Advertisement

NGOs, Interest Groups and Activists

  • Dorothea BaurEmail author
Chapter
  • 826 Downloads
Part of the Issues in Business Ethics book series (IBET, volume 36)

Abstract

This chapter marks the beginning of the fourth part of the book in which a typology is set up for distinguishing legitimate NGOs from related actors based on the normative framework in Part III. It is argued that NGOs are special stakeholders of corporations because they have their origins in civil society and because they represent public claims. Yet, NGOs continuously need to prove their legitimacy. By doing so, they can mark a distance to radical activists on the one hand and to interest groups on the other hand. NGOs share characteristics with both of these actor types. With activists, they share the content of their claims since activists typically also raise claims that have societal relevance. The boundaries between NGOs and interest groups become blurred for example if NGOs engage with corporations and start orienting themselves along economic imperatives. In line with the three dimensions of the legitimacy deficit of NGOs introduced in Part I, it is argued that the difference between NGOs, activists, and interest groups can best be assessed along substantive, structural and procedural criteria.

Keywords

NGOs Interest groups Activists Stakeholders Blurred boundaries 

References

  1. Ählström, J., and E. Sjöström. “CSOs and Business Partnerships: Strategies for Interaction”. Business Strategy and the Environment 14 (4) (2005): 230–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bohman, J. “Republican Cosmopolitanism”. Journal of Political Philosophy 12 (3) (2004): 336–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chandhoke, N. “How Global is Global Civil Society?” Journal of World-Systems Research XI (2) (2005): 355–71.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, J.L. “Trust, Voluntary Association and Workable Democracy: The Contemporary American Discourse of Civil Society. In Democracy and Trust, edited by M.E. Warren, 208–48. Cambridge (UK) et al.: Cambridge University Press, 1999b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Den Hond, F., and F.G.A. De Bakker. Ideologically Motivated Activism: How Activist Groups Influence Corporate Social Change Behavior. Academy of Management Review 32 (3) (2007): 901–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dryzek, J.S. Deliberative Global Politics: Discourse and Democracy in a Divided World. Cambridge (UK): Polity Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  7. Edwards, M. NGO Rights and Responsibilities. A New Deal for Global Governance. London: The Foreign Policy Centre/NCVO, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. Finlayson, J.G. “What are ‘Universalizable Interests’?” Journal of Political Philosophy 8 (4) (2000): 456–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fowler, A. Civil Society, NGDOs and Social Development: Changing the Rules of the Game. Geneva: UNRISD, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. Fries, R. “The Legal Environment of Civil Society”. In The Global Civil Society Yearbook 2003, edited by M. Kaldor, H. Anheier, and M. Glasius, 221–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  11. Gray, R., J. Bebbington, and D. Collison. “NGOs, Civil Society and Accountability: Making the People Accountable to Capital”. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 19 (3) (2006): 319–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Habermas, J. Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge (UK): Polity Press, 1996b.Google Scholar
  13. Holzer, B. “Turning Stakeseekers into Stakeholders: A Political Coalition Perspective on the Politics of Stakeholder Influence”. Business & Society 47 (1) (2008): 50–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Humphrey, M., and M. Stears. “Animal Rights Protest and the Challenge to Deliberative Democracy”. Economy and Society 35 (3) (2006): 400–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaldor, M., H. Anheier, and M. Glasius. “Global Civil Society in an Era of Regressive Globalisation”. In Global Civil Society 2003, edited by M. Kaldor, H. Anheier, and M. Glasius, 3–17. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  16. McCarthy, T. “Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue”. Ethics 105 (1) (1994): 44–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meyer, A.D., A.S. Tsui, and C.R. Hinings. “Configurational Approaches to Organizational Analysis”. Academy of Management Journal 36 (6) (1993): 1175–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Murphy, D.F., and J. Bendell. Partners in Time? Business, NGOs and Sustainable Development. Geneva: UNRISD, 1999.Google Scholar
  19. Nijhof, A., T. de Bruijn, and H. Honders. “Partnerships for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts and Strategic Options”. Management Decision 46 (1) (2008): 152–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Palazzo, G., and A.G. Scherer. “Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A Communicative Framework”. Journal of Business Ethics 66 (1) (2006): 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. SustainAbility. The 21st Century NGO. In the Market for Change. London: SustainAbility, 2003.Google Scholar
  22. Warren, M.E. Democracy and Association. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  23. Weber, M. “Objectivity in Social Science and Social Policy”. In Philosophy of the Social Sciences, edited by M. Natanson, 355–418. New York: Random House, 1963.Google Scholar
  24. Young, I.M. “Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy”. Political Theory 29 (5) (2001): 670–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Brown, L.D., and Jagadananda. “Civil Society Legitimacy and Accountability: Issues and Challenges.” 2007. Hauser Center Working Paper (32). First Accessed January 27, 2008. http://www.civicusassembly.org/upload/File/Legitimacy%20%20Accountability%20Scoping%20Report%20-%20Final%20English%20..pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of St. Gallen, Institute for Business EthicsSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations