ABSTRACT:I here advance a critical research agenda for the political perspective of corporate social responsibility (Political CSR). I argue that whilst the ‘Political’ CSR literature is notable for both its conceptual novelty and practical importance, its development has been hamstrung by four ambiguities, conflations and/or oversights. More positively, I argue that ‘Political’ CSR should be conceived as one potentialformof globalization, and not as aconsequenceof ‘globalization’; that contemporary Western MNCs should be presumed to engage in CSR for instrumental reasons; that ‘Political’ CSR should be associated with a corresponding ‘political’ model of corporate governance; and that both a ‘Rawlsian’ and ‘Habermasian’ perspective of Political CSR are different from ‘Political’ CSR. In concluding, I use these four critiques to identify a number of areas within which increasingly robust and sophisticated positive and normative theories of Political CSR are required.

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to conceptualise how future changes in corporate social disclosure (CSD), aimed at improving accountability for corporate performance to key stakeholder groups, might be brought about. Design/methodology/approach -Drawing on the work of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises with respect to human (and organisational) action and the work of Leon Festinger and Kurt Lewin with respect to human (and organisational) change, the paper examines how academics and other corporate stakeholders might effect changes in CSD. Findings -Managers act in a way which maximises their formal happiness (from von Mises) and change occurs following the creation of cognitive dissonance (Festinger) which leads to "unfreezing" (Lewin). Stakeholders can effect change by creating cognitive dissonance. With specific reference to Anglo-American limited liability and publicly traded corporations, such cognitive dissonance and unfreezing normally involves a perceived threat to profitability. Research limitations/implications -Research and theorising in corporate social disclosure patterns should take as given: that the managers of Anglo-American limited liability and publicly traded corporations continue to be strongly encouraged, via both legal and remunerative means, to maximize shareholder wealth; and that this state of affairs significantly influences the information which management choose to disclose. Future research might instead examine and consider means of creating sources of dissonance significant enough to result in managerial concern for change within the constraints imposed on managers of Anglo-American corporations. Such research might be conducted by engaging with organisations and their stakeholders. Practical implications -The findings have implications for the manner in which corporate stakeholders act and interrelate with others in order to effect change towards more complete and credible sustainability reports which demonstrate accountability for material impacts to key stakeholder groups. Originality/value -The paper focuses on how change in corporate behaviour might be brought about given the personal motivations and institutional constraints imposed on the behaviour of corporate actors.

Little attention has been paid to the importance of social media in the corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature. This deficit is redressed in the present paper through utilizing the notion of 'citizenship arenas' to identify three dynamics in social media-augmented corporate-society relations. First, we note that social mediaaugmented 'corporate arenas of citizenship' are constructed by individual corporations in an effort to address CSR issues of specific importance thereto, and are populated by individual citizens as well as (functional/formally organized) stakeholders. Second, we highlight that, within social media-augmented 'public arenas of citizenship', individual citizens are empowered, relative to corporations and their (functional/formally organized) stakeholders, when it comes to creating, debating, and publicizing, CSRrelevant issues. Third, we posit that information and communication technology corporations possess specific, and potentially very important, capacities, when it comes to creating, or helping construct, public arenas of citizenship from within which individual citizens can influence their broader political-economic environment. Following this, we discuss how social media can contribute to 'dysfunctions' as well as 'progressions' in corporate-society relations, and conclude with a number of suggestions for future research.

Digitalization has far-reaching implications for individuals, organizations, and society. While extant management and organization studies mainly focus on the positive aspects of this development, the dark and potentially unexpected sides of digitalization for organizations and organizing have received less scholarly attention. This special issue extends this emerging debate. Drawing on empirical material of platform corporations, social movements, and traditional corporations, eight articles illuminate the various negative implications of the digitalization of work and organization processes, particularly for workers, employees, and activists. In this introduction, we contextualize these valuable contributions that underline the dangers of the ubiquity and simultaneity of digitalization and begin to sketch out potential avenues toward a comprehensive critical agenda of digitalization in organization studies.

I here distinguish dissensual from consensual corporate social responsibility