Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T10:03:06.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Global Policies and Local Practice: Loose and Tight Couplings in Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Andreas Rasche
Andreas Rasche*
Affiliation:
Copenhagen Business School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

This paper extends scholarship on multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) in the context of corporate social responsibility in three ways. First, I outline a framework to analyze the strength of couplings between actors participating in MSIs. Characterizing an MSI as consisting of numerous local networks that are embedded in a wider global network, I argue that tighter couplings (within local networks) and looser couplings (between local networks) coexist. Second, I suggest that this coexistence of couplings enables MSIs to generate policy outcomes which address the conditions of a transnational regulatory context. I argue that MSIs’ way of organizing enables them to cope with three challenges: the stability, flexibility, and legitimacy of governance. Reflecting on these challenges, the article identifies a number of problems related to MSIs’ role in transnational governance. Third, I discuss the UN Global Compact as an illustrative case and examine problems and opportunities related to its stability, flexibility, and legitimacy.

Keywords

multi-stakeholder initiativescorporate social responsibilityglobal governanceloose couplingnetwork theorylocal networks
Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , October 2012 , pp. 679 - 708
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abbott, K.W., & Snidal, D. 2000. Hard and soft law in international governance. International Organization 54: 421–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguilera, R.V., Rupp, D.E., Williams, C.A., & Ganapathi, J., 2007. Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32: 836–63.Google Scholar
Aldrich, H.E. Organiztion evolving. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Baccaro, L., & Mele, V. 2011. For lack of anything better? International organizations and global corporate codes. Public Administration, 89: 451–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beekun, R.I., & Glick, W.H. 2001. Organization structure from a loose coupling perspective: A multidimensional approach. Decision Sciences, 32: 227–50.Google Scholar
Benner, T., Reinicke, W.H., & Witte, J.M. 2003. Global public policy networks. Brookings Review, 21(2): 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, S., & Cashore, B. 2007. Can non-state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework. Regulation & Governance, 1: 347–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, J. 2008. Constructing and contesting legitimacy and accountability in polycentric regulatory regimes. Regulation & Governance, 2: 137–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bled, A.J. 2010. Technological choices in international environmental negotiations: An actor-network analysis. Business & Society, 49: 570–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boström, M. 2011. The problematic social dimension of sustainable development: The case of the Forest Stewardship Council. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 19: 3–15.Google Scholar
Carroll, A.B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4: 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cashore, B. 2002. Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non-state market-driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule, making authority. Governance, 15: 503–29.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1997. Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In Bohman, J. & Rehg, W. (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics: 67–92. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J., & Rogers, J. 1998. Secondary assocations and democratic governance. In Wright, E.O. (Ed.), Associations and democracy: 7–98. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Cutler, A.C. 2001. Critical reflections on the Westphalian assumptions of international law and organization: A crisis of legitimacy. Review of International Studies, 27: 133–50.Google Scholar
Dahan, N., Doh, J. & Guay, T. 2006. The role of multinational corporations in transnational institution building: A policy network perspective. Human Relations, 59: 1571–1600.Google Scholar
Daskalaki, M. 2010. Building “bonds” and “bridges”: Linking tie evolution and network identity in the creative industries. Organization Studies, 31: 1649–66.Google Scholar
Detomasi, D. 2007. The multinational corporation and global governance: Modelling global public policy networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 71: 321–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deva, S. 2006. Global Compact: A critique of the UN’s “public-private” partnership for promoting corporate citizenship. Syracuse Journal of International Law and Communication, 34: 107–51.Google Scholar
Dingwerth, K. 2008. North-South parity in global governance: The affirmative procedures of the Forest Stewardship Council. Global Governance, 14: 53–71.Google Scholar
Doh, J.P. 2005. Offshore outsourcing: Implications for international business and strategic management theory and practice. Journal of Management Studies, 42: 695–704.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J.S. 1999. Transnational democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 7: 30–51.Google Scholar
