Abstract
This chapter introduces the theory of collaborative regulation to prevent regulatory capture by actors in multi-stakeholder regulatory processes. Specifically, the chapter argues that proceduralization of the multi-stakeholder process can be deployed for this purpose, and that this holds potential to fill a theory gap in reflexive law theory in regard to balancing power disparities between participants in a multi-stakeholder regulatory process. The point of departure is taken in the complex interaction between public policy objectives on sustainability and the transnational character of many of the issues at stake. In response to such concerns and the limitations of international and national law-making to regulate transnational economic activities, a series of public, private and mixed multi-stakeholder initiatives have been launched to regulate business enterprises and prevent adverse societal impacts. While scholars and practitioners have documented risks of regulatory capture by powerful or otherwise privileged actors in such processes, little is known about the internal norms and organization of a multi-stakeholder process that can support turning a broadly representative input into a normative result (output) in such a manner that the output enjoys a high degree of legitimacy to support organizational uptake without strong enforcement institutions. Several past examples of such multi-stakeholder forums launched by international or regional organizations to regulate sustainability concerns exemplify reflexive law as a regulatory practice. Adopting a socio-legal approach and drawing deliberative theory, the chapter contributes to the legal sustainability literature through theory-building on a regulatory process that is inclusive while also balancing power disparities.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Examples include the Forest Stewardship Council’s standards (https://ic.fsc.org/en/what-is-fsc-certification/requirements-guidance), the Marine Stewardship Council (msc.org), the ISO 26000 Social Responsibility Guidance Standard (https://www.iso.org/standard/42546.html, accessed 25 April 2019).
- 2.
- 3.
Examples include the Extractives Industries Transparency Initiative (eiti.org) and the Voluntary Principles on Security Human Rights (https://www.voluntaryprinciples.org/)
- 4.
For example, FSC and MSC apply certification.
- 5.
- 6.
Jointly, international and regional organizations are referred to in here as supernational organizations. This term for organizations being above-national should not be confused with supra-national, which is a term that explicitly refers to the particular legal structure of the EU which unlike other super-national organizations enjoys the power to legislate with direct effect for citizens and companies in Member States.
- 7.
Anti-corruption, the 10th Global Compact principle, was only introduced in 2004.
References
Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2010). Governance without a state: Can it work? Regulation & Governance, 4(2), 113–134.
Brunnée, J., & Toope, S. J. (2010). Legitimacy and legality in international law: An interactional account. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Buhmann, K. (2018a). Neglecting the proactive aspect of human rights due diligence? A critical appraisal of the EU’s non-financial reporting directive as a pillar one avenue for promoting pillar two action. Business and Human Rights Journal, 3(1), 23–45.
Buhmann, K. (2018b). Changing sustainability norms through communicative processes: The emergence of the Business & Human Rights regime as transnational law. Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Buhmann, K. (2017). Power, procedure, participation and legitimacy in global sustainability regulation: A theory of collaborative regulation. London: Routledge.
Buhmann, K. (2016). Public regulators and CSR: The ‘Social Licence to Operate’ in recent United Nations instruments on business and human rights and the juridification of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(4), 699–714.
Buhmann, K. (2012). Reflexive regulation of CSR: A case study of public-policy interests in EU public-private regulation of CSR. International and Comparative Corporate Law Journal, 8(2), 38–76.
Buhmann, K., & Nathan, I. (2013). Plentiful forests, happy people? The EU’s FLEGT approach and its impact on human rights and private forestry sustainability schemes. Nordic Environmental Law Journal, 4(2), 53–82.
Dalberg-Larsen, J. (1991). Ret, styring og selvforvaltning. Aarhus: Juridisk Bogformidling.
Deitelhoff, N., & Müller, H. (2005). Theoretical paradise – Empirically lost? Arguing with Habermas. Review of International Studies, 31, 167–179.
EU. (2014). Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2015 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups.
Fairbrass, J. (2011). Exploring corporate social responsibility policy in the European Union: A discursive institutionalist analysis. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(5), 949–970.
Franck, T. M. (1990). The power of legitimacy among nations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guldbrandsen, L. (2004). Overlapping public and private governance: Can forest certification fill the gaps in the global forest regime? Global Environmental Politics, 4(2), 75–99.
Habermas, J. (2008). The constitutionalization of international law and the legitimation process of a constitution for world society. Constellations, 15(4), 444–455.
Habermas, J. (1998). Jenseits des Nationalstaats: Bemerkungen zu Folgeprobleme der wirtschaftlichen Globalisierung. In U. Beck (Ed.), Politik der Globalisierung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (William Rehg, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press/Blackwell.
Habermas, J. (1986). Moral consciousness and communicative ethics. Cambridge: MIT.
