Actor and Institutional Dynamics in the Development of Multi-stakeholder Initiatives
- First Online:
- 677 Downloads
As forms of private self-regulation, multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) have emerged as an important empirical phenomenon in global governance processes. At the same time, MSIs are also theoretically intriguing because of their inherent double nature. On the one hand, MSIs spell out CSR standards that define norms for corporate behavior. On the other hand, MSIs are also the resultof corporate and stakeholder behavior. We combine the perspectives of institutional theory and club theory to conceptualize this double nature of MSIs. Based on a stage model that looks at the interplay of actor and institutional dynamics, we generate insights into why actors join a voluntary MSI, how the various motivations and intentions of the actors influence the standard development, and how these as well as the MSI design are subsequently influenced by both external (institutional) and internal (club) dynamics.
KeywordsBusiness self-regulation Global governance Management of diverse interests Multi-stakeholder initiatives Political role of the firm Soft law Club theory Institutional theory Institutional entrepreneurship
- Bartley, T. (2009). Standards for sweatshops: The power and limits of club theory for explaining voluntary labor standards programs. In M. Potoski & A. Prakash (Eds.), Voluntary programs: A club theory perspective (pp. 107–132). Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Bradach, J. (2010). Scaling impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, (summer), 6, 27–28.Google Scholar
- Brinkmann-Braun, J. & Pies, I. (2007). The Global Compact’s Contribution to Global Governance Revisited. Diskussionspapier Nr. 2007-10.Google Scholar
- Brueckner, J. K., & Lee, K. (1989). Club theory with a peer-group effect. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 19, 399–420. doi:10.1016/0166-0462(89)90013-6.
- Cheit, R. E. (1990). Setting safety standards: Regulation in the public and private sectors. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Diaye, M., Ghabri, S., Greenan, N., & Pekovic, S. (2007). ISO 9000 norm as a club good: Network effect evidence from french employer survey. In Applied Econometrics Association Conference, (pp. 1–30). Strasbourg: Applied Econometrics Association Conference.Google Scholar
- DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations. Culture and environment (pp. 3–21). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Pub. Co.Google Scholar
- Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, K. (2010). The Limits of Nonprofit Impact: A Contingency Framework for Measuring Social Performance. Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 10-099, May 2010 (No. 10-099).Google Scholar
- EITI (2013). EITI. Retrieved from http://eiti.org/eiti.
- Faysse, N. (2006). Troubles on the way: An analysis of the challenges faced by multi-stakeholder platforms. Natural Resources Forum, 30(3), 219–229. doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2006.00112.x.
- FSC (2014). Out history. Retrieved June 03, 2014, from https://ic.fsc.org/our-history.17.htm.
- Graz, J.-C., & Nölke, A. (2008). Transnational private governance and its limits. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Hannan, M. T. (1986). Competitive and institutional processes in organizational ecology (No. 86-13). Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
- Hemmati, M. (2002). Multistakeholder processes for governance and sustainability. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
- Internet Archive (2013). Data from the 2004–2011 EITI Website.Google Scholar
- King, A., Lenox, M., & Barnett, M. (2001). Strategic responses to the reputation commons problem. In A. Hoffman & M. Ventresca (Eds.), Organizations, policy and the natural environment: Institutional and strategic perspectives. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- McNutt, P. (1999). Public goods and club goods. Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, 1, 927–951.Google Scholar
- Mena, S., & Palazzo, G. (2012). Input and Output Legitimacy of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(3), 527–556. Retrieved from http://www.pdcnet.org/oom/service?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=&rft.imuse_id=beq_2012_0022_0003_0527_0556&svc_id=info:www.pdcnet.org/collection.
- Nicholls, A. (2005). Measuring Impact in Social Entrepreneurship: New Accountabilities to Stakeholders and Investors? ESRC Research Seminar. Local Government Research Unit (No. ESRC Research Seminar. Local Government Research Unit. London). London.Google Scholar
- Nolan, J. (2013). The Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights: Soft Law or Not Law (No. working paper 73). Retrieved from http://law.bepress.com/unswwps-flrps13/73.
- Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Pattberg, P. (2005). What role for private rule-making in global environmental governance? Analysing the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). International Environmental Agreements, 5(2), 175–189. doi:10.1007/s10784-005-0951-y.
- Perez-Batres, L. a., Miller, V. V., & Pisani, M. J. (2011). Institutionalizing sustainability: An empirical study of corporate registration and commitment to the United Nations Global Compact guidelines. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(8), 843–851. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pies, I., Beckmann, M., & Hielscher, S. (2011). Competitive markets, corporate firms, and new governance: An ordonomic conceptualization. In I. Pies & P. Koslowski (Eds.), Corporate citizenship and new governance: The political role of corporations (pp. 171–188). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Prakash, A., & Gugerty, M. K. (2010). Trust but verify? Voluntary regulation programs in the nonprofit sector. Regulation & Governance. doi:10.1111/j.1748-5991.2009.01067.x.
- Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. (2009). Voluntary clubs: Future prospects. In M. Potoski & A. Prakash (Eds.), Voluntary programs: A club theory perspective (pp. 281–296). Boston, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Rasche, A., & Maclean, C. (2012). Collaboration between multi-stakeholder standards: A governance perspective. In Director Notes, June 2012, No. DN-4N13, 1–8.Google Scholar
- Roloff, J. (2008a). A life cycle model of multi-stakeholder networks. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(3), 311–325. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8608.2008.00537.x.
- Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00950.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Spitzer, D. R. (2007). Transforming performance measurement: Rethinking the way we measure and drive organizational success. New York, NY: AMACOM.Google Scholar
- Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1996). The institutionalization of institutional theory. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 175–190). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
- Truex, R., & Søreide, T. (2010). Why Multi-stakeholder Groups Succeed and Fail. (World Bank, Ed.) (pp. 1–18). Policy Research Working Paper No. 5495.Google Scholar
- Utting, P. (2001). Regulating business via multistakeholder initiatives: A preliminary assessment (pp. 61–130). Geneva: UNRISD.Google Scholar
- Vogel, D. (2008). Private Global Business Regulation. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 261–282. Retrieved from http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.141706.
- Witte, J. M., Benner, T., & Streck, C. (2005). Partnerships and networks in global environmental governance: Moving to the next stage. In U. Petschow, J. Rosenau, & E.-U. Weizsäcker (Eds.), Governance and sustainability: New challenges for states, companies and civil society (pp. 51–151). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.Google Scholar