Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Introducing Corporate Water Stewardship in the Context of Global Water Governance Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2019 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

6. Corporate Legitimacy in Collective Action

verfasst von : Thérèse Rudebeck

Erschienen in: Corporations as Custodians of the Public Good?

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Recognising that win-win outcomes in collective action is not a given, the question of how companies legitimise their involvement in CWS becomes central. This chapter takes up this challenge and explores how corporations establish themselves as legitimate actors in the water sector. Arguing that the legitimation process is of relational nature, the chapter shows that the process of gaining legitimacy is both about an actor gaining tacit recognition, but also about the active process of gaining that recognition. Because companies are non-elected entities, they cannot draw upon conventional forms of democratic legitimacy, as an elected government may. The chapter shows that as a result, they invoke alternative sources of authority: source-based, process-based, and outcome-based legitimacy to justify their involvement in collective action. The discussion also reveals that companies’ utilisation of these concepts should not be accepted uncritically. Whilst companies – like other stakeholders – have a right to have their voice heard, checks and balances need to be in place to ensure that an initiative’s objectives, processes, and outcomes reflect a balanced perspective.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Companies and Water Sanitation and Hygiene
Nächstes Kapitel Corporations and the Shaping of the Global Water Agenda
Fußnoten
1
This definition excludes a number of other cooperative relationships that are commonly labelled as ‘partnerships’, which will not be considered in this chapter. For example, Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), where a government outsources a public service to a private enterprise, will not be discussed because of the partnership’s contractual, and thus highly institutional nature. Corporate philanthropy where a company forms a partnership with a civil society organisation with the sole aim of sponsoring an initiative will also be excluded because, although the aim may be to address a public policy issue, the collaboration is not set up to facilitate collaborative decision-making, and does not display a non-hierarchical decision-making structure. In addition, both these forms of partnerships are of a bilateral rather than multi-lateral nature.
 
2
Prior to being hosted by the World Bank Global Water Practice, 2030 WRG was hosted by the International Finance Corporation 2012–2017.
 
3
Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestlé, ABInBev, Grundfos, and Dow.
 
4
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, and the Government of Hungary.
 
5
International Finance Corporation, the World Bank, African Development Bank, and Inter-American Development Bank.
 
6
International Union for Conservation of Nature, and Building Resources Across Communities.
 
7
United Nations Development Programme, Global Green Growth Institute, World Economic Forum, and the Global Water Partnership.
 
8
Blended Finance is an approach to development finance that employs the strategic use of development finance to mobilise private capital flows to developing markets (OECD/WEF 2015).
 
9
A ‘green’ bond signifies a commitment to exclusively use the funds raised to finance or re-finance ‘green’ projects, assets, or business activities (OECD 2015).
 
10
A decade of financial crises in emerging markets has demonstrated that currency markets can be unexpectedly volatile. Firms that borrow in currencies different from those of their revenues are ultimately gambling. Thus, there is an increased push for lending and borrowing in local currency to finance long-term development projects (IFC 2018).
 
11
Social Impact Investment is the provision of finance to organisations addressing social needs with the explicit expectation of a measurable social, as well as financial, return (OECD 2018).
 
12
Debt swaps refer to the exchange of debt in the form of a loan or, more typically, of securities other than shares, for a new debt contract (i.e. debt-debt swap) or the exchange of debt for equity shares (i.e. debt-equity swap) (IMF 2000).
 
13
Bodansky’s framework overlaps to a great extent with Sharpf’s (1999) two-fold model of legitimacy, which makes a simpler distinction between ‘input legitimacy’ and ‘output legitimacy’, where the former includes source-based legitimacy and process-based legitimacy, and the latter includes outcome-based legitimacy (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen and McGee 2013).
 
14
Sojamo (2016) suggests that legitimacy derived from ‘tradition’ depends on how well the engagement aligns with prevailing institutional frameworks, and legitimacy derived from ‘discourse’ depends upon how well the engagement fits with the established ideals of multi-actor water management and governance.
 
15
‘Strengthening integrity’ is often used as a euphemism for ‘reducing corruption’.
 
