Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
regulatory platforms to verify that rules are indeed applied adequately (Gereffi, GarciaJohnson, & Sasser, 2001). It is important to underscore that these monitoring actors are
also often directly involved in the initiative or platform they 'work' for (i.e. they are
likely to also have a say in decision- and rule-making).
While some research has already yielded insights into the formal role played by
regulatory intermediaries in the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of
rules (Abbott et al., 2017), there is still much to explore. Existing research has tended to
focus on the role of intermediaries once regulation is in place, but we know much less
about the role of intermediaries in the process leading to the emergence, construction,
and legitimization of multi-stakeholder regulation for business conduct. In particular,
we do not have a thorough understanding of the more informal, unexpected, or even
insidious roles that regulatory intermediaries may play when it comes to impeding or
fostering the development of private regulation on different issues. For example, Brs &
Gond (2014) have shown how consultants in the corporate social responsibility market,
as they strive to develop their business, are simultaneously fostering and monitoring the
adoption and interpretation of private rules through various normative tools, such as
rankings or environmental impact assessments. Others have shown how activist groups
can leverage multi-stakeholder initiatives to coerce rule-takers into adopting more
stringent rules (King, 2014; Mena & Waeger, 2014). Think tanks, understood as
regulatory intermediaries, can foster an ideological agenda and may sometimes prevent
the creation of formal regulation by pushing the idea that self-regulation, or even no
regulation, is not only sufficient but also the right solution (Djelic, 2015; King & Lenox,
2000).
In this special issue, we invite investigations of the multiplicity of roles of regulatory
intermediaries, particularly on the more informal, behind-the-scenes, unexpected,
unintended or insidious work that they perform and how this affects the regulatory
process of transnational private regulation. Such work is currently underexplored and
not well understood. While Abbott et al.'s (2015) model of intermediary participation in
regulation provides a compelling starting point, we still lack a comprehensive
understanding of the informal work of regulatory intermediaries and how this work
affects public and private regulations. We therefore call for contributions on the
multiplicity of roles of regulatory intermediaries, including, but not limited to, the
following questions:
What are the drivers that instigate collective action towards informal regulatory work, e.g. by
pressure groups or activists
Can we develop a typology of regulatory intermediaries that reflects the different types of
formal and informal work they perform?
How do the design and regulatory processes unique to each multi-stakeholder regulatory
initiative affect the work of regulatory intermediaries not involved in the initiative?
What types of hidden agendas do some regulatory intermediaries pursue and how does this
affect the regulatory process?
How does the interplay between regulatory intermediaries formal and informal roles
influence regulations?
Is there a need for a more democratic control over the work of regulatory intermediaries
(particularly of the informal kind) and how could/should such control be designed?
How do intermediaries informally influence the scope and the reach of regulation?
How does the formal and informal work of regulatory intermediaries institutionalize or
impede the institutionalization of private regulation in different sectors?
When does the (intentional or unintentional) work of intermediaries lead to public rather than
private regulation? For example, sustainability reporting guidelines from the GRI are now
legal requirements for government-owned firms in Denmark and Sweden (see
Glasbergen, 2011). When is this expected, and when is it not?
How and when do regulatory intermediaries collaborate and compete?
Levi-Faur, D. 2005. The global diffusion of regulatory capitalism. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 598(1): 12-32.
Mena, S., & Palazzo, G. 2012. Input and Output Legitimacy of Multi-Stakeholder
Initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(3): 529-559.
Mena, S., & Waeger, D. 2014. Activism for corporate responsibility: Conceptualizing private
regulation opportunity structures. Journal of Management Studies, 51(7): 1091-1117.
Miller, P., & Rose, N. 1993. Governing economic life. In M. Gane, & T. Johnson (Eds.), Foucault's
new domains. London: Routledge.
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. 2011. The New Political Role of Business in a Globalized World: A
Review of A New Perspective on CSR and its Implications for the Firm, Governance, and
Democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48: 899-931.
-Dr. Sbastien Mena
Faculty of Management, Cass Business School, City, University of London
Room 4065, 106 Bunhill Row, London EC1Y 8TZ, UK
Email: sebastien.mena.1@city.ac.uk
Phone: +44 (0)20 7040 8176
Web: http://www.cass.city.ac.uk/experts/S.Mena