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

Teunis Brand; Vincent Blok; Marcel Verweij

doi:10.1017/beq.2019.21

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

Teunis Brand, Vincent Blok, Marcel Verweij

Wageningen University & Research

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-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 language	English
Pages (from-to)	3-30
Number of pages	28
Journal	Business Ethics Quarterly
Volume	30
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2019.21
Publication status	Published - 1 Jan 2020
Externally published	Yes

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
We thank The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO, grant number 313-99-302) and the Dutch Choices Foundation (stichting Ik Kies Bewust) for funding this research. We also thank Business Ethics Quarterly associate editor Guido Palazzo and three anonymous reviewers for the time and effort they have put into reviewing this article.

Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2019.

Funding

We thank The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO, grant number 313-99-302) and the Dutch Choices Foundation (stichting Ik Kies Bewust) for funding this research. We also thank Business Ethics Quarterly associate editor Guido Palazzo and three anonymous reviewers for the time and effort they have put into reviewing this article.

Keywords

agonistic deliberation
conflict
consensus
nongovernmental organizations
self-interest
stakeholder dialogue

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1017/beq.2019.21

Cite this

@article{a478185899b846b59d814ff8d358e612,

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",

note = "Funding Information: We thank The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO, grant number 313-99-302) and the Dutch Choices Foundation (stichting Ik Kies Bewust) for funding this research. We also thank Business Ethics Quarterly associate editor Guido Palazzo and three anonymous reviewers for the time and effort they have put into reviewing this article. Publisher Copyright: Copyright {\textcopyright} Society for Business Ethics 2019.",

year = "2020",

month = jan,

day = "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",

}

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

N1 - Funding Information: We thank The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO, grant number 313-99-302) and the Dutch Choices Foundation (stichting Ik Kies Bewust) for funding this research. We also thank Business Ethics Quarterly associate editor Guido Palazzo and three anonymous reviewers for the time and effort they have put into reviewing this article. Publisher Copyright: Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2019.

PY - 2020/1/1

Y1 - 2020/1/1

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

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85077324934

U2 - 10.1017/beq.2019.21

DO - 10.1017/beq.2019.21

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85077324934

SN - 1052-150X

VL - 30

SP - 3

EP - 30

JO - Business Ethics Quarterly

JF - Business Ethics Quarterly

IS - 1

ER -

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

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Funding

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this