New political Corporate Social Responsibility

Here is an interesting abstract!

Within corporate social responsibility (CSR), the exploration of the political role of firms (political CSR) has recently experienced a revival. We review three key periods of political CSR literature—classic, instrumental, and new political CSR—and use the Rawlsian conceptualization of division of moral labor within political systems to describe each period’s background political theories. The three main arguments of the paper are as follows. First, classic CSR literature was more pluralistic in terms of background political theories than many later texts. Second, instrumental CSR adopted classical liberalism and libertarian laissez-faire as its structural logic. Third, new political CSR, based on a strong globalist transition of responsibilities and tasks from governments to companies, lacks a conceptualization of division of moral labor that is needed to fully depart from a classical liberalist position. We end by providing a set of recommendations to develop pluralism in political CSR.
(Makinen and Kourula, 2012: 649)

and

As a third sample of political CSR discussions, we focus on the rapidly swelling ‘political tum’ in CSR and business ethics literature, which we refer to as the new political CSR. An important discussion topic in this setting revolves around the concept of corporate citizenship (Matten & Crane, 2005; Moon, Crane, & Matten, 2005; Néron & Norman, 2008a; 2008h; Crane & Matten, 2008h; Van Oosterhout, 2008; De George, 2008; Wood & Logsdon, 2008). Furthermore, a special issue of Business Ethics Quarterly in 2009 focuses on political issues related to the changing role of husinesses in the global economy (Scherer, Palazzo, & Matten, 2009; Kohrin, 2009; Pies, Hielscher, & Beckmann, 2009; Elms & PhilUps, 2009; Hiss, 2009; Hsieh, 2009a) including commentaries hy Van Oosterhout (2010) and Banerjee (2010).
(Makinen and Kourula, 2012: 664)

Makinen, J. and Kourula, A. (2012). Pluralism in political corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22, pp. 649–678.