Skip to main content

Disentangling governance: a synoptic view of regulation by government, business and civil society

Abstract

Governance became a catch-all concept for various forms of steering by state and non-state actors. While it pays tribute to the complexities of steering in poly-centred, globalised societies, its fuzziness makes it difficult to oversee who actually steers whom and with what means. By focussing mainly on actor constellations, the article disentangles governance into seven basic types of regulation, four of them representing public policies with varying degrees of government involvement and three depending solely on civil society (civil regulation), on businesses (industry or business self-regulation) or on both (civil co-regulation). Although each of the seven types is well known and extensively researched, they are rarely joined in a synoptic view, making it difficult to grasp the totality of contemporary governance. After introducing the seven basic types of regulation and co-regulation, the article addresses the interactions between them and it adds the widely used concepts of hybrid regulation and meta-governance in distinct ways. The synoptic view provided here helps to comprehend how governmental deregulation has been accompanied by soft governmental regulation as well as “societal re-regulation”. The concluding discussion emphasises that this “regulatory reconfiguration” is the cumulative product of countless, more or less spontaneous initiatives that coincide with forceful global trends. It also stresses that the various forms of regulation by civil society and business actors are not simply alternatives or complements to but often key prerequisites for effective public policies. Although the essentials of the typology developed here can be applied universally to a variety of policy issues, I focus it on how businesses are steered towards sustainable development and Corporate Social Responsibility.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. For the synonymous use of governance and steering, see e.g. Rhodes (2000, 56). The synonymous use of governance and regulation is most obvious when scholars deviate from the standard vocabulary of “self-regulation” or “co-regulation” and speak of “self-governance” or “co-governance” (Kooiman 2003, 79–113).

  2. A similar pooling of business and civil society actors to “private actors” can be found in an EU context. Since the EU defines co-regulation as Community legislative acts that entrust the attainment of their objectives to non-state parties (European Parliament et al. 2003, C331/3), it overlooks not only all non-legislative forms of co-regulation such as public–private partnerships (see “Unfolding the typology”), but also the difference between civil society and business actors. Accordingly, the EU defines self-regulation “as the possibility for economic operators, the social partners, non-governmental organisations or associations to adopt amongst themselves and for themselves common guidelines at European level” (European Parliament et al. 2003, C321/3; see also Senden 2005). Since “economic operators” and CSOs do not constitute a homogenous group that could be referred to as “themselves”, this notion of self-regulation is too vague for scholarly (and perhaps also for practical) purposes.

  3. Since Levi-Faur (2010, 11f, 26f) pays close attention not only to who sets rules with what means, but also to who monitors and enforces the rules, the typology he proposes mirrors the complexities of contemporary governance (e.g. in matrices displaying up to 36 types of regulation), but makes it difficult to identify some basic types of regulation. Cafaggi (2011, 32), in turn, pays close attention not only to the regulators and those who are regulated, but also to the beneficiaries of regulation. While this differentiation is highly relevant in focused empirical research, it is difficult to employ in taxonomic works because steering practices of the same type can have varying beneficiaries. An example: as Héritier and Eckert (2008) show, self-regulation can benefit society (e.g. when the PVC industry reduces its environmental impacts) and/or the industry itself (e.g. when recycling quotas stabilise the paper industry), let alone governments who aim to solve problems without enacting new laws.

  4. http://archive.wri.org/newsroom/wrifeatures_text.cfm?ContentID=371; retrieved on 10 December 2011.

  5. The actor group referred to as “private sector” mixes businesses, trade associations and consumers. Obviously, the latter usually represent societal rather than business interests and should therefore be regarded as civil society stakeholder group (Kurzer and Cooper 2007).

