Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T11:40:55.545Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Varieties of Deliberation: Framing Plurality in Political CSR

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2021

Cedric E. Dawkins Open the ORCID record for Cedric E. Dawkins [Opens in a new window]
Cedric E. Dawkins*
Affiliation:
Loyola University Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article argues that the concept of deliberation is construed too narrowly in political corporate social responsibility (CSR) and that a concept of deliberation for political CSR should err toward useful speech acts rather than reciprocity and charity. It draws from the political philosophy, labor relations, and business ethics literatures to outline a framework for an extended notion of deliberative engagement. The characters of deliberative behavior and deliberative environment are held to generate four modes of engagement: strategic deliberation, unitarist deliberation, pluralist deliberation, and deliberative activism. The article concludes by arguing that political CSR will be better positioned to realize its potential by moving away from primarily consensus-centered objectives to a more responsive range of deliberative goals and practice.

Keywords

deliberative democracystakeholder engagementpolitical CSRprivate governancedissensus
Type
Article
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , July 2022 , pp. 374 - 403
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Business Ethics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alamgir, F., & Banerjee, S. B. 2019. Contested compliance regimes in global production networks: Insights from the Bangladesh garment industry. Human Relations, 72(2): 272–97.Google Scholar
Anner, M. 2018. Binding power: The sourcing squeeze, workers’ rights, and building safety in Bangladesh since Rana Plaza. State College: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
Arenas, D., Albareda, L., & Goodman, J. 2020. Contestation in multi-stakeholder initiatives: Enhancing the democratic quality of transnational governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 30(2): 169–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. 1981. The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489): 1390–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bächtiger, A., Dryzek, J., Mansbridge, J., & Warren, M. E. 2018. Deliberative democracy: An introduction. In Bachtiger, A., Dryzek, J., Mansbridge, J., & Warren, M. E. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy: 1–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bächtiger, A., & Hangartner, D. 2010. When deliberative theory meets empirical political science: Theoretical and methodological challenges in political deliberation. Political Studies, 58(4): 609–29.Google Scholar
Bächtiger, A., Niemeyer, S., Neblo, M., Steenbergen, M. R., & Steiner, J. 2010. Disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy: Competing theories, their blind spots and complementarities. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1): 32–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacon, N. 2003. Human resource management in industrial relations. In Ackers, P. & Wilkinson, A. (Eds.), Understanding work and employment: Industrial relations in transition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bacon, N., & Blyton, P. 2007. Conflict for mutual gains? Journal of Management Studies, 44(5): 814–34.Google Scholar
Bair, J., & Palpacuer, F. 2012. From varieties of capitalism to varieties of activism: The antisweatshop movement in comparative perspective. Social Problems, 59(4): 522–43.Google Scholar
Banerjee, S. B. 2008. Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34(1): 51–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, B. 2003. Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: Univeristy of California Press.Google Scholar
Baur, D., & Palazzo, G. 2011. The moral legitimacy of NGOs as partners of corporations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(4): 579–604.Google Scholar
Boeing. 2020. Boeing: General information (Vol. 2020). Chicago: Boeing.Google Scholar
Börner, J., Baylis, K., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Ferraro, P. J., Honey-Rosés, J., Lapeyre, R., Persson, U. M., & Wunder, S. 2016. Emerging evidence on the effectiveness of tropical forest conservation. PLOS ONE, 11(11): e0159152.Google ScholarPubMed
Boswell, J., Hendriks, C. M., & Ercan, S. A. 2016. Message received? Examining transmission in deliberative systems. Critical Policy Studies, 10(3): 263–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brand, T., Blok, V., & Verweij, M. 2020. Stakeholder dialogue as agonistic deliberation: Exploring the role of conflict and self-interest in business–NGO interaction. Business Ethics Quarterly, 30(1): 3–30.Google Scholar
Brès, L., Raufflet, E., & Boghossian, J. 2018. Pluralism in organizations: Learning from unconventional forms of organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2): 364–86.Google Scholar
Burch, E. C. 2010. Group consensus, individual consent. George Washington Law Review, 79: 506–41.Google Scholar
