Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78dcdb465f-vzs5b Total loading time: 0.333 Render date: 2021-04-19T07:24:28.444Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Stakeholder Dialogue as Agonistic Deliberation: Exploring the Role of Conflict and Self-Interest in Business-NGO Interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2019

Teunis Brand
Affiliation:
Wageningen University
Vincent Blok
Affiliation:
Wageningen University
Marcel Verweij
Affiliation:
Wageningen University

Abstract:

Many companies engage in dialogue with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) about societal issues. The question is what a regulative ideal for such dialogues should be. In the literature on corporate social responsibility (CSR), the Habermasian notion of communicative action is often presented as a regulative ideal for stakeholder dialogue, implying that actors should aim at consensus and set strategic considerations aside. In this article, we argue that in many cases, communicative action is not a suitable regulative ideal for dialogue between companies and NGOs. We contend that there is often an adversarial element in the relation between companies and NGOs, and that an orientation towards consensus can be in tension with this adversarial relation. We develop an alternative approach to stakeholder dialogue called ‘agonistic deliberation.’ In this approach, conflict and strategic considerations play a legitimate and, up to a certain point, desirable role.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Applbaum, Arthur Isak. 1999. Ethics for Adversaries: The Morality of Roles in Public and Professional Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Arenas, Daniel, Lozano, Josep M., and Albareda, Laura. 2009. “The Role of NGOs in CSR: Mutual Perceptions Among Stakeholders.” Journal of Business Ethics 88 (1): 175–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baur, Dorothea, and Palazzo, Guido. 2011. “The Moral Legitimacy of NGOs as Partners of Corporations.” Business Ethics Quarterly 21 (04): 579604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baur, Dorothea, and Schmitz, Hans Peter. 2012. “Corporations and NGOs: When Accountability Leads to Co-Optation.” Journal of Business Ethics 106 (1): 921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendell, Jem. 2003. “Talking for Change? Reflections on Effective Stakeholder Dialogue.” In Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking 2: Relationships, Communication, Reporting and Performance, edited by Andriof, Jörg, Waddock, Sandra, Husted, Brian, and Rahman, Sandra Sutherland, 5369. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, Martin. 1990. Splitting the Difference: Compromise and Integrity in Ethics and Politics. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Berman, Shawn L., Wicks, Andrew C., Kotha, Suresh, and Jones, Thomas M.. 1999. “Does Stakeholder Orientation Matter? The Relationship Between Stakeholder Management Models and Firm Financial Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 42 (5): 488506.Google Scholar
Blok, Vincent. 2014a. “The Metaphysics of Collaboration: Identity, Unity and Difference in Cross-sector Partnerships for Sustainable Development:” Philosophy of Management 13 (2): 5374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blok, Vincent. 2014b. “Look Who’s Talking: Responsible Innovation, the Paradox of Dialogue and the Voice of the Other in Communication and Negotiation Processes.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (2): 171–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blok, Vincent. 2019. “From Participation to Interruption: Toward an Ethics of Stakeholder Engagement, Participation and Partnership in Corporate Social Responsibility and Responsible Innovation.” In International Handbook of Responsible Innovation: A Global Resource, edited by von Schomberg, René and Hankins, Jonathan, 243258. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Judy, and Dillard, Jesse. 2013. “Critical Accounting and Communicative Action: On the Limits of Consensual Deliberation.” Critical Perspectives on Accounting 24 (3): 176–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burchell, Jon, and Cook, Joanne. 2006. “Assessing the Impact of Stakeholder Dialogue: Changing Relationships between NGOs and Companies.” Journal of Public Affairs 6 (3–4): 210–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burchell, Jon, and Cook, Joanne. 2013a. “Sleeping with the Enemy? Strategic Transformations in Business–NGO Relationships Through Stakeholder Dialogue.” Journal of Business Ethics 113 (3): 505–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burchell, Jon, and Cook, Joanne. 2013b. “CSR, Co-Optation and Resistance: The Emergence of New Agonistic Relations Between Business and Civil Society.” Journal of Business Ethics 115 (4): 741–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, Jaepil, and Wang, Heli. 2009. “Stakeholder Relations and the Persistence of Corporate Financial Performance.” Strategic Management Journal 30 (8): 895907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crane, Andrew, and Livesey, Sharon. 