IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/68757.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The role of beneficiaries in transnational regulatory processes

Author

Listed:
  • Koenig-Archibugi, Mathias
  • Macdonald, Kate

Abstract

The editors of this volume highlight the role of intermediaries, alongside regulators and targets, as a way to better understand the outcomes of regulatory processes. Here, we explore the benefits of distinguishing a fourth category of actors: the groups whose interests the rules are meant to protect: the (intended) beneficiaries. We apply that framework to nonstate regulation of labor conditions, where the primary intended beneficiaries are workers and their families, especially in poorer countries. We first outline the different ways in which beneficiaries can relate to regulators, intermediaries, and targets; we then develop conjectures about the effect of different relationships on regulatory impacts and democratic legitimacy in relation to corporate power structures, specifically those embedded in the governance of global supply chains. We illustrate these conjectures primarily with examples from three initiatives—Rugmark, the Fair Labor Association, and the Fairtrade system. We conclude that it matters whether and how beneficiaries are included in the regulatory process.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:68757
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/68757/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sharma, Alakh N. & Sharma, Rajeev. & Raj, Nikhil., 2000. "The impact of social labelling on child labour in India's carpet industry," ILO Working Papers 993659723402676, International Labour Organization.
    2. Sander Chan & Philipp Pattberg, 2008. "Private Rule-Making and the Politics of Accountability: Analyzing Global Forest Governance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 8(3), pages 103-121, August.
    3. Bacon, Christopher M., 2010. "Who decides what is fair in fair trade? The agri-environmental governance of standards, access, and price," Center for Global, International and Regional Studies, Working Paper Series qt8px4f62v, Center for Global, International and Regional Studies, UC Santa Cruz.
    4. repec:ilo:ilowps:365972 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. 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.
    2. Luc Brès & Sébastien Mena & Marie‐Laure Salles‐Djelic, 2019. "Exploring the formal and informal roles of regulatory intermediaries in transnational multistakeholder regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 127-140, June.
    3. Eva‐Maria Euchner & Nicolle Zeegers, 2022. "Indirect moral governance in prostitution policy: How regulators incorporate stigmatized actors in intermediation processes," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 801-817, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Joel Bothello & Afshin Mehrpouya, 2019. "Between regulatory field structuring and organizational roles: Intermediation in the field of sustainable urban development," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 177-196, June.
    6. Axel Marx & Jan Wouters, 2017. "Rule Intermediaries in Global Labor Governance," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 670(1), pages 189-206, March.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Tom Pegram, 2017. "Regulatory Stewardship and Intermediation," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 670(1), pages 225-244, March.
    10. 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.
    11. Nicole De Silva, 2017. "Intermediary Complexity in Regulatory Governance," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 670(1), pages 170-188, March.
    12. 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.

    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. Mathias Koenig-Archibugi & Kate Macdonald, 2017. "The Role of Beneficiaries in Transnational Regulatory Processes," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 670(1), pages 36-57, March.
    2. Shannon Sutton, 2012. "Add Producers and Stir? (Re) politicizing Fairtrade participation," Working Papers 38, Queen Mary, University of London, School of Business and Management, Centre for Globalisation Research.
    3. 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.
    4. Lindsay Naylor, 2014. "“Some are more fair than others”: fair trade certification, development, and North–South subjects," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(2), pages 273-284, June.
    5. Daniel Jaffee & Philip H. Howard, 2016. "Who’s the fairest of them all? The fractured landscape of U.S. fair trade certification," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 33(4), pages 813-826, December.
    6. Teresa Kramarz & Susan Park, 2016. "Accountability in Global Environmental Governance: A Meaningful Tool for Action?," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(2), pages 1-21, May.
    7. Basu, Kaushik & Zarghamee, Homa, 2005. "Is Product Boycott a Good Idea for Controlling Child Labor?," Working Papers 05-14, Cornell University, Center for Analytic Economics.
    8. Cathrin Zengerling, 2019. "Governing the City of Flows: How Urban Metabolism Approaches May Strengthen Accountability in Strategic Planning," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(1), pages 187-199.
    9. Duncombe, Richard & Heeks, Richard, 2002. "Information, ICTs and Ethical Trade: Implications for Self-Regulation," Centre on Regulation and Competition (CRC) Working papers 30638, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
    10. FabianG. Neuner, 2020. "Public Opinion and the Legitimacy of Global Private EnvironmentalGovernance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(1), pages 60-81, February.
    11. Michelle Scobie, 2020. "International aid, trade and investment and access and allocation," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 239-254, June.
    12. Biermann, Frank & Gupta, Aarti, 2011. "Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: A research framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1856-1864, September.
    13. Frank Biermann & Michele Betsill & Joyeeta Gupta & Norichika Kanie & Louis Lebel & Diana Liverman & Heike Schroeder & Bernd Siebenhüner & Ruben Zondervan, 2010. "Earth system governance: a research framework," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 277-298, December.
    14. Acquaye, Adolf A. & Yamoah, Fred A. & Feng, Kuishuang, 2015. "An integrated environmental and fairtrade labelling scheme for product supply chains," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 472-483.
    15. Giordano Ruggeri & Stefano Corsi, 2021. "An Exploratory Analysis of the FAIRTRADE Certified Producer Organisations," World, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-14, October.
    16. McCaffrey Sara Jane & Kurland Nancy, 2014. "Who defines “local”? Resistance to harmonizing standards in ethical markets," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 16(1), pages 191-219, April.
    17. Lindsay Naylor, 2018. "Fair trade coffee exchanges and community economies," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 50(5), pages 1027-1046, August.
    18. Gardner, T.A. & Benzie, M. & Börner, J. & Dawkins, E. & Fick, S. & Garrett, R. & Godar, J. & Grimard, A. & Lake, S. & Larsen, R.K. & Mardas, N. & McDermott, C.L. & Meyfroidt, P. & Osbeck, M. & Persson, 2019. "Transparency and sustainability in global commodity supply chains," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 163-177.
    19. Aashish Argade & Sukhpal Singh, 2016. "Seeking Markets in Production Fields: An Assessment of the Potential for Fair Trade in India," Millennial Asia, , vol. 7(2), pages 131-152, October.
    20. Steve Williams & Brian Abbott & Edmund Heery, 2017. "Civil Governance in Work and Employment Relations: How Civil Society Organizations Contribute to Systems of Labour Governance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 103-119, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    labor regulation; private governance; regulatory intermediaries; beneficiaries; fair trade;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L81 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Retail and Wholesale Trade; e-Commerce

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ehl:lserod:68757. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.