philanthropy, improvements of the operational effectiveness, and introduction of new business models. The results of the research indicate the tendency to recognize a specific theater as a priority and focus the effort on achieving certain goals within it. While not fundamentally wrong, such view reflects the disparate nature of actions. Simply put, different managerial departments (and, on some occasions, managers within a department) tend to operate in separation, out of synch with other departments, and more often than not without the involvement of a CEO. This naturally leads to poor outcomes. Even more importantly, around 30 percent of respondents report increased costs and increased revenue as either actual or expected result of CSR initiatives. The latter is arguably inevitable since most of CSR programs have a spillover effect of improving corporate image and, by extension, customer satisfaction, employee retention, and company reputation. Nevertheless, CSR is not meant to d