Search results

This paper aims to examine the multiplicity of corporate social responsibility (CSR) standards, explaining its nature, dynamics and implications for multinational enterprises (MNEs) and international business (IB), especially in the context of CSR and global value chain (GVC) governance.

This paper leverages insights from the literature in political science, policy, regulation, governance and IB; from the own earlier work; and from an inventory of CSR standards across a range of sectors and products.

This analysis’ more nuanced approach to CSR standard multiplicity helps distinguish the different categories of standards; uncovers the existence of different types of standard multiplicity; and highlights complex trends in their evolution over time, discussing implications for the various firms targeted by, or involved in, these initiatives, and for CSR and GVC governance research.

This paper opens many avenues for future research on CSR multiplicity and its consequences; on lead firms governing GVCs from an IB perspective; and on institutional and market complexity.

By providing overviews and classifications, this paper helps clarify CSR standards as “new regulators” and “instruments” for actors in business, society and government.

This paper contributes by filling gaps in different existing literatures concerning standard multiplicity. It also specifically adds a new perspective to the IB literature, which thus far has not fully incorporated the complexity and dynamics of CSR standard multiplicity in examining GVCs and MNE strategy and policy.

The visualization of ranking information in global public policy is moving away from traditional “league table” formats and toward dashboards and interactive data displays. This paper explores the rhetoric underpinning the visualization of ranking information in such interactive formats, the purpose of which is to encourage country participation in reporting on the Sustainable Development Goals. The paper unpacks the strategies that the visualization experts adopt in the measurement of global poverty and wellbeing, focusing on a variety of interactive ranking visualizations produced by the OECD, the World Bank, the Gates Foundation and the ‘Our World in Data’ group at the University of Oxford. Building on visual and discourse analysis, the study details how the politically and ethically sensitive nature of global public policy, coupled with the pressures for “decolonizing” development, influence how rankings are visualized. The study makes two contributions to the literature on rankings. First, it details the move away from league table formats toward multivocal interactive layouts that seek to mitigate the competitive and potentially dysfunctional pressures of the display of “winners and losers.” Second, it theorizes ranking visualizations in global public policy as “alignment devices” that entice country buy-in and seek to align actors around common global agendas.

The issue of cybersecurity has been cast as the focal point of a fight between two conflicting governance models: the nation-state model of national security and the global governance model of multi-stakeholder collaboration, as seen in forums like IGF, IETF, ICANN, etc. There is a strange disconnect, however, between this supposed fight and the actual control over cybersecurity “on the ground”. This paper aims to reconnect discourse and control via a property rights approach, where control is located first and foremost in ownership.

This paper first conceptualizes current governance mechanisms through ownership and property rights. These concepts locate control over internet resources. They also help us understand ongoing shifts in control. Such shifts in governance are actually happening, security governance is being patched left and right, but these arrangements bear little resemblance to either the national security model of states or the global model of multi-stakeholder collaboration. With the conceptualization in hand, the paper then presents case studies of governance that have emerged around specific security externalities.

While not all mechanisms are equally effective, in each of the studied areas, the author found evidence of private actors partially internalizing the externalities, mostly on a voluntary basis and through network governance mechanisms. No one thinks that this is enough, but it is a starting point. Future research is needed to identify how these mechanisms can be extended or supplemented to further improve the governance of cybersecurity.

This paper bridges together the disconnected research communities on governance and (technical) cybersecurity.

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to spread across countries, it is becoming increasingly clear that the presence of pre-existing noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) dramatically increases the risk of aggravation in persons who contract the virus. The neglect in managing NCDs during emergencies may result in fatal consequences for individuals living with comorbidities. This paper aims to highlight the need for a paradigm shift in the governance of public health emergencies to simultaneously address NCD and noncommunicable disease (CD) pandemics while taking into account the needs of high-risk populations, underlying etiological factors, and the social, economic, and environmental determinants that are relevant for both CDs and NCDs.

The paper reviews the available global frameworks for pandemic preparedness to highlight the governance challenges of addressing the dual agenda of NCDs and CDs during a public health emergency. It proposes key strategies to strengthen multilevel governance in support of countries to better prepare for public health emergencies through the engagement of a wide range of stakeholders across sectors.

Addressing both CD and NCD pandemics during public health emergencies requires (1) a new framework that unites the narratives and overcomes service and system fragmentations; (2) a multisectoral and multistakeholder governance mechanism empowered and resourced to include stakeholders across sectors and (3) a prioritized research agenda to understand the political economy of pandemics, the role played by different political systems and actors and implementation challenges, and to identify combined strategies to address the converging agendas of CDs and NCDs.

The article is based on the review of available published evidence.

The uptake of the strategies proposed will better prepare countries to respond to NCD and CD pandemics during public health emergencies.

The article is the first of its kind addressing the governance challenges of the dual pandemic of NCDs and CDs in emergencies.

This paper introduces a new set of equity and rights-based principles for health data governance (HDG) and makes the case for their adoption into global, regional and national policy and practice.

This paper discusses the need for a unified approach to HDG that maximises the value of data for whole populations. It describes the unique process employed to develop a set of HDG principles. The paper highlights lessons learned from the principle development process and proposes steps to incorporate them into data governance policies and practice.

More than 200 individuals from 130 organisations contributed to the development of the HDG principles, which are clustered around three interconnected objectives of protecting people, promoting health value and prioritising equity. The principles build on existing norms and guidelines by bringing a human rights and equity lens to HDG.

The principles offer a strong vision for HDG that reaps the public good benefits of health data whilst safeguarding individual rights. They can be used by governments and other actors as a guide for the equitable collection and use of health data. The inclusive model used to develop the principles can be replicated to strengthen future data governance approaches.

The article describes the first bottom-up effort to develop a set of principles for HDG.

The Group of 20 (G20) is tasked with responding to economic shocks in the global financial system, with COVID-19 having proved to be the most significant shock since the G20's inception. COVID-19 also represents the first economic crisis accompanied by a concerted attempt to “build back better”, principally through a climate-compatible recovery. In 2021, there is little clarity as to the G20's response to this challenge, primarily due to considerable divergence in the green stimulus practices of its member states. The paper aims to investigate whether the G20, climate change and COVID-19 are critical juncture or critical wound.

Historical institutionalism (HI) suggests that one can explain an institution's future response by reference to its developmental pathway to date. This contribution adopts its concept of “critical junctures” to shed light on the G20's possible institutional response to COVID-19. The contribution undertakes a comparative analysis of the global financial crisis (GFC) and COVID-19 as possible critical junctures for the G20.

In doing so, the work demonstrates that the G20 “building back better” from COVID-19 requires a shift away from its institutional orthodoxy to a much larger degree than its response to the GFC. Accordingly, whilst both the GFC and COVID-19 may be considered critical junctures for the G20, only COVID-19 has the potential to be a “critical wound” that leads to institutional redundancy.

Through interrogating this further, this exposition prospectively outlines two possible futures the G20 faces as a consequence of COVID-19: reform or redundancy. In this way, it offers an ex ante perspective on policy-reform options for the G20's ongoing response to COVID-19.

Whichever choice the G20 makes in its response to COVID-19 has profound consequences for global governance in an increasingly unpredictable world.

Herein lies the importance of an exploratory assessment of COVID-19 as a critical juncture or a critical wound for the G20.