Deliberative Democracy and Corporate Governance

  • Bert van de Ven
  • Wim Dubbink
Part of the Studies in Economic Ethics and Philosophy book series (SEEP, volume 39)


This paper explores the implications of a political conception of corporate social responsibility for corporate governance. More specifically it discusses the implications of the theory of deliberative democracy of Jürgen Habermas for models of stakeholder democracy. Since there are several varieties of capitalism the paper relates the room for stakeholder influence and co-determination to the degree of freedom of economic actors within varieties of capitalism. Although the debate about a possible convergence to the shareholder model is still undecided, it is argued that there are good reasons to believe that the extent and institutionalization of stakeholder democracy within a capitalist economy is largely dependent on the institutional history or path taken within a national business system and the adaptive strategies of economic actors themselves. Finally, the paper describes the implications of four principles of stakeholder democracy for corporate governance, given the varieties of capitalism. Besides the national level, some of the implications of deliberative democracy and the related concept of human rights are explored for the international business system.


Corporate Social Responsibility Corporate Governance Stakeholder Theory Corporate Citizenship Discourse Ethic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Becker, S. 2001. Einfluss und Grenzen des Shareholder Value. Strategie- und Strukturwandel deutscher Großunternehmen der chemischen und pharmazeutischen Industrie. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  2. De Beus, J. 1989. Markt, democratie en vrijheid. Een politiek-economische studie. Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink.Google Scholar
  3. Deeg, R. 2005. Path dependency, institutional complementarity, and change in national business systems. In Changing capitalisms? Internationalization, institutional change, and systems of economic organization, ed. G. Morgan, R. Whitley, and E. Moen, 21–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Driver, C., and G. Thompson. 2002. Corporate governance and democracy: The stakeholder debate revisited. Journal of Management and Governance 6: 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dryzek, J. 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Gourevitch, P., and J. Shinn. 2005. Political power and corporate control. The new global politics of corporate governance. Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  8. Habermas, J. 1984. Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  9. Habermas, J. 1987. The theory of communicative action. Lifeworld and system. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Habermas, J. 1991. Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  11. Habermas, J. 1996. Between facts and norms. Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Habermas, J. 1998. The inclusion of the other. Studies in political theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Habermas, J. 2005. Truth and justification. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hall, P., and D. Soskice. 2001. Varieties of capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hancké, B., and M. Goyer. 2005. Degrees of freedom: rethinking the institutional analysis of economic change. In Changing capitalisms? Internationalization, institutional change, and systems of economic organization, ed. G. Morgan, R. Whitley, and E. Moen, 53–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hendry, J. 2001. Missing the target: Normative stakeholder theory and the corporate governance debate. Business Ethics Quarterly 11: 159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hillman, A., G. Keim, and D. Schuler. 2004. Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management 30: 837–857.Google Scholar
  18. Kay, J. 1997. The stakeholder corporation. In Stakeholder capitalism, ed. G. Kelly, D. Kelly, and A. Gamble, 125–141. London: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lane, C. 2005. Institutional transformation and system change: Changes in the corporate governance of German corporations. In Changing capitalisms? Internationalization, institutional change, and systems of economic organization, ed. G. Morgan, R. Whitley, and E. Moen, 78–109. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Matten, D., and A. Crane. 2005a. Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review 30: 166–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Matten, D., and A. Crane. 2005b. What is stakeholder democracy? Perspectives and issues. Business Ethics: A European Review 14: 6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mitchell, R., B. Agle, and D. Wood. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review 22: 853–886.Google Scholar
  23. Moon, J., A. Crane, and D. Matten. 2005. Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society. Business Ethics Quarterly 15: 429–453.Google Scholar
  24. Morgan, G., R. Whitley, and E. Moen, ed. 2005. Changing capitalisms? Internationalization, institutional change, and systems of economic organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Néron, P.-Y., and W. Norman. 2008. Citizenship, Inc. Do we really want businesses to be good corporate citizens? Business Ethics Quarterly 18: 1–26.Google Scholar
  26. O’Neill, O. 1989. Constructions of reason. Explorations of Kant’s practical philosophy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Palazzo, G., and A.G. Scherer. 2006. Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics 66: 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Phillips, R. 2003. Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly 13: 25–41.Google Scholar
  29. Phillips, R., R.E. Freeman, and A.C. Wicks. 2003. What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly 13: 479–502.Google Scholar
  30. Porter, M., and M. Kramer. 2002. The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, December 80: 56–69.Google Scholar
  31. Porter, M., and M. Kramer. 2006. Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, December 84: 78–93.Google Scholar
  32. Reich, R. 2007. Supercapitalism. The transformation of business, democracy and everyday life. New York, NY: Knopf.Google Scholar
  33. Scherer, A.G., and G. Palazzo. 2007. Toward a political conception of corporate social responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review 32: 1096–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scherer, A.G., G. Palazzo, and D. Baumann. 2006. Global rules and private actors: Toward a new role of the transnational corporation in global governance. Business Ethics Quarterly 16: 505–532.Google Scholar
  35. Schuler, D., K. Rehbein, and R. Cramer. 2002. Pursuing strategic advantage through political means: A multivariate approach. Academy of Management Journal 45: 659–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Soskice, D. 1997. Stakeholding yes; the German model no. In Stakeholder capitalism, ed. G. Kelly, D. Kelly, and A. Gamble, 219–225. London: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  37. Steinmann, H., and A. Löhr. 1994. Unternehmensethik – Ein republikanisches Programm in der Kritik. In Markt und Moral. Die Diskussion um die Unternehmensethik, ed. S. Blasche, W.R. Köhler, and P. Rohs, 145–180. Bern: Haupt.Google Scholar
  38. Suchman, M.C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and instrumental approaches. Academy of Management Review 20: 571–610.Google Scholar
  39. Taylor, C. 1979. Atomism. In Powers, possessions and freedom, ed. A. Kontos, 39–61. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  40. Ulrich, P. 1993. Transformation der ökonomischen Vernunft. Fortschrittsperspektiven der modernen Industriegesellschaft. Bern, Vienna, Stuttgart: Haupt.Google Scholar
  41. Ulrich, P., A. Löhr, and J. Wieland, ed. 1999. Unternehmerische Freiheit, Selbstbindung und politische Mitverantwortung. München, Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag. (= DNWE Schriftenreihe, Vol. 4).Google Scholar
  42. Vogel, D. 2005. The market for virtue. The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ward, H.. 2004. Public sector roles in strengthening corporate social responsibility: Taking Stock, The World Bank – International Finance Corporation.Google Scholar
  44. Wood, D., and M. Logsdon. 2002. Business citizenship: From individuals to organizations. Ruffin Series in Business Ethics 3: 59–94.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations