Politics of private regulation:ISEALand the shaping of transnational sustainability governance

Abstract

Scholars describe the proliferation of sustainability standards by multi-stakeholder initiatives as part of an organizational field for sustainability. The aim of this article is to gain a better understanding of the institutionalization process of this global organizational field by focusing on the case of the ISEAL Alliance (the global association for sustainability standards). We show how ISEAL puts specific strategies into place to both reinforce and expand the role and influence of sustainability standards. This institutional entrepreneurship consists primarily of two dimensions: institutionalizing macro-standards based on a marketdriven and procedural vision of sustainability; and simultaneously legitimating both the tools and ISEAL through internal and external enrolments and entanglements. The characterization of ISEAL's activities in this way brings politics back into the analysis of sustainability standard-related technical debates and extends our understanding of how the micro-dynamics within organizational fields are interdependent upon macro-dynamics outside organizational fields.

The politics of meta-governance in transnational private sustainability governance

“…And rather than describing meta-governance as part of a macro-structure of norms, it views meta-governors as actors with ideas, strategies and organizational interests in their own right. Ideological differences, contentiousness of policies, divergence of political agendas and power thus play a more prominent role in interpreting meta-governance (Loconto and Fouilleux 2013;Reinecke et al 2012;cf. Glasbergen 2011: 204).…”

“…After 2000, ISEAL began to combine these functions as an NGO with PSOs as members, first predominantly for Fairtrade, organic certifiers, the Marine Stewardship Council, and the Forest Stewardship Council, but later on for more PSOs (Bernstein 2011;Loconto and Fouilleux 2013). Collaboration and learning was principally to be focused across sectors and issue areas, but potentially ISEAL would also be able to function as a springboard for harmonization and coordination among competing PSOs in specific sectors.…”

Unraveling the Notion of “Fair Carbon”: Key Challenges for Standards Development

“…The GS-FI partnership can be viewed within a broader context of sustainability governance, which is characterized by the emergence of market driven, voluntary standards which have expanded into ever new sectors (Cashore, Auld, & Newsom, 2004;Loconto & Fouilleux, 2014). Non-state governance through voluntary standards and partnerships and multistakeholder initiatives involving SSOs and other private actors (Bitzer, Glasbergen, & Leroy, 2012;Cheyns, 2011) are characterized by varied dynamics, including convergence between the policies put forward by different private regulators (Green, 2013) as well as rival governance and competition between standards (Ponte & Riisgaard, 2011;Smith & Fischlein, 2010).…”

Standardization as Spaces of Diversity

“…This is particularly the case where for-profit standard intermediaries (large third-party certifiers) are involved. At international levels, there are often efforts to harmonize or calibrate standards applied in different economic areas or on related subjects, often resulting in the production of metastandards or principles for different aspects of control (Loconto and Fouilleux 2014;Loconto 2017).…”