  6. Albareda (2008), for example, describes a transition from self-regulation to co-regulation but does not address civil regulation via stakeholder pressure. Auld et al. (2008), in turn, typologise “The New Corporate Social Responsibility” based on incongruent “taxonomic categories” such as actors (i.e. “Government traditional” or “individual firms”), types of regulation (“partnerships”) or particular tools of governance (i.e. “information approaches” or “environmental management systems”). Although the authors aim to provide a comprehensive picture of “CSR innovations”, they overlook, inter alia, civil regulation, tripartite co-regulation and soft governmental regulation other than informational approaches (for details on these types of regulation, see “Unfolding the typology”).

  7. As Abbott and Snidal (2008, 16ff) show in more detail, the ideal-type logic of action in the business domain is preoccupied with competitiveness and profitability, and the key resources of businesses are technical expertise and financial clout. In contrast, CSOs are “norm entrepreneurs” (Abbott and Snidal 2008, 17) that pursue special (rather than public) interests or values. Since their motivation is usually moral- rather than profit-oriented, their key resources are legitimacy and trustworthiness (Mitchell et al. 1998). For governments, see the following “Regulation by governments: hard and soft”.

  8. While Tollefson et al. (2012) consider actor constellations (or politics), the degree of institutionalisation and the regulatory dimension as three equivalent dimensions of governance, the typology developed here emphasises that actor constellations represent a primary criterion that shapes all other dimensions.

  9. This definition is based on a definition of policy instruments provided by Howlett and Ramesh (1993, 4).

  10. While Mörth (2004a) speaks of “soft law”, I prefer the broader term soft regulation.

  11. For the important role soft law plays in the European context, see Mörth (2004c).

  12. Strictly speaking, civil regulation is concerned with pressure exerted by societal stakeholders such as local communities, small-scale consumers and investors, CSOs, churches, scientists and think tanks (some of which maintain contractual relations with businesses) and excludes pressure through major business stakeholders (such as institutional investors and suppliers; see the section on business self-regulation). The employee stakeholder group is somewhere between these two categories.

  13. The government actor involved in the GRI since 1999 (first in the steering committee, since 2002 in the GRI board of directors) is the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) (see http://www.globalreporting.org/AboutGRI/WhatIsGRI/History/OurHistory.htm; http://www.globalreporting.org/AboutGRI/WhoWeAre/GovernanceBodies/Board/).

  14. As Bell and Hindmoor (2012, 155) show for the United States, hard law that requires proof of legal logging can facilitate the private co-regulatory FSC scheme because it guarantees legal compliance.

  15. Note that I use the concept of “responsive regulation” in a narrow sense, which is in line with the enforcement pyramid rather than with the pyramid of enforcement strategies (for details, see Ayres and Braithwaite 1992, 35–39).

  16. Although voluntary (often non-state) initiatives that aim to improve the transparency of CSR (such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)) can also be referred to as “governing by disclosure” (Pattberg 2012, 616), they must not be confused with the governmental version of regulation by information as described here.

  17. Peters (2010, 44f) also recognises performance and strategic management in the public sector as key instruments of meta-governance.

  18. Glasbergen (2011) frames successful examples of civil or tripartite co-regulation (such as the Forest Stewardship Council and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)) as private meta-governance because these schemes influenced other types of regulation. For Abbott and Snidal (2010), orchestration is, inter alia, what I frame as “governing at arm’s length”.

References

  • Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2008) The governance triangle: Regulatory standards institutions and the shadow of the state. http://www.asil.org/files/abbotsnidal_march2008.pdf.

  • Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2010): International regulation without international government: Improving international organization performance through orchestration. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1487129 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1487129.

  • Albareda, L. (2008). Corporate responsibility, governance and accountability: From self-regulation to co-regulation. Corporate Governance, 8(4), 430–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argenti, P. (2004). Collaborating with activists: How star bucks works with NGOs. California Management Review, 47(1), 91–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnouts, R., & Arts, B. (2009). Environmental governance failure: The ‘Dark Side’ of an essentially optimistic concept. In B. Arts, A. Lagendijk, & V. H. Houtum (Eds.), The disoriented state: Shifts in govern mentality, territoriality and governance (pp. 201–228). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arts, B. (2005). Non-state actors in global environmental governance: New arrangements beyond the state. In M. Koenig-Archibugi & M. Zürn (Eds.), New modes of governance in the global system (pp. 177–200). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arts, B., Lagendijk, A., & Houtum, H. (Eds.). (2009). The disoriented state: Shifts in govern mentality, territoriality and governance. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auld, G., Bernstein, S., & Cashore, B. (2008). The new corporate social responsibility. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33(1), 413–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, I., & Braithwaite, J. (1992). Responsive regulation: Transcending the deregulation debate. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, R., & Cave, M. (1999). Understanding regulation: Theory, strategy, and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balleisen, E. J., & Eisner, M. (2009). The promise and pitfalls of co-regulation: How governments can draw on private governance for public purpose. In D. Moss & J. Cisternino (Eds.), New perspectives on regulation (pp. 127–149). Cambridge/MA: The Tobin Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartle, I., & Vass, P. (2007). Self-regulation within the regulatory state: Towards a new regulatory paradigm? Public Administration, 85(4), 885–905.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, A., Feichtinger, J., & Steurer, R. (2012). The governance of climate change adaptation in ten OECD countries: Challenges and approaches. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 14(3), 279–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S., & Hindmoor, A. (2009). Rethinking governance: The centrality of the state in modern society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S., & Hindmoor, A. (2012). Governance without government? The case of the Forest Stewardship Council. Public Administration, 90(1), 144–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bemelmans-Videc, M., Rist, R., & Vedung, E. (1997). Carrots, sticks and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation. New York: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, T. A. (1998). Organizing Babylon—on the different conceptions of policy networks. Public Administration, 76(2), 253–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2010). Governance without a state: Can it work? Regulation & Governance, 4(2), 113–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J. (2006). Responsive regulation and developing economies. World Development, 34(5), 884–898.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, V. (2007). Responsive regulation and taxation: Introduction. Law & Policy, 29(1), 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, V., Murphy, K., & Reinhart, M. (2007). Taxation threat, motivational postures, and responsive regulation. Law & Policy, 29(1), 137–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bressers, H., de Bruijn, T., & Lulofs, K. (2009). Environmental negotiated agreements in the Netherlands. Environmental Politics, 18(1), 58–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, H. S., de Jong, M., & Lessidrenska, T. (2009). The rise of the global reporting initiative: A case of institutional entrepreneurship. Environmental Politics, 18(2), 182–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch, T., et al. (2008). Curbing greenhouse gas emissions on a sectoral basis: The cement sustainability initiative. In R. Sullivan (Ed.), Corporate responses to climate change: Achieving emission reductions through regulation, self-regulation and economic incentives (pp. 204–219). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cafaggi, F. (2011). New foundations of transnational private regulation. Journal of Law and Society, 38(1), 20–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casado-Asensio, J., & Steurer, R. (forthcoming) Integrated strategies on sustainable development, climate change mitigation and adaptation in Western Europe: Communication rather than coordination instruments. Journal of Public Policy, forthcoming.

  • Cashore, B. (2002). Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non-state market-driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule–making authority. Governance, 15(4), 503–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cashore, B., & Vertinsky, I. (2000). Policy networks and firm behaviours: Governance systems and firm responses to external demands for sustainable forest management. Policy Sciences, 33(1), 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. (2006). Firm self-regulation through international certifiable standards: Determinants of symbolic versus substantive implementation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 863–878.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, A. (2004). The marine stewardship council: A multi-stakeholder approach to sustainable fishing. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 11(2), 85–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darnall, N., & Sides, S. (2008). Assessing the performance of voluntary environmental programs: Does certification matter? Policy Studies Journal, 36(1), 95–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M. A. (2009). Research opportunities in the area of governance. In M. A. Delmas & O. R. Young (Eds.), Governance for the environment (pp. 221–238). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M. A., & Young, O. R. (Eds.). (2009a). Governance for the environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M. A., & Young, O. R. (2009b). Introduction: New perspectives on governance for sustainable development. In M. A. Delmas & O. R. Young (Eds.), Governance for the environment (pp. 3–11). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derkx, B. (2011). Metagovernance in the Realm of Private Sustainability Standards Setting. Utrecht-Nijmegen Programme On Partnerships. http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/student-theses/2011-0225-200714/Boudewijn%20Derkx%20-%20Thesis%20Final%20Version.pdf

