Corporate Social Responsibility, Social Justice, and the Politics of Difference: Towards a Participatory Model of the Corporation
| Author | Dustin Gumpinger |
| Position | has a Juris Doctor from Osgoode Hall Law School, York University |
| Pages | 101-120 |
ARTICLE
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY,
SOCIAL JUSTICE, AND THE POLITICS OF
DIFFERENCE:
TOWARDS A PARTICIPATORY MODEL OF
THE CORPORATION
By Dustin Gumpinger*
CITED: (2011) 16 Appeal 101-120
I. INTRODUCTION
e corporation is the most dominant economic institution in the world; it governs soci-
ety in much the same way as governments do. As Joel Bakan observes, corporations “de-
termine what we eat, what we watch, what we wear, where we work, and what we do. We
are inescapably surrounded by their culture, iconography, and ideology”. In fact, as a re-
sult of phenomena such as privatization and commercialization, corporations may now
govern our lives even more than governments themselves. Indeed, the world’s ten biggest
corporations have posted revenues exceeding the Gross National Income of countries
in the world. While much good has emerged from these developments, so too has much
harm: Bhopal, Exxon Valdez, Enron and Worldcom are but a few examples of the costs of
living in a corporate dominated world. Such illustrious abuses have given rise to public
distrust, fear and anxiety. In this context, people are increasingly demanding that corpo-
rations be held responsible for their actions. To that end, corporate social responsibility
APPEAL VOLUME 16 w101
* Dustin has a Juris Doctor from Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, and a Bachelor of Arts (Honours)
from the University of Alberta. This article was written during his third year as a law student at Osgoode Hall.
He would like thank all those who reviewed drafts of this paper or discussed the ideas presented in it with him.
Dustin is currently articling in Toronto, Ontario, where he expects to be called to the bar in June of 2011. The
views expressed in this paper are his own.
1. Joel Bakan, The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power (Toronto: Penguin Canada, 2004),
at 5.
2. Ibid at 6.
3. Ibid at 25; Young, infra note 12 at 67.
4. Subhabrata Bobby Banerjee, Corporate Social Responsibility: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly (Cheltenham,
UK: Edward Elgar, 2007), at 173.
5. Ibid at 25.
has been advanced as a solution to such concerns. Companies, it is argued, are account-
able to society at large, in addition to their shareholders. Yet, despite these concerns, the
corporation remains a perilous combination of power and unaccountability.
e problem is that the notion of corporate social responsibility, under the current corpo-
rate law framework, is an oxymoron.e corporation’s legal mandate is to pursue its own
best interests and thus to maximize the wealth of its shareholders. Hence, corporate so-
cial responsibility is illegal and impossible to the extent that it undermines a company’s
bottom line. Acting out of social concern can only be justied insofar as it tends to bolster
the corporation’s interests.It is not surprising then that critics have characterized corpo-
rate social responsibility as an “ideological movement” designed to legitimize the power of
transnational corporations.
In order to foster a world in which corporate decision-makers act genuinely in the interest
of individuals and groups other than shareholders, the institutional nature of the corporate
form must be reconceptualised. But if corporate social responsibility is an ineective tool
for evaluating corporate decisions, actions and outcomes, where should we turn? I shall
argue that, as a dominant social institution, the corporation ought to be held to the same the-
oretical standard as other social institutions: namely, to the standard of social justice.
To evaluate the corporation in this light, I will draw on Iris Marion Young’s seminal re-
ective discourse on social justice, Justice and the Politics of Dierence. Young’s work pro-
vides a useful basis for challenging and changing the theoretical underpinnings of
corporate law. Specically, this paper assesses the corporation through the lens of Young’s
denition of injustice as domination and oppression. As I will demonstrate, the current
corporate structure in North America functions in an ideological manner, which serves to
generate and reinforce oppression and domination in the world. In order to surmount cor-
porate injustice, I propose a new model of the corporation. Ultimately, my thesis is that cor-
porate law should provide the means through which the distinct voices and perspectives
of those oppressed or disadvantaged by the corporation may be recognized and repre-
sented. While my project is rst and foremost a theoretical undertaking, I will oer some
modest suggestions for bringing my plan to fruition.
6. Ibid at 27; William W Bratton, “Never Trust a Corporation” (2002) 70 Geo Wash L Rev 867, at 868 (“the main
issues in the current debate were identified no later than 1932 when the Harvard Law Review published the fa-
mous Berle-Dodd debate”); Erwin Merrick Dodd Jr’s “For Whom Are Corporate Managers Trustees?” (1932)
45 Harv L Rev 1145; Adolf A Berle Jr, “For Whom Corporate Managers Are Trustees: A Note” (1932) 45 Harv L
Rev 1365.
7. Bakan, supra note 1 at 28.
8. Ibid at 109; William T Allen, “Our Schizophrenic Conception of the Business Corporation” (1992) 14 Cardozo L
Rev 261.
9. Dodge v. Ford Motor Co, 170 N.W. 668 (Mich. 1919) (“A business corporation is organized and carried on pri-
marily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end. The dis-
cretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of means to attain that end, and does not extend to a
change in the end itself, to the reduction of profits, or to the nondistribution of profits among stockholders in
order to devote them to other purposes”); Canada Business Corporations Act, infra note 24, s. 122(1)(a)
(“Every director and officer of a corporation in exercising their powers and discharging their duties shall (a) act
honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the corporation”).
10. Bakan, supra note 1 at 33-59; Milton Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits”,
The New York Times Magazine (September 13, 1970).
11. Banerjee, supra note 3 at 147.
12. Iris Marion Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference(Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1990).
102 wAPPEAL VOLUME 16
To continue reading
Request your trial