deeper issues concerned. For organizations that initiate dialogues this implies a substantial responsibility to educate the citizens whose lives they touch (and sometimes dominate) and to enable maximum responsiveness from participants in order to safeguard the implied ethic of dialogue. Despite being the reverse of how most systematic dialogues are presently conducted, we argue that the real purpose of dialogue must be to help citizens to make decisions that are fundamentally ethical rather than merely procedural, and that in addition, protect them from the overwhelming power of enormous public institutions and massive multinational corporations.
complex issues. Further research is being conducted on the effectiveness of the particular tools presented in this paper.
Meanwhile we offer the following hints for managers:
● Dialogue is a social process of questioning assumptions and promoting social justice that corporations should actively encourage and resource, thus making them enablers rather than managers of dialogue.
● Dialogue groups should themselves select leaders from their communities to manage their dialogues and provide training and support for ongoing com- munity communication that is open to all members of the community.
● Participants in dialogues can be supported by providing them with as much information as possible, including expert analyses where appropriate.
● Dialogues should be recorded and transcripts published to ensure fairness in presentation of the results.
● Corporations should encourage participation by representative samples of communities, even where the potential for dialogue outcomes goes against the interests of the corporation.
Conclusions
Communication and dialogue are quite different concepts. Dialogue is a special class of communication that uses questioning and dialectical reason- ing to protect ‘otherness’ and ensure justice, principles that are not always central to corporate interests, where more expedient values often take precedence (for example efficiency, cost, resources). While communication techniques such as social reports, public relations events and so on, may benefit from the use of the term dialogue, the citizens involved should be made aware of the limitations imposed by corporate expedience on all com- munication. A preference for the term consultation should be required where expedience is determined by the corporation.
Corporate dialogues can be assessed on the basis of whether they answer the following questions:
● Does dialogue by corporate mandate promote human rights and effect change that is responsive to the needs of all affected citizens for self- determination?
● Is the language used in the CSR movement ethical, does it fulfil the task of communicating the real objects and interests of powers that may or may not be present?
Social dialogue is a practice that, like communication itself, is fundamental to the functioning of a healthy democracy. Communication is at the centre of human life and is a necessary condition for examining the workings of demo- cratic states. Ethical communications exemplify what Benhabib (1992, p. 70) has described as ‘a paradigm shift in critical theory from the critique of
instrumental reason to the critique of communicative rationality’.
This is where corporate stakeholder consultation may fall below standards of democratic participation, or even notion of ethical communication. In the current model of public consultation, dialogues appear methodologically flawed because they privilege instrumental rationality and systemic initiatives over the deeper principle of human self-determination.
The last word is given to Benhabib (1992, pp. 101–2) who is deeply critical of notions of political ideology free from public scrutiny and where:
The idea that the justice of institutions be ‘in the public’s eye,’ so to speak, for the public to scrutinize, to examine and reflect upon is fundamental.
That it recognises the legitimation of power or the examination of the justice of institutions to be a public process. Open to all citizens to partake in is one of the central tenets of liberalism and one which has its roots in the political primacy of consent in social contract theories. From the standpoint of the discourse model of legitimacy as well this is crucial.
References
Alia, V. (2004) Media Ethics and Social Change(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).
Apel, K. O. (1980) The A Priori of the Communication Community and the Foundation of Ethics: The Problem of a Rational Foundation of Ethics in the Scientific age. In towards a Transformation of Philosophy(London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).
Argyris, C. (1990) Overcoming Organizational Defences(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Barber, B. (1988) The Conquest of Politics: Liberal Philosophy in Democratic Times (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Bames, J. (ed.) (1984) The Complete Works of Aristotle(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Barthes, R. (1967) Elements of Sociology(New York: Hill & Wang).
Baudrillard, J. (1972) For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign(St Louis, Mo.: Telo Press).
Baudrillard, J. (1973) The Mirror of Production(St Louis, Mo.: Telo Press).
Bauman, Z. (1993) Postmodern Ethics(Oxford: Blackwell).
Beckett, R. and J. Jonker (forthcoming) ‘How Social Reporting omits key data Ethical Space’,Journal of Communication Ethics.
Benhabib, S. (1992) Situating the Self : Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics(Princeton, NJ: Prince University Press).
Benhabib, S. (1996) ‘Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy’, in S. Benhabib (ed.), Polity Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political(Princeton: Princeton University Press) pp. 67–94.
Bourdieu, P. (1992) Language and Symbolic Power(Cambridge: Polity Press).
Bruhn-Jensen, K. (1995) The Social Semiotics of Mass Communication(London: Sage).
Buber, M. (1947) Between Man and Man(London: Kegan Paul).
Buber, M. (2004) I and Thou(London: Continuum).
Carey (1992) Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society(New York: Routledge).
Christians, C. and M. Traber (eds) (1997) Communication Ethics and Universal Values (London: Sage).
Derrida, (1973) Speech and Phenomena of Grammatology and Writing and Difference (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press).
Dostal, R. (ed.) (2002) The Cambridge Companion to Gadamer(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Eco, U. (1976) A Theory of Semiotics(Bloomington: Indiana University Press).
Foucault, M. (1969) The Archaeology of Knowledge(New York: Pantheon).
Friedson, E. (1970) Profession of Medicine(New York: Dodd, Mead).
Gadamer, H. G. (2003) Truth and Method(New York: Continuum).
Gilligan, C. (1982) In a Different Voice(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press).
Gray, R., D. Owen and C. Adams (1996) Accounting and Accountability (Hemel Hempstead: Prentice-Hall).
Greer, G. (1970) The Female Eunuch(London: Paludin).
Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and Rationalization in Society(Oxford: Polity Press).
Habermas, J. (1987) The Theory of Communicative Action: The Critique Functionalist Reason(Oxford: Polity Press).
Habermas, J. (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere(Cambridge: Polity).
Habermas, J. (1990) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action(Cambridge: Polity Press).
Hobbes, T. (1968) Leviathan(London:Penguin).
Institute of Communication Ethics (2001) Lewes: Conference proceedings.
Kennedy, H. (2004) Just Law: The Changing Face of Justice and Why it Matters to Us All (London: Chatto & Windus).
Korten, D. (1995) When Corporations Rule the World(CT: Kumarian Press).
Larson, M. S. (1977) The Rise of Professionalism(Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
Levinas, E. (1996) Levinas: Basic Philosophical Writings, ed. by A. Peperzak, R. Bernasconi and S. Critchley (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).
Levi Strauss, C. (1963) Structural Anthropology(New York: Anchor).
Locke, J. (1990) Essay Concerning Human Understanding(London: Penguin Books).
Lyotard, J. F. (1979) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge(Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press).
Makau, J. M. and R. C. Arnett (1997) Communication Ethics in an Age of Diversity(Ill.:
University of Illinois Press).
McCarthy, T. (1996) The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas(Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press).
McLuhan, M. (1964) Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man(London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul).
Monbiot, G. (2000) Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain(London: Macmillan).
Pasquali, A. (1997) ‘The Moral Dimension of Communicating’, in C. Christians and M. Traber (eds), Universal Values and Communication Ethics(London: Sage), p. 32.
Rawls, J. (1972) A Theory of Justice(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Rawls, J. (1993) Political Liberalism(New York: Columbia University Press).
Rehg, W. (1994) Jurgen Habermas Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law(Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press).
Rousseau, J.-J. (1764) The Social Contract(New York: Knopf).
Sanders, K. (2004) Media Ethics(London: Sage).
Saussure, F. de [1916] (1974) Course in General Linguistics,trans. by W. Baskin (London:
Fontana/Collins).
Suzuki, D. and H. Dressel (1999) Naked Ape to Superspecies(Sydney: Allen & Unwin).
Weber, M. (1958) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons).
Wood, L. and R. Kroger (2000) Doing Discourse Analysis(London: Sage).
Yanklelovitch, D. (1999) The Magic of Dialogue(New York: Simon & Schuster).
8
Stakeholder Engagement in and Beyond the Organization
David Foster and Jan Jonker
Introduction
The involvement of stakeholders in organizations has been the subject of considerable research and debate since Freeman wrote his seminal work in 1984. Building on the work of contingency theorists, engagement with stakeholders has come to be seen as a mechanism by which the organization can learn to adapt to what is happening in the world around it. This adaptation is often viewed in an adversarial way as the organization tries to steer its way towards its own ends. In this regard stakeholders have generally been perceived as a negative force that can disrupt the operations and goals of the organiza- tion. This perspective reflects a particular organismic view of an organization as an isolated, self-contained entity that interacts with its (hostile) environ- ment through the auspice of various (organismic) stakeholder groups in order to achieve its legitimate goals.
There is growing evidence to support the notion that an enterprise does operate within a societal network of stakeholders that have the power to influence directly or indirectly its success. Operating in such a societal context requires a fundamental reconsideration of the nature of the business enterprise and the way it engages with its wider societal context. Even though society’s provision to business of a ‘licence to operate’ may continue to be based on profit, businesses are now part of the complex web of social relations and must deal with the multiplicity of issues and concerns expressed by stake- holders with varied backgrounds and interests. Increasingly, they cannot remain aloof from these issues while achieving their organizational goals.
This chapter acknowledges the changed nature of this engagement process and suggests that it can be best understood through a reconceptualization of the organization, leading to a clarification of its raison d’être. It is suggested that the reactive and a sometimes manipulative relationship that often char- acterizes organization–stakeholder interactions arises because stakeholders are viewed as external to the organization and as an obstacle to, rather than a facilitator of, the achievement of organizational goals. This is in turn based
115
upon a particular view of the nature of power, authority and political activity, which appears to result from a functional view of organizations where the boundary of what is and is not within the organization is very clear and organizational goals are viewed individualistically.
The chapter does not present the idea of a fundamental change in rela- tionships with society as a simple ideal that should be adhered to. Instead it argues that organizations already pay attention to the needs and expecta- tions of all stakeholders in order to ensure their long-term sustainability. It is the nature of the interaction that has started to differ greatly. It also suggests that what has been missing is a solid theoretical basis upon which this changing need to interact can be understood. To develop such a basis requires an analysis of the assumptions and world-view upon which such a theory can be built.