Procedural Characteristics of Legitimate Partner NGOs
This chapter argues that procedural characteristics yield the most accurate distinctions amongst the three actor types. NGOs and interest groups can be distinguished by their style of reasoning and their orientation towards consensual behavior, and by the fact that claims of the kind that “legitimate partner NGOs” advocate, refer to a generalizable interest. The preferred pattern of communication for resolving such claims is deliberation. Hence, an actor’s inclination to deliberate indicates that he or she is advocating public claims rather than particularistic interests, and thus is acting as a “legitimate partner NGO” rather than an interest group. Procedural characteristics also enable us to tell NGOs apart from activists. Legitimate NGOs are primarily oriented towards discursive behaviour. Justifications of non-deliberative behaviour essentially rely on the principle of exhaustion, that is, on the requirement that deviation from deliberation is only allowed if all deliberative means have been exhausted. But all deviations operate under the proviso of civil behaviour. Within this proviso three circumstances in which deviation from deliberation can be justified are identified: Deviating from discursive means is justified if a corporation refuses to enter into dialogue with an NGO. Confrontational but still discursive behaviour is justified if deep value conflicts inhibit consensual discourse. Non-discursive confrontational civil behavior, i.e. civil disobedience, is justified in adverse political circumstances. But regardless of whether the circumstances justify deviation from deliberative behaviour, it is important that we admit various forms of speech to deliberation in order to allow the innovative and emancipatory function of NGOs to persist.
KeywordsCivil disobedience Confrontation Consensual behavior Discursive behavior Rhetoric Bargaining, Negotiation
- Benhabib, S. “Deliberative Rationality and Models of Democratic Legitimacy”. Constellations: An International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory 1 (1) (1994): 26–52.Google Scholar
- Bohman, J. Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996a.Google Scholar
- Breed, K. “Civil Society and Global Governance: Globalisation and the Transformation of Politics”. In Civil Society and International Development, edited by A. Bernard, H. Helmich, and P.B. Lehning, 57–62. Paris: OECD, 1998.Google Scholar
- Crane, A., and D. Matten. Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
- Dingwerth, K. “North-South Parity in Global Governance: The Affirmative Procedures of the Forest Stewardship Council”. Global Governance 14 (1) (2008): 53–71.Google Scholar
- Dryzek, J.S. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Liberals, Critics, Contestations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
- Dryzek, J.S. Deliberative Global Politics: Discourse and Democracy in a Divided World. Cambridge (UK): Polity Press, 2006.Google Scholar
- Friedman, M. Consumer Boycotts. New York: Routledge, 1999.Google Scholar
- Gaus, G.F. Contemporary Theories of Liberalism: Public Reason as a Post-enlightenment Project. London: Sage, 2003.Google Scholar
- Gutmann, A., and D. Thompson. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
- Habermas, J. Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge (UK): Polity Press, 1996b.Google Scholar
- Kohn, M. “Language, Power, and Persuasion: Toward a Critique of Deliberative Democracy”. Constellations: An International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory 7 (3) (2000): 408–29.Google Scholar
- Mansbridge, J. “Conflict and Self-Interest in Deliberation”. In Deliberative Democracy and Its Discontents, edited by S. Besson and J.L. Martí, 107–32. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006.Google Scholar
- Martí, J.L. “The Epistemic Conception of Deliberative Democracy Defended. Reasons, Rightness and Equal Political Autonomy”. In Deliberative Democracy and Its Discontents, edited by S. Besson and J.L. Martí, 27–56. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006.Google Scholar
- McCarthy, T. “Legitimacy and Diversity: Dialectical Reflections on Analytical Distinctions”. Rechtstheorie 27 (1996): 329–65.Google Scholar
- Mitchell, R.K., B.R. Agle, and D.J. Wood. “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts”. Academy of Management Review 22 (4) (1997): 853–86.Google Scholar
- Murphy, D.F., and J. Bendell. Partners in Time? Business, NGOs and Sustainable Development. Geneva: UNRISD, 1999.Google Scholar
- Rawls, J. “The Justification of Civil Disobedience”. In Collected Papers, edited by J. Rawls and S. Freeman, 176–89. Cambridge, MA, et al.: Harvard University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
- Rowley, T.I., and M. Moldoveanu. “When will Stakeholder Groups Act? An Interest- and Identity-Based Model of Stakeholder Group Mobilization”. Academy of Management Review 28 (2) (2003): 204–19.Google Scholar
- Roy, A. An Ordinary Person’s Guide to Empire. Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2004.Google Scholar
- Suchman, M.C. “Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches”. Academy of Management Review 20 (3) (1995): 571–610.Google Scholar
- SustainAbility. The 21st Century NGO. In the Market for Change. London: SustainAbility, 2003.Google Scholar
- Warren, M.E. Democracy and Association. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
- Young, I.M. “Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy”. In Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, edited by S. Benhabib. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
- Billenness, S. “Business-NGO Partnership in Globalization. Sustainability Through Strategic Partnerships.” 2003. First Accessed August 15, 2006. http://www.gemi.org/docs/conf2003/SimonBillenness_files/frame.htm.
- Chambers, S. “Rhetoric, Public Opinion, and the Ideal of Deliberative Democracy”. Conference on Deliberative Democracy, Princeton, NJ, March 10–11, 2006.Google Scholar
- Corry, S. “‘Harvest Moonshine’ Taking You for a Ride: A Critique of the Rainforest Harvest – Its Theory and Practice.” 1993. First Accessed January 17, 2008. http://www.survival-international.org/files/books/harvestmoonshine.pdf.
- Friends of the Earth. “Local Group Guidelines for Positive Relationships with Companies.” 2011. First Accessed March 5, 2011. http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/guides/lg_corporate_relationships.pdf.
- Hance, J. “The FSC is the ‘Enron of Forestry’ Says Rainforest Activist.” 2008. Accessed April 17, 2008. http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0417-hance_interview_counsell.html.
- Hoffman, A.J. “Shades of Green”. Stanford Social Innovation Review Spring Issue (2009): 40–49.Google Scholar
- Leggewie, C. “Transnational Movements and the Question of Democracy.” 2003. First Accessed May 20, 2007. http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2003-02-03-leggewie-en.html.
- Peters, B. “On Public Deliberation and Public Culture”. Reflections on the Public Sphere. InIIS-Arbeitspapier 97 (7). 1997. Accessed November 20, 2006. http://www.iniis.uni-bremen.de/.
- Rain Forest Alliance. “About Us: Our Values and Vision for the Future.” 2007. Accessed July 5, 2007. http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/about.cfm?id=values_vision.
- Simpson, D., K. Lefroy, and Y. Tsarenko. “Together and Apart: Exploring Structure of the Corporate–NPO Relationship”. Journal of Business Ethics 101 (2) (2011): 297–311.Google Scholar