| Neeta Saran | Assistant Professor | MD College, Agra | neeta2sep@gmail.com |
ABSTRACT
As per the genesis of civil society, i.e., public demands were raised and demonstrated by civil society in an orderly and nonviolent way so that authoritarians’ deviation from society’s and nation’s interest was met in no time, the creation and expansion of civil society reflect society’s solidarity and movements towards authoritarians. Through this process, the government gets the power to influence the people to accept their decisions and be accountable to the citizens. Because public interests were the strongest, the development of society was the most important civil society movement. One of the most essential pillars on which the development of a nation stands is development. Therefore, it is imperative to study development. Development which is comprehensive, political, cultural, and economic, requires comprehensive planning. Practice demonstrates that in nations where civil society has the most cooperation with community players, full development has been attained. Since civil society gains its strength from the integration and mobility of its citizens, it is the direct controlling power of people on the activities of their rulers and authorities. That is why the civil society started to organize and spread. The process of globalisation has been influencing nations’ socioeconomic settings for over 20 years. Globalisation offers nations new opportunities for economic growth via trade liberalisation, foreign direct investment, capital flows, exchange of information, and technology transfer but at the same time has also resulted in higher deprivation for those nations that have failed to adapt to the pressures of a global society. Thus, more than one billion individuals remain poor, with a purchasing power of less than $1 per day, even though some parts of the world are witnessing boundless economic growth and prosperity. In the poorest nations of the world, approximately one-fifth of infants die before their first year of life, and over half of those surviving it are undernourished. In addition, much of the population does not have access to basic health care, clean water, hygienic conditions, or education.
Keywords: Civil Society, integration, mobility, development, globalisation, poverty.
Introduction
The concept of civil society is a centuries-old idea in Western civilization, having its roots in ancient Greece. In the 18th century, political thinkers such as Thomas Paine and George Hegel influenced the evolution of the modern notion of civil society by defining it as a realm that was distinct from yet parallel to the states. The 1990s witnessed a resurgence of interest in civil society as democracy gained traction and civil society became more important to cover the widening gaps in social services brought about by structural adjustment and other reforms in developing nations. In an era of increasing globalization and corporate influence, the role of businesses in shaping human rights outcomes has become a subject of urgent international concern. Corporations today operate across borders, impacting communities, labor markets, and natural resources in ways that often outpace the regulatory capacity of states. This growing reach of corporate power necessitates robust mechanisms to ensure accountability, particularly where state regulation is weak, compromised, or absent. Against this backdrop, civil society—comprising non-governmental organizations (NGOs), human rights defenders, advocacy networks, and community-based groups—has emerged as a critical counterbalance, demanding transparency, justice, and ethical conduct from corporate actors. The intersection of civil society and corporate accountability represents a powerful and evolving space in contemporary human rights advocacy. Far from functioning in silos, these two forces often interact in complex and complementary ways. Civil society not only exposes corporate abuses but also shapes policy discourse, influences consumer behavior, and mobilizes legal and political pressure to push businesses toward socially responsible practices. Simultaneously, many corporations have begun to adopt voluntary standards such as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics, and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, responding both to civil society advocacy and market pressures. This synergy reflects a shift from adversarial models of regulation to more collaborative frameworks of shared accountability, wherein corporations are encouraged to internalize human rights norms as part of their governance structures.
This paper explores how civil society and corporate accountability mechanisms converge to advance human rights protection in both domestic and transnational contexts. It examines the normative frameworks guiding this interaction, highlights case studies where civil society engagement has successfully influenced corporate behavior, and critiques the limitations of current regulatory approaches. Ultimately, the study argues that a synergistic relationship between civil society and the corporate sector—grounded in mutual responsibility, transparency, and ethical obligation—is essential to building sustainable, rights-respecting systems of economic governance in the 21st century.
Role of Civil Society
It is widely accepted that the civil society is an essential “third sector.” Both the state and the market can be helped by its power. It is therefore believed that civil society will make more contributions towards the development of good governance qualities such as efficacy, transparency, accountability, and responsiveness. The civil society is able to do the following in order to assist good governance i.e. first, by advocating for and scrutinizing policies, second, by monitoring and regulating public servants and the government’s actions, third by building social capital and empowering citizens to discover and express their values, beliefs, civic norms, and democratic practices, fourth by mobilizing specific constituencies, in particular the more vulnerable and marginalised sections of society, to engage more actively in matters of the public and fifth by attempting to improve the quality of life in other and their own communities.
Challenges to the Development of Civil Society in Developing Nations
It is important to pay more attention to the problem of the modest size of the civil society sector in developing nations, since they have a significant capacity to influence the MDGs. It’s critical to comprehend the past obstacles to these organisations’ expansion if we hope to fortify them. The historical, cultural, social, and political contexts of many nations have a significant impact on the size and makeup of the civil society sector. Several barriers to the expansion of CSOs include the following:
The lengthy history of authoritarian control in many nations may be the most fundamental element behind the often-delayed pattern of third sector development. For instance, in Latin America, Brazil’s non-profit sector has developed within a historical framework of a powerful state and a feeble civil society. Strong governmental control played a significant role in the African histories of Ghana and Egypt. The history of the South Asian countries of India, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan is dominated by the rise, prosperity, and fall of several empires that had a hierarchical social structure and little social structure that was independent of the government. In these civilizations, there was limited space for a genuinely autonomous third sector because of this authoritarian structure. As a result, any philanthropic organisations that arose had to blend in with the established social and political power structures in order to prevent seriously undermining the authority of the ruling political class. After these nations gained their independence, authoritarian political rule persisted. Instead, it continued. As a result, in many of these nations, there is still a culture of mistrust between the government and the non profit sector. The state is still extremely aware of its power and too quickly sees the rise of CSOs as a threat to its own authority.
Religion has influenced the non-profit sector’s growth in a number of ways. Apart from the fundamental beliefs and the encouragement of charitable deeds, other significant aspects of religion’s influence must be considered, such as its attitude towards individuality, its dedication to the establishment of institutions, and its interaction with the government. There are signs that, although faiths might have a similar positive outlook on philanthropy, they might not always be in favour of the establishment of CSOs.
The recent history of colonial rule is another element that contributes to the explanation of the third sector’s typically delayed pattern of growth in the third world. However, colonialism had a multifaceted effect on the growth of this industry, just like religion does. Furthermore, it has changed a little based on the national customs and ideals of the colonial authority. Colonialism has a tendency to weaken local social classes’ independence, which may have served as a focal point for the establishment of civil society organisations.
The limitation colonialism had on social development was arguably the most significant effect it had on several of the countries. Actually, one of the main effects of colonialism was to restrict the amount of land that members of the indigenous middle class could acquire in emerging nations. This was due to the fact that the colonial administration limited middle class professional options by taking on several governmental and commercial tasks that could have been completed by the indigenous people.
The lack of financial resources is a major barrier impeding the development of the civil society sector. The size and functionality of CSOs are restricted by funding limitations severely hindering their capacity to provide and maintain services. Large non-governmental organisations, in particular, usually rely heavily on financing from overseas donors. Because of this, the interests of donors are reflected more in CSOs than in those of their target audiences or communities. In order to survive, many CSOs are forced to re-evaluate their goals or take on tasks that are outside of their mandate. The current state of the economy makes local fundraising extremely challenging. Competition for few resources is limiting opportunities for long-term institutional growth, coalition formation, and other aspects of strengthening local capability.
The legislative framework that non-profits must work within has also hampered the growth of the non-profit sector in several developing nations. Certainly, formal law has the power to significantly alter the climate for action in civil law nations like Egypt, Brazil, and Thailand, where there is no inherent legal recognition of the right to organise. Due in large part to the largely authoritarian politics that have typified these nations for much of their recent history, civil society participation has faced significant legislative constraints.
Concept of Accountability
A key component of democracy and sound governance, accountability requires the government, business community, and civil society to prioritise outcomes, establish specific goals, create practical plans, track and communicate performance using the most impartial metrics available. Transparency encourages the democratic process to be transparent through feedback and reporting, explicit policies and processes, and the behaviour of individuals in positions of decision-making authority. It maintains individuals’ access to clear standards open and information comprehensible. Three sets of players make up the chain of relationships of accountability in the context of providing services to the impoverished individuals as clinic patients, customers of water, bus riders, and schoolchildren are examples of clients of services; service providers frontline workers such as teachers, physicians, bus drivers, water firms, organisation providers such as health, education, and water departments, and politicians or policymakers round out the list. There are five aspects to the interaction between the actors such as knowledge regarding performance, financing, performance, enforceability, and delegating. The Global Development Report In a perfect world, there is a power and responsibility connection between the three sets of actors. People have “Voice over Politicians.” There is a “Compact” between policy makers and organisational suppliers. Through their interactions with frontline providers, customers exercise “Client Power,” which is managed by organisational providers. Any relationship’s weakness leads to a breakdown in service. This might be the quick road to accountability, as stated in the World Development Report (2004). Nonetheless, public sector participation is probably going to sustain a plausible service delivery situation in the majority of emerging nations.
