Transnational business governance interactions: Conceptualization and framework for analysis

Abstract

This special issue demonstrates the importance of interactions in transnational business governance. The number of schemes applying non-state authority to govern business conduct across borders has vastly expanded in numerous issue areas. As these initiatives proliferate, they increasingly interact with one another and with state-based regimes. The key challenge is to understand the implications of these interactions for regulatory capacity and performance, and ultimately for social and environmental impact. In this introduction, we propose an analytical framework for the study of transnational business governance interactions. The framework disaggregates the regulatory process to identify potential points of interaction, and suggests analytical questions that probe the key features of interactions at each point.

The Effectiveness of Transnational Non-State Governance: The Role of Domestic Regulations and Compliance Assessment in Practice

“…2011). The growing literature on transnational business governance interactions shows that interactions between state and private actors are key to the dynamics of governance fields, national uptake of transnational private programs, and their on-the-ground impact, as this paper will also argue (Cashore et al 2004;Eberlein et al 2012;Gulbrandsen 2010Gulbrandsen , 2012Overdevest/ Zeitlin 2012). address is the temporal dynamics of the interactions between transnational standards and domestic institutions and regulations. Domestic regulations change and may have a different impact on certification over time.…”

“…Marx and Cuypers (2010: 422-423) tested this hypothesis statistically using a large N data set and found no correlation between certification uptake and a country's institutional setup. The present paper, in line with the growing literature on transnational non-state governance interactions (Eberlein et al 2012), investigates whether the relationship between domestic institutions and regulations and the operation and effectiveness of certification and labeling is more subtle.…”

Business and human rights: Understanding the UN Guiding Principles from the perspective of transnational business governance interactions

“…This article adds to this knowledge by discussing the Guiding Principles from the perspective of the Transnational Business Governance Interaction (TBGI) framework (Eberlein et al 2014). The article shows that the Guiding Principles have worked around the political and institutional constraints of state-centred international law by actively involving or 'enrolling' private non-state actors in the development of business governance norms, and by 'piggy-backing' onto other transnational business governance schemes for their implementation.…”

“…The TBGI framework proposed by Eberlein et al (2014) offers a matrix for analysis of interaction across six dimensions of interaction and six components of regulatory governance. The full matrix provides a detailed mapping of interaction: who or what interacts, divers and shapers, mechanisms and pathways, character of interaction, effects of interaction and change over time; in combination with the components: goal/agenda setting, rule formation, implementation, monitoring and information gathering, compliance promotion and enforcement, and evaluation and review (Eberlein et al 2014: 7).…”

Business and Human Rights: Understanding the UN Guiding Principles from the Perspective of Transnational Business Governance Interactions

“…Indeed, in introducing the TBGI framework Eberlein et al (2014: 3) recognize that TBGI schemes may involve a range of heterogeneous actors, such as individuals, technical experts, political entrepreneurs, NGOs, business organizations and government agencies. While they do not make explicit what is understood by 'significant non-state authority', they explain that the framework is applied to initiatives in which non-state actors exercise such authority either alone or with state actors (Eberlein et al 2014: 3, emphasis added).…”