Corporate Political Responsibility: How Businesses Can Strengthen Democracy for Mutual Benefit [1st ed.] 9783662621219, 9783662621226

Citation preview

Future of Business and Finance

Johannes Bohnen

Corporate Political Responsibility How Businesses Can Strengthen Democracy for Mutual Benefit

Future of Business and Finance

The Future of Business and Finance book series features professional works aimed at defining, describing and charting the future trends in these fields. The focus is mainly on strategic directions, technological advances, challenges and solutions which may affect the way we do business tomorrow, including the future of sustainability and governance practices. Mainly written by practitioners, consultants and academic thinkers, the books are intended to spark and inform further discussions and developments.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/16360

Johannes Bohnen

Corporate Political Responsibility How Businesses Can Strengthen Democracy for Mutual Benefit

Johannes Bohnen BOHNEN Public Affairs GmbH Berlin, Berlin, Germany

The Work already has been published in 2020 in German language by Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, part of Springer Nature with the following title: Corporate Political Responsibility (CPR): Wie Unternehmen die Demokratie und damit sich selbst stärken

ISSN 2662-2467 ISSN 2662-2475 (electronic) Future of Business and Finance ISBN 978-3-662-62121-9 ISBN 978-3-662-62122-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62122-6 Originally published by Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg # The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, part of Springer Nature 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licenced by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE part of Springer Nature. The registered company address is: Heidelberger Platz 3, 14197 Berlin, Germany

To my father, who died far too young

Preface

In more than 25 years of professional and voluntary work at the interfaces of politics, business, science, media, and civil society, I have often been struck by the lack of understanding between these sectors of society. They differ in language and in their logic of thought and action. Businesspeople, for instance, have an enormous distrust of politics; this is something that numerous business meetings and personal conversations have made me aware of. It is alarming to see how apolitical most corporate leaders are. At the same time, there is a sad decline in the economic competence of politicians, even though they are in charge of defining the economic framework. There is a strong sense of alienation between politics and business, but also large sections of the population. Prejudices are cultivated on all sides. But Europe’s largest national economy cannot afford to be afraid of contact and unable to communicate. Given the rise in internal and external threats, we need our society to provide a stable foundation for successful economic activity. For years, DAX and Eurostoxx corporations as well as larger medium-sized companies have been working almost across the board with the CSR concept in order to assume corporate responsibility. This approach is also firmly established internationally—but it falls short. The concept of “Corporate political responsibility” (CPR) presented here has the advantage of focusing on the most important precondition for economic activity: the political and institutional state of society. CPR offers a concept for the comprehensive positioning of companies in public space. This makes it an innovative contribution to sustainable business success. Companies need to concentrate more on the opportunities that exist at the interface between politics and business and extend their concept of investment to include a political component. The reason is that business success depends on social and political conditions, which until now have not received enough support from businesspeople. In this book, I argue that politics is a business case. Yet so far, there have been no convincing conceptual approaches or methods to recognize this business case, adopt a suitable attitude, and take action. This book aims to fill this gap as far as possible. CPR describes how businesses can develop a political stance in the public space through concrete approaches. Our community needs the politicization of all actors in society – whether in science, culture, the media, or organized civil society. This is

vii

viii

Preface

less about adopting partisan political positions than about contributing in a fundamental way to the stabilization of a free and democratic state of law. It is based on the insight that societal institutions cannot function without an element of politics and that their degree of freedom is always dependent on political conditions. Deficits in the political system affect all sectors of society. So if we develop a broad concept of the political and do not delegate everything to the state and to political parties, we can revitalize our democracy. This requires remapping the public space. This book would like to encourage all relevant societal actors to actively get engaged. It is worth it! The book is primarily meant for businesses. They have a variety of resources at their disposal to strengthen the societal and political foundations of their business activities, but they are not sufficiently aware of them. To leverage this potential, I introduced the term CPR in 2013 and systematically developed it in a publication for the first time in 2014 (Bohnen 2014, pp. 55–58). This was followed by numerous other articles and papers on the topic1 which met with increasing resonance from business leaders. From the very start, many agreed with my theses. I was heading in the right direction. However, some commentators took offense at the word “political.” It caused frictions because it was mostly understood to signify party politics. At the same time, there was an issue with the concept of the political itself, because politics is often seen as shadowboxing that impedes a “true solution.” This spurred me on to justify the importance of corporate political engagement more comprehensively. After all, I have long been puzzled by the political ignorance of many German business leaders. I was all the more pleased to have the opportunity to present my approach at two large CSR conferences which brought together dedicated CSR communities. It was very well received.2 The book begins by establishing the basis of the CPR concept and then continues with a comprehensive practical part. It is my goal to enable companies to move through the process of political branding step by step in order to operationalize the CPR stance for themselves. Numerous graphs, examples from corporate reality, and reflections on personal experiences underpin this approach. In addition, new methods and terminologies (see dossier) are introduced to enable a systematic approach to the topic. My contribution is aimed at the public debate in Germany, but without losing sight of the European or international debate to which I owe a number of ideas. The basic principles of CPR should work in all Western industrialized countries that have a historically developed democratic culture. This book is primarily intended for decision-makers in business (including CSR, strategy, and communication departments) and representatives from politics and administration, but also actors from science, culture, media, law, NGOs, and

1

Cf. Bohnen (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2014), Bohnen and Hennies (2018) In Cologne on 15.11.2018 (Int. Conference on Sustainability & Responsibility, “The New Intersection of Business and Politics – Corporate Political Responsibility”) und Osnabrück on 15.11.2019 at the third German CSS Communication Congress (“Get Involved!! Taking Political Positions as Part of CSR Communication“). 2

Preface

ix

foundations as well as communications and public affairs consultancies. Ultimately, I am writing for everyone who is interested in the political development of our society and our public space. Last but not least, I am very grateful to the many people who have supported me in the development of the topic over the past few years—by critically discussing and commenting on text passages and numerous diagrams. I would like to mention: Florian von Gierke, Georg Schmidtgen, Felix Hofmann, Helena Ballreich, Sebastian Gallander, Knut Bergmann, Michael Wedell, Michael Alberg-Seberich, Erica Benner, Jörg Schulte-Altedorneburg, Arndt Kwiatkowski, Stefan Wegner, Barbara Strohschein, Achim Boehme, Michael Schütte, Christoph Weiss, Tobias Wolny, Raban Fuhrmann, Heike Steinmeier, Bernd Rohlfes, Rüdiger Sura, Stephane Oertel, Bettina Vestring, Jörg Mayer, Torsten Schumacher, and Stefan Lafaire. Special thanks to my tireless sparring partner Lutz-Peter Hennies, who accompanied my writing process in a very thoughtful manner. I would also like to mention is the German BP, which was the first company to organize an event specifically to allow me to present my CPR concept to business representatives. I also thank the Aspen Institute for the opportunity to give a lecture in Hamburg in 2018 which resulted in a very lively discussion. Berlin, Germany

Johannes Bohnen

References Bohnen, J. (2014). Corporate political responsibility (CPR) – Warum Unternehmen sich offen politisch positionieren müssen. ZBP, 1–2, 56–59. Bohnen, J. (2015a, April 1). Haltung zeigen! Sächsische Zeitung (p. 6). Bohnen, J. (2015b). Der Staat, das sind wir alle. Enorm Magazin, 3, 62–64. Bohnen, J. (2015c). Werdet Politisch! Cicero, 2, 88–90. Bohnen, J. (2016). Unternehmer als Bürger. Handelsblatt. Bohnen, J. (2017). Corporate political responsibility. Unternehmen sollten ihre politische Marke entwickeln. CSR Magazin, 2, 6–7. Bohnen, J. (2018). Warum Unternehmen politische Verantwortung tragen. Debatte LibMod. Accessed February 27, 2020, from https://libmod.de/johannes-bohnenwarum-unternehmen-politische-verantwortung-tragen/ Bohnen, J. (2019). Corporate political responsibility (CPR). Warum nachhaltiges Wirtschaften politisch sein muss. forum Nachhaltig Wirtschaften, 01, 74–77. Bohnen, J., & Hennies, L. P. (2018). Why brands should foster political sustainability. Journal of Public Affairs. Accessed February 27, 2020, from https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1706

Contents

1

Introduction: What Is at Stake? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part I

1

Remapping the Public Sphere

2

Understanding the Public Sphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

3

Revitalizing the Public Sphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47

Part II 4

Taking a Stance: Corporate Political Responsibility (CPR)

Why Businesses Need a Political Stance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part III

85

Implementing a Stance: Political Branding

5

Creating the Political Brand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

6

Managing the Political Brand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

7

Conclusion: Filling the New Attitude with Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Glossary: New Terms in the Context of CPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

xi

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. 4.1 Fig. 4.2 Fig. 4.3 Fig. 4.4 Fig. 4.5 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3 Fig. 6.1 Fig. 6.2 Fig. 6.3 Fig. 6.4

The Public Sphere #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . The political governance gap #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CPR Overview: Requirement, strategy, implementation #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CPR essentials and their implementation #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Traditional understanding of corporate social responsibility #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CPR as a political complement #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CPR as an umbrella term for corporate socio-political responsibility #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved . . . . .

16 23 88 103 104 104 105

Political branding process phases (short version). #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Political branding: The path to a political brand #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 The strength filter #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . 124 Policy areas and cross-sectoral topics along the value chain #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Breakdown of policy areas along the value chain #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Value chain IT company #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-sectoral issues (example) #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

171 172 173 174

xiii

xiv

Fig. 6.5 Fig. 6.6

List of Figures

Embedding CPR—Detail of organization chart #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Political branding process phases #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

1

Introduction: What Is at Stake?

This book sets out the thesis that companies can secure their business and even discover new opportunities if they assume political responsibility. It is a conceptual and methodological contribution to the political sustainability of businesses. Their interface with politics and society needs to be rethought. But academia, culture, the media, and organized civil society are also needed to make constructive contributions. The basic assumption is that politics, democracy, and social cohesion cannot function without ambitious and innovative contributions from all societal actors. For companies, this means to think beyond products, services, and jobs and develop a socio-political attitude. By identifying their political brand, they can define their socio-political purpose more precisely and distinguish themselves from the competition. Many still overestimate what political institutions are able to take on. But their stability—still existing in Germany—cannot be taken for granted. It needs constructive engagement. Otherwise, business will not be able to act sustainably. We can only speculate at how globalization, digitalization, environmental destruction, population explosion, waves of refugees, and many other trends will affect our lives. We seem to sense everywhere that our lives and their parameters are rapidly changing, and that old certainties are disappearing. Many people find this threatening. Politicians are under great pressure to find answers. As election results in Western democracies show, citizens are less and less confident of the ability of established political parties and the state to deliver. Digitalization and globalization increase the friction between democratic politics and business. Politics moves slowly, needs to balance different interests, and is constituted mostly along national lines. Business runs at high-speed, aims for tight decision-making, and is not limited by national borders. Effective regulation is becoming more difficult as the relationship between the two spheres turns ever more into a cat-and-mouse game. In the long term, businesses, too, will feel the consequences as they are absolutely dependent on well-functioning states. Yet they

# The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, part of Springer Nature 2021 J. Bohnen, Corporate Political Responsibility, Future of Business and Finance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62122-6_1

1

2

1

Introduction: What Is at Stake?

are still not sufficiently aware of their stake in mitigating the same centrifugal forces in society they have contributed to as agents of globalization. It is therefore important to get the “mismatch” between national politics and the transnational economy under control. CPR can make a contribution if businesses provide the state with resources that make it more effective and quicker to act. Technological advances emerging from the transnational economic system are putting pressure on the political system. However, businesses depend in the long term on functioning government structures. And they are much closer to the state and politics than they admit so far. Businesses are already political actors. They are employers. They are taxpayers. They transform our societies through their products and services. They give donations to political parties, maintain political contacts, and follow legislative processes. In short: They do lobbying. It would, therefore, be only logical for them to be more transparent and more forceful about bringing their technical, organizational, and financial resources to the public space, according to the motto: The state, that’s all of us! You cannot do good business without a functioning state! This is about a mindset that emphasizes what we hold in common and that creates win–win situations for everyone involved. Taking on sociopolitical responsibility is no longer just “nice to have” for companies. It is urgently necessary—and with the right concept and implementation, it even makes for a good business case. When remapping public space, we need a new understanding of how politics and economics can come together to deal with the challenges. So far, both systems are almost entirely separate in people’s minds. However, this has never corresponded to reality. As political actors, companies influence politics and the legislative process at various levels. For companies to work successfully, the societal and political foundations must be right. Even a superficial “threat analysis” shows that companies can no longer take this reliable basis for granted. An Allensbach survey from November 2019 in Germany showed a landslide drop in confidence not just in the performance of the government, but in the political stability of the state as a whole. In comparison to the previous legislative period, the share of Germans trusting in the state’s political stability fell from 81 to 57 percent. This development is gradually undermining the entire system, the author of the survey, Renate Köcher, says. The proportion of those who consider that Germany’s political system is a particular strength of this country fell from 62 to 51 percent (Köcher 2019). Even beyond Germany, liberal democracies are currently experiencing an internal crisis that is exacerbated by external factors: populism, racism, democracy fatigue, Brexit, authoritarian tendencies in Hungary and Poland, the weakening of the EU, American isolationism, and fake news. At the same time, there are increased security risks stemming from Russia’s efforts to split Europe as well as from the unresolved conflicts in Crimea, Syria, North Africa, and elsewhere, which cause millions of people to seek refuge in Europe. In addition, the struggles over raw materials are also likely to intensify. In total, and particularly because they are all happening at the same time, these political flashpoints endanger the stability of the economy. The reason is that a business needs a reliable base, especially planning

1

Introduction: What Is at Stake?

3

security based on legal certainty. Then again, the rule of law and democracy are linked—both depend on each other. Democratic freedoms can only be considered effective if they are enshrined in law. The legal system, for its part, can only function if it is at least implicitly supported by a majority. As long as both sides work, the democratic rule of law remains superior to authoritarian systems, which ultimately are arbitrary in their decision-making. The reliability they tout does not necessarily exist—especially not in the long term. The CPR concept is also linked to questions about the future of capitalism and, in the German context, the social market economy. There are new and unorthodox discussions taking place about what a regulatory framework could look like that combines technological progress and the pursuit of profit with social cohesion and “prosperity justice.” There is a boom in reflections about a political management of the economy as in a German or European industrial policy—some economists speak of the “creeping spread of neo-dirigisme” (Fuest 2020). How can one create national and European champions capable of competing internationally with American and Chinese companies? With China in particular, but also with powerful states like Russia and Turkey, it is not just about which economic system, but also which model of society will prevail. The question needs to be asked whether companies should actively commit themselves to a multilateralism that is increasingly coming under pressure from authoritarian, nationalist, and isolationist tendencies. The question about what kind of system we should be living in has been reopened once again. Alternatives to liberal democracy are visibly finding support. This not only endangers our freedoms and our way of life, but also our model of prosperity. This is why businesses urgently need to contribute to addressing the socio-political challenges. It is in their enlightened self-interest to promote pre-economic, but economically indispensable common goods. These include, for example, highquality education, an intact infrastructure, or—as the global coronavirus pandemic drastically illustrates—high-performance health systems. Businesses are also called upon to strengthen the state’s ability to act and, in particular, to reform our open societies so that they remain attractive in comparison to their antithesis—namely isolation and authoritarianism. The conclusion is obvious: Businesses face a challenge to be not just “social” or “ecological,” but also “political” actors in a broader sense. After all, the social is only a facet of the political. This shift should be reflected both in terms of concepts and of programs. My thesis is that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is too limited. Businesses must engage in Corporate Political Responsibility (CPR). And what do companies themselves say about concepts of assuming political responsibility? Even now, they are far too reticent. Most managers avoid the public sphere because they worry about their business. But there are first exceptions. Siemens CEO Kaeser has recognized that political abstinence is problematic. His threat analysis is as follows: “The geopolitical risks are greater than the economic risks, I’m sure of that.” The worst damage was done by “nationalistic tendencies in our country. They damage our reputation in the world” (FAS 2017). Kaeser’s political interventions have been very well received by Siemens’ employees.

4

1

Introduction: What Is at Stake?

According to an internal survey, around 90 percent support his (political) statements (Fromm 2019). Even earlier than Joe Kaeser and Siemens, BP under the aegis of the visionary CEO Lord Browne attracted attention as a company that openly articulated the importance of political responsibility. Ulrich Winkler, then head of external communications at Deutsche BP, said as early as 2008: “And why are we doing CSR, or more properly said, CR? Because we believe that this will stabilize our business. We accept responsibility like a citizen, like a political subject—as a component of our core business. Being politically smart strengthens our competitiveness. Our socio-political parameter is called ‘mutual benefit,’ the fulfillment of tasks to our mutual benefit” (Winkler 2008, p. 62). For companies, political participation means taking on the fight over who gets to decide of what interpretation in the public sphere. This is becoming increasingly important because at a time of transparency and extensive availability of information, consumers and citizens have higher expectations. Larry Fink, the founder and head of the world’s largest asset manager Blackrock—the epitome of shareholder value capitalism—wrote in his 2019 annual letter to his colleagues around the world: Purpose is not the sole pursuit of profits but the animating force for achieving them. Profits are in no way inconsistent with purpose - in fact, profits and purpose are inextricably linked. He then added: Companies that fulfill their purpose and responsibilities to stakeholders reap rewards over the long-term. Companies that ignore them stumble and fail. This dynamic is becoming increasingly apparent as the public holds companies to more exacting standards. And it will continue to accelerate as millennials—who today represent 35 percent of the workforce— express new expectations of the companies they work for, buy from, and invest in. (Fink 2019)

The Edelmann Trust Barometer 2019 confirms that corporate leaders are believed to have an important role in solving social problems. 76 percent of respondents were of the opinion that “CEOs should take the lead on change rather than waiting for government to impose it” (Edelman 2019). The statement impressively shows who is expected to make positive social contributions. In 2020, the study even used explicitly political terms to confirm the enlarged responsibility of companies: “Business has leapt into the void left by populist and partisan government,” CEO Richard Edelman commented. “It can no longer be business as usual, with an exclusive focus on shareholder returns. With 73 percent of employees saying they want the opportunity to change society, and nearly two-thirds of consumers identifying themselves as belief-driven buyers, CEOs understand that their mandate has changed.” All in all, Edelmann says, companies enjoy the most trust of all institutions, which gives them a leading role on global governance issues (Edelman 2020). Many companies are already committed to social and ecological issues. For these activities, they refer for instance to the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set for 2030 that was adopted in 2015. This global development agenda explicitly focuses on contributions from the business world to meet

1

Introduction: What Is at Stake?

5

sustainability requirements. Despite their classic social-ecological focus, the SDGs offer an interesting peg for genuine political engagement, particularly Goal 16, “Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions,” which is dedicated to enforcing of the rule of law, fighting corruption, and other common goods relevant to the economy (United Nations Development Program, undated). If businesses think of the political in a more comprehensive way, the state can concentrate on its core competencies, that is, strengthening the regulatory framework and performing its key mission as a public authority and provider of infrastructure, especially when other actors also contribute constructively and creatively. Freeing up the state through CPR holds great promise, as it creates an opportunity to restore the state’s ability to perform and control. The state can then concentrate its resources on, for example, its chronically overextended judiciary, the underfunded armed forces, and the police, research institutions essential for innovation, social security, and the country’s infrastructure. It is not about mere altruism. CPR is worth it. This book explains how businesses can make money by thinking and acting politically. Businesses gain when they adopt a political stance and integrate it into their corporate strategy. In the long-term perspective, the benefits of making political investments in your location are particularly striking. The stabilization of democratic institutions and the state of law creates a reliable space for economic activity. Since this benefits all companies— including those who do not make any political investments—a free-rider problem arises. Why practice CPR when you can share in its earnings without any commitment of your own? One solution is to redesign the concept of political branding. Traditionally, it is used to describe the efforts that politicians or political parties make to acquire a recognizable and distinguishing brand identity. In that case, an economic concept was transferred to politics. This book addresses the reverse question: How can businesses think and act in a more political way? CPR provides answers to how businesses can systematically define and improve their relationship with the public sphere—through action as well as communication. Political branding offers companies virtually unrecognized opportunities to cultivate a unique selling point and to increase their own visibility and reputation. In short: A political stance helps to channel customer loyalty. If a company succeeds in establishing itself as a political brand in the public perception through CPR, it will also receive the payoff of its socio-political investments. In that case, the benefits of CPR will not be shared among all market players but become attributable to a specific brand. If the political environment is so essential, why isn’t business doing more to support it? The book shows why there is a blind spot in the realization and implementation of socio-political responsibility, and how that can be remedied. The key question is: How can businesses secure their success in a targeted and longterm manner? This is clearly a management issue. CPR provides guidance for strategic corporate development. Part of the necessary change in awareness is to think more broadly about the concept of investment, beyond money channeled into research and development, personnel, or machines. The Pegida demonstrations in Dresden showed what

6

1

Introduction: What Is at Stake?

happens when business ignores the socio-political foundations of its success. Instead of clearly positioning themselves in favor of tolerance and cosmopolitanism, businesses left the field to populists and incurred lasting damage to their reputation even beyond Germany. This book describes how companies can surpass themselves and approach the concept of the political with openness, honesty, and strategic thinking—for their own good as well as for the benefit of society. The reason is that politics goes beyond party politics. Through political emancipation, both companies and individuals can develop a civic mindset. Christoph Möllers, a professor of law, issues a stark warning: “Complaining about ‘politics’ and ‘the state’ reveals how beholden you are to an authoritarian attitude. We should always criticize politicians, but still recognize that their politics is also a result of our work” (Möllers 2012, p. 116). Participation in public matters, therefore, goes beyond the election act. While politics is shaped by a limited number of decision makers, it should be consciously and actively supported by a large majority of the population—whether through discussions among friends, civic engagement, or by supporting political parties. Politically active citizens can exert more constructive influence than ever by networking and pushing for tangible innovation projects for society. Civic projects already exist. They are becoming increasingly political and should be supported even more intensively by companies. All societal actors have to prove themselves in order to make their concerns and interests heard—whether it is the Voice of German industry (BDI) or Amnesty International. They need to overcome their reservations and learn political language codes. That is the prerequisite for an open debate about the best way forward for us. The stability of democracies lies precisely in this dynamic: Due to the degrees of freedom they offer, a plurality of viewpoints becomes visible and enables change. Only a vibrant democratic culture of debate keeps our society stable and innovative in the long term. Companies benefit from this. Therefore, they should improve their own ability to take part in the political discourse. Businesses need political self-awareness; this is long overdue. Progress would be made if managers and entrepreneurs were to consistently include societal considerations in their business activities. In Brussels and Berlin, associations and representative offices are springing up like mushrooms. Clever use of the public sphere is becoming increasingly relevant to economic success. What if companies widened their concept of political action further—toward working on the foundations of democracy? For this, it would be helpful if companies saw themselves as citizens or as part of the citizenry—albeit with a significantly larger reach than individual citizens. Ultimately, a company is nothing more than an interestdriven association of citizens. These remain citizens, even if the company delivers economic services. They should, therefore, be interested in their community and its success for their own sake, but also for the sake of their “collective.” We need a state that is capable of action. The coronavirus has demonstrated how important this is. In times of crisis such as a pandemic, citizens, and businesses depend for their very existence on the political decisions and official orders that ensure that essential public goods (e.g., health, food, and trade) are provided. Businesses are happy to accept support (including financial) to cope with the

1

Introduction: What Is at Stake?

7

difficulties of the situation. But all societal actors must be able to trust the state—and not just in its continued ability to deliver, but also in the fact that political and administrative measures are justified and appropriate. In a state of emergency, it becomes almost instinctively clear why companies should contribute to strengthening the state’s performance in their own interest. In fact, in the coronavirus crisis, there were multiple activities by companies to safeguard collective goods and thus the foundations for economic success. The obvious question is: Why do companies not work to foster trust in our democratic institutions during normal times or in a long-term perspective? But in this case, as so often, the necessary new only becomes visible in its specific shape during a crisis. In this sense, the coronavirus could become the accelerator of an awareness that we will need to continue cultivating. We cannot go on without strengthening our socio-political foundations. The perception of the vulnerability of modern society has made the learning curve soar. Suddenly, it becomes much clearer that all societal actors depend on conditions that they cannot guarantee themselves. Based on the understanding of our mutual systemic dependency, we can develop a perspective of cooperating permanently in order to protect the individual and the common good. This new sense of community and the notion that we must critically question our way of living and working will reinforce the importance of the CPR stance. So far, companies lack the necessary self-perception and attitude, but also the concrete instruments and fields of action for socio-political engagement. Whoever leads here can become a model for developing an enlightened society that recognizes the political foundations of its existence. To practice, CPR means to strengthen democratic resilience. We sense that businesses are faced with the great task of redefining themselves in relation to politics and society. But so far, they don’t have a sufficient handle on the issue of corporate political responsibility, a handle that would combine a conceptual framework with practical ways of implementation. So how can businesses develop the necessary stance? And with which tools? These questions still baffle them. CPR and the political branding stance try to close this gap as far as possible. The book is divided into three parts and a total of seven chapters. Part I focuses on taking stock of the public sphere, its most important actors, and the permanent struggle over who sets the narrative, in particular concerning the strained relationship between business and politics. We will then look at the effects of globalization and digitalization on the ability of the state to provide governance and on the growing expectations of enlightened consumers, including socio-political aspects. Chapter 3 focuses on how companies can react to the challenges outlined here. The CPR concept is presented in Part II. Here, we look at the thesis that it is in the economic interest of businesses to change their socio-political attitude and make suitable contributions to improving the performance of the state. This will also benefit them. Part III is devoted to the practical implementation of CPR through “political branding.” Specific fields of action are outlined, and case studies are presented that clearly show the meaning of political brand management.

8

1

Introduction: What Is at Stake?

The CPR concept, therefore, offers companies a conceptual framework for a strategic political stance that can be implemented through political branding. The goal is to strengthen the appeal of the overall brand. If we seek new answers to the challenges of our time, here’s at least one: CPR and political branding help us to systematically and specifically reflect on the future of corporate social and political responsibility and to initiate practical measures. It shows a clear way for a company to develop a political dimension for its brand in order to strengthen both the public sphere and itself. Finally, it is important to understand what role CPR plays in the context of other social responsibility concepts. There are two ways of defining that role: In the sense of political sustainability, CPR can be understood to encompass corporate responsibility as a whole. In that case, it includes political “essentials” such as strengthening the democratic debate and order as well as the classic CSR topics concerning ecological and social issues. Alternatively, CPR can be part of an overall definition of sustainability, in which case it forms a political complement to the social–ecological interpretation. As part of the CPR concept, this book introduces a number of new terminologies suited to the interface between politics and business—for example, political branding, political investment, political brand name, political brand development, political brand management, political mission statement, CEO planning unit, and public change management. The meshing of business and politics is particularly visible in the way CPR leads to enlarging the concepts of investment, the brand, and the political. These new definitions show: The hidden socio-political conditions behind economic action must be made visible. It may be true that demarcations between different social spheres are important in modern and highly differentiated societies. They help the division of labor and protect the individual sectors from encroaching on each other. Under no circumstances should CPR promote the hijacking of the state for entrepreneurial profit. Rather, it is about not artificially emphasizing borders that have been used to justify a comfortable political reluctance on the part of companies. Digital platforms have long since entered the political stage as “change makers,” and they are not going to go away anytime soon. Instead of trying to minimize the public role of companies, we should try to make them productive. If businesses had a larger, well-balanced political range of action, the state would benefit. This is true as long as the state can be the “boss” and control the governance of the community, thus underpinning the primacy of the political. The state can strengthen itself by concentrating on the essentials that will help it regain its ability to act. Businesses can claim legitimacy for their political contributions if they support the state through their resources without bullying it. It is a balancing act, and businesses are required to act in a spirit of solidarity. It is in their own interest as citizens to take on sociopolitical responsibility. In any case, they need to respect the democratic powers of society and thus the state as a rule-maker. When CPR asks companies to strengthen the public space, it does not in any way excuse them from the cardinal obligation to pay taxes. CPR can never replace tax payments; it can only supplement them. Otherwise, companies would weaken the

References

9

state and pull the rug out from under themselves. In the long term, political dysfunctionality also leads to the collapse of societal institutions that supposedly have nothing to do with politics, thereby destroying the foundations of successful business. Contributions to the infrastructure of the state, therefore, follow an entrepreneurial calculation: CPR is a business case. In this sense, the central message to the most important target group of this book, the people who are in charge of business, is: Become political—it’s worth it!

References Edelman. (2019). 2019 Edelman Trust Barometer. Accessed March 9, 2020, from https://www. edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2019-03/2019_Edelman_Trust_Barometer_Global_ Report.pdf Edelman. (2020). Edelman Trust Barometer. Accessed March 9, 2020, from https://www.edelman. de/research/edelman-trust-barometer-2020 FAS. (2017, December 31). Jamaika wäre eine echte Chance. Interview mit Joe Kaeser. Fink, L. (2019). Profit & Purpose. CEO-Letter. Accessed February 5, 2020, from https://www. blackrock.com/americas-offshore/2019-larry-fink-ceo-letter Fromm, T. (2019, July 14). Der Teufel hat jetzt auch E-Mail. Morddrohungen an Siemens-Chef Kaeser. Süddeutsche Zeitung. Accessed February 5, 2020, from https://www.sueddeutsche.de/ wirtschaft/siemens-kaeser-morddrohungen-twitter-1.4523737 Fuest, C. (2020). Die schleichende Verbreitung des Neo-Dirigismus. ifo-Standpunkt, 214. Accessed March 10, 2020, from https://www.ifo.de/Standpunkt/ifo-Standpunkt-214-Dieschleichende-verbreitung-des-neodirigismus-in-der-politischen-debatte Köcher, R. (2019, November 19). Wie die große Koalition das Vertrauen in die Stabilität zerstörte. FAZ. Accessed March 2, 2020, from https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/wie-die-grossekoalition-das-vertrauen-in-die-stabilitaet-zerstoerte-16493444.html Möllers, C. (2012). Demokratie - Zumutungen und Versprechen. In Nanz P (Ed.) Politik bei Wagenbach, Bd 1. Klaus Wagenbach, Regensburg United Nations Development Programme (ny) Sustainable Development goals. Accessed June 5, 2020, from https://sdgs.un.org/goals Winkler, U. (2008). CSR als lobby-strategy? In Netzwerk Recherche e.V. (Hrsg) In der Lobby brennt noch Licht (pp. 60–62). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Part I Remapping the Public Sphere

2

Understanding the Public Sphere

What is the social and political background against which companies conduct their business today? Do they understand how dependent they are on these conditions? Do they understand the comprehensive relevance of political responsibility? The short answer is: No. Otherwise, they would be positioning themselves differently.

2.1

Why the Public Sphere Is So Relevant for CPR

To understand why we need the CPR concept and to take on political responsibility, it is important to take a closer look at the public sphere. The basic thesis of this chapter is that it is time for remapping and redesigning the public sphere. Many external and internal parameters have changed fundamentally; they signal that the state’s formative ability to exert power is coming under pressure. We will only be able to mitigate this effect if the different subsystems of society take off their particular blinkers. They all depend on a successful government, which can no longer be taken for granted. Nothing happens on its own; we have to make things happen. To maintain a viable public sphere, we have to engage in a civic ethos and help foster democratic resilience. This fact is reflected in the political and economic regulatory framework as well as in the political culture of our country. At the heart of every democracy, there needs to be a continuous vibrant debate. For many years, the gap between the political and the economic elites has widened. It is their lack of mutual understanding and communication which holds back a great potential for renewal. All the developments outlined here have a direct or indirect impact on corporate success. Companies should set themselves up more professionally to contribute to the remapping of the public sphere, and they should reflect intensively on their mechanisms. Businesses thrive on the state and the goods it provides, such as legal security, a solid infrastructure, and education. The same applies to social cohesion and social peace. In return, the state depends on the economic success of the business to be able # The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, part of Springer Nature 2021 J. Bohnen, Corporate Political Responsibility, Future of Business and Finance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62122-6_2

13

14

2

Understanding the Public Sphere

to act. This relationship can be described as mutual systemic relevance: Companies are relevant for the state just as the state is relevant for companies. CPR operates within this relationship of interdependence. Businesses would do well to develop an understanding of how to organize themselves internally and how to establish their position vis-à-vis the society. If done right, CPR is an expression of a way of doing business that is aware of its surroundings and preconditions and nurtures them. Ideally, CPR can be part of an extensive wave of democratization that gives our societies new stability. Just imagine what would happen if a large majority of citizens and societal actors actually felt responsible for society as a whole, for the public sphere—and ultimately for their country and the future of Europe in the world! They would no longer just consume political added value but create it. And to make the state more effective, they would consciously take up a political stance that encourages them to take action. Citizens, too, need to reflect systematically on how they can employ their skills and multiple resources to revitalize the public sphere. In that sense, they can identify and develop their own strengths and skills for the common good—much like a political brand in business. If they brought these to bear in relevant fields of action, what great and constructive forces would be released! How much more stability for the community! Imagine the citizen as a producer of politics and stability in the sense of a “learning democracy.”1 This would be a reversal of the previous logic, which was aware of only one direction: the state’s obligation to deliver for the actors in society. In the future, you could be criticized for persisting with an attitude of entitlement toward the state and politics; this could even be seen as anti-social and harmful to the common good. Here is where “public intellectuals”—of whom there are not many in Germany—can provide valuable impulses for the public discourse. Is the CPR stance just a beautiful utopia, or can it be considered a visionary but realistic idea of the future, offering a pragmatic and practical approach to solving the enormous challenges we face? CPR shows the way toward initiating such contributions and proposes practical steps. This chapter includes two key clusters of questions that help point the way to some initial answers. First, how does the public sphere work? Who are the most important actors, and how do they position themselves in the struggle over whose narrative prevails? Which external and internal forces affect the state’s ability to act? How much of a capacity to act does the state still have? What are citizens’ and consumers’ expectations of business? Which political culture, which economic order framework, and which institutional structure tie activities together in the public realm—what fundamentally makes the state, business, and society tick? The term “learning democracy” was coined by Raban Daniel Fuhrmann in 2016. In line with the tried and tested practice of learning organizations, the aim is to continuously improve the way in which the state, civil society, and business work together to optimize co-production of the common good in the long term. Approaches and methods of agile democracy and public personnel development are particularly useful. For more, see: Akademie Lernende Demokratie: http://www.lernendedemokratie.de/de/publikationen

1

2.2 The Public Sphere and Its Actors

15

Once we have taken stock of the situation, the second cluster of questions is about developing this public sphere for the future. Which topics and levers that businesses can help shape are particularly important? Can businesses and other societal actors perform governance services that will at least partially close the governance gap we have diagnosed for the state? How can the state, business, and society be strengthened? Which political stance can improve the performance of the community or the public sphere? And how can individual education work better to help people acquire the essential civic tools?

2.2

The Public Sphere and Its Actors

What Is Meant by the Public Sphere? The Federal Agency for Civic Education (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung) describes the historical and political significance of the public sphere as follows: “The classic model for the public sphere is the Greek agora. The agora was the market and meeting place of the Greek polis and the center of public life. Business was negotiated, debates took place, and people engaged in politics in the extensive spatial complex with administrative buildings, court, library, and ritual spaces” (Wildner and Berger 2018). Under the modern conditions of representative democracy, the “short distance” of the Greek model has certainly been significantly modified. Nevertheless, the author remains attached to the Greek ideal because it shows how all relevant actors share direct responsibility for the success of society. In principle, the public sphere constitutes the opposite of the private sphere. But there are also semipublic spaces, overlaps of various types that have to be redefined again and again. The public sphere, including these overlaps, functions as a location for a society’s internal discourse. Debates are held that reflect societal trends and take them forward. At the same time, numerous democratic institutions (government, parliament, the courts, police, etc.) provide a framework that all actors, including citizens, can use for orientation. But democracies, in particular, are not a one-way street: Institutions also react to societal actors, developments, and trends. They are responsive and thus allow room for political change. Protagonists of political liberalism have repeatedly emphasized the importance of institutions for a liberal society. The public sphere with its democratic institutions is undergoing profound changes in and beyond the Western world due to the forces of globalization and digitalization. Just remember that in the platform economy, a private US corporation—Facebook—provides the world’s largest and most public communication space. Who Are the Actors in the Public Sphere? The performance of a community depends fundamentally on the quality of the interaction between the actors in the public sphere (see Fig. 2.1). Everybody attempts to make their concerns heard and influence other actors. Attention is a scarce resource in the plural society. Therefore, there is a real struggle over who gets to set the narrative, depending on specific interests. To that end, actors use communication techniques such as “agenda

16

2

Understanding the Public Sphere

Society

Politics

Academia / Education Providers

Business

Media

Public Sphere

NGOs /

Organized Civil Society

Foundations Culture / Sports / Religion

© Johannes Bohnen

Fig. 2.1 The Public Sphere #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved

setting,” “campaigning,” or “storytelling” and commission professional agencies and consultants. The aim is to draw carefully timed attention to topics and interests in the public realm. Basically, this is what lobbying is about. The major players are representatives of social subsectors or subsystems: business, science, politics (and administration), media, culture (including religion, art, sport), and organized civil society (including NGOs and foundations). Every citizen is active in these and other contexts, for example, in the social milieus of workers, the self-employed or employed, the unemployed, the young or the old; and also in voluntary associations such as sports and cultural associations, environmental groups, volunteer agencies and citizens’ initiatives, church communities, salons, and cell groups. Since the social sub-sectors all have their own way of speaking and acting which tends toward self-referentiality, they have to make repeated efforts to communicate and find consensus in order to influence the public debate. CPR can only be one part of “politicization” in the best sense—meaning a political ethos or political awareness—of all sectors of society. These subsystems

2.2 The Public Sphere and Its Actors

17

are called upon to improve their ability to connect and communicate. Essentially, this is what the necessary reorientation of the public sphere means. It is about contrasting the reservations, encrustations, and resentment-laden partitions into subsystems and small echo chambers with a holistic, open view of the world. Given the enormously rapid innovation cycles of the new platform economy— take the globally active Internet giants, for instance—political decisions often lag behind economic development, and it is difficult to get on an equal footing. Political institutions, public administrations, and civil society organizations in particular are often short of financial resources and qualified personnel. Their physical equipment is also usually not comparable with that of the business world. In any case, it is difficult for politicians to come up with innovations on their own. They are caught up in fixing things; they manage rather than design. Workflows and decisionmaking processes are only hesitantly modernized; entrepreneurial thinking is underdeveloped. It would make sense to help these important sub-sectors improve their synchronization and acquire better communication skills, catch up on technology, and cooperate in the interest of finding solutions. With the advent of new actors from civil society, such as powerful foundations or innovative NGOs (look at the “Apolitical” organization or the Innovation in Politics Institute), the public sphere is beginning to change significantly, even if we do not always notice. Above all, these actors are keen to make constructive contributions so that the public sphere can function. They often see themselves as a kind of mediator or even lubricant. Finally, it should be noted that the public realm has expanded beyond the nationstate because of the European Union. However, a European public has at best partially developed. (Winkler 2017) Nevertheless, we also need to think and aim for a European dimension when strengthening the public sphere. So far, national discussion forums are far ahead of those at the pan-European level. But businesses are ideally suited to creating more of a European public because many of them are multinational actors with locations in several European countries, and they benefit from the internal market. They can initiate and promote pan-European discourses in the sense of a CPR stance.

2.2.1

The State: A Declining Capacity to Act

Why are the issues of corporate political responsibility and sustainability so urgent? Why is the public sphere coming under such pressure in its performance just now? In short, it is because the socio-political foundations of business have changed fundamentally due to national and international developments. We need to ask about the future environment in which companies will have to prove their worth as brands. Due to globalization and digitalization, more and more boundaries (physical and virtual) are dissolving, while the state’s capacity to act partly depends on the existence of these boundaries. In places where the public sphere frays, this capacity becomes weaker. The state’s ability to shape developments is diminishing, and people are aware of this. According to a survey by the Forsa polling institute

18

2

Understanding the Public Sphere

published in the summer of 2019, almost two-thirds of Germans think that the state is overstretched. Only 34 percent believe that the public sector is fully able to fulfill its diverse tasks. The chairman of the Deutsche Beamtenbund, an association of civil servants, spoke of “worrying signs of a general loss of confidence in the performance of the state in Germany” (Deutscher Beamtenbund 2019). According to a study by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in 2019, a majority of Germans, namely 53 percent, are dissatisfied with how democracy works in Germany. This is a new low. Discontent is also expressed through the fact that many people place little trust in political institutions—the political parties, the Bundestag, and the federal government—as well as in the media. Above all, many people are disappointed with what politics actually implements (Lauter 2019). The President of the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin), Marcel Fratzscher, is also crystal clear: “The unreliability and inefficiency of the state have led to a massive loss of trust in state institutions over the past two decades” (Fratzscher 2020). However, liberal democracy is also coming under pressure from external security threats: wars and crises in Crimea, eastern Ukraine, Syria, and North Africa, from where millions of people flee. There is also a resurgence of nationalism and of divisive tendencies in the EU, which in Germany have been echoed by Pegida and the strengthening of the AfD. In his diagnosis of an “anti-liberal countermovement,” Ralf Fücks (2019) identifies two “fire accelerators”: “The financial crisis of 2008 and the large refugee movement of 2015. The financial crisis exacerbated yet another reason for the loss of confidence in the liberal democracy: growing social inequality and polarization between modernization winners and losers in Western societies.” It is worth taking note of the fact that the federal government has for over a decade enjoyed a very stable economic environment and surging tax revenues. Yet it has not been able to give citizens a sustainable sense of security. Political parties and democratic institutions face the limits of their ability to provide stability and control. This phenomenon can also be observed in other Western industrialized countries and should make the political establishment reconsider the situation. And so should citizens with regard to all their supposed disappointments: If this is what the people’s mood is like now, what will happen if we hit a serious economic crisis? While authoritarian movements question the fundamental values of democracy in Western democracies, the concept of spheres of influence is gaining importance in thought and action on an international scale. Regimes like in China and Russia purposefully and often aggressively expand their political, economic, and military fields of activity. In this “clash of systems,” they present themselves as an efficient counter-model to liberal democracies. In this situation, it is not only Western governments, but also Western businesses that need to think about taking measures to protect democracy. However, it becomes more difficult for businesses to draw lines and position themselves the more closely they are linked to authoritarian regimes and their companies, e.g., through commercial stakes or important markets. Back to globalization and digitalization, where the question arises: How can political systems, which are shaped by borders, withstand forces that dissolve borders? Due to this discrepancy, a governance gap has opened up. Corporate

2.2 The Public Sphere and Its Actors

19

responsibility must address this governance gap, help close it, and maintain the integrity and vitality of the public sphere. This is not a social, but a political task. Strengthening the political foundations of economic prosperity is not only important but also urgent. The liberal democratic ground on which companies thrive has started to crumble. In the short term, businesses can benefit from regulatory deficiencies in their pursuit of profit; in the long term, structurally weak states and governments are not in their interest. Many of the world’s problems, from income inequality to pandemics to climate change, have become so complex that solutions require the expertise and global reach of the private sector. Companies should, therefore, help close the governance gap by contributing to financial, technological, content, and communication resources. Public governance is also damaged by people’s growing expectations of the state’s ability to perform governance services. Many citizens believe that the state is responsible for providing public services to assist them in every situation of their life. In polemical terms, the state turns into a “solicitous benefactor of the people” (Bohrer and Scheel 2010, p. 64). Ironically, this increasing demand is linked to the success of established democracies, which encourages people to get used to ever more extensive services. Therefore, the space for further improvements shrinks. The numerous opportunities for information and participation provided by the Internet offer another reason for rising expectations: Here, you can see how other people live, and you can gain power over opinions. Criticism of government weaknesses and calls for better governance have met with a great response on the Internet. Since 2010, the crisis of liberalism has deepened, and so have the tendencies toward social divisions associated with that crisis. This accounts for much of the pressure on the state’s capacity to act. For the sociologist Andreas Reckwitz, the crisis manifests itself in an “international populist revolt”, which he describes as “a multi-faceted movement against the liberally shaped functionary elite and their economic and cultural hegemony in the name of an imagined ‘people’” (2019, p. 239). The current left-right formula for politics is insufficient to understand this crisis. For Reckwitz, there are more abstract paradigms at work underneath, which alternate in longer historical phases and provide varying answers to how politics should shape societal order. According to Reckwitz, the post-war period was characterized by an actively regulating and controlling state—think of the consequences of the American New Deal and the establishment of welfare systems. In the 1980s, a liberalism contributing to openness prevailed that aimed at economic and cultural dynamism. Examples are the Reagan era and the coalitions between Social Democrats and Greens in Germany. This is still the prevailing paradigm, but it is now breaking up, as the spread of populism shows. But what could come next? Reckwitz believes it will be a “regulatory, embedding liberalism” (2019, p. 243). He understands this to mean an arrangement that will mitigate the negative consequences of liberal societal dynamics through regulation and order while preserving essential impulses for freedom (2019, pp. 239–243; italics in the original).

20

2

Understanding the Public Sphere

The sociologist Cornelia Koppetsch also analyzes current right-wing populism from a sociological perspective (2019, pp. 24–25, emphasis added). In fact, she describes it as an “emotional reflex in response to an epochal watershed“(the fall of the Iron Curtain), which is expressed in the “three dimensions of re-nationalization, re-sovereignization and re-communitarisation”. Re-nationalization is aimed at globalization, which becomes manifest in supranational forms of government, free trade agreements, immigration, and the pluralization of society. In view of this, right-wing parties want to “bring the national back onto the political stage,” for example, through tariffs, restrictions on migration, or the “restoration of a symbolic center” of the people or the middle class. Re-sovereignization describes what right-wing parties do in terms of symbolic compensation and renewed empowerment of formerly privileged people, who see their prerogatives threatened by globalization. The people they target clearly do not come from a single social class, but from “a vertical alliance of different groups that are falling behind.” In addition to the experience of social downgrading, cultural alienation is a crucial precondition for being politically mobilized by right-wing parties. The citizens in question see their values “marginalized by the rise of cultural cosmopolitanism.” Finally, re-communitization satisfies the “desire for collective belonging.” It opposes the “people” (defined in an exclusivist sense) to the “regime of individualistic cultures based on the market and on self-fulfillment.” This is how right-wing parties react to the “uncertainties created by globalization” and the “longing for feeling secure.” Community thus has a compensatory function. Even if it reduces individual spheres of freedom, it still offers the “certainty of recognition,” according to Cornelia Koppetsch. The category of recognition is also central to the philosopher and psychologist Barbara Strohschein. First of all, she emphasizes the importance of feelings of being devalued and therefore aggrieved as a cause of conflict. To counter this, she trusts in “the efforts of many people to work for recognition and happiness also in a political sense” so that “progress can actually be made in the long term” (Strohschein 2015, p. 13). In view of the security environment, growing tendencies toward social divisions, individual grievances, and increased expectations—all of them driven and shaded by the “twins” of globalization and digitalization—the state and politics are increasingly overwhelmed. At the same time, politicians tend to make vigorous promises that they will be able to solve all sorts of problems in order to be re-elected—often without a solid funding base. The state is less and less able to adequately enforce all the legal regulations for which it bears ultimate responsibility. The same applies to timely judicial procedures, internal and external security, and the implementation of large-scale projects such as airports. The gap between economic innovation and political-administrative organization continues to widen. This fundamental asymmetry can also be described in terms of timing. Today’s politics often addresses yesterday’s needs because the economy has already moved on. Driven by globalization and digitalization, there are three main reasons for this: First, companies operate at a much faster pace than

2.2 The Public Sphere and Its Actors

21

politics in democratic states. They are structured vertically and hierarchically and are based on the fast cycle of quarterly figures to be able to withstand the enormous pressure of innovation and competition. Democratic decision-making processes, on the other hand, are organized horizontally, aim at balancing interests, and are based on pluriannual legislative periods. Today’s regulatory interventions often only address yesterday’s gaps in the law because business has already moved ahead. Second, multinational corporations with their enormous financial resources are genuine economic powers whose influence surpasses that of some states. Third, and this is related to their economic potency and corresponding salary payments, companies dispose of more advanced professional expertise than that of government officials. Also, expertise and creativity are often interdependent, and the latter generally gets promoted more strongly in business than in politics and especially in administration. Government agencies do not reward courageous, unconventional thinking and acting. The public sector often discourages talent from the outset or provides little incentive for it to develop. This is why politicians without the knowhow of private actors are insufficiently able to analyze urgent social and security challenges such as climate change or cybercrime and to solve them effectively. All of these challenges ignore national borders and therefore cause confusion about responsibilities and difficulties in cooperation (Kobrin 2009, p. 350). The former German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück, who shares the diagnosis that there is a risky asymmetry between politics and business, very clearly says about digital transformation that the primacy of politics is at risk. Whether it can be safeguarded, Steinbrück says, depends on whether “politics manages to internationalize, just as Internet giants and financial capitalism have done for a long time.” Steinbrück continues: “We can no longer control this borderless, highly dynamic capitalism of the twenty-first century within the national radius of politics. This is the exact point where politics so far has failed” (Heuser and Hildebrandt 2016). In order to advance the internationalization of politics, multinational organizations like the EU will become even more important in the future. Increased international cooperation between states also makes them more capable of acting internally. For the crucial issue of liberal democracy, it is necessary to organize a critical mass of nation-states that move in the same direction. For this alone, as well as for the issue of digitalization, it would have made sense to establish the EU. How else would it be possible to impose the occasional stop sign on internet giants through intelligent regulation? Regarding the EU, it also becomes clear how important political parameters are for companies—and how they in turn can influence these parameters themselves. For this, the academic discourse about international relations provides a theoretical starting point. The neo-functionalism outlined by the German-American political scientist Ernst B. Haas considers innovations to be the driving force behind European integration efforts, not the governments of the member states. The key players are to be found outside of government, especially in society and the economy. Especially businesses—and the associations that represent them—have a vital interest in a supranational structure such as the EU, which launched an internal market with a common currency and uniform standards. Haas’ theory further

22

2

Understanding the Public Sphere

states that the development of supranational structures is not based on an initial building plan, but that the institutional structure results from the solution of specific factual problems. Cooperation in one area spills over to other areas. Integration deepens and widens as successful functional cooperation progresses. Accordingly, the principle of “form follows function” applies. The scientific debate is increasingly turning against the traditional division of roles between business and politics. Michael Hüther, director of the German Economic Institute (IW) in Cologne, sees a threatening asynchronism between economic performance and social balance. Since their connection represents the constituent principle of the social market economy, this is a critical development. Hüther writes: “Due to global networking, digitalization is a huge acceleration program. The social market economy takes time.” To solve this conflict, Hüther looks to the wider “public realm.” Yet it is seriously threatened by “self-referential communities in social networks and deliberately one-sided and distorted information.” For Hüther, the lack of governance is primarily due to the disintegration of the public into sub-communities. He warns that at the end of this process, the “limits of the community” will have been reached. The “public sphere of critical but respectful debate [...] would lose the power to negotiate conflicts and find appropriate solutions. In this respect, the digital transformation not only expands our scope for information, decision-making, and action, but also our responsibility for the public sphere” (Hüther 2016, p.18). Companies are important socio-political actors that share this increased responsibility. With this in mind, Claus Dierksmeier (2010, pp. 9–23), professor of Economics and Globalization Ethics, emphasizes that companies today cannot blindly follow their interests and shift social responsibility onto governments. The reason is that by themselves, governments are less and less able to guarantee the preconditions for societal and entrepreneurial prosperity. This would lead to governments becoming weaker and multinational corporations stronger—which creates the necessity for new and more sustainable business models. Failing that, a recent trend will gain momentum: that politics frequently only puts into practice what actors independent of national governments—above all businesses and their new technologies—dictate in terms of a pragmatic approach. Business can initiate desirable political developments, but at the same time, this trend puts politicians under enormous pressure to embrace leaps in innovation in a way that is responsible and acceptable for society. With CPR, companies can help the state gain more of the necessary resources—in their own interest. All societal actors are responsible for strengthening the public sphere; it is not the sole responsibility of politics. A socio-political stance is needed because the state’s ability to solve problems does not grow at the same pace as the already complex challenges (Bosshart 2014). Or as Ralf Fücks (2016, p. 5) puts it: “There is a hazardous gap between the dynamics of global markets and international politics’ capacity to act.” One might add: International politics is primarily organized along the lines of nation-states, despite the EU, trade agreements, and NGOs. The governance gap can best be closed if societal actors act politically and take over or

2.2 The Public Sphere and Its Actors

23

Tipping Point The Primacy of Politics

Economic Pressure to Innovate

© Johannes Bohnen

Fig. 2.2 The political governance gap #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved

supplement public services. In any case, we need to avoid, in the spirit of liberal democracy, the “tipping point” at which politics loses control over public governance to economic forces. Of course, it is also important to avoid “selling out” politics through blind privatization (see Fig. 2.2). We are in a critical phase for the self-assertion of politics and thus the selfdetermination of citizens. Legislation and regulation must remain with the state. The power of Internet corporations must be limited. At the same time, the twin processes of globalization and digitization should not be stopped. It would be wise to integrate them productively—that is, to hand over more governance services to businesses and, at the same time, to enforce more transparency and rule compliance. The Political Governance Gap But does not a “politicization” of businesses lead the state to withdraw because it allows it to conveniently get rid of its tasks? This potential problem should be taken seriously. After all, CPR should not be an excuse for the state to reduce its efforts. Nor should it advocate simple privatization. The increased socio-political assumption of responsibility by businesses as citizens with a broader reach should complement rather than replace the purpose of the state to provide governance and regulation. Politics has the task of involving companies while subjecting them to clear rules. This makes sense because an overwhelmed and fragmented state cannot adequately meet its governance obligations. Therefore, it should, following the example of a good boss, partially delegate tasks to companies. Concentrating on its core competency of setting the parameters gives the state a new capacity to act. This will also gain it the respect of its citizens, which can mitigate the growing disaffection with politics and democracy. The core competence of the state should therefore primarily be understood in terms of its functions. The state sets and implements rules and monitors compliance with them. Even in the regulatory function, there are overlaps between private and state, as the example of lobbying and of influencing draft legislation shows. In principle, however, regulation remains with the state—this is where its primacy is expressed. In terms of content—that is, along ministerial lines—it is almost impossible to demarcate the state’s task, because in principle, no policy area is excluded from the participation of private actors. It is ambivalent when it comes to internal security, where the monopoly of violence gives the state an overarching

24

2

Understanding the Public Sphere

responsibility, but companies are also involved, for example, in the fight against cybercrime. In other areas, private fulfillment of governance services is quite easily conceivable. However, the private actors must do their job at least as well as the state can, taking into account additional parameters such as costs and legitimacy.

