Emerging Paradigms of Corporate Social Responsibility, Regulation, and Governance: Introduction to the Thematic Symposium

Abstract

Over the last decade, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has experienced a “governance turn” as scholars began examining the institutionally embedded nature of CSR (Brammer et al.2012; Campbell2007; Matten and Moon2008; Waddock2008). This was also a period when foundational work in institutional and political CSR appeared, including Habermasian approaches (Scherer and Palazzo,2007), corporate citizenship (Matten and Crane2005), and corporate accountability through multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) (Gilbert and Rasche2007). Simultaneously, scholars utilizing post-colonial insights began surfacing the negative effects of CSR (Banerjee2008). In short, CSR has emerged as an important part of a wider field of institutions governing the corporation and the economy, perhaps even as amode of governancein itself (Brammer et al.2012, p. 3). The aim of this thematic symposium of theJournal of Business Ethicsis to contribute to and further these debates and highlight some questions still remaining to be addressed.The governance turn has led to substantial growth in research using institutional theory to examine CSR (Pisani et al.2017). CSR as an institutionally embedded phenomenon is often understood as either a form of institutionally induced self-regulation by firms and/or industries, or private, voluntary regulation of supply chains in the transnational sphere by large multinational firms. Such private and voluntary regulation in the transnational sphere contributes to global governance processes, in response to a perceived absence of a global governing authority (Djelic and Etchanchu2015; Fransen and Kolk2007; Sheehy2015).Perhaps as a result of this growing research on corporations as citizens, political actors, and participants in multi-stakeholder initiatives, there is greater awareness of remaining and newer complexities and tensions evident in both business-driven and multi-stakeholder forms of governance (Levy2008). Such governance initiatives are usually played out at the transnational level, where the form, meaning, intention, and implications of CSR remain highly contested (Brammer et al.2012; Kourula et al.2018). Even on their own terms as heuristics and frameworks, the notions of corporations as citizens and political actors as well as multi-stakeholder forms of governance by non-state actors remain plagued by a multitude of challenges (Arora2017; Goodman and Arenas2015; Hussain and Moriarty2018; Sethi and Schepers2014; Utting2014; Whelan2012). While the developing world, in some instances, may have experienced economic gains from the practices of outsourcing and offshoring by modern multinational firms, there has also been a simultaneous rise in global, regional, national, and local inequalities, destruction of the environment, a diminished biodiversity, and inappropriate application of technologies (Margolis and Walsh2003; Wilks2013). Multi-stakeholder forms of governance have not been able to solve these negative impacts. The viability of their aims, the lack of representation in their processes, and their questionable effectiveness remain debated. This thematic symposium addresses these challenges and debates and the four papers highlight and theorize some of these issues of the emerging paradigms of CSR, regulation and governance.Alexander (2019) expands on lead firm governance in global value chains and global production networks. She examines sustainable practices in buyer-driven industries and across different stages of production, particularly related to lower-tier suppliers. She offers important insights about new governance approaches utilized by lead firms. Her research suggests that the lead firms work through vertical buyer–seller links and/or develop new horizontal relationships, which link lead firms with lower-tier suppliers and governance processes in suppliers’ local productive systems. She proposes five types of governance mechanisms involving vertical and/or horizontal links.Many studies across disciplines demonstrate challenges around labor issues in global supply chains. Lee et al. (2019) propose a collaborative governance framework, suggesting it as an alternative governance type. Such a collaborative governance involves a coalition among competing firms aimed at increasing the relational leverage over suppliers and/or host country specific labor issues. The authors examine the rationale behind such collaborative governance initiatives and discuss opportunities and challenges.Graz et al. (2019) review the effectiveness of transnational private governance on labor standards and emphasize the role of labor agency. They argue that the relationship between transnational private regulatory initiatives and labor agency depends on three particular competences. They then develop a framework for a hybrid production regime to examine workers’ capacity to act at the local level. This, they argue, depends on the institutionalization of capital-labor relations between the transnational and national levels.Jackson et al. (2019) examine the effects of non-financial disclosure on CSR. They conceptualize trade-offs between two ideal types of regulation in relation to CSR. Their analysis of data from 24 OECD countries shows that, on the one hand, firms in countries that require non-financial disclosure adopt significantly more CSR activities. On the other hand, they find that the regulation on non-financial disclosure does not influence corporate irresponsibility of firms. They go on to discuss the limits of mandatory non-financial disclosure in addressing regulatory trade-offs between stringency and flexibility in the field of CSR.