Business in society and the emerging global governance paradigm – introduction

Citation

(2008), "Business in society and the emerging global governance paradigm – introduction", Corporate Governance, Vol. 8 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/cg.2008.26808daa.001

Business in society and the emerging global governance paradigm – introduction

Article Type: Guest editorial From: Corporate Governance, Volume 8, Issue 4

This special issue of the Corporate Governance Journal is produced by the European Academy of Business in Society (EABIS) in close collaboration with ESADE Business School. The journal builds on content and insight from the EABIS 6th Annual Colloquium, which was hosted by ESADE in Barcelona on 20-21 September 2007 and chaired by Associate Professor Daniel Arenas.

The 2007 colloquium sought to investigate the global governance paradigm that has emerged in recent years from a wide range of corporate responsibility (CR) initiatives and multi-stakeholder collaborations between companies, governments and civil society addressing governance deficits at global, sectorial, national and regional levels. The conference attracted a multi-stakeholder audience of over 350 representatives from business, academia, policy-making and civil society, including CEOs of Fortune 500 companies and some of the world’s leading scholars and practitioners.

This editorial paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of this new paradigm and the implications for business, government and other stakeholders. Following an in-depth synopsis of the historical and ideological roots of “global governance”, it explores the wider governance implications of CR, both in theory and practice. It then lays out a series of research issues and questions, integrating them into broader conceptual and thematic frameworks as a first step towards a new programme of academic research and collaborative multi-stakeholder knowledge development.

The research and knowledge development recommendations outlined for this future programme are underpinned by (analysis of) the 120 colloquium papers and inputs submitted for competitive peer review, of which 80 were subsequently presented in Barcelona. Of those, 17 leading inputs have been selected for this publication. By extension, the editorial team invited Simon Zadek, CEO of renowned UK think-tank AccountAbility, to contribute a new paper on collaborative governance.

Highlights include contributions from Barcelona keynotes Robert Keohane of Princeton University on “global governance,” Hans-Ulrich Maerki of IBM on “the globally integrated enterprise,” as well as ESADE Deputy Director General Xavier Mendoza on “the relational state.”

The emerging “global governance” paradigm: an ideological synopsis

Global governance is traditionally perceived through the lens of international relations: the relations of power, mutual adaptation and conflict resolution between national states at bilateral level and through international organizations (state and interstate actors).

In the 1990s, following the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the onset of an era of accelerated globalization, the term “global governance” gained currency at a time when questions about global transformations, their causes and implications were pre-eminent in many areas of the social sciences as well as in management literature. Among other issues, international relations scholars and political scientists focused on how economic globalization affected national sovereignty and domestic politics, and how old divides between domestic and foreign political strategies became increasingly blurred (Keohane and Milner, 1996). Another area of interest was the social destabilization provoked by economic globalization and the capacity of national governments to respond to this.

However, scholars initially used the concept of “global governance” as it related to the new relationships between Nation States in the process of repositioning themselves in the post-cold war era and in an era of economic globalization. A new international order seemed to emerge that some called “governance without government” (Rosenau and Czeimpiel, 1992). Later, other non-governmental actors began to be taken into consideration as part of this international system, including organizations such as the United Nations (UN), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and World Trade Organization (WTO), as were trans-national civil society organizations such as Oxfam, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), etc. Thus, one could talk about a decentralized socio-political system with plural actors.

In political sciences and international relations studies, three scholars stand out for having pioneered a new understanding of the emergence and dynamics of the trans-national global public domain: Robert Keohane (Princeton), Joseph Nye, and John Ruggie (both from Harvard). Their work demonstrates how global corporations and civil society organizations play an increasingly important role in a governance system that goes beyond states and interstate processes and structures.

They have sought to push international relations theory beyond the traditional interstate realm, describing and analyzing new governance processes that are filling the gaps caused by the absence or failure of established governance processes and structures.

This view of the trans-national global public domain has largely been developed against a backdrop of fierce resistance from a conservative scholarly community. The endeavors of Keohane, Nye, and Ruggie may indeed constitute a paradigm shift in international relations studies which is based not only on empirical observation, but also on an implicit normative proposition: that the magnitude and urgency of global political, social and environmental challenges require innovative approaches to global governance.

This would in turn support the view that global governance needs to go considerably beyond a narrow focus on economic globalization issues. Instead, it has a “responsibility” to address the fundamental challenges of building institutional legitimacy to regulate systems that are responsible for delivering global public goods beyond economic growth and wealth creation.

Although there has been lively interest in the emergence and influence of trans-national civil society organizations in policy-making through cooperation with state and interstate actors, (Kaldor, 2000; Kean, 2004), there has been surprisingly little progress made in the study of the role of trans-national corporations (TNCs) in the global public domain. Yet, given the growing power and prominence of TNCs as economic, political and social actors (Chandler and Mazlish, 2005; Litvin, 2004), important questions have emerged about the public role of companies in this system (Haufler, 2001).

Most research on the role of TNCs has been done from the perspective of critical theory, often by private governance theorists with a particular and limited approach (Ruggie, 2004). Both schools recognize that TNCs are political actors in the global polity, albeit acting in their narrow self-interest and “uncontrolled” by weak global institutions and weakened states. Critical Theory scholars in particular lament the retreat of the state (Strange, 1996) and its perceived impotence in globalized, liberalized markets, while criticizing the “illegitimate” influence of new actors like TNCs. However, these views often fail to recognize that:

• •

  TNCs have created significant new transaction flows in response to emerging needs for rules and institutional arrangements within their global supply and distribution chains and within their industry sectors;

• •

  this has mostly happened in addition to, and not necessarily in competition with state and interstate processes and structures;

• •

  the incorporation of TNCs into global accountability processes and frameworks may facilitate real advances in responding to the global challenges of sustainable development; and

• •

  a new social contract at global level (Davis, 2005) between business, society and government is de facto emerging and deserves better understanding.

Recent work on private trans-national governance has primarily explored the co-operation between antagonistic private actors that results in issue-specific trans-national norms and rules and a subsequent shift from public international to private trans-national governance (Ronit and Schneider, 1999). In this context, private actors increasingly begin to make their own rules and standards that acquire authority beyond the international system. TNCs can be seen as institutions with “private authority”, which, through their networks, form systems of private governance (Cutler et al., 1999; Hall and Bierstecker, 2002).

Nevertheless, the conditions under which private governance emerges, and the processes of its construction and maintenance, are still poorly understood (Pattberg, 2005). Most scholarship on this subject focuses on self-regulation as institutionalized rule-setting between business actors. Co-regulation resulting from enhanced cooperation between business actors and non-profit actors or NGOs has become a lively topic for corporate responsibility researchers, and is also beginning to engage the governance research community.

As regards three-dimensional governance processes involving state/interstate, business and non-profit actors, a body of knowledge has only recently started to emerge, even if theoretical blueprints have been developed some time ago.

Ultimately, this journal special issue is attempting to address some of these deficits.

Global governance: the new interface between business and policy

It goes without saying that large firms with worldwide operations have long been influential in the global polity, albeit indirectly (and thereby unaccountably). Primary actions by firms include lobbying home country governments themselves or leveraging industry associations to advance their global or regional interests. They also influence negotiations in international organizations such as the WTO, IMF and UN.

In light of this, the European Commission has recently formalized a system in which it reports publicly on all external consultations with business and NGOs. This is a significant step towards greater transparency on the (attempted) influence of external parties on the policy-making process. This approach reflects governmental practice at national level in many member states of the European Union.

“Basic instinct” motives of business actors are driven by survival, competitive positioning, expansion and profit/power seeking. However, these are increasingly moderated by the confrontation with world civic politics, which critiques the imbalances in two important paradoxes (Ruggie, 2004):

1. 1.

   On corporate rights and obligations: freedom in deregulated markets requires enhanced standards or responsibility, while increased power and influence require enhanced standards of accountability.

2. 2.

   On managing and reversing the negative social, environmental and governance impacts of globalization: that TNCs are part of the problems and need to be made part of the solutions if any advance in global affairs is to be achieved in the foreseeable future.

Both result directly from deepening globalization processes and present another paradox to resolve: on one hand, accepting the new reality of globalized, deregulated markets and an associated regulation deficit, while on the other, accepting that old-style regulation is either inadequate or inappropriate to address this shortfall.

Against this backdrop, there has been, and continues to be a flurry of innovation aiming to overcome this. Such innovation takes place in the context of:

• •

  increased deregulation and liberalization by globalization resulting in;

• •

  the weakening of traditional state and interstate governance per se, in the face of; and

• •

  the magnitude and awareness of the social and environmental challenges which require urgent attention in the wake of globalization.

This in turn demands new collaborative forms of governance that actively involve TNCs – the main beneficiaries of deregulation, liberalization and globalization, yet also the entities who have perhaps the greatest capability and global reach to drive change.

The role of business in governance, which is currently of such interest from a global perspective, took shape much earlier at national and local levels. The creation of public-private partnerships gave rise to new forms of governance to deal with evolving social challenges. In this context, the new role for the state beyond the (neo) liberal and the welfare state models (Giddens, 1998) became a subject of interest to scholars.

More specifically, research has examined: the emergence of a relational state model, in which different actors exercise co-responsibility for public affairs (Mendoza, 1996); a model of realignment of business, government and civil society in relational governance (Midttun, 2005); or a model of collaborative governance – a non-statutory approach to deliver public goods as opposed to the traditional command and control mechanisms of the state (Zadek, 2005).

EABIS and its Corporate Founding Partners (IBM, Johnson & Johnson, Microsoft, Shell and Unilever) also supported an international research project on the role of government in promoting and facilitating corporate social responsibility (CSR) at the national level (Albareda et al., 2006). Comparative analysis was performed on the use of a variety of existing and new regulatory tools such as “soft law” by national governments and on the facilitation of self-regulatory and co-regulatory processes.

Integrating corporate responsibility and global governance

Social and environmental challenges are increasingly perceived as global in nature and therefore requiring global approaches. Driven by civil society advocacy groups and facilitated by the global communications technology, issues such as environmental degradation and climate change, the persistence of poverty, the increase in wealth and resource inequality, and human rights violations have entered the consciousness of a worldwide community.

The movement of CSR was triggered by this global social awareness – in part as a response to perceived governance deficits at global and local levels. By extension it was quickly understood that CSR as an ideology and as a practice would have important governance implications (Moon, 2002).

With the founding of the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) in 2000 by Secretary General Kofi Anan, CSR – as the business contribution to global sustainable development objectives – became established in the global governance domain. The UN, as an interstate actor in governance, invited companies to subscribe voluntarily to ten standards derived from interstate agreements (UN conventions) and regularly report on the application of these standards. This co-regulatory initiative has now attracted over 5,000 corporate signatories worldwide.

Corporate action and innovation on CR as a governance mechanism has been institutionalized in notable ways. Many TNCs have shaped new private governance platforms for self-regulation like the World Economic Forum (WEF), World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Conference Board, CSR Europe, Business for Social Responsibility (BSR), and others. New business models have been promoted, such as the “bottom of the pyramid” (BOP) protocol for emerging markets. Global companies contribute actively to international and multi-sector disaster relief efforts, which has led to the question of the legitimacy of direct corporate humanitarian investment (Dunfee and Hess, 2000) and coordination with the actions of governments and NGOs.

There have been also various alliances between business and different stakeholders to promote principles and criteria for responsible business conduct and sustainable development at the sector or industry level, commonly called multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs). High-profile examples include: the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, the Forest Stewardship Council, the Marine Stewardship Council, and the Equator Principles for the financial services industry.

Other entities have emerged that are cross-sector but also multi-stakeholder, such as the Ethical Trading Initiative and the Fair Labor Association. These initiatives can be said to create “governance micro-climates” (Zadek, 2005). Their authority does not come from the state, but from dialogue and consensus among different actors. Often they use a “learning approach” to induce corporate change (Ruggie, 2004).

