This article seeks to broaden the parameters of the research into and discourse of CSR, which, by definition, has focused on corporations, but has neglected the role of governments as corporate owners. Greater awareness and transparency of corporate ownership should open up discussions of accountability, especially as citizens are arguably the principal shareholders of government-owned companies. These are issues of potential concern to organizational communication scholars. The article first examines the nature and genesis of government-owned corporations, particularly in the New Zealand context, which very much follows the pattern of similar corporations around the world. A case study follows, with extant literature of CSR, legitimacy, and the conventionally regarded relative roles of state and the economy drawn upon to inform discussion of the broader ramifications of the case for other organizational contexts.
CampbellJ. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32, 946-967.
2.
CheneyG.RoperJ.MayS. (2007). Overview. In MayS.CheneyG.RoperJ. (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 3-14). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
3.
ChristensenT.LægreidP. (2003). Coping with complex leadership roles: The problematic redefinition of government-owned enterprises. Public Administration, 81, 803-831.
4.
CohenJ.AratoA. (1992). Civil society and political theory. London, UK: MIT Press.
5.
FriedmanM. (1970, September13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, pp. 28-25.
6.
FreemanR. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
7.
GoetzmannW.KollE. (2004). The history of corporate ownership in China: State patronage, company legislation, and the issue of control. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
HabermasJ. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere (BurgerT., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
HabermasJ. (1992). Further reflections on the public sphere. In CalhounC. (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 421-461). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
HabermasJ. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (RehgW., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
HallS. (1988). The hard road to renewal: Thatcherism and the crisis of the Left. London, UK: Verso.
13.
JacobsL.GuopeiG.HerbigP. (1995). Confucian roots in China: A force for today’s business. Management Decision, 33(10), 29-34.
IyerA. (2006). The missing dynamic: Corporations, individuals and contracts. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 393-406.
16.
KelseyJ. (1997). The New Zealand experiment: A world model for structural adjustment? (2nd ed.). Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland University Press.
17.
KuttnerR. (2000). The role of governments in the global economy. In HuttonW.GiddensA. (Eds.), Global capitalism (pp. 147-163). New York, NY: The New Press.
18.
LufranoR. (1997). Honorable merchants: Commerce and self-cultivation in late Imperial China. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
19.
MattenD.CraneA.ChappleW. (2003). Behind the mask: Revealing the true face of corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 45, 109-120.
MetzlerM. (2001). The centrality of organizational legitimacy to public relations practice. In HeathR. (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 321-333). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
22.
MitchellR. K.AgleB. R. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts?Academy of Management Review, 22, 853-886.
23.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). OECD guidelines on corporate governance of state-owned enterprises. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
24.
PalazzoG.SchererA. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 71-88.
25.
RahamanA. S.LawrenceS.RoperJ. (2004). Social and environmental reporting at the VRA: Institutionalised legitimacy or legitimation crisis?Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 15, 35-56.
26.
RoperJ.Holtz-BachaC.MazzoleniG. (2004). The politics of representation: Election campaigning and proportional representation. New York, NY: Lang.
27.
RoperJ. (2005). Symmetrical communication: Excellent public relations or a strategy for hegemony?Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(1), 69-86.
28.
RoperJ.WeymesE. (2007). Reinstating the collective: A Confucian approach to well-being and social capital development in a globalised economy. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 26, 135-144.
29.
ZhaoL.RoperJ. (in press). A Confucian approach to well-being and social capital development. Journal for Management Development.
30.
StiglitzJ. E. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
31.
SmithA. (1937). The wealth of nations. New York, NY: Random House. (Original work published 1776)
32.
SuchmanM. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571-611.
33.
SwansonD. (1999). Towards an integrative theory of business and society: A research strategy for corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 24, 506-521.
