Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding the Enabling Environment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Corporations as Custodians of the Public Good?

Part of the book series: Water Governance - Concepts, Methods, and Practice ((WGCMP))

  • 337 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter explores the emergence of corporate water stewardship. It puts forth the argument that it can be understood as an outcome of two wide trends: (a) the growing discontent with state-mandated water resources management, and (b) the concurrent renegotiation of businesses’ role in society. This conclusion is drawn through a comprehensive literature review of conventional water management practices, and the criticisms to which they have been subjected. Through these critiques, the rationale emerges for opening a debate on the renegotiation at the global level of the position of businesses, introducing this sector as stakeholders in water governance. Intrinsically linked to this is the co-propagation of the use of market mechanisms to rectify societal and environmental problems. Consequently, this chapter will also analyse the emergence of market environmentalism and argue that it is through corporate water stewardship that this trend has materialised within the water sector. Furthermore, the chapter sets up the framework to theorise corporate participation in global governance, understand how it operates, and explain how new ideas are generated and established in the political context.

Maybe I am dreaming, but I think you can see a new form of ‘social capitalism’ emerging.

Interview 17, 2015, unpublished

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Dublin Principles were later also integrated into Agenda 21 of the 1992 Earth Summit.

  2. 2.

    Although not explicitly referenced, the idea of environmental flows has, for example, been integrated into the European Water Framework Directive as it requires member states to achieve good ecological status in all waterbodies (Acreman and Ferguson 2010).

  3. 3.

    Kubiszewski et al. 2017 estimate that between 1997 and 2011, the global value of ecosystem services has decreased by an estimated USD 20 trillion/yr.

  4. 4.

    The Global Compact is a voluntary partnership initiative between the UN and businesses. A business signs up to align its practices with ten principles in the areas of human rights, labour, the environment, and anti-corruption in order to act ‘as a force for good’. Self-reporting is carried out annually through The Global Reporting Initiative; the leading scheme in the field.

  5. 5.

    Legitimacy granted by UN endorsement.

  6. 6.

    The budget deficit was due to the US Congress having failed to approve the US contribution to the UN budget, which accounted for roughly 30% of the UN’s revenue. This resulted in substantial budget cuts for the organisation (Utting 2000). Simultaneously, the world was also experiencing a global aid crisis. Between 1992 and 1997, levels of Official Development Assistance (ODA) declined by one-third as a percentage of gross national income of donor countries – from 0.33 to 0.22% – or $61 billion to $48 billion dollars (ibid). However, during this same period, “corporate capitalism was enjoying a heyday” (Utting and Zammit 2009: 44), making partnerships seem beneficial.

  7. 7.

    It has to be noted that CSV is not a novel idea; there are earlier concepts that encapsulate the same aspiration, e.g. Elkington’s (1994; 1998) ‘Triple Bottom Line’ or Emerson’s (2000) ‘Blended Finance.’ Similarly to Porter and Kramer, Emerson argues that it is necessary to move beyond the historic definition of investment and return as a purely financial activity, and expand the notion to include social, as well as financial value. Thus, like Porter and Kramer, Emerson holds that the ultimate aim of any corporate activity is to advance a blended finance proposition “that integrates and affirms the greatest maximization of social and economic value” (Emerson 2000: 26).

  8. 8.

    The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broad free market economic ideas (e.g. free trade, floating exchange rates, and unregulated markets), supported by prominent international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank.

  9. 9.

    This denotes the provision of water by utilities, (public or private), communities, or individuals, usually via systems of pumps and pipes.

  10. 10.

    This denotes the activities of planning, developing, distributing, and managing water resources. It thus includes a wider set of activities, and a different set of actors from water services provision.

  11. 11.

    Following Keohane (2011), the theory’s principal thesis is that variations in the institutionalisation of world politics exert significant impacts on the behaviour of governments. In particular, patterns of cooperation and disagreement can be understood only in the context of the institutions that help define the meaning and importance of state action.

  12. 12.

    Dating back to thinkers like Adam Smith and Immanuel Kant, liberalism as a theory in international relations rejects anarchy as the ‘natural’ state of the world, and instead focuses on the role of international organisations and nongovernmental actors in shaping state preferences and policy choices (see Snyder 2004).

  13. 13.

    The theory points towards how certain aspects of international relations are historically and socially constructed, rather than inevitable consequences of human nature or other essential characteristics of world politics (see, e.g., Wendt 1992).

  14. 14.

    Compulsory power also includes symbolic and normative resources.

References

  • Aakhus, M., & Bzdak, M. (2012). Revisiting the role of “shared value” in the business-society relationship. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 31(2), 231–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acreman, M. C., & Ferguson, A. J. D. (2010). Environmental flows and the European Water Framework Directive. Freshwater Biology, 55(1), 32–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ainuson, K. (2009). An advocacy coalition approach to water policy change in Ghana: A look at belief systems and policy oriented learning. Journal of African Studies and Development, 1(2), 16–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andonova, L. B. (2010). Public-private partnerships for the earth: Politics and patterns of hybrid authority in the multilateral system. Global Environmental Politics, 10(2), 25–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Backer, L. C. (2011). Private actors and public governance beyond the state: The multinational corporation, the financial stability board, and the global governance order. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 18(2), 751–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bäckstrand, K. (2006). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. European Environment, 16(5), 290–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bäckstrand, K., & Kylsäter, M. (2014). Old wine in new bottles? The legitimation and delegitimation of UN public–private partnerships for sustainable development from the Johannesburg summit to the Rio +20 summit. Globalizations, 11(3), 331–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, K. (2005). Neoliberalizing nature? Market environmentalism in water supply in England and Wales. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 95(3), 542–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, K. (2014). The business of water: Market environmentalism in the water sector. The Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 39, 469–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balmford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P., Costanza, R., Farber, S., Green, R. E., Jenkins, M., Jefferiss, P., Jessamy, V., Madden, J., Munro, K., Myers, N., Naeem, S., Paavola, J., Rayment, M., Rosendo, S., Roughgarden, J., Trumper, K., & Turner, R. K. (2002). Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science, 297(5583), 950–953.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M., & Duvall, R. (2005). Power in global governance. In M. Barnett & R. Duvall (Eds.), Power in global governance (pp. 1–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1996). World risk society as cosmopolitan society? Ecological questions in a framework of manufactured uncertainties. Theory, Culture & Society, 13(4), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (2006). Living in the world risk society. Economy and Society, 35(3), 329–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beisheim, M. (2012). Partnerships for sustainable development: Why and how Rio+20 must improve the framework for multi-stakeholder partnerships (SWP Research Paper). Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernauer, T., & Gampfer, R. (2013). Effects of civil society involvement on popular legitimacy of global environmental governance. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 439–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar, R. (1979). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biswas, A. K. (2009). Integrated water resources management: A reassessment. Water International, 29(2), 248–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blowers, A. (1997). Environmental policy: Ecological modernisation or the risk society? Urban Studies, 34(5–6), 845–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blowfield, M. (2004). CSR and development: Is business appropriating global justice? Development, 47(3), 61–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blowfield, M. (2005a). Corporate social responsibility: reinventing the meaning of development? International Affairs, 81(3), 515–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blowfield, M. (2005b). Going global: How to identify and manage societal expectations in supply chains (and the consequences of failure). Corporate Governance International Journal of Business in Society, 5(3), 119–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blowfield, M. (2005c). Corporate social responsibility – The failing discipline and why it matters for international relations. International Relations, 19(2), 173–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blowfield, M. (2008). Poverty’s case for business: The evidence, misconceptions, conceits and deceit surrounding the business case (BDS working paper series no. 5). Copenhagen: The Business, Development and Society Network, Copenhagen Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blowfield, M., & Frynas, J. G. (2005). Setting new agendas: Critical perspectives on corporate social responsibility in the developing world. International Affairs, 81(3), 499–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2005). Public-private partnerships. Effective and legitimate tools of transnational governance? In E. Grande & L. W. Pauly (Eds.), Complex sovereignty: Reconstituting political authority in the twenty first century (pp. 195–216). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brühl, T., & Hofferberth, M. (2013). Global companies as social actors: Constructing private business in global governance. In J. Mikler (Ed.), The handbook of global companies (pp. 351–370). Chichester: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bull, B., Bøås, M., & McNeill, D. (2004). Private sector influence in the multilateral system: A changing structure of world governance. Global Governance, 10, 481–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkhard, B., Petrosillo, I., & Costanza, R. (2010). Ecosystem services – Bridging ecology, economy and social sciences. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 257–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (2010). Frames of war: When is life grievable? London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, L. M., Corson, C., Gray, N. J., MacDonald, K. I., & Brosius, J. P. (2014). Studying global environmental meetings to understand global environmental governance: Collaborative event ethnography at the tenth conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity. Global Environmental Politics, 14(3), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrozza, C. (2015). Democratizing expertise and environmental governance: Different approaches to the politics of science and their relevance for policy analysis. Environmental Policy and Planning, 17(1), 108–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (2008). The new public sphere: Global civil society, communication networks, and global governance. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 78–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CEO Water Mandate, WWF & WaterAid. (2015). Serving the public interest: Corporate water stewardship and sustainable development. Oakland: UNCG, Pacific Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapagain, A. K., & Tickner, D. (2012). Water footprint: Help or hindrance? Water Alternatives, 5(3), 563–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cienki, A., & Yanow, D. (2013). Why metaphor and other tropes? Linguistic approaches to analysing policies and the political. Journal of International Relations and Development, 16(2), 167–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., & van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. W. (1992). Multilateralism and world order. Review of International Studies, 18(2), 161–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L. J., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting the value of “creating shared value”. California Management Review, 56(2), 130–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronon, W. (2008). Foreword. In T. R. Dunlap (Ed.), DDT, silent spring, and the rise of environmentalism: Classic texts (pp. ix–xii). Washington: University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Sciences, 2(3), 201–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dany, C. (2013). Global governance and NGO participation: Shaping the information society in the United Nations. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Death, C. (2011). Summit theatre: Exemplary governmentality and environmental diplomacy in Johannesburg and Copenhagen. Environmental Politics, 20(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dingwerth, K. (2005). The democratic legitimacy of public-private rule making: What can we learn from the World Commission on Dams? Global Governance, 11(1), 65–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S. (2013). The politics of the earth (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, J. (2000). The nature of returns: a social capital markets inquiry into elements of investment and the blended value proposition (Social enterprise series 1 No. 17, Harvard Business School’s Working Paper Series). Boston: Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics, 65, 663–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engel, S., & Schaefer, M. (2013). Ecosystem services – A useful concept for addressing water challenges? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(6), 696–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falkner, R. (2003). Private environmental governance and international relations: Exploring the links. Global Environmental Politics, 3(2), 72–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falkner, R. (2012). Global environmentalism and the greening of international society. International Affairs, 88(3), 503–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finlayson, C. M., Davidson, N., Pritchard, D., Randy, M., & MacKacy, H. (2011). The Ramsar convention and ecosystem-based approaches to the wise use and sustainable development of wetlands. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, 14(3–4), 176–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, S., & Segaar, D. (2006). New coalitions for global governance: the changing dynamics of multilateralism. Global Governance, 12(2), 205–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: selected interviews & other writings 1972–1977. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970. Available at https://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html. Accessed 18 Nov 2017.

  • Fyke, J. P., Feldner, B. S., & May, S. K. (2016). Discourses about righting the business ←→ society relationship. Business and Society Review, 121(2), 217–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill, S., & Law, D. (1989). Global hegemony and the structural power of capital. International Studies Quarterly, 33(4), 475–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilpin, R. (2002). A realist perspective on international governance. In D. Held & A. McGrew (Eds.), Governing globalization: Power, authority, and governance (pp. 237–248). New York: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giordano, M., & Shah, T. (2014). From IWRM back to integrated water resources management. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 30(3), 364–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glasbergen, P. (2011). Mechanisms of private meta-governance: An analysis of global private governance for sustainable development. International Journal of Strategic Business Alliances, 2(3), 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glicken, J. (2000). Getting stakeholder participation ‘right’: A discussion of participatory processes and possible pitfalls. Environmental Science & Policy, 3(6), 305–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, N. (1978). Ways of worldmaking. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grigg, N. S. (2014). Integrated water resources management: unified process or debate forum? International Journal of Water Resources Development, 30(3), 409–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grundmann, R. (2009). The role of expertise in governance processes. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(5–6), 398–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson, L. H. (2000). Ecological resilience – In theory and application. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31, 425–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GWP. (2000). Integrated water resources management (TAC background papers No. 4). Stockholm: GWPO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M. A. (1993). Discourse coalitions and the institutionalisation of practice: The case of acid rain in Britain. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 43–76). Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M., & Versteeg, W. (2005). Performing governance through networks. European Political Science, 3, 340–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hale, T. N., & Mauzerall, D. L. (2004). Thinking globally and acting locally: Can the Johannesburg partnerships coordinate action on sustainable development? The Journal of Environment and Development, 13(3), 220–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargrove, E. C. (1992). Weak anthropocentric intrinsic value. The Monist, 75(2), 183–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L. (1997). Beyond greening: Strategies for a sustainable world. Harvard Business Review. January–February 1997

    Google Scholar 

  • Heclo, H. (1974). Social policy in Britain and Sweden. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hepworth, N. (2012). Open for business or opening Pandora’s box? A constructive critique of corporate engagement in water policy: An introduction. Water Alternatives, 5(3), 543–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hepworth, N. D., & Orr, S. (2013). Corporate water stewardship: New paradigms in private sector water engagement. In B. A. Lankford, K. Bakker, M. Zeitoun, & D. Conway (Eds.), Water security: Principles, perspectives and practices (pp. 220–238). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrfahrdt-Pähle, E. (2010). South African water governance between administrative and hydrological boundaries. Climate and Development, 2(2), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems, 4(5), 390–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C. S., & Meffe, G. K. (1996). Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology, 10(2), 328–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICMM. (2015). A practical guide to catchment-based water management for the mining and metals industry. London: ICMM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaac, J. (1987). Power and Marxist theory: A realist view. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. (2000). The dynamics of partnership and governance failure. In G. Stoker (Ed.), The new politics of local governance in Britain (pp. 11–32). Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonch-Clausen, T., & Fugl, J. (2001). Firming up the conceptual basis of integrated water resources management. Water Resources Development, 17(4), 501–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kallis, G. (2010). Coevolution in water resource development: The vicious cycle of water supply and demand in Athens, Greece. Ecological Economics, 69(4), 796–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karkkainen, B. C. (2004). Post-sovereign environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 4(1), 72–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. (2011). Neoliberal institutionalism. In C. W. Hughes & L. Y. Meng (Eds.), Security studies: A reader (pp. 157–164). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, J. M., & Louw, D. (1998). Instream flow assessments for regulated rivers in South Africa using the Building Block Methodology. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management, 1(2), 109–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, J. M., Tharme, R. E., & de Villiers, M.S. (2008) Environmental flow assessment for Rivers: Manual for the building block methodology. Water Research Commission Report No TT 354/08.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, G. (2001). The “Silent Springs” of Rachel Carson: Mass media and the origins of modern environmentalism. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 403–420.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Anderson, S., & Sutton, P. (2017). The future value of ecosystem services: Global scenarios and national implications. Ecosystem Services, 26, 289–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laws, D., & Rein, M. (2003). Reframing practice. In M. A. Hajer & H. Wagenaar (Eds.), Deliberative poliy analysis: Understanding Governance in the network society (pp. 172–208). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Luetkenhorst, W. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and the development agenda: The case for actively involving small and medium enterprises. Intereconomics, 39(3), 157–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCauley, D. J. (2006). Selling out on nature. Nature, 443, 27–28.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McKinsey Global Institute. (2017). Bridging infrastructure gaps: Has the world made progress? McKinsey & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medema, W., McIntosh, B. S., & Jeffrey, P. J. (2008). From premise to practice: A critical assessment of integrated water resources management and adaptive management approaches in the water sector. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 29–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mert, A. (2012). Partnerships and the privatisation of environmental governance: On myths, forces of nature and other inevitabilities. Environmental Values, 21(4), 475–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mol, A. P. J., & Spaargaren, G. (1993). Environment, modernity, and the risk society: The apocalyptic horizon of environmental reform. International Sociology, 8(4), 431–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molle, F. (2008). Nirvana concepts, narratives and policy models: Insights from the water sector. Water Alternatives, 1(1), 131–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molle, F. (2009). Water, politics, and river basin governance: Repoliticizing approaches to river basin management. Water International, 34(1), 62–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J., Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2005). Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(3), 429–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, A., & Orr, S. (2015). The value of water: A framework for understanding water valuation, risk and stewardship. [online] Available at http://commdev.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/The-Value-of-Water-Discussion-Draft-Final-August-2015.pdf. Accessed 21 Nov 2018.

