Pluralism in Political Corporate Social Responsibility

2012 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 649-678 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jukka Mäkinen ◽  
Arno Kourula

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.

2017 ◽  
Vol 71 (6) ◽  
pp. 796-821 ◽  
Author(s):  
Subhabrata Bobby Banerjee

In this article, I provide a critical analysis of the politics of corporate social responsibility. I argue that corporate social responsibility is a strategy that enables multinational corporations to exercise power in the global political economy. Using the global extractive industries as a context, I focus on conflicts between communities, the state and multinational corporations that arise owing to the negative social and environmental impacts of mining and extraction. In particular, I analyse the role of political corporate social responsibility and multi-stakeholder initiatives in managing conflicts and argue that these initiatives cannot take into account the needs of vulnerable stakeholders. Power asymmetries between key actors in the political economy can diminish the welfare of communities impacted by extraction. Several governance challenges arise as a result of these power asymmetries and I develop a translocal governance framework from the perspective of vulnerable stakeholders that can enable a more progressive approach to societal governance of multinational corporations.


2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cameron Sabadoz ◽  
Abraham Singer

ABSTRACT:Deliberative democratic theory, commonly used to explore questions of “political” corporate social responsibility (PCSR), has become prominent in the literature. This theory has been challenged previously for being overly sanguine about firm profit imperatives, but left unexamined is whether corporate contexts are appropriate contexts for deliberative theory in the first place. We explore this question using the case of Starbucks’ “Race Together” campaign to show that significant challenges exist to corporate deliberation, even in cases featuring genuinely committed firms. We return to the underlying social theory to show that this is not an isolated case: for-profit firms are predictably hostile contexts for deliberation, and significant normative and strategic problems can be expected should deliberative theory be imported uncritically to corporate contexts. We close with recent advances in deliberative democratic theory that might help update the PCSR project, and accommodate the application of deliberation to the corporate context, albeit with significant alterations.


Author(s):  
Jonathon W. Moses ◽  
Bjørn Letnes

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document