Regulation and economic globalization: Prospects and limits of private governance
By F. Mayer, Gary Gereffi. 2010
376 citations recorded by the source corpus.
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 firms 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.
Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Strategy and Management
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1a1fc1a319eecfccb05e9d51f35803a5f3e0b7cc
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
In Strategy and Management
Citations in the corpus
- Sustainable and responsible supply chain governance: challenges and opportunities (2015, background): “However, globa supply chains must traverse complex regulatory terrains and innovations in supply chain governance are often directed towards the coordination and harmonization of multiple legal requirements rather than their replacement (e.g. Mayer & Gereffi, 2010).”
- An integrative typology of global strategy and global value chains: The management and organization of cross‐border activities (2020, background): “Such an approach broadens the scope of the unit of analysis to include intra-firm issues like workers (Barrientos, Gereffi, & Rossi, 2011) and extrafirm measures such as industry and environmental standards (Havice & Campling, 2017; Mayer & Gereffi, 2010).”
- Outsourcing governance: states and the politics of a ‘global value chain world’ (2017, background): “…been lamented by many, arguing that private governance cannot be considered an effective or legitimate substitute for public governance, and that public and private governance can be, increasingly are, and need to be complementary (Mayer and Gereffi 2010, Vogel 2010, Esbenshade 2012, Locke 2013).”
- Global value chains, rising power firms and economic and social upgrading (2015, background): “However, recent studies suggest a more limited role for lead firms and their private standards in facilitating upgrading, especially the social dimensions (Locke, 2013; Mayer and Gereffi, 2010), which has led to calls for synergistic forms of private, public and social governance (Gereffi et al.”
- ‘Roundtabling’ sustainability: Lessons from the biofuel industry (2014, background): “Appropriate regulation could indeed claw back some power from private authority and shape SRs and their commercially-oriented competitors to deliver common welfare gains for all players in global value chains (Mayer and Gereffi 2010).”
- Who Governs Socially-Oriented Voluntary Sustainability Standards? Not the Producers of Certified Products (2017, background): “…mitigating supply chain risk, securing access to commodities, attracting green consumers, and challenging hegemonic control over global economic governance (Angel, Hamilton, & Huber, 2007; Bartley, 2007; Conroy, 2007; Haufler, 2001; Locke, 2013; Mayer & Gereffi, 2010; O’Rourke, 2003; Reich, 2007).”
- Sustainability governance of chains and networks: a review and future outlook (2015, background): “A first distinction can be made between a focus on the internal drivers of economic organisationwithin chains, and, in response to what Mayer and Gereffi (2010) label the ‘governance deficit’ of GVC research, a focus on the external contribution of nonstate and non-firm actors in defining the rules…”
- Governing Global Supply Chain Sustainability through the Ethical Audit Regime (2017, background): “At the same time, the organization and character of production was transformed as retail and brand companies increasingly sourced goods from supplier firms rather than producing goods themselves (Appelbaum & Lichtenstein, 2016; Gereffi & Mayer, 2010; Lichtenstein, 2009).”
- Economic and Social Upgrading in Global Value Chains and Industrial Clusters: Why Governance Matters (2014, background): “9 As Coslovsky and Locke (2013) point out, such complementarity may not require explicit communication and coordination between private and public governance actors to make each other’s actors effective (see also Amengual 2010). et al. 2011; Mayer and Gereffi 2010; Puppim de Oliveira 2008b).”
- The Governance of Global Value Chains: Unresolved Human Rights, Environmental and Ethical Dilemmas in the Apple Supply Chain (2015, background): “Although there have been many campaigns to improve workers’ rights and employment conditions in the plants operating within global value chains in the emerging economies, and multinational corporations have been reminded of their responsibilities and often signed up to corporate and environmental re”
- Economic upgrading through global value chain participation: which policies increase the value-added gains? (2017, background): “Their emergence reflects social concerns “unleashed by globalization” over inadequate government regulation of the social and environmental impacts of international trade (Mayer and Gereffi 2010).”