Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multi-stakeholder Deliberation for (Global) Justice: An Approach from Modern Civic Republicanism

  • Chapter
Rethinking the Future of Europe

Abstract

This chapter presents the minimal and common conditions for multistakeholder deliberation for (global) justice from the perspective of ‘modern civic republicanism’. I derive this model by drawing on some aspects from the work on intercultural justice in Nathan (2010).1 One reason for considering an approach from modern civic republicanism is that the Western liberal democratic societies embrace a liberal tradition of freedom as non-interference on governance, which is problematic on the need for government intervention for justice. We have recently witnessed many financial crises that have called for government intervention in the form of bailouts and austerity measures which found little support among the population (e.g. austerity measures to tackle the debt crisis in Greece, and the proposal by the Cyprus government for a levy on bank deposits). I intend to show that modern civic republicanism promotes freedom as non-domination, which may allow for non-arbitrary interference through deliberation for justice. Moreover, I shall show that some aspects of classical liberalism, such as state neutrality and the public versus private dichotomy, are challenges to deliberation by stakeholders from both the private and public sector for public interest within a transnational and global context. We face transnational governance gaps on global issues and crises such as poverty, climate change, financial collapse and many others which require multi-stakeholder deliberation for global justice, from both the public and private spheres, within the context of transition from the Westphalian state-centric international order to a post-Westphalian transnational order in which many actors other than states, such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), international organisations (e.g. World Trade Organization (WTO), International Labour Organization (ILO)) as well as multinational and transnational corporations (TNCs), are becoming significant actors (Nye and Keohane, 1971; Scherer and Smid, 2000; Kobrin, 2008, 2009).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Agle, B. R., R. K. Mitchell, and J. A. Sonnenfeld. (1999) Who Matters to CEOs? An Investigation of Stakeholder Attributes and Salience, Corporate Performance, and CEO Values. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 507–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bader, V. (2005) Against Monism: Pluralist Critical Comments on Danielle Allen and Philip Pettit. In S. Macedo and M. Williams (eds.) Political Exclusion and Domination, 165–177. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brundtland, G. (1987) Our Common Future: World Commission on Environment and Development. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., D. Matten, and J. Moon. (2008) Corporations and Citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Drzzek, J. S. (1999) Transnational Democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 7(1): 30–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. (2000) Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Paperback edition (2002). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J. (1986) The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory. In J. Elster and A. Hylland (eds.) Foundations of Social Choice Theory, 103–132. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrelly, C. (2007) Justice in Ideal Theory: A Refutation. Political Studies, 55(4): 844–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. and A. Honneth. (2003) Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1994) Stakeholder Theory. In Patricia Werhane and R. Edward Freeman (eds.) The Blackwell Encylopedic Dictionary of Business Ethics. Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1999) Divergent Stakeholder Theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 233–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J. (1999) Stakeholder Influence Strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24: 191–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A. (2003) Deliberative Democracy and International Labor Standards. Governance, 16(1): 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann, A. and F. Thompson. (2004) Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1996) Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1998) Three Normative Models of Democracy. In J. Habermas (ed.) The Inclusion of the Other, 239–252. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (2001) The Postnational Constellation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honneth, A. (1995) The Struggle for Recognition, The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honohan, I. (2002) Civic Republicanism. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, D. (1994) The Idea of a Liberal Theory, A Critique and Reconstruction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. A. and M. Lenox. (2000) Industry Self-Regulation without Sanction: The Chemical Industry’s Responsible Care Program. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 698–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobrin, S. J. (2008) Globalization, Transnational Corporations and the Future of Global Governance. In Andreas Geog Scherer and Guido Palazzo (eds.) Handbook of Research on Global Corporate Citizenship. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobrin, S. J. (2009) Private Political Authority and Public Responsibility: Transnational Politics, Transnational Firms, and Human Rights. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(3): 349–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kymlicka, W. (1989) Liberalism, Community and Culture. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maak, T. and N. M. Pless. (2006) Responsible Leadership: A Relational Approach. In T. Maak and N. Pless (eds.) Responsible Leadership, 33–53. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D. and A. Crane. (2005) Corporate Citizenship: Toward an Extended Theoretical Conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30: 166–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mena, S. and G. Palazzo. (2012) Input and Output Legitimacy of Multi-Stakeholders Initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22: 527–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., B. R. Agle, and D. J. 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 

  • Moon, J. D. (2003) Rawls and Habermas on Public Reason: Human Rights and Global Justice. Annual Review of Political Science, 6: 257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, G. (2010) Social Freedom in a Multicultural State: Towards a Theory of Intercultural Justice. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Néron, P.-Y. (2009) Business and the Polis: What Does It Mean to See Corporations as Political Actors? Journal of Business Ethics, 94: 333–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neron, 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 

  • Newell, P. and E. Gaffney. (2009) Globalising Corporate Citizenship: Political and Theoretical Considerations, Working Paper CSGP 09/04, Centre for the Critical Study of Global Power and Politics, Trent University, Ontario, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nye, J. S. Jr. and R. Keohane. (1971) Transnational Relations and World Politics: An Introduction. In Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Jr. Nye (eds.) Transnational Relations and World Politics, ix–xxix. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, O. (1996) Towards Justice and Virtue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oosterhout, J. V. (2005) Dialogue. Corporate Citizenship: An Idea Whose Time Has Not Yet Come. Academy of Management Review, 30: 677–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oosterhout, J. V. (2008) Transcending the Confines of Economic and Political Organization? The Misguided Metaphor of Corporate Citizenship. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18: 35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G. and A. G. Scherer. (2006) Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A Communicative Framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1): 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G. and A. G. Scherer. (2008a) The Future of Global Corporate Citizenship: Towards a New Theory of the Firm as a Political Actor. In A. G. Scherer and G. Palazzo (eds.) Handbook of Research on Global Corporate Citizenship, 577–590. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G. and A. G. Scherer. (2008b) Corporate Social Responsibility, Democracy, and the Politicization of the Corporation. Academy of Management Review, 33(3): 773–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, O. (1984) Slavery and Social Death. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, P. (1997) Republicanism, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, P. (2003) Agency-Freedom and Option-Freedom. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 15: 387–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, A. (2000) Feminism and Republicanism: Is This a Plausible Alliance? The Journal of Political Philosophy, 8(2): 279–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierik, R. and I. Robeyns. (2007) Resources versus Capabilities: Social Endowments in Egalitatrian Theory. Political Studies, 55(1): 133–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Post, J. E., L. E. Preston, and S. Sachs. (2002) Managing the Extended Enterprise: The New Stakeholder View. California Management Review, 45(1): 6–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasche, A. (2012) Global Policies and Local Practice: Loose and Tight Couplings in Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22: 679–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971/1999) Theory of Justice. Revised edition (1999). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1999) The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (2001) Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, S., E. Rühli, and I. Kern. (2009) Sustainable Success with Stakeholders. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, M. (1998) Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, T. M. (2000) What We Owe to Each Other. USA: First Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G. and G. Palazzo. (2007) Towards a Political Conception of Corporate Responsibility — Business and Society Seen from a Habermasian Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32: 1096–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(4): 505–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G. and M. Smid. (2000) The Downward Spiral and the U.S. Model Business Principles: Why MNEs Should Take Responsibility for the Improvement of World-Wide Social and Environmental Conditions. Management International Review, 40(4): 351–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1992/1995) Inequality Reexamined. Paperback edition (1995). New York: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1993) Capability and Well-Being. In M. Nussbaum and A. Sen (eds.) The Quality of Life, 30–53. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (2009) The Idea of Justice. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viroli, M. (2002) Republicanism. New York: Hill and Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, M. (1983) Spheres of Justice. USA: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werhane, P. H. (1999) Moral Imagination and Management Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whelan, G. (2012) The Political Perspective of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critical Research Agenda. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(4): 709–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilke, H. and G. Wilke. (2007) Corporate Moral Legitimacy and the Legitimacy of Morals: A Critique of Palazzo/Scherer’s Communicative Framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 81: 27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (2004) Responsibility and Global Labor Justice. Journal of Political Philosophy, 12: 365–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zey, M. (1998) Rational Choice Theory and Organizational Theory: A Critique. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Ganesh Nathan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. EPPA, Brussels, Belgium

    Stefan Schepers

  2. Henley Business School, UK

    Stefan Schepers  & Andrew Kakabadse  & 

Copyright information

© 2014 Ganesh Nathan

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nathan, G. (2014). Multi-stakeholder Deliberation for (Global) Justice: An Approach from Modern Civic Republicanism. In: Schepers, S., Kakabadse, A. (eds) Rethinking the Future of Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137024015_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation