Neoinstitutional Approach as a Methodology of Corporate Citizen-ship Phenomenon Analysis

Introduction.  The relevance  of citizenship  institute  basics  research is actualized  by the upheavals  in economic,  social, and political systems.  The scientific novelty consists  of the outlined   neoinstitutional    approach   and   Ju.   Habermas   communicative   action   theory perspectives  as a methodology for corporate citizenship of mediatized society study.

Methodology and sources. Neoinstitutional  approach  and Ju. Habermas  communicative action theory represent the methodological  basis of the research. Citizenship is reviewed as a social and political phenomenon with implied active position of the subject,  rather than a legal   status.   A   comprehensive   analysis   of   empirical   data   is  based   on   transparent nonfinancial  reporting  of  Russian  companies,  which  are  the  members  the  UN Global Compact Network, with well-developed large-scale  socially oriented programs and projects of corporate sustainability, and expert interviews.

Results and discussion. The deepening  mediatization of postindustrial society influenses the formation  of corporate citizenship social and political phenomenon, whose structural basis is represented by value-based communicative figurations. The empirical study allowed us to outline the key features of the corporate citizenship formation model in Russia.

Conclusion.  Postindustrial  society  network  structures   deployment  forces  the  transition from  bureaucratic  logic  of  industrial  society  institutional  structures   to  communicative rationality of sociopolitical designing. From the perspective of the neoinstitutional approach, communicative  figurations established by corporate citizens represent structural basis for local communities  members socialization and influence corporations’ subjectivity acquiring in political communications system.

1. Malyj, A.F. and Logunova, S.O. (2021), “Institutions of law and legal institutes in the modern Russian law and features of their formation’’, Education and Law, vol. 2, pp. 91–96. DOI: 10.24412/2076-1503-2021-2-91-96.

2. Durkheim, É. (1995), Sociology. Its subject, method, purpose, Transl. by Hoffmann, A.B., Kanon, Moscow, RUS.

3. Chesnokova, V. (2008), “Émile Durkheim. Public consciousness. Sociological method”, Polit.ru, 05.11.2008, available at: https://polit.ru/article/2008/11/05/soc/ (accessed 13.06.2022).

4. Durkheim, É. (1900), De la division du travail social: étude sur l'organisation des sociétés, Transl. by Yushkevich, P., tip. G.M. Levinsona Odessa, RUS.

5. Durkheim, É. (1991), De la division du travail social, Transl. by Hoffmann, A.B., Nauka, Moscow, RUS.

6. Osipov, G.V. (1993), Istoriya sotsiologii v Zapadnoi Evrope i SShA [The history of sociology in Western Europe and the USA], Nauka, Moscow, RUS.

7. Weber, M. (2017), Die protestantischen Sekten und der Geist des Kapitalismus, 4th ed., Davydov, Yu.N., Centr gumanitarnyh iniciativ, SPb., Moscow, RUS.

8. Parsons, T. (2002), The Social Theories, in Chesnokova, V.F. and Belanovskii, S.A. (eds.), Akademicheskii proekt, Moscow, RUS.

9. Yadov, V.A. (2006), “Social institutes”, Human. Community. Management, vol. 1, pp. 4–13.

10. Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1995), The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise on sociology of Knowledge, Transl. by Rutkevich, E., Medium, Moscow, RUS.

11. Mikhaleva, K.Yu. and Polyakova, N.L. (2012), “The concept of the social institution in the sociological theory”, Moscow State Univ. bulletin. Ser. 18. Sociology and Political Science, no. 2, pp. 117–132.

12. March, J.C. and Olsen, J.P. (2006), “Elaborating the “New Institutionalism””, The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, Rhodes, R.A.W., Binder, S.A. and Rockman, B.A. (eds.), Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, USA, pp. 3–22.

13. North, D. (1997), Institutions, institutional change and economic performance, Transl. by Nesterenko, A.N., Fond ekonomicheskoi knigi “NAChALA”, Moscow, RUS.

14. Kapelyushnikov, R. (2004), “Neoinstitucionalizm”, Otechestvennye zapiski, no. 6, available at: URL: https://strana-oz.ru/2004/6/neoinstitucionalizm (accessed 10.01.2023).

15. Achkasov, V.A. (2011), Sravnitel'naya politologiya [Comparative politics], Aspekt Press, Moscow, RUS.

16. Jackman, R.W. and Ross, A.M. (1998), “Social capital and politics”, Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 1, pp. 47–73. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.1.1.47.

17. Malkina, M.Yu., Loginova, T.P. and Lyadova, E.V. (2015), Institutsional'naya ekonomika [Institutional economics], Nizhegorodskii gos. un-t, N. Novgorod, RUS.

18. Simon, H.A. (1957), Models of Man, Johnn Wiley & Sons, NY, USA.

19. Williamson, O.E. (1985), The economic institutions of capitalism: firms, markets, relational contracting, The Free Press, NY, USA.

20. Linde, A.N. (2016), “The meaning of J. Habermas's communicative approach in the development of the modern theory of political communication”, Society: Politics, Economics, Law, no. 2, pp. 53–57.

21. Habermas, J. (2001), Moralbewusstsein und Kommunikatives Handeln, Transl. by Sklyadnev, D.V., SPb., Nauka, RUS.

22. Habermas, J. (2001), Die Einbeziehung des Anderen Studien zur Politischen Theorie, Transl. by Medvedev, Yu.S., SPb., Nauka, RUS.

23. Sharakhina, L.V. (2021), “Corporate citizen in political discourse amidst the pandemic”, J. of Political Research, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 46–58. DOI: 10.12737/2587-6295-2021-5-4-46-58.

24. Luhmann, N. (2005), Die Realität der Massenmedien, Transl. by Antonovskii, A.Yu., Praksis, Moscow, RUS.

25. Turner, B.S. (1990), “Outline of a Theory of Citizenship”, Sociology, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 189–217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038590024002002.

26. Deberdeeva, T.H. (2010), “National Idea in Russia: civic consciousness connected to patriotism], Sovet rektorov, no. 1, pp. 60–65.

27. Social responsibility guideline, available at: https://gostexpert.ru/data/files/26000-2012/66792.pdf (accessed 13.08.2022).

28. Blagov, Yu.E. (2011), “Evolution of CSR Concept and the Strategic Management”, Vestnik of Saint-Petersburg Univ. Management, no. 1, pp. 3–26.

29. Arai, Yu.N., Bandalyuk, O.V., Barkan, D.I. et al. (2017), Upravlenie proektami v oblasti sotsial'nogo predprinimatel'stva [Project management in the field of social entrepreneurship], Izd-vo SPbGU, SPb., RUS.

30. Azarova, L.V., Achkasova, V.A. and Sharakhina, L.V. (2019), “Strategic role of PR in formation of a new Russian business corporate social responsibility model”, Rossiiskaya shkola svyazei s obshchestvennost'yu, no. 14, pp. 11–26.

31. Sharakhina, L.V. (2021), “Digital Technologies in Russian Corporate Citizenship Initiatives”, Proceedings of the 2021 Communication Strategies in Digital Society Seminar, ComSDS 2021, St Petersburg, RUS, April 14, 2021, pp. 91–94. DOI: 10.1109/ComSDS52473.2021.9422869.

32. Bozhko, I. (2015), “Corporate citizenship as an element of business and region sus-tainable development”, Ustojchivyj biznes [Sustainable business], available at: https://csrjournal.com/12931-korporativnoe-grazhdanstvo-kak-sostavlyayushhaya-ustojchivogo-razvitiya-biznesa-i-regiona.html (accessed 20.09.2021).

33. Publichnaya politika. Instituty, tsifrovizatsiya, razvitie [Public policy. Institutes, digitalization, development] (2018), in Smorgunov, L.V. (ed.), Aspekt Press, Moscow, RUS.