Etzion, D., & Ferraro, F. 2010. The role of analogy in the institutionalization of sustainability reporting. Organization Science, 21: 1092–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, R. 2002. Revisiting Westphalia, discovering post-Westphalia. The Journal of Ethics, 6: 311–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faulkner, R.R., & Anderson, A.B. 1987. Short-term projects and emergent careers: Evidence from Hollywood. American Journal of Sociology, 92: 879–909.Google Scholar
Firestone, W.A. 1985. The study of loose coupling: Problems, progress and prospects. Research in the Sociology of Education and Socialization, 5: 3–30.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1991. Governmentality. In Burchell, G., Gordon, C., & Murphy, D. (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality: 87–104. London: Harvester.Google Scholar
Fransen, L.W., & Kolk, A. 2007. Global rule-setting for business: A critical analysis of multi-stakeholder standards Organization: 14: 667–84Google Scholar
Friedkin, N.E. 1998. A structural theory of social influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
FSC Watch 2007. FSC in Russia: “Sustainable forest management” or simply money and politics? Retrieved 16th July 2011 fromhttp://www.fsc-watch.org/archives/2007/05/13.Google Scholar
Fung, A. 2003. Deliberative democracy and international labor standards. Governance, 16: 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fussler, C. 2010. “Caring for climate”: The business leadership platform. In Rasche, A., & Kell, G. (Eds.), The United Nations Global Compact: Achievements, trends and challenges: 80–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. 2009. The politics of climate change. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Gilbert, D.U. 2010. The United Nations Global Compact as a network of networks. In Rasche, A., & Kell, G. (Eds.), The United Nations Global Compact: Achievements, trends and challenges: 340–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, D.U., Rasche, A., & Waddock, S. 2011. Accountability in a global economy: The emergence of international accountability standards. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21: 23–44.Google Scholar
Global Reporting Initiative 2001. GRI network structure. Retrieved 28 June 2011 fromhttp://www.globalreporting.org/AboutGRI/WhoWeAre.Google Scholar
Global Water Partnership 2009. Strategy: 2009-2013. Stockholm: Global Water Partnership.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L.H. 2012. Transnational environmental governance: The emergence and effects of the certification of forests and fisheries. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Hansen, M.T. 2002. Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 13: 232–48.Google Scholar
Haufler, V. 2010. Disclosure as governance: The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and resource management in the developing world. Global Environmental Politics, 10: 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmchen, C. 2010. Running a Global Compact local network: Insights from the experience in Germany. In Rasche, A., & Kell, G. (Eds.), The United Nations Global Compact: Achievements, trends and challenges: 355–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hemmati, M. 2002. Multi-stakeholder processes for governance and sustainability. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Jones, C., & Volpe, E.H. 2011. Organizational identification: Extending our understanding of social identities through social networks. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32: 413–34.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R.E. 1982. Intervention in a loosely organized system: An encounter with non-being. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18: 415–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karmann, M., & Smith, A. 2009. FSC reflected in scientific and professional literature: Literature study on the outcomes and impacts of FSC certification. Bonn: Forest Stewardship Council.Google Scholar
Kell, G., & Levin, D. 2003. The Global Compact network: An historic experiment in learning and action. Business & Society Review, 108: 151–81.Google Scholar
King, D. 2011. The challenge of climate change. In Held, D., Hervey, A. & Theros, M. (Eds.), The governance of climate change: Science, economics, politics and ethics: 13–30. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Kirton, J.J., & Trebilcock, M.J. 2004. Introduction: Hard choices and soft law in sustainable global governance. In Kirton, J.J., & Trebilcok, M.J. (Eds.), Hard choices, soft law: Voluntary standards in global trade, environment and social governance: 3–29. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Kobrin, S.J. 2009. Private political authority and public responsibility: Transnational politics, transnational firms, and human rights. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19: 349–74.Google Scholar
Koenig-Archibugi, M. 2004. Transnational corporations and public accountability. Government and Opposition, 39: 234–59.Google Scholar
Kolstad, I., & Wiig, A. 2009. Is transparency the key to reducing corruption in resourcerich countries? World Development, 37: 521–32.Google Scholar
Kourula, A., & Laasonen, S. 2010. Nongovernmental organizations in business and society, management, and international business research: Review and implications from 1998 to 2007. Business & Society, 49: 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luceaa, R. 2010. How we see them versus how they see themselves: A cognitive perspective of firm-NGO relationships. Business & Society, 49: 116–39.Google Scholar
Luke, R.D., Begun, J.W., & Pointer, D.D. 1989. Quasi firms: Strategic interorganizational forms in the health care industry. Academy of Management Review, 14: 9–19.Google Scholar
Luo, Y. 2005. How important are shared perceptions of procedural justice in cooperative alliances? Academy of Management Journal, 48: 695–709.Google Scholar
March, J.G. 1987. Ambiguity and accounting: The elusive link between information and decision making. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 12: 153–68.Google Scholar
March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. 1976. Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. 2009. The logic of appropriateness. ARENA Center for European Studies Working Paper Series No. 04/09: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S., & Wright, P.M. 2006. Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43: 1–18.Google Scholar
Mena, S., & Palazzo, G. 2010. Input and output legitimacies in multi-stakeholder initiatives. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Montreal.Google Scholar
Messnerh, M. 2009. The limits of accountability. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 34: 918–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J.W., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340–63.Google Scholar
Miller, J.G. 1978. Living systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Mörth, U. 2004. Introduction. In Mörth, U. (Ed.), Soft law in governance and regulation: An interdisciplinary analysis: 1–10. Cheltenhamt: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Ocheje, P.D. 2006. The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI): Voluntary codes of conduct, poverty and accountability in Africa. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 8: 222–39.Google Scholar
Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16: 145–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Rourke, D. 2006. Multi-stakeholder regulation: Privatizing or socializing global labor standards?. World Development, 34: 899–918.Google Scholar
Orton, J.D., & Weick, K.E. 1988. Toward a theory of the loosely coupled system. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Working Paper No. 586.Google Scholar
Orton, J.D., & Weick, K.E. 1990. Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15: 203–23.Google Scholar
Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A.G. 2006. Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66: 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portes, A. 2000. The two meanings of social capital. Sociological Forum, 15: 1–12.Google Scholar
Publish What You Pay 2009. Niger: Civil society suspends participation in national EITI process. Retrived on 15 July 2009 fromhttp://www.publishwhatyoupay.org/resources/niger-civil-society-suspends-participation-national-eiti-process.Google Scholar
Putman, R. 1993. Making democracy work. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rasche, A. 2009a. “A necessary supplement”: What the United Nations Global Compact is and is not. Business & Society, 48: 511–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasche, A. 2009b. Toward a model to compare and analyze accountability standards: The case of the UN Global Compact. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16: 192–205.Google Scholar
Rasche, A., & Kell, G. 2010. The UN Global Compact: Achievements, trends and challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risse, T. 2005. Global governance and communicative action. In Held, D., & Koenig-Archibugi, M. (Eds.), Global governance and public accountability: 164–89. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Roloff, J. 2008. Learning from multi-stakeholder networks: Issue-focussed stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 82: 233–50.Google Scholar
Rosenau, J.N. 1995. Governance in the twenty-first century. Global Governance, 1: 13–43.Google Scholar
Rowley, T.J. 1997. Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22: 887–910.Google Scholar
Ruggie, J.G. 2001. Global_governance.net: The Global Compact as learning network. Global Governance, 7: 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggie, J.G. 2002. Trade, sustainability and global governance. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 27: 297–307.Google Scholar
Ruggie, J.G. 2004. Reconstituting the global public domain: Issues, actors, and practices. European Journal of International Relations, 10: 499–531.Google Scholar
Santoro, M.A. 2010. Post-Westphalia and its discontents: Business, globalization, and human rights in political and moral perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20: 285–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, A.G., & Palazzo, G. 2007. Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32: 1096–1120.Google Scholar
Scherer, A.G., & Palazzo, G. 2008. Globalization and corporate social responsibility. In Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D.S. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility: 413–31. Oxford: Oxford University 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: 899–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholte, J.A. 2005. Globalization: A critical introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sindico, F. 2006. Soft law and the elusive quest for sustainable global governance. Leiden Journal of International Law, 19: 829–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soderströmo, S., & Boström, M. 2010. FSC and the challenging management of a multi-scale and multi-actor system, Paper presented at the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology, Oldenburg and Bremen.Google Scholar
Stigzelius, I., & Mark-Herbert, C. 2009. Tailoring corporate responsibility to suppliers: Managing SA 8000 in Indian garment manufacturing. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25: 46–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchman, M.C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20: 571–610.Google Scholar
Swanson, D.L. 1999. Toward an integrative theory of business and society: A research strategy for corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 24: 506–21.Google Scholar
Tamm Hallström, K., & Boström, M. 2010. Transnational multi-stakeholder standardization: Organizing fragile non-state authority. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 1984. Some aspects of negotiated order, loose coupling and mesostructure in maximum security prisons. Symbolic Interaction, 7: 213–31.Google Scholar
Thorelli, H.B. 1986. Networks: Between markets and hierarchies. Strategic Management Journal, 7: 37–51.Google Scholar
Tichy, N.M., Tushman, M.L., & Fombrun, C. 1979. Social network analysis for organizations. Academy of Management Review, 4: 507–19.Google Scholar
Torre, A., & Gilly, J.-P. 2000. On the analytical dimension of proximity dynamics. Regional Studies, 34: 169–80.Google Scholar
Transparency International. 2011. Transparency International strategy 2015. Berlin: Transparency International.Google Scholar
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 464–76.Google Scholar
UN Global Compact. 2007. UN Global Compact annual review 2007. New York: UN Global Compact Office.Google Scholar
UN Global Compact. 2008. UN Global Compact local network report 2008. New York: UN Global Compact Office.Google Scholar
UN Global Compact. 2010a. Caring for climate: The constitution. New York: UN Global Compact Office.Google Scholar
UN Global Compact. 2010b. Caring for climate: Work plan 2010-2012. New York: UN Global Compact Office.Google Scholar
UN Global Compact. 2010c. UN Global Compact local network report 2010. New York: UN Global Compact Office.Google Scholar
UN Global Compact. 2011. UN Global Compact local network report 2011. New York: UN Global Compact Office.Google Scholar
UN Global Compact Nordic Network. 2009. Caring for climate: Nordic best practice. Copenhagen: UN Global Compact Nordic Network/UNDP Nordic Office/Confederation of Danish Industry.Google Scholar
Utting, P. 2002. Regulating business via multi-stakeholder initiatives: A preliminary assessment. In Jenkins, R., Utting, P., & Alva Pino, R. (Eds.), Voluntary approaches to corporate responsibility: Readings and a resource guide: 61–130. Geneva: UN Research Institute for Social Development.Google Scholar
Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 35–67.Google Scholar
Vogel, D. 2010. The private regulation of global corporate conduct: Achievements and limitations. Business & Society, 49: 68–87.Google Scholar
Waddell, S. 2011. Global action networks: Creating our future together. Basingtoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Waddock, S. 2008a. Building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22: 87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddock, S. 2008b. Corporate responsibility/corporate citizenship: The development of a construct. In Scherer, A.G., & Palazzo, G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on global corporate citizenship: 50–73. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Wallsten, S.J. 2001. An empirical test of geographic knowledge spillovers using geographic information systems and firm-level data. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 31: 571–99.Google Scholar
Weick, K.E. 1976. Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 1–19.Google Scholar
Weick, K.E. 1979. The social psychology of organizing. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Weick, K.E. 2001. Management of organizational change among loosely coupled elements. In Weick, K.E. (Ed.), Making sense of the organization: 380–403. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Whelan, N. 2010. Building the United Nations Global Compact local network model: History and highlights. In Rasche, A., & Kell, G. (Eds.), The United Nations Global Compact: Achievements, trends and challenges: 317–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiener, J. 1999. Globalization and the harmonization of law. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Williams, T. 2005. Cooperation by design: Structure and cooperation in interorganizational networks. Journal of Business Research, 58: 222–31.Google Scholar
Wood, D.J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16: 691–718.Google Scholar
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 2009. Thinking globally, acting locally: The regional network. Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Development.Google Scholar