Procedural Characteristics of Legitimate Partner NGOs

Chapter
Part of the Issues in Business Ethics book series (IBET, volume 36)

Abstract

This chapter argues that procedural characteristics yield the most accurate distinctions amongst the three actor types. NGOs and interest groups can be distinguished by their style of reasoning and their orientation towards consensual behavior, and by the fact that claims of the kind that “legitimate partner NGOs” advocate, refer to a generalizable interest. The preferred pattern of communication for resolving such claims is deliberation. Hence, an actor’s inclination to deliberate indicates that he or she is advocating public claims rather than particularistic interests, and thus is acting as a “legitimate partner NGO” rather than an interest group. Procedural characteristics also enable us to tell NGOs apart from activists. Legitimate NGOs are primarily oriented towards discursive behaviour. Justifications of non-deliberative behaviour essentially rely on the principle of exhaustion, that is, on the requirement that deviation from deliberation is only allowed if all deliberative means have been exhausted. But all deviations operate under the proviso of civil behaviour. Within this proviso three circumstances in which deviation from deliberation can be justified are identified: Deviating from discursive means is justified if a corporation refuses to enter into dialogue with an NGO. Confrontational but still discursive behaviour is justified if deep value conflicts inhibit consensual discourse. Non-discursive confrontational civil behavior, i.e. civil disobedience, is justified in adverse political circumstances. But regardless of whether the circumstances justify deviation from deliberative behaviour, it is important that we admit various forms of speech to deliberation in order to allow the innovative and emancipatory function of NGOs to persist.

Keywords

Civil disobedience Confrontation Consensual behavior Discursive behavior Rhetoric Bargaining, Negotiation 

References

  1. Ackerly, B.A. “Deliberative Democracy for Building Global Civil Society: Designing a Virtual Community of Activists”. Contemporary Political Theory 5 (2006): 113–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron, D.P. “Private Politics”. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 12 (1) (2003): 31–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bendell, J. “In Whose Name? The Accountability of Corporate Social Responsibility”. Development in Practice 15 (3) (2005): 362–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benhabib, S. “Deliberative Rationality and Models of Democratic Legitimacy”. Constellations: An International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory 1 (1) (1994): 26–52.Google Scholar
  5. Berry, G.R. “Organizing Against Multinational Corporate Power in Cancer Alley: The Activist Community as Primary Stakeholder”. Organization & Environment 16 (1) (2003): 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bohman, J. “Public Reason and Cultural Pluralism: Political Liberalism and the Problem of Moral Conflict”. Political Theory 23 (2) (1995): 253–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bohman, J. Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996a.Google Scholar
  8. Breed, K. “Civil Society and Global Governance: Globalisation and the Transformation of Politics”. In Civil Society and International Development, edited by A. Bernard, H. Helmich, and P.B. Lehning, 57–62. Paris: OECD, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. Chambers, S. “Deliberative Democratic Theory”. Annual Review of Political Science 6 (1) (2003): 307–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chambers, S. “Rhetoric and the Public Sphere”. Political Theory 37 (3) (2009): 323–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crane, A., and D. Matten. Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dingwerth, K. “North-South Parity in Global Governance: The Affirmative Procedures of the Forest Stewardship Council”. Global Governance 14 (1) (2008): 53–71.Google Scholar
  14. Dryzek, J.S. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Liberals, Critics, Contestations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  15. Dryzek, J.S. Deliberative Global Politics: Discourse and Democracy in a Divided World. Cambridge (UK): Polity Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  16. Friedman, M. Consumer Boycotts. New York: Routledge, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. Fung, A. “Deliberation Before the Revolution: Toward an Ethics of Deliberative Democracy in an Unjust World”. Political Theory 33 (3) (2005): 397–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaus, G.F. Contemporary Theories of Liberalism: Public Reason as a Post-enlightenment Project. London: Sage, 2003.Google Scholar
  19. Gutmann, A., and D. Thompson. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  20. Habermas, J. Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge (UK): Polity Press, 1996b.Google Scholar
  21. Humphrey, M. “Democratic Legitimacy, Public Justification and Environmental Direct Action”. Political Studies 54 (2) (2006): 310–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Humphrey, M., and M. Stears. “Animal Rights Protest and the Challenge to Deliberative Democracy”. Economy and Society 35 (3) (2006): 400–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kohn, M. “Language, Power, and Persuasion: Toward a Critique of Deliberative Democracy”. Constellations: An International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory 7 (3) (2000): 408–29.Google Scholar
  24. Manin, B. “On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation”. Political Theory 15 (3) (1987): 338–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mansbridge, J. “Conflict and Self-Interest in Deliberation”. In Deliberative Democracy and Its Discontents, edited by S. Besson and J.L. Martí, 107–32. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006.Google Scholar
  26. Martí, J.L. “The Epistemic Conception of Deliberative Democracy Defended. Reasons, Rightness and Equal Political Autonomy”. In Deliberative Democracy and Its Discontents, edited by S. Besson and J.L. Martí, 27–56. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006.Google Scholar
  27. McCarthy, T. “Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue”. Ethics 105 (1) (1994): 44–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCarthy, T. “Legitimacy and Diversity: Dialectical Reflections on Analytical Distinctions”. Rechtstheorie 27 (1996): 329–65.Google Scholar
  29. Mitchell, R.K., B.R. Agle, and D.J. Wood. “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts”. Academy of Management Review 22 (4) (1997): 853–86.Google Scholar
  30. Montpetit, É., F. Scala, and I. Fortier. “The Paradox of Deliberative Democracy: The National Action Committee on the Status of Women and Canada’s Policy on Reproductive Technology”. Policy Sciences 37 (2) (2004): 137–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Murphy, D.F., and J. Bendell. Partners in Time? Business, NGOs and Sustainable Development. Geneva: UNRISD, 1999.Google Scholar
  32. Palazzo, G., and U. Richter. “CSR Business as Usual? The Case of the Tobacco Industry”. Journal of Business Ethics 61 (4) (2005): 387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Palazzo, G., and A.G. Scherer. “Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A Communicative Framework”. Journal of Business Ethics 66 (1) (2006): 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rawls, J. “The Justification of Civil Disobedience”. In Collected Papers, edited by J. Rawls and S. Freeman, 176–89. Cambridge, MA, et al.: Harvard University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  35. Remer, G. “Two Models of Deliberation: Oratory and Conversation in Ratifying the Constitution”. The Journal of Political Philosophy 8 (1) (2000): 68–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rowley, T.I., and M. Moldoveanu. “When will Stakeholder Groups Act? An Interest- and Identity-Based Model of Stakeholder Group Mobilization”. Academy of Management Review 28 (2) (2003): 204–19.Google Scholar
  37. Roy, A. An Ordinary Person’s Guide to Empire. Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  38. Schepers, D.H. “Challenges to Legitimacy at the Forest Stewardship Council”. Journal of Business Ethics 92 (2) (2009): 279–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Suchman, M.C. “Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches”. Academy of Management Review 20 (3) (1995): 571–610.Google Scholar
  40. SustainAbility. The 21st Century NGO. In the Market for Change. London: SustainAbility, 2003.Google Scholar
  41. Thomassen, L. “Within the Limits of Deliberative Reason Alone: Habermas, Civil Disobedience and Constitutional Democracy”. European Journal of Political Theory 6 (2) (2007): 200–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Warren, M.E. Democracy and Association. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  43. Young, I.M. “Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy”. In Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, edited by S. Benhabib. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  44. Young, I.M. “Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy”. Political Theory 29 (5) (2001): 670–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Young, I.M. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Billenness, S. “Business-NGO Partnership in Globalization. Sustainability Through Strategic Partnerships.” 2003. First Accessed August 15, 2006. http://www.gemi.org/docs/conf2003/SimonBillenness_files/frame.htm.
  47. Chambers, S. “Rhetoric, Public Opinion, and the Ideal of Deliberative Democracy”. Conference on Deliberative Democracy, Princeton, NJ, March 10–11, 2006.Google Scholar
  48. Corry, S. “‘Harvest Moonshine’ Taking You for a Ride: A Critique of the Rainforest Harvest – Its Theory and Practice.” 1993. First Accessed January 17, 2008. http://www.survival-international.org/files/books/harvestmoonshine.pdf.
  49. Dryzek, J.S. “Rhetoric in Democracy: A Systemic Appreciation”. Political Theory 38 (3) (2010): 319–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Friends of the Earth. “Local Group Guidelines for Positive Relationships with Companies.” 2011. First Accessed March 5, 2011. http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/guides/lg_corporate_relationships.pdf.
  51. Hance, J. “The FSC is the ‘Enron of Forestry’ Says Rainforest Activist.” 2008. Accessed April 17, 2008. http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0417-hance_interview_counsell.html.
  52. Hoffman, A.J. “Shades of Green”. Stanford Social Innovation Review Spring Issue (2009): 40–49.Google Scholar
  53. Leggewie, C. “Transnational Movements and the Question of Democracy.” 2003. First Accessed May 20, 2007. http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2003-02-03-leggewie-en.html.
  54. Peters, B. “On Public Deliberation and Public Culture”. Reflections on the Public Sphere. InIIS-Arbeitspapier 97 (7). 1997. Accessed November 20, 2006. http://www.iniis.uni-bremen.de/.
  55. Rain Forest Alliance. “About Us: Our Values and Vision for the Future.” 2007. Accessed July 5, 2007. http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/about.cfm?id=values_vision.
  56. Simpson, D., K. Lefroy, and Y. Tsarenko. “Together and Apart: Exploring Structure of the Corporate–NPO Relationship”. Journal of Business Ethics 101 (2) (2011): 297–311.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of St. Gallen, Institute for Business EthicsSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations