IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buetqu/v30y2020i1p3-30_2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Brand, Teunis
  • Blok, Vincent
  • Verweij, Marcel

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Brand, Teunis & Blok, Vincent & Verweij, Marcel, 2020. "Stakeholder Dialogue as Agonistic Deliberation: Exploring the Role of Conflict and Self-Interest in Business-NGO Interaction," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 3-30, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:30:y:2020:i:1:p:3-30_2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X19000216/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Subhabrata Bobby Banerjee, 2022. "Decolonizing Deliberative Democracy: Perspectives from Below," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(2), pages 283-299, November.
    2. Michael Bennett, 2023. "Managerial Discretion, Market Failure and Democracy," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 185(1), pages 33-47, June.
    3. Buhmann, Alexander & Fieseler, Christian, 2021. "Towards a deliberative framework for responsible innovation in artificial intelligence," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    4. Craig Reeves & Matthew Sinnicks, 2024. "Totally Administered Heteronomy: Adorno on Work, Leisure, and Politics in the Age of Digital Capitalism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 193(2), pages 285-301, August.
    5. Julia Grimm & Rebecca C. Ruehle & Juliane Reinecke, 2024. "Building Common Ground: How Facilitators Bridge Between Diverging Groups in Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 194(3), pages 583-608, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:30:y:2020:i:1:p:3-30_2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/beq .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.