Abstract
In the growing amount of literature on political corporate social responsibility (PCSR) emanating
from Scherer and Palazzo (2007, 2011) it is seldom discussed what sort of organization is
required to satisfy the theory of PCSR. Part of the literature on PCSR does raise this question,
e.g. by pointing out ‘symbolism’ in organizational theory as fit to PCSR (Heugens & Scherer
2010), criticizing the implicit neo-institutional premise (Banerjee 2010), arguing for decision
procedures of corporate moral agency (Dubbink & Smith 2011), questioning corporate accountability
(Hussain & Moriarty 2016) or revising the theory of the firm (Scherer, Palazzo, and
Baumann 2006).
Scherer and Palazzo have themselves suggested several features of PCSR delineating the role
of the business organization in society; that it contributes to enacting regulation (rule-making)
of soft law, that it provides public goods and that it has an ability, given the right circumstances,
to be a democratic agent participating in and promoting (deliberative) democracy in society
(Scherer & Palazzo 2007, 2011; Scherer, Palazzo and Baumann 2006; Scherer, Rasche, Palazzo
& Spicer 2016; Scherer 2017).
In this paper, I seek to dig deeper in the search for organizational foundations of PCSR to unravel
what sort of organization satisfies criteria of PCSR such as a) democratic pluralism of
governance, b) ability to maneuver in the void between public and private institutions, and c)
being accountable to relevant stakeholders defined and selected by a social connection model
understanding of responsibility. All these features are ruled by norms of deliberative democracy,
so the understanding (and theory) of the organization should also be ‘prescriptive’ of how
organizations ought to act to satisfy PCSR – a purely descriptive and empirical account will not
suffice (Scherer 2017).
2
Two accounts of the organization that could satisfy PCSR are discussed: the organization as a
corporate citizen, and the organization a system integrated into society as a (potentially) democratic
system. It is argued that PCSR is not compatible with the organization conceived as a
corporate citizen due to its preference for non-metaphysical foundations (the priority of democracy
to philosophy) as well as its commitment to CSR as a process of deliberation (Scherer &
Palazzo 2007). Hence, a non-metaphysical, proceduralist and pragmatist view the organization
as a system is suggested (Sabadoz & Singer 2017; Dempsey 2013) to provide the best fit with
PCSR. Finally, the paper argues that given the systemic (institutional) embeddedness of the
organization according to PCSR, the democratic functionality of the wider social and economic
system must be taken into consideration as well – since assuming the corporation could be as
democratic as PCSR suggests, it will be insufficient if the wider systemic context does not
provide conditions for deliberative democracy.
Keywords: Political CSR, organization, deliberative democracy, justification, institutions, system.
Introduction
Originalsprog | Engelsk |
---|---|
Publikationsdato | 2017 |
Antal sider | 26 |
Status | Udgivet - 2017 |
Begivenhed | EGOS, 2017 - Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen , Danmark Varighed: 6 jul. 2017 → 8 jul. 2017 https://www.egosnet.org/jart/prj3/egos/main.jart?rel=de&content-id=1474852928684&reserve-mode=active |
Konference
Konference | EGOS, 2017 |
---|---|
Lokation | Copenhagen Business School |
Land/Område | Danmark |
By | Copenhagen |
Periode | 06/07/2017 → 08/07/2017 |
Internetadresse |