Advertisement

Crime, Law and Social Change

, Volume 71, Issue 2, pp 129–150 | Cite as

Conditions of collective commitment in sector-specific coordinated governance initiatives

  • Berta van SchoorEmail author
  • Christoph Luetge
Article

Abstract

Although both the problem of corruption and its detrimental effects on society, economy, and environment has widely been recognized, corruption remains one of the most challenging problems of today. In light of globalization, the exclusive focus on compliance-oriented measures such as sharpening laws seems to be more and more ineffective. Apparently, the problem is not so much a lack of anti-corruption regulation, but rather a lack of enforcement of existing regulatory frameworks. This governance gap is increasingly tackled by the business sector. As a consequence, new governance mechanisms characterized by the involvement of non-state actors have emerged in recent years, in an attempt to fill this gap. These Coordinated Governance Initiatives in which companies along with representatives of other societal sectors join forces to tackle the problem of corruption have not been in the focus of research so far. More research is needed particularly on the effectiveness of these collective anti-corruption efforts to explain whether this approach is useful to curb corruption. Therefore, we attempt to identify potential success factors of Coordinated Governance Initiatives that aim to curb corruption by means of a qualitative multiple-case study. Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of three different initiatives. Additionally, secondary data sources were examined. Three different anti-corruption initiatives were selected: the Ethics Management of the Bavarian Construction Industry (EMB), the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), and the Maritime Anti-Corruption Network (MACN). We found five success factors and one basic prerequisite for sector-specific Coordinated Governance Initiatives. Although the identification of success factors of Coordinated Governance Initiatives is just the first step in the assessment of these initiatives, results indicate that a collective commitment obviously matters when it comes to fighting corruption.

Keywords

Coordinated governance initiatives Anti-corruption Collective commitment Multi-stakeholder initiatives 

