Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Examines a critical social impact framework to support marginalized consumers in the Australian energy market, highlighting its implications for ethical research.
Purpose Despite social impact becoming an increasingly prominent priority across higher education and government, questions and critiques persist. Uncertainty remains around how to achieve meaningful social impact. This paper aims to examine limitations in current approaches and argues for a critical perspective. The authors introduce a critical social impact (CSI) framework that challenges the status quo and promotes inclusive, transformative outcomes for social good. Design/methodology/approach This paper draws on a social marketing case study of Culturally and Racially Marginalised consumers in the Australian energy market to introduce a CSI framework for business research. Findings The CSI framework outlines a process for critically oriented research, theorising, methods, analysis and co-interpretation, co-design and development of recommendations, and social impact activities to drive sustained social impact. It specifies key focus areas, activities, approaches and guiding questions at each stage, offering actionable guidelines for business researchers. They also define CSI and discuss theoretical and practical implications. Originality/value This work is the first to propose a CSI framework that is relational, processual and applied across the entire research process. This is important to ensure that research is ethical, systematic and has value and meaning. The goal is to encourage business researchers to adopt more critical perspectives in advancing a social impact agenda that effectively and sustainably addresses global challenges. The framework provides business researchers, practitioners and policymakers with critically informed pathways to design research and programs that avoid reinforcing existing inequities and can support sustained positive social impact for people and communities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gordon et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: