Stakeholder Dialogue as Agonistic Deliberation

Exploring the Role of Conflict and Self-Interest in Business-NGO Interaction

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3-30
Number of pages28
JournalBusiness Ethics Quarterly
Volume30
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2020

Fingerprint

Stakeholders
Interaction
Non-governmental Organizations
Deliberation
Stakeholder dialogue
Non-governmental organizations
Communicative action
Ideal
Communicative Action
Corporate Social Responsibility

Keywords

  • agonistic deliberation
  • conflict
  • consensus
  • nongovernmental organizations
  • self-interest
  • stakeholder dialogue

Cite this

@article{e3985168a0b74dddb843b49641da43e8,
title = "Stakeholder Dialogue as Agonistic Deliberation: Exploring the Role of Conflict and Self-Interest in Business-NGO Interaction",
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.",
keywords = "agonistic deliberation, conflict, consensus, nongovernmental organizations, self-interest, stakeholder dialogue",
author = "Teunis Brand and Vincent Blok and Marcel Verweij",
year = "2020",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1017/beq.2019.21",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "3--30",
journal = "Business Ethics Quarterly",
issn = "1052-150X",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "1",

}

Stakeholder Dialogue as Agonistic Deliberation : Exploring the Role of Conflict and Self-Interest in Business-NGO Interaction. / Brand, Teunis; Blok, Vincent; Verweij, Marcel.

In: Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 1, 01.2020, p. 3-30.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Stakeholder Dialogue as Agonistic Deliberation

T2 - Exploring the Role of Conflict and Self-Interest in Business-NGO Interaction

AU - Brand, Teunis

AU - Blok, Vincent

AU - Verweij, Marcel

PY - 2020/1

Y1 - 2020/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - agonistic deliberation

KW - conflict

KW - consensus

KW - nongovernmental organizations

KW - self-interest

KW - stakeholder dialogue

U2 - 10.1017/beq.2019.21

DO - 10.1017/beq.2019.21

M3 - Article

VL - 30

SP - 3

EP - 30

JO - Business Ethics Quarterly

JF - Business Ethics Quarterly

SN - 1052-150X

IS - 1

ER -