The article assesses the achievements and limitations of the private regulation of global corporate conduct. Private regulation occurs through voluntary, private, nonstate industry and cross-industry codes that address labor practices, environmental performance, and human rights policies. The author argues that while private regulation has resulted in some substantive improvements in corporate behavior, it cannot be regarded as a substitute for the more effective exercise of state authority at both the national and international levels. Ultimately, private regulation must be integrated with and reinforced by more effective state-based and enforced regulatory policies at both the national and international levels.

Regulations that govern the social and environmental impacts of global firms and markets without state enforcement are a relatively new dimension of global business regulation. The growth of such voluntary “civil regulations” reflects both the expansion of legitimate authority in the global economy outside the state and the increasing use of alternative regulatory instruments to govern firms, including self-regulation, market-based instruments, and soft laws. In response to global social activism, many firms have adopted voluntary regulatory standards to avoid additional regulation and/or to protect their reputations and brands. Activists have targeted highly visible firms and have been willing to work cooperatively with them. The most important civil regulations are multi-stockholder codes, whose governance is shared by firms and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and which rely on product and producer certifications. Such codes face the challenge of acquiring legitimacy and of persuading both firms and NGOs of the value of their standards. The emergence of civil regulation addresses but does not resolve the challenge of making global firms and markets more effectively and democratically governed.

No abstract

There has been an important shift in the pattern of divergence between consumer and environmental protection policies in Europe and the United States. From the 1960s through the mid 1980s American regulatory standards tended to be more stringent, comprehensive and innovative than in either individual European countries or in the European Union (EU). However, since around 1990 the obverse has been true; many important EU consumer and environmental regulations are now more precautionary than their American counterparts.The ‘new’ politics of consumer and environmental regulation in Europe are attributable to three inter-related factors: a series of regulatory failures within Europe, broader and stronger political support for more stringent and comprehensive regulatory standards within Europe and the growth in the regulatory competence of the European Union.In many respects, European regulatory politics and policies since the 1990s resemble those of the United States during the 1970s. Thus health, safety and environmental politics and policies in the United States are no longer as distinctive as many scholars have portrayed them.

No abstract