Search results

This paper aims to explore how existing collaborative governance arrangements in the context of corporate responsibility (e.g. the Global Reporting Initiative and Social Accountability 8000) need to collaborate more directly in order to enhance their impact. The objective of this paper is twofold: primarily, to explore existing and potential linkages between multi‐stakeholder standards; but, at the same time, to explore the potential for standard convergence.

The paper follows a conceptual approach that is supported by a variety of case examples. First, the nature and benefits as well as shortcomings of multi‐stakeholder standards are explored. Second, a categorization scheme for the availability of such standards is developed. Third, linkages between the different standard categories are explored and discussed. Last but not least, the paper outlines practical implications.

A variety of linkages between existing multi‐stakeholder standards exist. These linkages need to be strengthened, as the market for corporate responsibility is unlikely to support a great variety of partly competing and overlapping initiatives.

The paper offers a structured discussion of potential linkages between multi‐stakeholder standards and thus complements the literature where such initiatives are discussed (usually without much mention of linkages). Practitioners will find the discussion useful to explore how their participation in a variety of initiatives can be better coordinated.

This paper aims to examine the significance and challenges of corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives organized by multi-stakeholders and to clarify the function of CSR initiatives: What is the significance of multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs)? What conditions are required for CSR initiatives to work satisfactorily? How do CSR standards function effectively in companies?

The significance and challenges of multi-stakeholder CSR initiatives are clarified theoretically, based on previous literature from relevant research fields.

MSIs are beyond the “dichotomy” of two traditional approaches to CSR, namely, voluntary vs mandatory. However MSIs do not automatically ensure good performance. We should discuss not only the legitimacy of MSIs but external monitoring and evaluation systems for responsible companies in the market, as well as organizational efforts to incorporate CSR standards into managerial processes.

This paper shows that an MSI is an important platform for establishing and promoting a CSR standard, and further that market maturity and stakeholder engagement are required to make CSR work.

The study explains that ceremonial compliance with CSR standards may be inevitable even where the legitimacy of an MSI is secured, and that we should recognize that monitoring and sanction systems in the market and an organizational approach to the incorporation of CSR in management practices are required.

Efforts to increase sustainability are increasingly being promulgated using non-state forms of governance. Currently, there are multiple multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) working to develop sustainability standards and metrics for US agriculture. These include: LEO-4000, Field to Market, and the Sustainability Consortium. Using Paul Thompson’s (2010) tripartite sustainability framework, the proposed sustainability standards and metrics of the three MSIs are assessed. Our findings indicate that the current political economic stakeholder nexus is producing incremental adjustments to the status quo of industrial agriculture. Put differently, the standards and metrics being produced by these initiatives are largely advancing programs of sustainable intensification in which sustainability is equated with increasing resource efficiencies. Hence, our research problematizes the efficacy of non-state governance approaches for transformative change in food and agriculture. The findings in this chapter are based on fieldwork conducted between 2011 and 2013.

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 aim of this paper is to analyze the changing role of business in a globalized society, focusing on transnational corporations as private authorities which have gained power in global governance. The paper will aim to address the following issues: the development of CSR as a voluntary framework based on self‐regulation instruments through which corporations can manage their social and environmental impacts; corporations' exercise of power and authority in developing CSR standards globally through inter‐firm cooperation; and CSR as a mechanism to transform business culture through the development of co‐regulatory instruments between corporations and their stakeholders.

This paper describes the emergence of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a new governance framework, essentially created by the pressure of global civil society on corporations. The research focuses on the analysis of new forms of business political activities: self‐regulation and co‐regulation.

The findings describe how transnational corporations have become private authorities, competing or collaborating with global civil society or public authorities to develop a new framework of social and environmental regulations to manage their responsibilities and exercise their global power.

This paper highlights the need for regulatory tools to transform global governance. CSR requires the development of public accountability mechanisms for private authorities, an issue that can be resolved by developing global governance networks between public and private actors.

This paper explains why CSR has taken shape through the creation of self‐regulation management standards and co‐regulating norms and instruments where transnational corporations are a major driving force.

This paper aims to investigate to what extent and for which reasons the codes of conduct and social audits of multinational corporations (MNCs) have failed to change practices within Chinese factories. A special attention is given to the social compliance initiatives (SCIs) and multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) which did not overcome the main obstacles of the compliance approach.

This research is based on a fieldwork in China, including 36 semi-constructed interviews with practitioners involved in corporate social responsibility (CSR), participant observation in the CSR programme of the International Labour Organisation office in Beijing and several visits of factories involved in CSR programmes. Secondary sources are used to estimate the distribution of value added along global value chains (GVCs).

The codes of conduct and social audits tend to reproduce the domination of MNCs within GVCs. This paper highlights some obstacles – and opportunities – for CSR appropriate to the Chinese context.

Only a few MNCs agreed to meet the author and speak openly. No one allowed the author to visit their suppliers’ factories.

The findings of this study suggest that the most widespread approach to CSR by MNCs is flawed. More attention should be given to specific institutional contexts and to workers’ participation.

CSR discourse and practices in China are put in the context of GVCs and in the transformation of Chinese industry and labour relations. This method allows going beyond a case study approach. Instrumentations of several SCIs and MSIs are also analysed in detail.

While corporate social responsibility (CSR) standards are amongst the most widely adopted instruments for supporting firms in becoming more accountable, firms who adopt them frequently fail to comply. In this context, the purpose of this study is to explore to what extent CSR standards are designed for accountability. In the analysis, this paper investigates design characteristics related to accountability across different standard types, namely, principle-based, reporting, certification and process standards.

This study reviews the design characteristics of 50 CSR standards in a systematic and comparative fashion. This paper combines qualitative deductive coding with exploratory quantitative analyses methods to elucidate structural variance and patterns of accountability-related design characteristics across the sample.

This study finds that the prevalence of design characteristics aimed at fostering accountability varies significantly between different types of standards. This paper identifies three factors related to the specific purpose of any given standard that explain this structural variation in design characteristics, namely, implementability, comparability and measurability.

Non-compliance limits the effectiveness and legitimacy of CSR standards. The systematic exploration of patterns and structural variation in design characteristics that promote accountability may provide valuable clues for the design of more effective CSR standards in the future.

Better understanding the role of design characteristics of CSR standards is critical to ensure they contribute to greater corporate accountability.

This study strives to expand the current understanding of the design characteristics of CSR standards beyond individual cases through a systematic exploration of accountability-related design characteristics across a larger sample.

The globalisation of supply chains has contributed to modern slavery by degrading labour standards and work practices. The inherent difficulties involved in monitoring extremely fragmented production processes also render workers in and from developing countries vulnerable to labour exploitation. This research adopts a benchmark methodology that will help examine the inherent modern slavery challenges.

This study examines how the benchmark model, including governance, risk assessment, purchasing practice, recruitment and remedy of victims, addresses supply chain modern slavery challenges. The proposed hypotheses are tested based on the reoccurring issues of modern slavery in global supply chains.

Estimations suggest that modern slavery is a growing and increasingly prominent international problem, indicating that it is the second largest and fastest growing criminal enterprise worldwide except for narcotics trafficking. These social issues in global supply chains have drawn attention to the importance of verifying, monitoring and mapping supply chains, especially in lengthy and complex supply chains. However, the advent of digital technologies and benchmarking methodologies has become one of the existing key performance indicators (KPIs) for measuring the effectiveness of modern slavery initiatives in supply chains.

This review provides an understanding of the current situation of global supply chains concerning the growing social issue of modern slavery. However, this includes various individual specialities relating to global supply chains, modern slavery, socially sustainable supply chain management (SCM), logistic social responsibility, corporate social responsibility and digitalisation. Furthermore, the review provided important implications for researchers examining the activities on benchmarking the effectiveness of the existing initiatives to prevent modern slavery in the supply chains.