2003. “Are You Talking to Me? Stakeholder Communication and the Risks and Rewards of Dialogue.” In Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking 2: Relationships, Communication, Reporting and Performance, edited by Andriof, Jörg, Waddock, Sandra, Husted, Brian, and Rahman, Sandra Sutherland, 3952. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crouch, Colin. 2011. The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, Cedric. 2015. “Agonistic Pluralism and Stakeholder Engagement.” Business Ethics Quarterly 25 (1): 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubbink, Wim. 2004. “The Fragile Structure of Free-Market Society: The Radical Implications of Corporate Social Responsibility.” Business Ethics Quarterly 14 (1): 2346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, Jon. 2000. “Arguing and Bargaining in Two Constituent Assemblies.” Journal of Constitutional Law 2 (2): 345421.Google Scholar
Erman, Eva. 2009. “What Is Wrong with Agonistic Pluralism?: Reflections on Conflict in Democratic Theory.” Philosophy & Social Criticism 35 (9): 1039–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, David, and Jonker, Jan. 2005. “Stakeholder Relationships: The Dialogue of Engagement.” Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society 5 (5): 51–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, R. Edward, Harrison, Jeffrey S., Wicks, Andrew C., Parmar, Bidhan, and Colle, Simone de. 2010. Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Marzá, Domingo. 2005. “Trust and Dialogue: Theoretical Approaches to Ethics Auditing.” Journal of Business Ethics 57 (3): 209–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, Dirk Ulrich, and Rasche, Andreas. 2007. “Discourse Ethics and Social Accountability: The Ethics of SA 8000.” Business Ethics Quarterly 17 (02): 187216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golob, Ursa, and Podnar, Klement. 2014. “Critical Points of CSR-Related Stakeholder Dialogue in Practice.” Business Ethics: A European Review 23 (3): 248–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1985. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Translated by MacCarthy, Thomas. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Translated by MacCarthy, Thomas. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1990. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. From Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1998. “Three Normative Models of Democracy.” In The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory, reprint, 239–52. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heath, Joseph. 2007. “An Adversarial Ethic for Business: Or When Sun-Tzu Met the Stakeholder.” Journal of Business Ethics 72 (4): 359–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, Joseph. 2014. Morality, Competition, and the Firm: The Market Failures Approach to Business Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, Joseph. 2019. “The Moral Status of Profit.” In The Oxford Handbook of Ethics and Economics, edited by White, Mark D., 337357. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hirschman, Albert O. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hirschman, Albert O. 1994. “Social Conflicts as Pillars of Democratic Market Society.” Political Theory 22 (2): 203–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hond, Frank den, and de Bakker, Frank. 2007. “Ideologically Motivated Activism: How Activist Groups Influence Corporate Social Change Activities.” Academy of Management Review 32 (3): 901–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Høvring, Christiane Marie, Andersen, Sophie Esmann, and Nielsen, Anne Ellerup. 2018. “Discursive Tensions in CSR Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue: A Foucauldian Perspective.” Journal of Business Ethics 152 (3): 627–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hussain, Waheed, and Moriarty, Jeffrey. 2016. “Accountable to Whom? Rethinking the Role of Corporations in Political CSR.” Journal of Business Ethics 149 (3): 519–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iivonen, Kirsti. 2018. “Defensive Responses to Strategic Sustainability Paradoxes: Have Your Coke and Drink It Too!Journal of Business Ethics 148 (2): 309–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. 1991. “Habermas on Strategic and Communicative Action.” Political Theory 19 (2): 181201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Cramer, Michael E., Berman, Shawn L., and Post, James E.. 2003. “Re-Examining the Concept of ‘Stakeholder Management.’” In Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking 2: Relationships, Communication, Reporting and Performance, edited by Andriof, Jörg, Waddock, Sandra, Husted, Brian, and Rahman, Sandra Sutherland, 145–61. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Thomas M. 1995. “Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics.” Academy of Management Review 20 (2): 404–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaptein, Muel, and Van Tulder, Rob. 2003. “Toward Effective Stakeholder Dialogue.” Business and Society Review 108 (2): 203–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerkhof, Marleen van de. 2006. “Making a Difference: On the Constraints of Consensus Building and the Relevance of Deliberation in Stakeholder Dialogues.” Policy Sciences 39 (3): 279–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knops, Andrew. 2007. “Debate: Agonism as Deliberation ? On Mouffe’s Theory of Democracy.” Journal of Political Philosophy 15 (1): 115–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2006. “Conflict and Self-Interest in Deliberation.” In Deliberative Democracy and Its Discontents, edited by Besson, Semantha and Martí, José Luis, 107–32. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2009. “Deliberative and Non-Deliberative Negotiations.” Harvard Kennedy School, Working Paper RWP09–010. https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4415943.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane, Bohman, James, Chambers, Simone, Estlund, David, Føllesdal, Andreas, Fung, Archon, Lafont, Cristina, Manin, Bernard, and Martí, José Luis. 2010. “The Place of Self-Interest and the Role of Power in Deliberative Democracy.” Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (1): 64100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markell, Patchen. 1997. “Contesting Consensus: Rereading Habermas on the Public Sphere.” Constellations 3 (3): 377400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martens, Kerstin. 2002. “Mission Impossible? Defining Nongovernmental Organizations.” Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 13 (3): 271–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mena, Sébastien, and Palazzo, Guido. 2012. “Input and Output Legitimacy of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives.” Business Ethics Quarterly 22 (03): 527–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mena, Sébastien, and Waeger, Daniel. 2014. “Activism for Corporate Responsibility: Conceptualizing Private Regulation Opportunity Structures: Private Regulation Opportunity Structures.” Journal of Management Studies 51 (7): 1091–117.Google Scholar
Moog, Sandra, Spicer, André, and Böhm, Steffen. 2015. “The Politics of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: The Crisis of the Forest Stewardship Council.” Journal of Business Ethics 128 (3): 469–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal. 1999. “Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism?Social Research 66 (3): 745–58.Google Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal. 2000a. The Democratic Paradox. London ; New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal. 2000b. “Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism.” IHS Political Science Series, no. 72. http://irihs.ihs.ac.at/1312/.Google Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal. 2005. On the Political (Thinking in Action). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Noland, James, and Phillips, Robert A.. 2010. “Stakeholder Engagement, Discourse Ethics and Strategic Management.” International Journal of Management Reviews 12 (1): 3949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, Wayne. 2011. “Business Ethics as Self-Regulation: Why Principles That Ground Regulations Should Be Used to Ground Beyond-Compliance Norms as Well.” Journal of Business Ethics 102 (S1): 4357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palazzo, Guido, and Scherer, Andreas Georg. 2006. “Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A Communicative Framework.” Journal of Business Ethics 66 (1): 7188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patzer, Moritz, Voegtlin, Christian, and Georg Scherer, Andreas. 2018. “The Normative Justification of Integrative Stakeholder Engagement: A Habermasian View on Responsible Leadership.” Business Ethics Quarterly 28 (3): 325–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, Stephen L., and Calton, Jerry M.. 2002. “Towards a Managerial Practice of Stakeholder Engagement.” Journal of Corporate Citizenship 2002 (6): 3752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Robert A. 1997. “Stakeholder Theory and A Principle of Fairness.” Business Ethics Quarterly 7 (1): 5166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasche, Andreas, and Esser, Daniel E.. 2006. “From Stakeholder Management to Stakeholder Accountability: Applying Habermasian Discourse Ethics to Accountability Research.” Journal of Business Ethics 65 (3): 251–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 1987. “The Idea Of An Overlapping Consensus.