  • Doelle, M., Henschel, C., et al. (2012). New governance arrangements at the intersection of climate change and forest policy: Institutional political and regulatory dimensions. Public Administration, 90(1), 37–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doshi, A., Dowell, G. et al. (2012). How firms respond to mandatory information disclosure. Harvard Business School Technology & Operations Management Unit Working Paper No. 12-001.

  • Esmark, A. (2009). The functional differentiation of governance: Public governance beyond hierarchy, market and networks. Public Administration, 87(2), 351–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2006) Implementing the partnership for growth and jobs: Making Europe a pole of excellence on corporate social responsibility, COM (2006) 136 final. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2006/com2006_0136en01.pdf.

  • European Parliament, Council; Commission (2003) Interinstitutional agreement on better law-making. Official Journal of the European Union, 2003/C, 321/01.

  • Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamble, A. (2000). Economic governance. In J. Pierre (Ed.), Debating governance: Authority, steering and democracy (pp. 110–137). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasbergen, P. (2007). The architecture and functioning of Dutch negotiated agreements. In A. Baranzini & P. Thalmann (Eds.), Voluntary approaches in climate policy (pp. 170–188). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasbergen, P. (2011). Understanding partnerships for sustainable development analytically: The ladder of partnership activity as a methodological tool. Environmental Policy and Governance, 21(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasbergen, P., Biermann, F., & Mol, A. P. J. (Eds.). (2007). Partnerships, governance and sustainable development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouldson, A. (2004). Risk, regulation and the right to know: Exploring the impacts of access to information on the governance of environmental risk. Sustainable Development, 12(3), 136–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunningham, N. (2005). Reconfiguring environmental regulation. In P. Eliadis, M. M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government: From instruments to governance (pp. 333–352). Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunningham, N., Kagan, R. A., et al. (2003). Shades of green: Business, regulation, and environment. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunningham, N., & Rees, J. (1997). Industry self-regulation: An institutional perspective. Law & Policy, 19(4), 363–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halme, M., & Laurila, J. (2008). Philanthropy, integration or innovation? Exploring the financial and societal outcomes of different types of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(3), 325–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haufler, V. (2001). A public role for the private sector: Industry self-regulation in a global economy. Washington: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendry, J. (2005). Stakeholder influence strategies: An empirical exploration. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(1), 79–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Héritier, A., & Eckert, S. (2008). New modes of governance in the shadow of hierarchy: Self-regulation by industry in Europe. Journal of Public Policy, 28(01), 113–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Héritier, A., & Lehmkuhl, D. (2008). The shadow of hierarchy and new modes of governance. Journal of Public Policy, 28(01), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (1983). Using bureaucracy sparingly. Public Administration, 61, 197–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (1986). The tools of government. Chatham: Chatham House Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (2007). Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: Reflections on the tools of government after two decades. Governance, 20(1), 127–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (1993). Patterns of policy choice. Policy Studies Review, 12, 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2006). Convergence and divergence in arrangements: Evidence from European integrated natural resource strategies. Journal of Public Policy, 26(02), 167–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hysing, E. (2009). Governing without government? The private governance of forest certification in Sweden. Public Administration, 87(2), 312–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. (2009). From governance to governance failure and from multi-level governance to multi-scalar meta-governance. In B. Arts, A. Lagendijk, & H. Houtum (Eds.), The disoriented state: Shifts in govern mentality, territoriality and governance (pp. 79–98). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A. (2008). The governance of sustainable development: Taking stock and looking forwards. Environment and Planning C Government and Policy, 26(1), 17–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. K. W., & Zito, A. (2005). The rise of ‘New’ policy instruments in comparative perspective: Has governance eclipsed government? Political Studies, 53(3), 477–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordana, J., & Levi-Faur, D. (2004). The politics of regulation in the age of governance. In J. Jordana & D. Levi-Faur (Eds.), The politics of regulation: Institutions and regulatory reforms for the age of governance (pp. 1–30). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, E. (2002). Promoting corporate social responsibility: Is marked-based regulation sufficient? New Economy, 1070–2525(02/02096), 96–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2000). Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry’s responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 698–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knill, C., & Lehmkuhl, D. (2002). Private actors and the state: Internationalization and changing patterns of governance. Governance, 15(1), 41–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (forthcoming) Mainstreaming sustainable coffee. Sustainable development, published online first. doi:10.1002/sd.507.

  • Konar, S., & Cohen, M. A. (1997). Information as regulation: The effect of community right to know laws on toxic emissions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32(1), 109–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurzer, P., & Cooper, A. (2007). Consumer activism, EU institutions and global markets: The struggle over biotech foods. Journal of Public Policy, 27(02), 103–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafferty, W. (2002) Adapting government practice to the goals of sustainable development, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/54/1939762.pdf.

  • Lafferty, W. M. (Ed.). (2004). Governance for sustainable development: The challenge of adapting form to function. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laffont, J–. J., & Tirole, J. (1991). The politics of government decision-making: A theory of regulatory capture. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1089–1127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambell, R., Ramia, G., Nyland, C., & Michelotti, M. (2008). NGOs and international business research: Progress, prospects and problems. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 75–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31(1), 297–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2009). Environmental governance and political science. In M. A. Delmas & O. R. Young (Eds.), Governance for the environment: New perspectives (pp. 69–97). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi-Faur, D. (2010): Regulation and regulatory governance, Jerusalem Papers in Regulation & Governance Working Paper No. 1.

  • Lyon, T. P., & Maxwell, J. W. (2007). Environmental public voluntary programs reconsidered. Policy Studies Journal, 35(4), 723–750.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G. (1997). The new European agencies: Regulation by information. Journal of European Public Policy, 4(2), 262–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathis, A. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and public policy-making: Perspectives, instruments and consequences. Twente: University of Twente.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. W., Lyon, T. P., & Hackett, S. C. (2000). Self-regulation and social welfare: The political economy of corporate environmentalism. Journal of Law and Economics, 43(2), 583–618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz, R. (2004): Governance theory als fortentwickelte Steuerungstheorie?, PMIfG Working Paper 04/1.

  • Mazey, S., & Richardson, J. (Eds.). (1993). Lobbying in the European community. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, C. L., Noah, E., & Cashore, B. (2008). Differences that ‘Matter’? A framework for comparing environmental certification standards and government policies. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 10(1), 47–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcquaid, R. W. (2010). Theory of organizational partnerships: Partnership advantages, disadvantages and success factors. In S. P. Osborne (Ed.), The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance (pp. 127–148). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadowcroft, J. (2007). Who is in charge here? Governance for sustainable development in a complex world. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9(3-4), 299–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellahi, K., & Wood, G. (2003). The role and potential of stakeholders in hollow participation: Conventional stakeholder theory and institutional alternatives. Business and Society Review, 108(2), 183–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meuleman, L. (2008). Public management and the Meta governance of Hierarchies, Networks and Markets: The feasibility of designing and managing governance style combinations. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Midttun, A. (2005). Policy making and the role of government: Realigning business, government and civil society. Corporate Governance, 5, 159–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Midttun, A. (2008). Partnered governance: Aligning corporate responsibility and public policy in the global economy. Corporate Governance, 8(4), 406–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1998). Toward a theory of Stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. In M. B. E. Clarkson (Ed.), The corporation and its stakeholders: Classic and contemporary readings (pp. 275–303). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J. (2002). The social responsibility of business and new governance. Government and Opposition, 37(3), 385–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J. (2005). An explicit model of business-society relations. In A. Habisch, J. Jonker, M. Wegner, & R. Schmidpeter (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility across Europe (pp. 51–66). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mörth, U. (2004a). Conclusions. In U. Mörth (Ed.), Soft law in governance and regulation: An interdisciplinary analysis (pp. 191–200). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mörth, U. (2004b). Introduction. In U. Mörth (Ed.), Soft law in governance and regulation: An interdisciplinary analysis (pp. 1–9). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mörth, U. (Ed.). (2004c). Soft law in governance and regulation: An interdisciplinary analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, D., & Cisternino, J. (Eds.). (2009). New perspectives on regulation. Cambridge/MA: The Tobin Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, J. (2004): The public role of private enterprise: Risks, opportunities and new models of engagement. Working paper of the corporate social responsibility initiative, from http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/cbg/CSRI/publications/nelson_public_role_of_private_enterprise.pdf.

