Eva Nilsson

In this article, we analyse the global consensus on the UN’s partnership approach to businesses through an agonistic lens. In doing so, we seek to understand the positioning of states, particularly those in the Global South, towards the partnership approach. We draw on Mouffe’s conceptualisation of ‘the political’, in which the appearance of consensus is always an expression of hegemony accompanied by exclusion and dissensus. First, we show that the partnership approach was initially promoted by the Global North, in particular European states together with UN leadership, against fears and criticism raised by Global South states. Second, we show that Global South states have not fundamentally challenged the idea of engaging in partnerships with businesses, but they have questioned how these partnerships should be designed to shape a more equally beneficial global economy. With this article, we contribute to the literature on the UN and business ethics by identifying how the evolution of the consensus on business partnerships has been a hegemonic arrangement since the 2000s. Furthermore, we illustrate the role that states have had in forming this consensus. We also contribute to business ethics studies engaging with dissensus by problematising the potential of ‘agonistic deliberation’ at the UN level in supporting the interests of the Global South.

In this article, we analyse the global consensus on the UN’s partnership approach to businesses through an agonistic lens. In doing so, we seek to understand the positioning of states, particularly those in the Global South, towards the partnership approach. We draw on Mouffe’s conceptualisation of ‘the political’, in which the appearance of consensus is always an expression of hegemony accompanied by exclusion and dissensus. First, we show that the partnership approach was initially promoted by the Global North, in particular European states together with UN leadership, against fears and criticism raised by Global South states. Second, we show that Global South states have not fundamentally challenged the idea of engaging in partnerships with businesses, but they have questioned how these partnerships should be designed to shape a more equally beneficial global economy. With this article, we contribute to the literature on the UN and business ethics by identifying how the evolution of the consensus on business partnerships has been a hegemonic arrangement since the 2000s. Furthermore, we illustrate the role that states have had in forming this consensus. We also contribute to business ethics studies engaging with dissensus by problematising the potential of ‘agonistic deliberation’ at the UN level in supporting the interests of the Global South.

This article examines how corporate social responsibility (CSR) can serve as an external source of rents for governments that depend on foreign financing for state-building and development. The strategic, instrumental use of CSR has been overlooked in previous research on governments and CSR, especially in the Global South. To understand how CSR can serve as a lever for rents, the concept of “extraversion” is introduced to describe the way in which rent-seeking African governments instrumentalize their asymmetric external relations for political and private benefit. The connection between CSR and rent-seeking is analyzed through a case study of large gas investments in Tanzania. The article finds that the government has set up regulation that enables local and central government authorities to appropriate, mediate, reclaim, or possibly trick CSR practices to gain rents. Based on the study, two contributions are made to the literature on CSR and governments. First, the instrumental use of CSR in the Global South is added to the variety of perspectives that can be taken when studying government agency. Second, CSR is conceptualized as a potential stream of rents for governments to exploit. The article ends with discussing that the outcome of CSR in a rent-seeking environment depends on whether the leveraged resources are managed well to support peaceful and locally beneficial economic development or whether they serve private accumulation through corruption.