Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T14:29:28.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contestation in Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: Enhancing the Democratic Quality of Transnational Governance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2020

Daniel Arenas ,
Laura Albareda  and
Jennifer Goodman
Daniel Arenas
Affiliation:
Universitat Ramon Llull
Laura Albareda
Affiliation:
LUT University
Jennifer Goodman
Affiliation:
Audencia Business School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article studies multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) as spaces for both deliberation and contestation between constituencies with competing discourses and disputed values, beliefs, and preferences. We review different theoretical perspectives on MSIs, which see them mainly as spaces to find solutions to market problems (economic approach), as spaces of conflict and bargaining (political approach), or as spaces of consensus (deliberative approach). In contrast, we build on a contestatory deliberative perspective, which gives equal value to both contestation and consensus. We identify four types of internal contestation which can be present in MSIs—procedural, inclusiveness, epistemic, and ultimate-goal—and argue that embracing contestation and engaging in ongoing revision of provisional agreements, criteria, and goals can enhance the democratic quality of MSIs. Finally, we explore the implications of this perspective for theorizing about the democratic quality in MSIs and about the role of corporations in transnational governance.

Keywords

transnational governancemulti-stakeholder initiativesdeliberative democracycontestationmeta-consensus
Type
Article
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , April 2020 , pp. 169 - 199
Copyright
©2020 Business Ethics Quarterly

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

Aaronson, S. A. 2011. Limited partnership: Business, government, civil society, and the public in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). Public Administration and Development, 31: 50–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agbiboa, D. 2012. Between corruption and development: The political economy and state robbery in Nigeria. Journal of Business Ethics , 108: 325–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bächtiger, A., 2011. Contestatory deliberation. Paper presented at Epistemic Democracy Conference, Yale University, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
Bächtiger, A., Niemeyer, S., Neblo, M., Steenbergen, M. R., & Steiner, J. 2010. Disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy: Competing theories, their blind spots and complementarities. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1): 32–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bäckstrand, K. 2006. Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. European Environment, 16: 290–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, S.B. 2018. Transnational power and translocal governance: The politics of corporate responsibility. Human Relations, 7(6): 796–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, S. B., & Sabadoz, C. 2014. The governance of political corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1: 16194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartley, T. 2007. Institutional emergence in an era of globalization: The rise of transnational private regulation of labor and environmental conditions. American Journal of Sociology, 113(2): 297–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baur, D., & Arenas, D. 2014. The value of unregulated business-NGO interaction a deliberative perspective. Business & Society, 53(2): 157–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biermann, F., & Gupta, A. 2011. Accountability and legitimacy in Earth system governance: A research framework. Ecological Economics, 70 (11): 1856–1864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, J. S. 2004. No contest? Assessing the agonistic critiques of Jürgen Habermas’s theory of the public sphere. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 30(3): 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunsson, N., Rasche, A., & Seidl, D. 2012. The dynamics of standardization: Three perspectives on standards in organization studies. Organization Studies, 33(5–6): 613–632.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(4): 503–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, S. 2003. Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6(1): 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. 2007. The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4): 34–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, C. 2015. Agonistic pluralism and stakeholder engagement. Business Ethics Quarterly, 25(1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Detomasi, D. A. 2007. The multinational corporation and global governance: Modelling global public policy networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(3): 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vries, R., Stanczyk, A. E., Ryan, K. A., & Kim, S. Y. 2011. A framework for assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: Enhancing deliberation as a tool for bioethics. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6 (3): 3–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diamond, L. J., & Morlino, L. 2004. An overview. Journal of Democracy, 15(4): 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djelic, M. L., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (Eds.). 2006. Transnational governance: Institutional dynamics of regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, J. S. 1999. Transnational democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 7(1): 30–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, J. S. 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. S., 2005. Deliberative democracy in divided societies. Political Theory, 33(2): 218–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, J. S. 2010. Foundations and frontiers of deliberative democracy . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J.S., & Niemeyer, S. 2006. Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals. American Journal of Political Science, 50 (3): 634–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, J. S., & Niemeyer, S. 2010a. Representation. In Dryzek, J.S.Foundations and frontiers of deliberative democracy, 42–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. S., & Niemeyer, S. 2010b. Pluralism and metaconsensus. In Dryzek, J.S.Foundations and frontiers of deliberative democracy, 85–113. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. S., & Stevenson, H. 2011. Global democracy and earth system governance. Ecological Economics, 70(11): 1865–1874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Economist. 2016. Flare-up. https://www.economist.com/business/2016/02/25/flare-up.Google Scholar
Edward, P., & Willmott, H. 2013. Discourse and normative business ethics. In Lutge, C. (Ed.), Handbook of the philosophical foundations of business ethics: 549–580. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EG Justice, 2016. EITI: Lingering questions. http://www.egjustice.org/post/eiti-lingering-challenges.Google Scholar
EITI. 2016. 33rd EITI board meeting minutes. Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative International Secretariat. https://eiti.org/files/BP/minutes_33nd_eiti_board_meeting-lima.pdf.Google Scholar
EITI. 2017. The EITI Standard 2016. Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative International Secretariat. https://eiti.org/sites/default/files/documents/the_eiti_standard_2016_-_english.pdf.Google Scholar
Fairtrade International. 2011. About. http://www.fairtrade.net/about-fairtrade/who-we-are.html.Google Scholar
Fairtrade USA. 2011. Fair Trade USA resigns Fairtrade International (FLO) membership. http://fairtradeusa.org/press-room/press_release/fair-trade-usa-resigns-fairtrade-international-flo-membership.Google Scholar
Fransen, L. 2012. Multi-stakeholder governance and voluntary programme interactions: legitimation politics in the institutional design of Corporate Social Responsibility. Socio-Economic Review, 10(1): 163–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fransen, L.W., & Kolk, A. 2007. Global rule-setting for business: A critical analysis of multi-stakeholder standards. Organization, 14(5): 667–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, N. 1997. Structuralism or pragmatics? On discourse theory and feminist politics. In Nicholson, L. (Ed.). The second wave: a reader in feminist theory, 379–395. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Friberg-Fernros, H., & Schaffer, J.K. 2014. The consensus paradox: Does deliberative agreement impede rational discourse? Political Studies, 62(1): 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frynas, J. G. 2010. Corporate social responsibility and societal governance: Lessons from transparency in the oil and gas sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 93: 163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FSC. 2014. Statutes. Forest Stewardship Council. https://us.fsc.org/preview.fsc-ac-statutes.a-589.pdf.Google Scholar
FSC. 2016a. Importance of forest stewardship. Forest Stewardship Council. https://ic.fsc.org/en/our-impact/importance-of-forest-stewardship.Google Scholar
FSC. 2016b. Certification. Forest Stewardship Council. https://us.fsc.org/en-us/certification.Google Scholar
FSC. 2017. FSC General Assembly 2017: IFL global progress. Forest Stewardship Council. Vancouver. https://ga2017.fsc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/1-IFL-side-event-global-introduction-by-Pasi.pdf.Google Scholar
FSC-Watch. 2014. Greenpeace loses the plot: Motion 65 shambles, and an ugly failure to protect “intact forests.” https://fsc-watch.com/2014/09/18/greenpeace-loses-the-plot-motion-65-shambles-and-an-ugly-failure-to-keep-the-fsc-strong/.Google Scholar
Gilbert, D. U., & Rasche, A. 2007. Discourse ethics and social accountability: The ethics of SA 8000. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(2): 187–216.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunther, M. 2012. A schism over Fair Trade. https://www.3blmedia.com/blog/Marc-Gunther/schism-over-Fair-Trade.Google Scholar
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. 2004. Why deliberative democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. 1994. Three normative models of democracy. Constellations, 1(1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. 1995. Reconciliation through the public use of reason. Journal of Philosophy, 92(3): 109–131.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. [1995] 2015. Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Haight, C. 2011. The problem with fair trade coffee. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 3: 74–79.Google Scholar
Haufler, V. 2010. Disclosure as governance: The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and resource management in the developing world. Global Environmental Politics, 10(3): 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelroos, S. 2017. Discourse quality in deliberative citizen forums—a comparison of four deliberative mini-publics. Journal of Public Deliberation, 13(1): 3.Google Scholar
Hussain, W., & Moriarty, J. 2018. Accountable to whom? Rethinking the role of corporations in political CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(3): 519–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knudsen, J. S., & Moon, J. 2017. Visible hands: Government regulation and international business responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, D.L., & Egan, D. 2003. A neo-Gramscian approach to corporate political strategy: Conflict and accommodation in the climate change negotiations. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 803–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Estlund, D., Føllesdal, A., Fung, A., Lafont, C., Manin, B., & Martí, J. L. 2010. The place of self‐interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1): 64–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markell, P. 1997. Contesting consensus: Rereading Habermas on the public sphere. Constellations, 3(3): 377–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marques, J. C. 2013. A league of their own: How business-‐led private governance initiatives achieve legitimacy. PhD Thesis. McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Matten, D., & Crane, A. 2005. Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30: 166–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehlum, H., Moene, K., & Torvik, R. 2006. Institutions and the resource curse. The Economic Journal, 116(508): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mena, S., & Palazzo, G. 2012. Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(3): 527–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modelo, M. 2014. The paradox of fair trade. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 12(1): 40–45.Google Scholar
Moog, S., Spicer, A., & Böhm, S. 2015. The politics of multi-stakeholder initiatives: The crisis of the Forest Stewardship Council. Journal of Business Ethics, 128: 469–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, G. 2004. The fair trade movement: Parameters, issues and future research. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1–2): 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mouffe, C. 1999. Deliberative democracy of agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66(4): 745–758.Google Scholar
Nanz, P., & Steffek, J. 2005. Assessing the democratic quality of deliberation in international governance: Criteria and research strategies. Acta Politica, 40: 368–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemeyer, S. 2011. The emancipatory effect of deliberation: Empirical lessons from mini-publics. Politics & Society, 39(1): 103–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemeyer, S., & Dryzek, J. S. 2007. The ends of deliberation. Meta-consensus and inter-subjective rationality as ideal outcomes. Swiss Political Science Review, 13(4): 497–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ölcer, D. 2009. Extracting the maximum from the EITI. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development working paper no. 276. https://doi.org/10.1787/225520261678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinske, J., & Kolk, A. 2012. Addressing the climate change–sustainable development nexus: The role of multistakeholder partnerships. Business & Society, 51: 176–210.Google Scholar
Potoski, M., & Prakash, A. 2009. Voluntary programs: A club theory perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PWYP. 2016. Statement: EITI governance failures threaten independent civil society. Publish What You Pay. http://www.publishwhatyoupay.org/pwyp-news/statement-eiti-governance-failures-threaten-independent-civil-society/.Google Scholar
Rasche, A. 2012. Global policies and local practice: Loose and tight couplings in multi-stakeholder initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22: 679–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinecke, J. & Ansari, S. 2015. What is a “fair” price? Ethics as sensemaking. Organization Science, 26(3): 867–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, P. 2012. Fair Trade USA: Why we parted ways with Fair Trade International. TriplePundit.com. http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/01/fair-trade-all-fair-trade-usa-plans-double-impact-2015/.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, J. 2015. Proud to be part of FSC at its best. Greenpeace. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/fsc-protecting-intact-forest-landscapes-motion-65/blog/54053/.Google Scholar
RSPO. 2013. Approved minutes. Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil 10th General Assembly. https://www.rspo.org/library/lib_files/preview/292.Google Scholar
Sabadoz, C., & Singer, A. 2017. Talk ain’t cheap: Political CSR and the challenges of corporate deliberation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(2): 183–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sachs, J. D., & Warner, A. M. 2001. The curse of natural resources. European Economic Review , 45(4): 827–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santoro, M. A. 2010. Post-Westphalia and its discontents: Business, globalization, and human rights in political and moral perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(2): 285–297.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(4): 1096–1120.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Baumann, D. 2006. Global rules and private actors: Toward a new role of the transnational corporation in global governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(4): 505–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Matten, D. 2009. Introduction to the special issue: Globalization as a challenge for business responsibilities. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19: 327–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schouten, G., & Glasbergen, P. 2011. Creating legitimacy in global private governance: The case of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. Ecological Economics, 70(11): 1891–1899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schouten, G., Leroy, P., & Glasbergen, P. 2012. On the deliberative capacity of private multi-stakeholder governance: The Roundtables on Responsible Soy and Sustainable Palm Oil. Ecological Economics, 83: 42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G. 2009. Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, J., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steenbergen, M. R. 2004. Deliberative politics in action: Analyzing parliamentary discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stevenson, H., & Dryzek, J. S. 2014. Democratizing global climate governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Turcotte, M. F., Reinecke, J., & den Hond, F. 2014. Explaining variation in the multiplicity of private social and environmental regulation: a multi-case integration across the coffee, forestry and textile sectors. Business and Politics, 16(1): 151–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whelan, G. 2013. Corporate constructed and dissent enabling public spheres: Differentiating dissensual from consensual corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4): 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeyen, A., Beckmann, M., & Wolters, S. 2016. Actor and institutional dynamics in the development of multi-stakeholder initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(2): 341–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar