Deliberation Without Democracy in Multi-stakeholder Initiatives: A Pragmatic Way Forward (original) (raw)
Related papers
Global Governance through Multi-stakeholder Deliberation as a Driver of Inequality
In recent decades, processes of multi-stakeholder deliberation based on Habermas’ concept of deliberative democracy have increasingly been implemented by corporations as part of their efforts to engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR). Corporate self-regulation via multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs), which occurs beyond the reach of legal frameworks of individual nation states, has been hailed by some scholars as a new, political form of CSR which employs multi-stakeholder deliberation as a form of global governance (Scherer & Palazzo, 2011). This paper introduces and applies the concept of ‘globalization inequality’ as a means of evaluating the social impact of processes of multi-stakeholder deliberation, particularly as they are implemented in MSIs. Building on notions of globalized social stratification developed by Zygmunt Bauman (1998) and Ulrich Beck (2000), globalization inequality is stratification resulting from forces that simultaneously bring the benefits of globalization to a fortunate few while trapping others in their locality. This ‘glocalization’ exposes individuals to potential future risks, resulting in a widespread sense of insecurity which corporations are able to leverage to their advantage. By examining existing research on multi-stakeholder deliberation, this paper finds evidence that corporations tend to apply a flawed, economically instrumentalized version of deliberative democracy that serves to increase globalization inequality. Even as corporations ostensibly seek to ameliorate the social and environmental impact of their business activities through CSR as deliberation, this form of global governance fosters insecurity and immobility at the local level while benefiting the corporate global elite.
Corporate Instrumentalization of Deliberative Democracy in Global Governance
In Statu Nascendi Journal of Political Philosophy and International Relations, 2018
In recent decades, processes of multistakeholder deliberation based on Habermas' concept of deliberative democracy have increasingly been implemented by corporations as part of their efforts to address the negative social and environmental impacts of their activities. These efforts to engage in corporate self-regulation have led to the development of multistakeholder initiatives (MSIs), which constitute governance institutions largely outside the scope of the traditional nation state. The deliberation employed by MSIs ostensibly aspires to consist in an inclusive ideal discourse not subject to power or domination in which the participants are committed to the consideration of all available evidence and alternative conceptual schemes. This article seeks to clarify the role of corporations in multistakeholder deliberation as a form of governance. An examination of existing research focusing primarily on MSIs involving small, local stakeholders as well as corporations demonstrates that the processes of deliberation fall short of the criteria for Habermasian ideal discourse. Problematic aspects of the implementation of multistakeholder deliberation include the reinforcement of local power asymmetries, lack of access to discourse, exclusion from discourse and the hegemony of corporations through mutual accommodation. Rather than seeking to engage in a discourse free from domination, corporations actively seek to dominate by maintaining power asymmetries and excluding other stakeholders from discourse. Moreover, within MSIs the processes of communicative rationality themselves are increasingly instrumentalized. Corporations' strict adherence to instrumental economic rationality furthermore prevents the consideration of alternative ideas. Corporate self-regulation through processes of multistakeholder deliberation, ostensibly meant to mitigate the negative social and environmental impact of corporate activities, thus instead appears to support the continued hegemony and exterritoriality of multinational corporations while strengthening the existing economic order.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 2020
This article studies multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) as spaces for both deliberation and contestation between constituencies with competing discourses, and disputed values, beliefs, and preferences. We review different theoretical perspectives on MSIs, which see them mainly as spaces to find solutions to market problems (economic approach), as spaces of conflict and bargaining (political approach), or as spaces of consensus (deliberative approach). In contrast, we build on a contestatory deliberative perspective, which gives equal value to both contestation and consensus. We identify four types of internal contestation which can be present in MSIs-procedural, inclusiveness, epistemic, and ultimate-goal-and argue that embracing contestation and engaging in ongoing revision of provisional agreements, criteria, and goals can enhance the democratic quality of MSIs. Finally, we explore the implications of this perspective for theorizing about the democratic quality in MSIs and about the role of corporations in transnational governance.
business ethics quarterly, 2019
Many companies engage in dialogue with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) about societal issues. The question is what a regulative ideal for such dialogues should be. In the literature on corporate social responsibility (CSR), the Habermasian notion of communicative action is often presented as a regulative ideal for stakeholder dialogue, implying that actors should aim at consensus and set strategic considerations aside. In this article, we argue that in many cases, communicative action is not a suitable regulative ideal for dialogue between companies and NGOs. We contend that there is often an adversarial element in the relation between companies and NGOs, and that an orientation towards consensus can be in tension with this adversarial relation. We develop an alternative approach to stakeholder dialogue called 'agonistic deliberation.' In this approach, conflict and strategic considerations play a legitimate and, up to a certain point, desirable role.