16
In the US, this is referred to as ‘antitrust law’.
 
17
The Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA), adopted during the third International Conference on Financing for Development in July 2015, set out a comprehensive financing framework – including the role of the private sector – to advance the implementation of broad development objectives, including the SDGs (UN 2015 A/RES/69/313). Not only does the AAAA call for the mobilisation of resources, but for new mechanisms through which both public and private resources could be channelled. As a result, new financial instruments like ‘blended finance’ have emerged.
 
18
A Key Performance Indicator (KPI) is a measurable value that demonstrates how effectively a company is achieving key business objectives. Companies use KPIs to evaluate their success at reaching targets.
 
Literatur
Aakhus, M., & Bzdak, M. (2012). Revisiting the role of “shared value” in the business-society relationship. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 31(2), 231–246.
Anglo American. (2013). Sustainable development report 2013: Focused on delivery. London: Anglo American plc.
Bäckstrand, K. (2006). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. European Environment, 16(5), 290–306.
Bäckstrand, K., Campe, S., Chan, S., Mert, A., & Schäferhoff, M. (2012). Transnational public-private partnerships. In F. Biermann & P. Pattberg (Eds.), Global environmental governance reconsidered (pp. 123–147). Cambridge/London: MIT Press.
Barrick Gold. (2011). Responsible mining. Toronto: Barrick Gold Corporation.
BHP Billiton. (2014). Value through performance: Sustainability report 2015. Melbourne: BHP Billiton.
Biermann, F., & Pattberg, P. (2008). Global environmental governance: Taking stock, moving forward. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 33, 277–294.
Biermann, F., & Pattberg, P. (Eds.). (2012). Global environmental governance reconsidered. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.
Blowfield, M. (2005a). Going global: How to identify and manage societal expectations in supply chains (and the consequences of failure). Corporate Governance International Journal of Business in Society, 5(3), 119–128.
Blowfield, M. (2005b). Corporate social responsibility: Reinventing the meaning of development? International Affairs, 81(3), 515–524.
Blowfield, M. (2012). Business and development: Making sense of business as a development agent. Corporate Governance, 12(4), 414–426.
Bodansky, D. (1999). The legitimacy of international governance: A coming challenge for international environmental law? The American Journal of International Law, 93(3), 596–624.
CEO Water Mandate. (2007). The CEO Water Mandate: An initiative by business leaders in partnership with the international community. New York: UN.
CEO Water Mandate. (2009). The CEO Water Mandate 3rd Working Conference March 15–17, 2009 World Water Forum, Istanbul. Meeting Summary. Oakland: Pacific Institute.
CEO Water Mandate. (2010). Guide to responsible business engagement with water policy. Oakland: UNCG/Pacific Institute.
CEO Water Mandate. (2013). Eleventh working conference meeting summary. March 4–7, 2013 Mumbai, India. Oakland: Pacific Institute.
CEO Water Mandate. (2015). Guide for managing integrity in water stewardship initiatives: A framework for improving effectiveness and transparency. Oakland: UNCG/Pacific Institute.
Compagnon, D., Chan, S., & Mert, A. (2012). The changing role of the state. In F. Biermann & P. Pattberg (Eds.), Global environmental governance reconsidered (pp. 237–263). Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.
Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L. J., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting the value of “creating shared value”. California Management Review, 56(2), 130–153.
Diageo. (2003). Diageo corporate citizenship report 2003. London: Diageo.
Diageo. (2015). Sustainability & responsibility performance addendum to the annual report 2015. London: Diageo.
Dingwerth, K. (2007). The new transnationalism: transnational governance and democratic legitimacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fyke, J. P., Feldner, B. S., & May, S. K. (2016). Discourses about righting the business ←→ Society relationship. Business and Society Review, 121(2), 217–245.
H&M. (2013). Conscious actions: Sustainability report 2013. Stockholm: H&M.
Häikiö, L. (2007). Expertise, representation and the common good: Grounds for legitimacy in the urban governance network. Urban Studies, 44(11), 2147–2162.
IMF. (2000). Monetary and financial statistics manual. Washington DC: IMF.
Isdell, N. (2009). A conversation with Neville Isdell. Council on Foreign Relations.
IUCN. (2012). IUCN business engagement strategy. Gland: IUCN.
IWaSP. (2016a). South Africa country report. Eschborn: IWaSP.
IWaSP. (2016b). Uganda country report 2015. Eschborn: IWaSP.
Karkkainen, B. C. (2004). Post-sovereign environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 4(1), 72–96.
Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I., & McGee, J. (2013). Legitimacy in an era of fragmentation: The case of global climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 13(3), 56–78.
Keohane, R. (2003). Global governance and democratic accountability. In D. Held & M. Koenig-Archibugi (Eds.), Taming globalization: Frontiers of governance (pp. 130–159). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Keohane, R. (2006). Accountability in world politics. Scandinavian Political Studies, 29(2), 75–87.
LimnoTech. (2015). Quantifying replenish benefits in community water partnership projects, final report for 2014. Prepared for the Coca-Cola company in collaboration with GETF.
Lopez, J., & Sarni, W. (2015). Water as a shared challenge: From societal expectations to collective action. Deloitte Review, 16, 16–31.
Mason, N. (2013). Uncertain frontiers: Mapping new corporate engagement in water security. London: ODI.
Mena, S., & Palazzo, G. (2012). Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(3), 527–556.
Nestlé. (2006). The Nestlé concept of corporate social responsibility as implemented in Latin America. Vevey: Nestlé S.A.
Nestlé. (2009). Nestlé creating shared value report 2009. Vevey: Nestlé S.A.
Nestlé. (2014). Nestlé in society: Creating shared value and meeting our commitments 2014. Vevey: Nestlé S.A.
OECD. (2015). Green bonds: Mobilising the debt capital markets for a low-carbon transition. Paris: OECD.
OECD & WEF. (2015). A how-to guide for blended finance: A practical guide for development finance and philanthropic funders to integrate blended finance best practices into their organizations. Geneva: WEF.
Olam. (2012). Corporate responsibility & sustainability report. London: Olam International Ltd.
Orr, S., & Hepworth, N. (2013). The opportunities and risks of corporate engagement on water policy. Presentation given at the 11th working conference of the CEO Water Mandate, Mumbai, India March 4th–7th 2013.
PepsiCo. (2007). Performance with purpose: PepsiCo corporate sustainability report 2006–7. Purchase: PepsiCo.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89, 62–77.
Reed, M., & Bruyneel, S. (2010). Rescaling environmental governance, rethinking the state: A three-dimensional review. Progress in Human Geography, 34(5), 646–653.
Rio Tinto. (2014). Sustainable development 2014: Creating mutual value for the long term. London: Rio Tinto.
SAB Miller. (2008). Business and development a case study: SAB Miller. Africa task force meeting, Addis Ababa, 10 to 11 July 2008.
Schouten, G., & Glasbergen, P. (2011). Creating legitimacy in global private governance: The case of the roundtable on sustainable palm oil. Ecological Economics, 70(11), 1891–1899.
Sharpf, F. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sojamo, S. (2016). Water-using corporations as agents of water security, management and governance: Exploring cases from stewardship initiatives in South Africa to global networks of power. PhD Aalto University.
Steets, J. (2004). Developing a framework concepts and research priorities for partnership accountability. Berlin: Global Public Policy Institute (GPPI).
UN. (2015). Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the third international conference on financing for development (Addis Ababa Action Agenda). Resolution adopted by the general assembly on 27 July 2015. A/RES/69/313.
UNDP & Agence Française de Développement. (2016). Financing the SDGs in the Least Developed Countries (LDCs): Diversifying the financing tool-box and managing vulnerability. Prepared as contribution to the mid-term review of the Istanbul programme of action for the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Antalya, Turkey 27–29 May 2016. New York: UNDP.
UNGC. (2015). Impact: Transforming business, changing the world. New York: DNV GLAS.
Unilever. (2009). Sustainable development overview 2009: Creating a better future every day. London: Unilever plc.
WBCSD. (2015). Executive brief water cluster. Conches-Geneva: WBCSD.
Young, O. R. (2009). Governance for sustainable development in a world of rising interdependencies. In M. A. Delmas & O. R. Young (Eds.), Governance for the environment: New perspectives (pp. 12–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Metadaten
Titel
Corporate Legitimacy in Collective Action
verfasst von
Thérèse Rudebeck
Copyright-Jahr
2019
Buch
Corporations as Custodians of the Public Good?

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-13224-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-13225-5

Copyright-Jahr: 2019

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13225-5_6