Politicized CSR: How corporate political activity (mis‐)uses political CSR
Published date | 01 August 2018 |
Date | 01 August 2018 |
DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1667 |
Author | Irina Lock,Peter Seele |
ACADEMIC PAPER
Politicized CSR: How corporate political activity (mis‐)uses
political CSR
Irina Lock
1
|Peter Seele
2
1
Amsterdam School of Communication
Research, University of Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, Netherlands
2
IMCA, University of Lugano, Lugano,
Switzerland
Correspondence
Irina Lock, Amsterdam School of
Communication Research, University of
Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166,
Amsterdam 1018WV, Netherlands.
Email: i.j.lock@uva.nl
In this article, we posit that corporate political activities (CPA) such as lobbying make use of cor-
porate social responsibility (CSR) to advance instrumental goals. We juxtapose the theoretical
foundations of the normative concept of political CSR and the strategic notion of nonmarket
strategy to show that they are in opposition conceptually regarding the role of corporations in
public policy. Using a systematic theoretical comparison along seven dimensions, we discuss
the juxtapositions and identify the common ground of the two theories. Building on examples
from the alcohol industry, we describe how CPA uses instrumental CSR to advance goals in public
policy—we call this politicized CSR. Hence, we illustrate the shift from political to politicized CSR,
a misuse of CSR for purposes of CPA, and discuss consequences for the theory and practice of
public affairs and CSR.
1|INTRODUCTION
When looking at the overlap of political and corporate spheres, we find
that the two realms are growing closer and closer. On the one hand,
corporations have become ever more active in the political arena
developing “nonmarket strategies”(Baron, 1995): Legislation that
results from political negotiation decides about success, failure, or
even the license to operate for corporations, which leads to increased
activities in public affairs. On the other hand, due to less powerful
nation‐states, researchers observe a “new political role of corpora-
tions”(Scherer & Palazzo, 2011) contributing to solving global public
issues as part of their corporate social responsibility (CSR).
We find that the political role of corporations as described instru-
mentally in nonmarket strategy and as depicted normatively in political
CSR are in breach, particularly when it comes to CSR and lobbying
(Den Hond, Rehbein, Bakker, & Lankveld, 2014; Lock & Seele, 2016).
A growing body of research engaged in a discourse on the alignment
of both strategies and the consequences of misalignments. This was
observed in companies in potentially harmful sectors, such as automo-
tive (Anastasiadis, 2014), tobacco (Moodie et al., 2013), and alcohol
(Fooks, Gilmore, Collin, Holden, & Lee, 2013). However, so far, an anal-
ysis of the theoretical fundaments of classical nonmarket strategies
(Baron, 1995) and political CSR (Scherer & Palazzo, 2011) is lacking,
although such a reflection would foster understanding of the reasons
why they are often in breach and why the use of CSR in CPA is often
critical.
In this conceptual piece, we discuss inconsistencies in corporate
strategies regarding two theoretical concepts that are established
and consistent within their fields. However, when combined, they
show conflicting objectives and contradictions. In a nutshell, nonmar-
ket strategy0s goal from a strategic point of view is to “produce public
policy outcomes that are favorable to the firm0s continued economic
survival and success”(Keim & Baysinger, 1988, p. 171). In contrast,
CSR understood here normatively as political CSR attributes a “new
political role”to corporations, addressing issues such as “public health,
education, social security, and protection of human rights”(among
others) that previously belonged to the domain of nation‐states
(Scherer & Palazzo, 2007, p. 1109); moreover, corporations are called
to “go beyond instrumental (i.e., profit‐focused) arguments for CSR”
(Whelan, 2012, p. 712).
Citing examples from the alcohol industry and its contradicting
corporate political and CSR activities, we show that the two underlying
theoretical concepts, nonmarket strategy and political CSR, are in
opposition conceptually regarding the political role of corporations.
Thus, by using CSR in lobbying, nonmarket strategy not only subverts
political CSR but applies a different instrumental form of CSR in the
political arena that we call politicized CSR to distinguish it from the nor-
mative concept of political CSR.
To discuss this point, the theories of strategic nonmarket strategy
and political CSR are analyzed regarding similarities and juxtapositions
derived from the theoretical foundations of the two concepts. We
identify four criteria establishing common ground between them: lib-
eral market economy, globalization as paradigm of today0s global mar-
ket, transnational corporations as powerful organizations to influence
public policy, and the acknowledgment of the stakeholder approach.
Based on these, the article engages in a comparison along seven
DOI: 10.1002/pa.1667
J Public Affairs. 2018;18:e1667.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1667
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa 1of9
To continue reading
Request your trial