Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives on Sustainability: A Cross-Disciplinary Review and Research Agenda for Business Ethics

Abstract

ABSTRACT:Although the literature on multi-stakeholder initiatives for sustainability has grown in recent years, it is scattered across several academic fields, making it hard to ascertain how individual disciplines, such as business ethics, can further contribute to the debate. Based on an extensive review of the literature on certification and principle-based MSIs for sustainability (n = 293 articles), we show that the scholarly debate rests on three broad themes (the “3Is”): the input into creating and governing MSIs; the institutionalization of MSIs; and the impact that relevant initiatives create. While our discussion reveals the theoretical underpinnings of the 3Is, it also shows that a number of research challenges related to business ethics remain unaddressed. We unpack these challenges and suggest how scholars can utilize theoretical insights in business ethics to push the boundaries of the field. Finally, we also discuss what business ethics research can gain from theory development in the MSI field.

The multiplicity of international corporate social responsibility standards

“…Both types of standards mainly serve as exemplary models for business practice, rather than as enforceable standards. Attention soon turned to multi-stakeholder standards (de Bakker et al, 2019;Fransen and Kolk, 2007;Utting, 2002), which focus on the CSR aspects of global supply chains, and/or the production process of a specific good or commodity such as clothing, paper or coffee. These CSR standards have, at a minimum, business and NGO participants as developers and members, and their governance structure allows for an equal level of input among the different partners governing the standards.…”

Navigating Input and Output Legitimacy in Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: Institutional Stewards at Work

“…Output legitimacy, on the other hand, is a combination of rules' applicability, efficacy, and enforcement [15]. Additionally, de Bakker et al [19] identify three main approaches to output legitimacy used by MSIs: certification, principles, and reporting. Certification-based MSIs have mechanisms to verify compliance with a standard established by the members and often utilize third-party verification [10,19,40].…”

“…Additionally, de Bakker et al [19] identify three main approaches to output legitimacy used by MSIs: certification, principles, and reporting. Certification-based MSIs have mechanisms to verify compliance with a standard established by the members and often utilize third-party verification [10,19,40]. Principleand reporting-based MSIs, by contrast, neither offer seals of approval, nor verify compliance, but rather serve as commitments to certain principles [19].…”

“…Fransen and Kolk [17] (p. 8), for example, suggest MSI initiators are deliberately selective in seeking members during early institutionalization, narrowing the pool for debate to build initial consensus. Given the strength of institutional path dependence [42,43], these early decisions can leave significant legacies for subsequent function and performance [19,20].…”

“…Other work on MSIs focuses on the organizational strategies and interests driving standards' development [19,20]. Several of these document tensions between MSIs' legitimacy as a whole and 2 of 27 organizational members' heterogeneous interests [15,20].…”