Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Rethinking Legitimacy, Accountability and Effectiveness

By K. Bäckstrand. 2006

692 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Development, Global and Planetary Change, Public Administration

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/83eefbc7c08613a853869dfe9c235e4caec01ef7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Development

In Global and Planetary Change

In Public Administration

Citations in the corpus

Legitimate adaptive flood risk governance beyond the dikes: the cases of Hamburg, Helsinki and Rotterdam (2014, background): “The bulk of literature that discusses the legitimacy of private involvement in environmental governance focuses on network governance, due to its rising significance in policy practice (e.g. Dellas 2011; Bäckstrand 2006; Lemos and Agrawal 2006; Bogason and Musso 2006; Sørensen 2005).”
The New Political Role of Business in a Globalized World – A Review of a New Perspective on CSR and its Implications for the Firm, Governance, and Democracy (2011, neutral): “(Bäckstrand 2006, p. 291) The goal of these initiatives is to establish effective systems of setting standards, reporting, auditing, monitoring, and verification (Utting 2002).”
Enhancing the Impact of Cross-Sector Partnerships (2016, background): “Gaps in regulation and governance (Rivera-Santos and Rufı́n 2010) or democracy (Bäckstrand 2006) are not easily, if ever, filled by partnerships.”
Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives (2012, background): “Despite this critique, more and more MSIs are being created (Bäckstrand, 2006; Bernstein & Cashore, 2007; Börzel & Risse, 2005; Bouslah, M'Zali, Turcotte, & Kooli, 2010).”
Multinational enterprises and the Sustainable Development Goals: An institutional approach to corporate engagement (2018, background): “Thirdly, illconceived partnerships have been criticised for undermining the legitimacy of the whole partnering phenomenon (Bäckstrand, 2006), for instance, owing to overly optimistic or superficial claims, subdued responsibilities, or poor governance structures (Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff, 2011).”
Harnessing Wicked Problems in Multi-stakeholder Partnerships (2018, background): “These three governance processes are characterized by continuous negotiation between the actors involved, where voice and power remain key ingredients (Bäckstrand 2006).”
Sustainability governance of chains and networks: a review and future outlook (2015, background): “…is growing pressure to demonstrate the sustainability impacts of the various tools and schemes (MSI, labels, standards, partnerships, CSR), also in order to maintain support for the credibility of private sustainable value chain governance (Auld et al., 2008; B€ackstrand, 2006; Bostr€om, 2006a).”
Enhancing the Impact of Cross-Sector Partnerships (2015, background): “Thousands of cross-sector partnerships are currently active and/or under consideration or development, and there has consequently been a dramatic increase in the management and policy literature on cross-sector partnerships (Gray and Stites 2013; Branzei and Le Ber 2014).”
Managing Legitimacy in Complex and Heterogeneous Environments: Sustainable Development in a Globalized World (2013, positive): “…might entail implementing controlling procedures for which third parties, such as civil society organizations, are responsible, disclosing the names of the company’s supply-chain partners or joining multi-stakeholder initiatives for sustainable development (Bäckstrand, 2006; Basu & Palazzo, 2008).”
Outcomes to Partners in Multi-Stakeholder Cross-Sector Partnerships: A Resource-Based View (2019, background): “In contrast, research that has studied multi-stakeholder partnerships generally focuses on the policy implications of these partnerships (see Bäckstrand, 2006; Kihl et al., 2014; Rühli et al., 2017).”
Developing a framework for responsible innovation* (2013, background): “Additionally, we can point to the use of multi-stakeholder partnerships, forums, the inclusion of lay members on scientific advisory committees, and other hybrid mechanisms that attempt to diversify the inputs to and delivery of governance (Callon et al., 2009; Bäckstrand, 2006; Brown, 2002).”
Multiactor Governance and the Environment (2012, background): “This can be observed in civil society forums, such as at Earth summits from Rio in 1992 onward or the Indigenous Peoples Forum in Cochabamba in 2010, as well as in the emerging norms of stakeholder participation in a multitude of global to local policy-making and implementation processes (9, 10, 81,”
Institutional and political leadership dimensions of cascading ecological crises (2011, background): “For example, while partnerships for ‘sustainable development’ can be seen as novel collaboration patterns to deal with environmental crises (Bäckstrand 2006; Benner et al. 2004), they tend to deal predominantly with incremental environmental change.”
Accountability of Networked Climate Governance: The Rise of Transnational Climate Partnerships (2008, background): “On the Johannesburg partnerships, see further Andonova and Levy 2003; Bäckstrand 2006b; Benner, Streck, and Witte 2003; and Hale and Mauzerall 2004.”