  • Munang, R., Thiaw, I., Alverson, K., Mumba, M., Liu, J., & Rivington, M. (2013). Climate change and ecosystem-based adaptation: A new pragmatic approach to buffering climate change impacts. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(1), 67–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, S. H. (2017). Containing environmentalism: risk, rationality, and value in the wake of the Exxon Valdez. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 28(1), 118–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, I., & Welsh, J. (1991). The other in European self-definition: An addendum to the literature on International society. Review of International Studies, 17(4), 327–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newborne, P., & Dalton, J. (2016). Water management and stewardship: Taking stock of corporate water behaviour. Gland/London: IUCN/ODI.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, O. (1997). Environmental values anthropocentrism and speciesism. Environmental Values, 6(2), 127–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orr, S., & Cartwright, A. (2010). Water scarcity risks: Experience of the private sector. In L. Martinez-Cortina, A. Garrido, & E. Lopez-Gunn (Eds.), Re-thinking water and food security: Fourth Botin Foundation water workshop (pp. 181–189). Florida: CRS Press Taylor & Francis Group.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Orr, S., & Sarni, W. (2015). Does the concept of “creating shared value” hold water? Journal of Business Strategy, 36(3), 18–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owens, S. (2008). Why conserve marine environments? Environmental Conservation, 35(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owens, S. (2015). Knowledge, policy, and expertise: the UK Royal Commission on environmental pollution 1970–2011. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Owens, S., & Cowell, R. (2011). Land and limits: Interpreting sustainability in the planning process. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl, C., Gupta, J., & Petry, D. (2008). Governance and the Global water system: A theoretical exploration. Global Governance, 14(4), 419–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl, C., Arthington, A., Bogardi, J., Bunn, S. E., Hoff, H., Lebel, L., Nikitina, E., Palmer, M., Poff, N. L., Richards, K., Schlüter, M., Schulze, R., St-Hilaire, A., Tharme, R., Tockner, K., & Tsegai, D. (2013). Environmental flows and water governance: Managing sustainable water uses. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(3–4), 341–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poff, N. L., & Matthews, J. H. (2013). Environmental flows in the Anthropocene: Past progress and future prospects. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(6), 667–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, M. A. (1997). Delegation, agency, and agenda setting in the European Community. International Organization, 51(1), 99–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011, January–February). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, J. E. (2000). Moving from geographic to virtual communities: Global corporate citizenship in a Dot.com world. Business and Society Review, 105(1), 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, M. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417–2431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, M. (2012). Measurement and alienation: Making a world of ecosystem services. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(3), 386–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockström, J., Falkenmark, M., Folke, C., Lannerstad, M., Barron, J., Enfors, E., Gordon, L., Heinke, J., Hoff, H., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2014). Water resilience for human prosperity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, M. A., Ricart, J. E., & Sanchez, P. (2002). Sustainable development and the sustainability of competitive advantage: A dynamic and sustainable view of the firm. Creativity and Innovation Management, 11(3), 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roe, E. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A. (1987). Knowledge, policy-oriented learning, and policy change. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 8(4), 649–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2/3), 129–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1994). Evaluating the advocacy coalition framework. Journal of Public Policy, 14(2), 175–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sattler, C., & Matzdorf, B. (2013). PES in a nutshell: From definitions and origins to PES in practice –Approaches, design process and innovative aspects. Ecosystem Services, 6, 2–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, V. A. (2010). Taking ideas and discourse seriously: Explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’. European Political Science Review, 2(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoeman, J., Allan, C., & Finlayson, M. (2014). A new paradigm for water? A comparative review of integrated, adaptive and ecosystem-based water management in the Anthropocene. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 30(3), 377–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholte, J. A. (2002). Civil society and democracy in global governance. Global Governance, 8(3), 281–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2008). Integrating and unifying competing and complementary frameworks: The search for a common core in the business and society field. Business & Society, 47(2), 148–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scrase, J. I., & Ockwell, D. G. (2010). The role of discourse and linguistic framing effects in sustaining high carbon energy policy –An accessible introduction. Energy Policy, 38(5), 2225–2233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P. (1995). Ecocentric management for a risk society. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 118–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siltaoja, M. E., & Onkila, T. J. (2013). Business in society or business and society: The construction of business–society relations in responsibility reports from a critical discursive perspective. Business Ethics: An European Review, 22(4), 357–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, J. (2004). One world, rival theories. Foreign Policy, 145, 52–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sohn, H. F. (1982). Prevailing rationales in the corporate social responsibility debate. Journal of Business Ethics, 1(2), 139–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, N. H. (2007). The economics of climate change: The stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. (2003). Knowledge networks and global policy. Originally presented for the CEEISA/ISA conference, Central European University Budapest, Hungary, 28th June 2003. [online] Available at http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/research/keytopic/other/RIS_Network.pdf/. Accessed 22 June 2017.

  • Teegen, H., Doh, J. P., & Vachani, S. (2004). The importance of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in global governance and value creation: An international business research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(6), 463–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, K. J. (1994). Sociology’s unique contributions to the study of risk. Paper presented at the 13th World Congress of Sociology, Bielefeld, Germany, July 18–23, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP. (2006). Ecosystem-based management: Markers for assessing progress. The Hague: UNEP/GPA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utting, P. (2000). UN-Business partnerships: Whose agenda counts? Geneva: UNRISD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utting, P. (2005). Corporate responsibility and the movement of business. Development in Practice, 15(3/4), 375–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utting, P., & Zammit, A. (2009). United Nations-business partnerships: Good intentions and contradictory agendas. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(1), 39–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varis, O., Enckell, K., & Keskinen, M. (2014). Integrated water resources management: horizontal and vertical explorations and the ‘water in all policies’ approach. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 30(3), 433–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Washington: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallerstein, I. (1998). The new world disorder: If the states collapse, can the nations be united? In A. Paolini, A. Jarvis, & C. Reus-Smit (Eds.), Between sovereignty and global governance: The United Nations, the state and civil society (pp. 171–185). New York: Palgrave.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Warhurst, A. (2005). Future roles of business in society: The expanding boundaries of corporate responsibility and a compelling case for partnership. Futures, 37(2–3), 151–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wesselink, A., Paavola, J., Fritsch, O., & Renn, O. (2011). Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: Practitioners’ perspectives. Environment and Planning A, 43(11), 2688–2704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whetten, D. A., Rands, G., & Godfrey, P. (2002). What are the responsibilities of business to society? In A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, & R. Whittington (Eds.), Handbook of strategy and management (pp. 373–408). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO/UNICEF JPM. (2015). Key Facts from JMP 2015 Report. [online] Available at http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/JMP-2015-keyfacts-en-rev.pdf?ua=1. Accessed 7 Dec 2018.

  • Wilks, S. (2013). The political power of the business corporation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wunder, S., Engel, S., & Pagiola, S. (2008). Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 834–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WWF. (2011). Assessing water risk: A practical approach for financial institutions. Berlin: WWF Deutschland.

    Google Scholar 

  • WWI. (2014). Corporate engagement on water: Risks, opportunities and priorities for development studies research. Presentation given at UEA, 16th January 2014.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Geography & Sustainable Development, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK

    Thérèse Rudebeck

Authors
  1. Thérèse Rudebeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rudebeck, T. (2019). Understanding the Enabling Environment. In: Corporations as Custodians of the Public Good?. Water Governance - Concepts, Methods, and Practice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13225-5_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation