nach oben

Journal of Business Ethics

Erschienen in:

01.12.2013

E Pluribus Unum? Legitimacy Issues and Multi-stakeholder Codes of Conduct

verfasst von: Valentina Mele, Donald H. Schepers

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 3/2013

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Regulatory schema has shifted from government to governance-based systems. One particular form that has emerged at the international level is the multi-stakeholder voluntary code of conduct (MSVC). We argue that such codes are not only simply mechanisms by which various stakeholders attempt to govern the action of the corporation but also systems by which each stakeholder attempts to gain or retain some legitimacy goal. Each stakeholder is motivated by strategic legitimacy goal to join the code, and once a member, is also required to assist in maintaining the institutional legitimacy of the code, resulting in “networked legitimacy.” We begin our analysis of these systems by first exploring the growth and structure of such MSVCs, and then building an analytical framework using strategic and institutional legitimacy as they apply to such MSVCs. We contribute to the codes of conduct literature by developing the construct of networked legitimacy from strategic and institutional legitimacy. We then apply our framework to the United Nations Global Compact, one of the predominant MSVCs today. In doing so, we: (1) demonstrate how different stakeholders are pursuing different types of legitimacy through their participation in the code, (2) examine the specific opportunities and risks in terms of what we have called “networked legitimacy” posed by the institutional design of actual MSVCs, and (3) create an argument for three pillars supporting the legitimacy of MSVCs.

Vorheriger Artikel The Costs of Organisational Injustice in the Hungarian Health Care System

Nächster Artikel Feeling Good by Doing Good: Employee CSR-Induced Attributions, Job Satisfaction, and the Role of Charismatic Leadership

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 "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Among the analytical categories available in the literature we have selected the three that are more aligned with our empirical work. However, there is no unanimous classification of the types of legitimacy. For example Suchman (1995) distinguishes among cognitive, pragmatic and moral legitimacy. Scott (1995, 2008) provides a framework that includes cognitive, regulative and normative legitimacy. Hunt and Aldrich (1998) outline three pillars of legitimacy: sociopolitical regulatory, sociopolitical normative, and cognitive.

We recognize that we are omitting the cognitive dimension of Suchman’s (1995) tripartite division of legitimacy, but we believe that our use of Scott’s (2008) definition of regulatory legitimacy suffices for what would pertain to cognitive legitimacy in this instance.

Ostrom (1990) asserts nine conditions for strong self-governing codes: clear boundaries and memberships, congruent rules, collective choice areas, monitoring, graduated sanctions, conflict-resolution mechanisms, recognized right to organize, and nested units. We agree that all these are important. However, we are specifying the case for international systems of multistakeholder self-governance. Hence, we believe the three important elements for our consideration to be dialogue (the result of memberships and collective choice areas, leading to the establishment of rules), learning (the continuous improvement of rules), and monitoring. The outcome of the MSVC is the governance system itself, which would then include issues of sanction and conflict resolution. We assert that governments, by their lack of action in international codes, have given over this space to MSVCs, thereby recognizing the right of MSVCs to organize, and allowing MSVCs to be nested in the network arrangement.

For a full list of the ten principles and supporting documentation, visit the United Nations Global Compact website at http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/TheTenPrinciples/index.html.

A letter detailing the charges can be found at http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/news_events/9.1_news_archives/2009_01_12b/letter_from_CNPC_15Dec2008.pdf

Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2009). Strengthening international regulation through transnational new governance: Overcoming the orchestration deficit. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 52, 501–578.

Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.

Albareda, L., et al. (2007). Public policies on corporate social responsibility: The role of governments. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 391–407.

Annan, K. (2006). Address of Mr. Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General, to the High-Level Dialogue of the United Nations General Assembly on International Migration and Development, New York, September 14, 2006.

Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Sciences, 1, 177–194.

Atack, I. (1999). Four criteria of development NGO legitimacy. World Development, 27(5), 855–864.

Baccaro, L., & Mele, V. (2011). For lack of anything better? International organizations and global corporate codes. Public Administration, 89(2), 451–470.

Baccaro, L., & Mele, V. (2012). Pathologies of path dependency? The international labour organization and the challenges of transnational governance. Industrial and Labour Relations Review., 65(2), 195–224.

Bäckstrand, K. (2006). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. European Environment, 16, 290–306.

Baker, J. (2004). Labor and the global compact. In M. MacIntosh, G. Kell, & S. Waddock (Eds.), Learning to talk (pp. 168–182). Sheffield: Greenleaf.

Baur, D., & Schmitz, H. (2012). Corporations and NGOs: When accountability leads to co-optation. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 9–21.

Bendell, J. (Ed.). (2000). Terms for endearment: Business, NGOs and sustainable development. Sheffield: Greenleaf.

Bernstein, S. (2005). Legitimacy in global environmental governance. Journal of International Law and International Relations, 1((1/2)), 139–166.

Bernstein, S. (2011). Legitimacy in intergovernmental and non-state global governance. Review of International Political Economy, 1, 17–51.

Béthoux, É., Didry, C., & Mias, A. (2007). What codes of conduct tell us: Corporate social responsibility and the nature of the multinational corporation. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(1), 77–90.

Bitektine, A. B. (2011). Legitimacy properties and their implications for institutional theory and strategic management. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec Canada.

Boeri, T., Brugiavini, A., & Calmforset, L. (Eds.). (2001). The role of unions in the twenty-first century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Börzel, T., & Risse, T. (2005). Public private partnerships. Effective and legitimate tools for transnational governance? In E. Grande & L. Pauly (Eds.), Complex sovereignty. Reconstituting political authority in the twentyfirst century (pp. 195–216). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Böstrom, M. (2006). Regulatory credibility and authority through inclusiveness: standardization organizations in cases of eco-labelling. Organization, 13(3), 345–367.

Bronfenbrenner, K. (2007). What is labor’s true purpose? The implications of SEIU’s Unite to win proposals for organizing. New Labor Forum, 14(2), 19–28.

Carpenter, R. D. (2010). Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Cashore, B. (2002). Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non-state market-driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority. In E. Meidinger, C. Elliott, & G. Oesten (Eds.), Social and political dimensions of forest certification (pp. 219–236). Remagen-Oberwinter: Forstbuch.

Cashore, B., Auld, G., Bernstein, S., & McDermott, C. (2007). Can non-state governance “ratchet up” global environmental standards? Lessons from the forest sector. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 16(2), 158–172.

Chaison, G. N., & Bigelow, B. J. (2002). Unions and legitimacy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Coicaud, J.-M., & Heiskanen, V. (Eds.). (2001). The legitimacy of international organizations. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

Cragg, W. (2005). Ethics codes, corporations and the challenge of globalization. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Craver, C. B. (2006). The relevance of the NLRA and labor organizations in the post-industrial global economy. Labor Law Journal, 57, 133.

Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. C. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 49–77). London: SAGE.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18, 122–136.

Fall, P. L., & Zahran, M. M. (2010). United Nations corporate partnerships: The role and functioning of the Global Compact. Joint Inspection Unit: 30. Geneva: United Nations.

Fransen, L. W., & Kolk, A. (2007). Global rule-setting for business: A critical analysis of multi-stakeholder standards. Organization, 14(5), 667–684.

Galaskiewicz, J. (1991). Making corporate actors accountable. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 293–310). Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.

Gardberg, N. A., & Fombrun, C. J. (2006). Corporate citizenship: Creating intangible assets across institutional environments. Academy of Management Review, 31, 329–346.

Gardberg, N. A., & Newberry, W. (2010). Who boycotts whom? Marginalization, company knowledge, and strategic issues. Business & Society. doi:10.1177/0007650309352507.

Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structures and contradiction in social analysis. Berkley: University of California Press.

Gilbert, D. U. (2010). The United Nations Global Compact as a network of networks’. In A. Rasche & G. Kell (Eds.), The United Nations Global Compact: Achievements, trends and challenges (pp. 340–354). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

Hall, J. A. (1995). Civil society: Theory, history, comparison. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Haufler, V. (2001). A public role for the private sector. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Haufler, V. (2003). New forms of governance: Certification regimes as social regulations of the global market. In C. Elliott, E. Meidinger, & G. Oesten (Eds.), Social and political dimensions of forest certification (pp. 237–247). Remagen-Oberwinter: Forstbuch.

Hughes, S., & Wilkinson, R. (2002). Global governance: Critical perspectives. London: Routledge.

Hunt, C. S., & Aldrich, H. E. (1998). The second ecology: The creation and evolution of organizational communities as exemplified by the commercialization of the world wide web. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 20). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Hurd, I. (1999). Legitimacy and authority in international politics. International Organization, 53, 379–408.

Hutter, B. M. (2006). The role of non-state actors in regulation. CARR Discussion Paper Series, DP 37.

Kell, G. (2005). The Global Compact. Selected experiences and reflections. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 69–79.

Kell, G., & Levin, D. (2003). The Global Compact network: An historic experiment in learning and action. Business and Society Review, 108(2), 151–181.

Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S., Jr. (2003). Redefining accountability for global governance. In M. Kahler & D. A. Lake (Eds.), Governance in a global economy. Political authority in transition (pp. 386–411). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

King, A., & Lenox, M. (2000). Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industries responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 698–716.

Knight, G., & Smith, J. (2008). The Global Compact and its critics: Activism, power relations and corporate responsibility. In J. Leatherman (Ed.), Discipline and punishment in global politics: Illusions of control (pp. 191–214). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Lee, M. (2009, April 21). Some disassembly required: A bit of creative destruction may be just what the United Nations needs. ForeignPolicy. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/04/20/some_disassembly_required.

Lister, R. (2003). Investing in the citizen-workers of the future: Transformations in citizenship and the state under new labour. Social Policy and Administration, 37(5), 427–443.

Locke, R. M., Fei, Q., & Brause, A. (2007). Does monitoring improve labor standards? Lessons from Nike. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 61(1), 3–31.

Logsdon, J. M., & Van Buren, H. J., I. I. I. (2008). Justice and large corporations. Business & Society, 47(4), 523–548.

Majone, G. (1999). The regulatory state and its legitimacy problems. West European Politics, 22(1), 1–24.

Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Towards an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30, 166–179.

Mayntz, R. (2006). From government to governance: Political steering in modern societies. In D. Scheer & F. Rubik (Eds.), Governance of integrated product policy (pp. 18–25). Aizlewood Mill: Greenleaf Publishing.

McKeon, N. (2009). The United Nations and civil society: Legitimating global governance—whose voice?. London: Zed Books.

Meyer, J. V., & Scott, W. R. (1983). Centralization and the legitimacy problems of local government. In J. V. Meyer & W. R. Scott (Eds.), Organizational environments: Rituals and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Murphy, D. F., & Coleman, G. (2000). Thinking partners: Business, NGOs and the partnership concept. In J. Bendell (Ed.), Terms of endearment. Business, NGOs and sustainable development. Sheffield: Greenleaf.

Mwangi, W., & Schmitz, P. (2007). Global Compact, little impact? Explaining variation in corporate attitudes towards global norms. Paper presented at the Annual Convention ‘Politics, Policy, and Responsible Scholarship’ of the International Studies Association, Chicago, IL, February 28–March 4. Retrieved March 20, 2011 from, http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/hpschmitz/Papers/Global%20Compact%20Little%20Impact.pdf.

Nielsen, E. H., & Rao, M. V. H. (1987). The strategy-legitimacy nexus: a thick description. Academy of Management Review, 12, 523–533.

O’Brien, R., Goetz, A. M., Scholte, J. A., & Williams, M. (2000). Contesting global governance. Multilateral economic institutions and global social movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Orwell, G. (1945). Animal farm. London: Penguin Books.

O'Rourke, D. (2005). Market movements: Nongovernmental organization strategies to influence global production and consumption. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(1/2), 115–128.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Palazzo, G., & Scherer, G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71–88.

Pattberg, P. (2005). The institutionalization of private governance: How business and nonprofit organizations agree on transnational rules. Governance, 18, 589–610.

Perrow, C. (1970). Organizational analysis: A sociological view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 223–243.

Porter, T., & Ronit, K. (2006). Self-regulation as policy process: The multiple and criss-crossing stages of private rule-making. Policy Sciences, 39(1), 41–72.

Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. (2007). Collective action through voluntary environmental programs: A club theory perspective. Policy Studies Journal, 35(4), 773–792.

Radaelli, C. (2003). The code of conduct against harmful tax competition: Open method of coordination in disguise? Public Administration, 81(3), 513–531.

Rasche, A. (2009). “A necessary supplement”: What the United Nations Global Compact is and is not. Business & Society, 48(4), 511–537.

Rasche, A., & Kell, G. (Eds.). (2010). The United Nations Global Compact: Achievements, trends and challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rehbein, K., Waddock, S., & Graves, S. B. (2004). Understanding shareholder activism: Which corporations are targeted? Business & Society, 43(3), 239–267.

Reinicke, W. H. (1998). Global public policy: Governing without government. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Richter, J. (2001). Holding corporations accountable: Corporate conduct, international codes, and citizen action. London: Zed Books.

Risse, T. (2000). Let’s argue. Communicative action in world politics. International Organization, 54(1), 1–39.

Roloff, J. (2007). Learning from multi-stakeholder networks: Issue-focused stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 233–250.

Rose, J. B., Chaison, G. N., & la Garza, E. (2000). A comparative analysis of public sector restructuring in the US, Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean. Journal of Labor Research, 21(4), 601–625.

Rosenau, J., & Czempiel, E. O. (Eds.). (1992). Governance without government: Order and change in world politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Ruggie, J. G. (2001). Global.governance.net: The Global Compact as learning network. Global Governance, 7, 371–378.

Ruggie, J. G. (2002). The theory and practice of learning networks: Corporate social responsibility and the Global Compact. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 5, 27–36.

Ruggie, J. G. (2004). Reconstituting the global public domain—issues, actors, and practices. European Journal of International Relations, 10(4), 499–531.

Ryder, G. (2010). The promise of the United Nations Global Compact: A trade union perspective on the labour principles. In A. Rasche & G. Kell (Eds.), The United Nations Global Compact: Achievements, trends and challenges (pp. 44–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sagafi-Nejad, T. (2008). The UN and transnational corporations: From code of conduct to Global Compact. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Schäferhoff, M., Campe, S., & Kaan, C. (2009). Transnational public-private partnerships in international relations: Making sense of concepts, research frameworks, and results. International Studies Review, 11(3), 451–474.

Scharpf, F. W. (2001). Notes toward a theory of multilevel governing in Europe. Scandinavian Political Studies, 24, 1–26.

Schepers, D. H. (2006). The impact of NGO network conflict on the corporate social responsibility strategies of multinational corporations. Business & Society, 45, 282–299.

Schepers, D. (2010). Challenges to legitimacy at the Forest Stewardship Council. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(2), 279–290.

Schmidt, S. K. (2007). Mutual recognition as a new mode of governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(5), 667–681.

Scott, W. R. (1991). Unpacking institutional arguments. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 164–182). Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.

Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Scott, W. R. (2003). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and Organizations. Ideas and Interests (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Sethi, S. P. (1994). Multinational corporations and the impact of public advocacy on corporate strategy: Nestle and the infant formula controversy. Boston: Kluwer.

Sethi, S. P. (2003). Setting global standards: Guidelines for creating codes of conduct in multinational corporations. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Sethi, S. P., & Williams, O. F. (2000). Creating and implementing global codes of conduct: An assessment of the Sullivan Principles. Business and Society Review, 105(2), 169–200.

Slaughter, A. M. (2004). A new world order. Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Soederberg, S. (2007). Taming corporations or buttressing market-led development? A critical assessment of the Global Compact. Globalizations, 4(4), 500–513.

Sonpar, K., Pazzaglia, F., & Kornijenko, J. (2010). The paradox and constraints of legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 1–21.

Spar, D. L., & La Mure, L. T. (2003). The power of activism: assessing the impact of NGOs on global business. California Management Review, 45(3), 78–97.

Stafford, S. (2007). Should you turn yourself in? The consequences of environmental self-policing. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(2), 305–326.

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610.

Swift, T., & Zadek, S. (2002). Corporate responsibility and the competitive advantage of nations. The Copenhagen Centre, AccountAbility.

Tansey, O. (2007). Process tracing and elite interviewing: A case for nonprobability sampling. Political Science & Politics, 40(4), 765–772.

Tattersall, A. (2007). Chapter 5: Labor-community coalitions, global union alliances and the potential of the SEIU Global Partnerships. In K. Bronfenbrenner (Ed.), Global unionism. Ithaca: ILR Press.

Terlaak, A. (2007). Order without law? The role of certified management standards in shaping socially desired firm behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 32, 968–985.

Thérien, J.-P., & Pouliot, V. (2006). The Global Compact: Shifting the politics of international development? Global Governance, 12, 55–75.

UNGC. Ministerial Statement. The role of governments in promoting corporate responsibility and private sector engagement in development. June 2010. Retrieved March 20, 2011 from, http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/news_events/9.1_news_archives/2010_06_23/Ministerial_Statement_Final.pdf.

Utting, P. 2005. Rethinking business regulation. From self-regulation to social control. Technology, Business and Society. Programme paper N. 15, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

Vogel, D. (2005). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Vogel, D. (2008). Private global business regulation. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 261–282.

Waddock, S. A. (2008). Building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility. The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(3), 87–108.

Whelan, K. (2010). EU economic governance: Less might work better than more. UCD Centre for Economic Research Working Paper Series.

Wolf, K. D. (2008). Emerging patterns of global governance: the new interplay between the state, business and civil society. In A. G. Scherer & G. Palazzo (Eds.), Handbook of research on global corporate citizenship (pp. 225–248). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Wynhoven, U., & Stausberg, M. (2010). The United Nations Global Compact’s governance framework and integrity measures. In A. Rasche & G. Kell (Eds.), The United Nations Global Compact: Achievements, trends and challenges (pp. 251–264). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Young, O. R. (1994). International governance: Protecting the environment in a stateless society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Zaheer, S. (1995). Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 341–363.

Zammit, A. (2003). Development at risk. Rethinking UN-business partnership. Geneva: South Centre and United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 414–431.

Zsolnai, L. (2009). Nature, Society and Future Generations. In Henri-Claude de Bettignies & Francois Lépineux (Eds.), Business, Globalization and the Common Good (pp. 139–152). Oxford: Peter Lang.

Zsolnai, L. (2011). Corporate legitimacy. In A. Tencati & F. Perrini (Eds.), Business ethics and corporate sustainability (pp. 3–17). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Zürn, M. (2000). Democratic governance beyond the nation-state: The EU and other international institutions. European Journal of International Relations, 6(2), 183–221.

Zyglidopoulos, S. C. (2003). The issue life-cycle: Implications for social performance and organizational legitimacy. Corporate Reputation Review, 6, 70–81.

Titel: E Pluribus Unum? Legitimacy Issues and Multi-stakeholder Codes of Conduct
verfasst von: Valentina Mele
Donald H. Schepers
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2013
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 3/2013
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1605-y

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

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

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2013

Dilemmas, Conspiracies, and Sophie’s Choice: Vignette Themes and Ethical Judgments

The Role of Ethics in 21st Century Organizations

Abstract Knowledge and Reified Financial Innovation: Building Wisdom and Ethics Into Financial Innovation Networks

Ethics and Expertise: A Social Networks Perspective

The Natural Link Between Virtue Ethics and Political Virtue: The Morality of the Market

An Empirical Investigation on Firms’ Proactive and Passive Motivation for Bribery in China