Why do some countries get CSR sooner, and in greater quantity, than others? The political economy of corporate responsibility and the rise of market liberalism across the OECD: 1977-2007

´"How can we explain the historical and transnational variation of Corporate Responsibility - business's voluntary engagement for social and environmental ends above legally mandated minimum standards - and how are we to understand this amorphous and essentially contested phenomenon? In this paper, I propose a political-economic explanation for the variation of Corporate Responsibility (Corporate Social Responsibility - CSR and Corporate Citizenship). I posit that Corporate Responsibility's temporal and cross-national variation is linked to its function of legitimating economic liberalization and market liberalism. Both employers and state officials have an interest in compensating for the hardships of liberalization and the weakening of institutionalized social solidarity. One way in which they seek to legitimate the market vis-à-vis their 'stakeholders' and the electorate, and justify themselves vis-à-vis their own conscience, is through Corporate Responsibility. CR inoculates firms against burdensome regulation and justifies a light regulatory touch; it facilitates business-friendly institutional reforms; it helps to satisfy employers' needs and compensate for market failures and deficiencies in public provision. But CR cannot be understood in purely rational-instrumental let alone cynical terms. One of its most essential functions is to constitute businesspeople as responsible moral agents. Those in the engine rooms of contemporary capitalism - whether owners, managers, or employees - want to perceive themselves as serving the common good. This is true irrespective of capitalist 'varieties.' In the place of Milton Friedman's assertion that the business of business is business, employers chant: 'Free us up so we can do some Corporate Responsibility!' Using national Corporate Responsibility associations and their membership levels as a proxy for the institutionalization of CR, this paper develops and tests a political-economic explanation for the temporal and trans-national variation of CR. Using Corporate Responsibility associations, a novel proxy for the state of CR in a given country at a given time, I hypothesize that Liberal Market Economies tend to 'get' CR earlier, and get more of it, than Social/ Coordinated Market economies. Furthermore, Corporate Responsibility co-evolves with the decline of institutionalized social solidarity, 'embedded liberalism' and 'organized capitalism.' Empirical evidence from more than twenty OECD countries and from the CR 'leader' United Kingdom and 'laggard' Germany support these hypotheses and illustrate the co-evolution of CR and market liberalism during the past thirty years. In sum, this paper suggests that CR functions as a material and symbolic substitute for institutionalized forms of social solidarity." (author's abstract)"Wie können wir die transnationale Varianz von Corporate Responsibility - des freiwilligen Engagements von Unternehmen für soziale und ökologische Belange über gesetzlich vorgeschriebene Mindeststandards hinaus - erklären? Verbreitete sozialwissenschaftliche Erklärungen von Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) und Corporate Citizenship stellen soziale Bewegungen und die Diffusion von sozialen Normen in den Vordergrund. Der Autor entwickelt einen alternativen, polit-ökonomischen Ansatz: Corporate Responsibility trägt dazu bei, wirtschaftliche Liberalisierung und Marktliberalismus zu legitimieren. Sowohl Arbeitgeber als auch Politiker sind daran interessiert, die Härten der Liberalisierung und die Schwächung des institutionalisierten sozialen Zusammenhalts zu kompensieren. Corporate Responsibility ist ein Weg, das Vertrauen von Interessenvertretern und Wählern in den Markt zu stärken und gleichzeitig das eigene Gewissen zu entlasten; CR impft Unternehmen gegen zu starke Regulierung und ermöglicht doch einen zurückhaltenden Eingriff; es erleichtert unternehmensfreundliche institutionelle Reformen und es kann helfen, Marktversagen und Mängel in der Bereitstellung von öffentlichen Gütern zu kompensieren. CR darf jedoch nicht rein zweckrational, strategisch oder gar zynisch verstanden werden. Eines seiner wichtigsten Funktionen besteht darin, Geschäftsleuten ein Selbstverständnis als verantwortungsbewusste moralische Akteure zu ermöglichen. Alle Beteiligten im Räderwerk des zeitgenössischen Kapitalismus - ob Eigentümer, Führungskräfte oder Mitarbeiter - wollen sich als dem Gemeinwohl dienend verstehen, unabhängig von unterschiedlichen Spielarten des Kapitalismus. An Stelle von Milton Friedmans Behauptung 'the business of business is business' rufen Unternehmer, Wirtschafts-und Arbeitgeberverbände im Chor: 'Befreit uns von unseren Beschränkungen, damit wir uns in CR engagieren können!' Mit der Hilfe eines neuen Indikators wird eine politisch-ökonomische Erklärung für die zeitliche und transnationale Varianz von CR entwickelt. Meine Hypothese ist, dass liberale Marktwirtschaften CR früher und in größeren Mengen 'bekommen' als soziale Marktwirtschaften. Darüber hinaus behaupte ich, dass der Anstieg von Corporate Responsibility einher geht mit dem Niedergang des institutionalisierten sozialen Zusammenhalts und des 'organisierten Kapitalismus'. Empirische Daten aus mehr als zwanzig OECD-Ländern und aus dem CR-Vorreiter England und dem 'Nachzügler' Deutschland unterstützen diese Thesen und veranschaulichen die Ko-Evolution des Aufstiegs von CR und der Liberalisierung der Wirtschaft in den letzten dreißig Jahren. Zusammengefasst, wird in diesem Papier vorgeschlagen, CR als materiellen und symbolischen Ersatz für institutionalisierte Formen des sozialen Zusammenhalts zu verstehen. Für Theorie und Forschungspraxis legen diese Ergebnisse nahe, politisch-ökonomische Institutionen und die Spielarten des Kapitalismus bei der Untersuchung von Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) und Corporate Citizenship stärker in den Vordergrund zu rücken." (Autorenreferat

F**k business: Brexit and the deep freeze between business and politics in populist nationalism

Business has been f**ked! F**k government! The relationship between business and politics is broken - can it be fixed? This contribution, by Daniel Kinderman (University of Delaware), part book review and part blog post, reflects on the tense and sometimes openly conflictual relationship between business and politics in populist nationalism

Free us so we can do some Corporate Responsibility

The conventional wisdom is that Corporate Social Responsibility is the "re-embedding global liberalism” in response to protests by civil society and new norms of responsible corporate behavior. In this article this view of Corporate Social Responsibility is contested and an alternative, political-economic interpretation is proposed

A pilot validation of a modified Illness Perceptions Questionnaire designed to predict response to cognitive therapy for psychosis

Background and objectives: Clinical responsiveness to cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis (CBTp) varies. Recent research has demonstrated that illness perceptions predict active engagement in therapy, and, thereby, better outcomes. In this study, we aimed to investigate the psychometric properties of a modification of the Illness Perceptions Questionnaire (M-IPQ) designed to predict response following CBTp. Methods: Fifty-six participants with persistent, distressing delusions completed the M-IPQ; forty before a brief CBT intervention targeting persecutory ideation and sixteen before and after a control condition. Additional predictors of outcome (delusional conviction, symptom severity and belief inflexibility) were assessed at baseline. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and at follow-up four to eight weeks later. Results: The M-IPQ comprised two factors measuring problem duration and therapy-specific perceptions of Cure/Control. Associated subscales, formed by summing the relevant items for each factor, were reliable in their structure. The Cure/Control subscale was also reliable over time; showed convergent validity with other predictors of outcome; predicted therapy outcomes; and differentially predicted treatment effects. Limitations: We measured outcome without an associated measure of engagement, in a small sample. Findings are consistent with hypothesis and existing research, but require replication in a larger, purposively recruited sample. Conclusions: The Cure/Control subscale of the M-IPQ shows promise as a predictor of response to therapy. Specifically targeting these illness perceptions in the early stages of cognitive behavioural therapy may improve engagement and, consequently, outcomes

Conceptualising paranoia in ASD: A systematic review and development of a theoretical framework

Paranoia, unfounded ideation that others deliberately intend harm, has predominately been studied in schizophrenia. Increasingly, it is recognised that there is a spectrum of severity of excessive mistrust across the general population. Relatively little is known about paranoia in individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), but rates could be expected to be higher given both difficulties in understanding others’ mental states and frequent experiences of negative social interactions. A systematic search of English-language peer-reviewed publications was undertaken to synthesise empirical research about paranoia in ASD. Seven studies, comprising a total of 180 ASD participants, met the inclusion criteria. All the studies were cross-sectional, thereby limiting causal interpretations. Individuals with ASD were consistently found to have higher levels of paranoia compared to non-clinical controls, and lower levels than individuals with current psychotic experiences manifesting in the context of schizophrenia. Furthermore, the initial evidence indicates that paranoia in ASD may be linked with theory of mind performance, negative affect, and jumping to conclusions, but not to attributional style. As in typically-developing populations, causal and maintaining mechanisms for paranoia in ASD, against a background of genetic and environmental risk, most likely include cognitive and affective processes interacting with social factors. We hypothesise, however, that core ASD characteristics and associated neurocognitive impairments also serve to precipitate and perpetuate paranoia. A framework to guide further investigation is outlined

Challenging Varieties of Capitalism's Account of Business Interests: The New Social Market Initiative and German Employers' Quest for Liberalization, 2000-2014

Do employers in coordinated market economies (CME's) actively defend the non-liberal, market- constraining institutions upon which their strategic coordination and competitive success depends? This paper revisits the debate over firms' employer preferences with an in-depth examination of employers in Germany - a paradigmatic CME and crucial "test case" for Varieties of Capitalism. It is based on interviews with key officials and an in-depth examination of a large-scale campaign - the New Social Market Initiative or INMS - founded and funded by German metalworking employers to shape public opinion. The paper argues that German employers have a strong preference for liberalization: they have pushed hard for the liberalization of labor markets, the reduction of government expenditures, the expansion of market-oriented freedoms, and cuts to social protection, employment protection and benefit entitlements. I find no empirical support for the claim that the INSM is an attempt to appease discontented firms within employers' associations. On the contrary: for many employers, the Agenda 2010 reforms did not go far enough. Following the discrediting of the Anglo-American model in the financial crisis, far-reaching concessions by employees, and the unexpected revitalization of the German economy, employers have moderated their demands - but liberalization remains their default preference. This paper also addresses the role of ideas and the conditions under which employer campaigns can influence policy.Verteidigen Arbeitgeber in koordinierten Marktwirtschaften aktiv die nichtliberalen, marktbeschränkenden Institutionen, von denen ihre Möglichkeiten zur strategischen Koordination und ihr Erfolg im Wettbewerb abhängen? Mit einer umfassenden Untersuchung der Präferenzen von Arbeitgebern in Deutschland, das als typisches Beispiel einer koordinierten Marktwirtschaft und wegweisender "Testfall" für die Theorie über Spielarten des Kapitalismus gilt, greift dieses Discussion Paper die Debatte über die Präferenzen von Unternehmen in ihrer Eigenschaft als Arbeitgeber auf. Es basiert auf Interviews mit führenden Arbeitgeberfunktionären sowie einer detaillierten Untersuchung der Initiative Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft (INSM): einer groß angelegten, von deutschen Metallarbeitgebern initiierten und finanzierten Kampagne zur öffentlichen Meinungsbildung. Der Beitrag belegt eine deutliche Präferenz deutscher Arbeitgeber für die Liberalisierung. Mit Nachdruck haben sie sich für eine Liberalisierung der Arbeitsmärkte, eine Senkung der Staatsausgaben und eine Ausweitung marktorientierter Gestaltungsfreiheiten ebenso eingesetzt wie für Einschnitte bei der sozialen Sicherung, dem Kündigungsschutz und den Versorgungsansprüchen. Die Behauptung, die INSM sei ein Versuch, unzufriedene Unternehmen innerhalb der Arbeitgeberverbände zu beschwichtigen, lässt sich durch die empirischen Befunde nicht stützen. Im Gegenteil: Vielen Arbeitgebern gingen die Reformen im Zuge der Agenda 2010 nicht weit genug. Zwar haben die deutschen Arbeitgeber nach der Diskreditierung des angloamerikanischen Modells während der Finanzkrise, weitreichenden Zugeständnissen seitens der Arbeitnehmer sowie der unerwarteten Wiederbelebung der deutschen Wirtschaft ihre Forderungen gemäßigt - doch bleibt ihre grundlegende Präferenz für die Liberalisierung bestehen. Dieser Beitrag befasst sich außerdem mit der Rolle von Ideen sowie den Bedingungen, unter denen Arbeitgeberkampagnen politische Maßnahmen beeinflussen können

The Political Economy of Corporate Responsibility in Germany, 1995-2008

Part Five of the Germany in Global Economic Governance SeriesDuring the past decade, Corporate Responsibility – the voluntary engagement of business for social and environmental ends above legally mandated minimum standards – has risen to prominence, if not pre-eminence in global economic governance. However, Corporate Responsibility is not uniformly distributed: the timing, extent and quality of CR varies significantly across countries. Germany is said to be a ‘laggard’ in Corporate Responsibility. This paper both describes and tries to explain this state of affairs, by focusing on business-led Corporate Responsibility associations, coalitions and intermediaries. Examining these, I find that German firms’ stance towards CR has been characterized by ambivalence. For example, German firms joined the EBNSC (since 2000: CSR Europe) in large numbers in the mid-1990s, only to cancel their memberships a few years later. I argue that this ambivalence can be explained with reference to Germany’s institutional framework, corporate governance and regulatory standards, which until recently left less ‘space’ for German companies to engage in CR initiatives compared with their counterparts in the U.K. and U.S.A. The increasing liberalization of the German economy during the past fifteen years has been accompanied by a growing dynamism of CR in Germany, and I present causal mechanisms which link CR and liberalization. The German case suggests that Corporate Responsibility may be emerging as a substitute, rather than a complement, to institutionalized forms of solidarity