Dorothea Baur

More and more companies are publicly taking a stand on social and political issues such as gay marriage legislation. This paper argues that this type of engagement, which can be called ‘‘corporate political advocacy,'' raises new conceptual and normative challenges especially for theories of corporate responsibility. Furthermore, it poses practical challenges for managers who are confronted with it. This paper addresses all three challenges: first, it defines and conceptualizes corporate political advocacy and dis- tinguishes it from other forms of corporate political in- volvement. Second, it makes normative sense of corporate advocacy as an element of corporate responsibility. Third, it reflects on the practical implications for managers deal- ing with this issue.

Political theories in general and deliberative democracy in particular have become quite popular in business ethics over the past few years. However, the model of deliberative democracy as generally referred to in business ethics is only appropriate for conceptualizing interaction between business and society which occurs within a context which is more or less institutionalized. The model cannot account for "unregulated" interaction between business and civil society. The authors argue that scholars need to resort to the so called "critical strand" of deliberative democracy if we want to conceptualize interaction that happens without the involvement of decision-making institutions as political action in a deliberative sense. Adopting this approach allows us to identify cases in which unregulated interaction between business and civil society is preferable over institutionalization.

Interactions between corporations and nonprofits are on the rise, frequently driven by a corporate interest in establishing credentials for corporate social responsibility (CSR). In this article, we show how increasing demands for accountability directed at both businesses and NGOs can have the unintended effect of compromising the autonomy of nonprofits and fostering their co-optation. Greater scrutiny of NGO spending driven by self-appointed watchdogs of the nonprofit sector and a prevalence of strategic notions of CSR advanced by corporate actors weaken the ability of civil society actors to change the business practices of their partners in the commercial sector. To counter this trend, we argue that corporations should embrace a political notion of CSR and should actively encourage NGOs to strengthen ‘downward accountability' mechanisms, even if this creates more tensions in corporate-NGO partnerships. Rather than seeing NGOs as tools in a competition for a comparative advantage in the market place, corporations should actively support NGO independence and critical capacity.

Partnerships between companies and NGOs have received considerable attention in CSR in the past years. However, the role of NGO legitimacy in such partnerships has thus far been neglected. We argue that NGOs assume a status as special stakeholders of corporations which act on behalf of the common good. This role requires a particular focus on their moral legitimacy. We introduce a conceptual framework for analysing the moral legitimacy of NGOs along three dimensions, building on the theory of deliberative democracy. Against this background we outline three procedural characteristics which are essential for judging the legitimacy of NGOs as potential or actual partners of corporations.

This paper presents a report on the first Swiss Master Class in Corporate Social Responsibility, which was held between the 8th and 9th December 2006 at HEC Lausanne in Switzerland. The first section of the report introduces the topic of the master class - ‚Corporations as Political Actors - Facing the Postnational Challenge' - as well as the concept of the master class. The second section gives an overview of papers written by nine young scholars that were selected to present their research. The brief summary of each paper also includes a summary of comments from the masters, practitioners, and NGO representatives at the event. The third section brings in the perspectives of one master and one NGO representative on the discussed issues. The final section offers a brief wrap-up of the discussed topics and outlines ways to structure future conceptual and empirical research.

In this paper, I map the territory in terms of the different emphases that CSR-related research puts on the state. Despite evidence that suggests that the state plays an important role as an actor in CSR, the majority of research on CSR focuses on contexts where the state plays at best the role of a stakeholder of corporations. I argue that the neglect of the state is particularly evident in normative research on CSR and I explore what a normative model of CSR that overcomes this neglect would have to look like. I suggest that one option is to develop a notion of political CSR that extends its research focus by providing a normative theory of lobbying, that critically reconsiders its restriction to voluntary arrangements, and that rethinks the appropriateness of the normative political model on which its theoretical framework rests.

Recent months have heralded a surge in companies publicly taking a stand on social and political issues such as gay marriage legislation. This paper argues that such "corporate political advocacy" raises new conceptual challenges, which have not been accounted for in existing theories of the firm. Furthermore, it poses normative challenges not yet addressed in current theories of corporate responsibility. And lastly, it poses practical challenges and dilemmas for managers who are confronted with it in their own organizations. This article addresses all three challenges: first, it defines corporate political advocacy and distinguishes it from other, perhaps more familiar forms of corporate political involvement. Second, it attempts to make normative sense of corporate advocacy by depicting it as an element of corporate responsibility. Third, it reflects on the practical implications deriving for managers dealing with this issue in practice.

This paper sets out to explore venues for taking normative analysis in CSR one level down from the postnational to the national level and for ‘tightening' it from voluntary to postvoluntarist conceptions. The goal is a) to overcome the deficit of normative orientation in research on the interaction between corporations and governmental institutions and b) to reflect on a normative model of democracy that prepares the ground for postvoluntarist forms of CSR.

The interaction between corporations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has become an important topic in the debate about corporate social responsibility (CSR). Yet, unlike the vast majority of academic work on this topic, this book explicitly focuses on clarifying the role of NGOs, not of corporations, in this context. Based on the notion of NGOs as political actors it argues that NGOs suffer from a multiple legitimacy deficit: they are representatives of civil society without being elected; the legitimacy of the claims they raise is often controversial; and there are often doubts regarding the legitimacy of the behaviour they exhibit in putting forward their claims. Set against an extended sphere of political action in the postnational constellation this book argues that the political model of deliberative democracy provides a meaningful conceptualization of NGOs as legitimate partners of corporations and it develops a conceptual framework that specifically allows distinguishing legitimate partner NGOs from two related actor types with whom they share certain characteristics but who differ with respect to their legitimacy. These related actor types are interest groups on the one hand and activists on the other hand. In conclusion it argues that a focus on the behaviour of NGOs is most meaningful for distinguishing them from interest groups and activists.