2.2.2

Society: Citizens and Consumers Have Ever Higher Expectations

There is a well-practiced ritual in which politicians promise citizens—especially in the run-up to elections—to solve all kinds of problems. But it is becoming increasingly obvious that this ritual has its limits. Political decision makers, in accordance with the logic of the system, play a role that depends on how much leeway citizens allow them. One could also say that the majority of citizens have matured in terms of democracy; they question the ritualized mechanisms and have lost any illusions about politics and public administration. According to the Edelmann Trust Barometer (2019), 75 percent trust their employer to “do the right thing,” but only 48 percent place such trust in the government. Citizens, therefore, have expectations of the business sector—as a “trusted partner for change.”2 Their political frustration shows in the protests against politics and the punishment of established parties, but it can also take a more positive form in the shape of more civic engagement and personal responsibility. At least in Western democracies, an increasingly politically oriented public, i.e., critical citizens and consumers, call for businesses to adopt more responsibility. The Internet has given people access to a wide range of information. This makes it easier than ever to question and comment on the behavior of a brand. In this sense, the Internet offers citizens and customers an opportunity for emancipation. Prudent reputation management, therefore, aims at open, transparent, and consistent political communication with interest groups and the general public. If yesterday’s motto in political communication was “Attention creates value,” today’s motto is “Values create attention” (Kemming 2017). From a business perspective, a coherent sociopolitical stance pays off. If two companies sell products of the same quality, it could be the decisive selling point. The desire for meaningfulness is reflected in the recent boom of the “purpose” concept. The worldwide movement of the “Certified B Corps” aims to keep profit and purpose in balance—through exemplary social and environmental behavior, 2

Cf. Edelman Trust Barometer 2019: Executive Summary. The barometer collects data on trust in different institutions (businesses, governments, media, and NGOs). It focuses on the perception of the performance of social institutions, which is essentially shaped by demands on institutions. Citizens should examine the claims they make and see whether they are plausible. This is underlined by the fact that pessimism about the future is particularly pronounced in the developed world—in those countries that objectively are the most productive. The issue seems to be a fear of losing status.

2.2 The Public Sphere and Its Actors

25

public transparency, and legal responsibility. B Corps are committed to a cultural shift toward a more inclusive and sustainable economy. Larry Fink (2019), head of the world’s largest asset manager Blackrock, has also recognized the relevance—or simply the economic potential—of the trend toward meaningfulness. In 2019, he chose the motto “Purpose & Profit” for his annual open letter to company leaders. What follows is that companies have to react to social developments. CPR is becoming critically important for doing business since an increased sensitivity for ethical, sustainable, socio-politically acceptable behavior is emerging in Western societies. Looking ahead, it is significant how young adults, the so-called millennials, see the socio-political role of businesses. For them, simply making money is not enough. Young people are quite critical of what companies do. According to the Deloitte Millennial Survey 2019 (p. 11), only 55 percent of those surveyed believe that companies have a positive impact on society. Millennials increasingly have the impression that companies mainly pursue their own agenda without paying attention to social issues (76 percent). This is a gap that companies should try to close given how potentially important this demographic group of potential customers and employees is: While 32 percent of those surveyed believe that companies should work toward improving society, only 16 percent think that companies actually do that. Overall, the millennials have a constructive relationship with business—they express criticism but at the same time, they appreciate the socio-political potential of companies and therefore expect even more commitment. This trend is already visible in surveys back in 2014. Even then, a majority of young people believed—in line with the spirit of CPR—that companies could use their resources to strengthen education, economic stability, network and information security, health, employment, and the climate. But only in the case of education (training and continuous education) is this actually happening. (Deloitte 2014). Businesses should, therefore, develop their political brand—not just out of goodwill, but out of the awareness that consumers make higher demands on their societal responsibility.

2.2.3

Business: Companies Lack a Political Self-Image

State performance declines and the expectations that society has of business increase. How should companies deal with this challenge? Companies Already Are Political Actors For companies to better understand that they have a role as political actors, it helps to emphasize that they are already deeply bound up with politics and the public. Businesses do not operate in a vacuum. As workers, taxpayers, and innovators, they influence the structures of the communities in which they operate. Due to the growing number of business associations, their own representative offices, and direct political contacts, they exercise political influence. It is understandable that many entrepreneurs and managers find it difficult

26

2

Understanding the Public Sphere

to define themselves as political actors. Political processes often seem chaotic, slow, and inefficient. The impulse to stay away seems logical. But it is still wrong. First, these attributes help to contribute to a democratic policy of negotiating interests and compromise. Second, given the interdependencies between business and politics, it is not a responsible entrepreneurial attitude to reject one’s own political role. It would be better to actively shape it. Think of Business and Politics Together Generally, business and politics are seen as strictly separate. This perspective creates missed opportunities. The space in which companies can operate is formed by the state. Depending on the political and legal system, this space is large or small, safe, or endangered, defined by rules or shaped by arbitrary decisions. Since companies cannot get rid of politics, they have two options. One is to turn their back on reality and to vanish into the supposedly apolitical. A prominent example of that attitude is represented by Franz Haniel, head of a prominent industrial family in Germany. At an event of the Wertekommission, an organization bringing together value-oriented business leaders, Haniel stated that he generally did not give interviews and preferred his companies not to appear in the media at all (Schäfer 2019). This, however, is a very short-sighted attitude because ultimately, reality strikes back—unfavorable political framework conditions damage economic success. The second attitude involves taking an active political role and helping to maintain a vibrant public sphere. Above all, this means supporting the liberal democratic state that guarantees and safeguards freedoms. It is the kind of state in which almost all citizens want to live and almost all companies want to work. Recognizing the interdependence of business and politics gives companies a mandate to strive for win-win solutions. The precondition for a comprehensive commitment to fundamental political goods is to overcome the speechlessness and fear of contact between “politics” and “business”. Develop a Political Self-Image What are the consequences and opportunities of this analysis for businesses and their self-image? It would be naive to misjudge the political power of companies or to believe that such power can simply be cut back. Such reflexes should be resisted; they would damage society’s ability to innovate. Rather, it is important to look for a common stance in order to introduce CPR contributions such as strengthening public goods in an appropriate manner. In this continuous negotiation process, businesses can prove their worth in supporting the state. On the other hand, states that are able to wisely delegate some of their activities to the private sector, create space for important regulatory decisions. Companies that are committed to politics practice governance. The term describes the twin-tone of establishing and implementing rules as well as providing public goods. Governance is a multilateral process to which governments, international organizations, civil society groups, and businesses alike contribute knowledge and resources on a voluntary base (Scherer and Palazzo 2011). On this base, businesses can conceive of themselves as stabilizing the community. The fact that not only the state, but private actors, too, attend to public affairs shows that the strict separation between “politics,” “business,” and “society”

2.3 Fear of Contact: What Makes Entrepreneurs and What Makes Politicians Tick?

27

with regard to forming the public sphere does not correspond to reality. It is indispensable for politics to have companies enter a commitment based on their expertise and abundance of resources. However, the most important argument for a political self-image of companies today goes beyond specific governance solutions. We can no longer take the survival of liberal democracy for granted. Businesses are therefore well advised to rethink whether they really should remain politically neutral in public. In other words: Companies should be nonpartisan on specific issues but take sides where principle is concerned—where it comes to our freedom of living as we see fit. Without a targeted social engagement based on a political self-image, companies endanger their necessary resonance with citizens and customers. In addition, with regard to the external political prerequisites for business success, an engagement in favor of rule-based multilateralism would be a logical stance, especially for the many export-dependent German companies. This is already happening through the established business associations but should be constructively supported by their members. Businesses operate as part of and for the benefit of society; they are not an end in themselves. The legitimacy of the business sector is questioned more sharply if corporate success is not reliably in line with the interests of wider society. For this, however, business needs to proactively approach society and politics and seek to communicate. Therefore, the motto should be: Get involved! Become political—in your own interest!

2.3

Fear of Contact: What Makes Entrepreneurs and What Makes Politicians Tick?

How well are our businesses suited to adopting the CPR concept? How does it fit in with their current self-image? In a rough description, the political behavior of many companies is characterized by defensive behavior, fear of contact, and public abstinence. Many companies would understandably like to have free rein. They usually support deregulation. Most entrepreneurs and managers find it difficult to define themselves as political actors because to them, politics seems chaotic, slow, and inefficient. The impulse to stay away from it appears logical. Nevertheless, it is wrong. First, because these attributes are, in a sense, constitutive for democratic politics. Democracies establish formal procedures to achieve a compromise between a variety of viewpoints. Delays and disputes are part and parcel of this operational process. Fast and unbureaucratic decisions, on the other hand, are characteristic of dictatorships. Even when they do systematically express their interests vis-à-vis the political sphere, many business representatives do not want to do so publicly. When asked to give a public statement on political developments, businesspeople tend to say: “That’s the responsibility of political parties!” A critical observer could ask, somewhat simplistically: Are we looking at a tacit and indirect deal? If that were the case,

28

2

Understanding the Public Sphere

its essence would be as follows: Companies abstain from being politically active, and in return, the state largely keeps out of the economy. In view of the interdependencies between business and politics, however, it is not a responsible entrepreneurial attitude to keep away from the public arena. It is better to act transparently. Large parts of the population already have the impression that companies are interfering too much in politics, that they are too powerful. In line with the widespread criticism of “neoliberalism,” they believe it is important to limit the influence of business lobbyists. Such viewpoints are certainly debatable. But from the critics’ perspective, at least one thing is clear: Businesses are political actors! As employers, taxpayers, and innovators, they influence the structures of the communities of which they are members. The number of their associations, representative offices, and direct political contacts is growing steadily. They donate to parties and do political lobbying. Any relevant piece of legislation is closely followed. This is not reprehensible; indeed, it makes sense in a pluralistic society. But businesses should include a clear commitment to their own role in the public realm. They should recognize their influence on the legislative process and the political framework. Ideally, their attitude would be based on the insight: Yes, we do benefit from stable political and legal conditions. Fundamentally, this is not a question of whether companies should interfere politically, but of how they do it. One problem is that few people can imagine what this engagement would look like concretely and constructively. The CPR concept attempts to remedy this. Reasons for Political Abstinence But let us start with the main reasons for the political abstinence of companies. Why do companies so far shy away from more political responsibility? Their reluctance fits the pattern of the rather apolitical confidence that citizens of today’s democracies have so far had in the functioning of the institutions. Just think of the excellent reputation that science, the constitutional court, the central banks, and the bureaucracy enjoy. This trust in institutions comes with skepticism about genuinely political events such as quarrels and debates about public issues. The need for harmony means that conflicts between different societal goals get glossed over with the help of public spending. But politics—especially in economically difficult times—cannot be dissolved into law, technical expertise, or morals. In Germany, there is an understandable attitude that business does not have a mandate for political tasks. Many companies consider their regular entrepreneurial activity to be a sufficient contribution to society. “Numerous entrepreneurs assume that they provide services that are of equal value as political commitments: They pay taxes, secure employment, enable a comfortable work-life balance, and pay attention to social justice.” Businesses see their pursuit of profit—the heart of much of the criticism of capitalism—as a “prerequisite for assuming social responsibility” (Walter and Marg 2015, pp. 110–111). One obvious concern that business leaders have about politics is that they are entering unknown territory, making them vulnerable and possibly scaring away

2.3 Fear of Contact: What Makes Entrepreneurs and What Makes Politicians Tick?

29

customers. Most entrepreneurs still think that to act openly on the political stage harbors risks for their business. Companies are primarily committed to their employees, investors, and shareholders—and not to the much more abstract society. Part of that means minimizing risks. Businesspeople also feel discouraged by what they see as a lack of decisionmaking ability in politics with its endless committee meetings. And many entrepreneurs are unwilling to accept the kind of media exposure that politicians live with (Walter and Marg 2015, pp. 102–106). Even without joining a political party, political statements and positions are not very attractive for the majority of entrepreneurs. It should not be underestimated how insecure they feel in a direct exchange with professional politicians who are dialectically and ideologically trained and know all sorts of conversational tricks. Most entrepreneurs are used to arguing openly and straightforwardly; they easily overlook rhetorical pitfalls. As a consequence, they are reluctant to skate on the thin ice of politics in order to avoid public embarrassment. Just think of political talk shows: In our “media democracy,” which favors shrill tones and simplified messages, entrepreneurs not only want to protect themselves, but also their families from a public “shitstorm.” There is also a cultural problem in all of this. The language and logic of action of businesspeople and politicians are very different. They literally do not understand each other, which reinforces prejudices. Entrepreneurs often do not feel understood by politics—and vice versa. Siemens CEO Joe Kaeser sums up one reason for the lack of understanding: “As a politician, I can decide to redistribute money without caring who pays or whether the promise is kept. If in doubt, others are to blame. Businesses cannot do that. Whom should I blame? The customers, the competitors, the employees?” (Meck 2017). It is in the logic of the system that business and politics tick fundamentally differently. And it helps if both sides take a sober look at the fundamentally different social role played by the other side. This protects against misunderstandings and unnecessary confrontations. In democracies, politicians see their role as serving the common good and the voters by developing the political environment of his country. An entrepreneur, in contrast, works in the narrower sense for profit in order to pay for himself/herself, his/her employees, and possibly the shareholders. Only those who accept these different roles will not be disappointed by the political or the economic system. There are always conflicting goals that make politicians act against the interests of the economy and consumers because issues such as identity, national feeling, ideological principles, or electoral considerations are so powerful that some economic damage is considered acceptable. The trade war between the United States and China, Brexit, or the costly German energy transition can serve as examples (Meier 2019). This book questions such a rigid perception of roles in the interest of both sides. Indirectly, this is already happening. When lobbying, for example, companies pay particular attention to emphasizing politics and the society that their interests serve the common good. The reason is that in the long run, lobbying exclusively for special interests does not work. In the end, politics remains committed to the common good, which is guaranteed by checks and balances and the involvement of

30

2

Understanding the Public Sphere

numerous actors, from scientific hearings to media coverage and the need to compromise within a government coalition. Political action aims to organize majorities; economic action is formed around the imperative of making a profit. Business and politics are fundamentally different. This is why we need formats in which representatives of politics and business can meet and exchange perspectives. In addition to a reluctance to appear in public, an aversion to the political process, and a lack of understanding for the logic of the political system, nearly 80 percent of uncommitted companies point to a scarcity of resources and time as the most important reasons for their reluctance to assume responsibility. However, companies, particularly if they are worried about political (e.g., geopolitical) risks should question this argument. It is time to set new priorities. At this point, we have not even spoken about the business potential that political sustainability represents. What Are the Consequences of Abstinence? We have seen that from the perspective of entrepreneurs, there is actually a whole array of reasons against getting involved in politics. But abstinence deprives business of an opportunity to influence the public debate and, in particular, to shape the long-term prerequisites for its own success. The bottom line is that the CEOs of Germany’s business sector show their faces far too rarely when it comes to politics. They send their full-time association representatives, i.e., officials who have seldomly worked as entrepreneurs themselves. Political talk shows host far more association professionals than genuine entrepreneurs. It is significant that the moderator Anne Will replied to the question “Are there guests that you would like to have on your show, but who always cancel?”: “Top managers from leading companies never come, no matter how often they are invited. That is really a shame. Because whoever runs a group with 150,000 employees should, in my opinion, be able to present their point of view clearly and without any risk to their share price – yet that’s the argument they use! I find it remarkable that all, all, all such business leaders cancel. And not just with us, but across the board for all programs” (Erk 2018). The basic principle is: As long as business is going smoothly, don’t get involved. But anybody who is unwilling to engage in the public fight over narratives and to work on long-term foundations should not be surprised at the consequences of his or her inaction. For instance, the claim that social imbalance is increasing in Germany meets mostly with silence, despite the fact that it has no basis in the figures on income distribution3 (Feld 2017). To some extent, income differences are important to provide incentives to perform better and to improve productivity, says Jörg Krämer, chief economist at Commerzbank. However, if such differences become too large, talented but poor

3 See also the figures from the Federal Statistical Office, which gives an almost stable Gini coefficient of approx. 0.3 for income distribution in Germany from 2008–2015. The alternative S80/S20 rate (the ratio between the total income of the upper fifth and that of the lower fifth) gives a similar picture (Destatis 2020).

2.3 Fear of Contact: What Makes Entrepreneurs and What Makes Politicians Tick?

31

people get left behind because they cannot afford education. This in turn hampers their development, which is to the detriment of society as a whole. Krämer is aware of the interaction between the economy and the socio-political situation: “Extreme income inequality [leads] to political tensions, perhaps even political upheaval, which is poison for economic development” (Lorz 2017). It is essential for businesses to speak out about such correlations in order to influence the climate of public opinion. Another example is the failed TTIP free trade agreement, for which companies did not campaign hard enough. This would have been the most comprehensive set of rules for transatlantic trade relations ever, yet the German business sector economy proved to be unable to run a campaign. Companies and their associations failed to promote the free trade agreement in its political dimension as a liberal set of rules and standards that fit in with our democratic principles. It could have marked a contrast to the regulatory efforts of authoritarian regimes. But by talking about TTIP in economic categories only, an opportunity was lost to convey to the public that this was also about supporting democracy. Obviously, the CPR stance had not been developed sufficiently and professionally. Therefore, it could not be successfully communicated. The TTIP example tells the story of the failure of some politicians, but also of the business sector, to match well-organized, activist NGOs in the struggle over interpreting events. While NGOs mobilized for battle, businesses failed to even show up. Clearly, business leaders need to position themselves more professionally in the future. There is no shortage of convincing arguments, because hardly any country benefits from globalization and free trade as much as Germany, the world’s export champion. This should have been explained to counter the partial skepticism of Germans toward the market economy (or better: “capitalism”). It is disconcerting that apart from Dieter Zetsche from Daimler, few managers publicly committed themselves to TTIP. Too many CEOs held back, in part because they were afraid of protest demonstrations outside their company headquarters. They believed that the struggle for opinion leadership could be delegated to officials and lobbyists, which was a serious mistake (Theil 2016). To stop NGOs from making them look like fools, companies should take on the fight over narratives. It is not enough to commission campaigns worth millions of dollars so late in the game. CPR focuses on securing long-term business through early socio-political interventions. The Foundations of Society Erode—And Business Elites Begin to Rethink Political abstinence means that businesses leave valuable resources untapped. How can you tell? Companies invest in a variety of ways, primarily from an economic perspective, but they do not invest in the social foundations of their business. And that is obviously because they do not understand politics and the opportunities that come with it. Why do not companies invest enough in all the elements that make for an excellent location, even though its advantages are evident? After all, they also take a long-term perspective with other investments. Yet the provision of public goods is taken for granted. Well, they cannot be—especially not

32

2

Understanding the Public Sphere

at a time when there is a lack of proper governance by the state and when administrations are becoming less efficient. Stable democratic institutions, legal and by extension planning security for investments, or good data and transport infrastructure are essential achievements from which companies benefit enormously. If businesses were to commit to “political investments” of their resources—technical and organizational knowhow, capital, etc.—this would help to even improve public services, which in turn would help businesses secure their future. After all, there is a reason why companies feel more at home in Germany than, e.g., in Russia. Part III of this book describes entrepreneurial measures in this field. Germany’s eminent constitutional lawyer Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde (1991, p. 112) in 1991 coined a well-known dictum: “The liberal, secular state depends on conditions that it cannot guarantee itself.” Böckenförde points out that a liberal state cannot secure its continued existence through illiberal means without undermining itself. Therefore, it depends on an earlier ethos which in Germany and Europe has its sources in Christianity, humanism, and enlightenment. In short: The liberal state needs an active, rather autonomous population with democratic values. If we transfer this paradox to business, we could say: Business depends on social and democratic conditions that it cannot guarantee itself. The Böckenförde dictum helps to understand that business depends on conditions that (so far) remain external, namely in the political sphere. The CPR concept points out that business cannot guarantee these political conditions, but it can support them very effectively. Companies must learn to see themselves as corporate citizens in order to significantly increase the stability of the state and society. Last but not least, this corresponds to the expectations of society, i.e., of their customers. And indeed, there are signs that business is beginning to accept this view. In other words, the self-image and the external image are beginning to converge. This is how the journalist Christoph Schäfer in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (2020) describes the increasingly negative sentiment toward capitalism in Germany, which is in stark contrast to people’s material prosperity in 2020. According to the current “Edelmann Trust Barometer” (2020), 55 percent of Germans believe that capitalism does more harm than good. In a recent survey by the Allensbach Institute (2020), 47 percent of Germans describe the market economy in Germany as not really socially oriented. “Behind the critique of capitalism there is the very strong feeling that some people are enriching themselves greatly,” says the head of Allensbach, Renate Köcher. “The mood of the public debate and the objective personal situation in Germany are diverging. [. . .] On the surface, there is a rhetoric based on the sentiment ‘It’s all rubbish.’” Business is now growing alarmed at this diagnosis. The Manifesto of the World Economic Summit in Davos 2020 advocates a shift to “stakeholder capitalism,” in which not just the well-being of shareholders counts, but that of the entire society (Schäfer 2020). What this is supposed to mean in concrete terms is unclear, especially since it is most probably not aimed at a comprehensive reform of capitalism. What is important, however, is that the debate over the socio-political role of businesses is gaining momentum.

2.4 Lobbying Is on the Defensive

33

The Global CEO Survey of the consultancy PwC, published at the WEF, takes the same line: Decision makers are skeptical about the positive impact of globalization. There are problems with the gap between rich and poor, the lack of fairness in global tax competition, the fight against climate change, and the scarcity of resources. German managers are particularly concerned about geopolitical uncertainties, overregulation, protectionism, and the future of the eurozone. The CEO of PwC Germany, Norbert Winkeljohann, calls on companies to “work unconditionally and in close cooperation between politics and business to advance free markets and open exchange” (Knop 2017). The concern about socio-political stability as a prerequisite for successful economic activity is so significant because it touches on the fundamental question of the acceptance of our Western liberal system. In 2016 and 2017, the World Economic Forum in Davos addressed the issue of trust in the elites—or rather, of its erosion. Since then, according to the Edelman Trust Barometer 2020, trust in institutions (government, business, media, etc.) has somewhat stabilized. Nevertheless, Germans remain pessimistic about the future. They do not rate any institution as both competent and ethically credible. Only business can register a positive trend: With around 58 percent, it is considered the most trustworthy institution. This is an incentive for businesses to reflect on the social consensus on which it operates. 73 percent of employees say they want to have a chance to change society. According to Edelmann, some CEOs have also realized that their mandate has changed. Another aspect concerns the fragmentation of the public sphere and the media: more and more often, citizens are caught in echo chambers, which tend to reinforce their ideological attitudes. However, a country that wants to be innovative and viable needs an open discussion culture. In addition to schools, businesses are institutions where people can still be reached in large numbers. It is clear: Companies must strengthen their political and social roots. To sum up: Political abstinence damages business interests. It means missing an opportunity to set out your own point of view. Overall, not enough explanations are given. Or, as Karl-Heinz Büschemann (2019, p. 79; emphasis added) says: “Fundamental policies need lobbying, too, when it comes to principles of democracy, free trade and open society. But there, the bosses bow out. “We still have a long way to go before companies will have the courage to openly define themselves as political actors, to articulate their interests transparently, and to make constructive contributions to political sustainability. But things are starting to move. Businesses will better be able to deal with this challenge if they can develop a political brand based on suitable know-how.

2.4

Lobbying Is on the Defensive

An important aspect of the struggle over which narratives will prevail in public concerns the professional efforts of societal actors to gain influence. In our pluralistic, democratic society, it goes without saying that individual interests inform the

34

2

Understanding the Public Sphere

political process. They are an important part of political decision-making, to which not only political parties but also all stakeholders in society are committed. The only question is how it happens. This is where lobbyists come in. Good and Bad Lobbyists Lobbyists are advocates and mediators. There are “good” and “bad” lobbyists, just as there is justified, illegitimate, or even illegal interference. In the public’s perception, the bad guys are often the corporations, and the good guys are NGOs like Greenpeace, Amnesty International, or Food Watch. But the argument that NGOs use only voluntarily donated funds and follow a higher purpose falls short. NGOs like to describe their special interest as promoting the common good. But Campact’s mobilization against the transatlantic trade agreement TTIP is not the only example which shows that NGOs also do lobbying. The journalist Ursula Weidenfeld describes how their perspectives on political disputes are clearly colored by self-interest (Weidenfeld 2017, pp. 185–214). The only difference to businesses is that people often react more positively to supposed social advocacy than to the concerns of specific economic actors and their pursuit of profit. Companies certainly have more money and can afford to represent their interests more elaborately than less well-financed interest groups. But it would be an exaggeration to say that companies “buy” laws and undermine democratic decisionmaking processes. They have a right to express their point of view as long as it does not go against the fundamental rules of our liberal democratic order. The expertise of companies is actually extremely important for legislation, because lobbyists provide decision makers with specialist information that helps to competently handle factual issues. Of course, this information is not per se neutral but is based on business interests. Therefore, it should not be used blindly by politicians acting for the common good. But enforcing regulation without at least listening to the arguments of the addressees of that regulation would be both democratically dubious and unwise in terms of content. Lobbyism as an Ideological Slogan: Lobbyists Deserve a Better Image Lobbyists are not the only profession with a negative image. Many professional groups, whose activities take place in part behind closed doors, share in this reputation. They readily get accused of pursuing power and money interests in the dark. The fact that it is so difficult to know one’s way around the difficult complexities of politics doesn’t help, either. People’s lack of information is a breeding ground for prejudice. Frequently, citizens demand too much transparency of political process. Without a protected space for the free exchange of ideas and the mutual exploration of positions, it is not democracy that flourishes, but communicative arbitrariness. If you put any kind of nonpublic exchange per se under suspicion, you fail to recognize the central democratic importance of the work of, for example, Bundestag committees or the ministerial bureaucracy. If at least initially, it is considered legitimate to feed individual positions into the political process, then lobbyists deserve a better professional image. This is helped by an explanation of what political representation of interests actually means for our democracy. Let us take the United States as an example: In Washington, lobbyists

2.4 Lobbying Is on the Defensive

35

have long enjoyed a better reputation in society than here. However, there are also much stricter transparency guidelines and lobby watchdogs in the United States, such as the website OpenSecrets.org, a comprehensive database that shows exactly who has commissioned whom, for what purpose, and for how much money. There are even rankings about which companies spend the most on lobbying and which lobby companies earn the most. Such a database was also created for Brussels in 2019 (Benrath 2019). What Is Legitimate, Legal, and Morally Justifiable? Of course, only lawmakers determine what is legal and what is not. Bribery is not acceptable—for example, luxury travel for members of the Bundestag in exchange for legislative favors. But thankfully, those times appear to be over. However, it is much more difficult to determine what is legitimate and morally justifiable. Such judgment can hardly be based on the nature of the industry. Armaments and tobacco companies, like everyone else, have the right to make their views heard in politics. Whether you want to work as a lobbyist for the cigarette industry and give your all to represent their interests, you can decide for yourself. What matters is the quality of the argument: How well can I justify that my request is legitimate and should be answered? At the end of the day, the category of the common good also comes into play, which in practice means that some companies will have greater difficulties in justifying their demands than others. Yet theoretical decisions in favor of certain industries are questionable. For example, it would be illegal and immoral if lobbyists cited falsehoods or scientifically unfair studies in order to artificially bolster their argument and manipulate decision makers. That would be a deliberate falsehood. The industry has recognized the issue and is drawing up rules for its members through the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Politikberatung (German Society for Political Consulting) and the Deutsche Rat für Public Relations (German Council for Public Relations). It is trying to regulate itself. The Media as a Corrective of Lobbyism The lobby groups in Brussels are extremely well organized, while the media in comparison do not do so well. In Berlin, on the other hand, the lobby’s influence is still limited to a sustaining framework. Here, attentive citizens, NGOs, and the media make for a powerful corrective. And this despite the fact that the lobby register is underdeveloped in comparison with Brussels and Washington DC. German society has a sharp antenna for politicians who get too close to a lobby; this is proven by the fact that political parties which have that reputation get punished in elections. For example, the FDP lost much credibility over the one-sided tax breaks to the catering trade in the so-called “Mövenpick affair.” In the 2013 elections, this contributed to the party’s failure to clear the five-percent threshold for getting into the Bundestag. The party learned from this—nobody talks about obvious political gifts anymore. The media play an important role for democracy when it comes to lobbying. Through a system of “checks and balances,” they keep politicians on the straight and narrow. Through their supply of information and analysis to the population, they

36

2

Understanding the Public Sphere

ensure that the elected sovereign remains in power. The media have no official regulatory function like governments, parliaments, or the courts do. But they explain the rules, how they are made, how they develop, and what happens with them. The media do not create order, but they stabilize it through their diverse reporting, which also includes imparting orientation. Lobbyists, on the other hand, only give views on certain, clearly delimited topics. They use arguments to substantiate those views and try to convince decision makers. In doing so, they must respect the primacy of the political. Digitalization, globalization, rapid technological progress, cross-border governance—all these are new challenges that the state faces today and for which it depends on input from business and the media. Without the provision of firsthand, in-depth expertise, often conveyed through lobbyists and journalists, the state cannot take the best decisions for all citizens. Citizens—the sovereign—depend on the incorruptibility of our politicians and civil servants. They also depend on politicians’ ability to filter and evaluate the information they receive every day in such a way that it benefits the common good. The process is comparable to the editorial process of a newspaper. PR agencies can write as many bite-sized statements and print ready articles as they like; it is always a question of editorial independence to decide to what extent they get into the newspapers. The professionalism of the media shows how a good corrective to lobby activities can function.

2.5

The Regulatory Framework: Fundamentals of Democratic Constitutionality

This book is based on the premise that the civilizational achievements of the West are worth protecting. In terms of foreign policy, the European Union, including monetary union, is an important pillar, especially for German foreign trade. Germany’s security, in turn, is to this day ensured through NATO membership and the American security umbrella (including nuclear means). This protection extends to keeping international trade routes open that are essential for Germany’s export industry. In addition, the UN, WTO, and OECD are pillars of an international framework in which we can pursue our political and economic interests. An export-dependent country like Germany, which is a clear winner of globalization, depends on the functioning of multilateralism and its institutions. However, it is becoming clear that the “normative project of the West” (Winkler 2017) is coming under pressure not just from authoritarian regimes, but from Western countries themselves. This happens where people lose respect for democratic norms, or even attack them. Functioning social institutions need as many social stabilizers as possible—enlightened citizens and watchful representatives of all sectors of society, including, of course, business. A profound understanding of the foundations of peace, freedom, and prosperity helps defend against authoritarian temptations. These foundations include the principles of democracy, the rule of law, and the social market economy. In

2.5 The Regulatory Framework: Fundamentals of Democratic Constitutionality

37

Germany, these principles are enshrined in the constitution, the Basic Law, which has stood the test of time extremely well. With a bit of pathos, we can say: Later generations owe the mothers and fathers of our constitution huge gratitude for their farsightedness. Article 1 of the Basic Law says: “Human dignity is inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.” Of course, this postulate should also serve as a guiding principle for the representatives of the business sector. The protection of individual fundamental rights is also expressed in the principles of state organization in our democratic constitution. This includes the decentralized structures of the federal state, which make up a complex system of checks and balances. Also worth mentioning is public service broadcasting, which due to its democratic and educational mandate plays an important role. By providing information and analysis, it enables citizens to gain an impression of reality and to form an opinion. By doing that, public service broadcasting supports the democratic institutions of the state. The social market economy forms the economic framework in Germany. This ordering principle is based on competition. Its aim and purpose are to combine freedom of initiative with social progress that is made possible through economic performance. The citizen is given the greatest possible freedom to develop—a freedom that is only constrained by the freedom of others. The principle of “property entails obligation” is key. Business is there to serve people; it is not an end in itself. In this normative interpretation, companies exist to make life better. Business is therefore always committed to social progress, which would not exist in a mere business logic. Germany has developed its own variant of regulatory policy, the so-called ordoliberalism. This was developed by Walter Eucken in the “Freiburg School” after World War II and shaped the thinking of leading German politicians such as Ludwig Erhardt and Otto Graf Lambsdorff.4 Alfred Müller-Armack built on the concept of ordoliberalism; he was the architect behind the guiding principle of the social market economy. It is striking that this very successful approach has become practically irrelevant in today’s public debate. Yet ordoliberalism could still be a strong basis for dealing with the platform economy and other new and disruptive developments. In order to encourage business innovations, Germany has set up a whole structure of scientific institutions in addition to private business. These include the Fraunhofer institutes which connect science and industry. In addition, there is a typically German institution: the apprentice system, a system of intensive vocational training which takes place in businesses and schools. As the economist, Mariana Mazzucato says: “It is impossible to understand the success of companies like Siemens without considering this system” (Nienhaus 2019).

4 Eucken explained the guiding principle of ordoliberalsm with the following words: State planning of the structures—yes; state planning and control of the economic process—no. It is the goal of ordoliberalism to reconcile social concerns with the principle of merit, the ordering mission with decentralism (Wikipedia 2019).

38

2

Understanding the Public Sphere

This traditional regulatory framework of our democracy, which we have briefly described, is now coming under massive pressure. For example, there have been demands for nationalizing companies or apartments that call the basic principles of a market economy into question (Welt 2019). They are the results of much larger developments driven by digitalization. Economic disruption is primarily triggered by the large international technology groups. Their push for innovation increases the pressure on citizens and on our democratic community and its institutions. Policy makers need to be careful not to simply execute what international groups suggest. At the same time, they need to provide a framework that allows innovations to develop as freely as possible. There is a crucial paradox here which creates tension that cannot be easily resolved: On the one hand, many large companies, especially digital companies, are among the drivers of globalization and technological advances and therefore contribute to the decreasing capacity of the state to act—they endanger the primacy of politics. On the other hand, businesses are needed as part of the solution; they have an important role to play in the regaining of control and governance skills. This is in their own interest, because they want to operate in a liberal, democratic framework. And as there is no real alternative to this, the tension described must not only be endured, but also negotiated and managed; it should lead to concrete contributions to the stabilization of the democratic framework for successful business operations. It will be one of the great intellectual and communicative challenges of the coming years to make business leaders aware of their self-interest in measures aimed at stabilizing the political sphere. The CPR concept is intended as a concrete aid to achieve this goal. But there is also pressure in the reverse sense. Political values have the power to influence economic values, and that is also true for arbitrary or authoritarian decisions. Let us just think of stock prices: President Trump’s Twitter diatribes against individual companies have the effect of lowering their stock market value. The more dependent a company is on the government, the worse it gets hit. This is particularly true for the arms corporation Lockheed Martin and the aviation group Boeing, which depend on government contracts. Companies with a business-toconsumer business model (B2C) have it somewhat easier. As they sell directly to consumers, there are limits to political arbitrariness (Kuls 2017). In any case, a sustainable increase in a company’s stock market value is only possible in a stable political and legal environment. In other words: The destruction of the political culture is a threat to business. The United States serves as an example. ZEIT journalist Uwe Jean Heuser (2017) points out that the Trump administration has boosted the economy through investment and deregulation. “But at the same time, it undermines democracy with its rhetoric and decrees and thus also damages the economy in the long run.” And concerning Turkey’s transformation into an authoritarian presidential system—which some investors consider to be uncritical for business success—Christian Geinitz (2017) warns, “open societies made those same companies great which are now ready to do without them.” Both pillars of our social model are therefore being challenged: the economic order and the order of the state and politics. CPR could be a contribution to

2.6 The Mental Parameters: Political Values and An Ethos of Supporting the State

39

strengthening trust in both of these closely linked orders, precisely because it appeals to the sense of responsibility of citizens as well as the different sectors of society, promising sustainable added value and enabling “ownership” of the whole. CPR helps both models of order take deeper roots in people’s awareness. This is particularly important because many people see the liberal social order as a “cold project.” Whenever its performance deteriorates, it loses approval. If we bring the focus back to the ordering principles, it will be easier to deal with the rapidly growing groups which are convinced of their entitlements. Just think of the demands for stronger regulation for example of housing and rents. In the light of the described pressure on our regulatory framework, a comprehensive concept of the political should include the interactions between business and other sectors of society. It should express the fact that the political is not limited to disputes between different parties. Rather, it raises fundamental questions about shaping the community and strengthening state institutions based on sufficient social acceptance. This includes a culture of the public sphere that ensures an exchange of information and a public debate. To clarify this comprehensive meaning of the concept, one might speak of “socio-political foundations” in which companies in their own interest should invest. CPR is a stance, as described in Part II, which aims to support the functioning of the democratic framework. Without leadership— especially from business—this will be difficult to achieve in tumultuous times. And there is another element: concrete contributions from companies in specific areas of action, as described in Part III.

2.6

The Mental Parameters: Political Values and An Ethos of Supporting the State

The functioning of the public sphere in a democracy depends on citizens who participate constructively. In contrast, an attitude that is fixated on the state and its handouts testify to dependence on authority. This is dangerous for democracy which depends existentially on citizens assuming ownership of the political system. That means cultivating civic virtues and becoming politically active. In other words, civil society depends on a democratic ethos. The current crisis of democracy and the established political parties can also be understood as a crisis of the expectations placed on them. The institutions of the state are being overtaxed. Civic ethos therefore must include understanding the political process in terms of its capabilities, but especially its limits—and then providing the best possible support. A somewhat more realistic and relaxed view of politics can help overcome the “great irritability” in today’s debate that sociologists like Heinz Bude (2016, p. 14) or media scientist Pörksen and Schulz von Thun (2020, p. 9) have diagnosed. As a prerequisite, politicians must stop giving the impression that they can solve all the problems the country may have. Admitting their own limitations would be a confidence-building measure; it would make citizens and other organized social actors assume responsibility and counteract the loss of confidence in social institutions.

40

2

Understanding the Public Sphere

The Böckenförde Dictum The continued existence of our democratic society is not the sole task of elected parliamentarians but depends on the citizen’s democratic attitudes. If you reduce the political to party politics, you ignore the broad meaning of the term. The idea described here originates with the German constitutional lawyer Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde who has already been mentioned in this book. His thinking clearly explains why actors in the public sphere such as churches, NGOs, and indeed businesses bear socio-political responsibility, why their democratic spirit is so important. In an interview, Böckenförde presented his famous dictum as follows: “The state depends on citizens having certain fundamental attitudes, an ethos of supporting the state, otherwise it will be difficult to implement a policy focused on the common good. If the state had to enforce all its goals, it would soon cease to be a liberal state” (Rath 2009). Ethos and Values Values are important in politics as well as for business. In this sense, John Kornblum, a former US ambassador to Germany, emphasizes “that the prospects for success in the West don’t look too bad. Even opponents of democracy increasingly realize that true solidarity and connectedness can only take place in an atmosphere of openness and honesty.” This is why: “What is the future about? It is about creating added value and about values. Creating added value is a new measurement that is replacing profit as a measure of success or failure. The digital concept of “added value” is not defined solely by money. Russia celebrates its traditional ambitions but fails to generate added value. It can threaten but not lead, and unlike China, its race to catch-up is doomed from the start. Values are the fuel of the new world. Competition for global control will be fierce, but Western values are probably the most suitable drivers for the digital future. Why? Because openness, tolerance, and justice are the best prerequisites for innovation and for a social balance” (2016; emphasis added). The twin notions of values and added value makes it clear that the latter cannot be had without the former. Values are becoming increasingly important, especially in our complicated digital world. To put it differently: in our knowledge society, which is becoming increasingly complex and more differentiating, every judgment is based on values. How can the important be distinguished from the unimportant without being able to make a judgment? CPR projects should build on this link by strengthening the open society and its values as a prerequisite for entrepreneurial profit. Political branding with a leitmotif can help businesses to assess the impact of political developments on business activities and clearly position themselves. Demoralization and Irritability The philosopher Peter Sloterdijk also emphasizes that citizens make voluntary decisions and bear personal responsibility. He points out a fatal development: In our system, the person who gives is actually the culprit. For him, this is “... a psycho-political mistake which could make modern democracy fail. The etatists of all stripes don’t take this seriously enough. They believe the systems always run on their own. Our whole world is based on a fundamental psycho-political error because there is not enough appreciation of the

2.6 The Mental Parameters: Political Values and An Ethos of Supporting the State

41

voluntary dimension in all these transactions between the state and the citizen” (Steingart and Riecke 2011). According to Sloterdijk, the worst case for our society is “the complete general demoralization” we are headed for: Collective demoralization is worse than a temporary recession can ever be. Recessions have at least one accompanying virtue, namely that they help people regain a sense of moderation. Not in the sense of tightening one’s belts, but in the sense of not losing one’s sense of proportions. For decades, we have been living in a surreal atmosphere in which people are bombarded with maddening double messages all the time. They should save and waste at the same time; they should risk and live solidly at the same time; they should speculate highly and keep their feet on the ground. In the long run, this wears you down completely. The same demoralizing effect arises from the fact that incomes that are not based on performance are rapidly increasing. This poisons young people because it sets them dreaming of phantom careers. The whole thing has an ugly psychological name: the dream of excessive rewards. Many people get up in the morning and want the maximum premium right away. The inner millionaire has been woken up in everybody. It just is not congruent with the real person. (Steingart and Riecke 2011)

Based on this analysis, businesses should ask the following question with regard to their operations: What is the demoralization potential of employees, customers, and citizens, if we cannot find a convincing answer to the question of making high return targets and social responsibility compatible? Or if Western values, such as the search for truth and trustworthy information, are cynically manipulated and relativized for reasons of power politics? This destructive potential, which endangers our own economic foundations, should be taken seriously. This is about more than social and ecological responsibility. It is about the mental prerequisites for a self-determined life in a resilient democracy. On this, CPR can make constructive contributions. One approach is to clearly identify the problem. Concrete counterstrategies can follow. People who become demoralized and resigned believe they and others are defenseless. That kind of belief does not make for a good, motivated employee. What happens if the discomfort caused by digitalization is added—as a kind of fire accelerator? The media scientist Bernhard Pörksen refers to “seduction and manipulation fantasies” which are now widespread—of “overpowering frames, sophisticated microtargeting, and the ubiquitous algorithms.” He considers these “a symptom for the arrogance, the anti-liberalism and the pessimism about enlightenment of its representatives, who in their mega-theses prematurely give up on the potentially mature subject and the independent individual.” In his book “The Great Irritability,” Pörksen describes how intolerably close we get to each other in the digital village. Filter bubbles exist, but ultimately people cannot avoid each other. A “filter crash” is inevitable. Connectedness becomes disturbing because “it prevents the flight into informational and emotional isolation.” The permanent confrontation, “the loss of distance combined with constant ‘contact with the enemy’ polarizes and creates great uneasiness.” This is exhausting (Huber 2019). To avoid “apocalyptic escalation rhetoric” and a further “overheating of the communication climate,” Pörksen recommends being optimistic about

42

2

Understanding the Public Sphere

enlightenment with regard to a “media-conscious society.” In order to cope with the wealth of information and the power of the media, we could develop in the direction of an “editorial society” and orient ourselves on the maxims of good journalism. For the general public, those ethics very concretely mean: “Analyze your sources! Check first, publish later! Always hear the other side too! Do not make an event bigger than it is, take the lead on what is relevant and proportional!” Pörksen believes the core problem to be that we are media savvy today, but not media-competent. He hopes that in tomorrow’s editorial society, these maxims will become part of general education and be taught at school (Huber 2019). One could object that such diagnoses based on media studies get too preoccupied with their own topic, and that the actual problem has more to do with the sociopolitical area (populism, nationalism, etc.). But then, we would be going round in circles. In any case, it is noteworthy that ever since marginalized groups have become more able to conduct campaigns thanks to the Internet, the social mood has become much more hostile, although the economic situation offers little reason for complaint. Thomas Hutzschenreuter tries to help give orientation in ethical issues. He has developed a three-stage cascade for making business decisions, which is based on pre-defined values that can also inspire a suitable CPR attitude. First stage: If a company’s options for action go against self-imposed (political) values, the decision is taken in favor of the values. They constitute a red line. In the second stage, the interests of society as a whole stand in contradiction with options on action, but not with the corporate values that the company has set itself. At the same time, there is also a lack of solutions at the societal level. Here, a decision is made in favor of the company’s interests. On the third level, the interests of society, the company’s options for action and individual (political) values are aligned. Obviously, there is no conflict of values here (Hutzschenreuter 2019). The Duty to Be Optimistic and Act Constructively Attitude and values cannot be taken for granted and must be trained again and again. This includes having an optimistic attitude, especially among the elites. They should spread a wellfounded confidence to keep demoralization and irritability from solidifying. Sociologist Heinz Bude describes part of the problem: “Anyone who wants to convince the public today that all truths are relative and can no longer be relied on get welcomed with open arms.” Like Sloterdijk, Bude also diagnoses a collective unease about capitalism. He sees the “homeless anti-capitalists” as somewhat more prone to irritability than the other side, the “system fatalists” (Bude 2016, p. 11, 14). However, an ambitious country cannot afford permanent irritability or indifference toward society and the world. Our state is not that powerful, so it is important to counteract negativity, fatalism, and cynicism, because they offer no alternative for human existence and the search for truth. Antonio Gramsci coined the bon mot: “Pessimism of the mind, optimism of the will” (Gramsci 1991). There is no question that some prospects are worrying. But even if the grand ideals have become ambivalent in modern times. Social elites have a duty to be optimistic. Democracy depends on the premise that the world can be

2.6 The Mental Parameters: Political Values and An Ethos of Supporting the State

43

shaped. We could be holding a great philosophical debate about which personal sources of stabilization and meaning would be helpful in these irritable times. What are the prerequisites for a liberal democracy? People from many regions of the world would tell us about their beliefs and their patriotism and advocate making this part of a vigorous education. Yet these categories are also ambivalent and have a destructive side based on intolerance and nationalism. In Germany, the sources of social meaning are not obvious. Traditional social frames of reference such as the nation and the church have lost much of their strength. For Germans, the nation has been a difficult category since 1945, even though it has become part of German identity and orientation to have society discuss true values and the lessons from history. In addition, there are few countries where more people renounce their membership in the church than Germany; faith only plays a subordinate role in the public discussion. Belief in progress and optimism can also create meaning; they are important for societies and especially for business success. But in Germany, neither is particularly strong. It is a paradox that here, they are offset by the proverbial “German fear,” which was recently identified as the main driving force for our economic strength (Biess 2019). Fear is also repeatedly identified as the driving force behind personal success (Shafy 2010). However, fear is not a sustainable motive for a community, its decision makers, and the necessary civic ethos. Despite such weaknesses, it is obvious that the Germans—also in an international comparison—have built a strong democracy, which is also supported by suitable attitudes and values. But this state cannot be taken for granted. How would Germany’s society cope with a deep economic downturn and the corresponding loss of wealth? It is important to remain vigilant and to strengthen the constructive forces. Businesses with their built-in optimism are needed to boost the courage of society. They should ask what they can do to stabilize our democracy at a time when the political environment may become fragile. Among the obvious answers are contributions to political education and personal development. Interim Conclusion The public realm with its institutions and debates is undergoing fundamental change. Society’s consensus on essential issues is becoming more superficial and fragile. This is true, for example, for the social market economy (take the issue of property), the polarized culture of debate, or foreign and security policy (take the controversy about interventions abroad) in times of intensified external threats. They originate from countries that are also important economic partners, e.g., Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, and in parts Turkey. At the same time, the state’s ability to perform is reaching its limits because of globalization and digitalization. The reason is that national political control is made more difficult by these transnational phenomena. In view of this situation, it is necessary to measure and redesign the public sphere through productive contributions from business. On the one hand, companies that want to assume political responsibility should look at the different political cultures of their locations. On the other hand, it is important to understand the international frame of reference: the EU plus the

44

2

Understanding the Public Sphere

United Kingdom as well as the special relationship with the United States and NATO. Companies and associations, like all other parts of society, have to decide whether they want to observe the current trends without further action, or whether they want to get involved, which would serve their own interests. It is important not to get bogged down in everyday political business, but to develop a realistic assessment and an inner compass on fundamental issues. This requires analytical skills, but businesses above a certain size should be able to afford them. In the end, the goal is to take concrete action.

References Benrath, B. (2019, August 13). Wer ist die größte Lobbymacht in Brüssel? FAZ. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/schneller-schlau/lobbyismus-wer-ist-diegroesste-lobby-macht-in-bruessel-16328984.html Biess, F. (2019). Republik der Angst. Hamburg: Rowohlt. Böckenförde, E. W. (1991). Die Entstehung des Staates als Vorgang der Säkularisation. In Recht, Staat, Freiheit. Studien zur Rechtsphilosophie, Staatstheorie und Verfassungsgeschichte (pp. 92–114). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Bohrer, K. H., & Scheel, K. (2010). Die Grenzen der Wirksamkeit des Staats. Über Freiheit und Paternalismus (S. 64). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Bosshart, D. (2014, November 20). Wohlstand wird falsch verstanden. In GDI. Trend Updates. Accessed February 7, 2020, from http://gdi.ch/de/Think-Tank/Trend-News/Wohlstand-wirdfalsch-verstanden?utm_source=gdi&utm_medium=mailing&utm_campaign=wohlstand15& SourceID=mailing_dez14 Bude, H. (2016). Das Gefühl der Welt. Über die Macht von Stimmungen. München: Hanser. Büschemann, K.-H. (2019). Bloß nicht aus der Deckung wagen. Cicero, September 2018, S. 79. Deloitte. (2014). Big demand and high expecations. Deloitte Millennial Survey 2014. https:// www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/About-Deloitte/gx-dttl-2014-mil lennial-survey-report.pdf Destatis. (2020). Einkommen, Konsum und Lebensbedingungen. Lebensbedingungen und Armutsgefährdung. Accessed February 28, 2020, from https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/ Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Einkommen-Konsum-Lebensbedingungen/LebensbedingungenArmutsgefaehrdung/_inhalt.html Deutscher Beamtenbund. (2019). dbb Bürgerbefragung 2019. Über 60 Prozent der Bürgerinnen und Bürger halten Staat für überfordert. Accessed February 28, 2020, from https://www.dbb.de/ teaserdetail/artikel/forsa-studie-staat-ist-ueberfordert-buerger-vertrauen-schwindet.html Dierksmeier, C. (2010). What is ‘Humanistic’ about humanistic management? Humanistic Management Journal, 1, 9–23. Erk, D. (2018, February 17). Warum politische Talkshows sind, wie sie sind. Interview mit Anne Will. Tagesspiegel. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www.tagesspiegel.de/themen/ tagesspiegel-berliner/will-lobo-bosbach-und-co-warum-politische-talkshows-sind-wie-sie-sind/ 20971644.html Feld, L. (2017, February 10). Wohlstand für alle funktioniert bereits. Börsen-Zeitung. Fratzscher, M. (2020, February 10). Die Wirtschaftsschwäche ist hausgemacht. Tagesspiegel. Fücks, R. (2016). Kampf um die Moderne. Wer die offene Gesellschaft verteidigen will, muss Sicherheit im Wandel schaffen. Böll.Thema, 2, 3–5. Geinitz, C. (2017, April 7). Gefährlicher Handel. Geschäfte mit dem Sultanat. FAZ. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/referendum-in-der-tuerkeibeeinflusst-deutsche-wirtschaft-14960874.html

References

45

Gramsci, A. (1991). Gefängnishefte. In K. Bochmann & W. F. Haug (Hrsg.). Hamburg: Argument Verlag. Heuser, U. J. (2017, February 9). Was wir von den Medien erwarten dürfen. Die ZEIT, S. 21. Heuser, U. J., & Hildebrandt, T. (2016, November 1). Der Teufel scheißt auf den größten Haufen. Interview mit Peer Steinbrück. ZEIT Online. Accessed February 7, 2020, from https://www.zeit. de/2016/42/peer-steinbrueck-geld-neid-gerechtigkeit Huber, J. (2019, August 11). Wir kommen uns im digitalen Dorf unerträglich nahe. Interview mit Bernhard Pörksen. Tagesspiegel. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www.tagesspiegel. de/gesellschaft/medien/interview-mit-medienwissenschaftler-poerksen-wir-kommen-uns-imdigitalen-dorf-unertraeglich-nahe/24888922.html Hüther, M. (2016, September 9). Politik für die digitale Transformation. FAZ, S. 18. Hutzschenreuter, T. (2019, November 18). Das Unternehmen geht vor, FAS. Kemming, J. D. (2017, November 15). From a brand to a stand? Mixing brands and politics. Accessed February 7, 2020, from https://blog.webershandwick.de/warum-unternehmenstellung-beziehen-sollten/ Knop, C. (2017, January 17). Befragung ”Global CEO Survey“. Unter den Chefs wächst die Globalisierungs-Skepsis. FAZ. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www.faz.net/aktuell/ wirtschaft/weltwirtschaftsforum/global-ceo-survey-unter-den-chefs-waechst-dieglobalisierungs-skepsis-14669101.html Kobrin, S. J. (2009). Private political authority and political responsibility: Transnational politics, transnational firms, and human rights. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(3), 349–374. Kuls, N. (2017, February 11). Der Fluch der Trump-Tweets an der Wall Street. FAZ, S. 30. Lauter, R. (2019, August 13). Mehrheit der Deutschen ist demokratieverdrossen. Friedrich-EbertStiftung. ZEIT-Online. Accessed February 5, 2020, from https://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/ zeitgeschehen/2019-08/friedrich-ebert-stiftung-demokratie-ostdeutsche-westdeutschezufrieden-studie Lorz, S. (2017, July 15). Helikoptergeld ist keine Lösung. Interview mit Jörg Krämer. BörsenZeitung, S. 7. Meck, G. (2017, December 29). Ein Siemens Chef findet höhere Steuern gut. Interview mit Joe Kaeser. FAS, S. 25. Meier, D. (2019, February 8). Politik – fünf Regeln für Unternehmer. Neue Züricher Zeitung. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www.nzz.ch/meinung/politik-fuenf-regeln-fuerunternehmer-ld.1452795 Nienhaus, L. (2019, March 7). Politik braucht eine Mission. Interview mit der Ökonomin Mariana Mazzucato. ZEIT-Online. Accessed 10, 2020, from https://www.zeit.de/2019/11/marianamazzucato-oekonomin-industriepolitik-staat-innovationen Pörksen, B., & Schulz von Thun, F. (2020). Die Kunst des Miteinander-Redens. München: Hanser. Rath, C. (2009, September 23). Interview mit Ernst Wolfgang Böckenförde. Freiheit ist ansteckend. taz. Schäfer, C. (2019, November 11). Das Schweigen der Unternehmer. FAZ. Schäfer, C. (2020, February 25). Kapitalismus am Pranger. FAZ. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14676486.2010.00950.x. Shafy, S. (2010, October 10). Wie uns Angst prägt. Der Spiegel Online. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/wie-uns-angst-praegt-a-00000000-0002-00010000-000074184597 Steingart, G., & Riecke, T. (2011, December 17). Die Staaten verpfänden die Luft und die Bankenatmen tief durch. Interview mit Peter Sloterdijke. Handelsblatt. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/peter-sloterdijk-die-staatenverpfaenden-die-luft-und-banken-atmen-tief-durch/5968680.html?ticket=ST-5705500dNlIPgqUYaXAKuv4oCc-ap1

46

2

Understanding the Public Sphere

Strohschein, B. (2015). Die gekränkte Gesellschaft – Das Leiden an Entwertung und das Glück durch Anerkennung. München: Riemann Verlag. Theil, S. (2016, October 21). How activists outfoxed the establishment. Handelsblatt Global Edition. Walter, F., & Marg, S. (2015). Sprachlose Elite? Wie Unternehmer Politik und Gesellschaft sehen. Berlin: Rowohlt. Weidenfeld, U. (2017). Regierung ohne Volk. Warum unser politisches System nicht mehr funktioniert. Berlin: Rowohlt. Wikipedia. (2019). Ordoliberalismus. Accessed March 2, 2020, from https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Ordoliberalismus Wildner, K., & Berger, H. M. (2018, July 9). Das Prinzip des öffentlichen Raumes. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. Accessed February 5, 2020, from http://www.bpb.de/politik/ innenpolitik/stadt-und-gesellschaft/216873/prinzip-des-oeffentlichen-raums?p=all Winkler, H. A. (2017, September). Zerbricht der Westen? CICERO. Accessed February 14, 2020, from https://www.cicero.de/kultur/heinrich-august-winkler-westen-usa-europafluechtlingspolitik

3

Revitalizing the Public Sphere

This chapter introduces possible levers for redesigning the public sphere. What needs to be done to ensure that political responsibility is based on broad foundations?

