Stakeholder Dialogue as Agonistic Deliberation: Exploring the Role of Conflict and Self-Interest in Business-NGO Interaction

Abstract

ABSTRACT:Many companies engage in dialogue with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) about societal issues. The question is what a regulative ideal for such dialogues should be. In the literature on corporate social responsibility (CSR), the Habermasian notion of communicative action is often presented as a regulative ideal for stakeholder dialogue, implying that actors should aim at consensus and set strategic considerations aside. In this article, we argue that in many cases, communicative action is not a suitable regulative ideal for dialogue between companies and NGOs. We contend that there is often an adversarial element in the relation between companies and NGOs, and that an orientation towards consensus can be in tension with this adversarial relation. We develop an alternative approach to stakeholder dialogue called ‘agonistic deliberation.’ In this approach, conflict and strategic considerations play a legitimate and, up to a certain point, desirable role.

Deliberating or Stalling for Justice? Dynamics of Corporate Remediation and Victim Resistance Through the Lens of Parentalism: The Fundão dam Collapse and the Renova Foundation in Brazil

“…greenwash) and clawback lost legitimacy (Moog et al, 2015) or through marketing that resembles smoke and mirrors (Prasad and Holzinger, 2013). PCSR and MSIs have been questioned for their insensitivity towards impacts on marginalized stakeholders (Banerjee, 2009;Mäkinen & Kourula, 2012;Whelan, 2012;Moog et al, 2013;Dawkins, 2015;Ehrnström-Fuentes;Maher, 2019;Alamgir & Banerjee, 2019;Brand et al, 2019). According to such critiques, research on the deliberative model of PCSR fails to problematize the notion of power in stakeholder engagement (Dawkins, 2015) and, more generally, in deliberative democracy within MSIs (Banerjee, 2009;Moog et al, 2015;Fougère & Solitander, 2019).…”

“…It is asserted that deliberative democracy cannot deal with the messy realities of everyday politics because of its idealistic assumptions of rational participating actors (Brand et al, 2019). More critical perspectives on extractives-community dialogue, such as Banerjee (2018), warn that an obsession with reaching 'consensus through deliberation obscures processes of domination and disallows spaces of difference and coexistence' (p. 816), thus implying that deliberative processes can be undemocratic.…”

“…However, multiple scholars have voiced scepticism regarding deliberative democracy's ability because of the self-interest of corporations, the power disparities that business commands over stakeholders (Banerjee, 2009;Mäkinen & Kourula, 2012;Whelan, 2012;Moog et al, 2013;Dawkins, 2015;Ehrnström-Fuentes, 2016;Maher, 2019;Alamgir & Banerjee, 2019;Brand et al, 2019) and existing constraints that emanate from political and economic power imbalances (Moog et al, 2015). In essence, corporations can exploit MSIs to legitimize their acts of irresponsibility and solidify their positions within conflict scenarios (Moog et al, 2015).…”

An Agonistic Approach to Technological Conflict

“…However, in the context of responsible innovation and particularly where stakeholders perceive their differences as being irreconcilable, the exclusive orientation towards resolution is questionable. A series of recent studies have taken a closer look at this assumption and have concluded that the orientation towards resolution is a way of reducing pluralism of views and, as such, a way of circumventing the many benefits that can result from a pluralist innovation environment (Ligtvoet et al 2016;Cuppen 2012;Brand et al 2020;Blok 2019;Cuppen et al 2019).…”

Contesting Social Responsibilities of Business: Experiences in Context

“…These include interpersonal, inter-organizational, institutional, ideological, and discursive contestations, among others (e.g. Gutierrez-Huerter et al, 2020; Hamann et al, 2020; Whelan et al, 2009), while emphasizing elements such as the micro-level dynamics of relational work (Girschik, Svystunova & Lysova 2020; Glavas, 2016; Gond & Moser, 2021; Noronha, D’Cruz & Banday, 2020;), conflict (Brand, Blok & Verweij, 2020), tensions (Mitra & Buzzanell, 2017; Nyberg & Wright, 2013), unintended consequences (Banerjee & Jackson, 2017) and power (Shamir, 2005). Our objectives are three-fold.…”