IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v670y2017i1p93-111.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rule-Making Feedbacks through Intermediation and Evaluation in Transnational Private Governance

Author

Listed:
  • Graeme Auld
  • Stefan Renckens

Abstract

Feedback from rule-making is an important facet of regulatory processes. By examining the operations of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), a transnational private certification program, we explore two types of feedback that operate within and outside R-I-T relationships and potentially influence agenda-setting and rule-reformulation. Within R-I-T relationships, intermediation feedback results from the knowledge that intermediaries acquire as they translate rules into practical forms applicable to specific regulatory targets. Intermediaries may communicate this knowledge to the regulator to strategically inform rule-reformulation. But the regulator may also have access to this information if transparency obligations come with the responsibility of performing intermediation functions. Outside R-I-T relationships, evaluation feedback involves external evaluative audiences—actors outside the regulatory process that hold an interest in evaluating and influencing that process. Transparency about R-I-T relationships should strengthen this feedback, though lack of information will not prevent external evaluators from rendering judgments and seeking to influence rule-reformulation.

Suggested Citation

  • Graeme Auld & Stefan Renckens, 2017. "Rule-Making Feedbacks through Intermediation and Evaluation in Transnational Private Governance," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 670(1), pages 93-111, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:670:y:2017:i:1:p:93-111
    DOI: 10.1177/0002716217690185
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716217690185
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0002716217690185?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark Stephan, 2002. "Environmental Information Disclosure Programs: They Work, but Why?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 83(1), pages 190-205, March.
    2. Graeme Auld & Lars H. Gulbrandsen, 2010. "Transparency in Nonstate Certification: Consequences for Accountability and Legitimacy," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 10(3), pages 97-119, August.
    3. Sartori, Giovanni, 1970. "Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(4), pages 1033-1053, December.
    4. Lars H. Gulbrandsen & Graeme Auld, 2016. "Contested Accountability Logics in Evolving Nonstate Certification for Fisheries Sustainability," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(2), pages 42-60, May.
    5. Jean-Pierre Galland, 2017. "Big Third-Party Certifiers and the Construction of Transnational Regulation," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 670(1), pages 263-279, March.
    6. Koenig-Archibugi, Mathias & Macdonald, Kate, 2017. "The role of beneficiaries in transnational regulatory processes," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 68757, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kyle S. Herman, 2024. "Intermediaries and complexity: assessing emissions-based governance in the European Union’s EU-ETS," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 539-564, December.
    2. Kenneth W. Abbott & David Levi-faur & Duncan Snidal, 2017. "Theorizing Regulatory Intermediaries," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 670(1), pages 14-35, March.
    3. Tetty Havinga & Paul Verbruggen, 2017. "Understanding Complex Governance Relationships in Food Safety Regulation," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 670(1), pages 58-77, March.
    4. Stefan Renckens & Graeme Auld, 2022. "Time to certify: Explaining varying efficiency of private regulatory audits," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 500-518, April.
    5. Allison Marie Loconto, 2017. "Models of Assurance," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 670(1), pages 112-132, March.
    6. Jean-Pierre Galland, 2017. "Big Third-Party Certifiers and the Construction of Transnational Regulation," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 670(1), pages 263-279, March.
    7. Jeroen van der Heijden, 2017. "Brighter and Darker Sides of Intermediation," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 670(1), pages 207-224, March.
    8. Jespersen, Kristjan & Grabs, Janina & Gallemore, Caleb, 2024. "Ratcheting up private standards by exploiting coopetition: The curious case of RSPO’s adoption of zero-deforestation criteria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    9. Kira J.M. Matus & Michael Veale, 2022. "Certification systems for machine learning: Lessons from sustainability," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 177-196, January.
    10. Phillip Paiement, 2019. "Jurisgenerative role of auditors in transnational labor governance," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 280-298, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tetty Havinga & Paul Verbruggen, 2017. "Understanding Complex Governance Relationships in Food Safety Regulation," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 670(1), pages 58-77, March.
    2. Fred Gale & Francisco Ascui & Heather Lovell, 2017. "Sensing Reality? New Monitoring Technologies for Global Sustainability Standards," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 17(2), pages 65-83, May.
    3. Allison Marie Loconto, 2017. "Models of Assurance," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 670(1), pages 112-132, March.
    4. Philip Schleifer & Matteo Fiorini & Graeme Auld, 2019. "Transparency in transnational governance: The determinants of information disclosure of voluntary sustainability programs," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 488-506, December.
    5. Kenneth W. Abbott & David Levi-faur & Duncan Snidal, 2017. "Theorizing Regulatory Intermediaries," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 670(1), pages 14-35, March.
    6. Miron Avidan & Dror Etzion & Joel Gehman, 2019. "Opaque transparency: How material affordances shape intermediary work," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 197-219, June.
    7. Xinyu Zhang & Yue Liao, 2023. "A Bibliometric and Visual Analysis of Populism Research (2000–2020)," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.
    8. Gustav Lidén, 2013. "What about theory? The consequences on a widened perspective of social theory," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 213-225, January.
    9. David Monciardini & Guido Conaldi, 2019. "The European regulation of corporate social responsibility: The role of beneficiaries' intermediaries," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 240-259, June.
    10. Peters, Ina, 2014. "Too Abstract to Be Feasible? Applying the Grounded Theory Method in Social Movement Research," GIGA Working Papers 247, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    11. Pursey Heugens & J. Oosterhout & Muel Kaptein, 2006. "Foundations and Applications for Contractualist Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 211-228, October.
    12. Xiaohong Yu & Zhaoyang Sun, 2022. "The company they keep: When and why Chinese judges engage in collegiality," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 936-1002, December.
    13. Thomas Denk, 2013. "How to measure polyarchy with Freedom House: a proposal for revision," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(6), pages 3457-3471, October.
    14. Stefan Mann, 2016. "Governing complementary responsibility goods through hybrid systems in a globalizing world," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 9(1), pages 14-21.
    15. Niedziałkowski, Krzysztof & Shkaruba, Anton, 2018. "Governance and legitimacy of the Forest Stewardship Council certification in the national contexts – A comparative study of Belarus and Poland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 180-188.
    16. Tero Erkkilä, 2023. "Global indicators and AI policy: Metrics, policy scripts, and narratives," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(5), pages 811-839, September.
    17. Xiaoli Zhao & Pavel Castka & Cory Searcy, 2020. "ISO Standards: A Platform for Achieving Sustainable Development Goal 2," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-19, November.
    18. Philip James & Lilian Miles & Richard Croucher & Mark Houssart, 2019. "Regulating factory safety in the Bangladeshi garment industry," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 431-444, September.
    19. Liesbet Hooghe & Gary Marks, 2015. "Delegation and pooling in international organizations," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 305-328, September.
    20. Schleifer, Philip & Fiorini, Matteo & Fransen, Luc, 2019. "Missing the Bigger Picture: A Population-level Analysis of Transnational Private Governance Organizations Active in the Global South," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:670:y:2017:i:1:p:93-111. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.