scholarly journals Governing the Global Corporation: A Critical Perspective

2010 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Subhabrata Bobby Banerjee
Keyword(s):  
Social Responsibility ◽  
Economic Democracy ◽  
Critical Perspective ◽  
Political Role ◽  
Global Corporation ◽  
Actor Networks ◽  
Corporate Social ◽  
Political Economic ◽  
Sophisticated Analysis

ABSTRACT:In this article I provide a critical perspective on governing the global corporation. While the papers in the 2009 special issue of Business Ethics Quarterly explore the political role of corporations I argue that they lack a sophisticated analysis of power across institutional and actor networks. The argument that corporate engagement with deliberative democracy can enhance the legitimacy of corporations does not take into account the effects of institutional, material and discursive forms of power that determine legitimacy criteria. As a result corporate versions of citizenship mediate versions of social responsibility and morality, which are reflected in the institutional and political economic norms that are produced by this power/knowledge. In order to overcome the limits of corporate social responsibility there is a need to develop more democratic forms of global governance of corporations. A radical revisioning of democratic governance would also need to overcome the limits posed by sovereignty and would require new forms of multi-actor and multi-level translocal governance arrangements in an attempt to create forms of power that are more compatible with the principles of economic democracy.

Pluralism in Political Corporate Social Responsibility

2012 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 649-678 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jukka Mäkinen ◽  
Arno Kourula
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Social Responsibility ◽  
Social Responsibility ◽  
Classical Liberalism ◽  
Political Systems ◽  
Political Role ◽  
Political Csr ◽  
Political Corporate Social Responsibility ◽  
Political Theories ◽  
Corporate Social

ABSTRACT:Within corporate social responsibility (CSR), the exploration of the political role of firms (political CSR) has recently experienced a revival. We review three key periods of political CSR literature—classic, instrumental, and new political CSR—and use the Rawlsian conceptualization of division of moral labor within political systems to describe each period’s background political theories. The three main arguments of the paper are as follows. First, classic CSR literature was more pluralistic in terms of background political theories than many later texts. Second, instrumental CSR adopted classical liberalism and libertarian laissez-faire as its structural logic. Third, new political CSR, based on a strong globalist transition of responsibilities and tasks from governments to companies, lacks a conceptualization of division of moral labor that is needed to fully depart from a classical liberalist position. We end by providing a set of recommendations to develop pluralism in political CSR.

The Ethics of Petroleum

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathon W. Moses ◽  
Bjørn Letnes
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Social Responsibility ◽  
Social Responsibility ◽  
Host Country ◽  
Corporate Citizenship ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Oil Companies ◽  
Corporate Social ◽  
Oil Company

This chapter considers the role of international oil companies (IOCs) as global political actors with significant economic and political power. In doing so, we weigh the ethical costs and benefits for individuals, companies, and states alike. Using the concepts of “corporate social responsibility” (CSR) and “corporate citizenship” as points of departure, we consider the extent to which international oil companies have social and political responsibilities in the countries where they operate and what the host country can do to encourage this sort of behavior. We examine the nature of anticorruption legislation in several of the sending countries (including Norway), and look closely at how the Norwegian national oil company (NOC), Statoil, has navigated these ethical waters.

Toward a Theoretical Framework of Corporate Social Irresponsibility: Clarifying the Gray Zones Between Responsibility and Irresponsibility

2021 ◽  
pp. 000765032110159
Author(s):  
Cynthia E. Clark ◽  
Marta Riera ◽  
María Iborra
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Social Responsibility ◽  
Social Responsibility ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Conceptual Clarity ◽  
Corporate Social Irresponsibility ◽  
Corporate Social

In this conceptual article, we argue that defining corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) as opposite constructs produces a lack of clarity between responsible and irresponsible acts. Furthermore, we contend that the treatment of the CSR and CSI concepts as opposites de-emphasizes the value of CSI as a stand-alone construct. Thus, we reorient the CSI discussion to include multiple aspects that current conceptualizations have not adequately accommodated. We provide an in-depth exploration of how researchers define CSI and both identify and analyze three important gray zones between CSR and CSI: (a) the role of harm and benefit, (b) the role of the actor and intentionality, and (c) the role of rectification. We offer these gray zones as factors contributing to the present lack of conceptual clarity of the term CSI, as a concept in its own right, leading to difficulties that researchers and managers experience in categorizing CSI acts as distinct from CSR.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Government: The Role of Discretion for Engagement with Public Policy

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-29
Author(s):  
Jette Steen Knudsen ◽  
Jeremy Moon
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Corporate Social Responsibility ◽  
Social Responsibility ◽  
Integrated Framework ◽  
The Law ◽  
Corporate Social ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

We investigate the relationship of corporate social responsibility (CSR) (often assumed to reflect corporate voluntarism) and government (often assumed to reflect coercion). We distinguish two broad perspectives on the CSR and government relationship: the dichotomous (i.e., government and CSR are / should be independent of one another) and the related (i.e., government and CSR are / should be interconnected). Using typologies of CSR public policy and of CSR and the law, we present an integrated framework for corporate discretion for engagement with public policy for CSR. We make four related contributions. First, we explain the dichotomous and the related perspectives with reference to their various assumptions and analyses. Second, we demonstrate that public policy for CSR and corporate discretion coexist and interact. Specifically, we show, third, that public policy for CSR can inform and stimulate corporate discretion and, fourth, that corporations have discretion for CSR, particularly as to how corporations engage with such policy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document