Henriques, A. (2011). Understanding ISO 26000: A practical approach to social responsibility (pp. 115–130). London: British Standards Institution.
Higgins, R. (1994). Problems and process: International law and how we use it. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kell, G., & Levin, D. (2002). The global compact network: An historic experiment in learning and action. In M. McIntosh, S. Waddock, & G. Kell (Eds.), Learning to talk: Corporate citizenship and the development of the UN global compact (pp. 43–65). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.
Kinley, D., Nolan, J., & Zerial, N. (2007). The norms are dead. Long live the norms!: The politics behind the UN human rights norms for corporations. In D. McBarnet, A. Voiculescu, & T. Campbell (Eds.), The new corporate accountability: Corporate social responsibility and the law (pp. 459–475). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kinderman, D. (2013). Corporate social responsibility in the EU, 1993–2013: Institutional ambiguity, economic crises, business legitimacy and bureaucratic politics. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(4), 701–720.
Kinderman, D. (2016). Time for a reality check: Is business willing to support a smart mix of complementary regulation in private governance? Policy and Society, 35(1), 29–41.
OECD. (2011). OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises (rev 2011). Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved Apriæ 25, 2019, from https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264115415-en.
Overdevest, C., & Zeitlin, J. (2014). Assembling an experimentalist regime: Transnational governance interactions in the forest sector. Regulation & Governance, 8, 22–48.
Pauwelyn, J. (2012). Informal international law-making: Framing the concept and research questions. In J. Pauwelyn, R. Wessel, & J. Wouters (Eds.), Informal international law-making (pp. 13–34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reynaers, A.-M., & Parrado, S. (2016). Responsive regulation in public-private partnerships: Between deterrence and persuasion. Regulation and Governance, 11, 269–281.
Ruggie, J. (2013). Just Business. Boston: Norton.
Ruggie, J. G. (2014). Global governance and ‘New Governance Theory’: Lessons from business and human rights. Global Governance, 20, 5–17.
Risse, T. (2005). Global governance and communicative action. In D. Held & M. Koenig-Archibugi (Eds.), Global governance and public accountability (pp. 164–189). Malden: Blackwell.
Risse, T. (2000). “Let’s argue”: Communicative action in world politics. International Organization, 54(1), 1–39.
Shelton, D. (2000). Introduction. In D. Shelton (Ed.), Commitment and compliance: The role of non-binding norms in the international legal system (pp. 1–18). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Slaughter, A. M. (2000). Agencies on the loose? Holding government networks accountable. In G. Bermann, M. Herdegen, & P. Lindseth (Eds.), Transatlantic regulatory cooperation, Legal problems and political prospects (pp. 521–546). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Teubner, G. (1983). Substantive and reflective elements in modern law. Law and Society Review, 17(2), 239–285.
Teubner, G. (1984). Autopoiesis in law and society: A rejoinder to Blankenburg. Law and Society Review, 18(2), 291–301.
Teubner, G. (1986). After legal instrumentalism? In G. Teubner (Ed.), Dilemmas of law in the welfare state (pp. 299–325). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
UN. (2005, June 20). Economic Commission for Europe: Decision II/4 promoting the application of the principles of the Aarhus Convention in international forums adopted at the second meeting of the Parties held in Almaty, Kazakhstan, on 25–27 May 2005. UN Doc. ECE/MP.PP/2005/2/Add.5.
UN. (2015, October 21). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. UN Doc. A/Res/70/1.
UN Human Rights Council. (2008, April 7). Protect, respect and remedy: A framework for business and human rights. Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, John Ruggie. UN Doc. A/HRC/8/5 (2008).
UN Human Rights Council. (2011, March 21). Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect, Remedy’ Framework. Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31.
UN Human Rights Council. (2013, December 30). Report of the independent expert on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, John H. Knox: Mapping report. UN Doc. A/HRC/25/53.
Weissbrodt, D., & Kruger, M. (2003). Current developments: Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights. American Journal of International Law, 97(4), 901–922.
Acknowledgements
This chapter has benefitted from financial research support from the Danish Research Council (Social Sciences) under grant No. 0602-08420B. In developing the theory of ‘collaborative regulation’, the chapter combines some points made by the author in the following two research monographs: Changing sustainability norms through communicative processes: the emergence of the Business & Human Rights regime as transnational law (Edward Elgar: 2017); and Normative discourses and public-private regulatory strategies for construction of CSR normativity: Towards a method for above-national public-private regulation of business social responsibilities (Multivers publishing: 2014).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Buhmann, K. (2020). Collaborative Regulation: Preventing Regulatory Capture in Multi-stakeholder Processes for Developing Norms for Sustainability Conduct. In: Mauerhofer, V., Rupo, D., Tarquinio, L. (eds) Sustainability and Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42630-9_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42630-9_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-42629-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-42630-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)