Multi‐stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness

Bäckstrand, Karin

doi:10.1002/eet.425

Cited by 535 publications

(441 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

395

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Gaps in regulation and governance (Rivera-Santos and Rufín 2010) or democracy (Bäckstrand 2006) are not easily, if ever, filled by partnerships. New institutional voids have appeared and partnerships have arguably crowded out other relevant interest groups or introduced ''solutions'' that are as controversial as the problems they were intended to address .…”

Section: Research Pressurementioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing the Impact of Cross-Sector Partnerships

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the topic of this special symposium issue: how to enhance the impact of crosssector partnerships. The paper takes stock of two related discussions: the discourse in cross-sector partnership research on how to assess impact and the discourse in impact assessment research on how to deal with more complex organizations and projects. We argue that there is growing need and recognition for cross-fertilization between the two areas. Cross-sector partnerships are reaching a paradigmatic status in society, but both research and practice need more thorough evidence of their impacts and of the conditions under which these impacts can be enhanced. This paper develops a framework that should enable a constructive interchange between the two research areas, while also framing existing research into more precise categories that can lead to knowledge accumulation.

show abstract

Section: Research Pressurementioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing the Impact of Cross-Sector Partnerships

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Input legitimacy can come in the form of balanced representation of stakeholder networks, accountability and transparency mechanisms (Bäckstrand 2006). Input legitimacy Legitimacy in REDD?…”

Section: Input and Output Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Legitimacy in REDD+ governance in Indonesia

Glover

Schroeder

2017

Int Environ Agreements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the question of legitimacy in REDD? governance in Indonesia. It develops a legitimacy framework that builds on elements of Scharpf (J Eur Pub Policy 4(1):18-36, 1997) input and output legitimacy concept and the political economy lens described by Brockhaus and Angelsen (Analysing REDD?: Challenges and choices, CIFOR, Bogor, 2012). Using data collected through key informant interviews and focus groups, we identify and explore stakeholder perceptions of legitimacy. The analysis reveals a complex interplay between input and output legitimacy, finding that state, nonstate and hybrid actors perceive output legitimacy (i.e. project outcomes) as highly dependent on the level of input legitimacy achieved during the governance process. Nonstate actors perceive proxies for input legitimacy, such as participation and inclusion of local people, as goals in themselves. In the main, they perceive inclusion to be integral to the empowerment of local people. They perceive output legitimacy as less important because of the intangibility of REDD? outcomes at this stage in the process. The findings also highlight the challenges associated with measuring the legitimacy of REDD? governance in Indonesia.

show abstract

“…Accountability, measurable targets and timetables, and reporting and monitoring mechanisms hence are listed as important elements for successfully organizing partnerships (Bäckstrand 2006). According to Bäckstrand (2006, p. 303): ''Plural forms of accountability are needed to match the plural and amorphous features of global multi-sectoral partnerships.''…”

Section: Cross-sector Partnershipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complete and Partial Organizing for Corporate Social Responsibility

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates different modes of organizing for corporate social responsibility (CSR). Based on insights from organization theory, we theorize two ways to organize for CSR. ''Complete'' organization for CSR happens within businesses and depends on the availability of certain organizational elements (e.g., membership, hierarchy, rules, monitoring, and sanctioning). By contrast, ''partial'' organization for CSR happens when organizers do not have direct access to all these organizational elements. We discuss partial organization for CSR by analyzing how standards and cross-sector partnerships make selective use of organizational elements. We maintain that an important feature of the increasing institutionalization of CSR-not only within businesses but also among nongovernmental, governmental, and professional actors-is the rise of partial forms of organization. We discuss the contributions to this Special Issue in the context of our theorization of complete/partial organization for CSR and outline avenues for further research.

show abstract

Multi‐stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness

Cited by 535 publications

References 24 publications

Enhancing the Impact of Cross-Sector Partnerships

Enhancing the Impact of Cross-Sector Partnerships

Legitimacy in REDD+ governance in Indonesia

Complete and Partial Organizing for Corporate Social Responsibility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About