Menu Expand

Der Zwang der Konkurrenz und die Macht der Vereinigung: Unternehmensverantwortung und Multi-Stakeholder-Initiativen

  1. Journals
  2. Society & Social Sciences
  3. Sozialer Fortschritt
  4. Vol. 73, Issue 3
  5. pp. 195–220

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
Kuch, H. Der Zwang der Konkurrenz und die Macht der Vereinigung: Unternehmensverantwortung und Multi-Stakeholder-Initiativen. Sozialer Fortschritt, 73(3), 195-220. https://doi.org/10.3790/sfo.2024.1432904
Kuch, Hannes "Der Zwang der Konkurrenz und die Macht der Vereinigung: Unternehmensverantwortung und Multi-Stakeholder-Initiativen" Sozialer Fortschritt 73.3, 2024, 195-220. https://doi.org/10.3790/sfo.2024.1432904
Kuch, Hannes (2024): Der Zwang der Konkurrenz und die Macht der Vereinigung: Unternehmensverantwortung und Multi-Stakeholder-Initiativen, in: Sozialer Fortschritt, vol. 73, iss. 3, 195-220, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/sfo.2024.1432904
Format
Download

Der Zwang der Konkurrenz und die Macht der Vereinigung: Unternehmensverantwortung und Multi-Stakeholder-Initiativen

Kuch, Hannes

Sozialer Fortschritt, Vol. 73 (2024), Iss. 3 : pp. 195–220

Preview Login to order (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/sfo.2024.1432904
Language
German
Pages
26
Keywords

Pricing

Individual
€ 18.00 (incl. local VAT if applicable)

Author Details

Kuch, PD Dr. Hannes, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main.

