Community Decision-Making Power in Formulating Thai Private-Sector Corporate Social Responsibility Projects and Documented Outcomes for Grassroots Economy Development: A Qualitative Documentary Multiple-Case Study

Abstract

This research aimed to 1) examine the levels and characteristics of community decision-making power in formulating corporate social responsibility projects for grassroots economy development; 2) classify and compare patterns of power distribution among businesses, communities, and related organizations; and 3) analyze the comparative relationship between community decision-making power and documented outcomes for the grassroots economy. The study employed qualitative documentary multiple-case research using 20 documents covering nine primary cases and three supporting cases. A case-based data extraction form was used, and the data were analyzed through qualitative content analysis, within-case analysis, and cross-case comparison. The findings revealed that community decision-making power varied across project stages. Among the nine primary cases, eight demonstrated a high level of community control over production, while none demonstrated a high level of community power over pricing and markets. Four patterns of power distribution were identified: 1) businesses established the main framework and communities participated within the predetermined system; 2) businesses controlled markets or standards while communities controlled production; 3) multiple actors jointly made decisions; and 4) communities possessed pre-existing power bases, while businesses provided additional resources and support systems. Comparative findings showed that cases with pre-existing community organizations and rules demonstrated clearer ownership, collective benefits, and continuity than cases in which communities participated within business-defined frameworks. In contrast, business-controlled market cases showed market access and sales, while evidence on net income, bargaining power, and fairness in benefit allocation remained incomplete. In conclusion, community power depends on the right to shape project conditions and control key resources. The study proposes a new framework of community decision-making power differentiated by project stages and controlled resources, emphasizing that participation does not necessarily constitute power and that control over production does not necessarily constitute control over markets. Businesses should therefore gradually transfer authority over standards, pricing, and markets to communities according to their level of readiness