Why do firms engage in socially disapproved behaviors? What factors discourage such behaviors in favor of social responsibility? In 2007, about 84% of U.S. public firms engaged in at least one “socially disapproved” behavior (as defined and determined by KLD Research and Analytics, Inc.; hereafter “KLD”). The average number of such behaviors was 2, with a range of 0-18, including categories like community, environment, diversity, employee, product safety, and humanity. Given ample evidence of links between socially disapproved corporate behaviors and negative consequences like lawsuits, market share deterioration, network partner losses, and public disapproval (e.g., Strachan, et al., 1983; Davidson, et al., 1994; Baucus and Baucus, 1997; Haunschild, et al., 2006; Karpoff, et al., 2008; and Nossiter, 2010), the continued prevalence of socially disapproved behaviors remains puzzling, and the contributing factors remain important to investigate. Beyond the obvious practical import of socially disapproved behaviors (hereafter “CSR concerns” in accordance with KLD terminology), the continued prevalence of such behaviors cuts to the heart of important theoretical puzzles in the corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature. For example, Martin and Moser (2016) show that investors respond favorably when managers make and disclose the societal benefits of investments, and numerous papers show that avoiding CSR concerns has significant consequences for firm performance and resources (e.g., Benlemlih & Bitar, 2016; Cheng, Ioannou, & Serafeim, 2014; Jo, et al., 2009; Simpson and Koshers, 2002; Trudel and Cotte, 2009; Wu and Shen, 2013, and Kruger, 2015). If that is the case, why does further reducing CSR concerns (and enhancing CSR strengths) in core business functions remain the most significant leadership challenge facing companies today (State of Sustainable Business Survey by BSR, 2014)2 ? Is it possible that mitigating CSR concerns requires resources that firms simply do not have? That is the topic of the current research. We suggest that resource availability may be central to decisions about whether to avoid socially disapproved behaviors. To date, research has amassed more evidence for the opposite causal path—that decreased CSR concerns improve firm performance and thus increase resource availability (e.g., Benlemlih & Bitar, 2016; Cheng, Ioannou, & Serafeim, 2014; Jo, et al., 2009; Simpson and Koshers, 2002). Yet, theory suggests that resource availability could also drive CSR decisions (Lys, Naughton, & Wang, 2015; Preston and O’Bannon, 1997; Waddock and Graves, 1997), and scholars have explicitly called for empirical research into that possibility (e.g., Benlemlih & Bitar, 2016). We respond to the call by exploring whether, when, and how a causal link from resource availability to socially disapproved behaviors might emerge.