Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 118, Issue 3, pp 561–576 | Cite as

E Pluribus Unum? Legitimacy Issues and Multi-stakeholder Codes of Conduct

  • Valentina Mele
  • Donald H. SchepersEmail author


Regulatory schema has shifted from government to governance-based systems. One particular form that has emerged at the international level is the multi-stakeholder voluntary code of conduct (MSVC). We argue that such codes are not only simply mechanisms by which various stakeholders attempt to govern the action of the corporation but also systems by which each stakeholder attempts to gain or retain some legitimacy goal. Each stakeholder is motivated by strategic legitimacy goal to join the code, and once a member, is also required to assist in maintaining the institutional legitimacy of the code, resulting in “networked legitimacy.” We begin our analysis of these systems by first exploring the growth and structure of such MSVCs, and then building an analytical framework using strategic and institutional legitimacy as they apply to such MSVCs. We contribute to the codes of conduct literature by developing the construct of networked legitimacy from strategic and institutional legitimacy. We then apply our framework to the United Nations Global Compact, one of the predominant MSVCs today. In doing so, we: (1) demonstrate how different stakeholders are pursuing different types of legitimacy through their participation in the code, (2) examine the specific opportunities and risks in terms of what we have called “networked legitimacy” posed by the institutional design of actual MSVCs, and (3) create an argument for three pillars supporting the legitimacy of MSVCs.


Multi-stakeholder codes Voluntary codes United Nations Global Compact Stakeholder legitimacy 


  1. Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2009). Strengthening international regulation through transnational new governance: Overcoming the orchestration deficit. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 52, 501–578.Google Scholar
  2. Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.Google Scholar
  3. Albareda, L., et al. (2007). Public policies on corporate social responsibility: The role of governments. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 391–407.Google Scholar
  4. Annan, K. (2006). Address of Mr. Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General, to the High-Level Dialogue of the United Nations General Assembly on International Migration and Development, New York, September 14, 2006.Google Scholar
  5. Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Sciences, 1, 177–194.Google Scholar
  6. Atack, I. (1999). Four criteria of development NGO legitimacy. World Development, 27(5), 855–864.Google Scholar
  7. Baccaro, L., & Mele, V. (2011). For lack of anything better? International organizations and global corporate codes. Public Administration, 89(2), 451–470.Google Scholar
  8. Baccaro, L., & Mele, V. (2012). Pathologies of path dependency? The international labour organization and the challenges of transnational governance. Industrial and Labour Relations Review., 65(2), 195–224.Google Scholar
  9. Bäckstrand, K. (2006). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. European Environment, 16, 290–306.Google Scholar
  10. Baker, J. (2004). Labor and the global compact. In M. MacIntosh, G. Kell, & S. Waddock (Eds.), Learning to talk (pp. 168–182). Sheffield: Greenleaf.Google Scholar
  11. Baur, D., & Schmitz, H. (2012). Corporations and NGOs: When accountability leads to co-optation. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 9–21.Google Scholar
  12. Bendell, J. (Ed.). (2000). Terms for endearment: Business, NGOs and sustainable development. Sheffield: Greenleaf.Google Scholar
  13. Bernstein, S. (2005). Legitimacy in global environmental governance. Journal of International Law and International Relations, 1((1/2)), 139–166.Google Scholar
  14. Bernstein, S. (2011). Legitimacy in intergovernmental and non-state global governance. Review of International Political Economy, 1, 17–51.Google Scholar
  15. Béthoux, É., Didry, C., & Mias, A. (2007). What codes of conduct tell us: Corporate social responsibility and the nature of the multinational corporation. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(1), 77–90.Google Scholar
  16. Bitektine, A. B. (2011). Legitimacy properties and their implications for institutional theory and strategic management. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec Canada.Google Scholar
  17. Boeri, T., Brugiavini, A., & Calmforset, L. (Eds.). (2001). The role of unions in the twenty-first century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Börzel, T., & Risse, T. (2005). Public private partnerships. Effective and legitimate tools for transnational governance? In E. Grande & L. Pauly (Eds.), Complex sovereignty. Reconstituting political authority in the twentyfirst century (pp. 195–216). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  19. Böstrom, M. (2006). Regulatory credibility and authority through inclusiveness: standardization organizations in cases of eco-labelling. Organization, 13(3), 345–367.Google Scholar
  20. Bronfenbrenner, K. (2007). What is labor’s true purpose? The implications of SEIU’s Unite to win proposals for organizing. New Labor Forum, 14(2), 19–28.Google Scholar