3.1

Regaining the Capacity to Act: The Concept of Governance

What is the remapping of the public sphere about? The objective is to show what all actors of society can do to contribute to a functioning statehood—the key requirement for their own development. This task is too big to be left to the traditional political actors. For the state to regain control is not just a question of government but of “governance,” because this term leaves room for political action by actors outside the regular political institutions. What is governance? In general, it describes the provision of services in a community. CPR is therefore closely linked to governance with regard to its two central forms: on the one hand, the formulation and enforcement of binding rules in a community (“rules of the game”) and, on the other hand, the production and distribution of collective goods (Schubert and Klein 2018). Governance, therefore, encompasses both the legislative process, including the implementation of laws and public administration and essential public services. Crucial areas include external and internal security, the rule of law and democracy, property and contract security, currency stability, health, education, and infrastructure. Streets and kindergartens are specific examples. The provision of governance services is always oriented toward a desired future state which is based on concepts, values, and benefits for the community—for instance justice, social peace, or economic prosperity. Public services do not necessarily have to be provided by the state. “Public” only refers to the fact that the service is designed to establish binding rules with collective benefit and/or to provide collective goods. Providers of governance # The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, part of Springer Nature 2021 J. Bohnen, Corporate Political Responsibility, Future of Business and Finance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62122-6_3

47

48

3

Revitalizing the Public Sphere

services can be—and often are—private individuals, groups, associations, or organizations. For example, Bill Gates, with his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is one of the major global players in the healthcare sector. The NGO Save the Children improves children’s lives by strengthening their rights, education, and health. To a particular extent, however, it is businesses that can support the state through governance services through CPR. In doing so, they fill a vacuum and supplement public regulation and services. With their financial, communicative, and knowledge-based resources, businesses are important producers of social stability. Of course, the primacy of politics needs to apply to all of this. The reason for this primacy lies in the democratic notion of the legitimation of politics, which is different from the functional legitimation of the private sector. Politicians receive an explicit mandate from citizens in elections. Business derives its right to exist primarily from the sale of products and services. This clearly demarcates politics from business and gives it a special position. Therefore, the goal of CPR cannot be for business to take over politics. In view of the increased socio-political commitment by business that is advocated here, reservations are absolutely reasonable. But whoever argues that the spheres of business and politics should be kept entirely separate fails to recognize two things: first, overlaps are unavoidable, and second, at least in part, they are also desirable. Where do politics and business overlap? Politics controls economic behavior through regulation and incentives. Business, in turn, pursues its interests vis-à-vis politics. As an employer, taxpayer, and producer of goods and services, it is in any case, like it or not, a political actor. The question then is no longer how to keep businesses out of politics, but how to use their inevitable influence responsibly. Why is it desirable for businesses to engage in politics? In addition to the requirement of legitimacy, governance services need to be efficient and effective. As argued earlier, politics in the twenty-first century is coming under massive pressure to actively chart out the future instead of being driven by multiple crisis phenomena. The risk consists of partially delegating tasks to business in order to regain control. Business can contribute technical expertise, procedural knowledge, and financial capital to support the state—and therefore itself. But where is the line between private and state? Only the state has the authority to order and enforce coercive measures. Ideally, the state, which is steered by politics, takes on the role of a “boss”—an arbitrator and standard setter—who maintains the overview, distributes competencies, exercises control functions, and takes the ultimate decisions. These are demarcation criteria, not an exhaustive definition, which would always run the risk of interpreting the concept of the political too narrowly or too broadly. In any case, democratic legitimacy takes precedence even over governance services that are generally seen as positive. The complex relationship between private and state must be balanced in such a way that a high quality of common goods are provided and that, at the same time, societal legitimacy is preserved. These two requirements can be at odds with each other, but they can also be mutually supportive. In the long term, there can be no adequate governance services without support from citizens; and there can be no support from citizens without adequate governance services. Against this

3.1 Regaining the Capacity to Act: The Concept of Governance

49

background, it should be possible to decide on a case-by-case basis whether an entrepreneurial intervention in the socio-political field should be welcomed in the sense of CPR, or whether it should be rejected as an unacceptable transgression in terms of competence and role. This question arises not only with regard to companies in the strict sense, but also with regard to the great philanthropists of our time, who finance their sociopolitical activities from their entrepreneurial assets. Strictly speaking, this is not CPR, because the socio-political actor is not a business but the foundation or NGO of the philanthropist. However, the personalization of such an engagement makes the objections that CPR faces very clear. How much influence should an individual or a business have on politics, even though it is not part of traditional political institutions? And how important are the origins of the wealth which is now used to finance political purposes? One example is provided by the Hungarian-American hedge fund manager George Soros and his Open Society Foundation. Soros earned his money through huge and highly controversial speculation. The work of his political foundation is also not free of controversy. The promotion of open societies—especially in formerly communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe—from a liberaldemocratic perspective seems sensible and praiseworthy. Nevertheless, critics say that this entails an enormous presumption of power by an individual. It is elected politicians who are responsible for balancing interests and shaping the community. Similar considerations apply to Bill Gates, whom we have already mentioned, or to Mark Zuckerberg with his plan to donate almost his entire wealth and thus pour tens of billions into projects of his own choosing. It is always about balance: on the one hand to appreciate business and civil society engagement, but on the other hand to preserve the primacy of politics. The above-mentioned criteria of demarcation between private and state could be a starting point to help orientation. With digitalization, the Internet has become a particularly relevant area for corporate governance contributions. The Internet and cyberspace1 have become central to the life of billions of people in the world in recent decades (Singer and Friedman 2014 p. 13). Much of our social communication takes place there, millions of services are provided, and huge volumes of global trade are handled through the Internet. This allows for enormous gains in prosperity and benefits. Last but not least, the new media have contributed to the formation of powerful democracy movements, for example, during the Arab Spring. But the possibilities of the Internet have also opened up new and effective paths for criminal objectives. Cybercrime is playing an increasing role in crime statistics (Bundeskriminalamt 2011). The global reach, decentralization, and anonymity of the internet make effective governance by the state difficult. The public good of “cybersecurity” consists of ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the data of a legitimate and

“Cyberspace is the realm of computer networks (and the users behind them) in which information is stored, shared, and communicated online” (Singer and Friedman 2014 p. 13).

1

50

3

Revitalizing the Public Sphere

legal user. It forms the basis of trust in cyberspace which people use for doing business and for part of their life. But cybersecurity cannot be achieved by public authorities alone; private companies have to do their part. This applies to almost every component of state information architecture (Singer and Friedmann 2014, p. 34, p. 196). Private actors, especially Internet companies, have a great responsibility when it comes to securing and maintaining cyberspace. Singer and Friedman (2014, p. 216): “Cyberspace may be a realm of public concern, but many, if not most, of the decisions to secure it are and will continue to be made by private actors.” It is important to live up to this corporate responsibility—if only because one would want to use cyberspace to secure one’s own “marketplace” and maintain trust in it. However, some tech companies have mutated by now into structures that are coming to resemble states. Polemically speaking, they sometimes no longer need a state, but instead offer their own collective goods, e.g., health, education, and mobility, possibly even their own payment systems, as the Facebook Libra project shows. But of course, sovereign tasks can only be carried out by states. Based on the concept of governance, CPR is a call to overcome the Germans typically state-centered belief in the state. More precisely: the belief that only the traditional actors from politics and administration bear responsibility for the state. In an age of globalization and digitalization, this is no longer realistic. Today, there is a chance of strengthening the state if the concept of the political takes center stage in society—and, as a consequence, in business. This can create a means of orientation, especially since mainstream political parties are losing the ability to claim the pre-political space where they can address issues early and reconcile interests. When society is exposed to enormous centrifugal forces driven by modernity, all sectors must help establish new ties to stabilize the state. Referring to the concept of governance will revitalize the public sphere because it makes all societal actors more aware of their options of shaping this sphere. Such a “politicization of the middle” can counteract the feelings of powerlessness, indifference, and passivity that are so harmful to democracy. Politicization does not require permanent interference in every dispute, but an understanding that providers of essential public services, if they are smart, take the long view. It trains people’s ability to recognize the proportions of matters and helps them resist the temptation of slipping into moralism and sentimentalism. It demands the cultivation of an awareness of what one’s own freedom, peace, and prosperity are based on—a requirement not necessarily of altruism but of strategic calculation and democratic resilience.

3.2

Democratic Resilience Through Personal and Political Education

Education is a basic prerequisite for the effective participation in the public sphere and its redesign. It is time to strengthen the foundations for democracy, freedom, and sustainable business through a more focused personal and political education. This should start in the early formative years. Of course, it is important to have functioning families in which civic attitudes can develop. From an institutional

3.2 Democratic Resilience Through Personal and Political Education

51

point of view, however, this is primarily a challenge for the schools and, after that, for other educational institutions. It is never too late. There have been endless educational debates for many years now, yet with few concrete results. This is reflected in low levels of investments in public education. In 2018, Germany spent 4.2 percent of its economic output on education, well below the OECD average of 5 percent. Investment in early childhood education was particularly low (Schmoll 2019). In absolute terms, education spending in Germany has increased since 2017, but not in relation to GDP growth (Spiegel Online 2018, Statista 2018).2 Is this money being used correctly? Do the resources used follow a sensible strategic approach? Is the focus on the person or student, meaning the dignity and autonomy of the learning person? Given the uncertainties of the digital transformation, what must education do to enable young people to grow up to be free, autonomous, and capable of judgment? And is there a danger in an education that focuses on being economically useful instead of being useful for society at large? These questions need to be answered in order to lay the personal foundations for conducting constructive social debates. They are also necessary to be able to uphold the primacy of politics despite negative effects stemming from the economic pressure to innovate. The result would be a truly sustainable education. Even in the face of the digital transformation, a classical education remains irreplaceable as a guide to freely developing one’s identity. Personality development means developing self-confidence and self-awareness, that is, literally becoming aware of yourself, getting to know, reflecting, and developing your own potential. The core of this education is not about “digital personality development,” but about educational competencies that are needed to understand digital technologies. Ideally, we would have well informed and responsible young people who seek knowledge and are driven to shape society. In addition to analytical skills, this is based on normative—i.e., value-based—judgments. Values function as the foundation of our worldview; they provide orientation for our thinking and acting; they provide support. In other words, values enable you to take up an attitude that can serve as a normative foundation for judgment and action. Since such an attitude is essential for our social coexistence, fostering it is a central task of institutions that claim to provide education. This certainly includes schools, but also cultural institutions and businesses. Digital education should not be reduced to competence in the handling of technical applications. Rather, it should—like a classical education—first of all, enable to comprehend the economic, social, scientific, and political conditions of society. In a second step, digital education is about learning to use your own judgment to assess the impact of technology or progress. This applies in particular to artificial intelligence, i.e., the automation of intelligent behavior. This raises numerous questions for the future relationship between mankind and machine: How can our values give us orientation in this new era? How do we preserve our

3.9 percent or five billion euros more than in 2016 (Spiegel Online 2018). These figures are part of an overview over total public spending on education in Germany from 1995 to 2018 (Statista 2018).

2

52

3

Revitalizing the Public Sphere

dignity as human beings? What makes us unique? And how do we defend ourselves against harmful economic and technological developments while making use of digitalization to improve our humanity? In an era of self-learning machines, it is all the more important to embrace a holistic understanding of education. The half-life period of application know-how is getting shorter and shorter as leaps in innovation are happening faster and faster. A functionalist approach that only focuses on the immediate usability and practicality of what has been learned clearly falls short—and is dangerous for our liberal social order. It does not do justice to what it means to be human. Of course, we still need specialist training, but we also need more of an education that provides orientation and enables political participation. Political participation should, for example, contrast the narrowing of the debates within bubbles with a holistic view and an open worldview. A society with isolated identity groups cannot be cosmopolitan and viable. It is important to deal fairly with those who think differently and to develop a common language that first and foremost expresses goodwill toward others. This is a crucial prerequisite for common and constructive action in the public realm. To keep the fight over narratives from becoming ever more irreconcilable, stakeholders need to practice a new form of understanding and balancing of interests. Modern education teaches young people to think critically. It empowers them to become self-confident, responsible citizens. The instruction for the free development of identity proves to be remarkably up to date—especially for the digital age. You need the right attitude to understand the context of the complex societal challenges that we face. The most important part is that students need to have confidence in themselves. Three goals of personality development (and indirectly of political education) are key for a democratic conviction and resilience: First, a new debating ability that not only focuses on one’s own rhetorical skills, but also on the ability to listen. Anyone who is empathic and really tries to understand the other person will find new common solutions. The challenge is: Become truly aware of others! This can be practiced with concrete practice. In contrast, the frequently seen approach of wanting to “win” with your arguments, without regard to the other person’s valid arguments, is not sufficiently constructive. One can see the results of this one-dimensional form of discourse, cultivated in competitive debating clubs, in the Brexit debates in the British parliament. This kind of argumentative exchange has become old. We should focus on a self-confident approach to conflicts and consensus so that we can become citizens able to make socio-political contributions. Second, it is necessary to promote associative thinking to understand matters of increasing complexity. This requires competence in terms of content and creativity. Only then can we recognize interdependencies and seize unorthodox opportunities. Third, and closely related to the second point, it is important to see matters in their proper proportions. This requires training in judgment—which, given the technological and social turmoil surrounding us, is the most important skill. Fundamentally, it is about unlocking and developing the ability to differentiate, which allows humans to separate the essential from the nonessential. This keeps you from being

3.2 Democratic Resilience Through Personal and Political Education

53

intimidated, and it allows you to live confidently and in accordance with your own beliefs. The next step then is to take action, including for others and the community. The required attitude of democratic resilience can be practiced through concrete training in the classroom, from constructive discussions to intensive personal support for students through coaching. A valuable method is the so-called class council, a small-scale democracy exercise that focuses on values such as fairness, face-saving, and forgiveness in controversial discussions. By agreeing on common interests, students learn to use power responsibly. Ideally, language and action will be consistent. Another method is to discuss students’ learning expectations. If you speak about your own wishes and potentials, you gain the courage to follow your own path in life. Such practices reinforce an important educational ideal, namely, to learn that reflection is an important resource for living your life—living it instead of just letting it happen. Because properly understood, education is about the ability to live your life. In the digital age, according to media scientist Bernhard Pörksen, practicing how to live your life is necessary to counter the overabundance of stimuli. Such living skills and a mature approach to media are related: You must be able to decide what to let close to you. In addition to immersing yourself in information worlds, you should be able to temporarily withdraw from them to gain space for creativity and concentration. Children and adolescents in particular should also adopt a reflective way of speaking in public. According to Pörksen (2017, p. 9), learning these basic skills is a colossal educational task. For this task, we should favor classical programs based on well-established educational content to foster a common pool of knowledge and values in society. Even if liberal democracy is designed to give room to different values, it is important to reflect on our foundations. Only then can we understand the present with its multilayered genesis and historical breaks, and cope with it. In Germany, because of our difficult history, we have lost our self-confidence in putting certain topics boldly on the education agenda. We need more “general studies,” which include the democratic founding narratives of our country. They should be taught from a European perspective and a basic understanding of history; for instance, of the Roman-Christian culture with the corresponding understanding of the law. In this way, fundamental and literally timeless things can be conveyed. Otherwise, no real understanding of the present is possible. In particular, keeping alive awareness of Germany’s historical guilt is part of our identity as enlightened, critical citizens. But appreciation for the many positive facets of our cultural heritage is also important for the country’s national identity. In our present, which is often seen as confusing, fleeting and difficult to shape, this offers much-needed orientation. Countries like France and other established democracies are much more relaxed about their cultural and national identity. Given our historical sensitivity, we are quick to suspect indoctrination. But can we really afford to send young people into the adult world without ensuring that they have a minimum of cultural identity and democratic spirit? We need to make a constructive contribution to ensure social cohesion. In concrete terms, this would be

54

3

Revitalizing the Public Sphere

for instance more lessons in history and politics to educate young people about fundamental political processes, structures, and systems (Rauh 2017). Apart from schools, companies are the most important institution in which people meet and learn regularly. Around 90 percent of the working population are in contact with their colleagues and therefore with the culture of their company almost every day. What an opportunity for our society! It is important that companies are not mere “neutrals” with regard to democratic politics but defend and maintain it. In other words, they should use political education and concrete commitment to close the gap in their relationship with politics and get engaged as citizens—as corporate citizens. This is about strengthening the community, which is ultimately in companies’ own interest. As part of their apprenticeship training, many companies without much fuss or public awareness already contribute to young people’s personal development. In addition to the content taught, instructors in the company are often the first people to convey attitudes and “virtues” to the young who are essential for instance to completing one’s apprenticeship or contributing to the company’s success. In addition, businesses are interested in strong personalities with a credible ideological compass. You cannot have enough self-confident employees who act responsibly and are able to think outside the box. Businesses, therefore, consider organizations, initiatives, and measures that focus on building character and fostering democratic attitudes as particularly worthy of support. It would be entirely in line with CPR if businesses initiated or supported projects in media literacy, discourse, and judgment to help citizens move confidently and with the necessary orientation skills in the public sphere. In the companies themselves, coaching is conceivable both for managers and the workforce. Here, we are likely to see new business opportunities emerge for providers of personal and political education. Colleges and universities could include corresponding modules in business administration programs. Clearly, there is a great need here which is not sufficiently addressed by politics. In contrast, the currently prevailing economization of education does not promote personalities likely to take the state and business into the future. Political education (and personal development) should also take place in forums of organized civil society, regardless of age. As a productive side effect, this could give political talents room to develop before assuming political responsibility in parties and parliaments. Businesses should definitely support such down-to-earth, nonlinear party careers. In short: Companies can make various sustainable socio-political contributions to the preservation of the democratic spirit and resilience by strengthening personal development and political education.

3.3 Recognizing Debate as the Heart of Democracy

3.3

55

Recognizing Debate as the Heart of Democracy

Democratic debate is a permanent process of self-assurance about our values and beliefs. It is at the heart of democracy because debate keeps democracy alive. Only an active debating culture ensures that democracies are innovative and viable. The philosopher and Harvard professor Michael Sandel, whose online lecture on justice reached a global audience of millions, emphasizes that the community is created by citizens having a conversation and engaging with one another: “The community is more than the adding up of individual interests that are indifferent to each other. By opening yourself up to the positions of others, you have an opportunity to change yourself.” This conversation cannot be replaced by machines. Sandel, therefore, urges the creation of spaces where citizens can talk to each other and think without being disturbed. Thinking takes time, just like politics (von Thadden 2018). Sandel continues: “The greatest task facing democracies is to create arenas, opportunities, forms for dispute and mutual attention, to get people out of their bubbles and have them meet. Yelling shouldn’t be rewarded. Conversations also do not mesh with an interest in profits. Controversy is exhausting. It is hard work. But maybe it’s the only effort that really matters. Every institution of a democracy is called upon to undergo controversy: parliaments, newspapers, universities, schools, neighborhoods . . .” In the sense of CPR, one might add: Democratic conversations are also important if you have an interest in profits. After all, they form the basis for the required social consensus about competition and the pursuit of profit. For the great liberal thinker Ralf Dahrendorf, social conflicts are the “guarantors of renewal and drivers of progress.” Otherwise, society would petrify into dogmatism and authoritarianism. The necessary resolution of social conflicts must be channeled by institutions that set the rules for the debate. The rule of law is the most important institution because it protects the freedom of citizens. But the rule of law also depends on political prerequisites, i.e., majorities that support it. In addition, there is the nation-state which “houses the law.” This interpretation has always been shared by a majority among Germany’s political elites. However, some intellectuals have called it into question because they are focused on the historic errors of the nation-state. They developed a “supranational longing” from a perception of the nation-state as a flawed design. While Dahrendorf and the vast majority of established politicians view the European Union as a necessary complement of the nation-state, many protagonists of the German left see the EU as a means to overcome the nation-state—quite a romantic idea, given the clear stance of proud nation-states like France and England (Volger 2019). This basic conflict continues to shape the public sphere. Alienation from the nation and the nation-state is an important subtext of political culture in Germany. In any case, it is important to uphold the ideal of free speech. Free speech is the best remedy for “political correctness,” which may be useful to help define a basic consensus but can easily deteriorate into an obstacle for a vibrant political debate. It is irrelevant whether the poisoning of public discourse by the language of political correctness originates with the left or right. The danger to freedom remains the same. Currently, however, it is the uninhibited and hateful language of the extreme right

56

3

Revitalizing the Public Sphere

that is poisoning the discourse. In reference to the Hanau shootings of February 2020, Chancellor Merkel found very clear words: “Racism and hate are poison” (Tagesschau 2020). The writer and professor emeritus of constitutional law Bernhard Schlink (2019) has given a very impressive description of how the corridor of opinion, meaning what can safely be said in public, has narrowed in recent years. He complains of a “narrowing of the mainstream” and a “policy that is not aware of alternatives and therefore neither of criticism nor of controversy.” And then he gets to the heart of why people are often so insecure about dealing with dissenting views: “They fear to get infected by other people’s opinions or to be identified with them, despite the fact that they are very clearly keeping their distance. This reveals a peculiar fear about being able to retain one’s own identity.” Is it possible that 75 years after the end of the war, Germany’s democratic self-image and perhaps also the national identity is less stable and less self-evident than one might assume? A vibrant culture of debate that takes people seriously and does not marginalize them can significantly reduce the support for populist movements. Political scientist Ivan Krastev explains the division of Europe through nationalism, populism, and anger by using Germany as an example. He explains that anti-populist rhetoric helps create a perfect enemy in order to legitimize the status quo. That happens “at a moment when the status quo is changing and also should change.” And now comes the crucial sentence: “The more you suggest these people are fascists, the more that is what they turn into.” Initially, they did not have a common ideology. “But if you keep telling them who they are, you are creating an identity that they will assume. They do not know who they are and become what others have always believed of them. And that would really change everything” (Schmidt 2018, p. 115; emphasis by the author). This interpretation creates the problem of relieving citizens of political responsibility and turning them into products of external attribution. Nevertheless, there is a tragic side to the fact that liberal elites have not taken the origins of grievances and political protests seriously enough. This is similar to the surprise over Trump’s election victory, which initially only led to bewilderment instead of analysis. With this in mind, Franziska Schreiber explained in her book “Inside AfD—The Report of Someone Who Left” how to counter populism—namely by listening, contradicting politely, and using a respectful tone. And by doing all of this proactively, including on the Internet. At one event, she said: “We are in an information war. It is not wise to try and stay out of this war.” For Schreiber, politics in Germany is “a divided area. Here you have the world with its evening news and political talk shows which have been dominant so far; there are the filter bubbles and sophisticated strategies of the extreme right” (Ingendaay 2019). “Democracy is a particularly demanding experiment,” emphasizes the former President of the German Bundestag, Norbert Lammert. “It depends on a sophisticated relationship between conflict and consensus; it stands or falls with this balance.” Lammert continues: “The ability of a society to deal with conflict requires a minimum consensus on how different viewpoints can be brought together. Only if

3.3 Recognizing Debate as the Heart of Democracy

57

there is a consensus on how to handle conflicts can a society afford these conflicts. Otherwise it risks losing its cohesion” (Lammert 2019). As individuals and by taking part in social subsystems, citizens advocate a multiplicity of views and interests (Graf von Kielmansegg 2018). A basic consensus on this multiplicity and the need for compromise is therefore central to cohesion. But this need is threatened by conflicts of values and identity, which lead to social divisions into groups and echo chambers. One’s own values and identities are easily made absolute, and the ability to communicate is lost. In a way, group identities are increasingly a substitute for gods. This ideological approach, supported psychologically by archaic tribal thinking, threatens the discourse and jeopardizes democracy and freedom. For example, there used to be a Christian canon of knowledge that citizens could refer to as a matter of course. The naming of biblical passages triggered common associations and certainties. What can take place today? It is not easy to find unambiguous sources of cohesion and identity that are binding for all citizens. Even the Basic Law (Germany’s constitution) does not define identity but gives space to plurality. Any problems and value conflicts through pluralization must, therefore, be solved politically. This is what makes continuous, inclusive communication and the ability to speak so importantly. Why should not businesses be able to make innovative and constructive contributions here? When we judge the success of their political participation projects, it is crucial to pay attention to the relevance and quality of debates. How can we prevent measures from merely increasing the white noise amidst all the competing opinions? How do we keep the debate from degenerating into a mere palaver? To be effective, events need to be developed in a targeted manner and have a clear purpose—in line with entrepreneurial resources. Fundamental debates lend themselves to this. Especially when it comes to taking part in public debates, the following principle is recommended: be non-partisan about specifics, but partisan about principles—in other words, when our liberal way of life and our democracy as such are at stake. This also helps to avoid overburdening businesses. What is needed is regular—and therefore credible—engagement. Taking on the Fight Over Narratives The need for all societal actors to take on the fight over narratives and try to convince others has always been massively underestimated. With the advent of social and digital media, this has only become more urgent. In the struggle with illiberal forces, the active and constructive interference by the political center, which occupies the top positions in science, culture, and other sectors of society, is crucial. The middle class actually has nothing to fear because it still represents the vast majority of society. But it needs to make the effort of questioning itself and of engaging in uncomfortable, exhausting, and sometimes unsavory arguments. So-called influencers show that the established media have lost their gate-keeping function. There are entirely new ways of shaping opinion which are used by the younger generation in particular. The so-called “Rezo-Video”—a video highly critical of Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic party, which was published in June 2019 by the YouTuber Rezo—revealed how unable the established politicians

58

3

Revitalizing the Public Sphere

are to keep up. It is not just that they have forgotten (given the grand coalition) how to argue in an open debate but also that they are not yet confident about using the new means of communication. What the middle ground actors of society need to practice is self-criticism and context awareness. Populism always has a legitimate core. You do not show awareness of context if you are in favor of a generous welcome to refugees but live geographically and socially in a world that has no contact with refugees. In such a case, political moralism is cheap. We know how we behave in personal discourse: We tend to explain our impeccable ethical and political position at great length and in preemptive self-abandonment before we ever get to the point. This attitude has become part of us. We use it even within our circle of friends, where we could actually hope for benevolence in the event of a verbal or substantive slip. Yet this atmosphere of an open debating culture is endangered: it feels safer not to express any pointed opinions that could be in contradiction with the mainstream. The spiral of silence diagnosed by Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann in her theory of public opinion as early as the 1970s it at work here; the fear of isolation has won out. Why is “the right” immediately understood to mean “extreme right-wing” today? There are rock concerts against the right, but, of course, no rock-concerts against the left. The left is somehow humane and good, the right bad. And by today’s standards, that is not entirely untrue: the equidistance between the right and the left is gone. Even Giovanni Di Lorenzo, level-headed editor of the weekly Die ZEIT, recently asked in an editorial on the frontpage: “So what can help against the right?” (Di Lorenzo 2019). The lazy political center, because of its apolitical stance and lack of interest, has accepted a shift in political parameters—a development that is worrying in terms of democratic theory. It has neglected the democratic right and made it homeless. The CDU defines itself as the “People’s Party of the Middle,” yet it could have positioned itself as center-right. The resulting vacuum has been filled by the right-wing populist Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) since the refugee crisis of 2015 at the latest. Within its ranks, far-right positions are becoming increasingly respectable. For the first time in many years, radical political views have been heard in the Bundestag, because on this issue of strategic importance to democracy, the political center has failed to take on the fight over narratives. Strengthening the Political Culture If companies want to contribute to politics, they must understand at least the basics of our country’s political culture—and that is a challenge. This goes back to Germany’s twentieth-century history. While a review of Germany’s political culture is beyond the scope of this book, a brief polemic should serve to clarify the basic problem: The political mainstream, first and foremost, wants to enjoy the feeling of moral superiority. But because it is worried about its prosperity, ignorant, and politically disinterested, it remains passive about the loss of democratic resilience. This establishment is characterized by a rarely discussed “creed,” the heart of which is: Yes, we somehow need the military and NATO, but in reality, they are evil, as are the United States (which is capable of just about anything!) and capitalism.

3.3 Recognizing Debate as the Heart of Democracy

59

The surprising thing is that these same institutions, which are put in doubt here, represent the foundation of Germany’s success after 1945. But of course, it is we who are responsible for Russia’s aggression, because with NATO and EU enlargement, we have driven Putin into a corner. For these and other reasons, the United States is just as bad as Russia—there is an equidistance. The fact that Russia is trying to split the West on so many levels is shrugged off; the same goes for Russia’s occupation of Crimea and eastern Ukraine and bombings in Syria. Hundreds of thousands of highly emotional citizens take to the streets against TTIP, even though free trade is the guarantee of prosperity for our exporting nation. Why did not these demonstrators stand against the Assad regime when it waged war on its own people? Where were their emotions and support for Hong Kong’s democratic demonstrators against China’s oppression? Rare earth minerals for cell phones, yes, but military security for trade and raw material routes should be provided by others, preferably Americans, who can nevertheless always be criticized. German politicians describe our county’s responsibility for international stability regularly and sometimes with rhetorical brilliance at public events such as the Munich Security Conference. Usually, there is little follow-up. At the same time, German foreign ministers prefer to speak of a “culture of restraint” (Monath 2019; Zeit Online 2013). In the fall of 2019, the then acting leader of the parliamentary group of the SPD, Rolf Mützenich, accused the defense minister, Annegret KrampKarrenbauer of “militarizing German foreign policy,” when she raised the issue of establishing a protection zone in Syria (Heute Journal 2019). If, as in this case, the German government has a clear foreign policy position, it does not get talked about enough and certainly does not get promoted. When Angela Merkel said in a speech to the Knesset in 2008 that Israel’s security was part of the German state’s raison d’être, many did not realize the responsibility that Germany was taking on. Would the German people really be willing to risk the lives of German soldiers to keep Israel safe? Our international partners are constantly unsettled by these ambivalences, but external perception has little impact on our self-referential national debates. On this subject, the journalist Christoph von Marshall (2018) wrote a book with a telling title: “We no longer understand the world: Germany’s alienation from its friends.” The fact is that we have not yet found a productive form of discourse for certain topics and contradictions. This damages the federal government’s ability to act and its reliability in foreign policy, which are closely linked to the support and the attitude of the population. In essence, we are still a deeply unsettled people with little trust in ourselves. Of course, dealing with historical traumas is even more difficult as both East German and West German mentalities and attitudes developed very differently for decades. Still, we now need to find common national answers. “Geopolitics” remains a foreign word, despite the fact that as global export champion and beneficiary of globalization, we need to find answers to the major foreign policy challenges in our German and European context. It is not just about trade and traditional security policy. What do we do, for example, when American and Chinese IT corporations are dividing up world markets by setting international

60

3

Revitalizing the Public Sphere

standards? This could lead to an unpleasant dependency for our continent. But for the longest time, there was no rational debate in Germany on the topic, and even when it did take place, it was very weak. At least now we are hearing some academics advocate a “defensive foreign trade policy” (Hellmann and Wolff 2018). But apart from that, our awareness of the foundations of our own freedom and prosperity seems to be dwindling after so many years of peace and economic success. Let us look at another example. Where do you see a clear commitment to supporting the Bundeswehr soldiers or police officers who put their lives on the line when things get difficult? They risk their lives for our democracy and social cohesion but fail to receive the necessary support from politicians from all parties, especially on the left. These politicians fear voters could consider such support ideologically inappropriate and punish them for it. Even conservative and liberal decision makers in society believe that they cannot win with such commitments because they would be moving outside the mainstream. So there can be abstract approval, but without any passion or the courage to enter a concrete commitment. Such an “attitude” is morally questionable. The Federal Republic is still a strong and functioning democracy, but this cannot be taken for granted. In Germany, professional politicians are increasingly threatened and defamed by radical minorities. But there are other phenomena which are also unworthy of an established democracy: the public’s contempt and its lack of solidarity with political representatives, which speaks volumes about the society’s lack of self-respect and resilience. Ultimately, politicians have their roots in the mainstream. Any harsh criticism, therefore, amounts to an act of a selfindictment as long as the critic refuses to get engaged in public life. Who would want to work for the community when you do not get any real appreciation from the mainstream of society, and when any support you do receive feels like lip service? While criticism of state representatives is a hallmark of established democracies, care must be taken to ensure that they are never scorned. Companies can, by means of political education and open debates, support reflection spaces, thereby strengthening the foundations of a resilient democracy. The public sphere and political culture still require a lot of “care.”

3.4

Successful Leadership Needs Elites

Elites from all areas of society shape the public sphere. However, the term “elites” is rarely used for society’s top performers in Germany, as it seems aloof and historically charged. But the term does not matter; what does matter is how elites behave. And when elites describe themselves as such, it sounds pretentious. What they should do is to set an example for others through their work. In view of the great challenges, our elites, like all elites in the world, are overwhelmed. In Germany, critics even say that the elites are self-absorbed (Meyer 2019). That may sound exaggerated. But really, where are the creative ideas, concepts, and activities in a European or international context? And where are the people who are convinced and

3.4 Successful Leadership Needs Elites

61

convincing about advocating and implementing them in the public realm? Instead of demonstrating creative power, the focus is often on administration and procrastination. But democracy needs leadership. And this leadership cannot come from politicians only. Do Our Elites Still Want to Lead? We need to ask about the diagnosis: Do our elites still want to lead? Are they up to the task? Are they powerful in public when it comes to socio-political issues? To speak of the failure of the elites may be going too far, but we certainly have an elite problem. This does not really come as a surprise. In Germany, elites are eyed with suspicion. There is no powerful consensus that we cannot do without them. The postulate of equality is too powerful. There is also a lack of popular respect for those who are willing to take on responsibility and act responsibly for others. Even within the elites, the issue meets with such reluctance that a rational discussion about the resulting responsibility is nearly impossible; such is the massive distrust of their own and Germany’s good intentions. With this, the elites reveal how much they are still held captive mentally by recent German history. The functional center of the republic, i.e., officials and activists in parties, unions, churches, media, universities, and also industry, seems to appear aloof and difficult to call to action. The predominant attitude seems to be a strange complacency. Perhaps reunification, the financial crisis, and the refugee crisis in combination with a habitude of prosperity have exhausted their strength. The centrifugal forces triggered by the Internet and the decline in social cohesion add to that. The collective lack of ambition is symbolized by a fatalistic shrug as the only reaction when large projects are not completed on time, or when costs explode. Only the existential threat of the coronavirus marked an exception and a “wake-up call” by generating a swift and convincing response from the German government. The absentmindedness of the German elites is reflected in their stunned and perplexed reaction to the dissatisfaction of large parts of the population with the political situation. They also find it difficult to understand that the question over what divides East and West Germany has come back. Did not we have more than 10 years of buoyant tax revenues, economic growth, expansionary social policy, and low unemployment? We must have gotten most of it right! But as a clever observer analyzes: “The anger, the resentment are culturally based, not economic” (Schmidt 2018, p. 115). As a result, the elite must pay for its apparent lack of problem-solving skills by enduring the “pained scream” (McCormick 2017) with which populism has entered the debate (Summer 2019, p. 10). Heinrich August Winkler also criticizes the elites: “Populists and nationalists are beneficiaries of the omissions and mistakes of the defenders of liberal democracy” (Winkler 2019). The dilemma of today’s political elites can also be described in terms of loss of trust and aloofness. And it is true, it is not just the losers who keep to their own echo chambers. The elites live in an environment where they have limited dealings with average people, and they need to make huge personal and communicative efforts to address this issue. Elites live in socially homogeneous neighborhoods. Their origins, education, wealth, and circles of friends also limit their perception of collective reality. It is therefore not surprising that there is a “decreased responsiveness of the

62

3

Revitalizing the Public Sphere

political system to the wishes and interests of social classes which are less educated and more attached to their local roots” (Zürn 2018). The political elites are also finding it increasingly difficult to cope with people’s attitude of entitlement. Ironically, they themselves fostered this attitude—through decades of welfare policy and the claim to be in charge of every imaginable problem. They have damaged people’s ability to take initiative as well as the spirit of competition. At some point, however, they need to give responsibility back. Naturally, this is difficult. Therefore, citizens, companies, and other social actors must take on this task for them and cut through the logic of the political system. To do this, they must assume political responsibility for themselves. The CPR concept offers concrete help for this. The alienation between the elites and the citizens is worrying enough. However, the estrangement has also taken hold within the elites: “Overall, the links between political and economic elites have been broken – even down to language. Simply put, the economic elites grow up in an international, competition-driven environment, whereas the political elites climb up the party ranks like going up a chimney” (Leciejewski 2015). This assessment of an independent management consultant offers a core of truth. SAP founder Hasso Plattner expresses his frustration with our political culture as follows: “German politics is extremely slow, cumbersome, and strongly ideological on all sides. This is tripping us up because we can’t think freely” (Bernau 2019). The business elites which meet every year in Davos and elsewhere should be more innovative and quicker in their thinking. For a very long time, their only focus was on profits, shareholder value, and growth. At the same time, it was clear to them that globalization and digitalization also produce losers. But they only started doing something once these losers had empowered themselves and found a voice in populist parties, activist groups, and NGOs. That’s not good leadership. From that moment, they had to get their social and political responsibility together very quickly to protect their own business model from danger. In August 2018, the American Business Roundtable, which has more than 200 members, clearly committed to companies’ socio-political duties. Participants now speak of “responsible capitalism,” of “major change in corporate attitudes,” and formulate a new “definition of the purpose of a business”—away from the “doctrine of shareholder value” (MacLellan 2019). We are in the middle of a process of transformation toward stakeholder capitalism, in which societal actors become aware of their role in stabilizing the system in their own interest. We need democratic leadership and true elites who not only act functionally, but also think outside the box. Which Skills Will Future Elites Need? And How Do We Get There? Similar to the requirements for a successful personal development and political education, elites should be more than functional elites who fulfill their tasks only within a very narrow requirement profile. However, there is nothing coincidental about this issue. In businesses, neither supervisory boards nor shareholders have endorsed taking up a political stance.

3.4 Successful Leadership Needs Elites

63

Mathias Schüz (2018, p. 30) points out that traditional training schemes for responsible leadership are primarily limited to intellectual-cognitive intelligence. Emotional intelligence was barely considered; the intuitive-spiritual was not at all. However, these skills could all be trained and practiced. For the “responsible political leader” of the future, this approach could mean cultivating personal characteristics that are suited to the public sphere. Clearly, it is impossible to strengthen structures without the complementary strengthening of individuals. The academics Christine Landfried and Robert Post (2017, p. 11) take a similar line. The cultural prerequisites for democracy include the commitment of citizens and elites to a common future. This must be debated with empathy for different political ideas and interests: “The political, journalistic, and academic elites have underestimated this emotional aspect of democratic politics. And so the gradual loss of empathy between elites and sections of the population went unnoticed and could be exploited by populists. Even their electoral victories do not seem to change the fact that the elites continue to isolate themselves.” More than ever, Jürgen Habermas (1962) was right to say—as he formulated in his analysis of the structural transformation of the general public—that we are only in line with the rule of law as long as we take the “requirement of a politically functioning public seriously.” That means taking the public’s emotional dimension seriously and therefore showing understanding for the other interlocutors and their different ways. Dahrendorf fellow Jan Zielonka also emphasizes that our liberal democracies can only be repaired if the elites acknowledge their mistakes, correct them, and restore common ground with the public (Buchsteiner 2018). Empathic elites would have recognized earlier that the issue with globalization is not just about redistributive justice. It is not enough if the winners only adequately compensate the losers (Sandel 2018). Social recognition (diffuse) fear of social relegation, identity, and dignity all play a role. Politicians with populist instincts like Donald Trump are quick to recognize this and exploit deficits for their purposes. Ortega y Gasset, the Spanish philosopher and sociologist who died in 1955, once defined a high ideal for responsible leadership of elites. He spoke of “outstanding people” whose lives would seem stale to them if they were not dedicated to something higher. Such people see no burden in service. They try to ask much of themselves, to enter commitments instead of merely contemplating their entitlements. They are individuals who try to keep up a high level of tension through incessant training (asceticism) in order to be creative (Röser 2019, p.120). There is no question that such personalities would serve the community without even thinking of the benefits of greater social standing or a bigger bank balance. In today’s world, that may sound like asking too much of a person. But is not that exactly why people who come close to this ideal should enjoy special public appreciation and be considered role models? The American business journalist David Brooks (2017) sums up the honor of working for the community: The magnanimous man believes that politics practiced well is the noblest of all professions. No other arena requires as much wisdom, tenacity, foresight, and empathy. No other field places such stress on conversation and persuasion. The English word “idiot” comes from the

64

3

Revitalizing the Public Sphere

ancient Greek word for the person who is uninterested in politics but capable only of running his or her own private affairs.

Just as exotic are the expectations that this business consultant has of the business elite. He believes that “working in a political party is a patriotic task for a manager” (Leciejewski 2015). Our society would benefit from a little more liberal-democratic emphasis, as exemplified by former Federal President Joachim Gauck during his term in office. It would set a counterpoint to the generally sober, bureaucratic tone. A dash of modern patriotism and passion for our freedom and the res publica cannot hurt either (Dorn 2018). Federal President Steinmeier warns: “If the colors black, red, and gold cannot be shown at a large demonstration for an open society, then it is clear that there are major deficits in the teaching of the history of democracy. Black-Red-Gold is not the figurehead of narrow-minded nationalism, but the symbol of freedom and democracy” (Steinmeier 2019). There is nothing to add. Pericles’ famous saying is fitting: “The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom is courage.” The first chancellor of the Federal Republic, Konrad Adenauer, said even more succinctly: “The most important thing is courage “(Poppinga 1994). Even today, especially today, democratic courage and the virtue of bravery, which seem almost old-fashioned, are needed. Elites who advocate an open and democratic society face a Herculean task. You have to criticize the status quo to improve the situation. At the same time, their criticism must not destabilize the social system. Stability is a dynamic process that requires professional leadership. Elites will also have to touch base with extremists if their political positions contain a core of truth. Bringing legitimate demands back into the mainstream without identifying with radical forces requires a difficult effort of demarcation and self-confidence in dealing with political mechanisms. Which business leader dares to take on this balancing act? Siemens CEO Joe Kaeser is certainly an example, even if he has received some bruises over his public positions. His experience is not the only reason that business people should have more respect for the difficult tasks of politicians. Moving around in the public sphere without causing “accidents” is an art, especially if you use straightforward language. Business leaders should, therefore, get political training and advice, e.g., with the help of internal analysis units, which in larger companies could also be called political planning unit or think tank. Businesses very concretely show an attitude of political responsibility by acting in solidarity and foregoing short-term profits for a higher interest—and ultimately for their own long-term entrepreneurial interest. One example: Thorsten Benner from the Global Public Policy Institute outlines how to strengthen the EU as an enlarged public sphere without getting too close to any questionable government. He considers the commitment of Audi, Bosch, and Mercedes in Hungary as a negative example. What is key here is the eminently important European dimension: Benner accuses the three global corporations of making use of the capable workforce, weak unions, and convenient logistical links in Hungary, and in return accepting to become accomplices of the populist and Eurosceptic Prime Minister

3.4 Successful Leadership Needs Elites

65

Orban. They were picking and choosing from the freedoms of the European single market as if they were shopping in a supermarket; thus renouncing the underlying set of values to which all EU member states are committed: democracy, the rule of law, and freedom of expression. Without public pressure in Germany, Benner adds, there will be no reason for the companies to change their cold cost-benefit calculation, which makes them forego political distancing in the interest of profit. Benner suggests that international companies could contribute to strengthening independent media and civic engagement by paying into a common fund. Alliance building is a proven means for Western companies to counter authoritarian regimes and to promote democratic developments without turning into easy targets. This applies in particular to industries that are not easy to replace due to their technological quality—in the case of Germany, for example, the auto industry (Kolb 2018). So it is important to find creative solutions and demonstrate courage and leadership when implementing them. A consistent CPR attitude would help. Politics is about finding solutions for societal tasks. Elites have to demonstrate their ability to solve problems. This is the most effective measure against political disaffection and the erosion of the established party spectrum. The middle class, which supports the state, must provide answers to the challenges of the present. This may sound banal, but it is crucial. It requires leadership and programmatic creativity. If citizens have the impression that established politics does not deliver, other offers—be it by movements or parties—will understandably be on the rise. The middle class and the elites should not respond to such protests with technocratic ideas or overconfidence. Political arguments and compromise remain necessary. Christoph Möllers sums it up as follows: Much of the resentment against democracy is due to our aggrievement over neither being alone in the world nor more important than others. We want to get our will, but in a democracy that doesn’t happen all that often. We are closer to ourselves than to others, but democracy reduces us—not everywhere, but in the important area of politics – to being equal, equal to fools and equal to the poor. It is easy to see why democracy is not always popular with groups that consider themselves to be elites. But to bow to the democratic imposition of humility may be helpful, and not just in political life (Möllers, p. 117).

In order to deliver solutions, elites must also campaign for creating the preconditions for a public discourse guided by reason. Good leadership gives explanations for the rapid change in our world and develops consistent goals and narratives. Given the great complexities of modernity, this is not easy; ambivalence skills are important. Moral leadership could mean to show one’s colors (politically), mark a position, and try to prevail, but at the same time remain willing to compromise. In summary: A responsible elite has its part to play in maintaining and strengthening trust in the authority of politics and state institutions. Here, a new spirit of feeling responsible should spread. Elites can exemplify civic courage and nonconformism by setting personal examples. And they can spread well-founded optimism, i.e., encourage people. Citizens’ need for economic security is one thing, but the need for “psychological security” should not be underestimated, either. The

66

3

Revitalizing the Public Sphere

necessary resilience can be strengthened by good explanations and encouragement. The elites must make more of an effort to do so given the pressure of the new challenges; becoming active in the public sphere will become increasingly important. Every constructive voice is needed in differentiated societies to ensure cohesion. Knowledge of politics, history, sociology, and communication is key. Contributions can be organized using new concepts and methods such as CPR. But in the end, elites must want to lead. This requires authority, courage, and consistency— qualities that are rarely found in politics; among other reasons because our political and media culture often punishes the brave. But they are indispensable for a functioning democracy. This makes it all the more important for the business elite to do its bit. We need a political awareness and civic movement—without it, we will not be able to hold our societies together or guarantee individual freedoms and economic prosperity. This is the context for the CPR concept. We need to appreciate effective leadership that is public and oriented on the common good. Otherwise, we will not be able to build up societal resilience.

3.5

Societal Actors and Their Political Role

To practice CPR means to get engaged in the struggle over narratives in public discourse. In order to be able to participate adequately, it is important to sharpen one’s skills of political analysis, to recognize which topics will be important in the future, and to develop meaningful political projects that are in line with one’s own business operations. Socio-political currents and opinions cannot be shaped by one-off interventions. Rather, recurring communication measures are needed to keep topics on the agenda in the long term and to link them to social expectations. In a modern, differentiated society, it is immensely important that different subsectors maintain the ability to speak with each other and communicate in a way that emphasizes the universal values binding us together. We need to break out of just talking to ourselves on the basis of our own functional logic. This logic also applies to companies. If they wish to position themselves successfully in the public sphere and to improve their political speaking skills to that end, they have to overcome their self-referentiality and learn political language codes. Politics belongs at the heart of society. The fear of contact and the self-inflicted speechlessness between politics and business must be overcome. If companies actively take on their already existing public role, channel their extensive resources politically, and thus invest in the preconditions for doing business, they can help mitigate political disaffection. For this, “pioneers of change” are needed in the companies who push innovations within the organization and make sure that these innovations have a wide impact, until, at last, a new social practice is firmly established. If they succeed, companies substantiate their right to existence and breathe life into the social contract (WBGU 2011).

3.5 Societal Actors and Their Political Role

67

In view of protectionism and populism, it is imperative to get engaged in the struggle over interpreting socio-political developments. This means: Business leaders must be able to communicate politically and to provide explanations. Or, as one business journalist commented: “Privately, many board members are already very outspoken. But in public, they often duck away; in the long term, that’s asking for trouble. It is not a question of foaming at the mouth when you talk into a microphone. But everyone should be able to stand up in public for their values.” This is why: “Clear words not only serve the common good but are also in the selfinterest of the company” (Flämig 2017, p. 1). Businesses need the courage of their democratic conviction—that, in terms of CPR, would be already a great achievement. The political responsibility of business is part of a new overall understanding of the role of societal actors. The goal should be to develop a social organism that is truly alive. Citizens and businesses need to keep up with the times through their own efforts and in their own interests. What is required are conscious and well-informed interventions on public issues. This would also open the way to recruiting new talent for professional politics—promising individuals who will be able to vitalize the political parties. Technical expertise, process know-how, but also special exposure and reputation offer a wide variety of starting points for shaping politics and the society. Identifying, using, and expanding such opportunities requires a civic ethos and an understanding of one’s own connection to the community. Fostering this is what politization in the best sense means. Businesses can take the lead. The objective is not to examine every corner of social life with a view to appropriate politicization. A comprehensive political mobilization would be totalitarian and undermine the specific purposes of the subsectors of society. Instead, the goal is to create political awareness among actors who are not primarily part of the political—and who do not necessarily see themselves in this role. This book suggests ways to encourage them to ask two questions: How much do they benefit from fundamental socio-political structures such as freedom of expression, the rule of law, or tolerance; and what can they do to strengthen them—voluntarily and in their own interest. What is key is to have as many people as possible help shape our society in a responsible manner. Federal presidents like Joachim Gauck and Frank-Walter Steinmeier have taken on the implicit role of being the country’s chief “teacher” for political education. With a certain emphasis, they have illuminated the issues of freedom and democracy in their different facets. Ideally, a free and liberal society works like a good orchestra, where diversity and individuality are aligned toward a common goal. Politics conducts and orchestrates the guiding principle, which is harmoniously implemented in a discourse between the actors (musicians) with the appropriate instruments. However, this is preceded by a tough and vibrant debate over the best way of implementing these ideas. In all of this, the I—with all due respect to the desired individuality—is subordinated to the We. Much is already gained if instead of instinctively rejecting the political, we come to understand it in relation to our own activities. In keeping with CPR, academics,

68

3

Revitalizing the Public Sphere

athletes, and artists are also required to become aware of their role as citizens and to develop a corresponding self-image. Organized Civil Society Political stability is a dynamic process. It resembles riding a bicycle in that you must move if you don’t want to fall. That means that our valuable political goods which include legal certainty, a free exchange of opinions, and democratic participation require constant attention to meet the requirements of the times. Our democracy depends on a civic ethos, on a political engagement that renews this liberal model of society and pushes it forward. For example, how would the state have coped during the refugee crisis—a genuinely political issue—without the help of civil society? From a CPR point of view, it is only logical that businesses should also become active citizens—as corporate citizens. The Swiss publicist Frank A. Meyer (2017) puts it in a nutshell: “The citizenry must recapture the spaces it created.” While this is true, it would be more appropriate to use the term civil society because it is more inclusive. Everyone can become part of an active civil society that is committed to other people. In this respect, civil society is the beating heart of society. Those who believe that our democratic system is worth preserving must stand up for its continued existence. When political institutions start to wobble, other sectors of society—be it the media, courts, or businesses—also suffer. Political distance is a dangerous illusion. The demands that “the citizen” or “civil society” make on politics as on all other sectors of society are justified, but insufficient. In these times, you will have sold yourself short if you only optimize your career in your own environment. The direction must change from just making demands to taking action, together with others. Then an intelligence that focuses on combining elements can create new things, usually in places where different social sectors and disciplines overlap— where not only different ideas and concepts come together, but also representatives of institutions and ordinary citizens. This requires diverse and creative forms of dialogue. The ideal and substantive skills and the material resources of civil society should be brought together and used. What enlightened, self-confident citizens can do, and how they can do it, should become the real repertoire and treasure of society. Science and Academia A prime example of the dependence of academic work on the political climate is the history of the Central European University (CEU). Founded in 1991 by intellectuals like Václav Havel with the support of George Soros, the American investor and philanthropist of Hungarian origin, the CEU was to promote an open society after the end of the Cold War. For a quarter of a century, master’s and doctoral students were educated in the humanities, social sciences, law, environmental sciences, economics, and mathematics. But from 2016, the prestigious university, despite broad support from Hungarian civil society, had to fight for its existence in Budapest. Even though the CEU met the requirements of the new university law, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán refused to let it continue. The CEU decided to move all its operations from Budapest to Vienna by 2025. The first study program in Vienna started in 2019 (Rath 2020). This example shows that academic

3.5 Societal Actors and Their Political Role

69

freedom in Europe depends on safeguarding democratic standards and the rule of law in the EU. Since science cannot abolish politics, it should try to influence politics in its favor and with its means—i.e., defend enlightenment, insist on reason in the face of cold power, and promote the exchange of ideas and arguments. In functioning democracies, intellectual freedom at universities sometimes has to be defended against left-wing activists who seek to narrow the corridor of legitimate opinions. The majority—partly out of apathy, partly out of cowardice—often gives uncompromising minorities free rein. The Deutsche Hochschulverband (Association of German Universities, DHV) has investigated the phenomenon and written a resolution entitled “For the defense of a free debating culture at universities.” Their principal finding was that “tolerance toward other opinions is decreasing,” although at universities one must accept “being confronted with ideas that run counter to one’s own.” With this resolution, the 32,000-strong DHV also addresses the university management, which sometimes lacks the courage to protect academics who want to present their scientific theses (Kissler et al. 2019). Basically, the goal should be to politicize the silent center in such a way that it will constructively advocate free debate—especially in a place that was created to that end. Nevertheless, political commitment among academics obviously does exist. For example, the University Rectors’ Conference (Hochschulrektorenkonferenz, HRK) has developed new political ideas to strengthen the cohesion of the EU. Its objective is a European Educational, Research, and Innovation Community. Based on the idea that education and culture have an extraordinary power to bring people together, the HRK believes such a community can counter the centrifugal forces in today’s crisis-ridden EU. Their approach is based on a broad definition of higher education: In addition to imparting specialist knowledge that provides graduates with professional qualifications, they put particular emphasis on personality development, critical thinking, citizenship, and tolerance toward people who think differently (University Rectors’ Conference 2017). On February 19, 2015, the entire Allianz der Wissenschaftsorganisationen (Alliance of Academic Organizations) unequivocally stated: “Academic work needs a cosmopolitan climate.” Our aging society is dependent on immigration. Academia, in particular, needs an international dimension and creative contributions of people from other cultures, religions, and nationalities. Today, there are more than 300,000 students from abroad who study in Germany—which shows the international attraction of Germany as a location for academic work. However, this reputation will only last over time if researchers and their families feel welcome and supported here. It is therefore important to “join forces so that Germany remains an open, tolerant, and international location for academic work” (Allianz der Wissenschaftsorganisationen, undated). So scientific policy actors as well as scientists are already shaping the public sphere. For example, under the heading of evidence-based policy decisions, they demand respect for rational, scientific knowledge, and oppose widespread skepticism toward traditional forms of expertise. At the same time, it is important not to encourage technocratic fantasies about reducing politics to simplistic truths. Academics need to develop an awareness that facts alone do not justify an imperative

70

3

Revitalizing the Public Sphere

to act because they will always be ambiguous with regard to their origin, selection, and interpretation. Democratic politics is always dependent on openness and controversy, which means people have to accept that other’s views will sometimes irritate them. Democracy is not compatible with absolutist claims to ultimate truth. Science and democracy have in common that they are both “cultures of caveats” that should always bear in mind their own fallibility. This is precisely what constitutes the promise and challenge of freedom (Fischer and Strohschneider 2017, p. 12). It also includes recognizing the limits of politics can do. In the complex political decision-making process, scientific evidence will not always win the day, so good management of expectations is essential. This insight can help to bring back lost trust in political institutions and governance (Chiose 2016). Democratic politics is always dependent on openness and controversy, which means to accept getting irritated. It is not compatible with an absolutist claim to ultimate truth. Science and democracy have in common that they are both “cultures of reservation” that should always keep their own fallibility in mind. This is precisely what constitutes the promise and challenge of freedom (Fischer and Strohschneider 2017, p. 12). It also includes recognizing the limits of political options. In the complex decision-making process of politics, scientific evidence will not always win the day, so good management of expectations is essential. This insight can help to bring back lost trust in political institutions and governance (Chiose 2016). Among students of the humanities, there is a discussion about reviving the figure of the public intellectual who strives to make an impact with astute diagnoses of his or her time. Well-known examples include the philosophers Hannah Arendt and Jürgen Habermas, the sociologist Heinz Bude, the lawyer and sociologist Udo di Fabio, the political scientist Herfried Münkler, and the historians Heinrich August Winkler and Andreas Rödder. Such thinkers should intervene, preferably with productive, startling polemics, as media scientist Bernhard Pörksen suggests. The literary scholar Sandra Richter assigns to professors a “communicative responsibility for the common good.” These would have to “enlighten in an emphatic sense and argue scientifically.” Richter calls for action: “Generate a wealth of ideas where there is dullness, promote understanding, where lack of understanding rules. Professors can make their cause heard in politics and among the public if they behave like intellectuals: think independently and critically and refer to each other. Professors, get engaged!” (Richter 2015). Scholarly work can strengthen socio-political structures and thus secure the conditions for its own existence. With more courage, scientists can become active allies in the struggle for an effective societal policy. As the art scholar Daniel Hornuff (2017, p. 63) provocatively asks: “Wehere is the non-partisan, differentiating voice of political science? Should this not be the hour of factual religious studies? Why are German studies so silent about the political rhetoric of populism? Who from art, visual or media studies is speaking out loud about the aesthetic strategies of power? And does philosophy have anything to say at all, apart from a few television thinkers? “.

3.5 Societal Actors and Their Political Role

71

In this spirit, science journalist Martin Spiewak (2017, p. 33) points out that science, contrary to reports about the erosion of its public standing, is actually in a comfortable position: “It enjoys growing freedom and prestige, its interpretative power has never been so omnipresent.” It gets more money, the number of scientifically trained people is increasing steadily, and political decisions are increasingly being made on the basis of scientific knowledge. In contrast to “party,” “parents,” or “boss,” which are losing their persuasiveness, science has a special authority. According to an Emnid survey, more than half of Germans wish for a greater influence of scientific knowledge on politics. The big question is whether scientists will develop the will to use the undoubtedly large scope for action with courage. The Media There is no question that the media is also a key player in the public sphere. They circle around politics, they convey and comment, inform, analyze, and criticize. Apart from their core journalistic business, what is the medias’ sociopolitical mandate? How do they strengthen the democratic, pluralistic state and thus their own foundation? For example, media players can promote investigative journalism. The exposure of global tax evasion and avoidance in the context of the Panama Papers and Paradise Papers shows how explosive the results can be. Another component is the promotion of local journalism. Strengthening the media presence outside of urban centers creates an opportunity to portray ways of life that have lost their cultural influence over the past decades. To take a closer look at the diverse geographical and social conditions of life would be a step toward improving understanding among citizens as a prerequisite for social cohesion. Of course, the role of public service broadcasting cannot be left out of a discussion about the political responsibility of the media. Public service broadcasting has “the constitutional mandate to make a contribution to individual and public opinion formation and thus to contribute to a functioning democratic community.” Accordingly, the program has “to serve education, information, advice, and entertainment. A limitation or reduction of this program mandate or a focus only on education and information is prohibited by the constitution.” Nevertheless, it is primarily the information programs that distinguish public service providers from private providers and add value (Aufgabe und Funktion ARD, undated). Given the significant proportion of “football, musicians and North Sea thrillers” on German television, as Jürgen Kaube (2017) once said, a stronger focus should be put on political and cultural education. Sports The world of sports also shows that democracy, the rule of law, and pluralism should not be taken for granted, but need to be actively supported. For example, Bundesliga soccer thrives on recruiting the best playing and coaching talent domestically as well as from all over the world to keep the level of the game attractive. However, the danger of nationalist isolation shows that the existence of international transfer markets and games is not a given, but is linked to political prerequisites such as freedom of movement for workers and freedom of travel. In early 2017, for example, Werder Bremen’s then coach, German Iranian Alexander

72

3

Revitalizing the Public Sphere

Nouri, criticized President Trump’s decree to deny citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Iran, entry to the United States. “In sport, the US President would probably get a red card for unsportsmanlike conduct,” Nouri said. He was “concerned about how our democratic achievements in recent decades have just been trampled on. Not just in the United States. No democratically minded person should accept that other people are generally condemned and punished” (Werder 2017). In a way, a sports club is like a social platform. After all, people of all classes and ages meet there regularly and practice social and increasingly political behavior. Due to the extensive popularity of soccer, soccer fans are a particularly representative mirror of society. The leadership of a soccer club must now regularly take a stance on political issues that are brought into the stadiums. How to deal with racism and anti-Semitism? What to do with the AfD? Here, too, Werder Bremen and its President Hubertus Hess-Grunewald adopted a particularly clear position, pointing out that Werder Bremen’s values do not agree with what the AfD stands for (Kamann 2018). National teams play a special role for identity and solidarity. UEFA and FIFA expressly say that soccer and politics should be kept strictly separate. When Turkish players used a military salute during the European Championship qualification after Turkey’s military intervention in Syria, the European Football Association took action against them. It was not the first time that political messages were sent from the stadium. FC St. Pauli reacted very consistently and released its Turkish player Cenk Sahin from his obligations. With his approval of the military action, the professional player had caused an uproar. On his Instagram account, he wrote in Turkish: “We are on the side of our heroic military and the armies. Our prayers are with you!” He had also attached the name of the Turkish military operation (Sport1 2019). But of course, sport also offers a quasi-political opportunity to represent one’s country in a positive way to the entire world. It is hard to exaggerate the “political capital” gained through the good behavior of the German national team during the World Championships in 2006 in Germany and in 2014 in Brazil, even off the pitch. However, the move can also backfire. Authoritarian regimes like the former GDR or today’s Russia make a particular effort with sports, including manipulation (i.e., doping), to polish their reputation. If that goes wrong, they have to live with the consequences. In the United States, football professional Colin Kaepernick sparked off a political controversy by kneeling while the national anthem was played. Kaepernick, an African American, intended his action as a protest against racism, while his opponents saw it as disparaging the nation. The issue was how to deal with history and with narratives of patriotism and national symbols. President Trump also interfered in the argument and harshly criticized Kaepernick. The case is in a line with a tradition: “Political protest as part of sport, or vice versa, sport as part of protest culture, has a long history” (Günther 2017). Think of Muhammad Ali, who took a stand against the Vietnam War, among other things. The politicization of athletes is reaching a new high in the Trump era (Günther 2017). The Kaepernick

3.5 Societal Actors and Their Political Role

73

cause is also interesting because it was taken up by Nike as part of a marketing measure. It is therefore directly relevant to CPR (The case is examined in more detail in Part III). Arts and Culture Here is a quote by the actress Isabelle Huppert: “Art does not at all exist to be in the mainstream, but to take a step to the side, even to make you uneasy.” Art wants people to react, to make them think—it wants to ask questions without necessarily providing answers (Gropp 2017, p. 9). Huppert’s thought has a political quality. Because “taking a step to the side” means exploring, experimenting to what extent things could be different. Keeping this question alive is constitutive for democracies because it explores the degrees of freedom and can stimulate designs for the future. Democracy is a discourse-oriented system model that, in order to remain fit for the future, has to develop constructively based on criticism and debate. “For this reason, democracy also needs critical and corrective voices from culture in difficult times,” says Thomas Krüger, President of the Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (Federal Agency for Civic Education, 2018). Art becomes more political when freedom, including those outside the art business, is at stake. Herbert Grönemeyer supports this thesis: “At the moment, the point is to make it clear to people from the liberal left to those holding conservative values that we need to hold the country together” (Benninghoff and Georgi 2018). The Dresdner Sinfoniker, for example, has demonstrated the concrete political impact that culture can have. They played a concert on the US–Mexico border in June 2017 to protest against foreclosure and nationalism. The performance in Tijuana was themed “Tear Down This Wall” and, as the orchestra director Markus Rindt (2017) emphasized, was aimed in a broad sense at the walls in our heads. One reason is that music ensembles—especially those with high artistic standards— depend on the internationality of their members, i.e., sufficiently permeable political structures. In show business, American late-night presenters rub up against President Trump using their wit as a source of enlightenment. Thus, they carry out a fundamentally journalistic task. Admittedly, they run the risk of remaining trapped within the boundaries of their own liberal descriptions of the world and thereby ultimately promoting socio-political polarization. Churche and Religion Religion is an organized form of belief. Because organized belief must relate to society, religion is political. In Germany, it was a political decision to collect the church tax through state tax offices. The churches as organizations of faith are extremely active in society. The religious charities Caritas and Diakonie, for example, are cornerstones of the non-governmental welfare structures and thus of the German overall welfare system. With more than 610,000 employees, Caritas is Germany’s largest private employer. Diakonie with over 460,000 employees is not far behind. These figures illustrate the enormous sociopolitical relevance of church organizations, which is visible, for example, in care for the elderly and the disabled, child and youth welfare, education, and support for the unemployed.

74

3

Revitalizing the Public Sphere

But if churches are de facto political actors, it is worth taking a closer look at their role. The Protestant theologian Friedrich Wilhelm Graf explains what this role could be. He is also clear about the ambivalences and pitfalls of church involvement: “In a pluralistic, democratic society, the churches are nothing but large associations. Like many other associations, they can also comment on political issues.” However, Graf explains, they should concentrate on important issues. “Less is often more. Anything else only leads to wear and tear.” Graf explains: “The issues of asylum, the admission of refugees, and solidarity with people who have been marginalized are genuine issues in a religious tradition, and not just of Christianity. But even there, the manner in which the churches participate in the social discourse is important. They should not simply raise steep moral demands but also ensure a social climate in which such questions can be discussed objectively. And it is even better if the churches assume responsibility for their own positions, for example by offering to take in asylum seekers.” Graf sees the churches making a useful practical contribution toward integration in Europe by “starting exchange processes,” namely through “partnerships between parishes, youth groups, and the like” (Zeitzeichen 2013). Heinrich Bedford-Strohm, the chairman of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany, sums it up as follows: “Those who are devout must also be political.” Bedford-Strohm also explains why. “Precisely because the God in whom Christians believe did not turn away from the world but toward it, the gospel always has a political meaning.” Bedford-Strohm (2017, p. 6) also underlines that outrage can never replace “the patient drilling of thick planks in everyday political action.” A look at Christian-based education seems illuminating here. Such education aims at personality development by combining the imparting of knowledge with the practice of attitudes and virtues. It puts the focus on the social context of the individual and includes the spiritual dimension of human existence in the face of larger, unexplainable powers. This describes the essential civilization of individuals in Christian-oriented regions of the world, which includes a social and political willingness to take responsibility. These ought to be fostered because these elements of the Christian tradition can be a powerful support for public-spirited values. All in all, the voice of the church is in demand, but this does not mean it should have socio-political responsibility for everything and ethical clarity on all sensitive issues. Self-reflection discourages the sense of moral superiority that shines through in complacent political sermons. Rather, what is needed is a clear focus on content based on religious tradition, which takes into account the restrictions of political action. If this translates into effective engagement, the church can assume an important and responsible role in the public sphere. Foundations, Philanthropists, NGOs Corporate foundations, which are oriented toward the common good, are key players—a kind of “lubricant”—at the interface between civil society, politics, and business. The Bertelsmann, Bosch, or BMW Foundation convey scientific knowledge and organize encounters in the public realm and develop recommendations to society for action. The BMW Foundation’s Responsible Leaders Network should be mentioned here as a good example. It

3.6 Lessons Learnt: The Case of Pegida in Saxony

75

sees itself as a diverse global community driving positive change. Responsible leaders are leaders who beyond their professional and personal tasks put their knowledge and their networks to use for society, across sectors, countries, and cultures. In doing so, they assume responsibility in a larger context. The foundation also promotes instruments and initiatives to mobilize the approximately 2500 members of its network and to increase their impact in favor of the common good (BMW Responsible Leaders Network). The work of corporate foundations raises a question: Is this CPR? You could argue that socio-political commitment need not or should not come from the companies themselves but may be delegated in this way. One thing is clear: Foundations have an impact on civil society, take regulatory issues into account, become active in the community, etc. But as the recommendations of the Bundesverband Deutscher Stiftungen (Federal Association of German Foundations) explicitly state, they should fulfill these tasks largely independently of the founding company (Bundesverband Deutscher Stiftungen 2016). That applies to personnel, finances, and content. The difference to genuine CPR lies in the separation of political activities in their broadest sense from the actual business. Indeed, CPR does not rely on outsourcing social responsibility, but links it to the business itself. At its core, it is about achieving win–win solutions between business and the state, based on the insight that companies, by strengthening state infrastructures, also strengthen their own business fundamentals. Accordingly, CPR is not about sociopolitical engagement in some general and unspecific sense, but about its strategic focus on the company. CPR shows that companies have to think and act politically in order to be successful. Companies that have set up foundations should therefore also practice CPR. Foundations are not a substitute for CPR; rather, these forms of social commitment are complementary. Foundations such as those of financially strong philanthropists like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, or George Soros are a special case. They are so strongly personalized in their engagements that one must ask whether they serve as private vehicles of power—or can be misused to that end. In principle, initiatives for an open society, better health care, or improved education are to be welcomed. Charitable action by super-rich people in the guise of an NGO must, however, be based on the same premise as CPR: The yardstick is their respect for the primacy of the political. Philanthropists must not undermine democratic processes.

3.6

Lessons Learnt: The Case of Pegida in Saxony

The case of Pegida in Saxony showed what happens when businesses fail to make constructive contributions to the public sphere. In 2015, socio-political upheavals did massive damage to Saxony as a business location, when the refugee crisis triggered xenophobic protest marches organized by the Pegida movement. The pictures of angry crowds and of riots against refugee homes made the news not just in Germany but were broadcast to the world. The damage to the political and

76

3

Revitalizing the Public Sphere

social image of East Germany was enormous—with negative consequences for local business. One might also say that the public sphere and its way of debating was subjected to a stress test. The Federal Government’s annual report on the State of German Unity said in 2016: “Xenophobia, right-wing extremism, and intolerance pose a great danger to the social and economic development of the new federal states. East Germany will only have a positive perspective if it is a cosmopolitan region in which everybody who lives there can feel at home and participate in social life.” In the economic competition for the highest-skilled workers, aggressive populism is poison for the eastern German regions. Investors are becoming skeptical, specialist staff are moving away or failing to move there—a brain drain is happening. An efficient market economy cannot afford intolerance. If you do not have a cosmopolitan attitude and do not behave properly toward strangers, you ruin your own business location. Businesses have to take action themselves to prevent this; relying on politics is not enough. The vast majority of East Germans are by no means xenophobic—but this majority initially did not take a clear stance and first had to learn to organize more effectively. Business must be an integral part of such a civic alliance for an open society. See the report by the Federal Government (2016): “To strengthen social cohesion, it is not only the commitment of the Federal Government that is required, but also the commitment of all actors in society. Citizens, businesses and traders, associations, and communities have a common interest in leaving xenophobia, extremism, and violence no room.” With their enormous resources, businesses and traders have a special responsibility to help safeguard democracy, e.g., through community organizing,3 educational work, and dialogue forums. The German government considers the workplace—one of the essential meeting places in people’s lives—to be particularly important for practicing “civic courage” and “rejecting statements that are hostile to people and democracy.” Civic courage is undoubtedly useful, but not sufficient. Companies should not just leave the fight against intolerance and xenophobia to the civic spirit and commitment of their employees. As institutions, businesses depend on stable political conditions. Therefore, as institutions, they should also make strategic investments in the sociopolitical foundations of their business location. If you avert your eyes instead of acting, you weaken your business. It is not only in Saxony that companies cannot afford a political “blind spot.” The Schneeberg case of November 2013 shows how contributions to the public sphere in Saxony can succeed. In the town of Schneeberg, local politicians took the issue of migration and asylum and demonstrated how to address both xenophobia and the justified concerns of citizens. When an official of the far-right NPD organized a protest movement against a planned asylum home, the mayor spoke to the population, campaigned for sympathy and understanding for refugees, but also

3 For an introduction to the topic, see: DICO—Deutsches Institut für Community Organizing; Leo Penta (2007).

3.7 A Call to Action for the Whole Society

77

took people’s reservations into account. A series of citizens’ meetings were organized. The discussions were heated, but gradually, the political climate became less emotional. A key factor was the professional moderation of the debates, in this case by Frank Richter, then director of the Landeszentrale für politische Bildung (State Center for Political Education) in Saxony. The protest subsided because the conflict was taken seriously and dealt with politically. This shows how the liberal order is able to solve problems, true to the motto: “Communication may go wrong. Non-communication will definitely go wrong” (2017). Similarly, the coal mining company Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlegesellschaft (Mibrag) organized seminars on cosmopolitanism for its trainees. Porsche in Leipzig annually awards a prize for engagement against right-wing extremism. And after racist attacks on refugees in Heidenau in Saxony, Fisherman’s Friend changed its German advertising slogan. “If they too strong, are you too weak” was turned into “If they are too colorful, are you too brown [color code for Nazism],” combined with the Twitter hashtag “Speak Out.” The campaign spread rapidly on social media and received over 50,000 likes within a few hours. In Brandenburg, ArcelorMittal Eisenhüttenstadt has been campaigning against right-wing violence and for diversity and tolerance since the late 1990s. The company is one of the largest employers in the country (Feldhaus 2017).

3.7

A Call to Action for the Whole Society

If all societal actors were to jointly pledge their support to state institutions and a constructive public debating culture, progress would be enormous. A living, resilient community depends on all societal actors taking responsibility for supporting it, and, as in the case of Pegida in Saxony, learning from mistakes made in dealing with dissenters. The state could regain its ability to take control through the concept of governance. In addition, there should be a new civic ethos and a “politics of everyday life,” as Ralf Fücks (2017, p. 72) writes. Despite all its “trials and tribulations,” this could be an essential legacy of the 1968 movement: “the practical improvement of society from within; a cosmopolitan attitude; a passion for the political public; a sustained social commitment; the insistence on self-determination and democratic participation.“. The message sent by the remapping of the public sphere, including political culture, is clear: Political responsibility and democratic resilience must be given more importance. Everything depends on attitude. The founder of US ice cream maker Ben & Jerry’s, Ben Cohen, comes pretty close to the ideal CPR stance when he says, “Many companies are political, but most remain behind the scenes where no one sees what they do. They lobby or donate large sums to politicians. Ben & Jerry’s is different: We take a public stance for the benefit of the general public.” Cohen adds: “From the very beginning, it was not our image that we were concerned about. We wanted to show our colors. But the more we took a stand—for nature

78

3

Revitalizing the Public Sphere

conservation, for social justice, or against racism, the better our ice cream sold. If you give something to society, you get something back”4 (Kühn 2019, p. 52). It is obvious that the social and political foundations on which businesses operate are at risk. At the same time, companies gain new opportunities for positioning themselves if they interpret the signs of the times right, and if business elites show leadership qualities. So what exactly should companies do in this situation? First of all, it should be noted that reshaping the public sphere is a revolutionary process— and entirely suitable to a “learning democracy.” Processes are particularly effective if they follow conceptual and methodical guidelines as outlined in Parts II and III of this book. The CPR concept begins with the development of a consistent attitude. Companies should see themselves as powerful but humble co-creators of society and politics. For this, business needs to understand politics better—and vice versa. Above all, companies should not just delegate their political responsibility to associations, but also increase their appeal by getting directly involved. Their new stance should, therefore, be expressed in the development and management of a political brand through the process of political branding. Those are the topics of the next two chapters.

References Bedford-Strohm, H. (2017, May 15). Die zwei Regimente. FAZ, p. 6. Benninghoff, M., & Georgi, O. (2018, November 11). Interview mit Herbert Grönemeyer. „Mein Leben strahlt“, FAZ. Bernau, P. (2019, December 22). Interview mit Hasso Plattner. „Dann muss ich Deutschland verlassen“, FAS, p. 22 Brooks, D. (2017, August 1). Before Manliness lost its virtue. New York Times. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/opinion/scaramucci-mccain-masculinitywhite-house.html Buchsteiner, J. (2018, April 16). Die Zukunft Europas. Vom Versagen der Eliten. Die Thesen des Dahrendorf-Fellows Jan Zielonka. FAZ. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www.faz. net/aktuell/politik/ausland/ist-die-eu-am-ende-vom-versagen-der-liberalen-eliten-15543248. html Bundeskriminalamt (BKA). (2011). Berlin: Bundeslagebild Cybercrime 2011. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Publikationen/ JahresberichteUndLagebilder/Cybercrime/cybercrimeBundeslagebild2011.html Bundesverband deutscher Stiftungen. (2016). Zehn Empfehlungen für gemeinnützige Unternehmensstiftungen. Accessed March 2, 2020, from https://www.stiftungen.org/ fileadmin/stiftungen_org/Verband/Was_wir_tun/Veranstaltungen/AKUnternehmensstiftungen/Zehn-Empfehlungen-Unternehmensstiftungen-2016.pdf Chiose, S. (2016, December 13). New program allows scientists to get involved in federal policy making. The Globe and Mail. Accessed February 10, 2020, from http://www.theglobeandmail. com/news/national/canadian-scientists-with-posts-in-government-encourage-evidence-basedpolicy-making/article33317650/?arc404=true A Ben and Jerry’s sundae showed Native Americans with a sign that read “Resistance.” The message was clear, as Cohen said: “We wanted to set an example. Trump’s racism and hatred are not compatible with our company’s values.”

4

References

79

Di Lorenzo, G. (2019, September 5). Auf in den Nahkampf. Landtagswahlen in Ostdeutschland. ZEIT Online. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www.zeit.de/2019/37/landtagswahlsachsen-brandenburg-afd-spd-cdu-gruene Dorn, T. (2018). Deutsch, nicht dumpf. Leitfaden für aufgeklärte Patrioten. München: Albrecht Knaus. Feldhaus, T. (2017). Unternehmen sind Opportunisten. CSR-Magazin, 26, 22–41. Fischer, K., & Strohschneider, P. (2017, April 21). Dafür gehn wir meilenweit, FAZ, p. 12. Flämig, M. (2017, March 14). Haltung zeigen! Börsen-Zeitung, p. 1. Fücks, R. (2017). Freiheit verteidigen. München: Hanser. Graf von Kielmansegg, P. (2018, August 2). Warum die Politik verteidigt werden muss. FAZ. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/die-gegenwart/ populismus-verteidigung-der-politik-15669095.html Gropp, R.-M. (2017, May 15). Kunst ist da, um zu beunruhigen. Interview mit Isabelle Huppert. FAZ, p. 9. Günther, M. (2017, October 1). Auf Knien gegen den Präsidenten. FAS. Hellmann, S., & Wolff, G. (2018, April 4). Für eine wehrhafte Außenwirtschaftspolitik. FAZ. Hornuff, D. (2017, August 24). Entspannt euch. Die ZEIT, p. 63. Ingendaay, P. (2019, July 8). Es ist nicht klug, sich aus dem Krieg herauszuhalten. AFD Aussteigerin berichtet. FAZ. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www.faz.net/aktuell/ feuilleton/debatten/afd-aussteigerin-franziska-schreiber-ueber-die-welt-der-partei-16273011. html Kamann, M. (2018, October 8). Politischer Streit: Werder Bremen droht AfD-Anhängern mit Entzug der Dauerkarte, WELT. Accessed March 9, 2020, from https://www.welt.de/sport/ fussball/bundesliga/werder-bremen/article181810592/Politischer-Streit-Werder-Bremen-drohtAfD-Anhaengern-mit-Entzug-der-Dauerkarte.html Kaube, J. (2017, August 26). Staatsrundfunk und Zwangsgebühr. Demokratie in den Medien. FAZ. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/rundfunkbeitrag-allefuer-alles-ist-dumm-15168540/rundfunkbeitrag-alle-fuer-15168746.html Kissler, A., Marguier, A., & Schwennicke, C. (2019, June). Der Kampf um den Kanon. Cicero. Kolb, M. (2018, April 5). Die deutsche Autoindustrie muss aufhören, sich von Orbán missbrauchen zu lassen. Interview mit Thorsten Benner. Süddeutsche Zeitung. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/wahl-in-ungarn-die-deutsche-autoindustrie-mussaufhoeren-sich-von-orban-missbrauchen-zu-lassen-1.3929691 Kühn, A. (2019). Auch ein Milliardär darf links sein. Interview mit Ben Cohen (Vol. 31, p. 52). Der Spiegel. Lammert, N. (2019, September 8). Vernunft kommt nicht an. FAS. Leciejewski, K. (2015, February 1). Eine arrogante Distanz. Handelsblatt. MacLellan, L. (2019, August 24). Responsible capitalism is not a form of millennial pandering. Qartz at Work. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://qz.com/work/1691365/businessroundtable-statement-on-purpose-of-companies-goes-back-to-the-future/ McCormick, J. (2017). Die aktuelle Krise der Demokratie und der populistische Schmerzensschrei. In Leviathan, Berliner Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft (Vol. 32, pp. 41–55). Meyer, F. A. (2017, August 20). Das Silicon Valley erscheint in religiösem Licht. SonntagsBlick Magazin. Meyer, F. A. (2019, April). In Deutschland sind die Eliten noch zu sehr mit sich selbst beschäftigt. Cicero, p. 48. Monath, H. (2019, December 8). Rückendeckung von den neuen Chefs kann Maas nicht erwarten. Tagesspiegel. https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/aussenpolitik-auf-dem-spd-parteitagrueckendeckung-von-den-neuen-chefs-kann-maas-nicht-erwarten/25312386.html Poppinga, A. (1994). Das wichtigste ist der Mut. Konrad Adenauer – die letzten fünf Kanzlerjahre. Köln: Bastei Lübbe. Pörksen, B. (2017, June 20). Bildungsauftrag. Kreative Muße. Wissen schafft Vertrauen. In H.-J. Schiewer & G. Krausch (Hrsg.). German U15 e.V., p. 9.

80

3

Revitalizing the Public Sphere

Rath, C. (2020, March 5). EU-Gutachten: Ungarn verletzt Wissenschaftsfreiheit, vorwärts. Accessed March 9, 2020, from https://www.vorwaerts.de/artikel/eu-gutachten-ungarn-verletztwissenschaftsfreiheit Rauh, R. (2017, May 16). Macht Politik endlich zum Schulfach! Tagesspiegel. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/bildung-macht-politik-endlich-zumschulfach/19806348.html Richter, S. (2015, August 13). Profs, träumt nicht von gestern. ZEIT-Online. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www.zeit.de/2015/33/gesellschaft-professoren-interlektuelle Rindt, M. (2017, June 3). Wir wollen ein Zeichen setzen gegen die Mauern in den Köpfen. Interview mit Ute Welty. Deutschlandfunk. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www. deutschlandfunkkultur.de/dresdner-sinfoniker-am-grenzzaun-mexiko-usa-wir-wollen-ein.1008. de.html?dram:article_id=38778 Röser, J. (2019). Der Mensch in der Masse. Christ in der Gegenwart, 11, 120. Sandel, M. (2018, April 15). Die liberale Wertfreiheit ist ein Fehler. Tagesspiegel. Schlink, B. (2019, August 1). Der Preis der Enge. FAZ. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https:// www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/wieder-gesellschaftliche-mainstream-die-rechten-staerkt16311578.html?premium=0xa74081548e868c95bcc9fb7152082fd1 Schmidt, H. (2018). „Einer von uns“. Interview mit Ivan Krastev. Spiegel Magazin, Vol. 4, p. 115. Schmoll, H. (2019, December 3). Neue Pisa_Studie. Lesemuffel auf dem Niveau von Analphabeten. FAZ. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ inland/pisa-studie-jeder-fuenfte-fuenfzehnjaehrige-ist-fast-analphabet-16515716.html Schubert, K., & Klein, M. (2018). Das Politiklexikon Bonn: Dietz. Accessed February 10, 2020, from http://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/lexika/politiklexikon/17715/kollektive-gueter Schüz, M. (2018). Responsible leadership. Den Ethischen gehört die Welt. Persönlichkeitsbildung und Responsible Leadership, personalschweiz, Sonderausgabe „Persönlichkeitsentwicklung“, S. 30. Singer, P. W., & Friedman, A. (2014). Cybersecurity and Cyberwar: What everyone needs to know (p. 13). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Spiewak, M. (2017, August 24). Der deutschen Wissenschaft geht es so gut wie nie zuvor, Die ZEIT, p. 33. Statista. (2018). Höhe der gesamten öffentlichen Bildungsausgaben in Deutschland von 1995 bis 2018. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/2526/ umfrage/entwicklung-der-oeffentlichen-bildungsausgaben/ Steinmeier, F.-W. (2019, March 13). Deutsch und frei. Die ZEIT. Accessed March 17, 2020, from https://www.zeit.de/2019/12/demokratie-nationalismus-tradition-gedenktagegeschichtsunterricht Tagesschau. (2020, February 20). Reaktionen auf Hanau. „Rassismus und Hass sind ein Gift“. https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/hanau-reaktionen-105.html Volger, G. (2019, June 17). Zuerst die Gesellschaft, dann der Staat. Freiheit nützen heißt für Ralf Dahrendorf bessere Lebenschancen schaffen. NZZ. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https:// www.nzz.ch/feuilleton/ralf-dahrendorf-zuerst-die-gesellschaft-dann-der-staat-ld.1488065 von Marshall, C. (2018). Wir verstehen die Welt nicht mehr: Deutschlands Entfremdung von seinen Freunden. Freiburg: Herder. von Thadden, E. (2018, October 24). Die Menschen warten auf Fragen. Interview mit Michael Sandel. ZEIT Online. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www.zeit.de/2018/44/michaelsandel-demokratie-gemeinwohl-philosophie (WBGU) Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen. (2011). Ein Gesellschaftsvertrag für die Transformation. Factsheet, 1. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/user_upload/wbgu/publikationen/factsheets/fs1_2011/ wbgu_fs1_2011.pdf Werder. (2017, January 30). Nouri reagiert auf Einreiseverbot in die USA. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www.werder.de/aktuell/news/profis/20162017/nouri-einreiseverbot-usa30012017/

References

81

Winkler, H. A. (2019). Die verdrängte Finalität. Internationale Politik 3, Mai/Juni 2019, S. 8–13. Zeitzeichen. (2013). Es gibt keine christliche Politik. Gespräch mit Theologen Friedrich Wilhelm Graf. Accessed March 2, 2020, from https://zeitzeichen.net/archiv/2014_Januar_kirche-undpolitik Zürn, M. (2018, October 21). Liberale Eliten als Hassobjekt. Tagespiegel. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://causa.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/populismus-und-die-werte-der-anderen/ liberale-eliten-als-hassobjekt.html

Part II Taking a Stance: Corporate Political Responsibility (CPR)

4

Why Businesses Need a Political Stance

Businesses should systematically develop their political brand—in their own enlightened self-interest. This is the central thesis of this book. However, the development of a political brand must be based on a socio-political stance to give the political brand credibility. This chapter develops the necessary conceptual approach, Corporate Political Responsibility (CPR). It shows why political sustainability and responsibility are required in our time and shows where they differ from other responsibility concepts. Businesses contribute to the governance of the community. The way companies act in the political sphere has great potential to strengthen social cohesion, the business location, and thus the conditions for doing business. CPR and the associated stance are necessary because entrepreneurial action in the twenty-first century can no longer be explained by traditional terms such as “lobbying” or “corporate social responsibility.” We need a more precise understanding of the responsibility of business vis-à-vis society. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is too narrow. It needs to be further developed into CPR, because political sustainability strengthens the state and represents a business case for companies. The political dimension is missing from the CSR concept. Sustainability generally only refers to the social and ecological dimensions. CSR is about securing the living conditions of society and nature that are more or less closely linked to a company’s business model. Interestingly, the academic debate in Germany, Switzerland, or the United States has started to recognize political elements in corporate responsibility. This is indicated by terms such as corporate political activity, corporate political advocacy, or political CSR (Wettstein and Baur 2015). In practice, however, these approaches are only accepted very slowly. The fundamental strategic importance of politics for the business sector is still underestimated. The most important noneconomic business factor is a sustainable political environment. Companies should invest in this fundament of their economic success: stable democratic institutions, the rule of law, a committed civil society, public # The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, part of Springer Nature 2021 J. Bohnen, Corporate Political Responsibility, Future of Business and Finance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62122-6_4

85

86

4

Why Businesses Need a Political Stance

debates, a workforce that understands political principles, and a modern infrastructure. After all, it is the vitality, freedom, and security of liberal democracy that make companies grow. In short: CSR is not enough. What we need is CPR, Corporate Political Responsibility. The conceptual approach of CPR offers a new approach to an urgently needed debate. With the term “political, “companies define a comprehensive position for themselves in the community. This understanding enables businesses to survive in an environment that increasingly expects them to assume social responsibility; this is particularly true for the younger generation. In a nutshell: CPR is an active approach that allows companies to make socio-political investments and thereby strengthen their own business. Socio-political investment is a business case. An open, democratic society is the best basis for innovation, trade, entrepreneurial added value, and thus prosperity. Its heart consists of a vibrant debating culture that is essential for progress and future viability. Surely, most business representatives would subscribe to these assumptions. But why don’t their efforts and investments relate directly to the improvement of the political and societal foundations, if they are so important for business success? Probably the political framework that was established through political processes has seemed reasonably satisfactory so far. Also, there is a spoken or unspoken agreement that the two spheres of politics and business should not interfere with each other too much. There are good reasons for this belief in terms of division of labor and competences, but it also reveals a questionable understanding of politics. An efficient social and economic system cannot rely on the state alone to maintain and improve parameters. It is dependent on the commitment of companies that recognize that they can and should make a valuable contribution to the system’s success. This is all the more relevant as fast-paced national and international challenges stretch the national political institutions to the limits of their ability to provide governance. In particular, the megatrends of globalization and digitalization are transnational phenomena that are difficult to shape by national and regional politics. Supranational cooperation as in the EU is becoming more important, but the often rigid division of labor between politics and business should also be rethought. Businesses should strengthen the rule of law and governance structures by conviction. If their attitude is based on an analytical and active approach, the primacy of the political and the ability of decision makers in politics and administration will be strengthened. CPR should complement and enhance constructive social contributions (tax payments, provision of jobs, etc.) that are already inherent in doing business. This is the opposite of “greenwashing,” which only pretends to foster sustainability. Entrepreneurs should be aware that in the long term, they will benefit most from a strong and resilient open society. Given the logic of political sustainability, companies could ask the almost cynical question: Is democracy really important for a successful business? Can growth only prosper in conditions of freedom, or does it merely need stability and predictability, as is also—or especially, as some believe—provided by authoritarian regimes? Most managers would reject this purely instrumental logic that turns democracy into a negotiable commodity. As a rule, we attribute an intrinsic value

4

Why Businesses Need a Political Stance

87

to democracy as a form of social organization based on the principles of freedom and equality. But if you do ask about the “business case” of different social models, do not be dazzled by the promises of authoritarian systems. Whoever sings the praise of their stability, should not forget to mention their arbitrariness. Predictability can quickly turn into its opposite. In the painstaking balancing of interests, democracies may not always produce major breakthroughs. But due to their openness, they are flexible and adaptable to change. It’s a paradox: Democracies gain stability from dynamism. This makes them particularly attractive for business. The “overpowering state,” which “can guarantee investment security but cannot force innovation,” is different, as Isabelle-Christine Panreck (2020) observes with regard to the research by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson. “The breeding ground for [innovations] is a free society that also allows failure, because creativity rarely obeys commands.” In any case, entrepreneurs should recognize the fundamental connection between politics and business. After all, a weak state which is overtaxed by the task of providing governance offers at most a selective opportunity for profits. In a longer perspective, its dysfunctionality leads to the collapse of social institutions, thereby destroying the foundations of a successful business. The same applies, of course, to the ubiquitous, interventionist state, whose planned economy and dirigiste approach destroys the foundations of successful business in a different way, but just as thoroughly. Recognizing the economic importance of a functioning statehood and therefore exercising CPR must go hand in hand with not weakening state structures in any other way. This means that businesses have to meet their tax obligations and generally behave in accordance with the law. Tax evasion or avoidance corrupt the public role of a company—CPR then is simply “green washing.” If companies pay their taxes, they undoubtedly provide one of the most important levers for enabling the state to provide public goods. But if they do nothing more, they leave the shaping of the community to an increasingly overwhelmed state and do not meet the growing expectations of their own customers. A future-oriented company bases its actions on the sense of responsibility of a citizen (corporate citizen) for its own long-term advantage. Two aspects are therefore particularly relevant for credible political sustainability: first, the commitment to the liberal order of society; and second, the concept of virtue (discussed below) that is closely related to the concept of CPR as a stance. These fundamental considerations regarding the CPR concept will need to be elaborated and determined further. For now, it is important to take on board that (as shown in Part I) state, society, and business have different understandings of their respective roles. However, interaction in our rapidly changing public sphere is necessary. We would be making progress if we aimed for a mutual ability to communicate and to understand the respective logics of action. Figure 4.1 sums up the CPR logic in the context of societal actors:

88

4

SOCIETY

BUSINESS

Socio-political expectations are increasing •

•

STATE

Companies lack political selfawareness / self-understanding

Emancipation of citizens and consumers, especially through the opportunities for participation provided by the Internet Increasing demand for responsibility, sustainability, ethics

Demands

Why Businesses Need a Political Stance

•

•

The state‘s capacity to act is decreasing

Companies are de facto political actors, i.e. as taxpayers & innovators as well as through their own lobbying and influence via associations However, they rarely use their resources to sustain the political conditions of their business success

Pressure

•

•

The simultaneousness of globalization, digitalization and climate change overextends the capacities of national politics & regulation These major trends are reinforced by political threats such as nationalism, populism, war, flight & migration

Support

Use of resources

Governance opportunities

A new conceptual approach and new tools are needed:

CORPORATE POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITY (CPR) • • •

Companies need to develop a socio-political stance and use their resources to close governance gaps In so doing, they invest in the socio-political foundations of their business More than ever, brands thus have a political dimension, which must be developed

POLITICAL BRANDING 1

Creating the Political Brand Focus on the company‘s strengths

2

Managing the Political Brand Measures in CPR fields of action

© Johannes Bohnen

Fig. 4.1 CPR Overview: Requirement, strategy, implementation #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved

4.1

For the State’s Capacity to Act, Businesses Are a Problem and a Promise

CPR is not an exercise in academic introspection but addresses business needs. For companies, it represents an enormous potential for profit or loss. Those who meet expectations—and communicate their responsible behavior appropriately— strengthen their social and economic position. Today, businesses are under increased pressure to prove that they are good corporate citizens and, with their issues and interests, adopt a position in the political arena. Social media make it more important for companies to be able to respond and to communicate. Their opportunities for participation and the associated processes of political emancipation reinforce this development. In order not to become dysfunctional in the face of such “citizenship training”—that is, to understand and help shape the zeitgeist—it is advisable to adapt and develop companies in the direction of CPR. It is a logical step for companies to adopt a “political stance.” Social engagement is not only good and ethically desirable, but also an entrepreneurial imperative. Political contributions from businesses naturally raise questions.

4.2 Broadening the Concept of the Political: Politics is More Than Party Politics

89

For example, the role of companies as political actors requires a difficult balancing act: To what extent can and should private actors close the gaps in government supply? Where is the line between the state and private? Governments and administrations need pressure to act; at what point do companies risk relieving too much of that pressure? In other words, how can entrepreneurial resources sensibly contribute to state governance without causing “crowding-out” effects, i.e., by allowing the state to conveniently outsource core tasks? Or worse, depriving it of its capacity to act? For nation-states, multinational corporations in particular are both a problem and a part of the solution. There is an asymmetry between the limited nature of political systems and the lack of boundaries of commercial enterprises. If you believe that political influence cannot remedy that disparity, the paradoxical consequence is: Businesses are drivers of the trend toward globalization and digitalization, yet they are needed to help mitigate the centrifugal forces unleashed by that very trend in a (politically) sustainable way. They challenge state governance, but they are also a resource for regaining governance. Accepting this responsibility is crucial for companies. In the short term, they may be interested in regulatory gaps in order to make profits. In the long term, however—and this perspective is central— statehood that has been undermined also puts companies under pressure because political and social institutions may collapse. There are borderline cases that need to be considered, for instance when companies don’t just provide input into the regulation that concerns them, but also improve the quality of their business location and acquire competences for providing essential public services. Nevertheless, there is an enormous potential for society as a whole to benefit if companies deliberately take on tasks in the political sphere and contribute to shaping the foundations of their operations.

4.2

Broadening the Concept of the Political: Politics is More Than Party Politics

For the CPR concept, it is essential to develop a broad understanding of the concept of the political. This proactive approach to conceptualization may be jarring for businesses and provoke defensive reflexes. The “political” often gets equated with “party politics,” and entrepreneurs sometimes see party politics as inefficient exercises in shadow boxing that stand in the way of arriving at a “proper solution.” This explains part of the aversion of businesses to politics. But such an attitude also reveals a technocratic understanding of politics, combined with a lack of knowledge about democratic processes—not least about how much time it takes to negotiate compromises. Companies prefer faster decisions. In addition, they generally do not want to be associated with “partisan” agendas that follow a programmatic line. They believe that as supposedly neutral actors, they will be able to form more varied connections on their markets. The political abstinence of companies also shows that they overestimate the strength of representative democracy. This is dangerous,

90

4

Why Businesses Need a Political Stance

especially in view of the current global political situation. It is therefore high time to recharge the concept of the political in a positive manner. We can derive two main conclusions and options from our findings of the vulnerability of representative democracy. Citizens, companies, and other societal actors can: • Strengthen our representative democracy directly. They can focus on political parties as central institutions and systematically promote them by donating money to parties, encouraging employees to join up, publishing statements on the importance of political parties and representative democracy, and calling for high voter turnout in elections. • Develop their political engagement, e.g., through projects such as debating clubs and the establishment of private daycare centers. Whenever individuals and groups come together and draw up rules of cooperation or of living together, they engage in a political process. At the same time, they create common goods. All of this is about making constructive contributions to the strengthening of democracy and the public sphere. The focus of CPR is on the second option, but both options complement each other if citizens and businesses undertake multisectoral efforts to constructively accompany the political system’s approach to problems in the society. Democracy depends on the participation of all citizens, and that also includes businesses as “corporate citizens.” Personal responsibility is essential for the success of any societal organization that aims at freedom. In our interdependent world, politics should not only be delegated to political professionals, but should play a role at the center of society. This is an enormously promising avenue, because a comprehensive commitment to political responsibility contributes to stabilizing society. Attitude and awareness are changing: Political responsibility is practiced every day. The institutions and foundations of our own ideological convictions receive sustainable support. The disenchantment with politics that we hear so much about has been created by overtaxed politicians and by the overblown expectations of citizens, which these same politicians have contributed to. Arguably, businesses, too, have invested too little in the societal parameters of their locations. We, therefore, need both companies and the rest of civil society to become politicized in the best sense of the word. In the future, political activity outside of mainstream politics will become part of the day-to-day business of entrepreneurs, but without having businesses become part of the political system in a stricter sense. This requires a broader understanding of the political. In a democracy, everyone acts as a politician to some extent and should, therefore, take part in the debate on the development of public affairs. This is a call for businesses with their resources and influence to become involved, including through the provision of collective goods. Today’s challenges—whether digitalization, infrastructure improvement, or migration—are too extensive to be tackled by individual actors.

4.3 Broadening the Concept of Investment: Invest Politically

4.3

91

Broadening the Concept of Investment: Invest Politically

Investment is a key concept in the business world. Typically, it is understood in a narrow business sense. A cornerstone of the development of corporate responsibility toward CPR is a broader interpretation of investment. This makes it possible to demonstrate the importance of governance and collective goods for sustainable business. In the traditional business studies, an investment describes the “longterm commitment of financial resources in the shape of tangible or intangible assets” (Gablers Wirtschaftslexikon: Investment). Expenditures are made in the expectation of generating future payment surpluses. Orientation toward the future is therefore constitutive for the concept and illustrates its enormous relevance for the strategy of businesses. Due to uncertainty, the investment carries risks, but at the same time forms the indispensable basis for sustainable profitability. Companies invest for example in personnel, technology, research and development, or buildings. Yet there is an empty space on this list of prerequisites for business success: the liberal-democratic state with its reliable judicial system is missing. In autocracies, decisions are arbitrary, but companies prefer a reliable framework for action. Yet too few companies recognize its value explicitly or indeed use their resources to strengthen it. Remember the long-term perspective that is associated with the concept of investment—and that it shares with the concept of sustainability. Without investments, companies endanger their long-term existence. This insight needs to be broadened, and that is where the conceptual approach of political investments comes in. At the heart of the matter is the following question: What is the basis for successful entrepreneurial development? It is crucial that this basis includes an important pre-economic dimension, since a company’s well-being depends on the quality of state services such as legal security, infrastructure, and education. In this sense, business administration studies should come to include socio-political considerations. New approaches are needed, possibly also key figures, to provide information about how companies can protect their business politically. The same applies to rating agencies that should look closely not just at political investment but also at political risk analysis. In short: In addition to traditional investments, socio-political investments are needed. Like any investment, they are not without risk, but they are imperative to safeguard the conditions for entrepreneurial existence. Otherwise, companies would rely only on conditions that they themselves do not promote. With CPR, they support the political and legal infrastructure and meet consumer expectations of consumers. To modify a famous quote by the philosopher Immanuel Kant: Sociopolitical investments are the preconditions for the possibility of doing business. The state sets and implements the rules which structure the entrepreneurial action and therefore shape it. Economic activity would be impossible without such structuring. This is part of the primacy of politics, which companies should reinforce.

92

4.4

4

Why Businesses Need a Political Stance

Legitimacy: Respect the Primacy of the Political

In view of a broad definition of politics and investment, the CPR concept raises an important question: To which extent can companies claim legitimacy for political activities? The short answer is that companies should strengthen their civic ethos and not undermine the primacy of politics. Business representatives are not elected and therefore are less accountable to the public than politicians. But if businesses have limited democratic legitimacy, which is expressed by the fact that the public only has limited control over them, these businesses can in turn have only limited competency to shape the public realm. One clear limit is the monopoly on violence, meaning the exercise of legitimate violence or the enforcement of coercive measures to enforce law. If, in contrast, it is about providing existential public services,1 the relationship between state and private can always be rebalanced. When companies take on public tasks, it must be done in a way that does not lead the state into structural or long-term dependencies that would be difficult to reverse. CPR enables companies to speak out concerning public affairs. Companies are already implicitly exerting influence, and this influence should be made explicit. Looking at the interdependency of business and politics, the conclusion cannot realistically be “Keep business out of politics!” Instead, it should be “Integrate business into politics in a way that makes sense!” The forces of inertia that stand in the way of a political self-image of companies are certainly considerable. There is a widespread view that companies already interfere too much in the political decision-making process. So why should they be invited to gain even more power? According to this view, the political role of companies should be limited to paying taxes—and in the case of many multinationals, even that does not happen to the necessary extent (Bregman 2019). The objection is justified. It goes without saying that CPR cannot be a substitute for taxes, doled out in a paternalistic manner. To pay one’s taxes is the foremost duty of businesses in supporting state structures, especially since the decisions on the use of taxes are taken by democratically legitimized politicians. But can we still afford the view that the socio-political role of companies is fulfilled by just paying taxes? As analyzed earlier, we live in times of globalization and numerous internal and external threats. In addition, we need to consider the expectations of citizens and consumers. Extensive support from the business community could become a decisive lever for stabilizing our liberal democracy. The reason is that valuable entrepreneurial resources could be used to address the state’s governance tasks: technical expertise, the powerful voice of the CEOs,

The term existential public services “describes the state’s task of providing the goods and services considered necessary for human existence—basic services. This includes, as part of services administration, the provision of public facilities for the general public, i.e. traffic and transport, gas, water and electricity supply, refuse collection, sewage disposal, educational and cultural facilities, hospitals, cemeteries, swimming pools, fire brigades, etc. (infrastructure). Most of these activities are now carried out by municipal companies” (Translated from the German language Wikipedia 2020). 1

4.5 Concepts of Social Responsibility

93

committed staff, management know-how, the traction of a brand—and, of course, specially developed CPR measures as a result of having developed a political brand (see Chap. 6). In other words: The state’s agency is affected by global transformation processes. But businesses, with their resources and international presence, have the creative power to help the state catch up with globalization by making it faster and more effective. If this reasoning seems too abstract, the question of legitimacy can also be approached more pragmatically: Even companies that do not accept any social responsibility have to take demand into account. They need to find answers to the question of what consumers, investors, and media representatives want companies to do. Companies need long-term social backing; therefore, they must find answers to external expectations. CPR means meeting society’s expectations.

4.5

Concepts of Social Responsibility

Against the background of numerous crises and challenges—economic and financial crisis, cohesion in the EU and the transatlantic relationship, development of democracy—the discussion about corporate social responsibility is receiving great attention. The discussion of the topic takes place under a variety of names. The Rat für Nachhaltige Entwicklung (Council for Sustainable Development), an institution set up by Germany’s Federal Government, stated several years ago: “Terms such as ‘Corporate Sustainability’, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ and ‘Corporate Citizenship’ are often used to describe the same facts” (Bundesregierung 2014). For a focused debate on the benefits of the CPR concept for businesses, it is important to clarify the conceptual chaos.

4.5.1

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Currently the Leading Concept

Corporate social responsibility is the concept of corporate responsibility most frequently used by both business and academia. This prominence justifies a brief outline of its historical genesis. According to the European Commission (2011, p. 7), CSR describes “the responsibility of companies for their impact on society.” The origins of our current understanding of CSR go back to the 1950s. In the beginning, CSR was often discussed using the terminology of social responsibility, which is due, among other things, to the fact that the corporations were not as dominant at the time (Caroll 1999, p. 269). One of the first attempts to put CSR theory into practice was the Davos Manifesto, written in 1973. At the European management symposium, executives adopted a voluntary commitment to corporate social responsibility. They affirmed their determination to take into account and balance the interests of customers, suppliers, investors, employees, and society (Aßländer and Löhr 2010, p. 13).

94

4

Why Businesses Need a Political Stance

Archie B. Carroll, who is considered the founding father of the international CSR debate, refined the CSR concept in 1979 by identifying four levels of corporate responsibility. Carroll differentiates between a company’s economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic level of action (Matten and Crane 2005, p. 167). This approach makes it clear from the very beginning that the CSR debate should be about broad responsibility and not be restricted to one area. Other authors even identify five levels: the ecological, social, economic, the stakeholder, and the voluntary level (Dahlsrud 2006). CSR means to generate profits in a way that is “environmentally friendly, socially responsible, and at the same time economically successful” (Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, undated). However, there is a blurring of the concept due to the difficulties of translation: In English, “social responsibility” refers more broadly to society than in German, where “social” suggests a focus on charities and protection against existential hardship. In the 1980s and 1990s, the definitions of CSR were specified, and indicators developed to make CSR quantifiable. It became possible to analyze whether CSR activities affect a company’s financial performance. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), which was founded in 1997, defined guidelines and indicators for sustainability reporting that have been continuously developed ever since. These globally applicable guidelines were established in a cooperation between hundreds of companies, investors, rating agencies, auditors, associations, unions, NGOs, and academics. The goal is to have standardized and therefore comparable reporting on economic, ecological, and social performance accessible to a wide range of stakeholders (GRI, undated). The most recent annual report, published for 2016–2017, highlights how GRI is cooperating with the UN Global Compact to align sustainability reporting with the Sustainable Development Goals and to work toward reaching them (GRI 2017). Also in the 1990s, the European Commission under Jacques Delors promoted CSR. Together with corporate representatives, it founded the “European Business Network for Social Cohesion, “which was later renamed CSR Europe. In 2001, the Commission published the Greenbook CSR. There, CSR is defined as “a concept that companies use as a basis [for] voluntarily integrating social and environmental concerns into their business activities and into the interactions with stakeholders” (European Commission 2011, p. 7). CSR encourages companies to do more than comply with legal regulations: invest in human capital, the environment, and relationships with other stakeholders. In 2011, the European Commission agreed on a new strategy to strengthen and modernize CSR. To this end, the Commission formulated the CSR definition mentioned at the beginning of this chapter and drew up an EU-wide action plan (Europäische Kommission 2011, p. 7). In 2014, the EU Parliament and the member states passed the so-called CSR directive. The aim is to make European companies’ reporting more transparent with regard to social and ecological aspects, including information on environmental and worker protection, respect for human rights, and on fighting corruption. Germany transposed the directive into national law in 2017 (Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs 2014).

4.5 Concepts of Social Responsibility

95

In addition to international developments, CSR also has a long history in Germany. The German discussion about corporate responsibility, led by political parties and associations, was primarily motivated by social policy considerations. It focused on the duty of companies to cooperate in building and maintaining the social market economy. The main goal was to make the German economic order more socially equitable based on aspects such as fair wages or pension provisions. In the meantime, an abundance of topics has become more or less loosely associated with CSR. As a well-established term, its meaning has naturally evolved over time. This results in a certain vagueness of the concept. Some companies use this and apply CSR as they see fit (Aßländer and Löhr 2010, pp. 12–15). Almost the entire German business sector works with the CSR concept. In personal conversations, however, one repeatedly hears that company directors and their strategy departments have little interest in the topic. CSR is supposed to be part of the corporate strategy—but that is something that most companies only pay lip service to. In real life, CSR measures are ticked off bureaucratically by means of annual reports and sustainability reports, without making a lasting impact on employees’ awareness. This checklist mentality does not get challenged. Companies expend huge amounts of time and incur other inefficiencies to implement CSR. They do this in order to behave correctly and in accordance with the standards—after all, CSR is supposed to be a good thing. But in reality, the topic gets underestimated; the larger context is missing. The two key differences between CPR and CSR are that the political environment is essential for business, and that social and ecological issues must also be dealt with politically. In other words, CPR broadens and deepens CSR.

4.5.2

Other Established Concepts

While there are several other responsibilities concepts apart from CSR, their direction, added value, and historical genesis are not always clear. The Brundtland Report from 1987 is central to understanding them. It is the founding text for sustainability which, for the first time, outlined the guiding principle of “sustainable development” (Gablers Wirtschaftslexikon: Brundtland report). Here is a short overview of these concepts to show where the CPR concept differs in a meaningful way: Corporate Citizenship (CC) CC contains the basic outlines of what is condensed in the CPR term: Businesses, in their own interest, should see themselves as “citizens,” as part of a civic society, and actively shape the community. CC is a term that has been used internationally by companies since the 1990s (Matten and Crane 2005, p. 167). According to the Rat für Nachhaltige Entwicklung (Council for Sustainable Development), CC is only “a partial aspect of CSR and describes the commitment of companies to solve social problems in their local environment” (Federal Government 2005, p. 127). A broader definition of CC, which is not limited to the immediate vicinity of the community, but is aimed at the wider society, was

96

4

Why Businesses Need a Political Stance

formulated at the World Economic Forum in 2002: “We consider Corporate Citizenship as the contributions of businesses to society through the combination of core business activities, social investment and philanthropy, and participation in the public policy process “(World Economic Forum 2002). Dorothea Baur distinguishes between a narrow and an expanded form of CC. The former refers “exclusively to the voluntary support of civil society actors and activities,” for example, “charitable donations or the promotion of volunteering.” The latter assigns the term “an explicit political meaning,” namely the idea that companies are citizens and as such need to respect fundamental civil rights. If necessary, they should actively work to enforce them, both in interaction with the state and with civil society” (Baur 2018, p. 91). Civic engagement is constitutive for a democracy. Christoph Möllers (2018) says that “in a republic, all citizens are also politicians. And if they are not, they are bad citizens.” In terms of CC, the meaning of his sentence could be extended: What applies to individuals, ultimately also applies to companies. In their role as citizens, they must be political and see themselves as enhancers of democracy. This civic orientation of CC is therefore helpful for the CPR concept. However, a look at German CC practices shows that there still is a need for action. Goetzpartners (2017, pp. 4–5) and beyond philanthropy have conducted a study about CC engagement of DAX corporations. They conclude that only a few have a strategic approach and use their resources optimally. Instead of focusing on their own core competencies, many companies get bogged down in thematically disparate activities. None of the 30 companies have fully integrated their CC measures into their core business. Corporate Responsibility (CR) CR is the broadest term for corporate responsibility. It stands for all possible influences that a company can have on its environment and society. CR, therefore, includes CSR, CC, and corporate governance, the concept of good and transparent management in companies (Secka 2015). The term is used more and more in Germany, sometimes synonymously with CSR. It is suitable as an umbrella term because it aims at sustainability in a comprehensive sense. However, the political drive is missing. Corporate Sustainability (CS) This sustainability approach is very close to the CSR concept (Praum 2015, pp. 41–42). However, while CSR directly addresses the ecological and social dimension and takes cost-effectiveness into account as a secondary condition, CS sees all three as equally important pillars of a single entity. Holistic means that all the products and services of a company should be geared toward a sustainable economy and way of life (Secka 2015). Triple Bottom Line CS developed the three-pillar model of sustainability: social, ecological, and economic. This triad was introduced into the debate by John Elkington in 1994 as a “Triple Bottom Line” (TBL) to significantly amend the classic concept of a (single) bottom line of profit. In 2019, he reviewed the concept, starting from his analysis that the proposed paradigm shift had failed. Elkington emphasized that he hadn’t designed TBL as a mere accounting method so that

4.5 Concepts of Social Responsibility

97

companies could play off the three dimensions against each other. Rather, he wanted to provide a fundamental impulse for deep reflection on capitalism and its future: a future that takes a holistic view of the added value of companies, with an impact on their stakeholder engagement and increasingly also on their strategy. Elkington (2008) speaks of the goal of “system change.” Creating Shared Value (CSV) CSV is still little known in Germany. Again, Americans were particularly innovative and developed the “next big thing around the corner.” CSV was introduced by Harvard economists Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer in an article in the Harvard Business Review in 2006 and expanded in 2011 (pp. 5–6). The basic assumption is that social and entrepreneurial added value do not contradict each other. Instead, the competitiveness of a company and the quality of its business location depend on each other. Therefore, businesses should recognize social responsibility as a fixed parameter for increasing corporate performance and integrate it into strategic planning. This would increase the value of the company and the economic, social, and ecological state of the community at the same time. Mark R. Kramer and Marc W. Pfizer (2016) developed an approach they called “collective impact” as an extension of the “shared value” concept. It provides food for thought about successful cooperation on societal issues. Kramer and Pfizer show innovative ways to optimize the public sphere for all stakeholders. Collective impact is based on the idea that social problems arise due to a complex combination of actions and omissions by actors in all sectors and can therefore only be solved through the coordinated effort of all those involved. The typical 5 conditions for success for cross-sectoral work are: a common agenda, common evaluation systems, mutually reinforcing activities, continuous communication, and organizational support in the background. This articulates an early version of the win–win concept between state and company, which is important for CPR. Porter and Kramer make it clear that longterm corporate success goes hand in hand with healthy social structures. There is no contradiction between business and social structures; both belong together. Anyone who is interested in economic efficiency should look at social factors: the well-being of customers, the availability of the resources necessary for production, the economic situation of the community. Supporting them is not an altruistic act but should be at the heart of a company’s activities (Porter and Kramer 2011, p. 7). Modern adaptations of CSV rightly point out that financial goals on the one hand and social or ecological goals on the other hand do not always converge. In addition to win–win constellations (“A cases”), there are also win–lose or lose–win constellations (“B cases”). This happens, for example, when a textile company increases its profits through poor production conditions in low-wage countries, or if—conversely—a pharmaceutical company gives patented medicines free to low-income sick people. In such cases, companies could look for solutions in two ways: by using existing ethical norms (“norm-taking”), such as the UN Global Compact’s declaration of human rights, or by creating new norms (“norm-making”),

98

4

Why Businesses Need a Political Stance

for instance through corporate alliances or multi-stakeholder processes. This broader and more ambiguity-tolerant theoretical framework is known as CSV+ (de los Reyes et al. 2016). The key difference to CPR is that CSV and its variants do not focus on the genuinely political nature of the conditions for entrepreneurial success. The goods portrayed by Porter and Kramer as essential for business are inherently political: schools, universities, market transparency, fair competition rights, and quality standards such as clean water (Porter and Kramer 2011, p. 12). Calling these productivity-enhancing institutions by their political names would create the necessary orientation. It would prove to companies that they need to be able to communicate politically. To do this, they should master the rules of politics and develop an understanding of governance to recognize existential public services as services that are in their own long-term interest. The traditional responsibility concepts discussed here have a blind spot—the overlap of businesses and politics. In recent years, however, the view has expanded to include this aspect.

4.5.3

More Recent Concepts: Political Responsibility Is Becoming More Important

The necessary political change in corporate responsibility is reflected in more recent concepts such as corporate political activity, corporate political advocacy, political CSR, and business diplomacy. As a kind of interdisciplinary topic with long-term political implications, corporate digital responsibility has been gaining in popularity in recent years. What are these concepts, and how do they differ from CPR? Corporate Political Activity (CPA) In Anglo-Saxon literature, CPA is a collective term for the “genuinely political commitment of a company,” corresponding to the concepts of lobbying, public affairs, and governmental relations that are more commonly used in Germany. The term “non-market strategy” expresses the fact that CPA means “no immediate monetary benefit.” Nevertheless, businesses have an interest in taking a clear position vis-à-vis politicians to mitigate risks in the economic environment—such as higher taxes, legislative initiatives, or general structural changes. The fact that CPA means exerting political influence—meaning that they engage in lobbying—leads stakeholders to a rather critical assessment. In contrast, CSR is usually viewed as a driver of companies’ reputation. To ensure the legitimacy of their political activities, companies must—as required by CPR— engage in “responsible lobbying,” that is, take into account different stakeholder interests as well as the values held by society (Molthagen-Schnöring 2018, pp. 7–8). Corporate Political Advocacy (CPAd) CPAd aims at having a company promote a certain topic or certain values. It is about explicit public support for selected individuals, groups, or ideals with the objective of winning others over to their cause. There is no direct benefit for the company with CPAd, so there is no

4.5 Concepts of Social Responsibility

99

integration with the core business. The focus is on value-oriented management beyond self-interest (Wettstein and Baur 2015, p. 200). This deliberate refraining from win–win considerations contrasts with CPR’s business case logic which sees political integrity not as a self-referential signal of virtue but as a strategic and economic plus. Political CSR The international literature on business administration and research on corporate responsibility has been dealing with the phenomenon of socially and politically committed companies in various schools of thought and approaches for years. Some representatives note that companies assume tasks that were originally considered to be obligations of national governments (Margolis and Walsh 2003; Matten and Crane 2005; Scherer and Palazzo 2008, 2011). Scherer and Palazzo emphasize that companies today have a responsibility to contribute to the functioning of the governance of the community, because states are less and less able to provide such services due to globalization. The authors, therefore, advocate a new understanding of the role of business: The company is no longer just an economic, but also a political actor. The somewhat unfortunate term “political CSR” goes back to Scherer and Palazzo—an auxiliary construction that, although it captures the political dimension of corporate responsibility, remains caught in the old nomenclature of the social. This may ensure academic continuity but misses the opportunity for adding new, qualitative aspects to the theoretical work of situating businesses in the public sphere. Nevertheless, the conceptual approach is promising. Political CSR, as Dorothea Baur (2018, pp. 9–11) shows, sees companies as co-actors in global governance who help shape the rules and generate public goods such as education, health, and safety. Baur underlines: “CSR, if understood in its political dimension, is based on a broad understanding of politics.” Political CSR also focuses on the central question of the legitimacy of political activities by economic actors. Justification can be achieved through public stakeholder discourse. If businesses explain their political actions, they can be held responsible by stakeholders. The democratic lack of legitimacy, which characterizes businesses as nonelected actors, can be at least partially compensated. Business Diplomacy (BD) BD transfers the concepts of government diplomacy to the business world. For multinational corporations, this means introducing a strategic management of geopolitical opportunities and risks in order to stabilize their global earnings base. This strategic nexus for business development indicates that BD goes beyond CSR and its primary focus on reputation gains. Such expertise can be built up internally or purchased externally. This concept builds on the realization that business is increasingly shaping social values and public affairs, which gives it enormous “soft power.” The private sector can no longer downplay its political influence as globalization expands the space for business in the international order and shakes up the state-centered hierarchy.

100

4

Why Businesses Need a Political Stance

Managers need skills that are comparable to those of diplomats, such as cultural intuition and political foresight. This also includes the diplomatic art of indirect persuasion—a form of speaking that approaches its object in circular movements. “Shooting from the hip,” which business does for the sake of speed, is likely to be out of place. Training courses for managers with simulations can be used to practice BD practices (Clingendael 2014). The overlap between BD and CPR is unmistakable. Sometimes, however, BD can be taken as a guide for companies to navigate through cultural, social, and political contexts in foreign markets with as little friction as possible—without any noticeable stance in support of a pointedly democratic ethos. In this respect, a certain “ideological flexibility” can be diagnosed. The danger of opportunistic behavioral patterns is mainly due to the genuinely global framework of BD. Standing up for liberal-democratic standards is problematic in many regions of the world if one is dependent on the goodwill of political decision makers and customers. Here, political engagement reaches its limits. It should be possible, however, to test where these limits begin and how far they can be pushed—ideally in broad alliances with likeminded companies, but also with one’s own government and NGOs. Corporate Digital Responsibility (CDR) CDR is a special case among responsibility concepts. Digitalization cuts across many other topics because it pervades all areas of business and life. This is the source of its political potential. Due to the comprehensive influence of digital change, digital responsibility is not limited to the IT industry, but is relevant for all companies with a digital business model. Nevertheless, it is not surprising that this very recent concept (established in 2016) was initially used in the digitalization industry itself, e.g., at the telecommunications giant Telefónica (2018). CDR is genealogically derived from CSR: Companies enter a voluntary commitment to sustainable business in the digital sector. A starting point for such a voluntary commitment is provided by the corporate policy principles set out by “Charta der digitalen Vernetzung” (Charter of Digital Networking), a German nonprofit association (Der Verein Charta digitale Vernetzung e.V.) With its appreciation of digitalization as a resource for sustainable development, CDR relates to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The concept’s intention is to develop digitalization in harmony with the goals of society and to mitigate its negative effects. Porter and Kramer aim for digital business having a “shared value” for companies and society. In addition to meeting legal requirements, CDR also includes ethical considerations (Dörr 2020). The Telefonica website (undated) says: “The human being must always be the highest ethical authority. Digitalization is there to serve people—not the other way around.” In the meantime, Germany’s Federal Ministry of Justice, together with the companies Deutsche Telekom, Miele, Otto Group, SAP, Telefónica, and ZEIT Online, has launched a process for developing CDR guidelines. On April 2, 2019, the Ministry of Justice presented eight principles as a guideline for the future. In

4.5 Concepts of Social Responsibility

101

the context of CPR, two principles are particularly interesting: “Companies should promote social discourse and provide information” (Principle 5) and “See digital transformation as a means of increasing social participation and serving sustainability” (Principle 2). Based on these principles, businesses should adopt digital responsibility as a matter of course, which also gives “respectable merchants” a market advantage (Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection 2019). Initially, CDR is only linked indirectly to politics. But as it considers the ethical premises of technological progress, this concept is predestined to outgrow its narrow focus on the IT industry and develop a political perspective. However, the political in the sense of CPR is much more comprehensive. The term “corporate political responsibility” (CPR) also comes up in literature (Lyon et al. 2018). There, however, CPR figures more in the context of policies than that of the genuinely political. In fact, it does not emphasize the importance of strengthening the socio-political conditions for business such as a liberal democracy. Rather, CPR in this sense is merely part of a comprehensive concept of ecological sustainability. The authors—quite plausibly—believe that companies have a more decisive impact on the environment through their influence on the political process, especially in the form of lobbying, than through CSR measures. Therefore, corporate political activity should receive greater attention in the sustainability assessment and be set up transparently. This is strikingly close to the CPR key issue of responsible lobbying presented in Chap. 6 of this book. However, the fact that the terminology evolved from CPR to CPA (Corporate Political Activity, see above) is an interesting indication that CPR is in fact not being established as a robust new concept with a specific content. Despite the shift in meaning of CPR, which ultimately aims at ecological rather than political responsibility, it is based on some of the same findings as this book. Examples include the increased expectations of stakeholders, the diminishing capacity of the state to act, and the insight that long-term entrepreneurial existence depends on noneconomic factors. Conclusion Among the politically oriented responsibility concepts, political CSR comes closest to the cause of CPR. It sees companies as political actors that provide governance services and generate collective goods in cross-sectoral cooperation. The necessary legitimacy is ensured through broad stakeholder debates. However, the last step toward a political brand has not been taken. It would require actively developing a political self-image and adopting a position in the public sphere— particularly through contributions to the debate and participation formats on political developments that are critical for business. CPR explicitly focuses on the defense of liberal democracy as a business case for companies. In addition, concrete fields of action for political measures are outlined. Finally, the aspiration is to take a comprehensive look at a business as it relates to the “force field” of politics. This makes it necessary to overcome the previously dominant concept of CSR.

102

4.6

4

Why Businesses Need a Political Stance

CPR: The Next Big Thing

Given the growing speed and intensity of political challenges, but also the decline in governance and the rise in societal expectations, businesses need CPR. Until now, they still fail to seize existing opportunities; there is too little political and therefore too little strategic thought and action. Businesses underestimate their ability to help shape the public sphere in accordance with their purpose. CPR, even more than CSR, should in the hands of senior managers. They must ensure that there is broad support in their company for assuming societal responsibility. To this end, corporate managers should improve their own “political” leadership skills and use change management processes to strengthen the new stance on political sustainability at every level. This should be supported by supervisory or administrative boards, which should have a more political understanding of their tasks in the future. The CPR concept focuses on the fundamental political dimension of corporate responsibility and aims for win–win solutions for businesses and communities: Companies, that think and act politically do their part to shape their business environment (e.g., infrastructure, security, and education) in accordance with their needs and those of their customers, their employees, and their surroundings. CPR replaces the terms associated with CSR such as “social” or “social responsibility,” which are too limited. This is a significant gain, because especially in German language countries, these terms are not sufficiently well defined. In German, the meaning of the word “social” oscillates between “nice,” “fair,” “altruistic,” and the less judgmental “related to society.” However, a strategic perception of corporate responsibility isn’t just about “niceness,” but about a consistent engagement that is closely integrated with the core business. Such semantic niceties are less relevant for the English term “social,” which implies a clearer reference to society. But here, too, the general objection remains true. The concept of the social misses the core of what this is actually about: the political. The social is only a facet of the political. Of course, we could also use the general term corporate responsibility (CR), but this would deprive us of an analytical and substantive clarification which we need to gain orientation for entrepreneurial resources and use them more effectively. Companies should not become more social but more political. CPR represents a political update of responsibility concepts such as CSR, CS, or CR. It offers opportunities for political and social positioning. At the same time, companies which fail to take this step in their development risk losing market shares—possibly to the point of getting into difficulty. At first glance, the demand for the CPR approach may seem radical. In the literal sense, it is CPR goes to the roots, to the societal foundations of entrepreneurial success. Indeed, that is necessary for an effective institutionalization of corporate responsibility. Where CSR is carried out extensively and strategically, the political dimension is already real and can be expanded consistently. The next big thing is called CPR.

4.6 CPR: The Next Big Thing

103

CPR ESSENTIALS Political Debating Culture

Political Order/ State Infrastructure

Public Goods/ Public Services

Implementation

CPR Topics Traditional Policy Areas

Education

Cross-sectoral Topics

Health

Justice

Defense

Infrastructure

...

Digitalization, Europe, Demography, Innovation, Societal Cohesion...

✔

Selection of the Content for Assuming Political Responsibility

CPR Fields of Action Responsible Lobbying

© Johannes Bohnen

✔

Topics & Dialogues

Projects of Political Participation

Provision of Public Goods

Selection of the Formats for Assuming Political Responsibility

Fig. 4.2 CPR essentials and their implementation #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved

4.6.1

CPR in the Context of Other Concepts

But where does the CPR concept stand in the context of other responsibility concepts? First of all, we should consider the specific and new contribution of CPR: “CPR essentials” can be understood to mean all contributions that companies make to the democratic debating culture, to the strengthening of the democratic order, and to the state infrastructure (see Fig. 4.2). This takes place in traditional political departments and with cross-sectoral issues such as demography or digitalization. Various fields of action are available for implementing specific CPR measures, including responsible lobbying, discourse formats, participation activities, and the strengthening of collective goods. This bolsters the institutional structure of the liberal, democratic, and constitutional state, which in turn provides the basis of a successful business. In other words, the essence of CPR is the strengthening of the public sphere and democracy in the enlightened corporate self-interest. It is very clear: So far, CR has been socially and ecologically interpreted and mostly used synonymously with CSR. The central term on which these responsibilities concepts are based is sustainability (see Fig. 4.3). When corporate social responsibility is extended to include the political—in the sense of corporate political responsibility—there are two possible interpretations of CPR. According to the first interpretation, sustainability is supplemented by the political; according to the second, it forms part of an overall political context: 1. Corporate social and ecological responsibility within the framework of CSR is supplemented by a commitment to “political essentials.” These are the core

104

4

Why Businesses Need a Political Stance

Traditional Understanding of the Social Responsibility of Corporations

CR / CSR Sustainability

Social

Ecological

© Johannes Bohnen

Fig. 4.3 Traditional understanding of corporate social responsibility #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved

CPR in a narrow sense: A political complement under the roof of CR

CR Sustainability

CPR Political sustainability

CSR Social & ecological sustainability

© Johannes Bohnen

Fig. 4.4 CPR as a political complement #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved

elements of liberal democracy: political debates, education, and participation, rule of law, etc. The concept of sustainability is thus broadened politically and institutionally (see Fig. 4.4). 2. In a longer-term perspective, CPR could become an umbrella term for corporate socio-political responsibility. In addition to the political essentials, this new and comprehensive concept of responsibility would also include the social and ecological dimensions of sustainability (CSR). These are facets of the political,

4.6 CPR: The Next Big Thing

105

CPR in a broad sense: An umbrella term for the socio-political responsibility of corporations

CPR Political Sustainability

CPR Essentials Political Debating Culture / Political Order / Public Goods

CSR Social & Ecological Sustainability

© Johannes Bohnen

Fig. 4.5 CPR as an umbrella term for corporate socio-political responsibility #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved

because social and ecological goals can only be achieved in political processes of negotiation and cooperation with other actors (see Fig. 4.5).

It would be helpful if the emphasis on political responsibility was also reflected in the term. However, CPR does not necessarily have to carry that name. In terms of pragmatic progress, it is important is that companies act in the sense of CPR and develop a political brand.

4.6.2

From Taking a Stance to Political Branding

The CPR stance described here as well as its relationship to other responsibility concepts should be discussed in detail within the company. If management believes that a political stance is desirable, a pragmatic question arises: How do you integrate such a stance into your corporate culture? The process of political branding, which includes creating and managing a political brand (and is discussed in detail in Part III), provides answers. A clear vision of your own public role is essential if you want to be perceived as a credible, creative, and powerful actor, and if you want to be able to make sustainable political contributions. Socio-political positioning based on a mission statement should become an integral part of the business model and corporate culture. The entrepreneurial self-image as an actor in the public sphere makes it possible to link business objectives and governance services—to the benefit of society and one’s own profit.

106

4

Why Businesses Need a Political Stance

A political guiding principle is part of an overall corporate strategy concept. It is the basis for internal and external communication measures as well as practical CPR applications. It has a pioneering effect both internally for employees and externally for society. The goals and the relevant strengths are summarized in the political guiding principle. This makes it an issue for the top management. It’s about what a company stands for in the public sphere. CPR can be operated in a similar way to political ministries and departments which reach from education to culture to defense, depending on the expertise and interest of the respective company. In addition, there are cross-sectoral issues such as political education or the strengthening of the culture of debate, to which all businesses can contribute. Four central CPR fields of action can be identified for every company from a functional point of view: responsible lobbying, positioning the company through a choice of topics and dialogues, specific projects of political participation, and the provision or support of collective goods.

4.7

The Advantages of Taking a Stance, or CPR as a Business Case

Entrepreneurs are right to wonder: What is the business case of CPR, why should we undertake such intensive efforts to achieve political sustainability? A typical objection could be that the concrete short and medium-term benefits of CPR are not visible. The following explains why CPR is nevertheless worthwhile. Proponents of the shareholder value theory should understand that assuming political responsibility can—and not just to a negligible degree—boost the long-term market value of a company. Businesses who have acquired an excellent brand reputation by consistently strengthening the public sphere build up capital that, in the event of misconduct, can mitigate a fall in the share price and help to initiate a turn-around. A politically sustainable corporate culture contributes to safeguarding economic substance. Especially shareholders with a long-term investment horizon will find this important.

4.7.1

Differentiation and Purpose of a Brand

CPR engagement can be concrete and attractive, although at first glance, its goals— political goods such as liberal democracy—appear to be abstract. Brands have an opportunity to set themselves off from the competition if they develop a sociopolitical dimension and lead the political brand in the fields of action enumerated above (Part III). Customers increasingly prefer sustainable products. In saturated markets, differentiation primarily takes place through sustainability. There is still room for improvement here. But it is foreseeable that in the medium and long term, further differentiation will take place based on political sustainability. The uniqueness of the brand is complemented and strengthened by the political brand.

4.7 The Advantages of Taking a Stance, or CPR as a Business Case

107

Jan Dirk Kemming advocates an in-depth brand concept that takes into account the new socio-political dimension of businesses. Companies have a close exchange relationship with various representatives of the public sphere and need to deal with the topics and trends circulating there. As a result, the approach of having a politically neutral corporate management isn’t plausible anymore. Brands are faced with new expectations, and Kemming observes that the goods and services that businesses offer are increasingly being “charged with meaning, for example in the formulation and communication of a brand purpose” including “brand activism.” Such activities can serve to support the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, which in turn offer opportunities for differentiating the brand from its competitors which promises commercial success. Central to this is Kemming’s suggestion that socio-political attitudes and actions by companies will not remain unchallenged. But it is important to “consciously seek or endure controversy and accept the corresponding requirements and consequences from consumers” (Kemming 2019, pp. 10/16; emphasis by the author). The authors Timo Meynhardt, Peter Gomez, and Meynhardt et al. (2016) speculate that “future leadership and business success will depend increasingly on the answers that a company will find internally and externally to the issue of the common good.” Because: “Making profit is a condition for survival, but it is not the reason for a company to exist.” Engagement for the sake of the common good is also reflected in a significantly higher level of employee commitment, especially among younger people. Meynhardt et al. (2016) also point out that “the success and failure of entrepreneurial activity” depend on “social processes of opinion formation which are difficult to calculate.” All the more important are “initiatives from the companies themselves.” Those who show an orientation toward the common good by taking up “meaningful social values” and integrating them into their business model ensure their own survival. The GemeinwohlAtlas (Public Welfare Atlas), which was published for the second time in Germany in 2019, illustrates how to approach the topic empirically. It records the benefits to society that companies and other organizations provide in the four categories of task fulfillment, cohesion, quality of life, and morality. Their contributions to the common good are quantified, and a ranking of the examined institutions is created on this basis. The front ranks are consistently taken by actors from the public sector, while private businesses start at rank 30. According to the 2019 results, respondents expect actors to “pay particular attention to morality, followed by good performance in their core business, and contribution to the quality of life. The contribution of companies to Germany’s social cohesion is considered less important.” Overall, the conclusion with regard to business is quite positive. The GemeinwohlAtlas finds it remarkable “how stable, in the eyes of the population, the contribution is that many companies make to the common good. Once again, the majority is being paid a big compliment here.” There are two possible interpretations of the fact that people rate companies as not so important for the political goal of social cohesion. It could mean that people do not see the need to strengthen cohesion. But a more likely interpretation is that they are simply not sufficiently aware of the socio-political resources of businesses and

108

4

Why Businesses Need a Political Stance

therefore of their potential to shape the public sphere. CPR will raise their awareness. For companies, the question of the social purpose they pursue—in contrast to their business objective—should, therefore, play an even bigger role. More pointedly: Merely to earn money will not be considered a sufficient reason for entrepreneurial activity in the future. Businesses will also have to be able to conclusively explain how society benefits from their actions. If the purpose is explained plausibly, the trust placed in the company—reputation capital, which in turn can be converted into monetary capital—also increases. To place the desire to make profits in the context of the common good also increases employee identification, especially among the younger generation, and therefore constitutes a business case. The understanding of the business as a public actor follows from the current debate about purpose. How meaningful is an entrepreneurial activity? CPR provides an answer that goes beyond the provision of products and services. However, this answer is less about the “soft” topic of inner fulfillment—that may be a pleasant side effect—than about the “hard” topic of securing one’s economic existence with political-institutional means.

4.7.2

Responsibility for the Political Order as a Condition for Entrepreneurial Success

Increasingly, our way of life is at stake—our freedom. In the global competition of systems, our liberal social and economic model is coming under pressure, which has grave implications for the way Western companies operate. Unless they are willing, for the sake of profits, to bow to authoritarian regimes, which may in the end expropriate them anyway. In a nutshell: Globalization and digitalization, domestic political threats such as populism, or external threats such as wars, limited governance, the expectations citizens and consumers have of companies, companies’ own resources (which have not been used for the purposes of society) all justify an engagement in CPR because companies are concerned about their business success. The business case consists of strengthening the social and political foundations of doing business, ultimately the democratic, constitutional state. With a political brand, companies can get out of their defensive position vis-à-vis society. When they assume responsibility, they strengthen what Peter Graf von Kielmansegg (2013) called the “historically successful association between democratically constituted politics and the market economy,” to which there is no alternative. Nils Goldschmidt and Karl Homann (2011, p. 23) state that political corporate brands assume “responsibility for order.” They give support to the political parameters of their business. There is no conflict of objectives with their core business, on the contrary. “Taking responsibility for order does not in any way contradict the economic logic and the mission of companies: Neither is limited to generating short-term profits within a given framework. The mission also extends, at least to the same extent, to establishing and securing the long-term conditions for successful business. For this, the social order is a very important condition.”

4.7 The Advantages of Taking a Stance, or CPR as a Business Case

109

The core of the CPR concept is based on a win-win situation; it is based on the business case for adopting political responsibility. The win-win thesis applies less to the individual company level than to the macro level of the political and the economic system: For a strong economy, you need strong politics. Yet it often remains unclear how much of a particular financial return is due to a company’s specific political commitment. This makes it difficult to prove the business case. Even if a direct effect was visible, the “free rider problem” would remain: Individual companies invest politically, but a stronger democracy benefits all companies. So why invest when it costs resources and entails risks? The divorce of individual rationality (non-engagement while benefiting from the engagement of others) from collective rationality (if everyone gets engaged, everyone benefits all the more) is a problem. This applies above all to collective goods. Exceptions are highly personalized political engagements (CEO Activism) or campaigns (e.g., Nike/Kaepernick). They are directly linked to the respective company and therefore offer opportunities for profiling as a political brand. Nevertheless, many companies will initially not want to be the frontrunner. Therefore, CPR, especially in its initial phase of establishment, is a task for the numerous business associations. These have the capacities and political skills to promote the issue vis-à-vis their member companies; they should raise awareness of “long term gains” in the CPR perspective. This is the only way to reach a critical mass which will then provide obvious benefits to everyone. At the same time, individual courageous companies will be rewarded if they take advantage of the “first mover advantage”—as also happens on issues of social and ecological sustainability—and differentiate themselves from the competition with a clear political brand. With political brand management, companies become co-producers of governance, thereby strengthening the public sphere and ultimately themselves. However, they should not be overambitious: Especially in the current transformation phase, the goal is to approach and get used to the provisional, unfinished, compromise-based nature of the political process. All of this also has to do with democratic virtue, with realism, and modesty—in short, with attitude.

4.7.3

Attitude and Practical Wisdom

The concept of attitude that is central to CPR has been overused in public discussions and now seems somewhat random. In view of the complexity outlined above, it appears to suggest a rigidity and clarity that is not very well suited to the ambiguities of politics, business, and society. In essence, it is about a strategic positioning in society that is maintained in a consistent and predictable fashion. Here, a return to Aristotelian virtue ethics is helpful. Aristotle (1998) understands virtue as a disposition that is characterized by practical prudence (phronesis) and judgment, and that seeks the middle between two extremes. It is “a behavior (an attitude) of making a decision, which is founded on the middle as related to us, a middle that is defined by reason and according to how a reasonable man would define it.”

110

4

Why Businesses Need a Political Stance

Accordingly, the good is not abstractly defined in advance, but depends on the empirical context in each individual case. Virtuous action must, therefore, be practiced. The CPR concept draws on the Aristotelian judgment in practical matters—on the fact that virtue or a stance must be gained through action, and on the fact that it is empirically anchored: How companies should design their socio-political engagement, and how they can support the state in their own interest, depends on the individual case. However, one thing is clear: A stance is not worth much if it has no consequence, never hurts, and is not reflected in action. At the same time, businesses cannot be asked to take a stance that permanently overtaxes them as profit-oriented organizations. The limits of corporate political responsibility need to be soberly considered. Aristotle’s virtue ethics can, therefore, be a pragmatic aid for developing a CPR attitude. Such a stance based on virtues and practical wisdom is more flexible than a rigid catalogue of CPR criteria, which either under-defines (with a CPR definition that is too broad) or over-defines (with a very narrow CPR definition) the political responsibility of companies. Engagement in the public realm does not take place by processing checklists, but through behavior that seeks the balance and keeps the proportions between two extremes. The Aristotelian concept of virtue combines reflection and practice—that’s why it is suited to the corporate world. It is important that business develops a basic disposition to think and act politically while keeping a sense of proportion.

4.7.4

Strategic Added Value

But does such a socio-political stance really pay off? The revolutionary force of the CPR approach as compared to CSR lies above all in its strategic orientation, the company’s comprehensive positioning in the public sphere, and thus its sustainable business success. It is in the enlightened self-interest of businesses to recognize that politics provides extensive goods for them (the protection of property, secure legal framework, etc.). Products, services, jobs, and tax payments are indisputably necessary prerequisites for a prosperous society. But will they still be considered a sufficient “quid pro quo” in the future? You shouldn’t blame business for being primarily about business and not about politics. But to reduce one’s perspective to lobbying and to making money in the short term carries risks. Companies should contribute to social cohesion and thus fertilize the ground for their own economic success. This is a necessary expansion of their investment activity. Above all, companies should internalize CPR as part of their work. At stake is whether the state and society can continue to perform so well if companies focus almost exclusively on earning money and creating jobs. Conversely, the question is whether businesses can be successful in the long term without fulfilling society’s expectations. To a certain extent, this would mean operating without a “social license.”

4.7 The Advantages of Taking a Stance, or CPR as a Business Case

111

To discuss these questions and to develop concrete commitments, companies should focus more on the public sphere and have their own political analysis capacities. The need for CPR is becoming increasingly clear because urgent sociopolitical challenges and political megatrends no longer allow business leaders to remain apolitical. The belief in the strict separation of business and politics is obsolete. It leaves a huge potential unused. In other words, the lack of a political stance is the “blind spot” of business. The Ipsos Reputation Council brings together communications managers from well-known international corporations to focus on key trends and challenges. In a study published in 2017, it suggests that the CPR concept can help with understanding the overarching purpose of a business in socio-political terms (2017): “Over the last ten years, we have observed an evolution of corporate communication from a primarily PR-dominated function to a more strategic, comprehensive management discipline (. . .). This change has led to a convergence of corporate strategy and corporate communication, as companies clearly understand their primary usefulness and try to articulate it in a convincing way.” The major challenges for corporate communication identified in the study contain a lot of political issues, including a fragmented media landscape, Brexit, globalization, and political risks as well as an anti-business atmosphere.

4.7.5

What CPR Means for the Public Affairs Industry

The changed parameters for business, from the socio-political climate to globalization and digitalization, raise the question of how efficient and strategic the work of interest groups still is. In view of the numerous requirements of day-to-day business, are public affairs departments still able to identify and develop powerful and effective levers for political communication? There are some indications that the strategic added value of CPR in combination with political branding also changes the previous understanding of public affairs consultancy—whether within companies or externally. If companies and other actors in the public sphere systematically develop their political brand in the future—as the starting point for all positioning efforts—then political communication will be carried out with a new approach that improves the necessary ability to communicate between all actors in the public sphere. This can be a constructive contribution to preventing social fragmentation. At the same time, it can keep people from shutting themselves off in echo chambers. Business will also benefit because trust and social cohesion are important prerequisites for successful business. In addition, they benefit from the stabilizing effects of democratic institutions. Above all, however, Public Affairs (PA) as a profession receives a powerful tool: the new business area of political brand development will be an indispensable starting point for innovative communication measures in newly developed fields of action (political brand management). The PA and governmental relations industry will likely introduce CPR to companies in their own interest, especially since it enables additional forms of cooperation. When companies assume responsibility for

112

4

Why Businesses Need a Political Stance

order, they strengthen their brand and their business, but also very directly their relationship with political decision makers. As co-producers of public governance, they have something to offer. The result is a win–win situation. Engaging in CPR creates new, meaningful links to politics, also for traditional lobbying. The motto “Strengthen the state in order to strengthen yourself” will change the role of public affairs. More than ever, its mission will be to foster the embedding of businesses in their socio-political environment. With the increasing politicization of commercial brands, PA will gain in importance—as a driver of qualitative brand management that regards the company as part of the political fabric. Questions about the purpose and added value of a company for society will increasingly take center stage. Earnings must be socially justifiable if society develops a more acute political awareness. Or, to quote a political observer, “businesses have to submit their business plan to society for approval” (Steingart 2013). The strength of the ecological movement indicates the direction into which this development will take us. Businesses cannot afford to ignore the attitudes of enlightened and confident consumers. This is less about morality than a sober analysis of customer concerns. The movement of political sustainability that is getting underway will develop a dynamic that hardly any company will be able to resist. The reason is that comprehensive—i.e., political—sustainability is not only the key to dealing with the major political challenges of our time, but also to transforming our companies. The systematic development of political brands with appropriate CPR measures (in the fields of action described in Part III) will change business development—in the final analysis, because it is an expression of a new attitude. Public affairs can act as a lever for new business developments. What will a society look like if all its actors have internalized the responsibility for the whole and act accordingly? The imagination knows no bounds. In practical terms, the new political stance will be expressed through concrete measures of political brand management, which will change the public realm with its political debates. The result could be a strong wave of democratization that will stabilize our liberal society. The same would of course be desirable for other countries in Europe and further afield. At the same time, there will be a continued need for the traditional PA business, which primarily tries to influence the legislative process. PA departments already employ measures to support confidence-building and maintain relationships to prepare the ground for desired political decisions. To this end, companies provide officials in the parliament and the ministries with information about innovations in their business activities. Such work within the political system is particularly useful in sectors with strong regulatory pressure. The same type of political corporate communication can be found in industries that are dependent on the goodwill of the public sector. Public affairs inspired by CPR will first and foremost support long-term business strategies. If a social or political trend is recognized at an early stage, it can be influenced, or business operations can be adjusted. All in all, it is “precisely the legal, regulatory, or social framework that is decisive for whether a new product, a new business model can be commercialized, at what speed, and under which

4.7 The Advantages of Taking a Stance, or CPR as a Business Case

113

conditions,” as Peter Bechstein, partner and chairman of the supervisory board of Concilius, writes (Bechstein 2019). Therefore, in addition to the conventional financial due diligence, there is a growing need for “political-regulatory due diligence.” Bechstein uses the concept with a view to company takeovers; in the CPR sense, however, it could be applied more generally. After all, “the assessment of the political and administrative opportunities and risks of the respective business model and its further development” (ibid.) is fundamentally relevant for companies. This is where PA experts come into play, who can evaluate “how political, legal or administrative decisions are made, and how such processes can be supported in the best possible way” (Ibid.). Political branding is the operationalization of the CPR approach. Without this lever, public affairs consulting lacks analytical sharpness and above all strategic orientation. This can have a concrete impact on everyday business. One example is Tesla’s demeanor and political work. To convince investors, the founder Elon Musk had to put across credibly that social expectations, as well as political and regulatory framework conditions, are moving towards cleaner mobility (Spiegel Online 2020). Tesla supported this trend in the specific area of electromobility through its public affairs work. It nurtured customer needs and thus created a market. Another example is the start-up ReCup, which recognized society’s urgent interest in more sustainability and waste prevention and responded with a deposit system for coffee mugs (Utopia 2018). Established companies can also distinguish themselves from the rest of their industry with regard to emerging political developments. For example, businesses in the food service industry are developing cup innovations and organizing thematic events on the origin of raw materials or holding political discussions with environmental and development specialists in order to influence regulation and meet the increased expectations of their customers.

4.7.6

The Advantages of CPR in a Nutshell

• Gain sustainable support for the social and political foundations which are the prerequisite for your own business success, e.g., through contributions to the greater effectiveness of state control and public governance. • Position yourself as a “good corporate citizen.” • Satisfy customers’ expectations of socio-political responsibility. • Benefit from reputation gains with customers and decision makers or important opinion multiplier in society. • Strengthen employee engagement and recruitment through social orientation and meaningfulness (civic engagement for a functioning democracy). • Improve responsiveness in the event of a crisis (use of the reputation potential). • Create your own narrative to interpret your actions (due to socio-political ability to analyze and act). • Strengthen the strategic outlook of the public affairs industry. • Ultimately, strengthening the appeal of your overall brand.

114

4

Why Businesses Need a Political Stance

To achieve these CPR goals in a spirit of political sustainability and credibility vis-à-vis society, it is essential to operationalize one’s stance through a process of political branding using concrete CPR measures.

References Aristotle. (1998). Die Nikomachische Ethik. In M. Furhmann (Hrsg.). München: dtv. Aßländer, M. S., & Löhr, A. (2010). Einführung. Corporate social responsibility in der Wirtschaftskrise. Reichweiten der Verantwortung. In M. S. Aßländer & A. Löhr (Hrsg.). (pp. 11–34). München: Rainer Hampp. Baur D (2018) Unternehmen als politische Akteure. In: Backhaus-Maul H et al (Ed.) Gesellschaftliche Verantwortung von Unternehmen in Deutschland. VS Springer, Berlin Bechstein, P. (2019). Unternehmensübernahmen und Lobbying – Wie gehört das zusammen? Accessed February 11, 2020, from https://www.concilius.com/blog/blog-detail/ unternehmensuebernahmen-und-lobbying Bregman, R. (2019). Rutger Bregman tells Davos to talk about tax: ‚This is not rocket science‘. Accessed February 11, 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ijiLqfXP0 Bundesregierung. (2014, November 20). Wegweiser Nachhaltigkeit 2005. Bilanz und Perspektiven, S.127. Accessed February 11, 2020, from https://www.bundesregierung.de/resource/blob/ 975274/418634/952e0e8233d4adeba04e1be4bf9eecae/wegweiser-nachhaltigkeit-data.pdf? download=1 Caroll AB (1999) Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitional concept. Bus Soc 38(3):268–295. Clingendael. (2014). Netherlands institute of international relations: Business diplomacy. Shaping the firm’s geopolitical risk environment. Accessed February 10, 2020, from https://www. clingendael.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Shaun%20Riordan%20-%20Business%20Diplomacy% 20-%20October%202014.pdf Dahlsrud, A. (2006). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Accessed June 22, 2020, from https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.132 Dörr, S. (2020). Praxisleitfaden corporate digital responsibility. Berlin: VS Springer. Elkington, J. (2008). 25 years ago, I coined the phrase „Triple Bottom Line“. Here is why it’s time to rethink it. Harvard Business Review. Accessed February 11, 2020, from https://hbr.org/2018/ 06/25-years-ago-i-coined-the-phrase-triple-bottom-line-heres-why-im-giving-up-on-it Europäische Kommission. (2011). Eine neue EU-Strategie (2011–14) für die soziale Verantwortung der Unternehmen (CSR), S. 7. Accessed February 11, 2020, from http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0681:FIN:DE:PDF Goetzpartners. (2017). From good intentions to real results. Corporate citizenship of Germany’s DAX 30 companies, S. 4–5. Accessed February 11, 2020, from https://www.goetzpartners.com/ fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/2017_goetzpartners_Corporate_Citizenship_From_Good_ Intentions_to_Real_Results.pdf Goldschmidt, N., & Homann, K. (2011). Die gesellschaftliche Verantwortung der Unternehmen. Theoretische Grundlagen für eine praxistaugliche Konzeption“, RHI-Position, Nr.10. München: Roman Herzog Institut. Graf von Kielmansegg, P. (2013). Die Grammatik der Freiheit: Acht Versuche über den demokratischen Verfassungsstaat. Baden Baden: Nomos. GRI. (2017). Annual Report 2016–2017. Accessed February 11, 2020, from https://www. globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI%20Annual%20Report%202016-2017.pdf Kemming, J. D. (2019). Bestandsaufnahme 1: Broadening and deepening – die Politisierung des Markenkonzeptes. In J. D. Kemming & J. Rommerskirchen (Hrsg.), Marken als politische Akteure (pp. 3–20). Springer Gabler: Wiesbaden.

References

115

Kramer, M., & Pfizer, M. W. (2016). The ecosystem of shared value. Harvard Business Review, 10, 81–89. Lyon, T., et al. (2018). CSR needs CPR: Corporate sustainability and politics. California Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125618778854 Margolis, J., & Walsh, H. (2003). Misery loves companies. Rethinking social initiatives by business. Accessed June 22, 2020, from https://doi.org/10.2307/3556659 Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179. Meynhardt, T., Gomez, P., & Schweizer, M. (2016, December 19). Leistung fordern – Sinn bieten. FAZ Möllers, C. (2018). 46. Römerberggespräche: Strategische oder prinzipiengeleitete Kommunikation. Accessed February 11, 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= 6aagbldFphk Molthagen-Schnöring, S. (2018). Gesellschaftspolitisches Engagement in Zeiten von Trump & Co. Chancen und Risiken für Unternehmen. Berlin: Springer. Panreck, I.-C. (2020, January 22). Der goldene Mittelweg. Tagesspiegel. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). The big idea: Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 1, 1–17. Praum, K. (2015). CR, CSR und Nachhaltigkeit: Nicht dasselbe, aber das Gleiche? Corporate Responsibility 2015. In A. Povel & A. Hülsbömer (Hrsg.). (pp. 40e–46). Frankfurt: ACCVerlag. Scherer AG, Palazzo G (2008) Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility. Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Acad Manage Rev 32:1096–1120 Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world. A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 899–931. Secka, M. (2015). CSR: Definition, Dimensionen und Abgrenzung. In M. Secka (Hrsg.), Einfluss von Kommunikationsmaßnahmen mit CSR-Bezug auf die Einstellung zur Marke (pp. 35–58). Frankfurt, M: PL Acad. Research. Spiegel Online. (2020, February 10). Tesla beantragt staatliche Förderung. Accessed March 9, 2020, from https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/tesla-beantragt-staatlichefoerderung-fuer-werk-in-brandenburg-a-3cf25e9b-da00-4ff9-b961-f355378f5318 Steingart, G. (2013). Unser Wohlstand und seine Feinde. München: Knaus. Telefonica. (2018). Corporate responsibility. Accessed February 11, 2020, from https://www. telefonica.de/verantwortung.html Utopia. (2018, April 19). Recup: Dieses Pfandsystem will das Coffee-to-go Müllproblem lösen. Accessed March 9, 2020, from https://utopia.de/recup-pfandsystem-coffee-to-go-becher-32362/ Wettstein, F., & Baur, D. (2015). Why should we care about marriage equality? Political Advocacy as a Part of Corporate Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 01, 199–213. Wikipedia. (2020). Daseinsvorsorge. Accessed February 11, 2020, from https://de.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Daseinsvorsorge

Part III Implementing a Stance: Political Branding

5

Creating the Political Brand

Businesses, when they train their employees, pay taxes, and provide products and services, create added value for society. These services are significant, but they will no longer be enough in the future. We have already established that there are numerous social and political factors of a business location that companies have done little so far to strengthen. CSR measures must become more political. The pressure to strengthen the state’s capacity to act and the political parameters for doing business will increase. It is therefore in a company’s own entrepreneurial interest to discover and develop the socio-political brand dimension. A convincing methodical approach is needed if companies are to achieve this and if they are to practice and live an attitude of corporate political responsibility. Political branding is the operationalization of the CPR stance. All companies focus intensively on branding. It is self-evident that you need to develop and maintain your own brand. However, as a social and political actor, a company also has a political brand dimension, even if many business leaders are not sufficiently aware of this. To change that, it makes sense to work with the term “political branding”—it describes the process of creating and managing a political brand. Both terms are well known in the business world. So far, however, they have primarily had a business focus. To point out the socio-political dimension of a brand, it makes sense to speak of “political brand building” and “political brand management.” First of all, we should remember how much business success depends on the strength and reputation of the brand. Christoph Kannengiesser (2019), former managing director of the Markenverband (Germany’s brand association), emphasizes: The brand is one of the most important intangible assets of a company. Its contribution to differentiation ensures that companies can survive in the increasingly tough global competition. Products and services can only be set apart if the brand has visibility and consumers grasp the differences to what competitors in the market offer. So it’s no wonder that the value

# The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, part of Springer Nature 2021 J. Bohnen, Corporate Political Responsibility, Future of Business and Finance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62122-6_5

119

120

5 Creating the Political Brand

of a brand sometimes accounts for up to 70 percent of the company’s value, and that it is often the most important asset.

Management professor Ronald J. Burke (2011, p. 3) underlines this assessment by referring to a study drawn up by Ernst and Young: According to Ernst & Young, investors believe that between 30 and 50 percent of a company’s value is intangible, mainly based on the reputation of the company. Others have put this intangible value at 70 percent. What is corporate reputation? A company’s reputation is a function of the perceptions and attitudes toward it that individual members of particular stakeholder group have.

The “Intangible Asset Market Value Study 2017” estimates the share of intangible assets in the market value of a company at over 80 percent—a drastic increase compared to the seven percent estimated in 1975. In addition to technology-driven factors such as intellectual property rights (patents, etc.), “brand value” plays a decisive role. It accounts for around a quarter of intangible assets (Ocean Tomo 2017). If the reputation of the brand is so extremely important, and at the same time the importance of political responsibility for companies is increasing rapidly, it makes sense to systematically develop the political dimension of the brand. For this, it is necessary to visualize what constitutes a brand.

5.1

What Is a Brand? And What Is Its Political Dimension?

A brand describes the essence of an “object” which sets it apart from the competition. “Objects” are traditionally goods and services but can also designate companies and people (e.g., company founders, politicians, film stars, and athletes). The main goal is to differentiate what you offer from what the competition offers in a way that is significant for the target groups. Differentiation vis-à-vis other players in the market create competitive advantages. To create a connection between the brand and the target group, the brand must offer relevant benefits. These can be functional (“What can I do with it?”) or emotional (“What feeling or what status do I get?”). Both kinds of benefits are also relevant to political branding. Companies can create societal and political added value if they put both their know-how and their reputation into the balance. Like commercial brands, the political brand does not focus on the target groups’ purely rational response, but on their emotional reaction to the way the brand operates. This connection can be explained through the concept of brand personality. “Brand personality characterizes the totality of human characteristics that are associated with a brand” (Esch, undated). For a political brand, this may seem somewhat disconcerting at first. But “for consumers, the brand personality is interesting in two ways: A brand personality can reflect their own personality and thus create a positive attitude toward the brand, or it can draw on consumers’ ideals with regard to desirable personality structures and thus trigger preferences” (Esch,

5.1 What Is a Brand? And What Is Its Political Dimension?

121

undated). Since many people consider the attitude toward the common good and to political issues to be important at a personal level, it is also relevant for the brand personality. The political brand personality embodies the associations that a business evokes in relation to socio-political issues. The image is complementary to the brand. It describes the mood or overall impression that the majority has a particular object, for instance people, groups of people, organizations, companies, products, locations, cities, regions, or countries. The mood is a subjective category. The image is created at the emotional level—as a network of positive and negative associations. Your own perception is always shaped by that of other people, too. Consequently, an image is created by superimposing the impressions of many recipients. A positive image promotes reputation and thus demand, which means that it pays off businesswise. This also true from a socio-political point of view which means there is an underdeveloped potential for companies to build up a reputation. An image is never static: Although it stabilizes over time, it can fluctuate in the short term, in crises, or in the event of poor brand management. In that case, the widely cited “image damage” occurs. It can be countered by credible measures that testify to a clear stance. The brand is the result of the interplay of brand identity (self-image) and brand image (external image). Both categories are normative. The brand identity as the self-image of a brand expresses what a brand should stand for—and not just what it currently stands for. The brand image as the external image of a brand is created from a consumer perspective in a lengthier learning process. In order to build a distinctive and positive brand image for the target groups, trust, and acceptance must be acquired over time. In the case of business, this means convincing customers through the quality of the product or service and by making it recognizable. This simple insight must also be taken into account when building a political brand. For a brand to be successful, all its dimensions existing in parallel must be coordinated. The brand of a listed company can be divided into an investor, employee, customer, product, ethical, and environmental brand. In addition, we now have the socio-political brand. These brand dimensions are not always in harmony. For example, if a company fires hundreds of employees to get rid of an unprofitable part of the company, this will have a positive effect on the investor brand but will be viewed more negatively by politicians and employees. The “employee brand” or the “ethical brand dimension” will be damaged. Different dimensions of the brand can be emphasized by differentiating according to target groups. To achieve the greatest possible coherence, each brand has to repeatedly overcome internal contradictions. Taking a latent, almost dormant, political brand dimension and increasing its visibility to transform it into an actively managed political brand makes it possible to effectively position the company in society and vis-à-vis politics (see Fig. 5.1). The political brand is part of an overall corporate strategy that gives orientation not only to employees, but also to citizens and consumers. Accordingly, a brand has an internal and an external orientation, backed up by internal and external communication measures.

122

5 Creating the Political Brand

CPR is a stance that is practiced and consolidated in the process of political branding

POLITICAL BRANDING Process Phases 1. Creating the Political Brand

Task

Result

2. Managing the Political Brand

Strategic Approach

Planning

Implementation

Analysis of the political dimension of the overall brand Identification of loose brand elements which relate to the public sphere

Definition of the political brand Outlining the political dimension of the overall brand

Operationalization of the political brand Definition of concrete goals and steps for the implementation of CPR

Permanent positioning of the political brand Implementation of CPR projects, communication & organizational development

Collection of political brand elements  Comparison of self-image external image  Identification of "gap" and demand

Political Leitmotif  Mission statement  Positioning sentence  internally: self-assurance  externally: brand promise

Roadmap for political engagement  CPR projects on a timeline  Indicators of success  Communication strategy

Relevance in the public sphere  Political speaking ability  Company as governance actor  Practiced CPR stance

Taking Stock

© Johannes Bohnen

Fig. 5.1 Political branding process phases (short version). #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved

5.2

Taking Stock: Identify ‘Loose Ends’

Before you can develop a political brand, the central question is: How much of a political dimension do the company’s activities already have? What specific resources are available to the company, and can they be used effectively toward socio-political goals? In other words: are there “loose political ends,” a rudimentary political character of the enterprise, that can be brought together? Specifically, are there: • CSR measures that have a political dimension? • Any beginnings of lobbying efforts being placed in a larger socio-political context? • Statements on overarching company interests? • Dialogue or participation formats that relate to the public sphere? • Efforts to participate in the provision of common goods and to strengthen state governance structures? • Employees with socio-political expertise who would be particularly well suited to this topic? To approach these questions, it is helpful to draw up a self-image and an external image of the company. The necessary information can be obtained empirically from the relevant internal and external stakeholders. This includes interviews, surveys, focus groups, and research work. Research includes (a) a general resource analysis

5.3 Developing the Brand Essence: The “Strength Filter Method”

123

Political Branding: The Path to the Political Brand

The essence of what the company stands for

PRODUCT DIMENSION ENVIRONMENTAL DIMENSION

POLITICAL DIMENSION

BRAND

ETHICAL DIMENSION HR DIMENSION

Elements of the brand with socio-political relevance

CREATING THE POLITICAL BRAND (Political Leitmotif)

Safeguarding the relevance of the political brand in addition to the commercial brand over the long term. Central instruments are measures in selected CPR fields of action

MANAGING THE POLITICAL BRAND

Consolidation of loose political brand elements into a coherent political brand. Translation of the strengths into a political leitmotif (mission statement and a positioning sentence) according to strength filter method

© Johannes Bohnen

Fig. 5.2 Political branding: The path to a political brand #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved

(products, services, finance, locations, communication, reputation, etc.) and (b) the identification of indirect and direct political resources. It is precisely this comparison of self-image and external image that provides the opportunity to identify “gaps” which indicate a need for action. A SWOT analysis can also be useful to get a comprehensive picture of the status of the corporate brand. In addition, senior management should discuss what the CPR attitude and the political dimension of the brand actually mean. Exploring their relevance for your own company is often difficult without external moderation and expertise, which is why the inclusion of professional advice may be appropriate. In any case, the goal is to achieve a broad agreement that CPR makes sense for the company. Only then will it worthwhile to work on “political branding” (see Fig. 5.2).

5.3

Developing the Brand Essence: The “Strength Filter Method”

“A good model is like a beacon which can direct our course of action every day, in every situation.” (Baldin 2006) This description also applies to the political brand and its textual translation in the form of a political model.

124

5 Creating the Political Brand

The Path to the Core of the Brand and the Political Leitmotif: The Strength Filter PRIMARY FILTER CRITERIA

STRENGTH FILTER

True to itself Distinct from the competition Relevant for all target groups Socio-political value added SECONDARY FILTER CRITERIA

Timeless

Overarching

Identity-Forming

Future-proof

Self Confident

Emotionalizing STRENGTH CLUSTER

CORE OF THE BRAND

© Johannes Bohnen

POLITICAL LEITMOTIF Mission Statement PositioningSentence

Fig. 5.3 The strength filter #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved

In order to determine the core of a brand, we can collect, filter, and bundle its strengths with the “strength filter method” (see Fig. 5.3).1 From this, we can develop a model that must meet various primary filter criteria: 1. “True to itself”: Does the company align with reality, and is it therefore credible? 2. “Distinct from the competition”: To what extent does the company stand out from the competition (unique selling proposition)? 3. “Relevant for the defined target group”: Does the company add to the satisfaction of its customers’ needs? According to the logic of the CPR approach, there is one more criterion which complements these classic criteria: 4. “Socio-political added value”: Does the company in its own interest contribute to an intact socio-political environment? The fourth criterion has so far not been used in the practice of classic brand development, but given its importance, it deserves closer attention. As a “good corporate citizen,” a company should assume social responsibility. At the same The “strength filter method” originates with Johannes Bohnen. BOHNEN Public Affairs (BPA) uses strength filter since 2005 to develop guiding principles for companies and to define their brand essence.

1

5.3 Developing the Brand Essence: The “Strength Filter Method”

125

time, it has an economic interest in strengthening the socio-political foundations of its own business success. What are the strengths of this double responsibility? In addition, there are secondary criteria that translate into fundamental preconditions for a strong brand. It is this fundamental nature which, due to the focus on socio-political added value in branding, gathers new meaning. The reason is that socio-political stability is a prerequisite for sustainable corporate success. The secondary criteria include the following properties: • Timeless: Must still be valid in ten years. • Comprehensive: Must involve all relevant stakeholders. • Viable: Must take important trends into account (socially, culturally, politically, economically, etc.). • Conveying identity: Must provide orientation internally (employees) and externally (consumers, public). • Confident: Must be sure of itself, but not arrogant. • Emotionalizing: Must have an activating, effective tonality. The political model process is a management task and can take the shape of interactive workshops. The starting point is the free and associative compilation of company strengths, with particular attention given to criterion 4 (socio-political added value). An analysis of weaknesses is not necessary when developing the brand core, and this can mitigate possible internal concerns. By focusing on positives, a political model process also helps to achieve affirmation and strengthen the team spirit. At the end of the process, condensed clusters of strengths will have been defined that can later also serve as the basis for a CPR mission statement for company presentations (website, flyer, etc.). At this point in time, the actual state of the brand has been determined relatively soberly. However, it is quite possible that the condensed strengths of the actual state are not sufficiently attractive for the target group. There is a suitable method for refining the strengths of the political model which is called “aspiration.” This describes a (creative) refraction carried out on the basis of the factually analyzed (actual) brand essence in order to approach a realistic but ambitious (target) state. Existing strengths get “stretched” by those that have yet to be developed. In practice, there may not always be a clear line between the actual and the target state, but this does not lessen the analytical and procedural importance of the distinction. Let’s look at an example: The state of Baden-Württemberg ran an image campaign based on the claim: “There is nothing we can’t do. Except speak high German.” It has a clear fundamental strength (current state) and an aspirational future strength (target state). The first part of the claim, “There is nothing we can’t do,” serves as an anchor. One immediately understands that this region is extremely successful. The tongue-in-cheek irony of “except high German” describes a state that you want to achieve. Namely, to be perceived not only as a successful, but also as a sympathetic place with people who have a likeable sense of self-irony and humor.

126

5 Creating the Political Brand

This is how the psychosocial needs of the citizens of Baden-Württemberg were also taken into account. This example shows that brands as personalities are not one-dimensional but complex. Contradictions and paradoxes make a brand exciting, dynamic, and credible. They provide an approach for developing interest in the brand. The methodical approach of “tension” can create an emotional connection with the target groups. Here, aspiration and tension overlap: Most people do not desire an absence of tension. Instead, their goal is to advance from their initial state toward a self-set goal. A political brand can also be emotionally charged, even in terms of ideals. Polarity (opposing the actual and the target state), which is rhetorically expressed in contradiction, can be an effective measure. A process of compression and refinement is needed to build a political model based on the strength clusters. The goal of condensing is to describe the core of the political brand in a maximum of two, better one, sentence. The political model is the textual expression of the political brand and a prerequisite for managing it. Refinement is achieved through the methods of aspiration and tension. The political model or the “positioning sentence” can be shortened and translated into an advertising claim, e.g., for a company’s socio-political campaign. Of course, the developed political model is only convincing if it supports and improves the management of the overall brand.

References Baldin, K. M. (2006). Das Unternehmensleitbild. Mission, vision und Werte für eine erfolgreiche, nachhaltige Neuausrichtung. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www.yumpu.com/de/ document/read/5159545/das-unternehmensleitbild Burke, R. J. (2011). Corporate reputations: Development, maintenance, change and repair. Corporate reputation: Managing opportunities and threats. London: Routledge. Kannengiesser. (2019, February 27). C. Gespräch mit dem Autor.

6

Managing the Political Brand

Once the political brand and the political model have been developed, the next step of political branding is political brand management. Brand management is generally understood to mean the systematic continued development of a brand over time. The successful management of a brand helps to provide more orientation among the products or services on offer. It radiates trustworthiness, triggers desire, and promotes loyalty (Markenverband, undated). This requires thematic positioning and communicative work based on specific measures and formats. This is how the CPR stance is expressed. In terms of organization, the responsibility should be assigned to a unit in close proximity to the company management, for instance to a department that strategically develops the brand and continuously expands its potential. This includes working with the communications department, and not just during a crisis. As political brands, companies must position themselves internally and externally in such a way that they continuously and clearly ensure their relevance and reputation. Unceasing work is needed to build up political capital and public added value. The credibility of the political brand ultimately depends on whether customers and citizens perceive the company as a responsible governance actor. In political brand management, it is important for companies to draw up a positive fundamental image of the brand vis-à-vis the stakeholders and to convince political actors of one’s own concerns. In a best-case scenario, active and deliberate social-political engagement prevents problems or solves them as they arise. The CPR stance brings the brand closer to the customer; social embedding works better. The resulting brand loyalty helps the “regeneration” of the brand in the event of a crisis. Customers with high brand loyalty forgive their preferred brands missteps and continue to buy their products as long as they are convinced of the overall quality of the brand. Politically, too, companies must set and meet such quality requirements for their brand. This will not work without company executives who are convinced and convincing. No

# The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, part of Springer Nature 2021 J. Bohnen, Corporate Political Responsibility, Future of Business and Finance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62122-6_6

127

128

6

Managing the Political Brand

successful political brand management is possible without politically sensitive corporate management! When looking at brand management, it is equally important to look both at the inside and the outside the company. The internal connection between a brand and the employees of the brand owner must be stable and needs constant upkeep. This creates orientation within the organization; it is inconceivable without leadership. A stance is particularly required for external stakeholders. If brand management is understood and pointedly expressed in socio-political terms, the organization should become aware of itself as an actor in the public sphere and actively shape its relationship with the community. That was the argument in Chap. 2. For companies, political brand management means that they take social expectations and the importance of state structures as the preconditions of economic success seriously. If employees and customers, who are always citizens, too, recognize a clear sociopolitical attitude—i.e., CPR—in a company, it is easier to build trust, and the brand can realize its potential for identification. The authors Winfried Weber (2017) pay tribute to Peter Drucker, a management consultant and educator, who as early as 1995 emphasized the socio-political foundations for good business. After the end of the Cold War, Drucker believed that Western democracies were being put to the test: It was no longer enough to be better (than Communism), they had to be good. He worried about the rule of law and civil society—institutions on whose integrity a strong society, as well as the market economy, depend. His creed was that free entrepreneurs need human rightsbased democracy. Business managers should prove their social legitimacy and be role models for strengthening the political culture of the democratic constitutional state. Given the turbulent times, Drucker asked managers to act as leaders and integrators in our pluralistic societies. He saw responsible management as an alternative to and as protection against tyranny. As founding members of the Peter Drucker Society of Mannheim e. V., Weber, and Paschek are committed to upholding Drucker’s legacy. They make the case that the business elites, in addition to preserving the natural environment, increasingly need to help preserve our man-made environment—including the political culture of democracy, which requires a civilized approach to political differences. For this, business managers need a comprehensive education aimed at developing skills such as judgment, self-limitation, and exemplary behavior. Such education would also ward managers against the illusion that democratic decision-making can be carried out at the fast pace of business. Paschek and Weber regard it as a Herculean task to meet Printer’s model of corporate responsibility. Yet it must be done if free people are to be able to live together. It is obvious that leadership is required to breathe life into the CPR attitude. Corporate leaders can bring out the main points themselves—through “CEO Activism.” They have several options for creating the conditions for political brand management. One approach to the organizational design of corporate responsibility is “mainstreaming.” A broad base for CPR makes it possible for companies to become political learning organizations. Recognized standards such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or the “honorable merchant” also

6.1 Leadership through CEO Activism

129

serve as frames of reference for the implementation of CPR. This includes appropriate conceptual and argumentative support for the relevance of responsible political action. The next sections describe these approaches. They show how a stance in the company can take shape and how managers can introduce it to the organization.

6.1

Leadership through CEO Activism

CEOs face a particular challenge to provide leadership as a clear “tone from the top.” If CEOs take a public position on socio-politically relevant issues, it’s called “CEO Activism.” Such public positioning results in feedback and learning effects for the workforce. In earlier times, businesses were often deliberately blind or indifferent to politics; in contrast, modern corporate management should take a clear-sighted approach. Delegating all political issues to interest groups ought to be a thing of the past. If interest groups are responsible for everything, entrepreneurs will fail to actively engage with important political developments. In addition, they will miss out on the opportunity to convey an entrepreneurial view to the public at first hand and thus authentically. Of course, political statements by business leaders are not without risk. There is a danger of widening the cracks running through our societies. This underpins the importance of virtue in the sense of exerting pragmatic wisdom in deliberating public positions. In a charged social climate, leaders will need moderation skills and a wellconsidered, credible selection of political engagements. And it is crucial, of course, that such engagement be professionally implemented to avoid disappointment among citizens and customers. The Ipsos Reputation Council (2018) has researched how much communicators are concerned about losing customers through flawed positioning. In 2017, more than half of the communicators surveyed believed that their consumers expected them to take a socio-political stance—firmly anchored in the purpose, values, and behavior of the company. In 2018, however, 70 percent said taking a clear position might be going too far in an increasingly polarized and confrontational world. Taking a side bears the risk of scaring off a significant share of customers. Even communicators who have a positive attitude toward socio-political interference said that this was entirely dependent on the issue in question. A US-wide survey on CEO activism published by Stanford University in 2018 confirms the strategic opportunities of political positioning, but also their polarizing character. 65 percent of respondents agree that the CEOs of large corporations should use their influence to promote social, ecological, or political issues that are important to them personally. If those issues are of direct concern to the company or its employees, that percentage rises to 72 percent. Just as many respondents say they are more likely to buy from a company whose CEO speaks out on a topic that they agree with. Conversely, 62 percent say they are more likely not to buy if they reject the position represented by the CEO. Basically, there is a generational difference in the rating of CEO activism. While more than half of the baby

130

6

Managing the Political Brand

boomers are skeptical, there is broad support among millennials (71 percent) (CEO Activism Survey 2018). The consulting firm Deloitte (2018, pp. 5–6) reaches a similar conclusion in a recent study. A socio-political stance resonates especially with the up-and-coming, technology-savvy millennials, who exchange ideas in social networks. The support of young people shows that political engagement is an attractive future-oriented issue for companies. Millennial attitudes already have an influence on the business world, as Blackrock CEO Larry Fink showed by referring to the study. In an open letter, Fink (2019) wrote: “In a recent survey by Deloitte, millennial workers were asked what the primary purpose of businesses should be—63 percent more of them said‘improving society ‘than said’ generating profit.’” The example of American football player Colin Kaepernick (see also Sect. 3.5 about the role of sports in society) seems to prove Fink’s point. Nike, the manufacturer of sports equipment, signed Kaepernick up for an advertisement campaign in 2018, two years after he had knelt during the playing of the national anthem in protest against racism and police violence. Kaepernick was suspended form the football league, and Nike’s advertising campaign with the athlete caused a heated public debate. Some customers burned their Nike shoes; President Trump tweeted that the campaign was sending a “terrible message.” Despite such headwinds and initially negative market reaction, the share price ended up rising. Nike benefited from the campaign because its customers—two thirds of whom are under 35 years—approved (Kuls 2018). It seems that taking a stance can pay off financially. Yet profitability must not turn into a precondition for socio-political engagement. Such a stance would not deserve its name because it would be selective and opportunistic. The truth is that if you adopt a position, you will at times meet with criticism and you will not always be able to turn it into a business case in the short term. But you will gain credibility that will boost the reputation of your brand over time. Personalized political engagement in particular contributes to the individual profile of a brand because such a campaign is directly attributed to the company—in contrast to an engagement in favor of collective goods. Even if the debate about CEO activism that began around 2015 separates the public interventions of business leaders from their core business (Chatterji and Toffel 2018, 2019, pp. 78–79), CEO activism still offers a great opportunity to have your company stand out as politically responsible, which enhances the attraction of the brand. Businesses with a fine sensor for socio-political issues and clear communication in the public sphere gain a competitive advantage. The fact that the entrepreneurial courage to make a political statement can be rewarded is yet to be firmly established in the minds of corporate leaders. We are still in a phase of transformation. The new stance must first be practiced by the actors and internalized by broader sections of the population. The challenge—especially for global corporations—will be to balance their political engagement so that they can avoid two potential pitfalls, political opportunism and moral rigor. One possible approach is to be open about explaining your own behavior if you find yourself faced with a dilemma.

6.1 Leadership through CEO Activism

131

Siemens CEO Joe Kaeser, for example, explained in a detailed comment why he canceled his participation in an investor conference in Riyadh after the Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi had been murdered. According to his own statements, he weighed the importance of stakeholder interests, Siemens’ reputation, the relationship with customers in Saudi Arabia and the Arab world, the prospect of billion-dollar contracts, and the security of thousands of jobs (Kaeser 2018). Although the conclusion (“It would make sense to participate”) and the decision (“I will not participate”) differed, which gave the impression that Kaeser had given in to the public pressure, here, a CEO had the courage to enter the political arena. Despite Kaeser’s back-and-forth, it is generally to be welcomed that CEOs practice their political speaking skills (Bohnen 2018). René Obermann, a former CEO of Deutsche Telekom, calls on his peers to employ such speaking skills in the fight for Europe: “Where else in the world would the unity of free market economy, open society and global cooperation be better guaranteed? Where can democratic, socially responsible entrepreneurs operate profitably without betraying their values, if not in Europe?” In concrete terms, Obermann suggests that businesspeople could take part in socio-political debates: “As entrepreneurs, managers, and investors, we have considerable communicative reach. (. . .) As a manager, you have many platforms for pro-European arguments.” Obermann cannot understand why business leaders were so reluctant to take sides on the Brexit vote. He believes that the time for political abstinence for companies is finally over: “Perhaps we have given the impression that politics is something that does not belong in companies, that it only keeps us from doing our actual work. But it is part of it now.” Obermann calls on his business colleagues to agree a “New Deal” with politicians and to launch targeted educational projects throughout Europe. He sees this as “an imperative of social fairness and at the same time a great economic necessity.” Obermann emphasizes that “we are existentially dependent on a strong Europe.” Because: “Our EU economy is embedded in a regulatory framework that we cannot maintain without strong EU institutions” (Obermann 2017). It was in this same spirit that Lufthansa positioned itself in the run-up to the 2019 European elections by painting “SayYesToEurope” on the fuselage of an Airbus A320. With this initiative, the company wanted to contribute to a high turnout at the elections. CEO Carsten Spohr explained the decision: “Depending on how they will vote in May, citizens will decide the future of Europe. More than ever before, it is a matter of taking a stance, adopting responsibility, and strengthening the European idea of a continent that is united and free. As a thoroughly European company with roots in several countries at the heart of Europe, our airlines such as Lufthansa, Swiss, Austrian Airlines, Eurowings, Brussels Airlines, and Air Dolomiti connect the continent’s countries with each other and Europe with the world. This is why Europe is particularly close to our hearts.” It was during this period that the decision was made to have all Lufthansa aircraft show the European flag in addition to the German flag (Lufthansa 2019). On the other side of the Atlantic, American CEOs took a stand against President Trump’s hesitation over condemning right-wing extremist violence in

132

6

Managing the Political Brand

Charlottesville in August 2017. It is becoming increasingly clear to them that they are facing a more volatile and dynamic stakeholder environment in which they are expected to take a stance. They have understood that it is more dangerous not to take a stand at all than to take the wrong position and, for once, not be aligned with customers or the wider community. In other words, the era in which companies could merely be political onlookers is over (Maslansky 2017). CEOs are increasingly taking social responsibility and criticizing political mistakes. Even if—as in the case of Charlottesville—they are thereby incurring the wrath of the president. The companies—including Starbucks, JP Morgan, PepsiCo, and Merck—issued calls for tolerance. Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier, an African American himself, said he felt that his position and personal reasons made it necessary to take a stand against intolerance and extremism. Hatred, bigotry, and white supremacism ran counter to the American ideal of the equality of all people (Lindner 2017). Starbucks founder Howard Schultz convened an in-house debating forum entitled “Hate has no home here” to give his employees a space to express fears, views, and calls for action. Schultz expressed deep concern about the lack of character, morality, and humanity in evidence during the riots. Nothing less than the morality and values of the United States was at stake (Dahlstrom 2017). Especially companies with a close contact with their customers distance themselves from hate, intolerance, and racism. In enormously competitive markets, today’s digital-savvy buyers—the millennials—can change their decision about which company they buy from with just a few clicks. The values a company represents are increasingly important for their choice. And their trust in companies and their leadership seems to be quite high: 44 percent believe that business leaders, but only 19 percent believe that political decision makers have a positive influence on the world. The 2018 Deloitte Millennial Survey sums up the conclusion: “Our respondents are imploring business leaders to take the lead in solving the world’s problems.” Even if this reflects a tendency toward a technocratic understanding of politics, it also weighs in favor of companies taking greater responsibility. Changing attitudes are also interesting in this context. Employees want to believe in their companies; they are not just interested in money. They thus challenge businesses to become more sustainable and better (Deloitte 2018). The demands made on leadership are enormous. The exponential developments of globalization and digitalization are currently accompanied by tendencies toward renationalization and a loss of confidence of citizens toward increasingly overwhelmed elites. Where clear cause-and-effect relationships are no longer suitable for describing the world, citizens and elites need to accept that they are losing the ability to plan. Leadership demands taking decisions when there are little predictability and an almost endless number of secondary conditions (Karboul 2015). Such secondary conditions are increasingly of a socio-political nature. The good news is that they can be actively shaped. CEOs should, therefore, use their potential to enrich the public debate. The emphatic political actions of Joe Kaeser have triggered a controversial debate since 2018 on whether managers are allowed or indeed required to take a stand on political issues. And if so, how proactive should they be? What

6.1 Leadership through CEO Activism

133

about the counterclaim that companies should be “politically neutral?” In an opinion piece, the well-known management consultant Reinhard Sprenger, whose focus is on leadership, set out several theses (Sprenger 2019).1 His first thesis is that companies have no political mandate whatsoever; they should be neutral in principle. Yet the idea of neutrality of social actors is not convincing. It is true for companies, too, that they can only operate successfully within a functioning state infrastructure (education, health, legal security, transport, IT/telecommunications, etc.). To put it somewhat polemically: Using this state infrastructure as a matter of course without strengthening it sustainably means companies behave as free riders. In practical terms, it is also clear that companies are political actors, “corporate citizens,” who have a massive influence, for example, on the legislative process. CEOs also accompany the chancellor and other politicians on trips to China and other politically difficult countries to promote and secure their business. Sprenger’s second thesis says that the mandate for CEOs to manage a company originates only with the owners and the supervisory board. “The Siemens CEO is not an entrepreneur who risks his own money. He is an employee and manages money that doesn’t belong to him. In this respect he is dependent on the instructions of the shareholders. They have not authorized him to express political opinions.” On the one hand, this statement refers only to corporations, which account only for a small part of German companies. On the other hand, leadership in business also involves acting in public. When the political situation becomes more complex, corporate leaders must seek new feedback from politics and society. The third thesis points out the danger of corporate leaders moralizing too much. As an example, Sprenger cites Kaeser’s criticism of the arrest of “Sea-Watch” captain Carola Rackete, who was involved in rescuing refugees in the Mediterranean. In truth, Kaeser’s intervention can be considered moralistic, and even apolitical, because he leaves little room for negotiation on the issue. He missed a good opportunity, since it is precisely in a situation where society is holding heated debates that business can be a voice of pragmatism. At the end of the day, the exact position you take on the complex issue of refugees is not essential for CPR. What is important is to take a well-founded stance on political developments that ultimately affect your own business. As a guideline for political intervention, the following principle may be helpful: Companies should be non-partisan about specific issues but take sides if our liberal way of life as such is at stake. This can also include issues of geopolitics and trade. It is therefore advisable not to become involved in too much detail in political statements and demands. Otherwise, there is a danger of blunting one’s stance or appearing random. Naturally, there are mistakes made in the learning process of practicing a convincing CPR stance. But this is far less dangerous than an apolitical

1

Along the same line, see: Steltzner, Holger, Politischer Geisterfahrer, FAZ, 23.10.2018, SiemensChef Joe Kaeser: Der politische Geisterfahrer. The opposite position is held, among others, by Clemens Brandstätter and Walter Zornek of managerfragen.org

134

6

Managing the Political Brand

attitude that undermines our democracy as, for instance, when corporate leaders cozy up to authoritarian leaders for short-term business interests, thereby contributing to the erosion of the long-term political and social foundations of their own business success. Only the integration of socio-political factors into the business strategy can set the course for sustainable success. This complex task must be a matter for senior management. It is also about offering orientation to various stakeholder groups in uncertain times. This strengthens the brand but can only work if corporate leaders demonstrate their commitment to customers and stakeholders in the public arena.

6.2

Creating Internal Support Through Mainstreaming

While CEO Activism generally strengthens the in-house CPR attitude, additional measures are needed to create broad support for it within the company. A term commonly used in companies is change management. It describes the “ongoing adaptation of corporate strategies and structures to changing conditions. Today, change no longer represents a special process in companies, but a regular occurrence which takes place frequently” (Gablers Wirtschaftslexikon). Change management in this sense is also necessary for the cultural embedding of CPR in the company. Above all, CPR should not be permanently outsourced into a separate, largely autonomous department. Instead, according to Keith Weed, Chief Marketing and Communications Officer of the consumer goods manufacturer Unilever until April 2019, a sense of social responsibility should permeate the company at all levels and express a collective mindset. Weed calls this “mainstreaming.” That’s why right at the beginning of his employment at Unilever, he dissolved the CSR department. Fears that this was a sellout of sustainability efforts were quickly dispelled. Mainstreaming brought corporate responsibility to life. The employees identified themselves with the guiding principle of sustainability (Weed 2016). As a comprehensive thinking model, CPR is a guideline for employees to act responsibly and profitably at the same time. A deep embedding of CPR means above all to involve employees as early as possible. They need to become convinced that socio-political commitment also pays off economically. Decentralizing CPR will not work without internal training and a clear description of the objectives. Those responsible locally as well as those higher up in the hierarchy must be enabled to deal with the issue competently, otherwise, it will simply fizzle out. Without these fundamental conditions, employees will lack conviction, and the company’s credibility in the outside world will suffer. In the long term, CPR could outgrow organizational development or internal change management. Ultimately, it is about actively shaping the public sphere, i.e., about public change management (PCM). To overcome self-centeredness, persistent and powerful forces in the business units must be overcome. But if the described embedding of CPR takes place in a critical mass of companies, cross-company cooperation in terms of PCM becomes a realistic perspective. As a consequence,

6.3 Companies as Focal Institutions of Social Learning

135

social reform processes could in fact be developed sustainably. The CPR attitude, therefore, concerns the self-image of the company, including as a political organization. It is a cultural issue—namely one of political culture in the company, with a formative influence on the public sphere.

6.3

Companies as Focal Institutions of Social Learning

Another reason why it is so important to culturally embed CPR in the company through mainstreaming is the enormous amount of unused social potential it holds: Businesses are one of the last remaining places where people constantly meet and trade with each other. They are gravitational centers where identities are formed, and forward-looking issues are negotiated. Companies, therefore, have a special formative influence on social interaction. In the past, a medium-sized entrepreneur was as a matter, of course, active in a party, an association, or the church. He thus provided orientation and strengthened integration. Today, these links back to society exist less frequently. CPR can make a contribution to bringing companies back toward the community and encouraging participation. This represents an opportunity for business and for society. And it is, of course, a task for corporate management. To pursue nothing but shareholder value as a corporate goal is increasingly scorned in Western industrial societies,2 and companies can build on this increasingly powerful attitude. Medium-sized companies in particular already have a tradition of assuming responsibility. Owner-managed businesses frequently think of themselves as honorable merchants with deep roots in their business location. This ethos of traditional commitment to the common good needs to be modernized and professionalized in terms of political responsibility. This includes making contributions to the narratives of political processes. Nicola Leibinger-Kammüller, CEO of Trumpf, says that small and medium-sized businesses can advance into the vacuum created by social fragmentation and the dissolution of traditional social, political, and religious ties. The reason is that they represent traditional family values such as responsibility, reliability, and loyalty (Heuser 2017). Along the same line as Leibinger-Kammüller, Trumpf’s Head of Corporate Communications and Politics, Andreas Möller, explains why Trumpf calls for companies to position themselves politically. “Nothing,” says Möller, “is probably more inappropriate and sometimes more strenuous than a business sector that has no empathy for the systemic conditions of politics but imposes its own logic as standard and constantly demands adherence to it. Speaking out against a misleading belief in the separation of the two spheres, he explains: “Strictly speaking, globally active 2

Look at the demands that societies make on companies beyond profit, as expressed in the Edelman Trust Barometer or the Deloitte Millennial Survey. Practitioners such as Blackrock’s CEO Larry Fink in his open letter follow the same line. The desire to fulfill a purpose plays a central role, as shown, for example, by the Certified B Corporations, which explicitly strive for a balance between profit and purpose.

136

6

Managing the Political Brand

companies today (. . .) no longer have the choice of thinking politically or not—they are per se important social integrators all over the world, sometimes even laboratories for social issues.” Möller, therefore, asks to accept that “companies today no longer represent only business. Much more than in earlier decades, they have become places of public and social interaction” (Spangenberg 2019). Such an attitude could make business an essential institution for political education. Companies already provide training and continuous education in many respects. Why not socio-political training, too, if this is becoming increasingly important for business success? Beyond political education, companies can of course also initiate, support, and implement specific civic and ultimately political projects.

6.4

Sustainable Development Goals

The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) offer a recognized frame of reference for the management of companies, especially in their public function. They include social goals such as gender equality, hunger reduction, and health care; and ecological goals such as climate protection, clean energy, and the preservation of underwater life. To that extent, they fit into the common ESG scheme of corporate responsibility. But the SDGs also contain genuine political references. This is particularly evident in Goal Number 16: “Peace, justice, and stable institutions.” For institutions to be inclusive, effective, and accountable, efforts must be made to establish the rule of law, regulation and anti-corruption, freedom of information, and human rights (United Nations Development Program, undated). Goal 16 of the SDGs describes nothing less than the foundation of a democratic constitutional state. This is precisely the kind of state in which most companies wish to operate. Therefore they must not limit sustainability to its social and ecological dimensions. The CPR concept makes the political content of sustainable action visible and provides orientation in fulfilling this role. A 2018 study on the sustainability reporting of 160 DAX companies gives some interesting details. “Almost half of the companies analyzed include SDGs in their sustainability reporting. There are significant differences between the various DAX indices. In the DAX 30, the majority of the companies analyzed to use the SDGs as a point of reference [81 percent], including Allianz, BMW, and RWE. In contrast, in the SDAX, just under a fifth of the companies analyzed, such as Bilfinger and KWS Saat, refer to them” (Kirchhoff 2018). It is interesting to note that Goal 16 is not among the priority objectives. Its importance has obviously not yet been recognized; accordingly, there remains a large amount of work to be done.

6.6 The CPR Fields of Action

6.5

137

The Honorable Merchant

Another point of reference for the public positioning of businesses is the model of the honorable merchant. Germany’s Corporate Governance Code sets this out in the preamble to the rules for good corporate management. This guiding principle makes it clear that the responsibility of companies is not limited to the mere legality of their actions (Regierungskommission 2020). The following principles of the honorable merchant show in detail what a broader-based legitimacy basis would look like: The honorable merchant. . . • Takes a long-term view of his business. • Aligns his actions with virtues that create long-term trust. • Respects the rights and dignity of his employees and treats them fairly and humanely. • Behaves honestly in business transactions with customers and suppliers. • Safeguards the interests of the owners. • Behaves fairly toward his competitors. • Supports the common good in society. • Serves the public’s legitimate interests for information. • Promotes the further development of our liberal social order by setting a good example. • Observes the principle of ecological sustainability (VBKI, undated). Two aspects of this list are particularly relevant: First, the commitment to the liberal social order, which obviously has a direct bearing on CPR; and second, the concept of virtue, which in the sense of practical wisdom and discernment is closely related to the idea of CPR as an attitude.

6.6

The CPR Fields of Action

We have seen that corporate leaders have a whole range of options at their disposal to develop political brand management in terms of structure and content, both internally and externally. To contribute to the public sphere, we can now start working on concrete activities that underpin the political model. Representatives of the business community must consider the concrete contributions they can make to social stabilization thanks to their extensive resources—not just in times of turbulence, but also in the long term. There is a “CPR catalogue of measures” for four central fields of action that can be summarized as follows: 1. Responsible Lobbying For the public, lobbying has a negative connotation. Yet in a democratic and pluralistic society, it is important that companies—like other social actors— express their interests in the political process. Under the term of responsible

138

6

Managing the Political Brand

lobbying, the representation of specific interests must be organized in accordance with the principle of transparency. This means clearly stating objectives, communicating the same messages to all stakeholders, and aligning oneself with sustainable interests of society as a whole. 2. Positioning via Issues and Dialogues Businesses operate within a set framework of political and legal conditions. They should have the analytical capacity to assess and comment on the opportunities and risks that those conditions pose for their actions. The links between the company and the political system can be managed by a CEO planning unit. Similar to a think tank, such a unit works closely with senior management to put political issues on the agenda and prepare stakeholder dialogues. This will improve the company’s ability to voice political concerns. Internally, sociopolitical guidelines are formulated; externally, the aim is to achieve a dependable position in the public sphere. 3. Political Participation Projects The purpose of corporate political participation is to strengthen society’s capability to politically organize itself and reinforce the company’s own economic foundations. A convincing approach is community organizing, in which companies use capital and management expertise to promote local dialogue platforms, where social groups discuss their proposals with politicians. Companies can also provide grassroot services for democracy by supporting educational work, civic initiatives, investigative journalism, and election campaigns on a larger scale. Finally, there is great potential in using public change management to work toward the joint creation of value by various stakeholders in the public sphere. 4. Provision of Public Goods In view of the dwindling capacity of the state to act, which is a result of globalization and digitalization, businesses will be called upon to try out new governance models in the future. In the long term, public goods are a prerequisite for economic goods. To hold back because of a supposed lack of profitability would short-sighted. Consider investments in legal security, infrastructure, or education, for example, in company kindergartens, libraries, sports facilities, or civic initiatives. Those strengthen the governance structures of society as well as the company itself—a win–win situation for the state and business. There is a certain logic in the order of the four fields of action. They are graded according to their impact on the community. The concept of responsible lobbying ties in with lobbying activities already carried out by companies, calling for them to align with criteria of transparency and consistency. Issues and dialogues go beyond existing and narrowly defined business activities and aim at making communicative statements on pressing socio-political issues. Projects of political participation require that companies move beyond debate and get engaged in political action, i.e., that they organize targeted civic discussion and decision-making processes. Finally, the last stage marks the provision of public goods, when companies take on

6.6 The CPR Fields of Action

139

governance tasks and thus relieve the state. Here is a detailed presentation of the four fields of action with concrete practical examples.

6.6.1

Responsible Lobbying

Closed doors, dark back rooms, informal agreements, and activities in a legal grey zone—this is how many citizens see the work of lobbyists. But this is distorted picture. Informal and discreet meetings in protected rooms are useful for confidential exchange. Yet companies should not hide their political interests, but rather present them openly and convincingly. It is not a matter of recording every meeting with politicians in a public calendar. That would be an expression of a “utopian ideology of transparency,” as law professor Florian Meinel writes. Although there may be good reasons for the work of lobbycontrol.de or abgeordneterwatch.de, such movements “always stir up a latent resentment against everything that looks like normal politics in parliament.” In essence, Meinel provocatively says, it is impossible to “have a parliamentarism that is transparent and professional at the same time.” Unfortunately, those who are particularly principled in their complaints about the lack of transparency in political operations are often the same people who see the greatest need for political action in every conceivable field” (Meinel 2019, pp. 41–42). The goal is not to achieve complete transparency, but to ensure responsibility. The concept of “responsible lobbying” creates a framework that contributes to the implementation of a CPR attitude. Undemocratic Vested Interests? For the record: In a pluralistic society, special interests feed into the political process as a matter of course. Otherwise, the quality of the laws would suffer. Social challenges are too complex to manage without the expertise of the numerous social actors. For example, parliamentarians obviously depend, among others, on the expertise of the business community to fulfill their democratic duties. How else would they know of the concerns of this important social stakeholder? There is absolutely no alternative to mutual exchange. Politicians like the former SPD candidate for chancellor Martin Schulz regard lobbyists as democratic discussion partners and value their input. In his time as an EU politician, Schulz once said “for me as a decision maker, all “lobbyists” are first and foremost equal representatives of special interests, with interests that are, at least from their point of view, legitimate and correspond to their function and mission. They are part of the business of politics, and without their help, the legislative work would be incomplete. Hardly any initiator of legislation, no matter how thorough, could claim to have examined a draft for all its effects on the most diverse areas of social life. For complete and balanced sustainable legislation, we also need the political advice of lobbyists” (Schulz 2007). This insight, which is certainly shared by the overwhelming majority of members of parliament and officials, is not yet sufficiently reflected in public awareness. Instead, lobbyists and political advisers are often met with resentment. Time and again, there are doubts as to whether companies should have external lobbyists,

140

6

Managing the Political Brand

capital city representatives, or industry associations represent their interests, i.e., use the help of professional political and communications consultants. At the same time, the—undoubtedly important—political work of nongovernmental organizations such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace, or Food Watch is hardly ever questioned. These work with comparable methods, often even more aggressively, but are seen in a positive light because they appear to be serving the common good. Their purpose and benefit to society do not seem to require further justification (Weidenfeld 2017, p. 185ff). The distinction between “good” and “bad” lobbyists misses the heart of the issue. The relevant question is how lobbying is actually carried out. Compliance with the law should be a matter of course. In addition, the industry must have credible and effective self-regulation. This is where the concept of “responsible lobbying” comes into play. How Companies Score Through Integrity A company can prevent much public skepticism by disclosing the purpose of its discussions with political decision makers. Especially in the long term, it can pay off to have a transparent, but not excessively open (see Meinel 2019) culture of representing one’s interests. A company that is committed to society and communicates this involvement can be sure of the support of large sections of the public or consumers as long as it does not act against public interests. This is how companies can respond to the increasingly vocal demands for their specific interests and issues to match the overall social context. After all, this illustrates their relevance and value for politicians as well as the public. Admittedly, Berlin is still much less professional in terms of transparency standards than Brussels and, above all, Washington. But the trend in the local lobbying business is clear. There are concerted efforts to introduce a general, cross-sectoral lobby register, for example, by the industry association degepol or individual companies (degepol 2017). The conditions under which lobbyists can obtain house passes to the Bundestag are also being debated. It would also be conceivable to set up a lobbying commissioner to monitor compliance with standards. Lobbyists with integrity are keen to have clear rules, as they do not want to be accused of skirting the line. The overriding concern is to understand the influence lobbyists have on legislation and to score points through transparency (Sirleschtov 2017). Compared to democracies such as the United States, Germany’s political system is influenced by “big business” only in a very limited way, even in the recruitment of personnel. The buying and selling of votes already was a criminal offense when on September 1, 2014, the Bundestag made any kind of bribery of its members a criminal offense (Lobbypedia 2014). Another law that became effective on July 25, 2015, introduced a cooling-off period after leaving office for chancellors, ministers, and parliamentary state secretaries at the federal level. Former government representatives can be banned from taking up a new job for 18 months if there is a conflict of interest or other reasons of public interest (Lobbypedia 2017).

6.6 The CPR Fields of Action

141

In terms of integrity, companies can also act individually. METRO AG is a pioneer with its innovative public policy website. There, the company publishes its political positions on topics that are important for its business activities. It explains and justifies transparently why METRO, for example, opposes protectionism or calls for the pricing of carbon dioxide (Metro AG, undated). Michael Wedell, former Head of Corporate Communications and Politics at METRO AG, describes this as a responsible representation of interests. He believes that the concept of lobbying has been severely damaged, especially in Germany. “In popular parlance, it often stands for an undemocratic process in which powerful organizations use their influence to push through special interests” (Metro AG, undated). For this to change, the concept and the practices behind it need to be transformed in a positive way: “Under the heading of ‘responsible lobbying,’ there has been a discussion about making the political representation of interests more transparent and shaping it in the interests of society. That would give it a legitimate place in a democracy.” For Wedell, there is no doubt that lobbying as such “has become an integral part of modern politics [. . .]: the interests to be taken into account have become too complex, the number of stakeholders too confusing, and technological knowledge too abundant” (Metro AG, undated). But what would ethical lobbying consist of? What are the criteria? “The processes of responsible lobbying are characterized by a high degree of transparency,” says Wedell. “The company’s goals and their methods of implementation are clearly visible; the same messages are communicated to all dialogue partners. The content of responsible lobbying is oriented toward the goals of society as a whole. It does not aim for the acquisition of privileges at the expense of third parties. Rather, it is in line with the company’s sustainability strategy.” According to Wedell, lobbying, if done right, becomes an important building block for social progress. Because “in this sense, political consulting or lobbying is far more than just a means of asserting economic, ecological, or social special interests. It is a means to contribute to a sustainable social and economic order through the organized representation of interests” (Metro AG, undated). Additional examples for responsible lobbying • General Motors: In 1997, the GM Foundation joined forces with Safe Kids to create the “Buckle-Up” program. This initiative for child safety on the road addresses “the single largest preventable cause of child death and injury in the United States and around the world.” Starting with safety checks of child seats at GM dealerships, the program now includes lobbying for tougher safety laws regarding underage road users. The success of “Buckle-Up” is reflected in the statistics: Since 1997, the death rate of children and adolescents up to the age of 19 from car accidents has been cut in half. GM’s support also enables Safe Kids to donate child seats to highrisk families and to host information events that have reached millions of (continued)

142

6

Managing the Political Brand

people over the years (Safe Kids Worldwide 2020). GM is also working with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to promote seat belt use as part of the “Click it or Ticket” campaign to improve road safety (General Motors 2014). GM will certainly not stop lobbying for its own interests, but in this case, it is also credibly lobbying for minimizing the negative consequences of car use. • Facebook: CEO Mark Zuckerberg called for a more active role for governments in regulating the Internet in late March 2019. This is a borderline case of “responsible lobbying.” According to Zuckerberg, it is about preserving the best side of the Internet—people’s freedom to express themselves, and entrepreneurs’ freedom to create something new—while protecting society from harm. While the founder of Facebook acknowledges that major technology platforms bear immense responsibility, he calls for clear political rules in the core areas of harmful content, election rigging, privacy, and data transfers. With regard to data protection, Zuckerberg sees the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as a suitable regulatory framework that other countries can adopt and refine. Companies should not have to take far-reaching decisions on their own; instead, there should be uniform legal standards as far as possible. After all, only governments can impose real sanctions. All in all, Zuckerberg said, society needs a broad debate about where it wants to go and how regulation can support this. It is time, he added, for an update to the regulatory framework for the Internet that would include newly defined responsibilities for people, companies, and governments (Zuckerberg 2019). The example of Facebook makes it clear that in a concrete situation, it is not always easy to determine whether a CPR stance is involved. Zuckerberg’s “stance” was certainly helpful to strengthen political primacy and legal certainty. At the same time, the suspicion persists that Facebook, after so many years of political inactivity, is now taking a public position mainly because its own business model is coming under public and legal pressure (think of the killing spree in Christchurch or the fines imposed by the EU). Is Zuckerberg trying to get himself out of trouble by delegating responsibility to governments? His plea for data transfers is also ambiguous: While it seems to give users more freedom, it also helps Facebook to attract them to its platform and to integrate services. So perhaps Zuckerberg’s argument is structurally similar to that of Joe Kaeser on Saudi Arabia: ambivalent, not entirely plausible, primarily driven by self-interest, and open to criticism, but nevertheless important for advancing the debate on corporate responsibility. At issue is whether Zuckerberg and other entrepreneurs are really driven by good intentions, and whether their actions ultimately serve the common good. This raises the question: When is it actually a stance, and when is it merely the

6.6 The CPR Fields of Action

143

instrumentalization of a stance? It is not possible to be inquisitorial about motives, neither with responsible lobbying nor with CPR as a whole; one would be walking too thin a line. We should assume that businesses generally do not deliberately harm the community. Nevertheless, a worldview fixated on technology that is ultimately apolitical can cause considerable damage to the common good, as can indifference or the exaggerated pursuit of profit. Libertarian fantasies appear to be particularly dangerous—visions in which technology companies play with the idea of their own ecosystems which would enjoy maximum independence from political regulation, e.g., islands with their own jurisprudence. Or when disruption, including in politics, is elevated to an end in itself and the importance of a functioning public sector or state institutions is underestimated. Those who think they can transfer Schumpeter’s creative destruction to politics will most likely find themselves in a political system that has authoritarian traits and rules set by only a small number of people. It is clear that the concept of attitude emphasized in the CPR concept does not allow for the separation of intentions from actions. CPR is a business case—this instrumental benefit is important—but it also has an intrinsic aspect. After all, the goal of a political brand is to offer internal identification and external orientation, and this is inconceivable without a component that is “idealistic” and oriented toward the common good. A good example is a quote by the former Head of Communications and CSR of METRO GROUP, Michael Inacker: “Assuming political and social responsibility is an imperative for large, internationally operating companies. And this is not primarily for philanthropic reasons or because it fits into the marketing concept. No, it is about enlightened self-interest, it is about fully integrating sustainability, CSR, and societal perspectives into one’s operational business strategy” (Wedell 2010, pp. 8–9). In the future, the political system in Berlin should be shaped by responsible lobbying, and economic activity should follow guidelines such as the one just quoted. To this end, lobbyists, their superiors, and clients must be guided by the common good. Businesses can then position themselves as socially responsible actors. When corporate lobbying is credibly based on ethical standards, governance, and compliance rules, it becomes part of the CPR measures. Then, at last, this task of creating an interface and mediating between business and politics which is necessary for a pluralistic society, would lose its dirty reputation.

6.6.2

Positioning Via Topics and Dialogues

By positioning themselves via issues and dialogues, companies gain political speaking skills. They operate in a public environment that they must understand and that they can shape. The political, legal, and social parameters are important for business. They exist at the local and national level, and for Germany’s exportdependent companies, often at the global level, too. Above a certain size, companies should, therefore, have analytical capacities at their disposal to assess and comment

144

6

Managing the Political Brand

on the opportunities and risks for their business. To be able to take part in the sociopolitical discourse and transformation, it is necessary to identify the issues that will be important for the company and the future. These issues then need to be processed to make them manageable. For this purpose, “CEO planning units” can be set up, which, as internal “political think tanks” advise senior management. Internally, such units can serve to formulate socio-political guidelines; externally, they help the company gain an innovative and dependable position in the public arena. Both internally and externally, this creates the preconditions for formats of socio-political dialogue which will strengthen the company’s links with politics and society. Internally, one option is to offer further training to employees and have them take part in the company’s socio-political engagement. One effective instrument is structured discussions between employees and invited experts (political consultants, NGOs, foundations, cultural institutions, etc.). This special form of activation can make it possible for employees to take greater pride in their company because it is proving its value to society. Other outreach formats can be added (such as smaller publications, newsletters, or active media work), to establish a regular connection with various social actors relevant to the company. Ideally, company representatives, especially managing directors or CEOs, would be asked for their expert advice on specific topics by political decision makers. They would thus become constructive partners for policymakers. While policymakers would benefit from the practical expertise of companies, the latter gain lasting access to policymaking—in other words, it would be a win–win situation. In this way, the first field of action (responsible lobbying) can be reinforced by second field of action (positioning via issues and dialogues); both mutually reinforce each other. It seems particularly useful to link up with the academic community that is not under suspicion of being partisan and that shares responsibility for what political scientist Peter Graf Kielmansegg calls the “hygiene of political language.” Companies can set up panels and invite researchers to contribute their expertise. Kielmansegg formulates a guiding maxim for such discussions: “The communicative process of representative democracy must be designed to be persuasive based on rational arguments. This includes, first of all, respect for the facts and respect for the other side. It includes the willingness to listen and to weigh up arguments. It also includes being able to take a step back from one’s own positions in the dispute. This is the basis for the ability to learn through dialogue” (Graf von Kielmansegg 2017; emphasis by the author). Such a culture of discussion can be practiced in companies in line with the spirit of political education (see also Action Field 3). Cooperation with the Landeszentralen für politische Bildung (the German Länder’s offices for political education) would also be a good idea. In line with their efforts in the field of responsible lobbying, companies are also moving closer to the work of their respective industry associations by engaging in issues and dialogues. If the association’s leaders are self-confident, they will see this not as a threat but as an opportunity to reinforce their own messages. All in all, companies can communicate their political concerns more authentically because they are more directly concerned, and their impact is greater. From the company’s perspective, the work of the associations, which is often perceived as sluggish, can

6.6 The CPR Fields of Action

145

be supported and “driven” in a constructive sense. After all, among the many member companies of an association, given the system logic, it is only possible to agree on the lowest common denominator. The challenge for companies is essentially to acquire the ability to speak politically. Dealing with issues and dialogues is therefore of great importance. Companies must not become socially dysfunctional, otherwise, they lose touch with their customers. Take the example of the major German banks: How was their decline even possible? Alongside economic failures such as obsolete business models or inadequate digitalization strategies, the banks made socio-political mistakes. Many of their decisions went against social trends and values and lacked a sense of decency. As a consequence, organizations like Deutsche Bank ran afoul of their social environment and gambled away trust. This is fatal in an industry that is based on credibility and trust. Interestingly enough, the savings banks (with the exception of the Landesbanken) as well as the Volks- and Raiffeisenbanken survived the financial crisis much better than Deutsche Bank or Commerzbank (Toller 2009). Their local base is traditionally much stronger which means that they are also much more responsive to local issues. This makes it easier to nurture relationships with citizens and thus customers. Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank need a genuine cultural change that brings back their connection to society. Only then will they be able to regain their credibility and reputation. The change must be credibly implemented internally and externally and communicated accordingly. Essentially, it is important to show that the purpose of a bank is not limited to short-term profit maximization, but also lies in the prosperity of its customers and society as a whole; otherwise, banks lose their raison d’être. The parameters are provided by the concept of the social market economy, which entails always considering social conditions and consequences. Examples of Positioning Via Issues and Dialogues • Managerfragen.org: This is an online platform that brings business representatives together with citizens who ask critical questions regarding corporate governance and responsibility. It is an example of responsible lobbying as it involves the transparent and consistent presentation of interests. • Siemens: CEO Joe Kaeser used Twitter to counter a lapse of AfD politician Alice Weidel concerning the integration debate. In a general debate in the Bundestag, Weidel had attacked the federal government using the following words: “Burkas, girls wearing head-scarfs, men on alimony bearing knives, and other good-for-nothings will not secure our prosperity, economic growth, and especially the welfare state.” Kaeser’s reply: “Better a headscarf girl than the Bund Deutscher Mädel [Nazi Germany’s official organization for girls]. Ms. Weidel’s nationalism is damaging our country’s (continued)

146

6

Managing the Political Brand

reputation in the world. That’s where the main source of German prosperity lies” (Kaeser 2018). • NOMOS Glashütte: After the 2017 federal election, which gave a big boost to the right-wing populist Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), the watch manufacturer from the Erzgebirge Mountains took a clear position in an open letter. On behalf of their staff, the three managing directors Judith Borowski, Uwe Ahrendt, and Roland Schwertner expressly distanced themselves from any racist ideas. They wrote: “We will help to regain the terrain for freedom and democracy.” According to the three directors, the company would “continue to promote cosmopolitanism, tolerance and pluralism” as much as possible (Schwertner et al. 2017). Given that the AfD gets 40 percent of the votes in Glashütte, NOMOS, with the help of the “Initiative Courage,” initiated political training for employees to help them deal with right-wing extremism. At the same time, the management spoke out publicly about the problem—from conviction and because it wanted to demonstrate to its customers abroad that the company would not let racism take root. However, Borowski also said that their stance had some negative consequences. There had been shitstorms and angry messages which tied up a lot of capacity. Nevertheless: “When it comes to defending democracy and standing up to right-wing radicalism, entrepreneurs have to dare to show their faces” (Tönnesmann 2019). • Ernst & Young and MTU: In the run-up to the state elections in Bavaria and Hesse in 2018, both the management consultancy and the engine manufacturer appealed to their staff not to vote for populist parties. EY boss Hubert Barth wrote an e-mail to all 10,000 employees in Germany saying that “many democratic achievements of which we are rightly proud are being called into question here in Germany.” The manager called on “all colleagues to make use of their right to vote in order to strengthen the democratic and constitutional forces in our country.” For Germany, he said, “the rule of law and our openness to the world are decisive locational advantages in global competition.” MTU‘s senior management wrote in a letter to the group’s workforce that “isolation at the political or economic level will not bring about any progress.” Xenophobia and racism should have no place anywhere (Bidder 2018). • Various US corporations: 59 bosses of large corporations such as Apple, JP Morgan Chase, and American Airlines criticized US President Donald Trump’s immigration policy in a joint letter. In its “legitimate review” of immigration rules, it says, the government needed to avoid changes that “upset the lives of thousands of law-abiding and skilled workers and cause significant damage to the competitiveness of the United States.” The labor shortage was already causing the number of unfilled positions to rise to (continued)

6.6 The CPR Fields of Action

147

historic highs. This was the wrong time to restrict “access to talent,” the executives wrote (FAZ 2018). • Airbus: In a video message in January 2019, former CEO Tom Enders pressed the British government to make a clear decision on Brexit: “The British aviation sector is now at a crossroads. Brexit threatens to undo a centuries-old development that was based on education, research and human capital. Should there be a no-deal Brexit, we will have to take decisions at Airbus that are potentially very painful for Britain. (. . .) It is a shame that more than 2 years after the referendum, companies still cannot plan properly for the future. (. . .) If you are truly convinced that Brexit is the best thing for Britain, get together and present a pragmatic exit agreement that will allow for an orderly Brexit” (FAZ 2019). Here, Enders engages in CEO Activism by taking a position on a political issue. • Starbucks: Especially in the United States, Starbucks has developed a strong political brand. To strengthen civic engagement and thus the democratic process, Starbucks supports initiatives to make voter registration easier by using a digital tool (Starbucks 2016a). Very early on, the coffee chain also set an example against racism and for equal rights for LGBT people. It also promotes initiatives that strive for higher voter turnout. These actions are supported by the extensive network of coffee shops in the United States (Starbucks 2020). In addition—and this actually belongs in the fourth action field (Public Goods)—Starbucks was one of the first publicly listed American companies to pay for its employees’ health insurance (including parttime workers). For several years now, Starbucks has also been supporting employees in obtaining a university degree (Starbucks 2016b). Through this comprehensive commitment, Starbucks has created a strong sociopolitical fundament in the United States. This creates the conditions for being able to justify its existence even in the event of a crisis.

