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

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