Global Rule-Setting for Business: A Critical Analysis of Multi-Stakeholder Standards

Abstract

In the field of global rule-setting for responsible business behaviour, multi-stakeholder standards have emerged in recent years because of their potential for effective consensus-building, knowledge-sharing and interest representation. Proponents also hold that multi-stakeholder standards could address problems related to other forms of global rule-setting for business. Despite alleged advantages, however, analyses of multi-stakeholder initiatives, considering benefits and drawbacks, have been lacking. This article examines multi-stakeholder standards compared to other collaborative standards adopted in the past decade, and focuses subsequently on the peculiarities of multi-stakeholder standards regarding participation, governance and implementation. Multi-stakeholder standards, which involve business and NGOs, and sometimes also governments, are more specific and well-elaborated than other types of standards. But monitoring and implementation are rarely used as means for increasing participation from multiple stakeholders, including most notably those from developing countries. The article also discusses the implications of the current lack of specificity of the (multi-)stakeholder concept and suggests refinement of multi-stakeholder standards in terms of narrow versus broad inclusiveness.

The Dynamics of Standardization: Three Perspectives on Standards in Organization Studies

“…One way to achieve legitimacy is to try to include different stakeholders and encourage consensus among them while developing a standard (Boström, 2006;Fransen & Kolk, 2007). Of course, consensus is often difficult to achieve because members have different interests or opinions on what the 'right' standard should be.…”

“…To offset this weakness, they are often complemented with other elements of organisation, such as monitoring, sanctions, hierarchical authority, membership or constitutions (Ahrne & Brunsson, 2011). Monitoring, for instance, is a common addition to standards set by social movements (Fransen & Kolk, 2007). The development of monitoring standards for workplace conditions in global supply chains, such as Social Accountability 8000 (Gilbert & Rasche, 2007), is a case in point.…”

Sustainable Bonuses: Sign of Corporate Responsibility or Window Dressing?

“…Fransen and Kolk, 2007). This criticism led Jensen (2001) to plea for an 'enlightened stakeholder theory', which prescribes attention for those stakeholders that influence long-term market value.…”

Enhancing the Impact of Cross-Sector Partnerships

“…The throughput dimension focuses on the structure within which partners work towards the partnership objectives, which depends on the (1) number and nature of participants, (2) the roles that are adopted by the participants, (3) the arrangement and degree of internal dependencies chosen, which in turn is influenced by (4) the position of participants as primary or secondary stakeholder in the project (cf. Fransen and Kolk 2007) and the degree to which the partnership is ''institutionalised'' in the participating organizations (Seitanidi 2010;Van Huijstee and Glasbergen 2010). Partnership research that concentrates on this dimension in particular takes process issues into account, focusing on a variety of factors including governance, accountability, agency, transaction costs, decisionmaking structures, and power.…”

“…The central aim of many cross-sector partnerships is to solve economic, social, and environmental problems through collaboration (Crane 1998), often by addressing institutional and regulatory voids (Fransen and Kolk 2007) by providing social goods such as clean water, health, or education (Warner and Sullivan 2004). Hence, cross-sector partnerships typically emphasize an 'imperative to realize benefits for the wider community rather than for special interests' (Skelcher and Sullivan 2002, p. 752).…”