6.6.3

Political Participation Projects

With political participation projects, companies support the political selforganization forces of society. With a civic attitude, they become practical shapers of the community in which they operate and on whose functioning they depend. This is not just about strategies for influencing politics, but also about concrete initiatives for revitalizing the public sphere. All the better if these also encourage more people to get engaged in political parties. Political participation projects always aim to create synergy between sociopolitical and corporate added value. In practical terms, businesses can support such projects in a number of different ways given their extensive resources: finances

148

6

Managing the Political Brand

(sponsoring), organizational experience (designing events, invitations, moderation, etc.), expertise in content, legal and management know-how, or the use of networks and contacts. The example of the anti-foreigner Pegida marches in Saxony has shown what happens when society’s center—and this includes business—fails to engage in political participation. Society and business initially reacted with great restraint to the marches and their slogans; their reaction was slow and not very forceful (Meisner and Birnbaum 2015). This resulted in reputational damage that affected business (ZEIT Online 2015) as well as the academic community. Saxony’s Minister of Economic Affairs, Martin Dulig, said that “international scientists and specialists are now difficult to attract to Saxony” (Greive 2015). Dresden’s Technical University will be suffering for years to come: Its efforts to recruit foreign students took a major hit from the devastating image painted by the xenophobic Pegida demonstrations. Companies cannot remain indifferent to such developments as they depend on talent and qualified workers, including those from the region. Companies can set a counterpoint and organize participation formats to make it possible for public concerns to be raised and solutions to be worked out as early on as possible. They can bring key stakeholders together and create a basis for discussing and balancing interests. This approach has a preventive character. It is speculative, but if there had been a lively, decentralized democratic culture of debate and participation in the years before the Pegida demonstrations, the damage to Saxony’s reputation would probably have been less severe. Political Education The aim of political education is to contribute to the formation and development of active citizenship and of socio-political participation. According to the Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung (Federal Agency for Civic Education), it is based on the assumption “that people are not simply born as democrats, but that democracy must be learned anew from generation to generation” (Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung, undated).3 Democracy is demanding because it involves addressing complex realities in a public discourse. Or, to quote former German President Joachim Gauck: “Politics is not about cutting Gordian knots, politics is about tough confrontation and the patient drilling of very thick planks” (Hoffmann and Gorris 2019). Yet this is exactly what makes politics so vulnerable to impatience and simplifications, especially in times of fast-moving and

“Political education initiates and organizes educational processes which are about determining our individual relationship to the political. (. . .) Political education, however, is only one of several instances of political socialization. It is in competition with other influential factors or interacts with them. The media, political parties, and the direct social environment also shape the political attitudes and decisions of every individual. Today, political education in Germany is provided by numerous institutions with different ideological orientations. Over the decades, structures of selforganization and self-reflection have developed. A separate discipline has been established, which continuously holds debates about goals, the selection of content and fields of action, and the justification of principles and methods. All in all, it is a professional landscape that is richly complex compared to other countries” (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, undated).

3

6.6 The CPR Fields of Action

149

heated debates. The historian Joachim Fest published a book in 1994 with the title “Difficult freedom. About the open flank of the open society.” This open flank consists of the fact that simplistic populist interventions threaten freedom all the time. Here, democratic actors must make a permanent effort of persuasion. It is time to think about how and where this important task of political education can be achieved in the future, and what role companies can play in this. When conscription was still in force, the Bundeswehr was often referred to as the “school of the nation.” Here, people with different social backgrounds came together to do their civic duty together. With civic education as a regular subject, the Bundeswehr also played an important integrative role during reunification (Schönbohm 2010). For some years now, citizens have delegated their contribution to the security of our society to a professional army. In this new and much smaller Bundeswehr, lessons in politics and social studies are even more important because a professional army does not have the same close links to its customers, the citizens, as a conscript army. Where institutions such as the Bundeswehr no longer reach as many people as in the past, companies become even more important. They reach the vast majority of adult people in all their diversity. They do not need to become the “new school of the nation,” but they can take steps to strengthen political education in their factories and offices. From a socio-political perspective, this opportunity should not go unused. Nor should it be missed from an entrepreneurial perspective if we follow the logic of the CPR attitude. Similar to community organizing, businesses could initiate, support, or implement projects of political education. In this, they would be guided by discussions with their workforce about socio-political issues affecting their business activities. Worthwhile topics include free trade, Europe, migration, climate change, populism, digitalization, and the future of work. And, of course, the philosophical and institutional foundations of our liberal democracy. Another example of political education is to support campaigns for democracy and the use of the right to vote. Many US companies, for example, support broad-based election appeals. The former CEO of Innogy, Peter Terium, demonstrated his political acumen with the founding of the corporate alliance “We4Europe” in mid-2017. Participating companies such as Deutsche Bank, Telekom, and Lufthansa jointly committed to an open, united, and strong Europe as a project for peace and freedom and as the basis for the prosperity of hundreds of millions of people. “We4Europe” wants to bring attention back to the advantages of the EU and of economic and political integration: the common market with the free trading of goods and services, the dismantling of borders and language barriers, and the meeting of people. We4Europe stresses that we live and work in an international environment. For this reason, the companies taking part support all sections of society that are committed to the unification of Europe and call for a close alliance between politics, business, and society (Innogy, undated). Innogy has thus conducted European debates with its employees, especially young talents—a form of in-company political training, so to speak. This is how Terium describes the program: “We have started an intensive dialogue. We discuss

150

6

Managing the Political Brand

the topic on the intranet via live chats and of course in smaller groups. (. . .) We want to educate people about Europe and show them the good sides of it without hiding the need for reform in some areas. (. . .) Every manager can start this dialogue with his employees without any mistrust. And the employees have families and neighbors. You can reach a lot of people that way.” Terium recognizes that managers have a certain obligation to take a stand: “We are part of society, and when you are in an elevated position in society, you have the responsibility to form an opinion on socially relevant issues and to express it if necessary” (Innogy, undated). Once a company has established the form and the processes of holding sociopolitical discussions, it could even organize dialogues with representatives of political parties. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a large company inviting a representative panel of various candidates in the run-up to elections so that employees can form their own opinions. Such an action would not involve taking the side of any particular party, but it would be an indirect appeal to employees to make active use of their democratic rights and to take politics seriously. Deutsche Telekom opted for a somewhat lower profile when taking a position prior to the EU elections in May 2019: At the start of the workday, it welcomed employees at its headquarters in Bonn with information about the European elections. A display with the lettering “Wahl-O-Mat” showed that Deutsche Telekom was cooperating with the Federal Agency for Civic Education to help employees find out about the priorities of the various parties standing for the European Parliament. CEO Timotheus Höttges also gave an impressive speech at the company headquarters, calling on his employees to vote. He said that Europe was of great importance for the corporation, but also for him personally, as he had used Interrail train tickets to explore various countries in Europe in his youth (Kolf 2019). Companies could emphasize the importance of subject matters such as politics or democratic and social studies, which examine the foundations of the state, of business, and society. The ideal should be a kind of studium generale in contrast to a short-sighted economic instrumentalization of education. If this impulse came from business itself, it would be particularly credible. Also, textbooks should focus more strongly on the interface between politics and business and show that they are open to the political responsibility of companies.4 Companies could also lobby for more and better lessons about politics in vocational schools. Similarly, business management curricula could teach political education more comprehensively. To put this topic on the agenda as a matter of urgency, companies should use their political contacts and appropriate communication measures. In conclusion, there is a wide choice of measures that companies can implement. But the message to employees and the public is always clear: For us, democratic participation is truly important! We take on socio-political responsibility!

4 Publishers are interested in this topic, too. The Verlag Westermann published a piece by the author on CPR in one of its textbooks (Bohnen 2017).

6.6 The CPR Fields of Action

151

Example: The Atlantic Initiative e.V. Here, the author may be permitted to present an initiative of which he was a co-founder: the Atlantic Initiative (AI), a project of political education in foreign policy. It was established in 2004 as an independent, non-partisan, and non-profit association to contribute to the strengthening of the foreign policy culture in Germany. To the founders, it is important to improve networking between the various sections of society (politics, business, science, culture, and the media) and to help them communicate with each other. The most important concern is to connect current and future decision makers and to use innovative methods to bring representatives of the next generation into contact with each other. The Atlantic Initiative acts from the conviction that the strength of the American–European partnership is central to defending the common interests and values of the West. The transatlantic agenda today is global. This includes a process of affirmation of our normative heritage: Democracy, the rule of law, human rights, individual freedom, equality, and cultural diversity are the basis for tackling the problems of the twenty-first century. Ultimately, therefore, what is at stake are the regulatory principles of world politics and the ability of “the West” to vigorously bring its perspective and interests to bear. It is only possible to promote close transatlantic relations if their significance is understood by as many citizens as possible. Accordingly, the guiding principle of the Atlantic Initiative is “Foreign Policy for Everybody.” To bring this idea to life, the Atlantic Initiative has established an online think tank (atlantic-community.org), a newsletter (Global Must Reads), several series of events (including Atlantic Happy Hour, Future of the West), exchange programs (atlantic-expedition.org) and many other activities (e.g., a support campaign for German soldiers on missions abroad). For its work, the initiative has repeatedly received financial and organizational support from the German government and independent foundations, but also from companies. The goals of the association are very well suited to the profile of international corporations such as Daimler, Lufthansa, BP, or Deutsche Post. The Atlantic Initiative has also held joint events, e.g., with Daimler about CSR, when the debate about companies’ responsibility to society was just beginning. The aim of these activities has always been to influence the social climate through foreign policy training. Public Change Management Public Change Management (PCM) offers further possibilities for political participation. The concept of PCM is newly introduced here as a continued development of internal change management. It is about modernization processes in the public sphere, which can be initiated by business. In a PCM process, companies and other publicly relevant actors are required to contribute their expertise to the political process. The goal is to jointly develop and implement visions for the future of a city, a region, or a country. Politics, business, NGOs, organized citizens’ groups, and other actors pull together and renew the public sphere through their joint initiatives and actions. These multi-stakeholder alliances work on the base of confidence-building measures (change of perspective, etc.), agreement on common ground and interests, changes in organizational procedures, and by completing sub-projects to move toward an agreed target. PCM works with

152

6

Managing the Political Brand

existing methods, but also tests new approaches, for instance, design thinking, where multidisciplinary teams work together in “variable” spaces, i.e., spaces sufficiently flexibly equipped for the creative process, to solve problems and develop new ideas. The design thinking process has six steps: understanding (defining the problem space), observing (developing empathy for users and those affected), defining the viewpoint (gathering and condensing findings), finding ideas (developing possible solutions plus focusing), developing prototypes (developing concrete solutions) and testing (testing the prototype with suitable target groups). The user’s point of view is of particular importance (Hasso-Plattner-Institut, undated). PCM amounts to having different socio-political actors jointly create value. For businesses, it has become essential to pursue financial success that simultaneously brings social benefits—known as “shared value”—for two reasons: First, the legitimacy of business is questioned more intensely if corporate success is not sustainably aligned with the interests of the wider society. Second, many of the world’s problems, from income inequality to climate change, have become so complex that their solution requires the expertise and global reach of the private sector. No business works in isolation; each exists in an ecosystem where social conditions can constrain its markets or reduce the productivity of its suppliers and distributors. These conditions are often beyond the control of a company or of individual actors. It is therefore in their own interest that companies should be involved in governance tasks and work with governments, NGOs, and sometimes even competitors. A simple example is the development and modernization of inner cities, which always has a socio-political dimension. The obvious winners of cooperation in this domain are actors from the retail trade, tourism, and culture. But if the PCM process is carried out correctly, civil society can benefit from attractive housing and improved infrastructure. The completely new development of an urban area, such as Hamburg’s Speicherstadt, is another regional example. The direct and comprehensive cooperation of major international cities represents a somewhat broader opportunity to learn from each other and develop potential. The American food company Mars, known for its chocolate bars, offers a particularly convincing example. This company obtains a large proportion of its cocoa from the Ivory Coast. Like Starbucks in the coffee sector, Mars works with NGOs, local governments, and direct competitors to improve the lives of more than half a million impoverished cocoa farmers in this West African country. Better farming practices strengthen both the sustainability of Mars’ value chain and the farmers’ yields. The multisectoral cooperation is extensive, from financing new roads to promoting health care, nutrition, and education in cocoa farming communities. Mars is also working with competitors to find solutions to reach farmers outside of its value chain (Kania and Kramer 2011). Their cooperation includes infrastructure development, health, and education. However, there is still a clear overlap with CSR measures, which include cooperating with NGOs to help design sustainable supply chains. We can expect more such political projects in the future.

6.6 The CPR Fields of Action

153

“Community Organizing,” which originated in the United States and which former US President Barack Obama practiced for years in Chicago is an illustrative example of the potential of PCM processes. Ideally, companies with management know-how finance and support local dialogue platforms where social groups can discuss their proposals for improving the community with local politicians. This kind of community work is based on the American tradition of having private initiatives supporting community concerns, i.e., to try and address problems without immediately calling for the state, and to regard democracy as something in which all citizens participate. The inhabitants of a city district are empowered to actively stand up for their own interests, which, depending on the context, can even be directed against particular companies. In Germany, we should also cultivate the element of taking responsibility for ourselves that is expressed in community organizing. We would be working together to strengthen our liberal social order at the root, so to speak, and to relieve the burden on the state. Community organizing helps develop the best visions for the future of our society in a dynamic “market of ideas.” Such platforms have existed in Berlin since 1999, bringing various actors of a city district together with the financial support of the Generali Zukunftsfonds, the Körber Foundation, and the BMW Foundation (DICO, undated). Particularly in the case of large infrastructure and investment projects, companies should reach out to society by offering participation processes. This will not only bolster acceptance but can also serve to create links to established political institutions. Representative and participatory processes—which often lead to controversial public debate—can be balanced. In Germany, examples include the deepening of the Elbe for the Port of Hamburg, the expansion of runways at Frankfurt Airport, the “Stuttgart 21” train station redevelopment, and the construction of wind energy power lines across Germany. All these projects require complicated compromises between various stakeholders. The difficulty of reconciling those interests clearly shows that organizing debates around those processes have become a core task of companies. Otherwise, important infrastructure modernization projects will fall by the wayside. For such large projects, entrepreneurs want politicians and public authorities to be effective and take rapid decisions. They desire planning security, i.e., ultimately a strong state. However, the state is only strong if there is room for finely tuned interaction between many social players. These negotiation processes are complicated and require practice; authoritarian regimes depend on them to a much lesser extent. In Western democracies, however, there is an explicit wish to have different social stakeholders exert influence. Those who want more participation cannot necessarily expect more speed. The only solution is to increase the professionalism and thus the efficiency of PCM processes. To avoid time-consuming and bureaucratic “excesses,” for instance, in the planning and participation processes, courage and good leadership are required in all areas. The CPR attitude affects the company’s self-image, including as a “political organization.” It is a cultural issue, namely one of the political culture in the company, with a formative influence in the public sphere.

154

6

Managing the Political Brand

Companies, chambers of commerce, and all other actors in PCM processes should always seek to underpin the legitimacy and credibility of politics when they actively initiate renewal processes. Yet they are important actors who can provide impulses, make conceptual proposals, contribute resources, and act as coordinators and facilitators. They can identify, together with politicians, projects and measures that have particular potential to create value for the society as a whole. As a result, this a CPR field of action that seeks to do justice to the increasing complexity of social and political challenges. The potential of this type of political participation, the PCM processes, is still massively underestimated—both in terms of stabilizing social cohesion and creating economic value. In the following, three PCM projects are presented in which the author played a leading role. One was a non-profit, voluntary project (the Policy Festival) and two were professional consultancy projects, the future-oriented project “How do we want to live tomorrow?” for the Federal Chancellery in 2009, and the “Perspektive Bremen 2020” which was implemented in 2010 for the local Chamber of Commerce. The first German political festival was initiated by the non-profit association Respublica on October 3 and 4, 2013, in Paretz near Potsdam; its motto was “Revive Democracy” (Bohnen 2014). Under the patronage of the President of the Federal Republic, a total of 77 events were organized for the anniversary of German reunification, involving around 150 participants and 1500 citizens. The idea of the event was the following: Citizens, by acquiring methods and instruments that are normally only available to financially potent companies and organizations, can interact with politicians on an equal footing. This promotes the professionalization of civic engagement which leads to a politicization of society in the best sense. The goal is to show that “politics can work” (as the initiating association Respublica both claims and promises), that you can have a “learning democracy.” As a result, you also gain an instrument to counter the disenchantment with politics. The political festival thus represents a place to create momentum, where communication between active citizens and political decision makers can succeed in the long term. It was inspired by Scandinavian models. In Gotland, Bornholm, and Pori, the mixture of celebrating democracy and developing democracy has already proved its worth. The political festival in Paretz was supported by the Helga-Breuninger and the BMW Foundation as well as the Federal Agency for Civic Education and the Bundesnetzwerk Bürgerschaftliches Engagement (Federal Network for Civic Engagement). Deutsche BP, which has been involved in political responsibility concepts for many years, was the only major company to support the festival financially (Politikfestival, undated). Two further examples of PCM, in which the author was involved as a process consultant and moderator, describe public or semi-public initiatives: In 2009, the Federal Chancellery initiated the so-called “Chancellery Process,” a platform for an expert dialogue, which took the title “How do we want to live tomorrow? Germany one generation on”. The US academic Tim O’Reilly (2010) had designed the approach of “government as a platform.” He is part of the “open government” movement, which operates under the premise that a government is

6.6 The CPR Fields of Action

155

essentially a mechanism for collective action. The movement’s goal is to get both government and administration to open themselves up to business and citizens. Innovations and the common good are strengthened by increased transparency and intensive cooperation. Over a period of several months, more than 50 experts from all relevant areas of society were invited to the chancellery for regular workshop discussions. At these meetings, leading futurologists for the first time presented common thesis papers. The aim was to identify long-term social trends as well as self-images and models of German society in a structured dialogue as a basis for sustainable policy consulting. The three leading questions of the process were: 1. How will we live tomorrow? (Input from futurologists). 2. How do we want to live tomorrow? (Input from external experts). 3. What must we do today so that we can live the way we want to tomorrow? (Action—policy consulting). The results of the final study were designed to support political leadership, both as food for thought and as a basis for long-term government action. They were first presented internally to Thomas de Maizière, then Minister of the Chancellery. The process culminated in a Future Congress on May 18, 2009, with Chancellor Angela Merkel as the keynote speaker. The process was accompanied by the author Peter Felixberger (2009) and documented for the public in the form of a book. This open government process is in a certain sense the equivalent of CPR. Both government and business open themselves up to the public sphere and its actors and look for new approaches to finding solutions—that’s public change management. Second example: The Chamber of Commerce of the city of Bremen took the initiative in 2009/10 (Perspective Bremen 2020) and 2015 (Perspective BremenBremerhaven 2030) to bring together key players in the city to take stock and develop an action plan for five central issues. In 2010, numerous working group meetings on defined topics were accompanied by public events. These took place alternately in the town hall and the Schütting, the house of Bremen’s business community. Politicians and representatives of business, science, culture, and other areas jointly developed concrete proposals for government action. This cooperation was more than a symbolic closing of ranks. It was based on a new, closely coordinated participation process that changed decision-making processes in the city’s society and strengthened mutual trust (Chamber of Commerce, undated). The last example: The organization JoinPolitics aims to strengthen democracy and protect the values of the German constitution by helping young people who are politically engaged to start political candidacies, initiate new movements, or found civil society initiatives. It makes generous funds and professional networking available to them. The JoinPolitics program offers teams with a great potential the opportunity to test and implement their ideas in a secure economic framework without influencing their content (JoinPolitics).

156

6

Managing the Political Brand

Corporate Alliances and Initiatives Companies have a wide range of possibilities to influence political parameters outside of their usual membership in associations, e.g., through ad hoc alliances. One example: Following an initiative of Vorwerk, 50 family-owned companies jointly launched the campaign “Made in Germany— Made by Diversity” (Campillo-Lundbeck 2019). In view of the intensified political debates on migration, entrepreneurs including Kienbaum, Otto, and Bahlsen set an example of tolerance. With advertisements in leading German media and posters in 15 major cities, they illustrated why they called their campaign “Made in Germany” and not “Made by Germans.” “Every day, employees from all over the world do their best for us. To ensure that it stays that way, we stand for a Germany that is open to the world.” For Timm Mittelsten Scheid, Vorwerk shareholder, and a member of the Vorwerk entrepreneurial family, the campaign is about making a constructive contribution to shaping migration. He believes politics is leaving a gap here and was pleased to find enthusiastic collaborators among his fellow entrepreneurs. Fabian Kienbaum, Chief Empowerment Officer at the Kienbaum personnel consultancy, agrees: “As a family business, we are aware of our socio-political responsibility. By taking part in the initiative, we are committing ourselves to an open culture, and we want to set an example in promoting tolerance and cosmopolitanism.” The Vorwerk campaign shows that German family entrepreneurs already possess virtues that the rest of the business community should emulate: a political self-image and an orientation toward the common good. Incidentally, it also becomes clear that dialogue and intervention in the public sphere in favor of diversity ultimately also serve business interests. According to Thomas Voigt, Director of Economic Policy and Communication of the Otto Group, it is “a truth . . . which we experience in our company every day: People of the most diverse ethnicities can live and work together peacefully and without discrimination” (Campillo-Lundbeck 2019). This truth is important in terms of the business location and must be upheld. Another prominent example of a corporate alliance in favor of a socio-political topic is the “Initiative Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft” (INSM), to which the author contributed for 5 years during his time at the agency Scholz & Friends Berlin. The corporate initiative, which was led by the German electrical and electronics industry in the first decade of this century, was set up to restore the reputation of the social market economy and make people appreciate the institutional basis of Germany’s prosperity. Some core topics were the reduction of mass unemployment in 2003 and afterward, labor market reforms, social, financial, and tax policy, as well as education and federalism. After a kick-off year with events and publications on selected topics, a non-partisan group of “ambassadors” was founded, which shaped public debates in different ways. This was achieved with the help of an extensive campaign that used communication tools reaching from full-page advertisements in daily newspapers to various event formats. Examples include the “Refomer of the Year” event, a cartoon competition on “What is social?”, TV formats, and guerilla PR measures. The founders of the campaign aimed to create a win–win situation for businesses as well as for society.

6.6 The CPR Fields of Action

157

All of the measures presented here are based on a sophisticated reflection on the links between socio-political change and corporate action. The possibilities for creating meaningful projects are endless. Examples of Political Participation Projects • BVB/Daimler/Deutsche Bank/Deutsche Bahn/VW: The five companies have contributed one million euros each to the expansion of the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Israel. Deutsche Bahn, Deutsche Bank, Volkswagen, and Daimler see their own activities during the Nazi era as a particular reason why they should commemorate the victims of National Socialism. Borussia Dortmund made its commitment because of current social developments; it considers the rising anti-Semitism to be unacceptable (Mielke 2019). • AirBnB: Like other technology companies and platform operators, AirBnB is committed to fighting right-wing extremism. In the run-up to the neo-Nazi demonstration in Charlottesville in August 2017, AirBnB blocked the profiles of right-wing extremist users, thereby disrupting their logistics in arranging accommodation. CEO Brian Chesky said: “Violence, racism, and hatred, as shown by neo-Nazis and the old right-wing movement, should have no place in this world” (Kühl 2017). • Lyft: The transportation service provider offered US citizens a 50-percent discount on fares to the polling station during the congressional elections on November 6, 2018. Customers from disadvantaged communities with particularly poor transportation connections could use the service for free. In addition, Lyft customers were informed about election registration deadlines, and their employees were given the opportunity to register at the office. In its campaign to maximize voter participation, Lyft worked with initiatives such as Vote.org and When We All Vote (Lyft 2018). • Microsoft: In 2016, the company developed a special edition of its “Smart Mice” language learning software for refugee children, thus contributing to social integration and inclusion. The game version is available in Arabic, German, English, and French. Before playing, the children select the language in which they want to hear tasks and instructions for each individual game (Microsoft had initiated its “Smart Mice—Children Discover Language” program in 2003 to help children build up language skills. The company’s goal is to ensure that there are equal opportunities for as many pre-school children in Germany as possible when they start school) (Microsoft, undated). This example touches on both CSR and CPR. • Spotify: The music streaming service promoted voter participation in the European elections. Through the app, it messaged customers to remind them to cast their votes. This political action was given special weight by the fact that Spotify, with 70 million subscribers, is able to reach more than (continued)

158

6

Managing the Political Brand

a sixth of the eligible voters in the EU. Using the slogan “Get vocal, Europe!” Spotify put together a playlist featuring one artist for every EU country. The company justified its political intervention with the steady decline of voter participation in the European elections (Heath 2019). • Continental: On projects of socio-political participation, the human resources director can often play an important role. If that is the case, we are seeing a kind of extended CEO activism. According to Continental’s Chief Human Resources Officer Ariane Reinhart, the company offers 14-day internships to disadvantaged young people at locations in Hungary, Romania, Belgium, France, and Italy. As an international technology company, Continental knows “only too well,” says Reinhart, “how important and valuable the exchange across national borders and cultures is. It should be a matter of course for European companies to bring young people closer to a peaceful and united Europe.” To this end, Continental developed the initiative “We l.o.v.e. Europe.” The letters “l.o.v.e.” stand for “live our values every day.” Reinhart recognizes that it is in companies’ own interest to assume political responsibility and fight for the integrity of Europe: “The unmistakable uproar over ‘big politics’ in the EU and the EU member states is leaving its mark. Trust in the EU and the ‘idea of Europe’ is dwindling—or is not even developing among young people. In the long run, this is disastrous for everybody, including European companies: They benefit not only from peace and freedom in Europe, but also from a reliable legal framework as a component of common values.” Continental is keen to expand its own commitment and to have other German companies join a common project called “Experiencing Europe” which already involves Axel Springer, BASF, Deutz, Schaeffler, and Schmitz Cargobull (Reinhart 2017, p. 48). Continental’s commitment is CPR at its best. It even shows how a company can combine several political concerns, in this case, European cohesion and political youth education.

6.6.4

Provision of Collective Goods

A public or collective good is a good that is freely accessible and free of charge to all potential customers, because this is what society wants. While private goods are provided according to individual preferences and the market mechanism, the decision to produce public goods is the result of a collective decision-making process (Gablers Wirtschaftslexikon: Öffentliches Gut). Public goods can be provided not only by the state but also by private suppliers, for example, Internet suppliers such as Wikipedia (encyclopedia) or Facebook (public communication space). Their emergence can be interpreted as

6.6 The CPR Fields of Action

159

the result of a collective decision-making process that takes place without state intervention. There is a wide range of possibilities for companies to provide public goods that both directly benefit the company and strengthen the governance structures of society. In essence, it is about creating win–win solutions for business and the state or society. Company kindergartens are a convincing example of a public good: They make it easier to have a family and a career, and they contribute to early childhood education. Both the community and the companies benefit from better educational infrastructure and the removal of barriers to family and career planning. The “Initiative Beruf und Familie” of the Hertie Foundation, for example, carries out an audit and certifies companies as family-friendly. This includes the possibility of using the certificate for advertising (berufundfamilie service GmbH 2020). Other examples of common goods in which companies can participate are sports fields, swimming pools, libraries, and other infrastructure measures such as road construction or renaturation. Civil society projects or political education and leadership training can lead toward the provision of public goods in the sense of our third field of action. In the area of “Responsible Leadership,” the BMW Foundation, for example, brings leaders from all over the world together and works with them on concrete projects such as “sustainable cities” or “resilient societies” (BMW Foundation n.d.). If the state does not provide such services itself, it must be able to rely on private actors taking responsibility; otherwise, it would have to keep its own resources available. In addition, there are numerous examples of (semi-)public enterprises and hybrid forms that provide public goods. In Germany, for example, the federal government still has a direct stake in more than one hundred companies. These include, for example, the airports BER, Munich, and Cologne and the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau as well as more unusual companies such as Bayreuther Festspiele GmbH or LH Bundeswehr Bekleidungsgesellschaft mbH. In Commerzbank, which has been deemed “systemically relevant,” the German government still holds a good 15 percent of the shares in return for its support during the financial crisis in 2009 (Jahberg et al. 2018). Above all, however, the privatization of formerly state-owned companies shows that companies can in principle assume responsibility for essential governance infrastructures. Think of the postal service, telecoms, or the railways. The steel magnate Alfred Krupp is behind the historic case of a company providing a collective good: the Krupp housing construction. At the beginning of the 1860s, there was a severe housing shortage in the city of Essen due to the immigration of workers attracted by the expanding mining and steel industries. Alfred Krupp reacted by developing housing for workers. The first of those buildings, built in 1861/62, are known as “Meisterhäuser” (Wikipedia Meisterhäuser). Krupp relieved the state of the burden of providing housing and at the same time helped his company’s economic growth. In view of the worldwide trend toward urbanization and the increasing shortage of housing in urban agglomerations, the case is certainly topical.

160

6

Managing the Political Brand

In the United States, Microsoft announced in early 2019 that it would provide a total of 500 million dollars to promote affordable housing and combat homelessness in the neighborhood of its Seattle headquarters. The economic success of tech companies such as Microsoft, Apple, and Google has brought immense prosperity to the west coast of the United States. But it has also raised the cost of living, including house prices and rents. With its initiative, which is largely based on loans, Microsoft follows the motto “A healthy company must be part of a healthy community” (Lindner 2019).5 Meanwhile, in Silicon Valley, Google and Facebook are working to build thousands of homes near their headquarters. The flats will not be reserved exclusively for company employees; some of them are intended for low-income households. In the meantime, the business community is split over proposals to levy a special tax on large companies to finance the fight against housing shortages and homelessness. Amazon and Starbucks successfully opposed such a tax in Seattle. In San Francisco, it was approved by referendum—with the support of Salesforce, but against the will of Twitter (Lindner 2019). Obviously, there are numerous borderline cases in the provision of public goods. The American pizza supplier Domino’s, for example, pays poor cities money to do road repairs. Domino’s then stages the filling of potholes as an advertising campaign. The pizza chain requires the road workers to spray Domino’s company logo and advertising slogans in lime paint on the repaired tarmac. Critics complain that such actions relieve local politicians of their responsibility (von Petersdorff 2018). Another illustrative governance project was initiated by Adidas and carried out in cooperation with Parley for the Oceans, an organization for the protection of the oceans. Together, they are working on solutions to recycle floating waste and to reduce marine pollution, says CEO Kasper Rorsted. In 2017, Adidas sold more than one million pairs of running shoes made from recycled ocean plastic. In 2018, production was increased to more than five million pairs. In 2019, Adidas had already targeted 11 million pairs, representing approximately 2810 tons of plastic waste that would otherwise pollute the oceans. Adidas (2019) plans to switch to recycled polyester for all products by 2024, reduce its carbon footprint by 30% by 2030, and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. The ocean plastic example aims at moving closer to a circular economy. Rorsted is highly aware of the socio-political expectations that companies are facing. Especially young customers, he says, are looking for ways to get involved in society and make a difference. Young people are used to complexity and uncertainty, and their individual behavior is strongly influenced by what is happening in the world at large (Knop 2017).

5

Lindner (2019) quotes a Microsoft blog in his piece.

6.6 The CPR Fields of Action

161

Examples for the Provision of General Public Goods • Vaude Sport GmbH & Co. KG: The outdoor equipment supplier based in Tettnang-Obereisenbach (Baden-Württemberg) was co-initiator of a new bus line that connected the remote location to the public transport network. The “Bähnle-Linie,” which was introduced in 2013, improved the infrastructure for both VAUDE employees and local residents (Vaude 2018). • IKEA: In the United States, the furniture company has been offering all employees up to four months paid parental leave since 2017. This applies regardless of the weekly working hours, though there are limits for employees with less than 1 year of service. The United States, there is no statutory parental leave. IKEA is confident that employees who can spend time with their families are happier and therefore do better work (Weber 2016). • Amazon/JPMorgan/Warren Buffet (Berkshire Hathaway): Amazon, JPMorgan, and Warren Buffet first announced the establishment of a health insurance company for their employees (which may possibly become open to all US citizens) (Spiegel Online 2018a). In addition, Amazon is now planning clinics for its employees. Basic medical care is to be established at the headquarters in Seattle (Spiegel Online 2018b). The consortium, which has taken the name “Haven,” is pursuing the goal of providing employees with affordable and tailored healthcare services, supported by data analysis and technology (Farr 2019). • Apple: The iPhone manufacturer has also initiated its own hospitals for employees and their families and plans to operate health centers. As in the case of Amazon, the aim is to reduce the high costs of healthcare in the United States. Around 160 million Americans are insured through their employers, so there is an incentive for companies to limit healthcare spending. At the same time, the clinics can serve as test laboratories for Apple products and services related to health (Lindner 2018). All of this adds up to an ambivalent case. Katarina Barley, then German Minister of Justice, clearly distanced herself from Amazon: “If large corporations, which already know a lot about individual behavior, also get our health data, privacy will soon disappear completely. . .” She spoke of a “crass example” of a “questionable combination.” The consequences of such a commitment could not yet be assessed (Tagesspiegel 2019).

Examples for the Provision of Digital Public Goods • Salesforce: In 2017, the technology company awarded $12.2 million to public schools in the Bay Area to improve the teaching of computer (continued)

162

6

Managing the Political Brand

science. Overall, the company donated around $35 million in San Francisco and Oakland over the past few years. The computer courses also benefit girls, refugees, and other groups previously underrepresented in the IT world and improve career prospects for them. In this sense, the initiative is helping to train the next generation of IT professionals, perhaps even Salesforce’s own employees (Kelly 2017). • Google services such as the search engine, Gmail, and Google Maps represent a borderline case. Are these CPR-related public goods? On the one hand, they can be used free of charge, so they are not a traditional sales product. They are valuable for the customer, provide access to information, and enable exchange. Yet it would be inappropriate to classify them as CPR. The services mentioned are Google’s core business: They are not an add-on to the “real” business model, they are the business model itself. This is also where the argument of supposedly being free breaks down. After all, the customer does pay—not with money, but with his data. It is the collection and linking of this data that makes Google so interesting for advertisers. It could be argued that a company which provides consumers— and citizens—with a huge treasure trove of knowledge is already performing an eminent socio-political service. That’s true—but so are car manufacturers which enable mobility, telecommunications companies or energy providers which guarantee critical data or electricity infrastructures, and banks which form the basis of our financial system. All these companies create public goods with their regular business activities and are therefore socially relevant. If CPR were to be content with this, the concept would be empty. It would only describe what is the case anyway: Entrepreneurial products and services serve a social demand. CPR emphasizes, however, that entrepreneurial activity is only possible in a functioning state. Companies should, therefore, go beyond their business activities and use resources to stabilize state institutions in the long term. A concrete example: Google engages in CPR when it helps the state to combat cybercrime or the coronavirus and thus sustainably secures its own business environment (Elias 2020). But making money with user data is not CPR, it is simply modern digital capitalism. • Amazon/Microsoft/Google (Cooperation with public authorities): Here’s another borderline case worth discussing. Amazon sells its face recognition software “Recognition” to the police. Working directly with the state is sometimes viewed critically by the public, especially when it is about supporting the military and police with high tech. To employees and shareholders, it can seem contrary to the ethical values of the companies. Among other things, they do not want to support the establishment of a surveillance state that violates civil and human rights. Microsoft cooperates (continued)

6.6 The CPR Fields of Action

163

with the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, which separated migrant families at the border, in using AI support for the storage and analysis of data. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella called for an end to the practice of separating illegal immigrant parents from their children. At Google, employees resisted cooperation with the Ministry of Defense. Google had helped the Pentagon to use AI to better identify people, vehicles, weapon stores, and buildings on drone videos. The protesters said Google had no place in the “business of war.” Google has now decided not to extend the contract (Werner 2018). • Microsoft: The software and hardware manufacturer collects and processes information for the government on cybercrime activities directed against nation-states. The Digital Crimes Unit fights cybercrime worldwide in cooperation with law enforcement agencies, security companies, researchers, NGOs, and customers. The need for public–private partnerships is explicitly emphasized (Microsoft Digital Crimes Unit, undated). Microsoft’s help makes it possible to take political decisions— in extreme cases, even to order a military attack. Microsoft President Brad Smith, therefore, proposed a “Digital Geneva Convention” in 2017 to protect the public in cyberspace. On its website, Microsoft brings together various comments on this proposal from politicians and policy advisors. Microsoft (undated) also cooperates with the US government in detecting and combating “botnets,” thus contributing to the maintenance of the infrastructure of the Internet, including its own marketplace. Again, this is a borderline case that raises fundamental questions: Are companies allowed to decide (at least indirectly) about war and peace? How can the state and specialist firms obtain the necessary competence to judge cybercrime? Are public–private partnership activities realistic given that employees can be extremely critical? CPR activities should support the democratic state. However, many citizens refuse in some respects to engage with the state because they consider its actions to be contrary to their values. How should we deal with political commitment of that kind which means there that there is no perfect win–win situation? • Google and Microsoft represent a special case in another respect: In the United States, they scan emails sent with their services as well as managed cloud content for child pornography. If they get a hit, they forward the data of the sender and owner to the law enforcement agencies. The German news magazine Der Spiegel speaks polemically of “deputy sheriffs” (Schindler et al. 2016, pp. 126–127). This practice is particularly controversial in Germany as it compromises data protection. Different attitudes on data protection reflect a cultural issue: How much understanding and trust do citizens have in the state and to companies?

164

6

Managing the Political Brand

Here, we can draw an interim conclusion: The practical examples presented for the fields of action show that numerous corporate activities already exist which can be described as CPR measures or which at least clearly overlap with the CPR approach. However, a closer look at how socio-political responsibility is being exercised also shows that we are often dealing with borderline cases. Ambivalences arise as a result of (a) a crowding-out of responsibilities that primarily lie with the state; (b) the solving of problems that companies themselves created in the first place; (c) a possible exceedance of private competencies by interfering in core state areas such as security; (d) the instrumentalization of CPR as a marketing measure; or (e) the dilution of CPR by governance contributions that are only indirect, as in the case of cooperation between foundations. This last example deserves further consideration: The fundamental question is the following: To what extent do companies really engage in CPR when they are cooperating with external partners or outsourcing their political commitment? And what would be bad about that? Isn’t it the result that counts? But an important aspect of sustainable social commitment in the sense of the CPR concept is that political responsibility is not merely delegated, e.g., to associations, foundations, or non-governmental organizations, but is exercised directly. Especially, CEOs should use their authority and public image. As the face of the corporate brand in general and the political brand in particular, they bear special responsibility for the relationship with the public sphere. Such a personalization of CPR also offers an opportunity to create a striking political profile for the company. If a CEO interferes in public affairs, he or she is generally more likely to be noticed and generate resonance than a largely unknown representative of an association. However, if a company has a credible commitment to the socio-political foundations of doing business and forms alliances in the process, this can certainly be in the spirit of CPR, as we have already seen with public change management. Companies need not act in isolation. Their active participation should only be clearly visible and lasting. Businesses need to keep examining borderline cases like the ones described here. It is also not always easy to distinguish them from traditional CSR fields of action. After all, CSR is increasingly developing a political dimension. This is happening for good reasons that demonstrate the need for CPR. In the coming years, it will be important to find ways to confidently deal with borderline cases. Criterion 4 in political brand development is the most important guideline in this respect: Do the activities of the company generate socio-political—or better, political—added value? In other words: Do they strengthen the governance of society? Two important questions ensue: • Is the primacy of the political respected? • Is the company directly responsible for the political activity?

6.7 The Planning of CPR Measures

6.7

165

The Planning of CPR Measures

The political brand should first be planned in one or more of the presented fields of action. It is then underpinned by concrete CPR measures. Planning, i.e., creating the necessary conditions for implementation, involves four central areas: • • • •

Identifying and defining topics. Developing communications. Structuring the organization. Ensuring evaluation and quantification.

6.7.1

Identifying and Defining Topics

As a starting point for concrete CPR measures, companies should think about two overall questions which can be used to identify suitable topics for the company: (a) What can strengthen society and its (political) institutions? Or, formulated in the negative: Which developments can undermine the social and political foundations of a successful business? (b) What concrete contributions can be made with the political brand and the specific strengths of the company? • For which traditional policy fields and cross-sectoral issues is it worth making a corporate contribution? • In which CPR field of action should this be done? Many socio-political contributions are possible in traditional policy fields (inspired by policy departments such as economics, culture, or transport). Here are some examples of approaches to CPR engagements: • Research and development (Federal Ministry of Education and Research): In this field, great efforts and investments are necessary to ensure that Germany and Europe do not lag behind in the key technologies of this century. ! To prevent the best researchers from migrating to the United States and China, networks and financial incentives are needed. Policymakers need to take concrete measures to strengthen innovation (concerning, e.g., digitalization issues such as artificial intelligence) as a prerequisite for prosperity, social policy, and ecological progress. Companies can support these measures through high-profile work of their own. Every possible effort should be made to strengthen the mental conditions for supporting research and development. If we can create a new sense of optimism, it will fuel innovation and create a positive climate for startups, underpinned by a sense of responsibility for the consequences for society. Such thoughts should be reflected in corporate communication (field of action two: topics and dialogues).

166

6

Managing the Political Brand

• Foreign, European, and Security Policy (Chancellery, Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Federal Ministry of Defense): The EU is invaluable for civil society and business as an institution that safeguards peace and prosperity. From a business perspective, particularly the internal market, with the free movement of labor, goods, services, and capital, is a valuable asset. During the European election campaign, many companies recognized the urgent need to strengthen the EU. For example, CEOs of Germany’s south-west—home to Bosch, Trumpf, and Porsche—clearly and publicly rejected nationalist tendencies in the run-up to the European elections. The industrial associations of Italy, France, and Germany also campaigned for the European elections. Such numerous appeals and activities are an ideal “gateway” for more in-depth CPR involvement in the coming years. But the periphery of Europe should also urgently receive more attention as demonstrated by the issues of refugees and borders security. Contributing to a stable security architecture in Europe—and this also means creating development prospects for the African continent and the Arab world—is a major challenge in terms of CPR measures. The stabilization of Africa is essential to the stability of Europe. We need to help in the establishment of safe countries of origin to keep people from having to leave their homeland. If our commitment is not to remain an empty phrase, concrete projects must be developed. Tunisia, for example, could be chosen as a beacon project for democratic consolidation. In October 2011, it held the freest and fairest elections of all African countries. Tunisia also is small enough as a country to make support measures manageable. The conditions for success after the elections were good, but there was too little concerted international support. Companies could—in their own interest—deploy their resources to flank development efforts by the Tunisian state and the supporting European countries. Tunisia’s success could become a model for the North African region. By stabilizing governance structures, companies would also create conditions for comprehensive market entry. In other words: It is a win–win situation with CPR as a business case. With Donald Trump in the White House, the American security guarantee for other NATO states has become uncertain. This requires a vigorous and rapid rethinking of politics, business, and society. Having governments pay lip-service to Europe’s responsibility in the world is no longer enough. Europe must truly become a strong and responsible player in international politics. Otherwise, it risks becoming a pawn in power games between countries such as China, Russia, and America under Trump, which are strongly oriented toward narrow national interests and do not share in our preference for multilateralism and the associated regulatory frameworks. Yet Germany has been thinking and acting mostly in terms of peace dividends since the end of the Cold War. As a result, the Bundeswehr has been bled dry, and the German government is unable to meet its pledge to increase defense spending to at least two percent of gross domestic product by 2024. At the same time, the threats to the European continent have massively increased over the past decade, from the conflict in Crimea to Syria to North Africa.

6.7 The Planning of CPR Measures

167

NATO and the partnership with the United States remain of paramount importance for Germany’s security. This includes keeping trade routes safe, as in the Strait of Hormuz. The transatlantic partnership must be maintained even in difficult times. But in the future, Europe should be able to act and defend itself on its own if necessary. Creating the necessary material, organizational, and mental conditions for this will be a major effort. Without the support of German companies and their associations, success is unlikely. What is particularly needed, are contributions to building public support for strengthening the Bundeswehr and thus our ability to form alliances. Given the prevailing attitudes among the population and thus among consumers, supporting foreign and security policy within the framework of CPR is a very demanding task. Yet peaceful and politically stable markets are a prerequisite for a market economy and successful business. Germany urgently needs to engage in a more serious European and security policy debate. For that, we depend on citizens and civil society actors to recognize foreign policy interdependencies and provide constructive support to policymakers. For an export-dependent country and a beneficiary of globalization like Germany, this is an existential question. Without popular support, the national room for maneuver is limited; the government tends to be powerless and lacks credibility vis-à-vis other countries. This opens up a wide field for debate and political education. Certainly, armaments companies and their suppliers, or large corporations (Lufthansa, DHL, VW, etc.) and retail chains are particularly aware of the importance of these issues. But ultimately, all companies must have an interest in a robust foreign, European, and security policy. Here too, field of action two (topics and dialogues) can provide some orientation for long-term and constructive contributions; PCM processes or alliances (see the model of the New Social Market Economy Initiative in the business sector) can be set up. In this way, individual companies that dare to break cover and deal with difficult issues won’t lose out. On which cross-sectoral issues are social contributions conceivable? Crosssectoral issues are at the basis of every traditional policy department. They can be addressed by any company, regardless of the industry. These are the most important examples: • • • • • •

Political education/personality development. Leadership Skills. Vibrant debating culture (as a prerequisite for social innovation). Social cohesion/democratic resilience/promotion of a political civil society. Investigative journalism. Maintenance of democratic institutions/governance in administration and politics.

168

6

Managing the Political Brand

Examples containing elements of CPR engagement on cross-section issues: • Cohesion and debating culture: There are concerns that the public sphere may be fragmenting, a process that is being reinforced by social media. As a consequence, the social debate may also be fragmenting; the ability to speak with each other is getting lost. By distorting facts and exaggerating the relativity of truth, conspiracy theories and hatred flourish, damaging social cohesion and ultimately democracy. Wolfgang Schäuble, President of the German Bundestag, put it in a nutshell. “What is it that keeps society together if it no longer has a common public sphere? This is the prerequisite for a functioning democracy.” (Steingart 2020) Problems also arise with regard to social coexistence: “If it is really true that solidarity is in decline, social and economic progress is at stake.” This is how sociologist Cornelia Koppetsch (2019, p. 10) concludes her review of the book “Solidarity” written by her colleague Heinz Bude. The democratic institutions have not yet found a convincing concept to counter this development. There is also a great deal of uncertainty among businesses about how to act in the social media, especially with regard to dialogue formats. The Berlin daily newspaper Tagesspiegel noted at the Berlin digital conference re:publica: “The fear of shitstorms is rampant in the press offices of institutions, parties, associations, and companies” (Herbold 2018). If you strike the wrong tone in a tweet, there is a great danger of antagonizing the Internet community. Companies are also disconcerted because they are coming through a period of disruption which especially affected companies that still had to find their way in the world of social media, says Axel Wallrabenstein. Nevertheless, he calls on companies to take heart and to actively use the new media for communication with relevant political stakeholders. Above all, he sees an opportunity for businesses: “There is a great willingness to listen, to approach each other, and to learn from each other” (Wallrabenstein 2019). Companies could, for example, consider making contributions on the ground in order to bridge the gap between two groups that are currently drifting apart: On the one side, there are the cosmopolitan elites, who benefit particularly from globalization and are increasingly moving outside the context of nation-state solidarity. On the other side, there are people to whom their national and regional community matters greatly because it is important for their identity and sense of belonging. Here, exciting formats of encounter could be developed to improve the ability of these two “worlds” to speak. • Political education: This is the cross-sectoral issue that may offer the greatest leverage. The greater the number of citizens who support this state deliberately and with conviction, the greater the chance of effectively countering dangers such as right-wing or left-wing extremism. It is advisable to link CPR measures to in-company training and employee qualification which are already considered very important, as Judith-Maria Gillies (2015) explains in brand eins. The aim is to create intelligent, dynamic ways of imparting and sharing knowledge, especially via e-learning platforms, in order to be able to respond quickly and precisely to customer requirements. In addition to information on business topics in the narrow sense of the term,

6.7 The Planning of CPR Measures

169

platforms could also be used to pool information on business-relevant issues of civil society, foreign policy, etc. So far, more than half of all continuous training measures take place in companies. These include courses in employee management for new team leaders or lectures on restructured work processes as well as training courses on the introduction of new computer programs (Ebitsch 2017). So why not have training courses on the following exemplary topics? • How do the EU and the political system of the Federal Republic of Germany function? • The Basic Law—basis of our democracy and prerequisite for our economic success. • What do the principles of federalism and subsidiarity mean? • How to debate constructively—also on political issues. In addition to internal workshops, companies could also finance external training. In any case, employees should be enabled to think outside the box and acquire socio-political orientation knowledge. Improvement of governance in public administration and politics: Another cross-sectoral issue concerns structural improvements in administration and politics as well as among the people who are active there. The importance of this topic is increasingly recognized and discussed in large forums such as the “Creative Bureaucracy Festival 2019” organized by the Humboldt University in Berlin and the daily newspaper Tagesspiegel. To promote governance, companies could cooperate with organizations and NGOs that are committed to transnational reforms in administration and politics.One example is to support a global network with the somewhat unfortunate name “Apolitical.” This organization helps governments and public administrations to address socio-political challenges in an innovative and creative way together with powerful partners. The premise is that governments—whether well-liked or not—play a central role in solving the pressing problems of our time (urbanization, climate change, refugees, migration, etc.). As governments around the world face similar challenges, existing innovative concepts should be shared to prevent having to duplicate efforts. Apolitical brings public officials together so that they can benefit as much as possible from each other’s smart ideas. This commitment to enable a global best practice sharing in the field of government is driven by the conviction that public service is a service to society. It produces common goods and should be appreciated more. Apolitical’s projects include, for example, the promotion of self-driving cars, better career opportunities for women, and the fight against HIV. Such goals are pursued by creating innovation-friendly environments (e.g., through competitions) and by using modern ways of disseminating information (e.g., via so-called digital influencers) (Apolitical o.J., Hull 2017, Kalaichandran 2017, Fleming 2017). As a useful complement to Apolitical, the Innovation in Politics Institute promotes creative and effective approaches to vitalizing European politics. Flagship

170

6

Managing the Political Brand

programs are the “Innovation in Politics Awards” and the planned “European Capital of Democracy” (ECoD). Each year, the Awards honor politicians responsible for exemplary projects on democratic innovation. The ECoD initiative builds on the proven concept of the European Capitals of Culture. It gives it a political theme by organizing events to consolidate democracy in association with civil society. Businesses can strengthen organizations such as Apolitical and the Innovation in Politics Institute in various ways. Financial contributions are possible, but, even more importantly, the provision of process knowledge that can help governments achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness in their services. Digital models that are cost-saving and scalable seem particularly promising. SAP would probably be an ideal partner in Germany, thanks in part to the “Design Thinking” method that SAP has brought from the United States to Germany. Now, even cabinet representatives are practicing how to use it. If companies are brought in, they are less fixated on “government” (with corresponding lobbying measures) and shift their attention toward “governance,” i.e., the joint provision of public goods by several actors. “CPR essentials” encompass all concrete and socio-political contributions that companies as corporate citizens make to strengthen the public debate as well as the democratic institutions and common goods. Goldschmidt and Homann (2011, pp. 11–12) explain this understanding using the triad of responsibility for action, responsibility for order, and responsibility for discourse. While the first describes the business calculus of a company in the narrower sense, the latter two mark its extended responsibility to the public sphere. “Responsibility to act” means the responsibility of companies for their core business and the direct consequences of their actions. (. . .) Responsibility for order means the responsibility of companies for the political framework or for social order in general. (. . .) Responsibility for discourse means the responsibility of companies for the discourses of society, especially the one about business.“. A rough matrix for CPR engagement is initially provided by the traditional policy fields that are based on government departments, and by cross-sectoral issues that are relatively independent of the respective industry and can be presented along the value chain (see Fig. 6.1). The policy areas can be disaggregated to different levels (see Fig. 6.2). At each level, CPR commitment can take a different expression, as illustrated by a fictitious example. This is based on two guiding questions: on the one hand, about socio-political challenges; and on the other hand, about corporate strengths (see Fig. 6.3). Finally, the cross-sectional fields offer many opportunities to become active (see Fig. 6.4). This wide array of traditional policy fields (along the line of departmental responsibility) and cross-sectoral issues raise a question: Is it conceivable to have social areas where companies should not make public contributions? A hard limit is reached where the state exercises legitimate coercion is in line with its monopoly on the use of force. Legislation and enforcement by the judiciary and the police must be left to the state authorities. The Bundeswehr is responsible for external security. However, it is almost impossible to draw a red line based on

6.7 The Planning of CPR Measures

171

Traditional policy areas (e.g. as institutionalized in ministries)

• • • • • • • • •

Cross-Sectoral Topics (relevant for all policy areas)

Policy Areas & Cross-Sectoral Topics Along the Value Chain

• Political Education / Personal development (Character Education) • Improving leadership abilities (skills) • Creating a vibrant debating culture as a precondition for societal innovation • Strengthening societal cohesion / democratic resilience (e.g. by supporting a political civil society) • Strengthening investigative journalism • Nurturing democratic institutions / Aligning governance in administration and politics • ...