Callery, P. J., & Perkins, J. 2020. Detecting false accounts in intermediated volutary disclosure. Academy of Management Discoveries. DOI: 10.5465/amd.2018.0229Google Scholar
Clegg, S. R. 1989. Radical revisions: Power, discipline and organizations. Organization Studies, 10(1): 97–115.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1997. Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In Bohman, J. & Rehg, W. (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics: 67–92. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, J., & Rogers, J. 2003. Power and reason. In Fung, A. & Wright, E. O. (Eds.), Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance: 237–55. London: Verso Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, P. 2011. Reason seen more as weapon than path to truth. New York Times, June 14.Google Scholar
Cooke, W. N. 2005. Exercising power in a prisoner’s dilemma: Transnational collective bargaining in an era of corporate globalisation? Industrial Relations Journal, 36(4): 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curato, N., Dryzek, J. S., Ercan, S. A., Hendriks, C. M., & Niemeyer, S. 2017. Twelve key findings in deliberative democracy research. Daedalus, 146(3): 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curato, N., Hammond, M., & Min, J. B. 2019. Introduction. In Power in deliberative democracy: 1–24. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. 1994. Bargaining over how to bargain in labor—management negotiations. Negotiation Journal, 10(40): 323–35.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. A. 1961. Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, S., Hammer, N., Williams, G., Raman, R., Ruppert, C. S., & Volynets, L. 2011. Labour standards and capacity in global subcontracting chains: Evidence from a construction MNC. Industrial Relations Journal, 42(2): 124–38.Google Scholar
Dawkins, C. 2014. The principle of good faith: Toward substantive stakeholder engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(2): 283–95.Google Scholar
Dawkins, C. E. 2015. Agonistic pluralism and stakeholder engagement. Business Ethics Quarterly, 25(1): 1–28.Google Scholar
Dawkins, C. E. 2021. An agonistic notion of political CSR: Melding activism and deliberation. Journal of Business Ethics, 70: 5–19.Google Scholar
Dean, M. 2012. The signature of power. Journal of Political Power, 5(1): 101–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Schutter, O., Mattei, U., Pol, J. L. V., & Ferrando, T. 2018. Food as commons: Towards a new relationship between the public, the civic and the private. In Vivero-Pol, J. L., Ferrando, T., De Schutter, O., & Mattei, U. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of food as a commons: 373–96. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Detomasi, D. 2015. The multinational corporation as a political actor: “Varieties of capitalism” revisited. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(3): 685–700.Google Scholar
Dobbins, T., & Dundon, T. 2017. The chimera of sustainable labour–management partnership. British Journal of Management, 28(3): 519–33.Google Scholar
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): 14–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, J. S. 2002. Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Durand, C., & Wrigley, N. 2009. Institutional and economic determinants of transnational retailer expansion and performance: A comparative analysis of Wal-Mart and Carrefour. Environment and Planning A, 41(7): 1534–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eadie, W. F., & Goret, R. 2013. Theories and models of communication: Foundations and heritage. In Cobley, P. & Schulz, P. J. (Eds.), Theories and models of communication: 17–38. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edward, P., & Willmott, H. 2011. Political corporate social responsibility: Between deliberation and radicalism. SSRN Electronic Journal, August. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1904344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrnström-Fuentes, M. 2016. Delinking legitimacies: A pluriversal perspective on political CSR. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3): 433–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, J. 1995. Strategic uses of argument. In Arrow, K., Mnookin, R., Ross, L., Tversky, A., & Wilson, R. (Eds.), Barriers to conflict resolution: 237–57. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Farrell, J., & Gibbons, R. 1989. Cheap talk with two audiences. American Economic Review, 79(5): 1214–23.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1970. The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fougère, M., & Solitander, N. 2020. Dissent in consensusland: An agonistic problematization of multi-stakeholder governance. Journal of Business Ethics, 164(4): 683–99.Google Scholar
