Old wine in new bottles? The Commission and the use of environmental policy instruments

Abstract

In this article, we address two main questions. First, we ask whether the alleged shift in the Commission's environmental ‘policy style’ from a traditional regulatory style towards a new style based on less impositional, more market‐based and co‐operative instruments has actually occurred in practice. We seek to answer this question (a) by employing content analysis to assess the policy instruments propagated by the Commission in both the Fourth and Fifth Environmental Action Programmes (EAP); and (b) by analysing legislative proposals introduced by the Commission in designated environmental policy fields (atmospheric pollution, waste, water). On the basis of the findings we argue that there is a discrepancy between what the Commission declares in the EAPs and what it proposes in practice. Moreover, in a second step, we highlight the factors which might make any major shift in the Commission's policy style difficult to achieve in order to account for this discrepancy.

Public Policies on CSR in Europe: Themes, Instruments, and Regional Differences

“…• Hybrid instruments (or 'adhesives') combine two or more of the instruments mentioned above (see also Rittberger and Richardson, 2003;and Hood, 1983; the latter speaking of organisational instruments) into a hybrid initiative 2 In the context of CSR, one finds relatively weak economic instruments such as subsidies and awards.…”

The role of governments in corporate social responsibility: characterising public policies on CSR in Europe

“…Due to the voluntary character of CSR, one would assume that CSR policies make extensive use of stakeholder forums, negotiated agreements and public-private partnerships (Fox et al 2002). • Adding hybrid instruments (or 'adhesives') as a fifth type is necessary because numerous government initiatives on CSR either combine or orchestrate two or several other instruments as mentioned above (for a similar use of this instrument type, see Rittberger and Richardson 2003). Among the most significant hybrid CSR initiatives are, for example, CSR platforms, centres and strategies.…”

Soft Instruments, Few Networks: How ‘New Governance’ Materializes in Public Policies on Corporate Social Responsibility Across Europe

“…They build on a co‐regulatory rationale, assuming that interdependent actors have an interest in avoiding conventional regulations by exchanging complementary resources. Due to the voluntary character of CSR and its strong resemblance to the new governance rationale, one would assume that CSR policies make extensive use of partnering tools, such as public–private partnerships and stakeholder forums (Fox et al , ). Hybrid instruments (or ‘adhesives’) combine two or more of the instruments mentioned above (see also Rittberger and Richardson, and Hood, , the latter speaking of organizational instruments). Among the most significant hybrid CSR policy instruments are CSR platforms/centres and CSR strategies, all coordinating several other policy instruments and actors.…”