Environment Health Transport / Infrastructure Security Justice / Rule of Law Education / Culture Economy Finance …

Purchase / Procurement

Production

Marketing ng / Sales / Distribution

© Johannes Bohnen

Fig. 6.1 Policy areas and cross-sectoral topics along the value chain #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved

policy areas. For example, private operators have long been in charge of critical infrastructure (see energy or telecommunications), though the state will often retain shares and thus a certain degree of control; the same applies to armaments. Most of the media are private, although of course flanked by the strong presence of public broadcasters. Health care (hospitals, insurance companies, etc.) is partly privately organized; even prisons can be private, e.g., in the United States. Whether this always makes sense, or whether the private sector will only provide essential services inadequately, at excessive cost, or in a highly socially selective manner, is a highly relevant and open question. If this is the case for specific governance tasks, the state assumes responsibility. In cases of doubt, criterion 4 of brand development (social added value) and the premise of respecting the primacy of the political can help to provide orientation.

6.7.2

Developing Political Communication

The continuous building of political capital or “public value” through smart political action and communication is central to the success of CPR. It is important that the topics in the defined fields of action are developed with a coherent narrative and strategically coordinated semantics. Which terms and clusters of terms are central to the public positioning of the company? With which communicative statements and

172

6

Managing the Political Brand

Breakdown of Policy Areas Along the Value Chain Policy Areas Environment

Environment

Environment

Culture & Sports

Culture & Sports

Culture & Sports

Civil Society

Civil Society

Civil Society

Justice & Institutions

Justice & Institutions

Justice & Institutions

Security

Security

Security

Health

Health

Health

Education

Education

Education

Infrastructure

Infrastructure

Infrastructure

Purchase / Procurement

Production

Marketing / Sales/ Distribution

Value Chain © Johannes Bohnen

Fig. 6.2 Breakdown of policy areas along the value chain #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved

which timing can the company shape the public agenda? This is a challenging task, because companies must reach different target groups with their communications— above all employees, customers, shareholders, and competitors—who may have diverging interests. Conflicts of interest are possible: Good news for customers does not necessarily have to be good news for employees, for example, if a price reduction is achieved by reducing personnel costs. In addition, the fact that the media closely observe corporate activities and frequently comment on them, especially in social networks, means that reporting is becoming increasingly difficult to control. In combination with the content-related complexity of socio-political issues on which companies must act, a situation arises that makes professional communication management indispensable in order to protect the brand’s reputation. Once in a while, the CEO or (political) head of communications may then be called upon to act as would a government spokesperson. The ability to communicate, even in political matters, is essential for companies to build trust and establish themselves as experts. This is not only about short-term influence in the public sphere. It is much more important to take a long-term approach to avoid crises from the outset or at least prepare for them. The ambivalence of the consequences of political communication should not be ignored. If you expose yourself, you become vulnerable—visibility carries risks. CPR pioneers in particular can make communication mistakes. But those who remain defensive lose

6.7 The Planning of CPR Measures

173

Traditional Policy Areas along the Value Chain: Example IT Company from Saxony Policy Areas

Sustainabiliy certification for ethical / ecological mining of rare earths

Environment Culture & Sports Civil

Anti-corruption campaign as part of a broad alliance of Society companies

Environment

Environment Debating forum about the impact of Pegida

Culture & Sportson Saxony as a Culture & Sports business location

Civil Society

Civil Society

Justice & Institutions

Justice & Institutions

Security

Security

Health

When identifying CPR fields of action, two questions arise:

Justice &

Support for women and families by establishing Healtha company kindergarten

Support for defense against Cybercrime by providing IT-expertise Institutions for public authorities

Security

1 What are the most urgent sociopolitical challenges along the value chain?

Health Lobbying for broadband or 5G expansion to

Education

Education

Infrastructure

Infrastructure

Purchase / Procurement

© Johannes Bohnen

Production

accelerate transformation Education to industry 4.0

Infrastructure Marketing / Sales / Distribution

2 What general and specific strengths can the company bring to bear to address these challenges?

Value Chain

Fig. 6.3 Value chain IT company #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved

power over the narrative. Instead of shaping public discourse, their company will have to surrender to it. It is therefore advisable to focus more on the opportunities offered by proactive communication: This is the only way for companies to become co-designers of their social and political environment. If they are successful, the corporate brand can gain in profile. One trick here is to integrate socio-political topics into advertising measures without merely instrumentalizing them. Embedding corporate goals in a broader political context has the potential to create legitimacy for stakeholders. If individual companies are nevertheless skeptical about political communication, alliances between companies can help to minimize the risk of individual damage to their reputation and jointly set political accents (MolthagenSchnöring 2018). This requires carefully orchestrated communication measures. In summary, such political communication should take place in the following areas of activity, which, of course, are familiar to the public affairs industry: • Agenda setting: Rhythmization of measures (in the right mix) on the time axis. • Storytelling and strategic semantics: If you can develop catchy narratives and define specific terms, you gain power. Executives, in particular, need to continuously convey messages and narratives. • Target group analysis, stakeholder mapping, and distribution lists. • Creative formats such as fishbowl events, YouTube videos, etc. • Partners/alliances, also ad hoc cooperation.

174

6

Managing the Political Brand

Possible Cross-Sectoral Topics POLITICAL EDUCATION Character training, strengthening the ability to judge, practicing a political stance - Promoting the debating culture and ability to compete over narratives - Democratic resilience, enlightened patriotism - Knowledge in the relevant policy areas Statehood (regulatory principles, governance, interaction between politics and bureaucracy, etc.) -

-

COSMOPOLITANISM / TOLERANCE / COHESION - Recognition of the importance of open, free, and pluralistic societies for economic activity Contribution to overcoming prejudices and promotion of cosmopolitanism in the respective policy fields Combating racism and discrimination - Commitment to diversity in business and society - Support for the integration of immigrants

-

EUROPE - Integrity of the EU, future of the euro - Deepening the internal market, common standards for the respective policy areas

-

GLOBALIZATION / FOREIGN POLICY / FREE TRADE - Strengthening multilateralism, reducing trade barriers Recognition of the advantages of economic integration (esp. for export nations), development of new markets - Contribution to the transformation of emerging and developing countries - Security policy (NATO, Crimea, Syria etc.)

-

-

-

DIGITALIZATION Future of the platform economy, monopoly formation as a challenge for competition - Transformation to industry 4.0 - Securing jobs and participation Artificial intelligence, ethical dimension: relationship between humans and machines

DEMOGRAPHY - Future of ageing societies, urbanization, and cultural diversity Securing / safeguarding pension systems, shortage of skilled professionals & immigration

© Johannes Bohnen

Fig. 6.4 Cross-sectoral issues (example) #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved

• Media relations. • Monitoring: Continuous observation and analysis of the social and political environment, for instance, to identify thematic pegs suitable for the placing of your own topics. The result is a communication strategy and a roadmap for CPR measures and their implementation. Progress in the fields of action should be continuously communicated.

6.7.3

Structuring a Company’s Organization

Embedding CPR in a company through mainstreaming is an exercise in decentralized responsibility. However, this does not exclude having the “planning unit” think about and permanently check measures for their quality. In order to ensure consistent (political) communication, the company’s strategic communication manager should work closely with the CPR unit, just like the strategy department (see organization chart below). As a matter of principle, however, corporate responsibility should be placed in the horizontal plane of the organization. Involving all departments will promote their

6.7 The Planning of CPR Measures

175

Embedding CPR in Corporations or Large Family-Owned Companies (SMEs): Extract of an Ideal-Typical Organization Chart Supervisory Board / Administrative Board

Board of Directors / Management

extended to include political topics

Strategy Department Corporate strategy / brand management (including political branding)

...

...

...

Corporate Responsibility / Corporate Political Responsibility

Business Unit

Business Unit

(incl. CPR responsibles)

(incl. CPR responsibles)

...

...

...

Strategic Communication

CPR Planning Unit (political think tank)

...

...

...

...

© Johannes Bohnen

Fig. 6.5 Embedding CPR—Detail of organization chart #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved

socio-political awareness (see Fig. 6.5). Change management by mainstreaming CPR, therefore, has practical implications for internal responsibilities and processes. To a certain extent, it shifts organigrams. The employees in the individual functional areas should support the work of the CPR unit with their respective expertise and give CPR even more clout. Overall, all the functional areas of a company can define their specific relationship to CPR: What socio-political opportunities and risks do they see? Which catalogue of measures should, therefore, be implemented? Guiding questions such as these create an internal CPR network within the company that promotes the exchange of knowledge. In contrast to departmentalizing the responsibility for CPR in a separate unit, a network structure ensures a permanent visualization and broad implementation of the concept. Broad implementation includes putting the entire corporate value chain to use, from purchasing to production to sales. An exciting question concerning the organizational structures is whether supervisory and administrative boards should play a more active role in making CPR effective. Is their job really only to appoint and control the board of directors? Even though a supervisory board cannot directly interfere in the day-to-day management, it does have the task to advise the board of directors, especially on the following questions: What business strategy is being pursued? And what do development budgets get spent on? The supervisory board does not only focus on past developments and decisions, but “also on future plans of the board of directors” (Career Bible, undated). This could be a starting point for strategic corporate decisions that will be more strongly influenced by politics in the future. One option

176

6

Managing the Political Brand

is to specifically select individual supervisory board members for their political expertise in the future. Their task would then be to advise the company more actively on possible risks and opportunities. Here, feedback from the “CEO planning unit” would be a powerful lever for a stronger focus on political and strategic work. The Government Commission on the German Corporate Governance Code, in the most recent edition of its rulebook, has focused on stricter rules for the remuneration of managers. But it is also dedicated to reforming supervisory boards: It recommends setting a limit to the number of supervisory board mandates that any one member can have so that board members take their work seriously and allot sufficient time to it. In addition, the Code specifies for the first time what it means by independent supervisory boards (Neuscheler 2019). The resulting valorization of supervisory boards could provide more scope for political commitment. The same applies to the advisory or administrative board or the shareholders’ committee in medium-sized companies: As a rule, these companies cannot, as the Hamburg Chamber of Commerce (undated) writes, “have staff or business areas that are as personnel-intensive as large corporations. To compensate for this, an advisory board can provide valuable expertise on corporate management, financing, law, and taxes. With this help, they can make more informed and faster decisions.” To broaden horizons, specialist knowledge in the area of politics could be called upon in a complementary and targeted manner.

6.7.4

Ensuring Evaluation and Quantification

It is helpful to look to corporate supply chains for suggestions about a quantitative evaluation of socio-political responsibility or CPR. From an ecological point of view, supply chains are already under examination for their sustainability. Political sustainability should be examined in a similar manner. The methodology could build on that of the Environmental Atlas Supply Chains (Adelphi undated). Its input– output model is based on empirical data on international value chains—both from a functional and from a regional perspective. In other words, what inputs does one industry purchase from another, and in which countries is the industry based? Such input–output tables are linked with environmental data from the respective industries and countries. Environmental impacts stemming from supply chains are determined on this basis. However, a healthy environment is only one facet of sustainability. If the debate is shifted to the political sphere, input–output tables are linked to political indices instead of environmental data. Categories here would be democracy, freedom, human rights, independence of the judiciary, corruption, etc. Here, quantifiability does come up against certain limits since political goods cannot be put into figures as easily as greenhouse gases or water consumption. Nevertheless, indices like those of Freedom House or the Economist Intelligence Unit (2017) provide important information. However, it is important to realistically assess the possibilities and limits of political commitment. In countries without a well-established democratic culture, a pluralistic debate can only be encouraged to a very limited extent without

6.7 The Planning of CPR Measures

177

damaging one’s business operations. The same is true for interference in the public sphere. Moreover, exporting democracy is difficult: If the government or civil society of a country believes that their democracy has been imposed by outside forces, its legitimacy will remain dubious and its future unpromising. The focus of any commitment to democracy should, therefore, be directed at regions where democracy has historically existed or at is already solidly developing. In any case, the nationalistic and authoritarian developments in the West in recent years show that here, too, liberality, openness, and tolerance are not a given but must be nurtured. Apart from democratic consolidation, which remains a CPR essential, there is always the possibility of supplying governance services (higher occupational health and safety, better pay, infrastructure expansion, etc.). A company should not, as a matter of principle, limit the political responsibility it is willing to assume to its domestic market. It is not surprising that the Chief Executive of the BDI, Joachim Lang, points to the close integration of German industry into global value chains and the resulting dependence and vulnerability. According to Lang, value chains are global and complex, and German companies therefore “depend on a secure and stable environment—both nationally and internationally” (Lang 2020). This is highly plausible because the upstream value chain accounts for a considerable share of a company’s sustainability impact as we know from dealing with environmental issues. This has the effect of putting the focus on developing and emerging countries. Political institutions can be supported there as well—with the limitations mentioned regarding genuine democracy promotion. The stability of a state, however, remains the sine qua non of economic success. It is therefore in the interest of companies to recognize that their socio-political commitment is an international task. For a sustainable political supply chain management, companies should take stock of the risks they are exposed to and be transparent about them. This would also make it easier to identify concrete levers for minimizing these risks. It would be helpful to work, for example, with standards and certificates, internal training, knowledge transfer, or best practice sharing. Standards can be included in framework agreements or codes to create clarity and commitment. It makes sense to involve the executive level so that political sustainability criteria can be incorporated into management decisions and linked with the overall strategy. A scorecard would be a further building block in the quantitative measuring of CPR. It is a popular tool in business to assess the effectiveness of corporate measures. Among other things, it is used in the certification of sustainability efforts (see, e.g., the website of SCS Global Services). A socio-political evaluation could be integrated into general sustainability certificates, but could also be prepared separately if companies have been active in the four CPR fields of activity. Nevertheless, the difficulties of robust CPR quantification based on a scorecard should not be underestimated. The problem is to give appropriate ratings to individual CPR measures: How much weight should the establishment of a companyowned day care center have compared to the organization of a discussion event on a socio-politically relevant topic? How can CPR activities reasonably be measured in relation to a company’s wealth of resources and power? Is it better to have a larger

178

6

Managing the Political Brand

number of CPR measures rather than fewer but possibly more targeted measures? What happens if a company engages in an outstanding CPR activity but at the same time is known for shady tax practices? It can be distorting to use measurements and certifications to suggest authoritative results if the overriding qualitative questions are unclear. There are limits to objectivity. But it remains important to try to approximate it. The quality of the scorecard results depends on the underlying assumptions. Above all, it is crucial that the scorecard yields satisfactory results in practical terms. The CPR incentive structure needs to be right. A theoretically conclusive construct that leads to adverse effects must be avoided at all costs. Therefore, practitioners should be consulted during the development process. In general, it is true that overly strict, formal rules can be rather obstructive. For an astute evaluation of CPR measures, qualitative and quantitative aspects must be balanced. When evaluating CPR, the exact design of the assessment should be left to the companies; flexibility in terms of trial and error is required. However, it is encouraging that companies have a lot of know-how about how to handle key performance indicators (KPI). Inspiration for a pragmatic approach to CPR tracking is provided by the “6 steps on the way to a sound CSR report” by the consultancy Scholz & Friends Reputation (undated). When adapted to social policy, they can be summarized as follows: 1. Status quo: Where does the company stand in terms of its CPR activities? 2. Internal analysis of previous political commitment; external analysis of the socio-political expectations of various stakeholder groups; determination of materiality by defining prioritized topics. 3. Governance: Who is responsible for and coordinates CPR activities? 4. Establishment of a CPR unit with a link to senior management or the board of directors; appointment of CPR officers in individual departments. 5. Political leitmotif: Which common idea can create identity and orientation in socio-political terms? 6. Implementation of a workshop on the guiding principle using the strength filter method; draft of a political mission statement and a positioning sentence. 7. Targets: What is the CPR roadmap? 8. Definition of concrete projects with objectives, sub-objectives, and work packages on a timeline. 9. Key figures: Which KPIs reflect CPR performance, and how is the corresponding data continuously collected? 10. Conception of a CPR scorecard that links, for example, functional and regional supply chain data such as information on suppliers, business partners, or locations with political indices on freedom, democracy, or corruption. 11. Reporting: How is accountability for CPR performance provided? 12. Consistent presentation of CPR objectives, strategy, actions, and evaluation in a political brand report; ensure links to the commercial reporting of the overall brand.

6.8 Political Branding in the Overall Picture

179

In addition to internal CPR reporting by companies, it is conceivable to develop external CPR certification by consulting or auditing companies. Effective sociopolitical investments would be authenticated by a seal. This could provide the necessary incentives, especially if large business associations promote the topic under their auspices. The seal could be called “politically effective.” Criteria would be, for example, the strengthening of democracy and governance structures as well as the improvement of the interplay between politics and business—all under the condition that the primacy of the political is being respected. A “Task Force CPR Certification” could consist of an independent jury of consultants and auditors in analogy to the Corporate Governance Code as well as representatives of German business associations. Such a task force could also coordinate public relations work and set up an interactive CPR platform with the following services, among others6: • • • •

Matchmaking (companies and consumers/citizens) for fields of action 2 to 4.7 Incubator (online and offline) for CPR projects. Financing models. Consulting (online and offline).

6.8

Political Branding in the Overall Picture

In summary, the first premise on the road to corporate political responsibility is that companies understand its added value and want to act accordingly. They must develop an awareness of the need to use their general and specific resources to safeguard the socio-political foundations of their business. In times of globalization, the mandate to stabilize the political discourse and actions critical to business (including the strengthening of the institutional structures of the community) encompasses the entire corporate value chain. Once this insight has been internalized—meaning that a company has taken on board that CPR represents a business case—one can say that a company has adopted a political stance. This means that the attitude, i.e., the fundamental acceptance of CPR, can now be operationalized through political branding. This takes place in two steps: brand creation and brand management. CPR as a conceptual approach and attitude gives consistency to the various process phases (cf. Fig. 6.6). Political brand creation begins with a stocktaking, which provides an overview of the political dimension of the entire corporate brand. For this purpose, a corporate resource analysis is used to describe the political contents that exist independently of each other within the overall brand. The second step is strategic. It is a matter of 6

If you are interested in establishing such a platform, please contact the author. The websites https://www.csr-news.net/news/expertennetz/and https://www.csr-news.net/news/ wissen/ offer some ideas from the CSR sector on how to set up a network of experts and provide know-how on various topics (incl. Newsletter, event information etc.). 7

180

6

Managing the Political Brand

CPR is a stance that is practiced and consolidated in the process of political branding

POLITICAL BRANDING Process Phases 1. Creating the Political Brand Taking Stock Task

Method

2. Managing the Political Brand Planning

Implementation

Analysis of the political dimension of the overall brand (Identification of loose brand elements which relate to the public sphere)

Definition of the political brand (outlining the political dimension of the overall brand)

Operationalization of the political brand (Definition of concrete goals and steps for the implementation of CPR)

Permanent positioning of the political brand (Implementation of CPR projects, communication & organizational development)

Gathering of empirical information with the help of relevant internal (self-image) and external (external image) stakeholders  Interviews  Surveys  Focus groups  Internet research

Strength filter method for identifying the core of the brand (workshop)  Sharpening and clustering the company's strengths according to selected criteria (especially "socio-political value added")  Moving from "is" to “ought” (refraction and aspiration)

Creating pre-conditions  Management of topics, including monitoring of the socio-political environment  Agenda setting / orchestrated communication  Organizational embedding of CPR: internal change management (decentralized instead of departmentalized)  Evaluation

Measures in the CPR fields of action 1) Responsible lobbying 2) Topics & Dialogues 3) Projects of Political participation 4) Public goods ... and cross-sectoral issues / topics (political education, EU...) ... along the value chain (prioritization based on risks and opportunities) ... including impact measurement (KPI-based CPR scorecard, integrated into sustainability reporting)

Political Leitmotif  Mission Statement  Positioning sentence  internally: self-assurance externally: brand promise

Roadmap for political engagement  CPR projects on a timeline  Indicators of success  Communication strategy

Relevance in the public sphere  Political speaking ability  Company as governance actor  Practiced CPR stance

General resource analysis (products, services, finances, locations, communication, reputation, etc.)

Result

Strategic Approach

Collection of political brand elements  Comparison of self-image and external image  Identification of "gap" and demand

© Johannes Bohnen

Fig. 6.6 Political branding process phases #Johannes Bohnen 2020. All Rights Reserved

pinpointing and bundling the different elements and strengths into an explicit and coherent political brand, e.g., with the help of a strength filter with corresponding criteria or test stages. Of course, the political brand must be in harmony with the overall brand. The second part of political branding describes how the newly developed political brand is managed: This begins with creating the prerequisites and planning CPR activities in selected fields of action. This is done in four areas: with the topics to be defined, the corresponding communication, the development of organizational structures, and the creation of evaluation tools. This strategic and planning phase is followed by the concrete implementation of CPR activities. Here, the emphasis is on everyday political brand management, including the monitoring of the political and social environment. This includes the topics that have now been identified as central, i.e., ideally a mixture of industryrelated political fields and relevant cross-sectoral issues along key stages of the value chain. Here, concrete CPR measures in the CPR fields of action are implemented and communicated. If we think big in terms of impact, every German company will end up having at least one CPR project—no matter how small! Those measures— especially those taken by larger companies—would be reviewed and optimized by means of quantitative political sustainability management.

References

181

References Adidas. (2019). Adidas will 2019 mehr Schuhe mit recyceltem Plastikmüll herstellen. Accessed February 13, 2020, from https://www.adidas-group.com/de/medien/newsarchiv/ pressemitteilungen/2019/adidas-will-2019-mehr-schuhe-mit-recyceltem-plastikmull-herstellen/ Bidder, B. (2018). Ernst & Young ruft zur Wahl „demokratischer Kräfte“ auf. Der Spiegel Online, 11.20.2018. Accessed February 12, 2020, from http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/ hessen-und-bayern-vor-landtagswahl-unternehmensberatung-warnt-vor-afd-a-1232791.html Bohnen, J. (2014). Das erste deutsche Politikfestival. Politisches Engagement im Wandel. Bundesnetzwerk Bürgerschaftliches Engagement, Engagement macht stark, 2, 44–47. Bohnen, J. (2017). Der Staat, das sind wir alle. Wirtschaft & Du – Wirtschaft/Berufs- und Studienorientierung. In G. Altmann (Hrsg.). Braunschweig: Westermann. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://c.wgr.de/f/flashbooks/978-3-14-116435-0/html5forpc.html?page=0 Bohnen, J. (2018, October 24). Warum Unternehmen politische Verantwortung tragen. LibMod. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://libmod.de/johannes-bohnen-warum-unternehmenpolitische-verantwortung-tragen/ Campillo-Lundbeck, S. (2019, March 26). 50 deutsche Familienunternehmen machen Made in Germany zum Toleranzsiegel. Horizont. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www. horizont.net/marketing/nachrichten/gesellschaftliche-haltung-50-deutschefamilienunternehmen-machen-made-in-germany-zum-toleranzsiegel-173815 Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. (2018). The New CEO activists. Harvard Business Review. S. 78– 79. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://hbr.org/2018/01/the-new-ceo-activists Dahlstrom, L. (2017, August 16) ‘Hate has no home here’: Starbucks’ Schultz fights back against racism. Starbucks Newsroom. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://stories.starbucks.com/ stories/2017/hate-has-no-home-here/ Deloitte. (2018). Deloitte Millennial Survey. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www2. deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/About-Deloitte/gx-2018-millennial-sur vey-report.pdf Ebitsch, S. (2017, November 15). Welche Formen beruflicher Weiterbildung gibt es?. Süddeutsche Zeitung. Accessed February 13, 2020, from https://www.sueddeutsche.de/karriere/von-elearning-bis-studium-welche-formen-beruflicher-weiterbildung-gibt-es-1.1867269-0 Elias, J. (2020, March 13). Google is making a coronavirus information site to help find testing as kits become more available. CNBC. Accessed March 16, 2020, from https://www.cnbc.com/ 2020/03/13/google-creating-coronavirus-site-to-help-find-testing.html Farr, C. (2019). Everything we know about Haven, the Amazon joint venture to revamp health care. Accessed June 26, 2020, from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/13/what-is-haven-amazonjpmorgan-berkshire-revamp-health-care.html FAZ. (2018, August 24). Konzernchefs kritisieren Trumps Einwanderungspolitik. Accessed February 12, 2020, from http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/usa-konzerne-wieapple-kritisieren-trumps-einwanderungspolitik-15753227.html FAZ. (2019, January 24). Airbus-CEO Tom Enders warnt vor dem Brexit. https://www.faz.net/ aktuell/airbus-ceo-tom-enders-warnt-vor-dem-brexit-16005693.html Felixberger, P. (2009). Die nächsten Jahre. Deutschlands Zukunft: Was bleibt und was sich ändert, 2009. Hamburg: MURMANN Verlag. Fink, L. (2019). CEO-Letter. „Profit & Purpose”. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www. blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry-fink-ceo-letter Fleming, M. (2017, October 21). Women now occupy three most senior roles in Norway’s government, Independent. Accessed February 13, 2020, from http://www.independent.co.uk/ news/world/politics/norway-government-latest-women-three-most-senior-roles-ine-eriksen-sreide-erna-solberg-siv-jensen-a8012396.html Gillies, J. M. (2015). Teile und bleibe. brandeins, „Gemeinsame Sache“, 2015, Accessed February 13, 2020, from https://kiosk.brandeins.de/products/unternehmensberater-2015-brand-einsthema

182

6

Managing the Political Brand

Goldschmidt, N., & Homann, K. (2011). Die gesellschaftliche Verantwortung der Unternehmen. Theoretische Grundlagen für eine praxistaugliche Konzeption“, RHI-Position, Nr.10, München: Roman Herzog Institut. Graf von Kielmansegg, P. (2017, Feburary 13). Populismus ohne Grenzen, FAZ. Greive, M. (2015, October 26). Dresden zahlt hohen Preis für sein Pegida-Problem. Welt. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article148020501/Dresdenzahlt-hohen-Preis-fuer-sein-Pegida-Problem.html Heath, R. (2019, May 9). Spotify releases EU election playlist. Politico. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www.politico.eu/article/spotify-releases-eu-election-playlist-to-boost-voterturnout/amp/ Herbold, A. (2018, May 3). Macht das Netz die Debattenkultur kaputt?, Tagesspiegel. Accessed March 12, 2020, from https://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/digitalkonferenz-re-publica-machtdas-netz-die-debattenkultur-kaputt/21227288.html Heuser, U. J. (2017, February 9). Was wir von den Medien erwarten dürfen. Die ZEIT, S. 21. Hoffman, C., & Gorris, L. (2019, June 14). „Wir müssen lernen, mutiger intolerant zu sein.“ Der Spiegel Online. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www.spiegel.de/politik/joachimgauck-wir-muessen-lernen-mutiger-intolerant-zu-sein-a-00000000-0002-0001-0000000164407502 Hull, D. (2017, October 30). The Paypal-Mafia of self-driving cars has been at it a decade. Accessed February 13, 2020, from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-10-30/it-s-been-10years-since-robots-proved-they-could-drive?utm_source=MIT+Technology+Review&utm_ campaign=fc5bebe5ff-The_Download&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_997ed6f472fc5bebe5ff-153822549 Jahberg, H., et al. (2018, April 1). Privatisierung von Staatskonzernen: Fluch oder Segen? Tagesspiegel. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/ telekom-post-bahn-privatisierung-von-staatskonzernen-fluch-oder-segen/21111122.html Kaeser, J. (2018, October 22). A decision to make – and what really matters. Linkedin. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/decision-make-what-really-mattersjoe-kaeser Kalaichandran, A. (2017, October 26). How AI could slow the spread of HIV. Citylab. Accessed February 13, 2020, from https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/10/ai-to-prevent-hiv/543978/? utm_source=nl__link5_102717&silverid=MzEwMTkyMTA0ODk5S0 Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review. S. 36–41. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://ssir.org/articles/entry/collective_impact# Karboul, A. (2015). Coffin corner. Zürich: Midas Verlag. Kelly, H. (2017). Salesforce to give $ 12.2 million to Bay area to public schools. CNN. Accessed February 13, 2020, from https://money.cnn.com/2017/09/12/technology/culture/salesforceschool-donation/index.html Kirchhoff, B. D. O. (2018, September 2). Nachhaltig gut berichten! Studie zur aktuellen Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung, Hamburg. Knop, C. (2017). Befragung „Global CEO Survey“. Unter den Chefs wächst die. Kolf, F. (2019, May 21). Blau-gelbe Werbung für Europa: Konzerne appellieren an EU-Bürger. Handelsblatt. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/interna tional/europawahl/europawahl-blau-gelbe-werbung-fuer-europa-konzerne-appellieren-an-eubuerger/24364718.html?utm_campaign=Morgenlage_politik&utm_medium=Email&utm_ source=Tagesspiegel_Newsletter&ticket=ST-695045-Gc5eIVplJO2zXTx6dBJo-ap5 Koppetsch, C. (2019, June 8). Der Sinn für das Ganze. FAZ, S. 10. Kuls, N. (2018, September 11). Nike und die Kaepernick-Kontroverse. FAZ. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www.faz.net/aktuell/finanzen/finanzmarkt/aktienkurs-steigt-nike-erholtsich-von-kaepernick-kontroverse-15781023.html Kühl, E. (2017, August 15). Kein Heim für Neonazis. Die Zeit. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www.zeit.de/digital/internet/2017-08/airbnb-charlottesville-rassismus-neonazi Lang, J. (2020, February 14). LinkedIn Post.

References

183

Lindner, R. (2017, August 18). Weiterer Manager bricht mit Trump. FAZ. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/wirtschaftspolitik/nach-charlottesvillemerck-chef-verlaesst-trumps-beraterteam-15150823.html Lindner, R. (2018, February 28). Apple errichtet eigene Krankenhäuser. FAZ. Apolitical (o.J.) Projekte. Accessed June 22, 2020, from https://apolitical.co/why-apolitical/ Lindner, R. (2019, January 18). Was Microsoft, Amazon und Co. Gegen explodierende Mieten tun, in: FAZ. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/digitec/dietech-konzerne-entdecken-ihre-soziale-seite-15994049.html Lobbypedia. (2014). Abgeordnetenkorruption. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https:// lobbypedia.de/wiki/Abgeordnetenkorruption Lobbypedia. (2017). Karenzzeit (Bundesländer). Accessed February 12, 2020, from https:// lobbypedia.de/wiki/Karenzzeit_(Bundesländer) Lyft. (2018). The ride to vote: Use Lyft to exercise your rights. Accessed October 6, 2020, from https://www.lyft.com/blog/posts/get-out-the-vote Maslansky, M. (2017, August 17). The era of the fence-sitter corporation is over. Linkedin. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/era-fence-sitter-corpora tion-over-michael-maslansky Meinel, F. (2019). Vertrauensfrage – Zur Krise des heutigen Parlamentarismus. Verlag München: C.H. Beck. Meisner, M., & Birnbaum, R. (2015, January 10). Eine Stadt kämpft um ihren Ruf. Tagesspiegel. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/anti-pegidakundgebung-in-dresden-eine-stadt-kaempft-um-ihren-ruf/11211768.html Mielke, J. (2019, April 2). Deutsche Firmen geben Millionen für Yad Vashem. Tagesspiegel. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/ausbau-der-holocaustgedenkstaette-deutsche-firmen-geben-millionen-fuer-yad-vashem/24173190.html Molthagen-Schnöring, S. (2018). Gesellschaftspolitisches Engagement in Zeiten von Trump & Co. Chancen und Risiken für Unternehmen. Berlin: Springer. Neuscheler, T. (2019, May 22). Das sind die neuen Benimmregeln für Unternehmen. FAZ. Accessed June 13, 2020, from https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/neueregeln-der-kodex-kommission-fuer-gute-unternehmensfuehrung-16200306.html O’Reilly, T. (2010). Government as a platform. In L. Ruma & D. Lathrop (Hrsg.), Open government. O’ Reilly Media. Accessed February 14, 2020, from https://www.oreilly.com/library/ view/open-government/9781449381936/ch02.html Obermann, R. (2017, October 5). Kämpft für Europa!. ZEIT-Online. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www.zeit.de/2017/41/europa-eu-unternehmen-aufruf Regierungskommission. (2020). Deutscher corporate governance index. Pressemitteilung. Accessed March 2, 2020, from https://www.dcgk.de/files/dcgk/usercontent/de/download/ pressemitteilungen/200123%20Pressemitteilung%20Kodex%202020.pdf Reinhart, A. (2017, December 12). Fit für Europa. Handelsblatt, S. 48. Schindler, J., Schmundt, H., & Schulz, T. (2016). Die Hilfssheriffs. Der Spiegel Online, 2016, Nr. 33, pp. 126– 127. Schönbohm, J. (2010, September 25). Die Bundeswehr als Schule der Nation. Die Welt. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www.welt.de/welt_print/vermischtes/article9859071/DieBundeswehr-als-Schule-der-Nation.html Schulz, M. (2007). Ziel und Quelle – Politikberatung und das Europäische Parlament. In S. Dagger & M. Kambeck (Hrsg.), Politikberatung und Lobbying in Brüssel. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Schwertner, R., Ahrendt, U., & Borowski, J. (2017, September 26). Offener Brief. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://nomos-glashuette.com/media/pdf/3f/8a/6f/Offener_Brief_ Bundestagswahl_2017_AfD.pdf Sirleschtov, A. (2017, March 7). Neue Offenheit. Tagesspiegel. Spangenberg, T. (2019). Warum Unternehmen politisch sein müssen. Andreas Möller im Interview, Pressesprecher. Accessed February 2, 2020, from https://www.pressesprecher.com/nachrichten/ warum-unternehmen-politisch-sein-muessen-1200627612

184

6

Managing the Political Brand

Sprenger, R. K. (2019, July 25). Joe Kaeser handelt selbstherrlich und übergriffig, Die Welt Starbucks. (2016a, March 7). Starbucks encourages civic engagement. Starbucks Stories. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://stories.starbucks.com/press/2016/starbucks-encourages-civicengagement/ Starbucks. (2016b) History of partner benefits at Starbucks. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://stories.starbucks.com/press/2016/starbucks-history-of-partner-benefits/ Starbucks. (2020). Starbucks Global Social Impact Report. Accessed July 2, 2020, from https:// stories.starbucks.com/stories/2020/starbucks-global-social-impact-report-2019/ Steingart, G. (2020, January 23). Interview mit Wolfgang Schäuble. Morning Briefing. Steltzner, H. (2018, October 23). Siemens-Chef Joe Kaeser: Der politische Geisterfahrer, FAZ. Accessed March 12, 2020, from https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/siemens-chef-joekaeser-der-politische-geisterfahrer-15851384.html Tagesspiegel. (2019, April 15). „Wir brauchen eine europäische Cloud.“ Interview mit Katharina Barley. Accessed February 13, 2020, from https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/katarinabarley-im-interview-es-geht-darum-monopole-wie-das-von-facebook-zu-brechen/24219324. html Toller, A. (2009, April 7). Sparkassen im Sog der Landesbanken. Handelsblatt. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www.wiwo.de/finanzen/finanzkrise-sparkassen-im-sog-derlandesbanken-seite-2/5143186-2.html Tönnesmann, J. (2019, March 20). Haltung, bitte! In: Zeit für Unternehmer, Nr. 1. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www.zeit.de/zeit-fuer-unternehmer/2019/01/ fremdenfeindlichkeit-unternehmen-haltung-weltoffenheit-fachkraeftemangel-mittelstand/ komplettansicht Vaude. (2018). Nachhaltigkeitsbericht. Durch Engagement Mehrwert schaffen. Accessed February 13, 2020, from https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/vaude/nachbarschaft.php von Petersdorff, W. (2018, June 28). Das Schlagloch füllt der Pizzadienst. FAZ. Accessed June 22, 2020, from http://www.faz.net/aktuell/finanzen/das-schlagloch-fuellt-der-pizzadienst15663498.html?GEPC=s5 Wallrabenstein, A. (2019). Wir brauchen eine digitale Debattenkultur, Kommunkationscafé. Accessed March 11, 2020, from https://www.gpra.de/podcast/wir-brauchen-eine-digitaledebattenkultur/ Weber, L. (2016, December 6). IKEA broadens U.S. parental leave coverage. The Wall Street Journal. Accessed February 13, 2020, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/ikea-broadens-u-sparental-leave-coverage-1481001301 Weber, W. (2017, Feburary 26). Paschek, Peter: Chefs dürfen zur Politik nicht schweigen. FAZ. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/chefssollen-sich-fuer-demokratie-einsetzen-14874551.html Wedell, M. (2010). Ansatzpunkte und Strategien für die verantwortliche Interessenvertretung. In: Kompaktstudiengang Politikmanagement, Lehrbrief 6, Modul 2. Weed, K. (2016, August 26). A new type of CSR: Why I disbanded Unilever’s CSR department, in a nutshell. Linkedin. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/newtype-csr-why-i-disbanded-unilevers-department-nutshell-keith-weed?trk=hp-feed-article-titlelike Weidenfeld, U. (2017). Regierung ohne Volk. Warum unser politisches System nicht mehr funktioniert. Berlin: Rowohlt. Werner, K. (2018). Im Dienst der Nation. Microsoft und Amazon. Süddeutsche Zeitung. Accessed February 13, 2020, from http://www.sueddeutsche.de/digital/microsoft-und-amazon-im-dienstder-nation-1.4022591 Zuckerberg, M. (2019, March 30). Four Ideas to Regulate the Internet. FAZ. Accessed February 12, 2020, from https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/diginomics/facebook-ceo-zuckerberg-ideasto-regulate-the-internet-16116032.html?printPagedArticle=true#pageIndex_0

7

Conclusion: Filling the New Attitude with Life

With the help of a strategically developed political brand, companies can establish a lasting and trusting relationship with their stakeholders if they opt for a long-term and concrete socio-political commitment. The CPR concept provides them with the necessary tool to operationalize their newly developed socio-political attitude— political branding. The developed political brand and the corresponding concrete CPR measures should be consistently pursued and refined so that over time they become a natural part of the overall brand essence. Businesses increasingly realize that sustainable success hinges on the strength of the state and social infrastructure, in which they have so far invested virtually nothing. In other words: Companies depend on conditions that they have neither created nor promoted in the past. This means that there is an uncharted field that offers great opportunities for positioning one’s own brand in the competitive arena. In their own interest, companies now have the task to work on their political investments. In other words: Their new attitude must be filled with life—with concrete measures of political branding. It is generally accepted that raw materials and labor are often “exploited,” especially in poor and underdeveloped regions of the world. It, therefore, makes sense for companies to take on more responsibility in the areas of economy, ecology, and social affairs. However, exploitation does not only concern natural resources and people. The socio-political foundation of doing business—the qualities of the location and services of the state—can also be “exploited” or consumed if business is not committed to their long-term preservation. In established industrial societies, services of public interest have been taken for granted for far too long. A lack of respect for political institutions and, more generally, the importance of a vibrant democratic political culture is now evident in Western countries. Political institutions and political culture are clearly suffering.1

1

In this sense, also see Udo Di Fabio’s book “Schwankender Westen“ (2015).

# The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, part of Springer Nature 2021 J. Bohnen, Corporate Political Responsibility, Future of Business and Finance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62122-6_7

185

186

7

Conclusion: Filling the New Attitude with Life

And why do businesses, for example, prefer Germany over Ukraine? The reason is that business activities depend on intangible assets such as planning security based on legal certainty. This is especially true in geopolitically turbulent times. Business administration studies, however, seem to have a blind spot when it comes to recognizing political stability as a competitive advantage, even though the stock markets, for example, react very sensitively to uncertainties. Many entrepreneurs still find political and social thinking very remote. Although they take immaterial goods into account in their location decisions, few entrepreneurs think of investing in location qualities themselves. All too often, it remains true that politics and business do not get in each other’s way. Yet an unprejudiced cooperation would open up new potentials. The promise to society is that CPR can make an effective contribution to supporting the public sphere and our democracy, and at the same time make our companies more successful. They connect with their environment and customers in new ways. Social and corporate added value reinforce each other, while the primacy of the political must always be respected. The entrepreneurial insight is that the strengthening of politics and administration is in the vital interest of the economy—the business case is real! If companies want to act sustainably, they can achieve a particularly large leverage effect by influencing and strengthening the socio-political environment and existential public services. This effort can be professionally developed and maintained in the sense of “political branding.” This book has presented the necessary tools. A political sustainability rating that evaluates how effectively companies invest in socio-political matters could provide the necessary incentives, possibly including a seal such as “politically effective.” Finally, it is important to develop a basic understanding of how CPR relates to other social responsibility concepts. Two options are conceivable: CPR can either be seen in a long-term perspective as an umbrella term for corporate responsibility as a whole. In that case, it would encompass “essentials” such as democratic order and debate as well as the traditional CSR topics of ecology and social issues. Or the term CPR can be limited to the democratic or political essentials and would then rank equally with CSR (ecology and social issues). For its further development, the concept of CPR and political branding depends on critical questions and suggestions, especially on input from business practice. This approach can then be further substantiated. The bottom line is that companies should develop a socio-political attitude for their own benefit. CPR and political branding offer a concrete answer to the question of how this can be achieved. This book is an attempt to initiate a much-needed debate.

7.1

The Ten Most Important CPR Theses

1. There is no strict separation between business and politics. Corporate activities always take place within a socio-political and institutional context.

7.2 Objections and Responses Concerning CPR

187

2. Businesses are already political players. As taxpayers, employers, trainers, innovators, and lobbyists, they influence the legislative process and the community. 3. Globalization and digitalization, through networking and the removal of boundaries, impair the ability of the state to provide governance. As the main drivers of these developments, companies present a particular challenge to the state’s ability to shape policy. However, they can use their resources to provide governance services in support of statehood. 4. People have ever-higher expectations of companies. Customers, employees, and the public demand an attitude that looks beyond profit. 5. Politics is more than party politics. In a democracy, everyone can and must contribute to an intact community and functioning public goods. 6. Companies should not only invest in buildings, machinery, and employees, but also in the political and social conditions for their own long-term success. 7. Companies can apply concrete methods to develop into political brands and take on an active role toward society. To do so, they must systematically develop their political resources and engage in political branding. 8. Companies can become active in at least four fields of action: from responsible lobbying, socio-political dialogues, and projects of political participation to the strengthening of public goods. 9. The UN sustainability goals can serve as signposts for CPR if their political relevance is recognized. This is expressed primarily in Goal 16 “Peace, justice, and strong institutions.” 10. The scope of CPR measures is limited by the rules of the democratic process. The primacy of the political must be preserved. Conclusion: With CPR, companies can strengthen democracy and thus themselves. Politically, they should be nonpartisan about specific issues but take sides if our liberal way of life is at stake.

7.2

Objections and Responses Concerning CPR

Companies can gain a “first mover” advantage by taking a proactive socio-political stance under three conditions: The stance creates a differentiation from the competition; various stakeholder groups reward the commitment, and the reputational gains are reflected in the profit. Nevertheless, companies that engage in CPR may initially be confronted with critical questions. The following argumentation is intended to serve as a guide for companies to defuse expected points of criticism: 1. Do companies capture the state through CPR-led socio-political commitment? Do they not already have too much political power? Aren’t they already blatantly close to politics? Sure, companies have political power, and there is no clear separation from politics. But it would be wrong to conclude that they should be kept out of

188

7

Conclusion: Filling the New Attitude with Life

politics artificially. On the contrary, companies should assume the responsibility that is theirs anyway—by strengthening state structures that are the foundation of their business. Companies must be honest and accept their role as the political actors they already are. It is a matter of productively integrating their enormous professional, financial, and organizational resources to address socio-political challenges. By taking on governance tasks, companies relieve the state, which can limit itself to its core functions and regain their capacity to act. This strengthens the primacy of the political. One thing must be clear: When companies operate in the public sphere, they are also subject to the democratic rules of the game. In particular, the exercise of coercion is reserved for the democratically legitimized powers. 2. Where is the boundary between politics and business? It is impossible to attempt an exhaustive definition of the boundary between politics and business as companies have a massive impact on highly sensitive areas such as internal and external security, health, or data and energy infrastructures. Even at its core, the state is therefore dependent on private sector know-how. As a functional demarcation, the state’s priority remains above all to establish law and enforce it by force. However, the concrete tasks that the state must perform cannot be determined a priori, but only case by case. The following criterion is suitable for this: When common goods are provided, both their quality and the legitimacy of their process of their creation must be guaranteed. Both requirements can come into conflict, yet in the long run, they converge. Without efficient common goods, there is no social legitimacy; and without social legitimacy, there are no efficient common goods. 3. Why should companies support the state now of all times? The state is coming under pressure from populism, elite failure, nationalism, and democracy fatigue; CPR is a response to this overload. The traditional nationstates are still the decisive political actors in international politics. Supranational entities such as the UN or the EU are massively shaped by nation-state interests, and global governance challenges are being discussed within the framework of the G20. Foreign and geopolitical lines of conflict run primarily along state borders and less along religious or cultural lines. But the speed of political processes lags far behind that of economic processes. Globalization and digitalization add to the complexity of transnational problems, and as a result, states are losing some of their ability to provide governance. At the same time, the demands on the states’ performance are increasing because in the digital age, citizens have access to comprehensive information—they are emancipating themselves. In addition, it is becoming apparent that companies play an increasingly important role on the political stage. As the main drivers of globalization and digitalization, companies are confronted with enormous challenges that paradoxically make them indispensable to their resolution, given their wealth of resources. CPR reacts to the increased expectations of state services and to the facto political dimension of a corporate brand by linking them: When companies develop their political brand, they strengthen the state, meet society’s expectations, and thus invest in the foundations of their business.

7.2 Objections and Responses Concerning CPR

189

4. Businesses fulfill a socio-political role simply by doing business. Is that not enough? Shouldn’t politics and business, in the sense of a division of labor, stick to their respective “core competencies”? In a modern, functionally differentiated society, division of labor is the rule and expressly desirable. It is an imperative of complexity. At the same time, boundaries between social sub-sectors such as politics and business serve to provide democratic legitimation. Politics, if completely occupied by business, would be “bought,” while a thoroughly politicized business sector would not permit any degree of private freedom. However, there is no strict categorical separation between politics and business. Companies are already political actors: as employers, trainers, taxpayers, and lobbyists. And they depend on intact public goods (legal security, infrastructure, education, etc.) in their business activities. If companies recognize the political dimension of their existence, they can make the overlap with politics productive and thus strengthen the foundations of their business. Certainly, businesses per se fulfill an important social task through their services—otherwise they would not exist. But they possess extensive resources that they can also use to stabilize state governance. Such socio-political commitment enables win–win solutions for the state and the economy. 5. Is CPR really necessary? We already have CSR! Certainly, companies engage in CSR and give an account of their activities in corresponding reports. However, it is obvious that CSR is often conducted in an unfocused manner. It has become a reservoir for broad-based commitment that is not necessarily aligned with the core business. There is a lack of strategic orientation. In addition, CSR is mostly used to address social and ecological problems, but the larger context of these problems is lost, namely, the political. For if companies really want to help the state, society, and themselves, they must contribute to a vibrant culture of debate and intact common goods. This includes public discussion forums, good education, a healthy environment, a functioning infrastructure, a reliable legal system, etc. Achieving this is a genuine political task. While “social” commitment includes all sorts of important things (to put it more polemically: nice things), “political” commitment addresses the basic conditions for successful business activity. 6. Isn’t it dangerous for companies to position themselves politically? Some companies see politics as a “swamp,” as a jungle of interests that is difficult to understand and in which tactical power calculations make the efficient completion of tasks extremely difficult. In this respect, companies prefer to distance themselves from politics. However, CPR does not require companies to express themselves in a partisan way. That is not their job. This is a much broader concept of the political: At best, it is about the foundations of an open, free society, or at least about an adequate supply of public goods. Businesses should support this in their own interests. Companies that are committed to socio-political issues in the long term and credibly articulate their political interests gain economic advantages. Last but not least, companies address social expectations, especially of the younger generations, by taking a clear political stance. The reason is that there is less and less acceptance for companies as “political neutrals.” Defensive

190

7

Conclusion: Filling the New Attitude with Life

reflexes against the political must, therefore, be overcome: They usually stem from an abridged understanding of the term. A wider understanding would mean recognizing the political as a fundament for entrepreneurial activity.

Glossary: New Terms in the Context of CPR

Collective or common goods Goods that are characterized by the non-excludability of potential users and non-rivalry of consumption, which means that there is usually no market for them, and they must therefore be provided by public authorities. Corporate Political Responsibility (CPR) A stance of political responsibility taken by companies in their enlightened economic self-interest; further development and strategic focus of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). CPR essentials All contributions that companies make in the CPR fields of activity to the culture of democratic debate, the strengthening of the democratic order, and the state infrastructure, in classic policy areas or cross-sectoral issues such as demography or digitalization. The essence of ! CPR is the strengthening of the institutional structure of the liberal democratic and constitutional state as a business case. CPR fields of action Areas, in which companies implement socio-political measures including ! responsible lobbying, topics and dialogues, projects of political participation, and provision of collective or common goods. They are the core of ! political brand management. CPR Planning Unit Operates like a small political think tank as part of the strategy department and provides the Executive Board or management, in particular the CEO, with analyses of business-relevant opportunities and risks in the political environment and formulates recommendations for action. CPR scorecard Tool for quantitative measurement and evaluation of CPR measures based on defined KPIs for the purpose of impact assessment and benchmarking. Existential public services Provision of public services considered necessary for human existence, such as health, security, or education. These basic services describe the core task of the state and can be provided in part by companies within the framework of the governance concept. Focal institutions of social learning Sociological understanding of the company as a societal place where people spend a considerable amount of their time, and which therefore has essential tasks of further training, also with regard to the importance of the political context of economic activity. # The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, part of Springer Nature 2021 J. Bohnen, Corporate Political Responsibility, Future of Business and Finance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62122-6

191

192

Glossary: New Terms in the Context of CPR

Governance Political rulemaking or giving direction as well as the provision of ! collective or common goods through cross-sectoral cooperation and alliances (in contrast to the government’s state-centered concept). Governance gap Insufficient provision of ! governance services by the state, which is structurally challenged by phenomena such as globalization and digitalization and can only operate transnationally to a limited extent. Mainstreaming Decentralized base (as opposed to departmentalizing responsibility in a separate unit) for CPR in the company to foster a broad-based political stance, making it an instrument of internal change management, and thus aligning it strategically. Political brand The company in its role as a political actor, its positioning in the public sphere, and its relationship to various stakeholders in state and society. Political brand creation Systematic identification and consolidation of loose political brand elements in the company (! political brand dimension) into a coherent political brand using the ! strength filter method. Political brand dimension Totality of those elements of a corporate brand that are related to the public sphere or to the ! political. Political brand management Continuous development and safeguarding of the relevance of the ! political brand through measures in the ! CPR fields of action. Political branding Operationalization of ! Corporate Political Responsibility in a process that includes ! political branding (analysis of the ! political brand dimension and development of the ! political brand) and ! political brand management (strategic planning, preparation, and implementation of measures) in the ! CPR fields of action including impact measurement using a ! CPR scorecard). Political foundations The socio-political and institutional preconditions for profitable business activity, such as the rule of law that allows for planning security, pluralism of opinion, tolerance, education, and infrastructure. Political investment Use of financial, technological, personnel, and other corporate resources to strengthen socio-political institutions with the aim of improving the quality of the business location in the long term and of securing the earnings base. Political leitmotif Political guidance for the corporation, which usually takes the form of a mission statement including a positioning sentence (essence) that emphasizes the identity and promise of the company as a ! political brand, thus creating internal and external orientation, and forms the basis for political communication measures. Political sustainability Goal of CPR efforts; socio-political-institutional interpretation of the sustainability concept of corporate responsibility instead of its more common social and ecological context. Public Change Management Extension of the business concept of change management to the public sector, whereby companies as an integral part of intersectoral alliances initiate innovative political renewal processes.

Glossary: New Terms in the Context of CPR

193

Responsible lobbying Concept according to which companies present their positions transparently and consistently to all stakeholders and keep the common good in mind when pursuing specific goals. Strength filter method Development of the brand core of a company by identifying its strengths, filter them according to the four criteria “true to itself,” “distinct from the competition,” “relevant for all target groups,” and “sociopolitical added value,” formation of strength clusters and compaction into a ! guiding principle. The political A field beyond party politics, in which decisions about public affairs and the community are taken in the context of power and interests.