PurposeThe article aims to cast a novel light on the extended theoretical conceptualisation of corporate citizenship, in as far as it criticises the insufficient embedding of international corporate social responsibility (CSR), corporate social performance (CSP) and sustainability initiatives in the geopolitical reality and conflictuality of the global business environment.Design/methodology/approachThe article offers a unique interdisciplinary take on relevant research in international CSR, political science, international relations and philosophy. Its methodology is based on a literature review of these different fields.FindingsThe article argues that the rules‐based nature of international CSR is based on experience in the relatively benign market context of high‐income economies. However, the transposition of the code‐and‐compliance approach to the more conflictual context of emerging markets leads to the failure of international CSR. Its insufficient catering to the particular pressures exerted on operation in these markets reveals an idealist bias. This explains the implicit endorsement of “end‐of‐history” scenarios and other neo‐liberal assumptions in international CSR. The article argues that this disposition does not pay credit to the need to find adequate responses to the situation. Quite to the contrary, the firm entrenchment of (neo‐)liberalism in the mental mapping of CSR blocks the way to an exploration of realist alternatives. The article concludes by suggesting a shift in the CSR research agenda, from rules to institutions and agency. It proposes historical material on leadership in emergency situations and a new reading of Machiavelli to illustrate possible avenues.Research limitations/implicationsThe article is based on a qualitative review and discussion of the literature, which it presents in a new light. It does not present empirical or quantitative research data. It points to a conceptual abyss separating the theory and reality of international CSR. This is particularly problematic in the light of recent deliberative models positing a “new political role” for the corporation. While this article follows the new model in its criticism of the traditional separation of politics and business, it advocates that further research is necessary to elucidate how a more realistic apprehension of global conflict and its impact on business can be combined with the “arms reach principle”. Furthermore it urges that a new model must factor in the frequent “dirty hands” problems occurring in international business.Practical implicationsThe article argues that, contrary to the dominant liberal discourse in business ethics and CSR, an increasing potential for Machiavellian behavior in the corporate sector is to be expected. This is due to the absence of arbitrages, in an environment experiencing a rapid expansion of global corporate activity. This renders “code‐and‐compliance” CSR ineffective. The article recommends the “reframing” of CSR, to specifically include “dirty hands” issues.Social implicationsOne stum...

Populism was the Cambridge Dictionary's new word of the year 2017. The surge in interest reflects recent events such as the UK Brexit referendum, the arrival of Donald Trump at the helm of the US presidency, or the electoral victories of self-styled anti-establishment leaders throughout Europe and the World. The first part of this article explores the scientific status of populism. It concludes that the widespread use of populism as a term obscures a number of epistemic and conceptual limitations, arguing that 'trouble-in-democracy' is the more pertinent and more penetrating lens. The configuration of this populism focus has consequences on the definition of populist leadership, which is dominated by the notion of charisma. Through engagement with Hannah Arendt and her fellow exile Franz Neumann the article proposes an alternative phenomenological framework for apprehending populist leadership. To do this, it relies on the analogies between populist and totalitarian leadership. Finally, it maps out the priority areas for the deployment of populist discourse and practice, arguing that this is where non-populist (responsible) leaders should be focusing their efforts.

As the leader of a group of rescue activists in Holocaust-era Budapest, Rezso 00 Kasztner saved the lives of large numbers of Jews through negotiations with Nazi officials. This activity coincided with the deportation of thousands of others, and after the war Kasztner was considered by some to have made a Faustian bargain: his silence in return for the lives of the few. The ethics of this case have been approached from a variety of theoretical vantage points, none of which have the analytical power and pertinence to render justice to an existential challenge of this magnitude. The article therefore draws upon dirty hands as an alternative. Sustaining a dirty hands argument in this case relies on retaining a measure of skepticism with regard to established narrative framing, acknowledging the incidence of grey zones and replacing the implicit norm of agency in studies on Holocaust-era leaders with context focus.

Channel Islands, Nazi Occupation, social capital, ethical leadership,

No abstract