Edited by Andreas Georg Scherer and Guido Palazzo
Frits Schipper and David M. Bojé Introduction Nowadays, ‘corporate citizenship’ and ‘corporate social responsibility’ are key expressions in matters of corporate governance. Sometimes they are supposed to denote something diﬀerent. For example, ‘corporate citizenship’ as referring to a company’s local context, to a ‘civil society’ to which companies are also supposed to contribute, going beyond their own direct business activities (sponsoring, societal aid and so on). If so, then ‘corporate social responsibility’ refers more to business-related issues (for example, human capital, environment, stakeholders, sustainability), even on a global scale. However, sometimes this distinction is not made, and both expressions are used almost synonymously. This is understandable, especially when companies have worldwide operations and act in the ‘global society’ (Zadek 2007, p. 41). Diﬀerent languages are used in discussing and evaluating matters of governance. Some of them refer to the company as an actor, others to it being an instrument. Among the ﬁrst are, for example, ‘moral subject’, ‘personhood’, ‘citizen’ and ‘homo economicus’; among the second are ‘shareholder value’, ‘brand’ and ‘money making’. Of course, we should not make a dichotomy of this, because a brand can be an important aspect of a company’s identity, co-constituting its actorship and giving content to corporate governance. Governance always has a general as well as a particular side. Constraints, standards and duties, sometimes set by law, make up a general structure with which companies will have to comply.1 This leaves room for individual diﬀerences, related to actorship, which is emphasized by...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.