Deliberative Democracy and Corporate Constitutionalism: Considering Corporate Constitutional Courts

被引:1
作者
Blanc, Sandrine [1 ]
机构
[1] INSEEC Grande Ecole, 27 Ave Claude Vellefaux, F-75010 Paris, France
关键词
Constitutionalism; Deliberative democracy; Corporate Constitutional Court; Political CSR; LEGITIMACY; BUSINESS; RIGHTS;
D O I
10.1007/s10551-022-05206-x
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Committees multiply in firms, whether stakeholder boards or committees, multi-stakeholder initiatives, ethics committees, or oversight boards. These arrangements aim to organise and legitimise the social and political activities of corporations. This article raises the question of the appropriate form of such governance structures. The examples above illustrate three possible ways of legitimising corporate quasi-public social and political activities: deliberation within the company, deliberation outside, and an approach we label corporate constitutionalism. While the first two models have been tested in practice and assessed in theory, the third one is comparatively more recent, both in practice and in theory. This article focuses on the latter model and asks whether corporate constitutionalism offers a suitable addition, or alternative, to deliberation (with or within firms) for legitimising corporate quasi-public social and political activities. It examines the respective merits of the three models and argues that a corporate constitutional court may mitigate some of the limits of deliberative practices alone. It argues the court is needed in weak regulatory environments, whether they are failing or inherently limited.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 15
页数:15
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]   Theories, practices, and pluralism - A pragmatic interpretation of critical social science [J].
Bohman, J .
PHILOSOPHY OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, 1999, 29 (04) :459-480
[2]   Survey article: The coming of age of deliberative democracy [J].
Bohman, J .
JOURNAL OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, 1998, 6 (04) :400-425
[3]  
Cordelli CA, 2020, PRIVATIZED STATE, P23
[4]   The Institutional Division of Labor and the Egalitarian Obligations of Nonprofits [J].
Cordelli, Chiara .
JOURNAL OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, 2012, 20 (02) :131-155
[5]   A Deliberative Case for Democracy in Firms [J].
Felicetti, Andrea .
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, 2018, 150 (03) :803-814
[6]   The epistemic potentials of workplace democracy [J].
Gerlsbeck, Felix ;
Herzog, Lisa .
REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY, 2020, 78 (03) :307-330
[7]   Deliberative Democracy and the Countermajoritarian Difficulty: Considering Constitutional Juries [J].
Ghosh, Eric .
OXFORD JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES, 2010, 30 (02) :327-359
[8]   Enfranchising all affected interests, and its alternatives [J].
Goodin, Robert E. .
PHILOSOPHY & PUBLIC AFFAIRS, 2007, 35 (01) :40-68
[9]  
Gutmann Amy., 1996, Democracy and Disagreement
[10]  
Habermas J, 1996, Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy, DOI 10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001