Among international bodies, the European Commission has again played an important role in the promotion of CSR through a range of policies and initiatives such as the European Multi-stakeholder Forum on CSR (reconvened in December 2006). It has identified CSR as a key component of and driver for Europe’s transformation to a globally competitive, knowledge-based economy – one that is capable of creating jobs and growth, while preserving social cohesion and being sustainable environmentally.

In support of CSR policy the commission has used diverse regulatory instruments – including recommendations and voluntary agreements – to enhance the effectiveness, legitimacy and transparency of its actions. These have been emulated at the national level in different European countries, albeit with important differences (Albareda et al., 2006). Often this amounts to a type of “governance by persuasion”. In practical terms, this involves promoting the diffusion and standardization of knowledge through language use and the creation of frameworks that generate unspoken norms among engaged actors – what Foucault often referred to as “disciplinary power”. To achieve this, governments use multi-stakeholder initiatives of joint policy-making at the sector and regional levels, which ultimately is different from (and sometimes complementary to) the traditional command-and-control legislative approach.

CSR as a new governance mechanism has nonetheless been continuously subject to a debate between those who regard it as pure voluntarism and others who favor stronger regulatory frameworks. So far, the arguments for a voluntary approach have prevailed.

Yet recent indicators point about a possible shift in this debate. Jeroen van der Veer, the CEO of Shell, has voiced positive arguments in favor of regulatory agreements in the global energy markets. Shell’s latest global energy scenario planning (2008-2050) foresees, alongside a chaotic “scramble scenario” around global economic growth, energy provision, and environmental management, the possibility of a (preferred) “blueprint scenario” with multiple co-regulatory governance processes and structures.

The basic underlying assumption around globalization and deregulation has therefore developed from “TINA” (“there is no alternative to … ” into the current “TANIA” (“there are no ideal answers to … ”). The “TINA” assumptions were still very strong in the 1998-2020 scenarios, subsequently moderated in the 2001 and 2005 versions and finally abandoned in 2008 (Cornelius et al., 2005) This appears to represent a significant change in expectations around regulation in global governance.

A related shift can be identified in the latest report to the UN by John Ruggie (2008), Special Representative for Business and Human Rights to the Secretary-General, in which he takes stock of ten years of CSR activity in his views and recommendations. He discussed his overall conclusions at a conference organized by the European Commission (“CSR at the Global Level: What Role for the EU?”, December 2007). These indicated a possible change in the broader governance approach to CSR, and may be summarized as follows:

• •

  The standard operating model (SOM) of CSR that has emerged in recent years has made substantial progress possible, albeit to very different degrees according to issues, regions and industry sectors.

• •

  It seems to work well for large TNCs in certain industry sectors with high brand exposure.

• •

  It is stronger on “responsibility” but much weaker on “accountability” – while impact assessments are rarely done or published.

• •

  There is a “levelling off” in the uptake of CSR principles and in reporting.

• •

  The standard CSR model is an offshoot of western liberal democracy – geopolitical changes (“China”) are inhibiting further expansion or may even have a regressive effect.

• •

  The civil drivers of CSR are weakened as NGOs are less influential than before.

• •

  Multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) are self-regulatory initiatives geared to build up new processes, but they lack the institutional capacities and resources for implementation and monitoring.

• •

  The business case for CSR has clear limits: there is only a moderate correlation between corporate social performance and corporate financial performance – CSR seems to work in “instances” not in “aggregates”.

• •

  Therefore: the SOM of CSR might not be capable to deliver the critical mass in impact required to address global social and environmental challenges.

These assessments were echoed by José Viera da Silva, a senior Minister in the (center-right) Portuguese government which held the EU Council presidency at the time. He noted signs of clear progress through, but also inherent limits to CSR: “… we may be expecting too much. CSR was invented as a response to governance failure, and it was never intended as a substitute for government policy, regulatory and public sector capacity building”.

