Navigating norms and invisible rules: Explaining the case of business influence in international shipping regulation

Abstract

This article develops a micro-level theoretical perspective of business influence in international negotiations. By drawing on organizational institutional theory, the article proposes that site-specific institutionalized norms can structure the nature and extent of business power. The article illustrates the value of this perspective through an illustrative case study of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) through interviews and participant observation of on-site dynamics during negotiations on environmental shipping regulation. The article shows how, in the case of the IMO, specific institutionalized norms and beliefs structure private actors’ possible influence and their claims to authority. In particular, strongly held beliefs about the nature of political deliberation in the IMO both constrain and enable business interests, sometimes overriding the general structural power of the shipping industry. This research implies that future scholarship of business power and lobbying should be attentive to specific institutionalized ideas structuring business actors’ range of legitimate activities, in particular in international institutions where individual negotiation sites can develop idiosyncratic norms and beliefs about the legitimacy of private actor participation.

Shifting to Sustainable Shipping: Actors and Power Shifts in Shipping Emissions in the IMO

“…This ethnographic research has provided me with an understanding of the language, procedure and norms at the IMO that are crucial to interpreting the data. As other literature has discussed, the IMO is an organization with many traditions and norms [14,38] that influence the process.…”

“…A review of the literature shows scholars have explored the multi-level or polycentric governance nature of maritime policy [9], some with a direct focus on shipping [8,18,[23][24][25][26][27]. Previous research also noted the industry influence in this multi-actor governance at the IMO [11,12,15] and further explored the changing authority and/or policy, with some seeking to explore the changing role of authority and the state [8,27] or the actions of the EU [28,29], and others seeking to explore new actors as policy entrepreneurs [13]. In regard to the IMO specifically, the research agrees that there is considerable industry involvement, and the power has been shown to be concentrated in the hands of a few states and non-state actors.…”

“…In regard to the IMO specifically, the research agrees that there is considerable industry involvement, and the power has been shown to be concentrated in the hands of a few states and non-state actors. However, some research points to changing power and influence [13,19,25,29,30], while other research maintains little has changed and the main power lies with the industry [11,12,15]. While most scholars acknowledge that there is a correlation between economic interests and actors in the IMO, there is divergence on the extent and the current state of the actors.…”

“…Some scholars have argued that the real power and influence within the regime lies (or still lies) with the industry and with states influenced by the industry [10][11][12], while others find new actors that influence the agenda [13,14]. At the same time, recent reports and research have called into question the transparency of maritime governance, particularly at the IMO, and affirm long-held beliefs that the influence of developed states and industry is still paramount at the IMO [15].…”

Professional ecologies in European sustainable finance

“…Those successful in making such claims rely on different sources of influence to create common projects within and between ecologies, or to rebuff ecologies that may contend for jurisdiction. Expert groups provide a microcosm of “problem‐solving collections of actors seeking to produce solutions” (Block‐Lieb & Halliday, 2017, p. 47; see also Hendriksen, 2022).…”