Toward Political Explanation of Change in Corporate Responsibility: Political Scholarship on CSR and the Case of Palm Oil Biofuels

Abstract

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been recently conceptualized and studied as a political phenomenon. Most debates in this scholarship have thus far focused on normative issues. Less attention has been paid to the explanatory potential of CSR research grounded in political theory and philosophy. In this article, we conduct a pragmatist reading of political scholarship on CSR and seek to deploy existing knowledge for research pursuing political explanation. We argue that the political ontologies that underlie scholarship on CSR can be used to transform normative and descriptive research also for explanatory uses. We show how ontologies vary in terms of potential research objects and scopes of political explanation, and argue that the main types of political-ontological stances adopted in scholarship on CSR, foundational and post-foundational stances, offer explanatory analysis of different schematic guidelines. Our pragmatist reading of previous research and an empirical case illustration of political explanation of change in corporate responsibility in the biofuel industry demonstrate the opportunities, limitations, and challenges different political-ontological commitments provide for political explanation.

Nexus between Issue of Environmental Pollution and the Urban Population: Evidence of Economic Growth in Indonesia

“…The world is currently in the midst of a disaster, namely climate change, that can impact our lives in the future. In recent years, there has been much discussion about the impacts and how to deal with climate change that is currently happening (Sommer et al, 2019;Sorsa & Fougère, 2020). One of the causes is deforestation (Shao et al, 2019).…”

The Political Ontology of Corporate Social Responsibility: Obscuring the Pluriverse in Place

“…Second, CSR has been analyzed through the lens of political systems (Djelic & Etchanchu, 2017 ). Politics in this context refers to firms’ relations to governments (Mäkinen & Kasanen, 2016 ; Zueva & Fairbass, 2021 ) and political institutions (Mäkinen & Kourula, 2012 ) —what is sometimes called ‘corporate political activity’ (Fooks et al, 2013 ; Nyberg, 2021 )—as well as their often conflictual dealings with a range of civil society groups, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and social movements (Sorsa & Fougère, 2020 ). Sheehy ( 2015 ) sees CSR as part of a general shift toward corporate self-regulation, which Scherer and Palazzo—through their ‘political CSR’ perspective (Palazzo & Scherer, 2006 ; Scherer et al, 2016 )—translate into a normative call for a politicized role of the firm (Fairbrass and Zueva-Owens, 2012 ) that is not reliant on governments.…”

Dissensus and Deadlock in the Evolution of Labour Governance: Global Supply Chains and the International Labour Organization (ILO)

“…For example, the concept of “antagonistic governance” in the GPN literature (Alford, 2020 ) is a welcome acknowledgement of the conflict, contestation and compromise in governance-making processes. Both neo-Gramscian and agonistic research share a recognition of politics as contingent on hegemonic relations, however the former sees politics where hegemonic struggle can suppress antagonisms whilst the latter emphasizes the importance of mutual recognition, reciprocity and legitimacy (Sorsa & Fougère, 2021 , p. 1910). The agonistic perspective moves our analysis away from both antagonism-based or consensus-based approaches by stressing that “adversaries fight against each other because they want their interpretation of the principles to become hegemonic, but they do not put into question the legitimacy of their opponents’ right to fight for the victory of their position” (Mouffe, 2013 , p. 6).…”

“…The rise of GSCs, increasing power of transnational corporations (TNCs), declining power of unions and ineffectiveness of state regulation has sparked a burgeoning interest in “global labour governance” (Hassel, 2008 ), its mechanisms, outcomes and, more recently, its political dynamics (Alford, 2020 ; Alford et al, 2021 ; Arenas et al, 2020 ; Bair & Palpacuer, 2015 ; Dawkins, 2015 ; Fougère & Solitander, 2020 ; Levy, 2008 ; Levy et al, 2016 ; Reinecke & Donaghey, 2021 ; Scherer & Palazzo, 2007 ). The deliberation involved in the emergence of examples of coalitions, consensus, and collaboration in GSCs, for example multi-stakeholder initiatives, has become an emerging area of interest both in the political CSR (Dawkins, 2015 ; Moog et al, 2015 ; Reinecke & Donaghey, 2021 ; Sorsa & Fougère, 2021 , p. 1896) and global production network (GPN) literature (Alford et al, 2021 ; Bair & Palpacuer, 2015 ; Levy, 2008 ; Levy et al, 2016 ). However, the internal and ongoing contestation that arises in the evolution of labour governance over time has been given short shrift (Alford, 2020 , p. 47; Arenas et al, 2020 , p. 176).…”