Best practices in global governance

Abstract

Best practices are increasingly used to govern a range of global issues. Yet, the rise of global governance through best practices has received scant attention in the International Relations literature. How do best practices differ from other modes of governance? How are they constructed? And to what end? We offer a novel conceptualisation of best practices as a unique mode of global governance principally distinguished by basing claims of political authority on existing practices. Belying their apolitical terminology, best practices in global governance are purposively constructed by political actors to steer targeted actors toward desired ends. We illustrate the characteristics of governance through best practices with reference to state and non-state global governance initiatives in a wide range of issue areas, ranging from finance and development to human rights and the environment, and through an in-depth case study of the ISEAL Alliance, a disseminator of best practices for transnational sustainability standard-setters. We find that governance through best practices has both positive and negative consequences. While it offers a pragmatic approach to global governance under conditions of fragmentation and polycentricity, it can also mask underlying power dynamics and political agendas and therefore requires ongoing critical scrutiny.

Private regulatory capture via harmonization: An analysis of global retailer regulatory intermediaries

“…Assessments of the ISEAL Alliance illustrate this point well. While on the whole, ISEAL's attempts to improve the credibility of sustainability standards are viewed in a positive light, scholars have expressed skepticism regarding its apolitical rhetoric focused on the development of best practices, suggesting that it masks underlying agendas and interests (Loconto & Fouilleux ; Bernstein & van der Ven ). My analysis similarly suggests the need for some nuance regarding retailer‐driven harmonization efforts.…”

“…The harmonization intermediary that has featured most prominently in this literature is the ISEAL Alliance, an umbrella organization of PRIs sometimes referred to as a meta-regulator or meta-governor (Auld 2014;Loconto & Fouilleux 2014;Fransen 2015;Bernstein & van der Ven 2017). ISEAL is an attempt by NGO PRIs to establish the "rules of the game" by developing governance norms and best practices for the entire private regulatory field.…”

Correlates of rigorous and credible transnational governance: A cross‐sectoral analysis of best practice compliance in eco‐labeling

“…Second, it should be recognized that the organizations that create best practices might have political motivations (Loconto & Fouilleux ). While it may be tempting to view such guidelines as benign exercises in regulatory optimization, in fact, they advance unique agendas ranging from global trade liberalization to the normalization of a market‐driven and procedural vision of sustainability (Bernstein ; Loconto & Fouilleux ; Bernstein & van der Ven ). Third, best practices must demonstrate fitness within a broader macro‐political context (Mattli & Büthe p. 406), particularly the prevailing ideological consensus that barriers to free trade should be avoided at all cost.…”

Beyond market, firm, and state: Mapping the ethics of global value chains

“…The market is much more structured than the adversarial picture paints: Professional associations tie together firms who might otherwise be competitors; buyers and sellers form relationships that allow them to interact with less contractual precision and opportunistic worry than might otherwise be predicted; and increasingly, firms coordinate their efforts to achieve shared social or environmental objectives that are constituted by evolving and dynamic norms about the obligations of markets to serve broader societal objectives (Bernstein & van der Ven, ). Because of this, and less frequently noted by business ethicists interested in such things, Williamson () recognized that there will be transactions in the middle range, exhibiting the possibility of opportunism that would render a pure market transaction too precarious, but at low enough levels such that establishing a hierarchical governance structure would be too costly.…”

“…Whereas some eco‐labels create robust rules based on scientific evidence and through consultation with a balanced range of stakeholders, others are highly politicized, superficial, or represent narrow groups of interests. Moreover, the existence of best practices for third‐party ELOs has come under scrutiny for importing its own normative baggage into what constitutes a credible and impactful eco‐label (Bernstein & van der Ven, ; Loconto & Fouilleux, ).…”