References

  1. Arenas, D./Albareda, L./Goodman, J. (2020): Contestation in Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: Enhancing the Democratic Quality of Transnational Governance, Business Ethics Quarterly 50, S. 169–199.  Google Scholar
  2. de Bakker, F. G. A./Rasche, A./Ponte, S. (2019): Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives on Sustainability: A Cross-Disciplinary Review and Research Agenda for Business Ethics, Business Ethics Quarterly 29(3), S. 343–383.  Google Scholar
  3. Banerjee, S. B. (2018): Transnational Power and Translocal Governance: The Politics of Corporate Responsibility, Human Relations 71(6), S. 796–821.  Google Scholar
  4. Barlow, R. (2022): Deliberation Without Democracy in Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: A Pragmatic Way Forward, Journal of Business Ethics, 181, S. 543–561.  Google Scholar
  5. Baumann-Pauly, D./Glimcher, I. W. (2021): Seeking a ‘Smart Mix’: Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives and Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence, Genf.  Google Scholar
  6. Bernstein, S./Cashore, B. (2007): Can Non-State Global Governance Be Legitimate? An Analytical Framework, Regulation & Governance 1(4), S. 347–371.  Google Scholar
  7. Blaug, M. (2001): Is Competition Such a Good Thing? Static Efficiency versus Dynamic Efficiency, Review of Industrial Organization 19(1), S. 37–48.  Google Scholar
  8. BMAS (2019): Hintergrundpapier zur 3. branchenübergreifenden NAP-Fachveranstaltung „Kartellrechtliche Fragen bei Branchenkooperationen“, Berlin.  Google Scholar
  9. Bowles, S. (2016): The Moral Economy: Why Good Incentives are no Substitute for Good Citizens, New Haven.  Google Scholar
  10. Business & Human Rights Resource Center (2022): Jenseits der Auditlogik: Schlüsselelemente effektiver Sorgfaltspflichtengesetzgebung.  Google Scholar
  11. Cerny, P. G. (1997): Paradoxes of the Competition State: The Dynamics of Political Globalization, Government and Opposition 32(2), S. 251–274.  Google Scholar
  12. Cheyns, E. (2014): Making ‚minority Voices‘ Heard in Transnational Roundtables: The Role of Local NGOs in Reintroducing Justice and Attachments, Agriculture and Human Values 31(3), S. 439–453.  Google Scholar
  13. CIR (2021): CIR und MÖWe treten aus dem Textilbündnis aus, https://www.ci-romero.de/austritt-textilbuendnis/.  Google Scholar
  14. Clean Clothes Campaign (2019): Fig Leaf for Fashion. How social auditing protects brands and fails workers, Amsterdam.  Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, J./Rogers, J. (1995): Associations and Democracy, London.  Google Scholar
  16. Collins, S. (2013): Collectives’ Duties and Collectivization Duties, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 91(2), S. 231–248.  Google Scholar
  17. CorA et al. (2020): Requirements for effective Multi-stakeholder initiatives to strengthen corporate due diligence, Berlin.  Google Scholar
  18. Croucher, R./Houssart, M./Miles, L./James, P. (2019): Legal Sanction, International Organisations and the Bangladesh Accord, Industrial Law Journal 48(4), S. 549–570.  Google Scholar
  19. Dawkins, C. (2015): Agonistic Pluralism and Stakeholder Engagement, Business Ethics Quarterly 25(1), S. 1–28.  Google Scholar
  20. Donaghey, J./Reinecke, J. (2018): When Industrial Democracy Meets Corporate Social Responsibility – A Comparison of the Bangladesh Accord and Alliance as Responses to the Rana Plaza Disaster, British Journal of Industrial Relations 56(1), S. 14–42.  Google Scholar
  21. Durkheim, E. (1988): Einige Bemerkungen über die Berufsgruppen (Vorwort zur zweiten Auflage, 1902), in: Über soziale Arbeitsteilung: Studie über die Organisation höherer Gesellschaften, S. 41–75, Frankfurt a.M.  Google Scholar
  22. Ernest & Young (2020): Abschlussbericht des NAP Monitorings (2018–2020), Berlin.  Google Scholar
  23. Fear, J. (2006): Cartels and competition: Neither markets nor hierarchies, Harvard Business School, Cambridge, Mass.  Google Scholar
  24. Fougère, M./Solitander, N. (2020): Dissent in Consensusland: An Agonistic Problematization of Multi-Stakeholder Governance, Journal of Business Ethics 164(4), S. 683–699.  Google Scholar
  25. Fraser, N./Jaeggi, R. (2020): Kapitalismus: Ein Gespräch über kritische Theorie, Berlin.  Google Scholar
  26. Garsten, C./Jacobsson, K. (2007): Corporate globalisation, civil society and post-political regulation – Whither democracy? Development Dialogue 49, S. 143–157.  Google Scholar
  27. Germanwatch u.a. (2022): Rechteinhaber*innen wirksam in Multi- Stakeholder-Initiativen einbeziehen, Bonn/Berlin.  Google Scholar
  28. Göbel, T. (2010): Decent Work and Transnational Governance: Multi-stakeholder initiatives’ impact on labour rights in global supply chains, Baden-Baden.  Google Scholar
  29. Govrin, J. (2022): Politische Körper: Von Sorge und Solidarität, Berlin.  Google Scholar
  30. Hartmann, K. (2015) Aus kontrolliertem Raubbau: Wie Politik und Wirtschaft das Klima anheizen, Natur vernichten und Armut produzieren, München.  Google Scholar
  31. Heath, J. (2014): Morality, Competition, and the Firm: The Market Failures Approach to Business Ethics, Oxford/New York.  Google Scholar
  32. Heath, J. (2018): But Everyone Else Is Doing It: Competition and Business Self-Regulation, Journal of Social Philosophy 49(4), S. 516–535.  Google Scholar
  33. Hegel, G.W. F. (1986): Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts (1821), in: Werke in 20 Bänden, Bd. 7, Frankfurt a.M.  Google Scholar
  34. Hemel, U. (2021): Unternehmen als Akteure der Zivilgesellschaft in der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit, in: H. Sangmeister/H. Wagner (Hrsg.): Verantwortung und Engagement von Unternehmen in der Internationalen Zusammenarbeit, Baden-Baden, S. 27–38.  Google Scholar
  35. Hindriks, F. (2019): The Duty to Join Forces: When Individuals Lack Control, The Monist 102(2), S. 204–220.  Google Scholar
  36. Honneth, A. (2011): Das Recht der Freiheit. Grundriß einer demokratischen Sittlichkeit, Berlin.  Google Scholar
  37. Mau, S. (2021): Stummer Zwang: Eine marxistische Analyse der ökonomischen Macht im Kapitalismus, Berlin.  Google Scholar
  38. Mayer, R. (2007): Sweatshops, Exploitation, and Moral Responsibility, Journal of Social Philosophy 38(4), S. 605–619.  Google Scholar
  39. Mena, S./Palazzo, G. (2012): Input and Output Legitimacy of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives, Business Ethics Quarterly 22(3), S. 527–556.  Google Scholar
  40. Menke, C./Pollmann, A. (2007): Philosophie der Menschenrechte zur Einführung, Hamburg.  Google Scholar
  41. Moog, S./Spicer, A./Böhm, S. (2015): The Politics of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: The Crisis of the Forest Stewardship Council, Journal of Business Ethics 128(3), S. 469–493.  Google Scholar
  42. MSI Integrity (2017): The new regulators? Assessing the landscape of multi-stakeholder initiatives, San Francisco.  Google Scholar
  43. MSI Integrity (2020): Not Fit-for-Purpose: The Grand Experiment of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives in Corporate Accountability, Human Rights and Global Governance, San Francisco.  Google Scholar
  44. Neuhäuser, C. (2011): Unternehmen als moralische Akteure, Frankfurt a.M.  Google Scholar
  45. Outhwaite, O./Martin-Ortega, O. (2019): Worker-Driven Monitoring – Redefining Supply Chain Monitoring to Improve Labour Rights in Global Supply Chains, Competition & Change 23(4), S. 378–396.  Google Scholar
  46. Ponte, S. (2014): ‚Roundtabling‘ Sustainability: Lessons from the Biofuel Industry, Geoforum 54, S. 261–271.  Google Scholar
  47. Rushe, D. (2018): Unions reach $2.3m settlement on Bangladesh textile factory safety, The Guardian, 22. Januar 2018.  Google Scholar
  48. UN-Leitprinzipien für Wirtschaft und Menschenrechte (2011): Umsetzung des Rahmens der Vereinten Nationen ‚Schutz, Achtung und Abhilfe‘.  Google Scholar
  49. Utlu, D./Phung, S. (2020): Menschenrechte im Palmölsektor – Die Verantwortung von einkaufenden Unternehmen: Grenzen und Potenziale der Zertifizierung, Berlin.  Google Scholar
  50. Weber, M. (1988): Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus (1920), in: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie I, Tübingen.  Google Scholar