Citizen Voice and Political Accountability
Political accountability refers to the regular and transparent processes used by the executive, legislative, and judicial arms of government to penalise or reward those who occupy positions of trust. The individuals who represent the state, the legislators and policymakers, are connected to the citizens by their involvement in politics and voice in society. In theory, persons living in poverty are citizens who help define the goals of society as a whole and who work to influence public policy in order to attain those goals. Accountability is the political readiness to defend their positions and, in the event that the defence is shown to be insufficient, to suffer consequences at the polls, in court, or in government. Elections, in theory, provide citizens both enforcement and accountability. Democracies differ widely in practice in these respects, as do the majority of accountability initiatives.
Representation and Accountability
Accountability and representation are inextricably related concepts. This term refers to the type of relationship that politicians have with the public in so-called “representative democracies” because voters regularly provide elected officials authority. Unlike authoritarian governments and non-representative democracies, representative democracies combine an institutional framework for granting political power with an emphasis on guaranteeing the accountability and responsiveness of those authorised actors. A group of representatives chosen via free elections is temporarily granted authority by the public, who maintain ultimate authority in a democracy. A representative is a person who has been given permission to act mostly independently from the voters. Given that representative democracy necessitates a fundamental divide between citizens and political representatives, institutional safeguards must exist to prevent this divide from giving rise to unresponsive or unlawful regimes. The idea of accountability focuses on how to maintain the space that separates political authority from the people that defines representational relations while also regulating and narrowing the gap between representatives and represented.
The capacity to guarantee that public servants are held responsible for their actions as they are compelled to provide justification for their choices and will ultimately face consequences for them is referred to as accountability. It concerns a particular kind of interaction or connection between two independent individuals, one of whom asserts “superior authority.” Accountability describes a certain kind of social engagement that involves both parties. Lastly, the right to superior power is a prerequisite for accountability, meaning that those who seek accountability are entitled to demand explanations and apply penalties. The latter should not be understood to imply the ability to formally execute laws or impose sanctions; rather, it might relate to a moral claim to defend rights or condemn misbehaviour on the basis of normative arguments that support the representational contract.
Although these legal and constitutional requirements may lead to compliance, they also call for accountability procedures in situations where public servants behave improperly or illegally. Institutions with the authority to hold people accountable and apply punishments in situations when officials violate the law or due process are necessary for the proper operation of legal accountability systems. Political or legal considerations might be used to establish the accountability of political authority. The term “legal accountability” describes a group of institutional frameworks designed to make sure public officials operate in a way that is both legally and constitutionally permissible. Modern constitutionalism creates the structures necessary to limit the arbitrary use of state authority through the division of powers, the affirmation of fundamental rights, and the system of checks and balances. The division of state authority among the judicial, legislative, and executive branches and the strict boundaries on state activities are a result of the public law foundation that the constitution places on state institutions. Furthermore, institutional safeguards offered by basic rights shield citizens from unauthorised governmental intrusion.
Rather, the idea of political responsibility refers to how well governmental policies reflect popular desires. Democratic representation and political accountability are closely related ideas. It describes a certain kind of connection that leads to the act of giving authority to a body acting as a representative, with the representative having the right to exercise more authority than those to whom it has temporarily transferred its power. A government can only be held politically responsible if its constituents can hold negligent or unresponsive governments accountable. It is often believed that elections serve as the primary means of political accountability via which the public may reward or penalise elected officials, and that political parties constitute the fundamental institution of political representation. Elections give people a regular way to hold governments accountable for their deeds, removing those in power who did not represent their constituents’ interests and re-electing those who did. Political society challenges the purported political representation of civil society organisations because of these representatives of the general public.
Civil Society and Representative Government
The term “civil society” describes the collective aspect of people. It describes the autonomous actions of allied citizens, such as social movements, advocacy organisations, non-governmental organisations, informal publics, and so on. The term “civil society” refers to both the variety of associational forms that result from autonomous individuals acting in self-constituting ways as well as a particular group of institutions that support these endeavours. Thus, it’s important to differentiate between the two different interpretations of the phrase “civil society.” the creation of a set of fundamental rights that guarantee the unrestricted growth of the associations and actors operating within its borders as well as an independent public sphere is its passive dimension. The first is its active dimension, which refers to the various associational forms that function within its boundaries. Agents can act in concert, discuss matters of common interest, establish new rights, and affect political society within the public and associational domains of civil society. These domains of affirmative liberty encompass, among other things, the freedoms of speech, assembly, and association.
It is clear that the associational nature of the concepts of citizenship and civil society is reflected in the component side of the representative equation. Although representation assessments have mostly focused on voter engagement, civil society is an important social arena that performs several responsibilities in guaranteeing responsible government. It is important to pay attention to this. For representative government to work there must be a dynamic interaction between the political system and the people it represents. We need to focus on the complex web of input-output interactions that exist between voters and elected officials and which sustain, shape, and maintain the relations of representation if we are to properly understand the forms that this interaction takes. The self-constituting associative practices and politics of civic associations, social movements, NGOs, and informal publics must be considered in representation models beyond individualist and election-anchored ones. In other words, these are the steps that constituents take to make sure their representatives remain accountable to and responsive to them. In conclusion, active representatives and constituents are both necessary for representative systems to work well.
There are two ways in which civil society enhances and augments the capabilities of the existing accountability mechanisms. First civil society enhances representative government by thematizing new issues, offering novel viewpoints on the political agenda, and contesting existing laws and policies. Secondly civil society may also contribute to improving the calibre of representative systems by putting significant emphasis on legal responsibility. When civil society reports legal transgressions, rights abuses, and due process violations by public authorities, it frequently enhances and activates legal accountability systems. Additionally, it aims to enhance the efficiency of the institutions and systems that regulate and mould the conduct of public servants.
Conclusion
The symbiotic relationship between civil society and corporate accountability plays a pivotal role in shaping a more equitable and rights-conscious global order. Civil society functions as the moral compass and vigilant watchdog of society, championing the cause of human rights through grassroots mobilization, public advocacy, litigation, policy engagement, and the amplification of marginalized voices. It represents the collective conscience of democratic societies, bridging the gap between the state, market, and citizenry, and ensuring that power—whether political or economic—is exercised with responsibility and fairness. Conversely, corporate accountability refers to the ethical, legal, and social obligation of business entities to respect and uphold human rights across their value chains, including in their labor practices, environmental impact, and stakeholder relationships. As corporations increasingly influence public policy, natural resources, and livelihoods, their role in either upholding or violating human rights has grown exponentially. When these two forces—civil society and corporations—engage constructively, they can co-create mechanisms for greater transparency, participatory governance, and sustainable development. Civil society organizations (CSOs) play a crucial role in holding corporations accountable through investigative reporting, shareholder activism, strategic litigation, and advocacy campaigns that expose malpractice and demand reform. At the same time, progressive businesses are beginning to respond to such pressure by integrating Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) frameworks, adopting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) principles, and aligning themselves with international human rights norms such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. This collaboration is not merely adversarial but increasingly dialogic and reformative—with civil society pushing corporations to not only “do no harm” but also to become active participants in the realization of human rights and inclusive development. Together, civil society and responsible corporate actors form a formidable alliance for systemic change, capable of confronting global challenges such as labor exploitation, climate injustice, forced displacement, and digital surveillance. In an era marked by shrinking civic spaces and rising corporate power, this partnership is indispensable for ensuring that economic progress does not come at the cost of human dignity and that global development remains anchored in the principles of justice, accountability, and universal rights.
REFERENCES
- NGO Accountability Politics Principles & Innovations by Lisa Jordan, Routledge.
- Civil Society Development: A Critical Exploration by Jude Howell & Jenny Pearce, Lynne Rienner.
- Corporate and Civil Society Perspectives by Lonneke Roza Steffen Bethmann Lucas Meijs Georg von Schnurbein, Springer.
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12142-020-00606-w.
- https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/11/20/role-civil-society-accountability-systems-human-rights-perspective.
- https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3566318.