Transcript From Corporate Social Responsibility to Corporate

From Corporate Social
Responsibility
to Corporate Accountability
(and Beyond?)
Darryl Reed
Business and Society Program
York University
[email protected]
Paper presented at the Conference
“Advancing Theory in CSR: An Intercontinental Dialogue”
Montreal, Quebec
October, 2006
Corporate Social Responsibility
vs. Corporate Accountability

Two Approaches to CSR
 as
normative and strategic analysis of why
corporations should adopt CSR (or not)
 as a policy regime

Corporate Accountability (CA)
 critiques



of CSR as a policy regime
the ability of corporations to effectively address problems
many issues should not be voluntary (eg labour standards)
the function of CSR in legitimating a neo-liberal order
Corporate Accountability (cont.)

CA as a social movement



sees a need to move from voluntary measures to a framework
that ensure answerability, enforceability and universality of
application
focues on a range of issues (labour rights, environmental
standards, political influence, etc.)
employs a range of strategies


boycotts, buycotts, protests, negotiations, soft law, use of national
and international courts, etc.
The Importance of Critical Theory for CA



positive analysis – systems and lifeworld analysis
normative analysis – three realms of normativity
strategic analysis – dynamics of structure and agency
The Positive Analysis of CSR

Habermas
 two
types of social reproduction and reason
systems (instrumental reason)
 lifeworld (communicative reason)


Cox
 world
orders and their components
production relations
 forms of state
 international systems

Positive Analysis (cont.)

Contributions
 understanding of systems logic
 how it virtually precludes serious stakeholder discourse
 understanding
of how the structural power of
corporations


is constituted
can be exercised across different structures and realms



colonization of the bureaucratic apparatus
colonization of the lifeworld (public and private realms)
is reinforced through its establishment of an ideological
position
The Normative Analysis of CSR

CT and normative analysis
 grounded
in discourse theory
 three realms of normativity


ethics, morality, legitimacy
Two important roles for CT in CA analysis
 distinguishing most important areas to focus
 ethical issues less enforceable
 morality and legitimacy primary areas of concern
on
 normative critique of CSR as a policy regime
 the basic illegitimacy of the CSR policy regime
 the basic illegitimacy of the neo-liberal world order (which it
seeks to legitimate)
The Strategic Analysis of CSR
The case for CSR being able to function as an effective policy
regime presupposes one of the following conditions:
1) Exercise of adequate Moral and Ethical Resources


business doesn’t give priority to “ethics”



ideological reasons
systems constraints
levels of moral and ethical resources lacking


within firms
wider societal problem
2) A Business Case for CSR

reliance on pragmatic motivation


in cases of unequal power dynamics, inevitably leads to arbitrage resulting in
green washing, blue washing etc.
the structural power of corporations (especially under a neo-liberal order
promoting a CSR regime) ensures such unequal power dynamics exist
Types and Characteristics of Motivation
Types of
Decisions
Characteristics
Type of
Motivation
Demands on
Agents
Pragmatic

the pursuit of self-interest
in the narrow sense of the
term (egocentric)
 situations where the goal
of our actions is given

makes only the weakest of
demands upon agents
 at most requires exercise of
prudence (subordination of short
term interests to long term interests
Ethical

the value-oriented
assessment of ends
 not completely
dissociated from the ego
 involves the striving for
self-realisation (identity)

Moral

ability to act upon moral
obligations that represent
generalisable interests
 not tied to our ego

involves resoluteness and the
ability to act upon the demands of
authenticity
 can require significant sacrifices
(beyond prudence)
requires autonomy - will which
has completely broken from an
egocentric perspective (Kant)
Conclusion

The Need for Accountability

The state has traditionally filled the role of imposing accountability on
corporations
 Critical theory helps us understand





why the state no longer functions in this way
why we cannot expect corporations to act in an accountable manner
why it is important that new methods for imposing accountability be developed
the conditions that are likely to favour the imposition of accountability on
corporations (communicative control)
Moving Beyond Corporate Accountability?

three ways of moving beyond corporate accountability



moving from CA as an exclusively civil society strategy to the use of the state
moving to “capital accountability” (more engaged owners)
Moving to alternative (social economy) business arrangements