IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buetqu/v25y2015i01p1-28_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agonistic Pluralism and Stakeholder Engagement

Author

Listed:
  • Dawkins, Cedric

Abstract

This paper argues that, although stakeholder engagement occurs within the context of power, neither market-centered CSR nor the deliberative model of political CSR adequately addresses the specter of power asymmetries and the inevitability of conflict in stakeholder relations, particularly for powerless stakeholders. Noting that the objective of stakeholder engagement should not be benevolence toward stakeholders, but mechanisms that address power asymmetries such that stakeholders are able to protect their own interests, I present a framework of stakeholder engagement based on agonistic pluralism that seeks to structure and utilize discord rather than reduce or eliminate it. I then propose arbitration as an agonistic mechanism to address power asymmetries in stakeholder engagement and explore its implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Dawkins, Cedric, 2015. "Agonistic Pluralism and Stakeholder Engagement," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 1-28, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:25:y:2015:i:01:p:1-28_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X15000020/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. Veronica, Scuotto & Alexeis, Garcia-Perez & Valentina, Cillo & Elisa, Giacosa, 2020. "Do stakeholder capabilities promote sustainable business innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises? Evidence from Italy," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 131-141.
    2. Siebold, Nicole & Oelrich, Sebastian & Roche, Olivier P., 2023. "“I Am Your Partner, Am I Not?” An inquiry into stakeholder inclusion in platform organizations in times of crisis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    3. Izabela Delabre & Joss Lyons‐White & Clara Melot & Eirik Ingwardo Veggeberg & Anthony Alexander & Martin C. Schleper & Robert M. Ewers & Andrew T. Knight, 2023. "Should I stay or should I go? Understanding stakeholder dis/engagement for deforestation‐free palm oil," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(8), pages 5128-5145, December.
    4. Gastón de los Reyes & Markus Scholz, 2023. "Assessing the Legitimacy of Corporate Political Activity: Uber and the Quest for Responsible Innovation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(1), pages 51-69, April.
    5. Kristian Alm & Mark Brown, 2021. "John Rawls’ Concept of the Reasonable: A Study of Stakeholder Action and Reaction Between British Petroleum and the Victims of the Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 172(4), pages 621-637, September.
    6. Joanna Sawicka & Elżbieta Marcinkowska, 2022. "The Effect of CSR Environmental Initiatives on Purchase Decisions—A Cross-Regional Study in Poland and Ukraine," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-18, February.
    7. Mariusz Zielinski & Izabela Jonek-Kowalska, 2020. "Profitability of Corporate Social Responsibility Activities from the Perspective of Corporate Social Managers," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2), pages 264-280.
    8. Huw Thomas & Mark Anner, 2023. "Dissensus and Deadlock in the Evolution of Labour Governance: Global Supply Chains and the International Labour Organization (ILO)," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(1), pages 33-49, April.
    9. Fabien Martinez, 2023. "Exploring the syncretic dynamics involved in dyadic business–NGO partnerships," Post-Print hal-03926303, HAL.
    10. Subhabrata Bobby Banerjee, 2022. "Decolonizing Deliberative Democracy: Perspectives from Below," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(2), pages 283-299, November.
    11. Elena Candelo & Cecilia Casalegno & Chiara Civera & Fabrizio Mosca, 2018. "Turning Farmers into Business Partners through Value Co-Creation Projects. Insights from the Coffee Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-21, March.
    12. Cedric E. Dawkins, 2021. "An Agonistic Notion of Political CSR: Melding Activism and Deliberation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(1), pages 5-19, April.
    13. Rajiv Maher, 2022. "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," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(1), pages 15-36, June.
    14. Anna-Lena Maier & Dirk Ulrich Gilbert, 2023. "Deliberating with the Autocrats? A Case Study on the Limitations and Potential of Political CSR in a Non-Democratic Context," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(1), pages 11-32, April.
    15. Martin Fougère & Nikodemus Solitander, 2020. "Dissent in Consensusland: An Agonistic Problematization of Multi-stakeholder Governance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 164(4), pages 683-699, July.
    16. Fabien Martinez, 2023. "Exploring the syncretic dynamics involved in dyadic business–NGO partnerships," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(7), pages 4068-4083, November.
    17. Renata Konadu & Gabriel Sam Ahinful & Samuel Owusu-Agyei, 2021. "Corporate governance pillars and business sustainability: does stakeholder engagement matter?," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(3), pages 269-289, September.
    18. Charles Barthold & Peter Bloom, 2020. "Denaturalizing the Environment: Dissensus and the Possibility of Radically Democratizing Discourses of Environmental Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 164(4), pages 671-681, July.
    19. Watson, Rosina & Wilson, Hugh N. & Macdonald, Emma K., 2020. "Business-nonprofit engagement in sustainability-oriented innovation: What works for whom and why?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 87-98.

    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:25:y:2015:i:01:p:1-28_00. 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.