References

  1. 1.
    Misangyi, V. F., Weaver, G. R., & Elms, H. (2008). Ending corruption: The interplay among institutional logics, resources and institutional entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 750–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Levy, B. (2011). Innovations in globalized regulation: opportunities and challenges. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 5841.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Khaghaghordyan, A. (2014). International anti-corruption normative framework: The state of the art. In B. Rothstein (Ed.), Anti-corruption policies revisited. Work package: WP1. Social, legal, anthropological and political approaches to theory of corruption (pp. 145–162).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaufmann, D. (2005). Myths and realities of governance and corruption. MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive, 8089, 81–98.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lambsdorff, J. G. (2007). The institutional economics of corruption and reform: Theory, evidence and policy. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2011). Contextual choices in fighting corruption: lessons learned. https://www.norad.no/en/toolspublications/publications/2011/contextual-choices-in-fighting-corruption-lessons-learned/. Accessed 24 Jul 2016.
  7. 7.
    Rothstein, B. (2011). Anti-corruption: The indirect ‘big bang’ approach. Review of International Political Economy, 18(2), 228–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pieth, M. (2012). Collective action and corruption. Basel Institute on Governance Working Paper Series, 13.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Corrigan, C. C. (2014). Breaking the resource curse: Transparency in the natural resource sector and the extractive industries transparency initiative. Resources Policy, 40, 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frynas, J. G. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and societal governance: Lessons from transparency in the oil and gas sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(S2), 163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lucke, E. M., & Lütge, C. (2011). Moralisches Verhalten in einem korrupten Markt: Anreize und Erfolgsfaktoren anhand einer Fallstudie aus Argentinien. Ordo, 62, 297–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meissner, H. (2013). Der “Ressourcenfluch” in Aserbaidschan und Turkmenistan und die Perspektiven von Effizienz- und Transparenzinitiativen. Demokratie und Entwicklung: Vol. 66. Berlin: Lit.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Søreide, T., & Truex, R. (2013). Multi-stakeholder groups for better sector performance: A key to fighting corruption in natural-resource governance? Development Policy Review, 31(2), 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baumann-Pauly, D., Nolan, J., van Heerden, A., & Samway, M. (2017). Industry-specific multi-stakeholder initiatives that govern corporate human rights standards: legitimacy assessments of the fair labor association and the global network initiative. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(4), 771–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klitgaard, R. (2012). Public-private collaboration and corruption. In M. Pieth (Ed.), Collective action: Innovative strategies to prevent corruption (pp. 41–65). Zürich: Dike.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    von Geibler, J. (2010). Nachhaltigkeit in globalen Wertschöpfungsketten: Nicht-staatliche Standards als Steuerungsinstrument im internationalen Biomassehandel. Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Nachhaltigkeitsforschung: Bd. 12. Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2008). Strengthening international regulation through transnational new governance: Overcoming the orchestration deficit. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 42(2), 501–578.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lobel, O. (2012). New governance as regulatory governance. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 65–82). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mauro, P. (1995). Corruption and growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3), 681–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hess, D. (2009). Catalyzing corporate commitment to combating corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(S4), 781–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Petkoski, D., Warren, D. E., & Laufer, W. S. (2009). Collective strategies in fighting corruption: Some intuitions and counter intuitions. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(S4), 815–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Homann, K., & Kirchner, C. (2003). Ordnungsethik. In C. Lütge (Ed.), Anreize und Moral. Gesellschaftstheorie - Ethik - Anwendungen (pp. 137–165). Lit: Münster.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lütge, C., Armbrüster, T., & Müller, J. F. (2016). Order ethics: Bridging the gap between contractarianism and business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(4), 687–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lütge, C. (2012b). Wirtschaftsethik ohne Illusionen: Ordnungstheoretische Reflexionen (1st ed.). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wolters, G. (1995). Ordnung. In J. Mittelstraß (Ed.), Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie (Vol. 2, p. 1088). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lütge, C. (2007). Social glue under conditions of globalisation: Philosophers on essential normative resources. In K. Homann, P. Koslowski, & C. Lütge (Eds.), Law, Ethics and Economics. Globalisation and business ethics (pp. 192–202). Aldershot, [u.a.]: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lütge, C. (2016a). Contractarian foundations of order ethics. In C. Lütge & N. Mukerji (Eds.), Order ethics. An ethical framework for the social market economy (pp. 3–18). New York [u.a.]: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lütge, C. (2016b). Order ethics and the problem of social glue. University of St. Thomas Law Journal, 12(2), 339–359.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    WBI Working Group (2010). Collective action in the fight against corruption. http://actoolkit.unprme.org/wp-content/resourcepdf/CollectiveAction2010.pdf. Accessed 24 Jul 2016.
  30. 30.
    Rose-Ackerman, S. (1975). The economics of corruption. Journal of Public Economics, 4(2), 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Truex, R., & Søreide, T. (2011). Why multi-stakeholder groups succeed and fail. In S. Rose-Ackerman & T. Søreide (Eds.), International handbook on the economics of corruption (pp. 478–498). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    OECD (2014). OECD foreign bribery report: An analysis of the crime of bribery of foreign public officials. http://www.oecd.org/corruption/oecd-foreign-bribery-report-9789264226616-en.htm. Accessed 24 Jul 2016.
  33. 33.
    Beschorner, T., Hajduk, T., & Simeonov, S. (2013). Corporate responsibility in Europe: Government involvement in sector-specific initiatives. Gütersloh: Verl. Bertelsmann Stiftung.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Aaronson, S. A. (2011). Limited partnership: Business, government, civil society, and the public in the extractive industries transparency initiative (EITI). Public Administration and Development, 31(1), 50–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mena, S., & Palazzo, G. (2012). Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(3), 527–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Locke, A. & Henley, G. (2013). The possible shape of a land transparency initiative: Lessons from other transparency initiatives. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8599.pdf. Accessed 24 Jul 2016.
  37. 37.
    Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gibbert, M., & Ruigrok, W. (2010). The “what” and “how” of case study rigor: Three strategies based on published work. Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), 710–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Scott, J. (2014). A matter of record: Documentary sources in social research. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    King, N. (2012). Doing template analysis. In G. Symon & C. Cassell (Eds.), Qualitative organizational research. Core methods and current challenges (pp. 426–450). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Silverman, D. (2014). Interpreting qualitative data (5th ed.). Los Angeles [u.a.]: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    EMB (2007). Ausgangssituation. In EMB (Ed.), EMB-Wertemanagement Bau (pp. 4–5). München. http://www.bauindustrie-bayern.de/fileadmin/Webdata/Themen/EMB/emb_broschuere2007.pdf.
  46. 46.
    Nichols, P. M. (2013). Are facilitating payments legal? Virginia Journal of International Law, 54(1), 127–155.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    David-Barrett, L. & Okamura, K. (2013). The transparency paradox: why do corrupt countries join EITI? https://eiti.org/files/The-Transparency-Paradox.-Why-do-Corrupt-Countries-Join-EITI1.pdf. Accessed 24 Jul 2016.
  48. 48.
    The Economist (2017). Donald Trump signs a law repealing a disclosure rule for oil companies. https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/02/big-signing. Accessed 12 Aug 2017.
  49. 49.
    n.a (2004). Richtlinie zur Verhütung und Bekämpfung von Korruption in der öffentlichen Verwaltung (KorruR). http://gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/BayVwV97287#BayVwV97287-11. Accessed 12 Aug 2017.
  50. 50.
    TI-UK (2012). The 2010 UK Bribery Act adequate procedures checklist. http://www.transparency.org.uk/publications/adequate-procedures-checklist-pdf/. Accessed 23 Jul 2016.
  51. 51.
    Lütge, C. (2012a). Fundamentals of order ethics: law, business ethics and the financial crisis. In T. Bustamante & O. Onazi (Eds.), Global harmony and the rule of law (pp. 11–21). Stuttgart: Steiner [u.a.].Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Moberg, J., & Rich, E. (2012). Beyond governments: Lessons on multi-stakeholder governance from the extractive industries transparency initiative (EITI). In M. Pieth (Ed.), Collective action: Innovative strategies to prevent corruption (pp. 113–124). Zürich: Dike.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hough, D. (2013). Corruption, anti-corruption and governance. Political corruption and governance series. Basingstoke [u.a.]: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2013). Controlling corruption through collective action. Journal of Democracy, 24(1), 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Engel, C. (2015). Tacit collusion: the neglected experimental evidence. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 12(3), 537–577.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lipczynski, J., Wilson, J. O., & Goddard, J. A. (2009). Industrial organization: Competition, strategy, policy: Harlow.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. The American Political Science Review, 92(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hawkins, J. (2013). How to note: reducing corruption in infrastructure sectors. http://www.u4.no/recommended-reading/how-to-note-reducing-corruption-in-infra​structure-sectors/. Accessed 24 Jul 2016.
  60. 60.
    Lütge, C., Rusch, H., & Uhl, M. (Eds.). (2014). Experimental ethics: Towards an empirical moral philosophy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Serra, D., & Wantchekon, L. (Eds.). (2012). New advances in experimental research on corruption (1st ed.). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TUM School of ManagementTechnical University of MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations