Globalization arguably generated a governance gap that is being filled by transnational rule-making involving private actors among others. The democratic legitimacy of such new forms of governance beyond nation states is sometimes questioned. Apart from nation-centered democracies, such governance cannot build, for example, on representation and voting procedures to convey legitimacy to the generated rules. Instead, alternative elements of democracy such as deliberation and inclusion require discussion to assess new instruments of governance. The recently published standard ISO 26000 is an interesting example of transnational governance. ISO 26000 was developed in a lengthy multiorganizational process for the purpose of giving guidance on the social responsibility of organizations. By assessing the specific case of ISO 26000, this study sheds light on the question of how legitimacy beyond nation-state democracy is ensured or constricted. Centering on the idea of deliberate democracy and democratic legitimacy, the study offers in-depth insights on the normative legitimacy of the development process of ISO 26000. Positioned on the interface of business studies and public policy, this article contributes to the academic literature on transnational governance and on the role of multistakeholder processes in shaping the role of business in society.
AbromeitH.StoiberM. (2007). Criteria of democratic legitimacy. In HurrelmannA.SchneiderS.SteffekJ. (Eds.), Legitimacy in an age of global politics (pp. 35-56). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
2.
AnsellC. K. (2008). The governance dilemma. European Political Science, 7, 460-471.
3.
AravindD.ChristmannP. (2011). Decoupling of standard implementation from certification: Does quality of ISO 14001 implementation affect facilities’ environmental performance?Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(1), 73-102.
4.
BäckstrandK. (2010). From rhetoric to practice: The legitimacy of global public-private partnerships for sustainable development. In BexellM.MörthU. (Eds.), Democracy and public-private partnerships in global governance (pp. 145-166). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
5.
BarkerR. (2007). Democratic legitimation: What is it, who wants it, and why? In HurrelmannA.SchneiderS.SteffekJ. (Eds.), Legitimacy in an age of global politics (pp. 19-34). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
6.
BeckU. (2005). Power in the global age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
7.
BeckN.WalgenbachP. (2005). Technical efficiency or adaptation to institutionalized expectations? The adoption of ISO 9000 standards in the German mechanical engineering industry. Organization Studies, 26, 841-866.
8.
BernsteinS.CashoreB. (2007). Can non-state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework. Regulation & Governance, 1, 347-371.
9.
BörzelT. A.RisseT. (2010). Governance without a State: Can it work?Regulation & Governance, 4(2), 113-134.
10.
BoströmM.Tamm HallströmK. (2010). NGO power in global social and environmental standard-setting. Global Environmental Politics, 10(4), 36-59.
11.
BowersD. P. (2006). Making social responsibility the standard. Quality Progress, 39(4), 35-38.
12.
CastkaP.BalzarovaM. A. (2008a). Adoption of social responsibility through the expansion of existing management systems. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108, 297-309.
13.
CastkaP.BalzarovaM. A. (2008b). ISO 26000 and supply chains—On the diffusion of the social responsibility standard. International Journal of Production Economics, 111, 274-286.
14.
CastkaP.BalzarovaM. A. (2008c). Social responsibility standardization: Guidance or reinforcement through certification?Human Systems Management, 27, 231-242.
15.
ClappJ. (1998). The privatization of global environmental governance: ISO 14000 and the developing world. Global Governance, 4, 295-316.
16.
ClarkI. (2007). Legitimacy in international or world society. In HurrelmannA.SchneiderS.SteffekJ. (Eds.), Legitimacy in an age of global politics (pp. 193-210). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
17.
CraneA.MattenD.SpenceL. J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: In a global context. In CraneA.MattenD.SpenceL. J. (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility: Readings and cases in a global context (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
DahlsrudA. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1-13.
19.
DeitelhoffN.MüllerH. (2005). Theoretical paradise—empirically lost? Arguing with Habermas. Review of International Studies, 31, 167-179.
20.
DingwerthK. (2007). The new transnationalism: Transnational governance and democratic legitimacy. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
21.
DryzekJ. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
22.
DryzekJ. S. (2001). Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29, 651-669.
23.
EisenhardtK. M.GraebnerM. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32.
24.
FransenL. W.KolkA. (2007). Global rule-setting for business: A critical analysis of multi-stakeholder standards. Organization, 14, 667-684.
25.
GilbertD. U.RascheA. (2007). Discourse ethics and social accountability: The ethics of SA 8000. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17, 187-216.
26.
GilbertD. U.RascheA.WaddockS. (2011). Accountability in a global economy: The emergence of international accountability standards. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(1), 23-44.
27.
HabermasJ. (1994). Three normative models of democracy. Constellations, 1(1), 1-10.
28.
HabermasJ. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
HabermasJ. (2001). The postnational constellation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
HabermasJ. (2003). Truth and justification. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
HahnR. (2011). Integrating corporate responsibility and sustainable development: A normative-conceptual approach to holistic management thinking. Journal of Global Responsibility, 2(1), 8-22.
33.
HahnR. (2012a). Standardizing social responsibility? New perspectives on guidance documents and management system standards for sustainable development. IEEE—Transactions on Engineering Management. doi:10.1109/TEM.2012.2183639
34.
HahnR. (2012b). ISO 26000 and strategic management processes for corporate sustainability and social responsibility. Business Strategy and the Environment. doi:10.1002/bse.1751
35.
HigginsW.Tamm HallströmK. (2009). Technical standardization. In IriyeA.SaunierP.-Y. (Eds.), The Palgrave dictionary of transnational history (pp. 990-997). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
36.
HowseR. (2001). The legitimacy of the World Trade Organization. In CoicaudJ.-M.HeiskanenV. (Eds.), The legitimacy of international organizations (pp. 355-407). Tokyo, Japan: UN University Press.
37.
HurrelmannA.SchneiderS.SteffekJ. (2007). Introduction: Legitimacy in an age of global politics. In HurrelmannA.SchneiderS.SteffekJ. (Eds.), Legitimacy in an age of global politics (pp. 1-16). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
38.
International Organization for Standardization. (2004a). ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1 (5th ed.). Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
39.
International Organization for Standardization. (2004b). New work item proposal—Social responsibility: ISO/TMB N 26000. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
International Organization for Standardization. (2009c). Participating in the future international standard ISO 26000 on social responsibility: Brochure SR A5—E—6 April 2009, TG2 N088. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
International Organization for Standardization. (2010e). Guidance on social responsibility, ISO 26000:2010(E). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
60.
JohnsonC.RidgewayC. L.DowdT. J. (2006). Legitimacy as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 53-78.
61.
KingA. A.LennoxM. J. (2000). Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry’s responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 698-716.
62.
KingA. A.LennoxM. J.TeerlakA. (2005). The strategic use of decentralized institutions: Exploring certification with the ISO 14001 management standard. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1091-1106.
63.
KjærA. M. (2004). Governance. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
64.
KlijnE.-H.SkelcherC. (2007). Democracy and governance networks: Compatible or not?Public Administration, 85, 587-608.
65.
KoutalakisC.BuzoganyA.BörzelT. A. (2010). When soft regulation is not enough: The integrated pollution and prevention control directive of the European Union. Regulation & Governance, 4, 329-344.
66.
KumarR.DasT. K. (2007). Interpartner legitimacy in the alliance development process. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 1425-1453.
67.
LinklaterA. (1999). The evolving sphere of international justice. International Affairs, 75, 473-482.
68.
LyonT. P.MaxwellJ. W. (2001). “Voluntary” approaches to environmental regulation. In FranziniM.NicitaA. (Eds.), Economic institutions and environmental policy (pp. 75-120). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
69.
MattliW.BütheT. (2003). Setting international standards: Technological rationality of primacy of power?World Politics, 56(1), 1-42.
70.
MatzN. (2005). Financial institutions between effectiveness and legitimacy: A legal analysis of the World Bank, global environment facility and prototype carbon fund. International Environmental Agreements, 5, 265-302.
71.
MeidingerE. (2008). Competitive supragovernmental regulation: How could it be democratic?Chicago Journal of International Law, 8, 513-534.
72.
NavehE.MarcusA. (2005). Achieving competitive advantage through implementing a replicable management standard: Installing and using ISO 9000. Journal of Operations Management, 24(1), 1-26.
73.
PalazzoG.SchererA. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71-88.
74.
PereraO. (2009, September-October). SMEs, ISO 26000 and social responsibility. ISO Management Systems, 9, 13-19.
75.
QuackS. (2010). Law, expertise and legitimacy in transnational economic governance: An introduction. Socio-Economic Review, 8(1), 3-16.
76.
RapkinD. P.BraatenD. (2009). Conceptualising hegemonic legitimacy. Review of International Studies, 35(1), 113-149.
RisseT. (2006). Transnational governance and legitimacy. In BenzA.PapadopoulosY. (Eds.), Governance and democracy: Comparing national, European and international experiences (pp. 179-199). Oxon, UK: Routledge.
79.
SalzmannJ. (2005). Decentralized administrative law in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Law and Contemporary Problems, 68, 189-224.
80.
ScharpfF. W. (1997). Games real actors play: Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
81.
SchererA. G.PalazzoG. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1096-1120.
82.
SchmiedeknechtM. (2008). ISO 26000—Reflecting the process of a multi-stakeholder dialogue: An empirical study (KIeM Working Paper No. 29/2008). Konstanz, Germany: Konstanz Institute für Wertemanagement (KIeM).
83.
SchoenheitI. (2010). ISO 26000: imug news—CSR Sonderausgabe Oktober 2010 (ISO 26000: imug news—CSR special edition October 2010). Hannover, Germany: Institut für Markt-Umwelt-Gesellschaft (imug).
84.
SchwartzB.TillingK. (2009). “ISO-lating” corporate social responsibility in the organizational context: A dissenting interpretation of ISO 26000. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16, 289-299.
85.
SigglekowN. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20-24.
86.
SkelcherC. (2007). Democracy in collaborative spaces: Why context matters in researching rovernance networks. In MarcussenM.TorfingJ. (Eds.), Democratic network governance in Europe (pp. 25-46). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
87.
SørensenE.TorfingJ. (2005). The democratic anchorage and governance networks. Scandinavian Political Studies, 28, 195-218.
88.
SørensenE.TorfingJ. (2007). Introduction: Governance network research: Towards a second generation. In SørensenE.TorfingJ. (Eds.), Theories of democratic network governance (pp. 1-21). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
89.
SteffekJ. (2003). The legitimation of international governance: A discourse approach. European Journal of International Relations, 9, 249-275.
90.
SuchmanM. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571-610.
91.
SundströmG.FurustenS.SonerydL. (2010). Democracy, governance and the problem of the modern actor. In SundströmG.FurustenS.SonerydL. (Eds.), Organizing democracy: The construction of agency in practice (pp. 1-13). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
92.
TakeI. (2008, February, 22-23). Legitimate governance beyond the nation state in comparison—Global efforts for the protection of forests. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Social-Ecological Research Programme, Berlin, Germany.
93.
Tamm HallströmK. (2004). Organizing international standardization: ISO and the IASC in quest of authority. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
94.
Tamm HalmströmK.BoströmM. (2010). Transnational multi-stakeholder standardization. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
95.
TerlaakA. (2007). Order without law? The role of certified management standards in shaping socially desired form behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 32, 968-985.
96.
van HuijsteeM.GlasbergenP. (2008). The practice of stakeholder dialogue between multinationals and NGOs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 298-310.
97.
VergneJ.-P. (2011). Toward a new measure of organizational legitimacy: Method, validation, and illustration. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 484-502.
98.
von HoivikH. W. (2011). Embedding CSR as a learning and knowledge creating process: The case for SMEs in Norway. Journal of Management Development, 14, 1067-1084.
99.
WettsteinF. (2010). For better or for worse: Corporate responsibility beyond “do no harm”. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20, 275-283.
100.
WhiteN. D. (2005). Money and votes. In WhiteN. D. (Ed.), The law of international organisations (2nd ed., pp. 131-157). Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
101.
WielandJ. (2007). Idealisitische, ideale und reale diskurse: Governanceformen des diskurses [Idealistic, ideal, and real discourses: Forms of governance for discourses]. In WielandJ. (Ed.), Governanceethik und diskursethik—Ein zwangloser diskurs [Ethics of governance and discourse ethics: An unconstrained discourse] (pp. 13-57). Marburg, Germany: Metropolis.
102.
WolfK. D. (2006). Private actors and the legitimacy of governance beyond the state. In BenzA.PapadopoulosY. (Eds.), Governance and democracy: Comparing national, European and international experiences (pp. 200-227). Oxon, UK: Routledge.
103.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
104.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
105.
ZürnM. (1998). Regieren jenseits des Nationalstaates: Globalisierung und Denationalisierung als Chance (Governing beyond national states: Globalization and denationalization as chance). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.
106.
ZürnM. (2004). Global governance and legitimacy problems. Governance and Opposition, 39, 260-287.
