Abstract
This chapter marks the beginning of the fourth part of the book in which a typology is set up for distinguishing legitimate NGOs from related actors based on the normative framework in Part III. It is argued that NGOs are special stakeholders of corporations because they have their origins in civil society and because they represent public claims. Yet, NGOs continuously need to prove their legitimacy. By doing so, they can mark a distance to radical activists on the one hand and to interest groups on the other hand. NGOs share characteristics with both of these actor types. With activists, they share the content of their claims since activists typically also raise claims that have societal relevance. The boundaries between NGOs and interest groups become blurred for example if NGOs engage with corporations and start orienting themselves along economic imperatives. In line with the three dimensions of the legitimacy deficit of NGOs introduced in Part I, it is argued that the difference between NGOs, activists, and interest groups can best be assessed along substantive, structural and procedural criteria.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This stance leads Amnesty Business Group, a separate organization through which Amnesty International works with business, to conclude that Attac only sees “corporations as a tool to influence law-making” (Ählström and Sjöström, 2005: 232).
- 2.
These groups are in return typically also seen as too radical by corporations, who, according to a study conducted by Holzer distinguish between “‘cooperation-oriented’ and ‘event-oriented’ groups that is, those that the company can deal with and those whose demands are deemed too radical” (Holzer, 2008: 56).
- 3.
The difference between bargaining and deliberation will be outlined in more detail in the section “Difference Between Bargaining and Deliberation” (Chapter 14).
- 4.
This is not to say that NGOs must not professionalize themselves. I am instead arguing that the more an NGO orients itself towards corporate strategies, the greater the chance that such an NGO will lose sight of its public interest orientation.
References
Ählström, J., and E. Sjöström. “CSOs and Business Partnerships: Strategies for Interaction”. Business Strategy and the Environment 14 (4) (2005): 230–40.
Bohman, J. “Republican Cosmopolitanism”. Journal of Political Philosophy 12 (3) (2004): 336–52.
Chandhoke, N. “How Global is Global Civil Society?” Journal of World-Systems Research XI (2) (2005): 355–71.
Cohen, J.L. “Trust, Voluntary Association and Workable Democracy: The Contemporary American Discourse of Civil Society. In Democracy and Trust, edited by M.E. Warren, 208–48. Cambridge (UK) et al.: Cambridge University Press, 1999b.
Den Hond, F., and F.G.A. De Bakker. Ideologically Motivated Activism: How Activist Groups Influence Corporate Social Change Behavior. Academy of Management Review 32 (3) (2007): 901–24.
Dryzek, J.S. Deliberative Global Politics: Discourse and Democracy in a Divided World. Cambridge (UK): Polity Press, 2006.
Edwards, M. NGO Rights and Responsibilities. A New Deal for Global Governance. London: The Foreign Policy Centre/NCVO, 2000.
Finlayson, J.G. “What are ‘Universalizable Interests’?” Journal of Political Philosophy 8 (4) (2000): 456–69.
Fowler, A. Civil Society, NGDOs and Social Development: Changing the Rules of the Game. Geneva: UNRISD, 2000.
Fries, R. “The Legal Environment of Civil Society”. In The Global Civil Society Yearbook 2003, edited by M. Kaldor, H. Anheier, and M. Glasius, 221–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Gray, R., J. Bebbington, and D. Collison. “NGOs, Civil Society and Accountability: Making the People Accountable to Capital”. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 19 (3) (2006): 319–48.
Habermas, J. Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge (UK): Polity Press, 1996b.
Holzer, B. “Turning Stakeseekers into Stakeholders: A Political Coalition Perspective on the Politics of Stakeholder Influence”. Business & Society 47 (1) (2008): 50–67.
Humphrey, M., and M. Stears. “Animal Rights Protest and the Challenge to Deliberative Democracy”. Economy and Society 35 (3) (2006): 400–22.
Kaldor, M., H. Anheier, and M. Glasius. “Global Civil Society in an Era of Regressive Globalisation”. In Global Civil Society 2003, edited by M. Kaldor, H. Anheier, and M. Glasius, 3–17. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
McCarthy, T. “Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue”. Ethics 105 (1) (1994): 44–63.
Meyer, A.D., A.S. Tsui, and C.R. Hinings. “Configurational Approaches to Organizational Analysis”. Academy of Management Journal 36 (6) (1993): 1175–95.
Murphy, D.F., and J. Bendell. Partners in Time? Business, NGOs and Sustainable Development. Geneva: UNRISD, 1999.
Nijhof, A., T. de Bruijn, and H. Honders. “Partnerships for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts and Strategic Options”. Management Decision 46 (1) (2008): 152–67.
Palazzo, G., and A.G. Scherer. “Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A Communicative Framework”. Journal of Business Ethics 66 (1) (2006): 71–88.
SustainAbility. The 21st Century NGO. In the Market for Change. London: SustainAbility, 2003.
Warren, M.E. Democracy and Association. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.
Weber, M. “Objectivity in Social Science and Social Policy”. In Philosophy of the Social Sciences, edited by M. Natanson, 355–418. New York: Random House, 1963.
Young, I.M. “Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy”. Political Theory 29 (5) (2001): 670–90.
Brown, L.D., and Jagadananda. “Civil Society Legitimacy and Accountability: Issues and Challenges.” 2007. Hauser Center Working Paper (32). First Accessed January 27, 2008. http://www.civicusassembly.org/upload/File/Legitimacy%20%20Accountability%20Scoping%20Report%20-%20Final%20English%20..pdf.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Baur, D. (2012). NGOs, Interest Groups and Activists. In: NGOs as Legitimate Partners of Corporations. Issues in Business Ethics, vol 36. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2254-5_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2254-5_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2253-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2254-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)