Crisis in world politics. Corporate roles and responses in the Ukraine war and beyond

For some time, Global Governance has made the case that multinational enterprises (MNEs) have become so involved in multistakeholder provisions of public goods that they should be considered as global governors. Their involvement and whether it improves governance, however, remain fiercely debated. In this context, MNEs are frequently framed and discussed as entities sui generis, pursuing private interests while reconciling with broader public expectations. The article argues that the concept of crisis, if adequately theorized, offers a new perspective into this discussion. To do so, I draw from American Pragmatism to introduce crisis both as a challenge for an actor but also a lens into the beliefs expressed throughout for the researcher. Against this dual use of the concept, I develop a typology of crises and relate this to the roles and responses of MNEs that are likely to follow from different crises. As a lens into corporate beliefs, I illustrate the conceptual potential of crisis by looking into how Shell and ExxonMobil respond to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. As an exogenous, rather immediate crisis, the article discusses to what extent their responses reveal a broader acceptance or rejection of new corporate responsibilities. Based on careful reconstruction, the article concludes that neither productively solved the crisis. More specifically, as Shell remains reluctant to engage with it and ExxonMobil outright rejects to do so, ambiguities remain. This is discussed in the broader context of what role MNEs play in world politics as the article ends with the potential of and need for reconceptualizing these actors.