Journal of Business Ethics, 2022
Extant literature on Political CSR and the role of governments in the governance of business conduct tends to neglect key implications of the political-institutional macro-context for public deliberation. Contextual assumptions often remain rather implicit, leading to the need for a more nuanced, explicit and context-sensitive exploration of the theoretical and practical boundary conditions of Political CSR. In non-democratic political-institutional contexts, political pluralism and participation are limited, and governmental agencies continue to play the most central role in regulation and its enforcement. Drawing on a qualitative case study on a nuclear energy project in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, we show how both governments and MNCs co-create a context hostile to socially responsible business conduct in the sense of Political CSR. Utilizing rich qualitative data derived from interviews, public documents, and participant observation between 2008 and 2018, we specifically illuminate how-through which interactions and strategies-the multiple governmental and corporate actors involved counter civil society demands for public deliberation, indicating the limitations of Political CSR in non-democratic politicalinstitutional contexts. We particularly contribute to the development of Political CSR by analysing the role of coercive and discursive forms of power. We thus offer a more nuanced perspective on the role of governments in constraining the room for public deliberation in the sense of Political CSR.
Corporations and Deliberative Democracy: Finding Common Ground for "Our Common Future
Since corporations are major players in the global political economy, their engagement with sustainability is critical. Some observers go so far as to maintain that business must bear the main burden of responsibility for ensuring that development takes a more sustainable trajectory. Within the business sector, the concept of sustainability is often interpreted in a way that entrenches corporation's position of power within the global political economy and at the forefront of sustainable development. However, since sustainability is specifically concerned with diversity and equity and deals with complex value conflicts, it is imperative that effective communication between a diverse range of people takes place.
Journal of Business Ethics
The paper presents a renewed Habermasian view on transnational multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) and assesses the institutional characteristics of the Equator Principles Association (EPA) from a deliberative democracy perspective. Habermas' work has been widely adopted in the academic literature on the political responsibilities of (multinational) corporations (i.e., political corporate social responsibility), and also in assessing the democratic qualities of MSIs. Commentators, however, have noted that Habermas' approach relies very much on 'nation-state democracy' and may not be applicable to democracy in MSIs-in which nation-states are virtually absent. We argue that Habermas' detailed conceptualization of the institutionalization of deliberative democracy can be applied to transnational MSIs if these initiatives can be said to have their own 'dèmoi' that can be represented in associational decision-making. Therefore, we develop a definition of the dèmos of an MSI based on the notion of collective agency. Subsequently, we explain how Habermas' approach to democracy can be applied to MSIs and show that it has more to offer than hitherto has been uncovered. Our illustrative analysis of the EPA confirms the criticisms regarding this MSI which have recently been articulated by researchers and practitioners, but also yields new findings and possible avenues for the further development of the EPA: That is, although our assessment suggests that the EPA in its current state is still far from being a democratic MSI, the possibility of a sensible analysis of its democratic character indicates that transnational MSIs can, in principle, help to fill governance gaps in a democratic way.
Dissent in Consensusland: An Agonistic Problematization of Multi-stakeholder Governance
Journal of Business Ethics
Multi-stakeholder initiatives involve actors from several spheres of society (market, civil society and state) in collaborative arrangements to reach objectives typically related to sustainable development. In political CSR literature, these arrangements have been framed as improvements to transnational governance and as being somehow democratic. We draw on Mouffe’s works on agonistic pluralism to problematize the notion that consensus-led multi-stakeholder initiatives bring more democratic control on corporate power. We examine two initiatives which address two very different issue areas: the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety (The Accord). We map the different kinds of adversarial relations involved in connection with the issues meant to be governed by the two initiatives, and find those adversarial relations to take six main shapes, affecting the initiatives in different ways: (1) competing regulatory initiatives; (2) p...
Going Political? Towards Deliberative Corporate Governance
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2018
Current challenges in corporate governance increasingly require a deeper appreciation for the political nature of corporation, and a reflection on the assumptions behind dominant governance practices. This article suggests that the emerging theoretical models in economics and finance, which clearly recognize the role of all stakeholders, are limited by their narrow conception of politics. Building on an historical survey of corporate governance models, and on the literature on deliberative democracy and political corporate social responsibility, I suggest that a deliberative corporate governance approach would help design better governance practices. I illustrate this idea with a case of shareholder engagement and conclude with the implications for other governance practices.
Agonistic Pluralism and Stakeholder Engagement
Business Ethics Quarterly, 2015
This paper argues that, although stakeholder engagement occurs within the context of power, neither market-centered CSR nor the deliberative model of political CSR adequately addresses the specter of power asymmetries and the inevitability of confl ict in stakeholder relations, particularly for powerless stakeholders. Noting that the objective of stakeholder engagement should not be benevolence toward stakeholders, but mechanisms that address power asymmetries such that stakeholders are able to protect their own interests, I present a framework of stakeholder engagement based on agonistic pluralism that seeks to structure and utilize discord rather than reduce or eliminate it. I then propose arbitration as an agonistic mechanism to address power asymmetries in stakeholder engagement and explore its implications.