Matthias Hofferberth

Multinational Enterprises as “Social Actors”—Constructivist Explanations for Corporate Social Responsibility

Traditionally, the discipline of International Relations (IR) assumed a state-centric perspective. However, as new actors emerged and begun to play an increasingly important role in international politics, the discipline opened itself towards non-state actors. Among these, multinational enterprises (MNEs), their participation in public–private partnerships and their changing role expressed in extended corporate social responsibility (CSR) have caught the interests of scholars as MNEs are no longer simply the object of regulation, but rather become political actors themselves. In a nutshell, regulation of MNEs has changed to regulation together with MNEs. Despite these changes, however, private business actors in general and CSR in particular have predominantly been investigated from rationalist perspectives. Although a fertile and dynamic theoretical field, constructivism has been surprisingly reluctant to deal with MNEs. To counter this reluctance, the paper conceptualises MNEs as “social actors” affected by norms and acting on a logic of appropriateness. This theoretical argument is empirically illustrated by analysing the arguments given by MNEs for participating in CSR. Besides the expected logic of business reasoning in corporate speeches, ideas and arguments such as moral and ethical obligations, changed understandings of the corporate role in society and the will to tackle important global issues can be found in most speeches presenting MNEs as sensitive towards social expectations. As the case of CSR shows, there is an ideational motivation for corporate action beyond rational calculation and expected consequences, indicating that corporate action itself is more complex than rationalist theories commonly suggest.

Mapping the Meanings of Global Governance: A Conceptual Reconstruction of a Floating Signifier:

Ever since global governance was introduced to the discipline of International Relations (IR), it has been criticised for its conceptual vagueness and ambiguity. In fact, how to even speak and think global governance – whether as a mere description of world politics, as a theoretical perspective to explain it, or as a normative notion to be realised through global policy – remains unclear. The article argues that this confusion exists not because of a lack of debate but rather because of the multiple understandings of global governance that are continuously advanced and implicitly reproduced within these debates. These different, partially overlapping and partially contradicting understandings constitute global governance as a ‘floating signifier’. It is argued that precisely because of this, global governance has obtained its ‘celebrity status’ within and beyond IR. Advancing a singular definition of global governance thus appears to be an arbitrary exercise as well as unnecessary disciplining. Rather than reducing global governance to a singular meaning, the debate in and of global governance would benefit from more self-reflected awareness as to when and how different concepts and understandings of it are invoked. To provide a framework for this, the article structures the different meanings of global governance by offering a taxonomy of different global governance applications.

The Binding Dynamics of Non-Binding Governance Arrangements. The Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights and the Cases of BP and Chevron

While the state remains the main unit of analysis in International Relations, the emergence of transnational actors and their integration into global governance have contributed to an opening of perspectives and issues. NGOs and multinational enterprises as well as their interaction in public-private-partnerships have become popular research objects. However, these partnerships are often assessed in terms of effectiveness which leads to juxtapositioning binding and effective versus non-binding and ineffective initiatives. Considering such an either/or-logic to be of limited insight, the article argues that current research on public-private-partnerships suffers from four conceptual difficulties: (1) an underspecified concept of effectiveness, (2) a missing discussion on the yardsticks chosen for assessments, (3) a tendency to (over-)generalize individual findings and (4) underlying yet seldom reflected actor assumptions. To help engage with these difficulties, the paper conceptualizes partnerships as social contexts. Within such contexts, dynamics influence corporate identity and action and create new awareness as well as new conduct. Such a perspective allows to go beyond weighing the effectiveness of binding versus the likelihood of non-binding initiatives. The argument is illustrated by analyzing the emergence, development, and impact of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights with respect to BP and Chevron.

Die öffentliche (Nicht-)Wahrnehmung der EU als Akteur in der Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik

Das Projekt einer gemeinsamen europaischen Ausen- und Sicherheitspolitik scheint (spatestens) seit den gescheiterten Koordinierungsversuchen im Winter 2002/Fruhjahr 2003 fur oder gegen eine militarische Intervention im Irak fur viele Beobachter in Frage gestellt bzw. sogar gescheitert. In den Verhandlungen traten die kontraren Positionen der verschiedenen Mitgliedsstaaten deutlich hervor und liesen sich nicht miteinander vereinbaren. Die gegensatzlichen Positionen — Frankreich und Deutschland auf der einen Seite, welche eine militarische Intervention strikt ablehnten und England, Spanien und Polen als Befurworter einer militarischen Intervention auf der anderen Seite — konnten wahrend den Verhandlungen nicht ausgeglichen werden. Wahrend England, Spanien und Polen sich aktiv am Irakkrieg beteiligten, betrieben die Franzosen und die Deutschen eine Strategie der „Totalopposition“ (Muller 2004: 43). Zu einer gemeinsamen europaischen Ausenpolitik ist es nicht gekommen. Ahnliche Gegensatze hinsichtlich der Frage nach einer gemeinsamen Ausenpolitik taten sich erneut wahrend der Vertragsverhandlungen in Brussel im Rahmen des EU-Gipfels 2007 auf. Wahrend zahlreiche Staaten das Projekt einer gemeinsamen EU-Ausenpolitik begrusten, verhinderte eine (primar britische) Intervention die weitere Institutionalisierung eines gemeinsamen europaischen Ausenministers.