Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Agonistic Notion of Political CSR: Melding Activism and Deliberation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

There is nothing more likely to start disagreement among people or countries than an agreement.

E.B. White

Abstract

Flagging labor governance in far-flung supply networks has prompted greater scrutiny of instrumental CSR and calls for models that are tethered more closely to accountability, constraint, and oversight. Political CSR is an apt response, but this paper seeks to buttress its deliberative moorings by arguing that the agonist notion of ‘domesticated conflict’ provides a necessary foundation for substantive deliberation. Because deliberation is more viable and effective when coupled with some means of coercion, a concept of CSR solely premised on reciprocal corporate-stakeholder engagement is pre-mature; efforts should first be directed toward the antecedents of reciprocity and how it is to be achieved, and only then does deliberation become a reliably substantive exercise. The resulting account of agonistic CSR is generated through agonistic principles of realism, pro-action, contestation, and countervailence, and illustrated by the Bangladesh Accord.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There are various iterations of realism. The paper refers to classical realism (e.g., Hans Morgenthau), but not to what has been termed as ‘structural realism’ or ‘neorealism.’

  2. As is generally the case, both arbitrations were covered by confidentiality agreements.

References

  • Abdullah, C., Karpowitz, C. F., & Raphael, C. (2016). Affinity groups, enclave deliberation, and equity. Journal of Public Deliberation, 12(2), 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anner, M. (2018). Binding power: The sourcing squeeze, workers’ rights, and building safety in Bangladesh since Rana Plaza. Research Report. Center for Global Workers’ Rights. Penn State University.

  • Anner, M., Bair, J., & Blasi, J. (2013). Toward joint liability in global supply chains: Addressing the root causes of labor violations in international subcontracting networks. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 35, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appelbaum, R., & Lichtenstein, N. (2016). Achieving workers’ rights in the global economy. Cornell: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aratani, L. (2017). NAACP issues travel advisory, cautioning African Americans about flying American Airlines. Washington Post, Online ed.

  • Arendt, H. (2004). Philosophy and politics. Social Research, 71, 427–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34(1), 51–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bangladesh Accord.org. (2017). Annual report 2016. Retrieved on March 10, 2018, http://bangladeshaccord.org/wp-content/uploads/Annual-Report-Bangladesh-Accord-Foundation-2016.pdf.

  • Bartley, T., & Egels-Zandén, N. (2015). Responsibility and neglect in global production networks: The uneven significance of codes of conduct in Indonesian factories. Global Networks, 15(1), 21–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellante, D., & Porter, P. K. (1992). Agency costs, property rights, and the evolution of labor unions. Journal of Labor Research, 13(3), 243–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briscoe, F., Gupta, A., & Anner, M. S. (2015). Social activism and practice diffusion: How activist tactics affect non-targeted organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(2), 300–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. D., Ainsworth, S., & Grant, D. (2012). The rhetoric of institutional change. Organization Studies, 33(3), 297–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J., & Dillard, J. F. (2012). Critical accounting and communicative action: On the limits of consensual deliberation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24, 176–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, J., Pun, N., & Selden, M. (2013). The politics of global production: Apple, Foxconn and China’s new working class. New Technology, Work and Employment, 28(2), 100–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clawson, D. (2003). The next upsurge: Labor and the new social movements. Cornell: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, S., Geppert, M., & Hollinshead, G. (2018). Politicization and political contests in and around contemporary multinational corporations: An introduction. Human Relations, 71(6), 745–765.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, W. E. (1995). The ethos of pluralization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Corporations and citizenship: Business, responsibility and society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creed, W. E. D., Hudson, B. A., Okhuysen, G. A., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2014). Swimming in a sea of shame: Incorporating emotion into explanations of institutional reproduction and change. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 275–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croucher, R., & Cotton, E. (2009). Global unions, global business: Global union federations and international business. London, UK: Middlesex University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curato, N., Dryzek, J. S., Ercan, S. A., Hendriks, C. M., & Niemeyer, S. (2017). Twelve key findings in deliberative democracy research. Daedalus, 146(3), 28–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, P., Bloom, M., & Hillman, A. J. (2007). Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(1), 91–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, S., Hammer, N., Williams, G., Raman, R., Ruppert, C. S., & Volynets, L. (2011). Labour standards and capacity in global subcontracting chains: Evidence from a construction MNC. Industrial Relations Journal, 42(2), 124–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, C. E. (2015). Agonistic pluralism and stakeholder engagement. Business Ethics Quarterly, 25(1), 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delbridge, R. (2010). The critical future of HRM research. In E. Blyton, E. Heery, & P. Turnbull (Eds.), Reassessing the employment relationship (pp. 21–40). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devers, C. E., Dewett, T., Mishina, Y., & Belsito, C. A. (2009). A general theory of organizational stigma. Organization Science, 20(1), 154–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaghey, J., & Reinecke, J. (2018). When industrial democracy meets corporate social responsibility—A comparison of the Bangladesh Accord and Alliance as responses to the Rana Plaza Disaster. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 56(1), 14–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S., & Niemeyer, S. (2006). Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 634–649.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edward, P., & Willmott, H. (2008). Corporate citizenship: Rise or demise of a myth? Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 771–773.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egels-Zandén, N., & Hyllman, P. (2006). Exploring the effects of union-NGO relationships on corporate responsibility: The case of the Swedish clean clothes campaign. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(3), 303–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egels-Zandén, N., & Hyllman, P. (2007). Evaluating strategies for negotiating workers’ rights in transnational corporations: The effects of codes of conduct and global agreements on workplace democracy. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 207–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrnström-Fuentes, M. (2016). Delinking legitimacies: A pluriversal perspective on political CSR. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 433–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fichter, M., Helfen, M., & Sydow, J. (2011). Employment relations in global production networks: Initiating transfer of practices via union involvement. Human Relations, 64(4), 599–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fichter, M., & McCallum, J. K. (2015). Implementing global framework agreements: The limits of social partnership. Global Networks, 15(s1), S65–S85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Empowering civil society: Habermas, Foucault and the question of conflict. In M. Douglass & J. Friedmann (Eds.), Cities for citizens, planning and the rise of civil society in a global age (pp. 185–211). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogelin, R. (1985). The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic, 7(1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, L. (2011). Global witness quits Kimberley Process in protest at ‘diamond laundering’. London, UK: The Guardian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A. (2005). Deliberation before the revolution: Toward an ethics of deliberative democracy in an unjust world. Political Theory, 33(3), 397–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. K. (1952). American capitalism: The concept of countervailing power. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Witness. (2011). Why we are leaving the kimberley process—A message from global witness Founding Director Charmian Gooch. Press Release, December 3.

  • Glover, R. W. (2012). Games without frontiers? Democratic engagement, agonistic pluralism, and the question of exclusion. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 38(1), 81–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J., & Arenas, D. (2015). Engaging ethically: A discourse ethics perspective on social shareholder engagement. Business Ethics Quarterly, 25(2), 163–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhouse, S., & Harris, E. A. (2014). Battling for a safer Bangladesh. The New York Times, April 21 ed.

  • Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. F. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2000). Why deliberative democracy is different. Social Philosophy and Policy, 17(01), 161–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1996a). Between facts and norms (W. Regh, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Habermas, J. (1996b). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (W. Rehg, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Hammadi, S., & Taylor, M. (2010). Workers jump to their deaths as fire engulfs factory making clothes for Gap. The Guardian, December 14 ed.

  • Hart, O., & Moore, J. (1990). Property rights and the nature of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1119–1158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henn, S. (2013). Factory audits and safety don’t always go hand in hand. NPR Morning Edition.

  • Hickman, M. (2010). 21 workers die in fire at H&M factory. Independent, March 1 ed.

  • Honig, B. (1993). Political theory and the displacement of politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, N.-H. (2008). Workplace democracy, workplace republicanism, and economic democracy. Revue de Philosophie Économique, 9(1), 57–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Watch. (2015). Whoever raises their head suffers the most: Workers’ rights in bangladesh’s garment factories. Human Rights Watch, April 22 ed.

  • Hussain, W., & Moriarty, J. (2016). Accountable to whom? Rethinking the role of corporations in Political CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(3), 519–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • ILO. (2002). Health and safety at work: A trade union priority, Labour Education (Vol. 1/126). Geneva: International Labour Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • ILO. (2007). International framework agreements: A global tool for supporting rights at work. Geneva: International Labour Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jauch, H. (2009). Attracting foreign investment at all costs? The case of export processing zones (EPZs) and Ramatex in Namibia. International Journal of Labour Research, 1(1), 73–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kashyap, A. (2017). Bangladesh Accord: New phase should protect unions. Human Rights Watch, May 11 ed.

  • King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2000). Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry’s responsible care programs. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 698–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, B. G., & Pearce, N. A. (2010). The contentiousness of markets: Politics, social movements, and institutional change in markets. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 249–267.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopman, C. (2016). Unruly pluralism and inclusive tolerance: The normative contribution of jamesian pragmatism to non-ideal theory. Political Studies Review, 14(1), 27–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korab-Karpowicz, J. W. (2006). How international relations theorists can benefit by reading Thucydides. The Monist, 89(2), 231–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kovacs, W. L., Johnson, J. J., Crenshaw, J., & Bird, R. (2017). Taming the Administrative State: Identifying regulations that impact jobs and the economy. Environment, Technology & Regulatory Affairs Division: U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

  • Laclau, E. (2001). Democracy and the question of power. Constellations: An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory, 8(1), 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landemore, H., & Page, S. A. (2015). Deliberation and disagreement: Problem solving, prediction, and positive dissensus. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 14(3), 229–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenox, M. J., & Nash, J. (2003). Industry self-regulation and adverse selection: A comparison across four trade association programs. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(6), 343–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, D. L. (2008). Political contestation in global production networks. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 943–963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, D., Reinecke, J., & Manning, S. (2016). The political dynamics of sustainable coffee: Contested value regimes and the transformation of sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 364–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2005). Negotiation. Toronto: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lüthje, B., & Butollo, F. (2017). Why the Foxconn model does not die: Production networks and labour relations in the IT industry in South China. Globalizations, 14(2), 216–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mäkinen, J., & Kourula, A. (2012). Pluralism in political corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(4), 649–678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2002). The effects of contracts on interpersonal trust. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(3), 534–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, J. (1996). Using power, fighting power: The polity. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference (pp. 44–54). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Christiano, T., Fung, A., Parkinson, J., et al. (2012). A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In J. Parkinson & J. Mansbridge (Eds.), Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale (pp. 1–26). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Estlund, D., Follesdal, A., Fung, A., et al. (2010). The place of self-interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 64–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, H. (2017). American Airlines and NAACP meet to discuss allegations of racism. Los Angeles Times, Nov 2 ed.

