This article takes stock of the discourse on 'political CSR' (PCSR), reconsiders some of its assumptions, and suggests new directions for what we call 'PCSR 2.0'. We start with a definition of PCSR, focusing on firms' contribution to public goods. We then discuss historical antecedents to the debate and outline the original economic and political context. The following section explores emerging changes in the institutional context relevant to PCSR and reconsiders some of the assumptions underlying Habermas' thesis of the postnational constellation. This highlights some neglected issues in previous works on PCSR, including the influence of nationalism and fundamentalism, the role of various types of business organisations, the return of government regulation, the complexity of institutional contexts, the efficiency of private governance, the financialization and digitalization of the economy, and the relevance of managerial sensemaking. Finally, we discuss the contributions to this special issue and relate them to the newly emerging research agenda.

ABSTRACT:This article assesses the proliferation of international accountability standards (IAS) in the recent past. We provide a comprehensive overview about the different types of standards and discuss their role as part of a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility. Based on this, it is argued that IAS can advance corporate responsibility on a global level because they contribute to the closure of some omnipresent governance gaps. IAS also improve the preparedness of an organization to give an explanation and a justification to relevant stakeholders for its judgments, intentions, acts and omissions when appropriately called upon to do so. However, IAS also face a variety of problems impeding their potential to help address social and environmental issues. The contribution of the four articles in this special section is discussed in the context of standards’ problems and opportunities. The article closes by outlining a research agenda to further develop and extend the scholarly debate around IAS.

This paper suggests that when the phenomenon of standards and standardization is examined from the perspective of organization studies, three aspects stand out: the standardization of organizations, standardization by organizations and standardization as (a form of) organization. Following a comprehensive overview of existing research in these three areas, we argue that the dynamic aspects of standardization are under-represented in the scholarly discourse. Furthermore, we identify the main types of tension associated with standardization and the dynamics they generate in each of those three areas, and show that, while standards and standardization are typically associated with stability and sameness, they are essentially a dynamic phenomenon. The paper highlights the contributions of this special issue to the topic of standards as a dynamic phenomenon in organization studies and makes suggestions for future research. AbstractThis article suggests that when the phenomenon of standards and standardisation is examined from the perspective of organisation studies three aspects stand out: the standardisation of organisations, standardisation by organisations, and standardisation as (a form of) organisation. Following a comprehensive overview of existing research in these three areas, we argue that the dynamic aspects of standardisation are underrepresented in the scholarly discourse. Furthermore, we identify the main types of tension associated with standardisation and the dynamics they generate in each of those three areas, and show that, while standards and standardisation are typically associated with stability and sameness, they are essentially a dynamic phenomenon. The article highlights the contributions of this special issue to the topic of standards as a dynamic phenomenon in organisation studies and makes suggestions for future research.

ABSTRACT:Based on theoretical insights of discourse ethics as developed by Jürgen Habermas, we delineate a proposal to further develop the institutionalization of social accounting in multinational corporations (MNCs) by means of “Social Accountability 8000” (SA 8000). First, we discuss the cornerstones of Habermas's discourse ethics and elucidate how and why this concept can provide a theoretical justification of the moral point of view in MNCs. Second, the basic conception, main purpose, and implementation procedure of SA 8000 are presented. Third, we critically examine SA 8000 from a Habermasian perspective, and discuss advantages and drawbacks of the initiative. Fourth, to address the drawbacks, we introduce a “discourse-ethically” extended version of SA 8000. We show that this approach is theoretically well-founded and able to overcome some of the current deficits of the certification initiative. We demonstrate that the extended version of SA 8000 can be successfully applied on a cross-cultural basis, and that our findings have significant implications for other international ethics initiatives.

ABSTRACT:Although the literature on multi-stakeholder initiatives for sustainability has grown in recent years, it is scattered across several academic fields, making it hard to ascertain how individual disciplines, such as business ethics, can further contribute to the debate. Based on an extensive review of the literature on certification and principle-based MSIs for sustainability (n = 293 articles), we show that the scholarly debate rests on three broad themes (the “3Is”): the input into creating and governing MSIs; the institutionalization of MSIs; and the impact that relevant initiatives create. While our discussion reveals the theoretical underpinnings of the 3Is, it also shows that a number of research challenges related to business ethics remain unaddressed. We unpack these challenges and suggest how scholars can utilize theoretical insights in business ethics to push the boundaries of the field. Finally, we also discuss what business ethics research can gain from theory development in the MSI field.

This paper explores the meaning and significance of the term `social practice' and its relation to strategy-as-practice research from the perspective of social theory. Although our remarks are also applicable to other practice-based discussions in management, we discuss strategy practices as a case in point and thus contribute to the strategy-as-practice literature in three ways. First, instead of simply accepting the existence of a unified `practice theory', we outline a genealogical analysis revealing the historical-contingent conditions of its creation. This analysis shows that social practices in general and strategy practices in particular can be approached from either a neo-structuralist and/or neo-interpretative perspective. Second, based on this theoretical argument, we discuss different characteristics of strategy practices and emphasize those aspects not yet fully considered by strategy-as-practice research (e.g. the physical nature of practices). Third, we show that, when studying strategy practices, given an understanding of the alternative theoretical approaches available, the practice of strategy research itself needs to be adjusted so as to accommodate a stronger emphasis on an ethnographic approach that is directed towards uncovering the contextual and hidden characteristics of strategy-making.

Although accountability standards (e.g., the Global Reporting Initiative and SA 8000) have made their way onto the agendas of managers and researchers, a model to compare and analyze these tools in a systematic way is a conspicuous omission. This article aims to develop such a model. First, we briefl y introduce the nature of accountability standards and explore commonalities and differences between them. Second, we present a model to compare and analyze these initiatives. This model allows interested parties to discuss accountability standards based on an analysis of the content of their underlying norms, the implementation processes they suggest, and their context of application. Third, we apply the model to the United Nations Global Compact. We show how this initiative differs from other standards and also discuss its strengths and weaknesses according to the outlined model.

Business schools increasingly aim to embed corporate responsibility, sustainability, and ethics into their curricular and extracurricular activities. This paper examines under what conditions business schools may decouple the structural effects of t heir engagement in responsible management education from organizational practices. We argue that schools may be unable to match rising institutional pressures to publicly commit to responsible management education with their internal capacity for change. Our analysis proposes that decoupling is likely if schools (1) are exposed to resource stringency, (2) face overt or covert resistance against change processes, (3) are confronted with competing institutional pressures, and (4) perceive institutional demands as ambiguous. The discussion points to two implications. While decoupling may give rise to the illusion that responsible management education is progressing, it is also possible that an inconsistency between talk and action can help schools to articulate ambitions for responsible management education, which, over time, inspire recoupling effects.