Multinationals as global institution: Power, authority and relative autonomy

Abstract

This article aims to inform the long-standing and unresolved debate between voluntary corporate social responsibility and initiatives to impose binding legal obligations on multinational enterprises. The two approaches share a common feature: neither can fully specify its own scope conditions, that is, how much of the people and planet agenda either can expect to deliver. The reason they share this feature is also the same: neither is based on a foundational political analysis of the multinational enterprise in the context of global governance. Such an analysis is essential for providing background to and perspective on what either approach can hope to achieve, and how. This article begins to bridge the gap by illustrating aspects of the political power, authority, and relative autonomy of the contemporary multinational enterprise. The conclusion spells out some implications for the debate itself, and for further research.

Gender and governance of global value chains: Promoting the rights of women workers

“…GVCs criss-cross national borders, where regulatory and political frameworks greatly differ from one country to another. There is a disconnect between the real power and influence of multinational companies over the implementation of labour standards, companies' accountability towards stakeholders, and their legal requirements (Ruggie, 2018). As it is, social compliance is generally an add-on -an incremental cost -to normalized business practices and the governance of global chains.…”

Intermediary roles in regulatory programs: Toward a role‐based framework

“…Bansal & Roth 2000;Prakash & Kollman 2004), while social or sustainable entrepreneurs are often perceived as innovators (Cohen & Winn 2007;Dacin et al 2010). For example, perceived corporate sustainability leaders, such as Unilever and Patagonia, tend to be active in a range of regulatory programs, while laggards tend to be more passive or can adopt strategies to influence legislation through, for instance, lobbying (Ruggie 2017). Civil society, on the other hand, has played many roles toward business and regulation, such as so-called sharks, orcas, sea lions, and dolphins (Elkington & Fennell 1998;van Tulder & van der Zwart, 2006), or preservers, protesters, modifiers, and scrutinizers (Ahlström & Sjöström 2005).…”

Fool’s Gold: Business Power and the Evolution of the Conflict‐free Gold Standard

“…Discursive power utilises language and norms to shape others’ preferences in a way that converges with those of the most powerful actors. Although distinct, the power of firms is maximised when these two forms of power are used together (Ruggie, 2018). For example, when business can utilise its structural power to raise issues to the political agenda, and then form its own palatable policy solutions to these problems – they have enhanced their discursive power.…”