Transnational corporations have come under pressure to show that their lobbying behavior is consistent with their corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies. Few empirical studies, however, have examined how companies coordinate their CSR and public policy activities or how aligned these activities are towards common goals. We address these questions by evaluating the testimony that large corporations have given to relevant UK parliamentary committees. Using an original coding frame, we assess the extent to which companies with strong CSR credentials align their testimony with the norms of the sustainability field as well as how supportive high CSR companies are of state interventions into the market. We find consistent differences in how high and low CSR companies lobby before these parliamentary committees. High CSR companies are more likely to discuss and support specific policy measures than their low CSR counterparts and to offer more fleshed out justifications for their policy positions.

From 1764 to 1776, there was a political crisis regarding the authority of the British Parliament over America. Yet the British case for parliamentary sovereignty was not particularly clear, and by 1774, most Americans argued that Parliament had no authority over internal affairs in America. Even English politicians and lawyers, such William Pitt the Elder and Lord Camden, argued that Parliament had no ability to tax the American colonies. In 1776, the American colonies declared their independence and a war of independence ensued, that Britain lost. But what could explain this disagreement over sovereignty? This chapter looks to several factors for explanation. These include the fact of Britain’s uncodified Constitution, which rendered it unclear which laws were in any case ‘constitutional’. There was also disagreement as to how the British Constitution applied in the colonies. Many Americans asserted that only a shared monarch connected American colonies legally to Britain and to each other, and that colonial assemblies were comparable to Parliament. There was, however, no acceptance of this in Britain, where the doctrine of undivided and unlimited sovereignty was increasingly employed by those in power.

This chapter provides a detailed account of the powers of the UK Government, both in relation to executive powers and the initiation and control over the enactment of primary legislation. In particular, it provides an up to date account of the impact of the two recent Miller decisions (the Brexit decision and the prorogation decision) , explaining their impact on the control over prerogative powers. It also explains the impact of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011 on prerogative powers.