Political corporate social responsibility (PCSR) calls for firms to implement and engage in deliberative democracy processes and structures, addressing governance gaps where governments are unwilling or unable to do so. However, an underlying assumption that the implementation of PCSR will enrich democratic processes in society has been exposed and challenged. In this conceptual article, we explore this challenge by developing a framework to reveal the dynamics of firms’ deliberative democratic processes and structures (meso level), and those at nation state (macro level). Using existing cases as illustrative examples, we demonstrate that despite the public good premise of PCSR theory toward thickening the overall democracy in a society, corporate democratization at meso level can have the opposite effect and may actually erode macro-level democratic control of society and the economy. These findings imply a need for multilevel analysis in PCSR research and greater consideration of state-level public institutions and the responsibilities of business firms toward those institutions. Furthermore, we contribute to the PCSR literature by identifying the disruptive mechanisms associated with these dynamics and outline two alternative perspectives to allow firms to continue to take on political responsibilities.
ArenasD.AlbaredaL.GoodmanJ. (2020). Contestation in multi-stakeholder initiatives: Enhancing the democratic quality of transnational governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 30, 169–199.
2.
ArnesonR. J. (1993). Market socialism and egalitarian ethics. In BardhanP. K.RoemerJ. E. (Eds.), Market Socialism: The current debate (pp. 281–297). Oxford University Press.
BaynesK. (2002). Deliberative democracy and the limits of liberalism. In von SchombergR.BaynesK. (Eds.), Discourse and democracy: Essays of Habermas’ between facts and norms (pp. 15–30). State University of New York Press.
6.
BohmanJ.RehgW. (Ed.). (1997). Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics. MIT Press.
7.
BovensL. (2016). The ethics of Dieselgate. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 40, 262–283.
8.
ConyonM. J.SchwalbachJ. (1999). Corporate governance, executive pay and performance in Europe. In CarpenterJ.YermackD. (Eds.), Executive compensation and shareholder value (pp. 57–103). Kluwer.
9.
CordelliC. (2012). The institutional division of labor and the egalitarian obligations of nonprofits. Journal of Political Philosophy, 20, 131–155.
10.
CordelliC. (2020). The privatized state. Princeton University Press.
11.
CrockerD. A. (2006). Sen and deliberative democracy. In KaufmanA. (Ed.), Capabilities equality: Basic issues and problems (pp. 155–197). Routledge.
12.
DawkinsC. (2015). Agonistic pluralism and stakeholder engagement. Business Ethics Quarterly, 25, 1–28.
13.
DoreR. (2000). Stock market capitalism: Welfare capitalism. Japan and Germany versus Anglo-Saxons. Oxford University Press.
14.
DurantD. (2011). Models of democracy in social studies of science. Social Studies of Science, 41, 691–714.
15.
ElsonC. M.FerrereC. K.GoossenN. J. (2015). The bug at Volkswagen: Lessons in co-determination, ownership and board structure. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 27(4), 36–43.
16.
EnderleG. (1996). A comparison of business ethics in North America and Europe. Business Ethics—A European Review, 5, 33–46.
FinlaysonJ. G. (2019). The Habermas-Rawls debate. Columbia University Press.
20.
FraserN. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In CalhounC. (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109–142). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
21.
FreemanR. E.PhillipsR. A. (2002). Stakeholder theory: A libertarian defense. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12, 331–349.
22.
FreemanS. (2007). Rawls. Routledge.
23.
FreemanS. (2011). Capitalism in the classical and high liberal traditions. Social Philosophy & Policy, 28, 19–55.
24.
FrynasJ. G.StephensS. (2015). Political corporate social responsibility: Reviewing theories and setting new agendas. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17, 483–509.
25.
FungA. (2005). Deliberation before the revolution. Political Theory, 33, 397–419.
26.
GoodmanJ.ArenasD. (2015). Engaging ethically: A discourse ethics perspective on social shareholder engagement. Business Ethics Quarterly, 25, 163–189.
27.
GoodmanJ.KorsunovaA.HalmeM. (2017). Our collaborative future: Activities and roles of stakeholders in sustainability-oriented innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26, 731–753.
28.
GortonG.SchmidF. A. (2004). Capital, labor, and the firm: A study of German codetermination. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2, 863–905.
29.
HabermasJ. (2009). Europe: The faltering project (Translated by Ciaran Cronin). Polity Press.
30.
HallP.SoskiceD. (Eds.). (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford University Press.
31.
Harding-SmithR. (2011). Centre for policy development issue brief. Media Ownership and Regulation in Australia.
32.
HeikkurinenP.MäkinenJ. (2018). Synthesising corporate responsibility on organisational and societal levels of analysis: An integrative perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 149, 589–607.
MenaS.PalazzoG. (2012). Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly, 527–556.
50.
MillerD. (1993). Equality and market socialism. In BardhanP. K.RoemerJ. E. (Eds.), Market socialism: The current debate (pp. 298–314). Oxford University Press.
51.
MoonJ.CraneA.MattenD. (2005). Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15, 429–453.
52.
NadalL. (2007). Bike sharing sweeps Paris off its feet. Sustainable Transport, 19, 8–13.
53.
NelsonJ. (2008). CSR and public policy: New forms of engagement between business and government (Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Working Paper No. 45). John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
54.
NéronP. Y. (2010). Business and the polis: What does it mean to see corporations as political actors?Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 333–352.
55.
NozickR. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. Basic Books.
56.
NybergD.MurrayJ. (2017). Corporate politics in the public sphere: Corporate citizenspeak in a mass media policy contest. Business & Society, 59, 579–611.
57.
PhillipsR. A.MargolisJ. D. (1999). Toward an ethics of organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9, 619–638.
58.
RascheA. (2015). The corporation as a political actor—European and North American perspectives. European Management Journal, 33, 4–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.08.001
59.
RawlsJ. (1999). The law of peoples. Harvard University Press.
60.
RawlsJ. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement (KellyE., Ed.). Harvard University Press.
61.
RawlsJ. (2005). Political liberalism: Expanded edition. Columbia University Press.
62.
RhodesC. (2016). Democratic business ethics: Volkswagen’s emissions scandal and the disruption of corporate sovereignty. Organization Studies, 37, 1501–1518.
SabadozC.SingerA. (2017). Talk ain’t cheap: Political CSR and the challenges of corporate Deliberation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27, 183–211.
67.
SarfatyG. A. (2015). Shining light on global supply chains. Harvard International Law Review, 56, 419–463.
68.
SchererA. G. (2017). Theory assessment and agenda setting in political CSR: A critical theory perspective. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20, 387–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12137
69.
SchererA. G.Baumann-PaulyD.SchneiderA. (2013). Democratizing corporate governance: Compensating for the Democratic Deficit of corporate political activity and corporate citizenship. Business & Society, 52, 473–514.
70.
SchererA. G.PalazzoG. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1096–1120.
71.
SchererA. G.PalazzoG. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 899–931.
72.
SchererA. G.RascheA.PalazzoG.SpicerA. (2016). Managing for political corporate social responsibility: New challenges and directions for PCSR 2.0. Journal of Management Studies, 53, 273–298.
73.
Schrempf-StirlingJ. (2018). State power: Rethinking the role of the state in political corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 150, 1–14.
74.
SchwakJ. (2021). Foreign aid and discourses of national social responsibility: Evidence from South Korea. Journal of Global Ethics. https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHFAA-30
75.
SmithJ. (2019). Navigating our way between market and state. Business Ethics Quarterly, 29, 127–141.
76.
SorsaV.-P.FougèreM. (2021). Toward political explanation of change in corporate responsibility: Political scholarship on CSR and the case of palm oil biofuels. Business & Society, 60, 1895–1923. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650320915919
77.
SoundararajanV.BrownJ. A.WicksA. C. (2019). Can multi-stakeholder initiatives improve global supply chains? Improving deliberative capacity with a stakeholder orientation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 29, 1–28.
78.
StaeheliL. A.MitchellD. (2006). USA’s destiny? Regulating space and creating community in American shopping malls. Urban Studies, 43, 977–992.
79.
StevensonH.DryzekJ. S. (2014). Democratizing global climate governance. Cambridge University Press.
80.
TaipaleK. (2009). Cities for sale: How economic globalization transforms the local public sphere. Helsinki University of Technology.
81.
VitolsS.CasperS.SoskiceD.WoolcockS. (1997). Corporate governance in large British and German Companies. Report of the Anglo-German Foundation.
