Revisiting Politics in Political CSR: How coercive and deliberative dynamics operate through institutional work in a Colombian company

Abstract

This article analyses the political dynamics taking place within a Colombian supplier company during the implementation of a client’s global Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programme, which radically transformed the local understandings of the supplier’s social responsibilities. We distinguish two forms of politics in political CSR – coercive and deliberative politics – and examine how they unfold through lower-level managers’ institutional work. Our longitudinal case study identifies four types of institutional work, which combine into three political configurations – irreconcilable politics, complementary politics and aligned deliberative politics – resulting in the hybridization of explicit and implicit CSR. By analysing how local managers from emerging countries and at the bottom of the supply chain cope with the new political role of MNCs, we expand the political microfoundations of CSR and highlight the interactive and political nature of institutional work aimed at addressing major societal challenges.

Political CSR at the Coalface – The Roles and Contradictions of Multinational Corporations in Developing Workplace Dialogue

“…First, while pCSR has focused on how MNCs get involved in dialogue at the transnational level (Scherer and Palazzo, 2007), by demonstrating the ways in which MNCs can develop pCSR at the coalface, we expand the understanding of how lead firms in supply chains can create arenas of deliberation that enable the participation of those who are affected. Second, we respond to calls to create connections between global and local levels of CSR (Rasche, 2012;Acosta et al, 2019). In doing so, we show how dialogue across supply chain levels can change the nature of deliberation: coalface deliberation involves concrete problem-solving dialogue that brings to the surface tensions that would not be apparent at the global level.…”

“…The insights described above lead to our second contribution. Responding to calls for research on the connections between global and local pCSR activities (Acosta et al, 2019;Ehrnstroem-Fuentes, 2016;Gilbert and Rasche, 2007;Rasche, 2012), we contribute to a multi-level perspective of pCSR by adding insights into how dialogue between actors at the upstream and downstream end of the supply chain may be established, as well as its consequences. While pCSR has emphasised the role of corporations as constructive participants 'in the overarching processes of (national and transnational) public will formation' Palazzo, 2007, p. 1108), most of the debate has focused on deliberative democratic processes at the supra-or transnational level where corporations engage in deliberative processes with states or civil society organisations (Doh and Guay, 2006;Fransen, 2011).…”

“…Thus, scholars have begun to recognise the need to understand better the multi-level nature of CSR (Rasche, 2012) in terms of 'how global CSR standards and initiatives generate, frame or hinder local deliberative processes' (Acosta et al, 2019;Gilbert and Rasche, 2007). Responding to these calls, our motivation is to understand how pCSR can bring local-level dialogue processes to the 'coalface' of global production sites where labour rights violations occur and how this affects the nature of pCSR.…”

Impeding corporate social responsibility: Revisiting the role of government in shaping business — Marginalized local community relations

“…PCSR is a dynamic field of research that stresses the role played by business in the political arena (Acosta et al., 2021; Eberlein, 2019; Frynas & Stephens, 2015; Moon et al., 2010). While previous important studies have discussed the political dimensions of CSR from either a critical perspective (see Banerjee, 2008; Blowfield & Frynas, 2005; Newell & Frynas, 2007) or a descriptive standpoint (see Matten & Crane, 2005), PCSR has emerged as a distinctive and significant body of literature, beginning with Scherer and Palazzo’s (2007) work.…”

“…Although this understanding of the political role of companies has given rise to a dynamic research program, it has been criticized on several fronts (see Banerjee, 2018; Djelic & Etchanchu, 2017; Frynas & Stephens, 2015; Hussain & Moriarty, 2018; Mäkinen & Kourula, 2012; van Oosterhout, 2005). For the purpose of this paper, the most relevant critique opposes the emphasis on globalization as the key explanatory factor in the emergence of PCSR, which has led to the neglect of local dynamics (for the few exceptions, see Acosta et al., 2021; Gond et al, 2016). The present paper examines the government’s role in shaping local interactions.…”