Corporate social responsibility, juridification and globalisation: ‘inventive interventionism’ for a ‘paradox’

Abstract

This paper proposes ‘inventive interventionism’ as a regulatory approach to incorporate substantive outcomes, stakeholder empowerment, effective disclosure and a global multi-stakeholder and multidimensional view of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and social disclosure. Inventive interventionism also applies new paradigms of regulation that recognise CSR as one of the proximate engineers of efficient public governance and ultimate sources of socio-economic development. The paper adopts a transnational and comparative approach to regulatory CSR and situates the voluntary and prescriptive approaches in the wider regulation debate. It draws on reflexive law, responsive regulation, institutional and other theories to demonstrate that existing CSR regulations in several jurisdictions are not representative of the law's multidimensional and multidirectional nature. Inventive interventionism reflects a functional approach to the law–CSR dialectic relationship and contributes to the development of an analytical framework for CSR and reforming its national and global regulatory environment.

Corporate social responsibility and accountability: a new theoretical foundation for regulating CSR

“…As Aaronson (2005) suggests, 'responsible corporate behavior in the developing world is an issue that cannot be left to the voluntary discretion of business people but needs to be addressed by more stringent regulation' and therefore, 'legally mandated accountability is where attention should really be focused'. An emerging body of scholarship seeks to establish the need for regulating CSR for corporate accountability (Abah, 2016;Amao, 2013;Buhmann, 2011;Okoye, 2016;Osuji, 2011;Osuji, 2015;Thirarungrueang, 2013). As Osuji (2011) suggests 'regulation is neither incompatible nor irreconcilable with ethical CSR'.…”

“…A vast literature has focused on the nature, role and the dynamics of corporate social responsibility. More recently, an emerging body of literature is examining the need for regulating CSR and the role of law (Abah, 2016;Amao, 2013;Buhmann, 2006;Buhmann, 2011;Dentchev, Haezendonck, & van Balen, 2017;Idemudia & Kwakyewah, 2018;Malesky & Taussig, 2017;Malesky & Taussig, 2019;Nieto, 2005;Okoye, 2016;Osuji, 2011;Osuji, 2015;Situ, Tilt, & Seet, 2018;Thirarungrueang, 2013). However, imposition of regulation on corporates for CSR faces several challenges in the absence of consensus on the nature of obligations that businesses have under current CSR models.…”

Corporate Social Responsibility as Obligated Internalisation of Social Costs

“…Despite the increase in governmental involvement in CSR regulation across the world, 7 the role of government in the business and society debate remains understudied in the literature (Dentchev et al 2017;Osuji 2015;Adegbite 2012;Scherer et al 2016;Ehrnström-Fuentes 2016), especially in conceptual and theoretical terms (Gond et al 2011). The general assumption of a strict division of labour that views governments as political actors and irms as economic actors (Sundaram and Inkpen 2004) has been displaced by globalisation (Scherer and Smid 2000;Marcus and Fremeth 2009;Margolis and Walsh 2003;Scherer and Palazzo 2011;Kaul et al 2003).…”

“…Relexive governance is an inventive approach to regulation (Osuji 2015). It refers to the processes, procedures and relationships for mutual transformations of corporations and society.…”

Efficiency and Sustainability of CSR Projects

“…She concludes that legal systems have a relevant influence on Corporate Environmental Responsibility, but not on the other areas of CSR. Osuji [9] points out the complex nature of the relationship between law and CSR, focusing on the legal nature of CSR as a governance mechanism to correct externalities. Nam [10] studies the CSR infrastructure under the denomination of CSR system, analysing the centrality of different organisations in it.…”