During the same conference, reports from EU-funded research projects concluded that pure voluntarism and self-regulation would need to evolve towards “multi-stakeholder contractualisation” and transparent, binding co-regulatory agreements in order to achieve the critical mass of impact required.

Last but not least, Stiglitz (2008), Lind (2007) and Reich (2008) have all recently expressed a level of increased skepticism about liberal markets and the emerging arguments for more regulatory intervention.

All these elements may be seen as emphatic calls for or expectations of a return to strong regulatory action. However, they also imply a drift back towards old-style intervention that has proved increasingly ineffectual. It is difficult to foresee how this will facilitate the shaping and institutionalization of new global governance mechanisms. Creating new global regulatory institutions within old parameters would not give them the legitimacy and power necessary to achieve the required impact, and thereby would generate a growing deficit between aspiration and reality. It is clear that new or enhanced innovation will be needed to bridge this gap, as well as a departure from existing approaches and systems.

Identifying multi-stakeholder knowledge needs on global governance

There is growing sense of urgency to define and address fundamental research and knowledge development gaps and priorities for the key actors engaged in global governance processes. By definition, “global governance” here is not conceived solely from a global perspective, but as a variably decentralized socio-political system with plural actors at different levels from very global to very local.

From an academic interdisciplinary viewpoint, we need a better understanding of the complexities of the global public domain (“Res Publica”) which is increasingly non-state-based but in which governmental, business and civil society organizations take part in formal and informal rule-setting, diplomacy, mutual influencing and evolving institutional arrangements.

There are also instrumental questions to address in terms of institutional structures and processes of accountability, plus of course self-regulatory and co-regulatory impact. Effectively, an integration of public and private governance theory with corporate responsibility theory is required.

This crossover approach could deliver more advanced, business-relevant knowledge and insight on issues such as:

• •

  How executives develop a deeper appreciation of governance requirements, opportunities and risks in the newly emerging global social contract.

• •

  How the private and public service roles of managers can be linked at global and local levels and implications for organizational structure and corporate governance.

• •

  Analyzing the boundaries of the so-called “business case” at company and industry levels – namely, where economic performance (EP) is enhanced by increased social/environmental performance beyond compliance (SEP). This is called “the sustainability smart zone” (Steger, 2004) in which firms can act alone. Beyond this “smart zone”, where EP is negatively affected by a desired increase in SEP, co-operation in private or public governance processes is needed to set rules for new “level playing fields”. “The governance case for CR” and “The business case for CR” start from different premises and assumptions, but need to be firmly linked in an integrated framework.

• •

  New strategic models that help executives to manage priorities, resources and issues within global governance processes. In Strategic Management, further research and modeling is needed around “collaborative advantage” and “competitive advantage” (Zollo and Gottschalg, 2007; Dyer and Singh, 1998).

Defining a future research and knowledge agenda around the changing role of business in global governance

By and large, the question about the role of business in global governance at different levels has only inspired preliminary responses, theoretical or practical. Opinion is divided whether global governance opens the door for unreasonable societal demands on business, or rather legitimates its attempts to influence the political and regulatory agenda. This gives credence to the view that “no shared paradigmatic understanding at all exists of the place that the massive global corporate sector occupies on the world’s political landscape” (Ruggie, 2004). It also implies more interdisciplinary work between international relations scholars, management thinkers, political theorists, as well as business practitioners.

One other vital question is about the consequences of the global governance challenge for corporate governance and for senior managers. To start with, stakeholder engagement theory is a central feature of global governance, soft law and the relational state, but it is still up for debate as to what extent it is also part of corporate governance. This theme will likely be addressed in one of the next colloquia of EABIS.

Categorizing priorities on business and global governance: a conceptual framework

The 2007 EABIS Colloquium approached the issue of the role of business in global governance within a conceptual framework that incorporated three levels. A first level examined the role of business and global governance in the global economy and polity and in relation to global international organizations. It also integrated initiatives across global industry sectors and supranational regions such as the EU or the Mercosur.

A second level asked about business and governance issues at the national, sub-national, regional and local levels, where there are initiatives that include clusters, cross-sector alliances and multi-stakeholder arrangements.

The third and final level explored the impact of global governance issues on the firm and implications for managers and executives. Related topics were the impact that the global public role of the firm has on its corporate governance and the strategic integration of stakeholder perspectives so that companies are better equipped to understand the complexities and issues of the modern business environment.

Papers, proposals and case studies were assigned by peer review committee within this conceptual framework. Following later analysis of and reflection on the inputs, a number of additional key questions were identified, including:

• •

  What makes global governance partnerships involving business successful?

• •

  What are the risks and opportunities for companies and their main stakeholders (including national governments, policy-makers, NGOs, financial markets, investors, workers and communities)?

• •

  When does individual or collective action make more sense?

• •

  What is the relationship between partnership and regulation?

• •

  What are the knowledge, skills and attitudes required by leaders and managers from companies and other stakeholders to make partnerships work?

• •

  What implications exist for the governance of the firm, such as composition of boards of directors, top executive profiles, accountability, transparency, and regulating new partnerships?

• •

  What does this imply for management development and education in companies, business schools and universities?

Seen in this light, partnerships will be one area of particular focus in exploring the emerging global governance paradigm and the role of business.

In sum, rather than viewing governance strictly from the domain of the corporation, the Colloquium broke new ground in exploring whether global governance is an appropriate approach for business and all of its key stakeholders to tackle the broad, increasingly critical and complex issues facing global society and the planet at the start of the twenty-first century.

From conceptual to thematic: a second framework to define key questions and issues

The concept of “governance” is ultimately essential if we want to think more deeply about the position of business in society and the relationship between business and other social actors. However, it remains broad and ambiguous: witness the fact that corporate governance stands unchallenged as an independent area of study, with a clearly prevailing theoretical model such as agency theory. On the other hand, global governance remains largely rooted in International Relations scholarship and disconnected from management theory and studies.

As outlined earlier, the relevance of the governance concept to business cuts across different levels: from global and sectorial to national and regional, down to individual firms and managers. The 2007 Colloquium highlighted how these have been studied by different academic disciplines with varying degrees of depth and applicability.

Some issues stood out for having transversal relevance across most, if not all of these levels, including: “soft” law; self-regulation or co-regulation; and the view of the firm as a socio-political institution embedded in networks of relationships with other actors and other firms.

While other areas may have received less scholarly attention, there appear to be some interesting governance initiatives in current practice that could fundamentally improve our understanding of societal and organizational transformation. These could also afford some insight into the interconnections between different levels of governance.

Overall, the 2007 EABIS Colloquium identified a range of major themes which merit future research and knowledge development activity – either building on latest insight or addressing outstanding gaps in current research. In line with the conceptual framework, it is useful to consider these themes within three broadly defined areas:

1. 1.

   Global, supranational, international and industry sector:

2. 2.
   • •

     Theoretical contributions about the legitimacy and/or necessity of the public role of business in global governance as well as empirical demonstrations of what role firms are actually assuming at the moment.

   • •

     The success, dilemmas and implications of the collaborative participation of firms in development projects with international organisms, especially in their participation for the achievement of the millennium development goals.

   • •

     The contribution of firms to the alleviation of natural disasters and humanitarian crises, and lessons learned in experiences from the recent past (e.g. 2004 Asian Tsunami), since such environmental/humanitarian catastrophes might not be uncommon in the near future.

   • •

     The impact, accountability, challenges, successes and opportunities of international initiatives such as the UN global compact.

   • •

     The relevance and impact of governance to business in addressing global issues and challenges such as climate change, and by extension the responsibility of business to do so.

   • •

     Managing collaborations between trans-national firms and trans-national civil society organizations.

   • •

     How international law relates to CSR, and the limits of what it can and cannot do.

   • •

     Studies of the process of self-regulatory initiatives at the industry or cluster level in consultation with different stakeholders (these should state the type of accountability of such self-regulatory initiatives).

3. 3.

   National, sub-national, local region and city:

4. 4.
   • •

     Studies about “soft law” as an instrument, including its rhetorical aspects, used by governmental agencies (national governments, regional administrations) in relation to the business and society field.

   • •

     Comparisons of different national approaches to the role of government in promoting CSR and in its relationship to other actors, plus the emergence of mixed intermediary organizations.

   • •

     Small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) initiatives at the sector level to form clusters with networks and partnerships in relation to CSR.

   • •

     The role of governance in the management and provision of public services and utilities, such as water treatment and energy, where there are multi-stakeholder initiatives and a partnership perspective.

   • •

     The impact, difficulties and opportunities of multi-stakeholder dialogues to promote CSR in a particular country or region, or partnerships between business and governments for the development of public policies and collaborative initiatives.

   • •

     The current and future role of business, especially TNCs, in “weak” states, local regions and conflict zones where governance vacuums dominate practice and processes.

5. 5.

   Companies, organizations and individual executives:

6. 6.
   • •

     The impact of global governance issues and the collective governance arrangements for business strategy and operations management. This can include the extent to which companies are integrating such considerations strategically, particularly in terms of the health of their business environment and competitive context.

   • •

     New theoretical developments about how corporate governance frameworks are changing to take into account the social and environmental demands and expectations of stakeholders (investors, employees, unions, communities, consumers).

   • •

     The importance of corporate governance for development and sustained productivity. In relation to this, comparison of different corporate governance systems and how they are influenced by political systems and backgrounds.

   • •

     The role of ICT as a tool for companies to address or performance around Global Governance issues and challenges.

   • •

     Research on backgrounds, attitudes, skills and knowledge required of senior managers and executives with a broad view of governance and the role of business in it.

   • •

     Global governance in the curriculum: what are the issues influencing Business School and University curricula with a view to training future managers to better understand the challenges and systems of global governance?

Whilst this constitutes a medium-term program for academic research and collaborative multi stakeholder knowledge development, this special journal issue constitutes a first step in implementing this program.

We therefore are pleased to present the following 19 papers for the reader’s appreciation, of which:

• •

  13 are academic papers (A);

• •

  four are papers by practitioners (P); and

• •

  two are joint work by practitioners and academics (A/P).

These were identified during the 2007 Colloquium as having particular relevance and rigor in terms of material presented and thought leadership. Some take a more reflective view of global governance, while others drill deeper into specific case studies and real-life experience. In most instances, these papers cut across several of the areas, issues, questions, levels and frameworks outlined in this editorial. For that reason, we have created four new sub-sections that provide an overarching link between them:

1. 1.

   Exploring the governance agenda of corporate responsibility.

2. 2.
   • •

     R. Keohane – “Complex accountability and power in global governance: issues for global business” (A).

   • •

     H.U. Maerki – “The globally integrated enterprise and its role in global governance” (P).

   • •

     S. Zadek – “Global collaborative governance: there is no alternative” (P).

   • •

     X. Mendoza and A. Vemis – “The changing role of governments and the emergence of the relational state” (A).

   • •

     O. Delbard – “CSR legislation in France and the European regulatory paradox: an analysis of EU CSR policy and sustainability reporting practices” (A).

3. 3.

   Global governance and the interface with business: new institutions, processes and partnerships.

4. 4.
   • •

     A. Midttun – “Partnered governance: aligning corporate responsibility and public policy in the global economy” (A).

   • •

     A. Kolk and J. Pinkse – “Business and climate change: emergent institutions in global governance” (A).

   • •

     L. Albareda – “Corporate responsibility, governance and accountability: from self-regulation to co-regulation” (A).

   • •

     K. Jackson – “Natural law, human rights and corporate reputational capital in global governance” (A).

   • •

     J.A. Arevalo and FT.. Fallon – “Assessing corporate responsibility as a contribution to global governance: the case of the UN Global Compact” (A).

5. 5.

   Global governance challenges in industry sectors and supply chains.

6. 6.
   • •

     K. McPhail – “Contributing to sustainable development through multi-stakeholder processes: practical steps to avoid the ‘resource curse’” (P).

   • •

     J.L. Sturchio – “Business engagement in public programs: the pharmaceutical industry’s contribution to public health and the millennium development goals” (P).

   • •

     J. Greve – “Healthcare in developing countries and the role of business: a global governance framework to enhance the accountability of pharmaceutical companies” (A).

   • •

     A. Nijhof, D. Forterre and R. Jeurissen – “Managing legitimacy issues in global supply chains: the case of the athletic footwear industry” (A).

   • •

     A. Tencati, A. Russo and V. Quaglia – “Unintended consequences of CSR: protectionism and collateral damage in global supply chains: the case of Vietnam” (A).

7. 7.

   Collaborative governance: new roles, models and strategies for the firm.

8. 8.
   • •

     R.M. Paro and C.B. Boechat – “Strategic planning and the millennium development goals in Brazilian companies” (A).

   • •

     E. Raufflet, A. Berranger and J.-F. Gouin – Innovation in business-community partnerships: evaluating the impact of local enterprise and global investment models on poverty, bio-diversity and development” (A/P).

   • •

     A. Kourula and M. Halme – “Types of corporate responsibility and engagement with NGOs: an exploration of business and societal outcomes” (A).

   • •

     J. Berezo Díez, C. De La Cruz Ayuso and P.M. Sasia Santos – “Strategic local responses to global governance: the case of xertatu” (P/A).

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge all those who assisted in preparing the 2007 Colloquium, reviewing papers and supporting the editorial process, not least members of the ESADE faculty and the EABIS Academic Network Board. The authors would also like to offer special thanks to Alex Kessler whose collaboration and support work with individual authors have been invaluable to them as Guest Editors.

About the authors

Gilbert Lenssen is President of EABIS, Professor at Leiden University and Visiting Professor at Henley Management College, former Professor of International Management at the College of Europe (Bruges/Warsaw) and Visiting Fellow at Templeton College, University of Oxford. He is a member of the board of the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD), the academic advisory boards of several business schools, and the editorial boards of a number of academic journals. Before moving into academia, Gilbert Lenssen enjoyed an international corporate career over 25 years in Belgium, the UK, USA, Germany, Spain and India, culminating in his position as Vice President for BP’s Solar International Division. He is a lifelong fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Gilbert Lenssen is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: gilbert.lenssen@eabis.org

Daniel Arenas is Associate Professor at ESADE Business School-Universitat Ramon Llull, where he teaches Business Ethics, CSR and Sociology. He is the Head of Research of the Institute for Social Innovation at ESADE and a member of the Management Committee of EABIS. He has recently co-authored the article “Do employees care about CSR Programs? A typology of employees according to their attitudes” (Journal of Business Ethics) and the book Tras la RSE: La responsabilidad social de la empresa en España vista por sus actores (Barcelona: Granica, 2007).

Peter Lacy was until January 2008 Executive Director of EABIS. He is currently Head of the Sustainability Practice at Accenture for Europe, Africa and Latin America and retains dual roles as a special advisor and non-executive Director with EABIS. Peter has consulted to and been a member of boards and advisory committees for a range of Fortune 500 companies, the United Nations, the EU Commission, national governments, AccountAbility, AIESEC and the journals of Corporate Governance and Corporate Citizenship. Peter worked previously as a Senior Advisor at McKinsey & Co. on Business in Society and in the strategy divisions of Accenture and Andersen Consulting. He is an alumnus of Nottingham University and INSEAD Business School.

Simon Pickard is Acting Executive Director of EABIS, responsible for overseeing its portfolio of collaborative knowledge development and learning initiatives. He also manages its coordination team in Brussels and the growing EABIS network of 80 institutions and 3,500+ affiliates spread across 20 countries and five continents. Simon’s professional background is in international education, having worked for eight years in the US, the UK and France on immersion and development programmes. He joined EABIS in early 2006 following the completion of his MBA at HEC School of Management in Paris, and also holds a MA in Modern Languages from Oxford University.