Politicising government engagement with corporate social responsibility: “CSR” as an empty signifier

Governments are widely viewed by academics and practitioners (and society more generally) as the key societal actors who are capable of compelling businesses to practice corporate social responsibility (CSR). Arguably, such government involvement could be seen as a technocratic device for encouraging ethical business behaviour. In this paper, we offer a more politicised interpretation of government engagement with CSR where “CSR” is not a desired form of business conduct but an element of discourse that governments can deploy in structuring their relationships with other social actors. We build our argument through a historical analysis of government CSR discourse in the Russian Federation. Laclau and Mouffe's (Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics,Verso Books, London, 1985) social theory of hegemony underpins our research. We find that “CSR” in the Russian government’s discourse served to legitimise its power over large businesses. Using this case, we contribute to wider academic debates by providing fresh empirical evidence that allows the development of critical evaluation tools in relation to governments’ engagement with “CSR”. We find that governments are capable of hijacking CSR for their own self-interested gain. We close the paper by reflecting on the merit of exploring the case of the Russian Federation. As a “non-core”, non-western exemplar, it provides a useful “mirror” with which to reflect on the more widely used test-bed of Western industrial democracies when scrutinising CSR. Based on our findings, we invite other scholars to adopt a more critical, politicised stance when researching the role of governments in relation to CSR in other parts of the world

Geopolitical Imaginaries in Russian foreign policy: The evolution of “Greater Eurasia”

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Taylor & Francis (Routledge) via the DOI in this record.Russian foreign policy thinkers have used a succession of geopolitical visions to articulate a Russian role and identity in the post-Cold War era. Ideas such as ‘Greater Europe’, the ‘Russian World’, and ‘Eurasia’ all construct different roles and promote different foreign policy orientations for Russia in the international order. Since 2016 speeches by senior Russian officials have also included references to “Greater Eurasia”, a concept that is not new, but has been reinvigorated through its articulation by members of the Valdai Club and other foreign policy centres. This article explores the evolution of this geopolitical imaginary, and deconstructs its ideological and geopolitical content. In particular, the “Greater Eurasia” discourse provides a new role for Russia in international affairs, in a close relationship with China, but also makes far-reaching claims about the nature of an emerging, post-liberal world order. The article concludes with an analysis of the main challenges to the “Greater Eurasia” project, and the consequences of the practice of thinking about foreign policy primarily in terms of metanarratives and spatial imaginarie

Monoclonal antibody form and function: Manufacturing the right antibodies for treating drug abuse

Drug abuse continues to be a major national and worldwide problem, and effective treatment strategies are badly needed. Antibodies are promising therapies for the treatment of medical problems caused by drug abuse, with several candidates in preclinical and early clinical trials. Monoclonal antibodies can be designed that have customized affinity and specificity against drugs of abuse, and because antibodies can be designed in various forms, in vivo pharmacokinetic characteristics can be tailored to suit specific clinical applications (eg, long-acting for relapse prevention, or short-acting for overdose). Passive immunization with antibodies against drugs of abuse has several advantages over active immunization, but because large doses of monoclonal antibodies may be needed for each patient, efficient antibody production technology is essential. In this minireview we discuss some of the antibody forms that may be effective clinical treatments for drug abuse, as well as several current and emerging production systems that could bridge the gap from discovery to patient use

Conceptualizing ‘diaspora diplomacy’: Territory and populations betwixt the domestic and foreign

This article bridges diaspora studies and diplomacy studies by proposing the concept of ‘diaspora diplomacy’, which considers the components of diplomacy and the changing relationships that diasporas have with states and other diplomatic actors. First, we ask who are the key actors engaged in diaspora diplomacy? Second, how is diplomatic work enacted by and through diasporas? Third, what are the geographies of diaspora diplomacy? Diaspora diplomacy directs researchers to reconsider the distinction between domestic and foreign policy, and the territorial dimensions of both diaspora and diplomacy. We engage with assemblage theory, highlighting the polylateral and multi-directional aspects of diaspora diplomacy