Transnational private governance between the logics of empowerment and control

Abstract

Transnational private governance initiatives that address problems of social and environmental concern now pervade many sectors. In tackling distinct substantive problems, these programs have, however, prioritized different problem‐oriented logics in their institutionalized rules and procedures. One is a “logic of control” that focuses on ameliorating environmental and social externalities by establishing strict and enforceable rules; another is a “logic of empowerment” that concentrates on remedying the exclusion of marginalized actors in the global economy. Examining certification programs in the areas of fair trade, organic agriculture, fisheries, and forest management, we assess the evolutionary effects of programs prioritizing one logic and then having to accommodate the other. The challenges programs face when balancing between the two logics, we argue, elucidate specific distributional consequences for wealth, power, and regulatory capabilities that private governance programs seek to overcome.

Timing as a source of regulatory influence: A technical elite network analysis of global finance

“…To this end, officials should conduct regular consultations with a broad range of public and private actors – akin to a process of “negotiated rulemaking” at the global level – and ensure that new initiatives are widely publicized (Auld et al . ). Such measures would help to bring about a more equitable distribution of regulatory capabilities among stakeholders. Regimes should avoid delegating crucial regulatory functions to stakeholders.…”

Assessing the institutionalization of private sustainability governance in a changing coffee sector

“…Tchibo has emulated Nespresso and Starbucks, as has McDonald's, most recently, in their quest to create company‐specific sustainability sourcing guidelines and standards (Tchibo ; Patton ). The design of such internal schemes shields companies from being associated with third‐party scandals; furthermore, it allows them to differentiate themselves in a hypercompetitive market, as well as shape the definition and implementation of sustainability to extract maximum value, be it through improved quality, supply chain management, or supplier control (Muradian & Pelupessy ; Fuchs et al ; Raynolds ; Dauvergne & Lister ; Bartley ; Elder et al ; Auld et al ). A number of multinational traders are also creating their own verification schemes that cater specifically to the needs of coffee roasters that may not have enough in‐house expertise to do so themselves, but are looking for cost‐efficient alternatives to third‐party certifications (Millard )…”

Cross-Sector Partnerships for Systemic Change: Systematized Literature Review and Agenda for Further Research

“…They have become a central theme in research about the social role and responsibilities of business Crane 2009, 2014), the emergence and effectiveness of new forms of private governance (Auld et al 2015;Cashore et al 2004;Crane 2011;Hahn and Pinkse 2014;Pattberg 2005), and the shifting practices, performance, and legitimacy of civil society (Baur and Palazzo 2011;Baur and Schmitz 2012;Dauvergne and LeBaron 2014;Herlin 2015).…”

“…Extant research, for example, has explored the ways in which cross-sector initiatives can enhance the system-level governance of social and environmental problems (Cashore et al 2004;Auld et al 2015), while critics have pointed to the corporatization of activism (Dauvergne and LeBaron 2014) and societal imbalance (Mintzberg 2015) as adverse system-level problems that partnerships might contribute to.…”