  • McCarthy, T. (1990). The critique of impure reason: Foucault and the Frankfurt School. Political Theory, 18(3), 437–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. S. (2011). Creating and capturing value: Strategic corporate social responsibility, resource-based theory, and sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1480–1495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehrpouya, A., & Willmott, H. (2018). Making a Niche: The marketization of management research and the rise of ‘Knowledge Branding’. Journal of Management Studies, 55(4), 728–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mena, S., & Palazzo, G. (2012). Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(3), 527–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moog, S., Spicer, A., & Böhm, S. (2015). The politics of multi-stakeholder initiatives: The crisis of the Forest Stewardship Council. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(3), 469–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Social Research, 66, 745–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, D., & Smith, G. (2015). Survey article: Deliberation, democracy, and the systemic turn. Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(2), 213–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility, democracy, and the politicization of the corporation. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 773–775.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papadakis, K. (2011). Introduction and overview. In K. Papadakis (Ed.), Shaping global industrial relations: The impact of international framework agreements (pp. 1–13). Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, P. (2000). Democracy, electoral and contestatory. Nomos, 42, 105–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preuss, L., Haunschild, A., & Matten, D. (2006). Trade unions and CSR: A European research agenda. Journal of Public Affairs (14723891), 6(3/4), 256–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahman, Z., & Langford, T. (2012). Why labor unions have failed Bangladesh’s garment workers. In L. Mosoetsa & M. Williams (Eds.), Labour in the global south: Challenges and alternatives for workers. Geneva: ILO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rancière, J. (2010). Dissensus: On politics and aesthetics. London, UK: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1996). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. (2016). Taming wicked problems: The role of framing in the construction of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 299–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinecke, J., & Donaghey, J. (2015). After Rana Plaza: Building coalitional power for labour rights between unions and (consumption based) social movement organisations. Organization, 22(5), 720–740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riisgaard, L. (2005). International framework agreements: A new model for securing worker’s right? Industrial Relations, 44, 707–737.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rushe, D. (2018). Unions reach $2.3 m settlement on Bangladesh textile factory safety. London: The Guardian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabadoz, C., & Singer, A. (2017). Talk ain’t cheap: Political CSR and the challenges of corporate deliberation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(2), 183–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., Rasche, A., Palazzo, G., & Spicer, A. (2016). Managing for political corporate social responsibility: New challenges and directions for PCSR 2.0. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 273–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherrer, C., Greven, T., & Ascoly, N. (2001). Global rules for trade: Codes of conduct, social labeling, workers’ rights clauses. Munster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, J. L., & Toffel, M. W. (2010). Making self-regulation more than merely symbolic: The critical role of the legal environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(3), 361–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1951). A formal theory of the employment relationship. Econometrica, 19, 293–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slater, D. (2004). Geopolitics and the post-colonialz: Rethinking North-South relations. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soundararajan, V., & Brown, J. A. (2016). Voluntary governance mechanisms in global supply chains: Beyond CSR to a stakeholder utility perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 134(1), 83–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soundararajan, V., Brown, J. A., & Wicks, A. C. (2019). Can multi-stakeholder initiatives improve global supply chains? Improving deliberative capacity with a stakeholder orientation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 29, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stansbury, J. (2009). Reasoned moral agreement: Applying discourse ethics within organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(1), 33–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevis, D. (2010). International framework agreements and global social dialogue: Parameters and prospects. ILO employment working paper no. 47. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labor Organization.

  • Strang, D., & Soule, S. A. (1998). Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 265–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Economist. (2013). Accord, alliance or disunity? The Economist, July 13 ed. Retrieved March 10, 2016, from http://www.economist.com/news/business/21581752-transatlantic-divide-among-big-companies-may-hinder-efforts-improve-workers-safety.

  • Thompson, D. F. (2008). Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 497–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilly, C. (2008). Contentious performances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turnheim, B., & Geels, F. W. (2013). The destabilisation of existing regimes: Confronting a multi-dimensional framework with a case study of the British coal industry. Research Policy, 42(10), 1749–1767.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentini, L. (2012). Ideal vs. non-ideal theory: A conceptual map. Philosophy Compass, 7(9), 654–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venard, B. (2009). Organizational isomorphism and corruption: An empirical research in Russia. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(1), 59–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. (2010). The private regulation of global corporate conduct. Business & Society, 49(1), 68–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldman, P. (2017). Inside Alabama’s auto jobs bloom: Cheap wages, little training, crushed limbs. Bloomberg Business Week, March 23 ed.

  • Whelan, G. (2012). The political perspective of corporate social responsibility: A critical research agenda. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(4), 709–737.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, O. F. (2014). The United Nations global compact: What did it promise? Journal of Business Ethics, 122(2), 241–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G., Davies, S., & Chinguno, C. (2015). Subcontracting and labour standards: Reassessing the potential of international framework agreements. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 53(2), 181–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1980). Culture and value. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (2001). Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29(5), 670–690.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Loyola University Chicago, 16 E. Pearson St., Water Tower Campus, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA

    Cedric E. Dawkins

Authors
  1. Cedric E. Dawkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cedric E. Dawkins.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no potential conflicts of interest.

Informed Consent

There is no applicability for informed consent.

Research Involved in Human or Animal Rights

The research does not involve Human Participants and/or Animals.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dawkins, C.E. An Agonistic Notion of Political CSR: Melding Activism and Deliberation. J Bus Ethics 170, 5–19 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04352-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04352-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation