Search results

Multi-stakeholder initiatives have proliferated as a leading form of standard-development, as they are understood to be more legitimate than other forms of non-state governance. The legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives is a result of their perceived congruence with normative democratic principles. Using a case study of a multi-stakeholder initiative to develop a National Sustainable Agriculture Standard (LEO-4000) for the United States, this chapter examines the practices and politics of legitimation in non-state governance. The analysis of LEO-4000 indicates that, first, the simultaneous construction of legitimacy and standards affects the kinds of standards developed. Second, understandings of legitimacy are influenced by the standpoint of actors. Third, legitimacy has become a strategic dimension of standard-development, which actors use to further their interests. Based on these findings, we contend that non-state governance that relies on normative democratic principles for legitimation is constrained in its ability to develop stringent standards. Thus, there may be limits to non-state governance as a regulatory tool, and to achieve non-economic objectives such as increased sustainability. For rural areas, the implication is that they are becoming enmeshed in an emerging system of non-state governance that continues to be highly contested, particularly regarding who has the right to govern such areas. The findings in this chapter are based on qualitative data, including 34 interviews and participant-observation.

This paper aims to explain why Fairtrade International (FI), an organization committed to empowering the producers of Fairtrade certified products, at times (paradoxically), excluded them from its highest bodies of governance. A within-case study of Fairtrade’s inclusive and exclusive reforms over 25 years, along with insights from the social enterprise, hybrid governance and political sociology literatures, is used to generate several propositions about how voluntary sustainability standards-setting organizations (VSSSOs) engage stakeholders – especially producers – in governance.

This study uses process-tracing methodology, which focuses on the sequential, intervening processes that link potentially important variables within a single case. It draws on data from over 100 interviews and nearly 6,000 archival documents collected from FI and its member Max Havelaar Netherlands. Causal process observations were extracted from the documents and compiled to create a 68,000-word chronological narrative used to evaluate six potential explanations of Fairtrade’s governance reforms: legitimacy, resources, identity, oligarchic tendency, leadership and producer mobilization.

This study finds that Fairtrade’s inclusion/exclusion of producers reflected its desire to increase its moral legitimacy among external actors and understanding of how to signal legitimacy. The discussion proposes that VSSSOs, especially in times of heightened competition, leverage their comparative advantages to differentiate themselves from other organizations. In cases (like FI) in which the advantage is legitimacy, changing notions of legitimacy may have a destabilizing effect on governance.

This evidence-based account of FI’s governance decisions should help resolve some debates about the nature of FI’s relationship with producer groups. The broader propositions offer guidance for future cross-case research aiming to explain VSSSOs’ governance structure and hybrid governance, more generally. Because FI includes producers in governance to a much greater extent than most VSSSOs, it is an important case.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the emergence of sustainability governance through the unfolding hybridisation process between corporate governance and corporate social responsibility and the implications of this for understanding patterns in sustainability reporting over time.

The Gulf of Mexico oil spill incident is an extreme case study undertaken to examine its implications on the organisational legitimacy of British Petroleum (BP) and the latter’s response to the incident and beyond. The paper draws on Suchman’s legitimacy framework (1995) to understand sustainability governance as an organisational practice that evolved post the Gulf of Mexico oil spill to manage BP’s legitimacy. It draws on archival records and documentation from 2008 to 2017, as key sources for data collection, using interrogation by NVivo software.

Sustainability governance is a sound practice that was socially constructed to manage the re-legitimatisation process following the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. It is characterised by broadness (the interplay between the corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disciplines), dynamic (developing the tactics to repair and maintain legitimacy), agility (conforming to the accountability for socially responsible investment and ensuring steps towards geopolitically responsible investment) and interdependence (reflecting composition and interactions).

This paper has practical implications for organisations, in terms of sustainability governance’s constitution, mechanism and characteristics.

This paper has implications not only for organisations, in terms of sustainability governance’s characteristics, but also for policy-makers, regulators and accounting education. However, the present paper’s insights are achieved through an in-depth and longitudinal case study.

This paper has problematized the concept of sustainability governance and elaborated its evolution (the emergence, enactment, deployment and interplay) process. The sustainability governance showed an otherwise organisational response that moves our understanding of the deployment of disclosure for complex organisational change as a way to discredit events.

The purpose of this paper is to look at the European public sector accounting standards (EPSAS) project development path to explore how governance and legitimacy issues intertwine when a new standard-setting system is developed.

A qualitative interpretative multimethod approach is adopted, which encompasses document analysis and participative observations.

The analysis shows the role of governance dimensions, including institutional participation and consensus, in the process for securing the legitimacy of accounting standards and the related setting processes, pointing to the critical issues emerging throughout the development of the EPSAS project.

The definition of public sector accounting standards poses significant challenges to the accounting profession and regulators alike. A paradigmatic case of such challenges is represented by the decisions to develop harmonised EPSAS. A key contribution of this paper is to connect legitimacy dimensions with network governance, offering a view of the input, output and procedural dimensions associated with decisions to legitimise EPSAS and how these may be affected by network governance.

The purpose of this paper is to outline the findings of a quantitative study of Social Firms between 2006 and 2007. In doing so, it examines the challenges that boards and managers in these organisations face.

In order to test propositions developed from a review of the social enterprise (SE) governance literature, the paper adopts a quantitative, survey‐based approach. The survey compared attitudes to governance issues among managers and board members in the UK‐based Social Firms.

Statistical analysis of the findings highlighted some key outcomes, particularly regarding legitimacy, accountability and stakeholder inclusion of Social Firms Boards. Furthermore, the paper identifies divisions between managers and board members regarding the enterprise‐orientation of Social Firms.

The research adds to current sector debates concerning SE identity, especially related to the effectiveness of governance systems, the erosion of underpinning social values and the adoption of a keener enterprise focus. While the research signals key variables such as legitimacy, accountability and democracy, much larger, qualitative‐based studies are required that capture the voices of more SE boards.

The key practical outcome from this small‐scale study is the difficulty faced by SE practitioners in managing the governance process. There are many forces pulling the SE sector (political, economic and not to mention social) and these undoubtedly have an impact at the grassroots level.

Having drawn conclusions on the key areas of significant difference between internal actors in Social Firms, it is vital not to forget that organisational governance does affect social beneficiaries. In the case of Social Firms, social beneficiaries are also bound together within the fabric of the organisation, forming part of the workforce as well as benefitting from access to employment. This presents problems for SE management, especially when diverging attitudes detract from, rather than enhance, social benefit.

The paper presents some new empirical support for many of the governance challenges facing SE practitioners in the UK. The paper contributes to knowledge by providing support for the debates concerning SE governance, identity and legitimacy.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the legitimacy of the Equator Principles as a form of private governance of the investment banking industry.

The project finance industry is first described, followed by a consideration of the theories of private governance and legitimacy. The governance of project finance by the Equator Principles is then examined against the backdrop of private governance and legitimacy theory. Cases regarding project finance and the Equator Principles are discussed.

The moral legitimacy of the governance of the Equator Principles is highly questionable, a serious issue for private governance schemes. There are large gaps in the governance structure, and the processes and content of much of the Principles are left to each bank, with little mandated transparency or accountability, particularly at the level of individual deals.

The Equator Principles have legitimacy problems arising from their governance structure. These issues are examined at some length, and specific suggestions are offered for repairing certain of the flaws in the system.

Private governance is increasingly important in international arenas, attempting to enforce standards that individual governments often leave to the private sector. This paper examines the legitimacy and governance issues in one system, and makes recommendations to increase the value and structure of the Equator Principles.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on conceptualizing the origin of legitimacy, the legitimation process and its trustworthiness toward the people, regulators, society and stakeholders. In achieving the purpose of the study, an inclusive research gap concerning the roles of the Shariah Supervisory Board (SSB) as a Shariah regulatory authority or an internal mechanism of Shariah Governance Framework (SGF) in the development and formation of Islamic financial institutions (IFIs) would also be addressed.

The paper implements an analytical approach to investigate the legitimation process of SSB, and its presence, significance, as well as credibility to the stakeholders.

This study proposes an additional authority of legitimacy, namely, SSB/Shariah regulatory authority, along with regulators, professionals and people. These could be derived from the internal mechanism of Shariah Governance (SG) practices of IFIs. The study also proposes another type of legitimacy (ethical/Shariah legitimacy) that derives from the organizational SG practices through its internal mechanisms. The formation of SSB is mandatory and more significant for the isomorphic identification of IFIs, SG system, legitimacy and broader acceptance to stakeholders.

The rational argument shows that SSB legitimates the overall functions of IFIs, SG practices, processes and structures. It is more apposite because it has substantial validity, dominance, recognition and acceptability along with three external bodies. Besides, IFIs and their SG do not have the proper value to the general people, society, regulators and other stakeholders without the legitimization of SSB. Thus, theorists and academicians may consider SSB as the fourth party of legitimacy along with three legitimacy providing authorities (regulators, professionals and people).

The paper focuses on illustrating and extending the border knowledge concerning the legitimacy from SG and how do SSBs legitimize IFIs and enhance their credibility to the general people, government, society and other stakeholders. The paper first clarified the internal legitimacy concerning SGF and contributed to the area of Islamic finance, legitimacy, institutional theory, legitimacy theory and internal legitimacy.

This study aims to investigate the nature and extent of compliance to the principle-based corporate governance initiatives by the listed companies in the South Pacific Stock Exchange (SPSE) in Fiji. Three important questions are addressed: whether listed companies in Fiji have complied with the principle-based governance practices? Did compliance with principle-based recommendations lead to an improvement in the listed company's financial performance and legitimacy? How the institutional factors have contributed towards corporate governance practices in Fiji?

Panel data for the SPSE companies over the period 2008-2011 are analysed using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. Tobin's Q and return on assets (ROA) metrics are used as dependent variables.

The findings indicate that listed companies have adopted the Capital Market Development Authority's (CMDA) recommendations by establishing subcommittees for audit and remuneration, having non-executive/independent directors on the board and separate chair and CEO positions in order to gain legitimacy from stakeholders. Results support the view that the CMDA recommendations of board sub-committees (audit and remuneration) have had positive influence on company performance measured by Tobin's Q. The findings of this study give support to the principle-based corporate governance practices adopted in Fiji to gain legitimacy.

The study adds to the governance literature by focusing on the principle-based governance practices in a small remote island country, Fiji which has relatively small economy, capital market and company size. Finally, the study adds to institutional theory by showing how companies' corporate governance choices are affected by the severity of agency conflicts and the way corporate governance is regulated.

Theoretically, both democ/ratic legitimacy and government capacity are necessary for successful crisis management, like the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors argue that there are important variations for pandemic management in the developed and democratic world. However, are these equally needed in the developing world where democracy and capacity are present in varying degrees and in some countries with a vast deficit? This article analyzes how legitimacy and capacity affect citizens' satisfaction with the pandemic management in South Asia.

The study is based on a survey of 3,423 randomly selected respondents from Facebook users in South Asia. The survey data are presented and discussed along with information derived from secondary sources to put the data in the broader context of the South Asian countries. The authors apply ordinary linear regression for statistical analysis.

The findings suggest that citizens are content with the performance of government institutions in COVID-19 management. They emphasize material well-being, such as relief provisions and financial incentives during the crisis period. They are, however, less concerned about the legitimacy dimension, although democracy in South Asia is flawed with excessive restrictions on public freedom during the pandemic. The contradictory findings may be due to the public orientation towards authoritarian culture and their preference for strongman rule in crisis management.

The governments in South Asia may systematically use army and police forces to manage crises as people are more satisfied with their performance during COVID-19 management.

This is the first time data across South Asia have been collected and analyzed about crisis management.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate current practices of water governance disclosure in the food, beverage and tobacco industry and to determine whether the quality of disclosure has a positive association with integrated reporting (IR).

A water governance disclosure index was developed that used content analysis to code the latest standalone social, environmental and sustainability reports or integrated reports of 49 companies in the food, beverage and tobacco industry. The selected companies are listed on three indices, the ASX, JSE and DJSI. This was followed by quantitatively testing the association between IR and the quality of water governance disclosure, as measured against the qualitatively developed index.

It was found that the 18 IR companies’ water governance disclosure quality significantly outperformed the 31 companies in the non-IR group, with a calculated index score of 71.67% and 40.97%, respectively.

The evidence indicates that IR is superior to non-IR water governance disclosure, and the study, therefore, contributes to the literature around the legitimacy theory by concluding that IR is supportive to companies to legitimise their being.

The originality of this paper stems from the comparison of water governance disclosures between IR and non-IR firms. Considering that IR preparers outperformed companies in the non-IR group could provide insights to academics, regulators and reporting organisations that IR could be used to enhance water governance disclosure.