Fransen, L. 2012. Multi-stakeholder governance and voluntary programme interactions: Legitimation politics in the institutional design of corporate social responsibility. Socio-Economic Review, 10(1): 163–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frege, C., & Kelly, J. 2013. Comparative employment relations in the global economy. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frynas, J. G., & Stephens, S. 2015. Political corporate social responsibility: Reviewing theories and setting new agendas. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(4): 483–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, A. 2003. Survey article: Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(3): 338–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, A. 2005. Deliberation before the revolution: Toward an ethics of deliberative democracy in an unjust world. Political Theory, 33(3): 397–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, A. 2007. Democratic theory and political science: A pragmatic method of constructive engagement. American Political Science Review, 101(3): 443–58.Google Scholar
Galbraith, J. K. 1952. American capitalism: The concept of countervailing power. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Gallin, D. 2008. International framework agreements: A reassessment. In Cross-border social dialogue and agreements: An emerging global industrial relations framework: 15–41. Geneva: International Labour Organization.Google Scholar
Gennard, J. 2009. Development of transnational collective bargaining in Europe. Employee Relations, 31(4): 341–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, D. U., Rasche, A., & Waddock, S. 2011. Accountability in a global economy: The emergence of international accountability standards. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(1): 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Global Witness. 2018. Diamond industry fails to clean up its act. https://www.globalwitness.org/en/press-releases/diamond-industry-fails-clean-its-act/.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. 2018. If deliberation is everything, maybe it’s nothing. In Bachtiger, A., Dryzek, J., Mansbridge, J., & Warren, M. E. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy: 883–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gunn, P. 2017. Deliberative democracy and the systemic turn: Reply to Kuyper. Critical Review, 29(1): 88–119.Google Scholar
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. F. 1996. Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1984a. Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1984b. The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1, Reason and the rationalization of society (McCarthy, T., Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1996. Between facts and norms (Regh, W., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. 2001. Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harvey, G., Hodder, A., & Brammer, S. 2017. Trade union participation in CSR deliberation: An evaluation. Industrial Relations Journal, 48(1): 42–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honig, B. 1993. The politics of agonism: A critical response to “Beyond good and evil: Arendt, Nietzsche, and the aestheticization of political action” by Dana R. Villa. Political Theory, 21(3): 528–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hussain, W., & Moriarty, J. 2018. Accountable to whom? Rethinking the role of corporations in political CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(3): 519–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingenhoff, D., & Marschlich, S. 2019. Corporate diplomacy and political CSR: Similarities, differences and theoretical implications. Public Relations Review, 45(2): 348–71.Google Scholar
Innes, R. 1999. Remediation and self-reporting in optimal law enforcement Journal of Public Economics, 72(3): 379–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jafee, D. 2012. Weak coffee: Certification and co-optation in the fair trade movement. Social Problems, 59(1): 94–116.Google Scholar
Jensen, M. C. 2002. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(02): 235–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jory, C. I. 2016. Negotiation and deliberation: Grasping the difference. Argumentation, 30(2): 145–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jussim, L. 1986. Self-fulfilling prophecies: A theoretical and integrative review. Psychological Review, 93(4): 429.Google Scholar
Kang, N., & Moon, J. 2012. Institutional complementarity between corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: A comparative institutional analysis of three capitalisms. Socio-Economic Review, 10(1): 85–108.Google Scholar
Kuyper, J. W. 2016. Systemic representation: Democracy, deliberation, and nonelectoral representatives. American Political Science Review, 110(2): 308.Google Scholar
Landa, D., & Meirowitz, A. 2009. Game theory, information, and deliberative democracy. American Journal of Political Science, 53(2): 427–44.Google Scholar
Lee, C. W., & Romano, Z. 2013. Democracy’s new discipline: Public deliberation as organizational strategy. Organization Studies, 34(5–6): 733–53.Google Scholar
Levy, D., Reinecke, J., & Manning, S. 2016. The political dynamics of sustainable coffee: Contested value regimes and the transformation of sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3): 364–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, D. 2002. IR and HR perspectives on workplace conflict: What can each learn from the other? Human Resource Management Review, 11(4): 453–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. 1998. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Lipschutz, R. D., & Fogel, C. 2002. “Regulation for the rest of us?” Global civil society and the privatization of transnational regulation. In The emergence of private authority in global governance: 115–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lock, I., & Seele, P. 2018. Politicized CSR: How corporate political activity (mis-)uses political CSR. Journal of Public Affairs, 18(3): 1667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäkinen, J., & Kourula, A. 2012. Pluralism in political corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(4): 649–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, J. 2006. Conflict and self-interest in deliberation. In Marti, J. L. & Besson, S. (Eds.), Deliberative democracy and its discontents: 107–32. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, J. 2007. “Deliberative democracy” or “democratic deliberation”? In Rosenberg, S. W. (Ed.), Deliberation, participation and democracy: 251–71. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Christiano, T., Fung, A., Parkinson, J., Thompson, D., & Warrent, M. 2012. A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In Parkinson, J. & Mansbridge, J. (Eds.), Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale: 1–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matten, D., & Crane, A. 2005. Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1): 166.Google Scholar
McIntyre, R., & Hillard, M. 2008. The “limited capital-labor accord”: May it rest in peace? Review of Radical Political Economics, 40(3): 244–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. 2006. Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meirowitz, A. 2006. Designing institutions to aggregate preferences and information. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 1(4): 373–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mena, S., & Palazzo, G. 2012. Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(3): 527–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menkel-Meadow, C. 2001. Negotiating with lawyers, men, and things: The contextual approach still matters. Negotiation Journal, 17(3): 257–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menkel-Meadow, C. 2012. Complex dispute resolution. Vol. 3, Introduction and coda: International dispute resolution. Complex Dispute Resolution, 3: 2013–93.Google Scholar
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2): 57–74.Google ScholarPubMed
Metcalf, H. C., & Urwick, L. 2004. Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Miteva, D. A., Loucks, C. J., & Pattanayak, S. K. 2015. Social and environmental impacts of forest management certification in Indonesia. PLOS ONE, 10(7): e0129675.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 469–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mouffe, C. 1999. Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Social Research, 66: 745–58.Google Scholar
Mouffe, C. 2013. Agonistics: Thinking the world politically. London: Verso.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, D. 2006. Multi-stakeholder regulation: Privatizing or socializing global labor standards. World Development, 334(5): 868–932.Google Scholar
Papadakis, K. 2011. Introduction and overview. In Papadakis, K. (Ed.), Shaping global industrial relations: The impact of international framework agreements: 1–13. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, S., & Parker, M. 2017. Antagonism, accommodation and agonism in critical management studies: Alternative organizations as allies. Human Relations, 70(11): 1366–87.Google Scholar
Parkinson, J. 2006. Deliberating in the real world: Problems of legitimacy in deliberative democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paton, E. 2020. After factory disaster, Bangladesh made big safety strides. Are the bad days coming back? New York Times, April 1.Google Scholar
Pattberg, P. H. 2005. The Forest Stewardship Council: Risk and potential of private forest governance. Journal of Environment and Development, 14(3): 356–74.Google Scholar
Patzer, M., Voegtlin, C., & Scherer, A. G. 2018. The normative justification of integrative stakeholder engagement: A Habermasian view on responsible leadership. Business Ethics Quarterly, 28(3): 325–54.Google Scholar
Quack, S. 2010. Law, expertise and legitimacy in transnational economic governance: An introduction. Socio-Economic Review, 8(1): 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. 1999. A theory of justice (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rehg, W., & Bohman, J. 1996. Discourse and democracy: The formal and informal bases of legitimacy in Habermas’ Faktizität und Geltung. Journal of Political Philosophy, 4(1): 79–99.Google Scholar
Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. 2014. The process of responsibilization: Linking business to conflict minerals and human rights abuse. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, S. W. 2007. An introduction: Theoretical perspectives and empirical research on deliberative democracy. In Deliberation, participation and democracy: 1–22. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabadoz, C., & Singer, A. 2017. Talk ain’t cheap: Political CSR and the challenges of corporate deliberation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(2): 183–211.Google Scholar
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. 2007. Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1096–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, A. G., Rasche, A., Palazzo, G., & Spicer, A. 2016. Managing for political corporate social responsibility: New challenges and directions for PCSR 2.0. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3): 273–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, A. G., & Voegtlin, C. 2020. Corporate governance for responsible innovation: Approaches to corporate governance and their implications for sustainable development. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(2): 182–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, A., & Scherer, A. G. 2019. Reconsidering the legitimacy and efficiency of corporate strategies: A case for organizational democracy. In Corporate social responsibility and corporate change: 77–96. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schormair, M. J., & Gilbert, D. U. 2021. Creating value by sharing values: Managing stakeholder value conflict in the face of pluralism through discursive justification. Business Ethics Quarterly, 31(1): 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sethi, S. P., & Schepers, D. H. 2014. United Nations global compact: The promise–performance gap. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(2): 193–208.Google Scholar
Shapiro, R. Y., & Bloch-Elkon, Y. 2008. Do the facts speak for themselves? Partisan disagreement as a challenge to democratic competence. Critical Review, 20(1–2): 115–39.Google Scholar
Soundararajan, V., Brown, J. A., & Wicks, A. C. 2019. Can multi-stakeholder initiatives improve global supply chains? Improving deliberative capacity with a stakeholder orientation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 29(3): 385–412.Google Scholar
Steiner, J. 2008. Concept stretching: The case of deliberation. European Political Science, 7(2): 186–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, H., & Dryzek, J. S. 2014. Democratizing global climate governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundaram, A. K., & Inkpen, A. C. 2004. The corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, 15(3): 350–63.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. 2017. Deliberative democracy in the trenches. Daedalus, 146(3): 129–39.Google Scholar
Susskind, L. 2008. Deliberative democracy and dispute resolution. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 24: 395.Google Scholar
Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. L. 2006. What is consensus? In Susskind, L. E. & Cruikshank, J. L. (Eds.), Breaking Robert’s rules: The new way to run your meeting, build consensus, and get results: 18–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tabuchi, H., & Plumer, B. 2020. Is this the end of new pipelines? New York Times, July 9.Google Scholar
Thompson, D. F. 2008. Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 11: 497–520.Google Scholar
Valentini, L. 2012. Ideal vs. non-ideal theory: A conceptual map. Philosophy Compass, 7(9): 654–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. 1965. Behavioral theory of labor negotiation: An analysis of a social interaction system. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Warntjen, A. 2010. Between bargaining and deliberation: Decision-making in the council of the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(5): 665–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, M. E. 2007. Institutionalizing deliberative democracy. In Rosenberg, S. (Ed.), Deliberation, participation and democracy: Can the people govern?: 272–88. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. 1967. Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Welz, C. 2011. A qualitative analysis of international framework agreements: Implementation and impact. In Papadakis, K. (Ed.), Shaping global industrial relations: The impact of international framework agreements: 38–59. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Whelan, G. 2012. The political perspective of corporate social responsibility: A critical research agenda. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(4): 709–37.Google Scholar
Wiesmann, S., Boeije, H., van Doorne-Huiskes, A., & Den Dulk, L. 2008. “Not worth mentioning”: The implicit and explicit nature of decision-making about the division of paid and domestic work. Community, Work, and Family, 11(4): 341–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, G., Davies, S., & Chinguno, C. 2015. Subcontracting and labour standards: Reassessing the potential of international framework agreements. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 53(2): 181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, I. M. 2001. Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29(5): 670–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar