Many companies engage in dialogue with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) about societal issues. The question is what a regulative ideal for such dialogues should be. In the literature on corporate social responsibility (CSR), the Habermasian notion of communicative action is often presented as a regulative ideal for stakeholder dialogue, implying that actors should aim at consensus and set strategic considerations aside. In this article, we argue that in many cases, communicative action is not a suitable regulative ideal for dialogue between companies and NGOs. We contend that there is often an adversarial element in the relation between companies and NGOs, and that an orientation towards consensus can be in tension with this adversarial relation. We develop an alternative approach to stakeholder dialogue called 'agonistic deliberation.' In this approach, conflict and strategic considerations play a legitimate and, up to a certain point, desirable role.

中文翻译：

---

利益相关者对话作为主动协商：探索冲突和自利在企业-非政府组织互动中的作用

许多公司与非政府组织 (NGO) 就社会问题进行对话。问题是这种对话的监管理想应该是什么。在关于企业社会责任 (CSR) 的文献中，哈贝马斯的交流行动概念经常被视为利益相关者对话的规范理想，这意味着行动者应该以达成共识为目标，将战略考虑放在一边。在本文中，我们认为，在许多情况下，沟通行动不是公司与非政府组织之间对话的合适的监管理想。我们认为，公司和非政府组织之间的关系中经常存在对抗性因素，而达成共识的倾向可能与这种对抗性关系紧张。我们开发了一种替代的利益相关者对话方法，称为“对抗性审议”。