  • NEWGOV (2005) Conceptualizing new modes of governance in EU enlargement. Reference number 12/D1.

  • OECD. (2001). Governance in the 21st century. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2002). Governance for sustainable development: Five OECD case studies. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges. Science, 284, 278–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palzer, C., & Scheuer, A. (2004): Self-regulation, co-regulation, public regulation, In: UNESCO Clear in house Yearbook 2004, from http://www.emr-sb.de/news/palzer_scheuer_unseco-clearinghouse_yearbook2004.pdf.

  • Pattberg, P. (2012). How climate change became a business risk: Analyzing non state agency in global climate politics. Environment and Planning C Government and Policy, 30(4), 613–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G. (2010). Meta-governance and public management. In S. P. Osborne (Ed.), The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance (pp. 36–51). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2000). Governance, politics and the state. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006) Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, December 2006, 78–92.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation: Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potoski, M., & Prakash, A. (2005a). Green clubs and voluntary governance: ISO 14001 and firms’ regulatory compliance. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 235–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potoski, M., & Prakash, A. (2005b). Covenants with weak swords: ISO 14001 and facilities’ environmental performance. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 745–769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. (2007). Collective action through voluntary environmental programs: A club theory perspective. Policy Studies Journal, 35(4), 773–792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preble, J. F. (2005). Toward a comprehensive model of stakeholder management. Business and Society Review, 110(4), 407–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44(4), 652–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. A. W. (2000). Governance and public administration. In J. Pierre (Ed.), Debating governance: Authority, steering and democracy (pp. 54–90). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenau, James N. (2005). Globalisation and governance. Sustainability between fragmentation and integration. In U. Petschow, J. Rosenau, & E. U. von Weizsäcker (Eds.), Governance and sustainability. New challenges for states, companies and civil society (pp. 20–38). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.

  • Rowlands, I. H. (2000). Beauty and the beast? BP’s and Exxon’s positions on global climate change. Environment and Planning C Government and Policy, 18(3), 339–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M. (2002). The new governance and the tools of public action: An introduction. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance (pp. 1–47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salzmann, O., et al. (2008). Climate protection partnerships: Activities and achievements. In R. Sullivan (Ed.), Corporate responses to climate change: Achieving Emissions reductions through regulation, self-regulation and economic incentives (pp. 151–167). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg, J., Juravle, C., et al. (2009). The heterogeneity of socially responsible investment. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(4), 519–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. W. (1994). Games real actors could play. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6(1), 27–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games real actors play: Actor-centred institutionalism in policy research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, C. (2004). Regulation in the age of governance: The rise of the post-regulatory state. In J. Jordana & D. Levi-Faur (Eds.), The politics of regulation: Institutions and regulatory reforms for the age of governance (pp. 145–173). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senden, L. (2005). Soft law, self regulation and co-regulation in European law: Where do they meet? Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, 9(1), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, J. L., & Toffel, M. W. (2010). Making self-regulation more than merely symbolic: The critical role of the legal environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(3), 361–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, D. (1997). Self-regulation versus command and control? Beyond false dichotomies. Law & Policy, 19(4), 529–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, E. (2006). Metagovernance. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 98–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stafford, E. R., Polonsky, M. J., et al. (2000). Environmental NGO–business collaboration and strategic bridging: A case analysis of the Greenpeace–Foron Alliance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 9(2), 122–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steurer, R. (2008). Sustainable development strategies. In A. Jordan & A. Lenschow (Eds.), Innovation in environmental policy? Integrating the environment for sustainability (pp. 93–113). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steurer, R. (2010). The role of governments in corporate social responsibility: Characterising public policies on CSR in Europe. Policy Sciences, 43(1), 49–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steurer, R. (2011). Soft Instruments, few networks: How ‘New Governance’ materialises in public policies on corporate social responsibility across Europe. Environmental Policy and Governance, 21(4), 270–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. (2009). Regulation and failure. In D. Moss & J. Cisternino (Eds.), New perspectives on regulation (pp. 11–24). Cambridge/MA: The Tobin Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tollefson, C., Zito, A. R., et al. (2012). Symposium overview: Conceptualizing new governance arrangements. Public Administration, 90(1), 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treib, O., Bähr, H., & Falkner, G. (2007). Modes of governance: Towards a conceptual clarification. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCED (1992) Rio declaration on environment and development, from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm.

  • UNCHE (1972) Declaration of the United Nations conference on the human environment. Stockholm: The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment.

  • Utting, P. (2005): Rethinking business regulation: From self-regulation to social control, from http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/(httpPublications)/F02AC3DB0ED406E0C12570A10029BEC8?OpenDocument&panel=relatedinformation.

  • van Huijstee, M. M., Francken, M., & Leroy, P. (2007). Partnerships for sustainable development: A review of current literature. Environmental Sciences, 4(2), 75–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Huijstee, M., & Glasbergen, P. (2010). NGOs moving business: An analysis of contrasting strategies. Business & Society, 49(4), 591–618.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2), 95–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. (2005). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washington: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. (2010). The private regulation of global corporate conduct. Business & Society, 49(1), 68–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, H. (2011). The ISO 26000 international guidance standard on social responsibility: Implications for public policy and transnational democracy. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 12(2), 665–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • WCED. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, K. (2005). Sustainable governance in the twenty-first century: Moving beyond instrument choice. In P. Eliadis, M. M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government: From instruments to governance (pp. 242–280). Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, C. (2004). Tackling conflict diamonds: the Kimberley process certification scheme. International Peacekeeping, 11(4), 697–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • WSSD (2002) Johannesburg declaration on sustainable development: From our origins to the future, from http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POI_PD.htm.

  • Yaziji, M., & Doh, J. (2009). NGOs and corporations: Conflict and collaboration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (2009). Governance for sustainable development in a world of rising interdependencies. In M. A. Delmas & O. R. Young (Eds.), Governance for the environment (pp. 12–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadek, S. (2004a). On civil governance. Development, 47(3), 20–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadek, S. (2004b) The path to corporate responsibility. Harvard Business Review, December 2004, 125–132.

  • Zürn, M. (2002). Societal denationalization and positive governance. In M. Ougaard & R. A. Higgott (Eds.), Towards a global polity (pp. 78–104). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zyglidopoulos, S. C. (2002). The social and environmental responsibilities of multinationals: Evidence from the Brent spar case. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(1), 141–151.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank the anonymous reviewers from Policy Sciences for their constructive comments and James Meadowcroft for helping me to improve the title of the article. I also thank Karl Hogl for giving me the opportunity to accomplish my Habilitation at BOKUs InFER which finally led to this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reinhard Steurer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Steurer, R. Disentangling governance: a synoptic view of regulation by government, business and civil society. Policy Sci 46, 387–410 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-013-9177-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-013-9177-y

Keywords