The NGO-Industrial Complex

Gereffi, Gary; Garcia-Johnson, Ronie; Sasser, Erika N.

doi:10.2307/3183327

Cited by 324 publications

(217 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

202

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…21 Vogel 2009. 22 Gereffi, Garcia-Johnson and Sasser 2001. Many innovations in private governance began in the apparel sector, which was a forerunner of globalization in other manufacturing industries because of its labor-intensive production and relatively low barriers to entry. Levi Strauss, the American jeans maker, was one of the first MNCs to tout its own corporate code of conduct in 1991, using provisions against employing forced labor and child labor to justify its unwillingness to source from China (unlike many of its competitors, who already were making clothes there).…”

Section: Social Responses and The Rise Of Private Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Regulation and Economic Globalization: Prospects and Limits of Private Governance

2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Corporate codes of conduct, product certifications, process standards, and other voluntary, non-governmental forms of private governance have proliferated in the last two decades. These innovations are a response to social pressures unleashed by globalization and the inadequacy of governmental institutions for addressing its social and environmental impacts. Private governance has had some notable successes, but there are clear limits to what it alone can be expected to accomplish. We hypothesize that the effectiveness of private governance depends on four main factors: 1) the structure of the particular global value chain in which production takes place; 2) the extent to which demand for a firm's products relies on its brand identity; 3) the possibilities for collective action by consumers, workers, or other activists to exert pressure on producers; and 4) the extent to which commercial interests of lead firms align with social and environmental concerns. Taken together, these hypotheses suggest that private governance will flourish in only a limited set of circumstances. With the trend towards consolidation of production in the largest developing countries, however, we also see a strengthening of some forms of public governance. Private governance will not disappear, but it will be linked to emerging forms of multi-stakeholder institutions.

show abstract

Section: Social Responses and The Rise Of Private Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Regulation and Economic Globalization: Prospects and Limits of Private Governance

2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, while critical management theories have mentioned the private benefits of ISR participation, this has normally been in the context of normative disapproval. ISR participation may secure control over rhetoric and resources (Raynolds et al 2007;Gereffi et al 2001) or reinforce the authority of high-status actors to set norms (Renard 2005). However, while ISR schemes may offer private benefits and pragmatic legitimacy from the organization's most proximate audiences, schemes may still not be in the overall public interest (Vogel 2008).…”

Section: Private Benefits and Pragmatic Legitimacy Of Isrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gunningham's (1995) institutional perspective focused on Responsible Care's codes of practice and community engagement processes as adopted in Australia, arguing based on procedural legitimacy that it is ''the most significant and far-reaching selfregulatory scheme ever adopted in Australia, or arguably, elsewhere'' (p. 61). In contrast, critical perspectives emphasize symbolic importance of Responsible Care as a response to the 1984 disaster that killed some 2500 people at the Union Carbide subsidiary in Bhopal, India (Gereffi et al 2001). The chemical industry needed to take steps to regain public acceptance after Bhopal, and ''a code of conduct, a certificate, even literally a 'symbol', was necessary to communicate those steps'' (Matten 2003: 224).…”

Section: Management Theories Of Isr and Moral Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Marking Their Own Homework: The Pragmatic and Moral Legitimacy of Industry Self-Regulation

Bowen

2017

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When is industry self-regulation (ISR) a legitimate form of governance? In principle, ISR can serve the interests of participating companies, regulators and other stakeholders. However, in practice, empirical evidence shows that ISR schemes often under-perform, leading to criticism that such schemes are tantamount to firms marking their own homework. In response, this paper explains how current management theory on ISR has failed to separate the pragmatic legitimacy of ISR based on selfinterested calculations, from moral legitimacy based on normative approval. The paper traces three families of management theory on ISR and uses these to map the pragmatic and moral legitimacy of ISR schemes. It identifies tensions between the pragmatic and moral legitimacy of ISR schemes, which the current ISR literature does not address, and draws implications for the future theory and practice of ISR.

show abstract

“…A typical sustainability code results from a partnership between private companies and NGOs to develop and enforce new environmental standards (1,12,58). For example, the partnership between Starbucks and the NGO Conservation International resulted in a new set of sustainable coffee standards aligned with biodiversity conservation goals (2).…”

Section: Case Studies On Interactions Between Standards and Smallholdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global standards and local knowledge building: Upgrading small producers in developing countries

Perez‐Aleman

2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Local knowledge building is a crucial factor for upgrading small producers and improving their market competitiveness and livelihoods. The rise of global standards affecting food safety and environmental sustainability in agriculture sparks debates on the impact on smallholders in developing countries. This article presents a perspective on the links of international standards to knowledge and institution building for developing the capabilities of small producers. Interacting with global practices, indigenous private and public actors create local institutions to develop capabilities for product and process innovations that contribute to economic development and enhance food security. Local innovation depends on collective strategic efforts through increasing networks among small producers and other organizations, including firms, nongovernmental organizations, and government, that foster knowledge circulation and bring diverse resources and support to build local capabilities.

show abstract

The NGO-Industrial Complex

Cited by 324 publications

References 0 publications

Regulation and Economic Globalization: Prospects and Limits of Private Governance

Regulation and Economic Globalization: Prospects and Limits of Private Governance

Marking Their Own Homework: The Pragmatic and Moral Legitimacy of Industry Self-Regulation

Global standards and local knowledge building: Upgrading small producers in developing countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About