Abstract

Abstract: Competitive Pressures and the Power of Association: Corporate Responsibility and Multi-Stakeholder-Initiatives

The paper examines multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) as a response to a fundamental problem: this is the problem of competitive pressures to which firms in capitalist market economies are fundamentally subjected, pressures that have only intensified in the era of globalization. For business ethics, the importance of MSIs lies primarily in the fact that they provide a key institutional device to counteract and reshape the anonymous pressures of competition. In the literature, this particular strength of MSIs is either neglected or there is a lack of clarity as to how exactly MSIs transform competitive pressures. The paper distinguishes two fundamental types of MSIs: the ethical-consumerism approach and the market-power approach. Both types of MSIs show significant social potentials for penetrating and liquefying competitive pressures. But MSIs in their existing form are far from living up to their potential. Four widely diagnosed shortcomings of MSIs are reconstructed, namely window-dressing, lack of participation, power imbalances and fragmentation. It is shown to what extent and in which specific way the ethical-consumerism approach and the market-power approach are affected by these shortcomings. Finally, several distinct pathways towards a social transformation of MSIs are opened up.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Hannes Kuch: Der Zwang der Konkurrenz und die Macht der Vereinigung: Unternehmensverantwortung und Multi-Stakeholder-Initiativen 195
Zusammenfassung 195
Abstract: Competitive Pressures and the Power of Association: Corporate Responsibility and Multi-Stakeholder-Initiatives 195
Einleitung 196
1. Was heißt ‚Konkurrenzzwang‘? 198
2. Die Macht der Vereinigung und Potentiale von MSIs 200
3. Konsumethische und marktmachtbasierte MSIs 202
4. Schwächen von MSIs 206
(1) Schönfärberei 207
(2) Beteiligungsmangel 209
(3) Machtasymmetrien 211
(4) Fragmentierung 213
5. Zusammenfassung und Ausblick auf Transformationspotentiale 215
Literatur 218

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2024 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Powered by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.