  21. Carpenter, R. D. (2010). Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Cashore, B. (2002). Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non-state market-driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority. In E. Meidinger, C. Elliott, & G. Oesten (Eds.), Social and political dimensions of forest certification (pp. 219–236). Remagen-Oberwinter: Forstbuch.Google Scholar
  23. Cashore, B., Auld, G., Bernstein, S., & McDermott, C. (2007). Can non-state governance “ratchet up” global environmental standards? Lessons from the forest sector. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 16(2), 158–172.Google Scholar
  24. Chaison, G. N., & Bigelow, B. J. (2002). Unions and legitimacy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Coicaud, J.-M., & Heiskanen, V. (Eds.). (2001). The legitimacy of international organizations. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Cragg, W. (2005). Ethics codes, corporations and the challenge of globalization. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  27. Craver, C. B. (2006). The relevance of the NLRA and labor organizations in the post-industrial global economy. Labor Law Journal, 57, 133.Google Scholar
  28. Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  29. Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. C. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 49–77). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  30. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.Google Scholar
  31. Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18, 122–136.Google Scholar
  32. Fall, P. L., & Zahran, M. M. (2010). United Nations corporate partnerships: The role and functioning of the Global Compact. Joint Inspection Unit: 30. Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
  33. Fransen, L. W., & Kolk, A. (2007). Global rule-setting for business: A critical analysis of multi-stakeholder standards. Organization, 14(5), 667–684.Google Scholar
  34. Galaskiewicz, J. (1991). Making corporate actors accountable. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 293–310). Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Gardberg, N. A., & Fombrun, C. J. (2006). Corporate citizenship: Creating intangible assets across institutional environments. Academy of Management Review, 31, 329–346.Google Scholar
  36. Gardberg, N. A., & Newberry, W. (2010). Who boycotts whom? Marginalization, company knowledge, and strategic issues. Business & Society. doi: 10.1177/0007650309352507.Google Scholar
  37. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structures and contradiction in social analysis. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  38. Gilbert, D. U. (2010). The United Nations Global Compact as a network of networks’. In A. Rasche & G. Kell (Eds.), The United Nations Global Compact: Achievements, trends and challenges (pp. 340–354). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.Google Scholar
  40. Hall, J. A. (1995). Civil society: Theory, history, comparison. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  41. Haufler, V. (2001). A public role for the private sector. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
  42. Haufler, V. (2003). New forms of governance: Certification regimes as social regulations of the global market. In C. Elliott, E. Meidinger, & G. Oesten (Eds.), Social and political dimensions of forest certification (pp. 237–247). Remagen-Oberwinter: Forstbuch.Google Scholar
  43. Hughes, S., & Wilkinson, R. (2002). Global governance: Critical perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Hunt, C. S., & Aldrich, H. E. (1998). The second ecology: The creation and evolution of organizational communities as exemplified by the commercialization of the world wide web. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 20). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  45. Hurd, I. (1999). Legitimacy and authority in international politics. International Organization, 53, 379–408.Google Scholar
  46. Hutter, B. M. (2006). The role of non-state actors in regulation. CARR Discussion Paper Series, DP 37.Google Scholar
  47. Kell, G. (2005). The Global Compact. Selected experiences and reflections. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 69–79.Google Scholar
  48. Kell, G., & Levin, D. (2003). The Global Compact network: An historic experiment in learning and action. Business and Society Review, 108(2), 151–181.Google Scholar
  49. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S., Jr. (2003). Redefining accountability for global governance. In M. Kahler & D. A. Lake (Eds.), Governance in a global economy. Political authority in transition (pp. 386–411). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  50. King, A., & Lenox, M. (2000). Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industries responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 698–716.Google Scholar
  51. Knight, G., & Smith, J. (2008). The Global Compact and its critics: Activism, power relations and corporate responsibility. In J. Leatherman (Ed.), Discipline and punishment in global politics: Illusions of control (pp. 191–214). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  52. Lee, M. (2009, April 21). Some disassembly required: A bit of creative destruction may be just what the United Nations needs. ForeignPolicy.
  53. Lister, R. (2003). Investing in the citizen-workers of the future: Transformations in citizenship and the state under new labour. Social Policy and Administration, 37(5), 427–443.Google Scholar
  54. Locke, R. M., Fei, Q., & Brause, A. (2007). Does monitoring improve labor standards? Lessons from Nike. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 61(1), 3–31.Google Scholar
  55. Logsdon, J. M., & Van Buren, H. J., I. I. I. (2008). Justice and large corporations. Business & Society, 47(4), 523–548.Google Scholar
  56. Majone, G. (1999). The regulatory state and its legitimacy problems. West European Politics, 22(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  57. Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Towards an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30, 166–179.Google Scholar
  58. Mayntz, R. (2006). From government to governance: Political steering in modern societies. In D. Scheer & F. Rubik (Eds.), Governance of integrated product policy (pp. 18–25). Aizlewood Mill: Greenleaf Publishing.Google Scholar
  59. McKeon, N. (2009). The United Nations and civil society: Legitimating global governance—whose voice?. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  60. Meyer, J. V., & Scott, W. R. (1983). Centralization and the legitimacy problems of local government. In J. V. Meyer & W. R. Scott (Eds.), Organizational environments: Rituals and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  61. Murphy, D. F., & Coleman, G. (2000). Thinking partners: Business, NGOs and the partnership concept. In J. Bendell (Ed.), Terms of endearment. Business, NGOs and sustainable development. Sheffield: Greenleaf.Google Scholar
  62. Mwangi, W., & Schmitz, P. (2007). Global Compact, little impact? Explaining variation in corporate attitudes towards global norms. Paper presented at the Annual Convention ‘Politics, Policy, and Responsible Scholarship’ of the International Studies Association, Chicago, IL, February 28–March 4. Retrieved March 20, 2011 from,
  63. Nielsen, E. H., & Rao, M. V. H. (1987). The strategy-legitimacy nexus: a thick description. Academy of Management Review, 12, 523–533.Google Scholar
  64. O’Brien, R., Goetz, A. M., Scholte, J. A., & Williams, M. (2000). Contesting global governance. Multilateral economic institutions and global social movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Orwell, G. (1945). Animal farm. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  66. O'Rourke, D. (2005). Market movements: Nongovernmental organization strategies to influence global production and consumption. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(1/2), 115–128.Google Scholar
  67. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Palazzo, G., & Scherer, G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71–88.Google Scholar
  69. Pattberg, P. (2005). The institutionalization of private governance: How business and nonprofit organizations agree on transnational rules. Governance, 18, 589–610.Google Scholar
  70. Perrow, C. (1970). Organizational analysis: A sociological view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  71. Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 223–243.Google Scholar
  72. Porter, T., & Ronit, K. (2006). Self-regulation as policy process: The multiple and criss-crossing stages of private rule-making. Policy Sciences, 39(1), 41–72.Google Scholar
  73. Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. (2007). Collective action through voluntary environmental programs: A club theory perspective. Policy Studies Journal, 35(4), 773–792.Google Scholar
  74. Radaelli, C. (2003). The code of conduct against harmful tax competition: Open method of coordination in disguise? Public Administration, 81(3), 513–531.Google Scholar
  75. Rasche, A. (2009). “A necessary supplement”: What the United Nations Global Compact is and is not. Business & Society, 48(4), 511–537.Google Scholar
  76. Rasche, A., & Kell, G. (Eds.). (2010). The United Nations Global Compact: Achievements, trends and challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Rehbein, K., Waddock, S., & Graves, S. B. (2004). Understanding shareholder activism: Which corporations are targeted? Business & Society, 43(3), 239–267.Google Scholar
  78. Reinicke, W. H. (1998). Global public policy: Governing without government. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  79. Richter, J. (2001). Holding corporations accountable: Corporate conduct, international codes, and citizen action. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  80. Risse, T. (2000). Let’s argue. Communicative action in world politics. International Organization, 54(1), 1–39.Google Scholar
  81. Roloff, J. (2007). Learning from multi-stakeholder networks: Issue-focused stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 233–250.Google Scholar
  82. Rose, J. B., Chaison, G. N., & la Garza, E. (2000). A comparative analysis of public sector restructuring in the US, Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean. Journal of Labor Research, 21(4), 601–625.Google Scholar
  83. Rosenau, J., & Czempiel, E. O. (Eds.). (1992). Governance without government: Order and change in world politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Ruggie, J. G. (2001). The Global Compact as learning network. Global Governance, 7, 371–378.Google Scholar
  85. Ruggie, J. G. (2002). The theory and practice of learning networks: Corporate social responsibility and the Global Compact. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 5, 27–36.Google Scholar
  86. Ruggie, J. G. (2004). Reconstituting the global public domain—issues, actors, and practices. European Journal of International Relations, 10(4), 499–531.Google Scholar
  87. Ryder, G. (2010). The promise of the United Nations Global Compact: A trade union perspective on the labour principles. In A. Rasche & G. Kell (Eds.), The United Nations Global Compact: Achievements, trends and challenges (pp. 44–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Sagafi-Nejad, T. (2008). The UN and transnational corporations: From code of conduct to Global Compact. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Schäferhoff, M., Campe, S., & Kaan, C. (2009). Transnational public-private partnerships in international relations: Making sense of concepts, research frameworks, and results. International Studies Review, 11(3), 451–474.Google Scholar
  90. Scharpf, F. W. (2001). Notes toward a theory of multilevel governing in Europe. Scandinavian Political Studies, 24, 1–26.Google Scholar
  91. Schepers, D. H. (2006). The impact of NGO network conflict on the corporate social responsibility strategies of multinational corporations. Business & Society, 45, 282–299.Google Scholar
  92. Schepers, D. (2010). Challenges to legitimacy at the Forest Stewardship Council. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(2), 279–290.Google Scholar
  93. Schmidt, S. K. (2007). Mutual recognition as a new mode of governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(5), 667–681.Google Scholar
  94. Scott, W. R. (1991). Unpacking institutional arguments. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 164–182). Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  95. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  96. Scott, W. R. (2003). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  97. Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and Organizations. Ideas and Interests (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  98. Sethi, S. P. (1994). Multinational corporations and the impact of public advocacy on corporate strategy: Nestle and the infant formula controversy. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  99. Sethi, S. P. (2003). Setting global standards: Guidelines for creating codes of conduct in multinational corporations. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  100. Sethi, S. P., & Williams, O. F. (2000). Creating and implementing global codes of conduct: An assessment of the Sullivan Principles. Business and Society Review, 105(2), 169–200.Google Scholar
  101. Slaughter, A. M. (2004). A new world order. Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Soederberg, S. (2007). Taming corporations or buttressing market-led development? A critical assessment of the Global Compact. Globalizations, 4(4), 500–513.Google Scholar
  103. Sonpar, K., Pazzaglia, F., & Kornijenko, J. (2010). The paradox and constraints of legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 1–21.Google Scholar
  104. Spar, D. L., & La Mure, L. T. (2003). The power of activism: assessing the impact of NGOs on global business. California Management Review, 45(3), 78–97.Google Scholar
  105. Stafford, S. (2007). Should you turn yourself in? The consequences of environmental self-policing. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(2), 305–326.Google Scholar
  106. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  107. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610.Google Scholar
  108. Swift, T., & Zadek, S. (2002). Corporate responsibility and the competitive advantage of nations. The Copenhagen Centre, AccountAbility.Google Scholar
  109. Tansey, O. (2007). Process tracing and elite interviewing: A case for nonprobability sampling. Political Science & Politics, 40(4), 765–772.Google Scholar
  110. Tattersall, A. (2007). Chapter 5: Labor-community coalitions, global union alliances and the potential of the SEIU Global Partnerships. In K. Bronfenbrenner (Ed.), Global unionism. Ithaca: ILR Press.Google Scholar
  111. Terlaak, A. (2007). Order without law? The role of certified management standards in shaping socially desired firm behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 32, 968–985.Google Scholar
  112. Thérien, J.-P., & Pouliot, V. (2006). The Global Compact: Shifting the politics of international development? Global Governance, 12, 55–75.Google Scholar
  113. UNGC. Ministerial Statement. The role of governments in promoting corporate responsibility and private sector engagement in development. June 2010. Retrieved March 20, 2011 from,
  114. Utting, P. 2005. Rethinking business regulation. From self-regulation to social control. Technology, Business and Society. Programme paper N. 15, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.Google Scholar
  115. Vogel, D. (2005). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  116. Vogel, D. (2008). Private global business regulation. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 261–282.Google Scholar
  117. Waddock, S. A. (2008). Building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility. The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(3), 87–108.Google Scholar
  118. Whelan, K. (2010). EU economic governance: Less might work better than more. UCD Centre for Economic Research Working Paper Series.Google Scholar
  119. Wolf, K. D. (2008). Emerging patterns of global governance: the new interplay between the state, business and civil society. In A. G. Scherer & G. Palazzo (Eds.), Handbook of research on global corporate citizenship (pp. 225–248). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  120. Wynhoven, U., & Stausberg, M. (2010). The United Nations Global Compact’s governance framework and integrity measures. In A. Rasche & G. Kell (Eds.), The United Nations Global Compact: Achievements, trends and challenges (pp. 251–264). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  121. Young, O. R. (1994). International governance: Protecting the environment in a stateless society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  122. Zaheer, S. (1995). Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 341–363.Google Scholar
  123. Zammit, A. (2003). Development at risk. Rethinking UN-business partnership. Geneva: South Centre and United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.Google Scholar
  124. Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 414–431.Google Scholar
  125. Zsolnai, L. (2009). Nature, Society and Future Generations. In Henri-Claude de Bettignies & Francois Lépineux (Eds.), Business, Globalization and the Common Good (pp. 139–152). Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  126. Zsolnai, L. (2011). Corporate legitimacy. In A. Tencati & F. Perrini (Eds.), Business ethics and corporate sustainability (pp. 3–17). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  127. Zürn, M. (2000). Democratic governance beyond the nation-state: The EU and other international institutions. European Journal of International Relations, 6(2), 183–221.Google Scholar
  128. Zyglidopoulos, S. C. (2003). The issue life-cycle: Implications for social performance and organizational legitimacy. Corporate Reputation Review, 6, 70–81.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Institutional Analysis and Public ManagementBocconi UniversityMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of Management, Baruch CollegeCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations