Klaus Dingwerth

World Politics and Organizational Fields: The Case of Transnational Sustainability Governance

Transnational rule-making organizations have proliferated in the area of sustainability politics. In this article, we explore why these organizations share a set of core features that appear overly costly at first sight. We argue that norms that evolved out of the social interaction among transnational rule-making organizations account for this phenomenon. Thus, in the early 1990s, an organizational field of transnational rule-making has gradually developed in the field of environmental politics. Responding to a broader social discourse about global governance that stressed a need for innovative forms of cooperation among different societal sectors, this organizational field gained in legitimacy and strength. A set of commonly accepted core norms, the increasing density of interaction among the field’s members, and the success and legitimacy ascribed to the field’s key players by the outside world helped to solidify the organizational field until it eventually developed a ‘life of its own’.

Tamed Transparency: How Information Disclosure under the Global Reporting Initiative Fails to Empower

In this contribution, we explore the tensions that seem inherent in the claim that transparency policies empower the users of disclosed information vis-vis those who are asked to provide the information. Since these tensions are particularly relevant in relation to voluntary disclosure, our analysis focuses on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) as the worlds leading voluntary corporate non-financial reporting scheme. Corporate sustainability reporting is often hailed as a powerful instrument to improve the environmental performance of business and to empower societal groups, including consumers, in their relations with the corporate world. Yet, our analysis illustrates that the relationship between transparency and empowerment is conflictual at all four levels of activity examined in this article: in the rhetoric and policies of the GRI as well as in the actual reporting practice and in the activities of intermediaries in response to the organizations disclosure standard.

Global Environmental Change and the Nation State

This article outlines the theoretical problematique and some empirical knowledge regarding the impacts of global environmental change on the nation state; thereby it also introduces this special issue of Global Environmental Politics. We argue that global environmental change decreases the capacity of nation states to fulfill their definitional functions without the cooperation of other states. The added stress due to environmental change also increases the demand for adaptive capacities of nation states, which further diminishes their resources to fulfill other core functions. Based on an overview of the complex interplay between global environmental change and the nation state, we focus on the various ways in which the nation state may mitigate, or adapt to, the impacts of global environmental change, including horizontal diffusionism and vertical institutionalism. In summarizing the other contributions to this special issue, we further argue that a reconsideration of key theoretical concepts such as sovereignty, agency, and multilevel governance is required in order to improve our understanding of the complexities of global environmental governance.

The Global Reporting Initiative

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) provides a framework for organisations — most often corporations — to report on their sustainability performance. As a multi-stakeholder initiative to which a wide array of actors contributes, it shares a number of similarities with the World Commission on Dams. Moreover, as the latter, it is frequently lauded as one of the success stories of non-state governance beyond the state.1 As the only non-state policy process explicitly referenced in a formal document at the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002, a partner institution of the United Nations’ Global Compact, and a collaborating centre of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the GRI has achieved a high international profile since its inception in 1997.

The World Commission on Dams

Despite its short-lived existence, the World Commission on Dams (WCD) has become a reference point for scholars and practitioners alike. Proponents of public-private partnerships praise it as a model on which future transnational institutions ought to be built. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has set-up a Dams and Development Programme to continue the dialogue and support implementation of the WCD’s guidelines. The European Union has incorporated these guidelines in its proposal for linking the European emissions trading scheme with the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And governments as well as non-governmental organisations refer to the Commission’s recommendations in their day-to-day work.

Globale Politiknetzwerke und ihre demokratische Legitimation : Eine Analyse der Weltstaudammkommission

Globale Politiknetzwerke gelten vielen als Hoffungstrager einer effektiveren und zugleich legitimeren Global Governance. Der Artikel untersucht am Beispiel der World Commission on Dams, inwieweit die Hoffnung auf eine erhohte Input Legitimitat durch globale Politiknetzwerke berechtigt ist. Die Argumentation erfolgt in drei Schritten: Zunachst wird gezeigt, dass es der Global-Governance-Debatte bislang weitgehend an einem eindeutigen und koharenten Konzept demokratischen Regierens fehlt. In einem zweiten Schritt wird zwischen drei Dimensionen des Demokratiebegriffs unterschieden: der Selbstbestimmung, der Kontrolle und der diskursiven Meinungs- und Willensbildung. In einem empirischen Teil wird schliesslich die Legitimitat eines globalen Politiknetzwerks, der World Commission on Dams, entlang dieser Dimensionen untersucht. Das Ergebnis ist ein wesentlich komplexeres Bild als das von den Befurworten des Ansatzes gezeichnete. Zwar kann die World Commission in einigen Bereichen Teilerfolge verzeichnen. Diesen stehen andererseits gravierende Mangel gegenuber, die auf ein weitaus geringeres Demokratisierungspotenzial globaler Politiknetzwerke schliessen lassen, als haufig angenommen wird.

Global democracy and the democratic minimum: Why a procedural account alone is insufficient:

In this critical comment on the global democracy debate, I take stock of contemporary proposals for democratizing global governance. In the first part of the article, I show that, empirically, many international institutions are now evaluated in terms of their democratic credentials. At the same time, the notions of democracy that underpin such evaluations are often very formalistic. They focus on granting access to civil society organizations, making policy-relevant documents available online or establishing global parliamentary assemblies to give citizens a voice in the decision-making of international organizations. In the second part, I challenge this focus on formal procedures and argue that a normatively persuasive conception of global democracy would shift our focus to areas such as health, education and subsistence. Contrary to much contemporary thinking about global democracy, I thus defend the view that the institutions we have are sufficiently democratic. What is needed are not better procedures, but investments that help the weaker members of global society to make effective use of the democracy-relevant institutions that exist in contemporary international politics.

Actors, Arenas, and Issues in Global Governance

An Internet search conducted in 1997 revealed 3418 references to ‘global governance’. In 2004, the number had risen to almost 200,000 references and by early 2008, the World Wide Web lists well over half-a-million pages that include the term ‘global governance’.2 The figures indicate not only a fast growth of the Internet itself but also an increasing familiarity of the term ‘global governance’. Academics and political practitioners are talking about it with ease, universities offer degrees and courses in global governance, and the bookshelves with the ‘GG’ label are quickly filling.3 But what is all this ‘global governance’ talk about? Is global governance a new phenomenon? A novel way of looking at the world? Or is it merely a new label for processes that political scientists have been observing for decades?4

Die Organisierte Welt

In der offentlichen und der wissenschaftlichen Diskussion werden internationale Organisationen haufig verkurzt dargestellt. Der Band zeigt, dass sie sich weder auf ihre Mitgliedsstaaten noch auf ihre Verwaltungsstabe reduzieren lassen. Nur ein komplexes Verstandnis internationaler Organisationen, das Erkenntnisse aus der Organisationsforschung und aus den Internationalen Beziehungen integriert, kann uns helfen, die Moglichkeiten und Grenzen internationaler Organisationen im globalen Regieren richtig zu verstehen.

The Link between Standard-Setting NGO’s Legitimacy and Effectiveness: An Exploration of Social Mechanisms

When we talk about NGOs and their legitimacy, it is common to distinguish between advocacy NGOs on the one hand, and service provision NGOs on the other (see Franz and Martens, 2006). While the former are often evaluated in terms of the authenticity of their claim to represent others (Hahn, 2008; Mallaby, 2004), the standard currency for judging the latter are the relative efficiency and effectiveness with which an organisation provides its services and the contribution of its services to the common good (Frantz and Martens, 2006). However — and this volume provides a number of examples — the discussion about NGOs and their legitimacy more and more tends to include an evaluation of NGOs in much broader terms, such as inclusiveness, transparency, or accountability. In a move that some have interpreted as a ‘backlash against civil society’ (Clark, 2003, pp. 169–85), the legitimacy of NGOs is publicly challenged and NGOs that demand democracy or accountability are increasingly asked ‘How democratic are you?’, ‘To whom are you accountable?’ and ‘Who do you speak for and what is your claim to speak for others based on?’.