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 7 (1): 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 1993. Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reynolds, MaryAnn, and Yuthas, Kristi. 2008. “Moral Discourse and Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting.” Journal of Business Ethics 78 (1–2): 4764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roloff, Julia. 2008. “Learning from Multi-Stakeholder Networks: Issue-Focussed Stakeholder Management.” Journal of Business Ethics 82 (1): 233–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rondinelli, Dennis A., and London., Ted 2003. “How Corporations and Environmental Groups Cooperate: Assessing Cross-Sector Alliances and Collaborations.” Academy of Management Perspectives 17 (1): 6176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rummens, Stefan. 2009. “Democracy as a Non-Hegemonic Struggle? Disambiguating Chantal Mouffe’s Agonistic Model of Politics.” Constellations 16 (3): 377–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabadoz, Cameron, and Singer, Abraham. 2017. “Talk Ain’t Cheap: Political CSR and the Challenges of Corporate Deliberation.” Business Ethics Quarterly 27 (02): 183211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Lynn M. 1997. “Against Deliberation.” Political Theory 25 (3): 347–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, Andreas Georg, and Palazzo, Guido. 2007. “Toward a Political Conception of Corporate Responsibility: Business and Society Seen from a Habermasian Perspective.” Academy of Management Review 32 (4): 1096–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, Andreas Georg, and Palazzo, Guido. 2011. “The New Political Role of Business in a Globalized World: A Review of a New Perspective on CSR and Its Implications for the Firm, Governance, and Democracy.” Journal of Management Studies 48 (4): 899931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, Andreas Georg, Rasche, Andreas, Palazzo, Guido, and Spicer, André. 2016. “Managing for Political Corporate Social Responsibility: New Challenges and Directions for PCSR 2.0.” Journal of Management Studies 53 (3): 273–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seitanidi, Maria May, and Crane, Andrew. 2009. “Implementing CSR Through Partnerships: Understanding the Selection, Design and Institutionalisation of Nonprofit-Business Partnerships.” Journal of Business Ethics 85 (S2): 413–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selsky, J. W., and Parker., Barbara 2005. “Cross-Sector Partnerships to Address Social Issues: Challenges to Theory and Practice.” Journal of Management 31 (6): 849–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Dennis F. 2008. “Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science 11 (1): 497520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trumpy, Alexa J. 2008. “Subject to Negotiation: The Mechanisms Behind Co-Optation and Corporate Reform.” Social Problems 55 (4): 480500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unerman, Jeffrey, and Bennett, Mark. 2004. “Increased Stakeholder Dialogue and the Internet: Towards Greater Corporate Accountability or Reinforcing Capitalist Hegemony?Accounting, Organizations and Society 29 (7): 685707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Huijstee, Mariëtte, and Glasbergen, Pieter. 2008. “The Practice of Stakeholder Dialogue between Multinationals and NGOs.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15 (5): 298310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Tulder, Rob, May Seitanidi, Maria, Crane, Andrew, and Brammer, Stephen. 2016. “Enhancing the Impact of Cross-Sector Partnerships: Four Impact Loops for Channeling Partnership Studies.” Journal of Business Ethics 135 (1): 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Mark E., and Mansbridge, Jane. 2013. “Deliberative Negotiation.” In Negotiating Agreement in Politics, 86120. Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Yaziji, Michael, and Doh, Jonathan. 2009. NGOs and Corporations: Conflict and Collaboration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zakhem, Abe. 2008. “Stakeholder Management Capability: A Discourse–Theoretical Approach.” Journal of Business Ethics 79 (4): 395405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 93
Total number of PDF views: 423 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 16th September 2019 - 19th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Stakeholder Dialogue as Agonistic Deliberation: Exploring the Role of Conflict and Self-Interest in Business-NGO Interaction
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Stakeholder Dialogue as Agonistic Deliberation: Exploring the Role of Conflict and Self-Interest in Business-NGO Interaction
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Stakeholder Dialogue as Agonistic Deliberation: Exploring the Role of Conflict and Self-Interest in Business-NGO Interaction
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *