Academic interest in corporate social responsibility (CSR) can be traced back to the 1930s. Since then an impressive body of empirical data and theory-building has been amassed, mainly located in the fields of management studies and business ethics. One of the most noteworthy recent conceptual contributions to the scholarship is Midttun’s (Corporate Governance 5(3):159–174, 2005) CSR-oriented embedded relational model of societal governance. It re-conceptualises the relationships between the state, business, and civil society. Other scholars (In Albareda et al. Corporate Governance 6(4):386–400, 2006; Business Ethics: A European Review 17(4):347–363, 2008; Lozano et al., Governments and Corporate Social Responsibility, 2008) have recently successfully used the model as the basis for their analytical framework for researching CSR activities in a large number of western European countries. While this research offers valuable insights into how CSR is operationalised, it also suffers from a number of significant limitations. To develop a stronger analytical framework with which to explore CSR, this article draws more deeply on political science literature concerned with governance and public policy analysis. This represents the main purpose of this article. In addition, this article also addresses a second and more modest aim: to reflect on the ways in which relational governance-inspired frameworks could be adapted and applied to politico-economic systems where state-industry-third sector relations differ from those found in North America and Western Europe. Both lines of argument are illustrated using vignettes from a case study of the Evenkia Hydro-Electric Station building project in the Russian Federation.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, operating in Australia under the National Health Act 1953, provides citizens equal access to subsidised pharmaceuticals. With ever-increasing costs of medicines and global financial pressure on all commodities, the sustainability of the PBS is of crucial importance on many social and political fronts. Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription medicines is fast expanding, as pharmaceutical companies recognise and reinforce marketing potentials not only in healthcare professionals but also in consumers. DTCA is currently prohibited in Australia, but pharmaceutical companies continuously lobby for the ban to be lifted. There is evidence that such marketing strategies influence consumer behaviour and concerns have been raised about whether DTCA could affect government expenditure on the PBS in Australia. This pharmacy-based study explored Australian consumer attitudes towards DTCA and whether consumer attitudes regarding DTCA differ based on socioeconomic status, measured in terms of income and education. Consumers from different socioeconomic areas in Sydney were asked to respond to a survey about an advertisement created specifically for the promotion of a mock prescription medicine. Their views about the intent, value and reliability of the advertisement were explored. The study found that consumers of lower socioeconomic status were more likely to perceive DTCA as a source of valuable and reliable medical information, and that they were more likely to request an advertised medication from their physician. If DTCA of prescription medicines was to be introduced in Australia, an increase in government expenditure on the PBS would be anticipated. Findings of this study also expose a deficit in respect for patients’ right to autonomy and informed consent which should be based on evidence-based, unbiased, information rather than advertisements.