Multi-stakeholder governance

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Multi-stakeholder governance is a new and changing system of governance. It seeks to bring stakeholders together to participate in dialogue, decision making, and implementation of responses to commonly perceived problems. The principle behind such a structure is that if enough input is provided by the actors involved in an issue, the final consensual decision will gain more legitimacy and be more effectively implemented than a traditional state response. While multi-stakeholder governance is evolving primarily at the international level, public-private partnerships (PPPs) are domestic analogies.

Stakeholders refer to a collection of actors from various social, political, and economic spheres who purposely work together to govern a physical, social, economic, or political area. The range of actors can include multinational corporations , governments, civil society bodies, academic experts, community leaders, religious representatives, media personalities, and other institutional groups.

A minimum requirement for the range of stakeholders is that a multi-stakeholder group must have two or more actors from different social, political or economic groups. If not, then the group is a trade association (all business groups), a multilateral body (all governments), a professional body (all scientists), etc. Almost all multi-stakeholder bodies have at least one multinational company or one Business-related representation and at least one civil society organization or alliance of civil society organizations as key members.

Alternative terminologies for multi-stakeholder governance include multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSI), multi-stakeholder holders (MSH), multi-stakeholder processes (MSP), public-private partnerships (PPP), informal governance Agreements and Non-State Regulation.

The key term “multistakeholder” (or “multistakeholderism”) is increasingly being spelled without a hyphen in order to maintain consistency with its predecessor “multilateralism” and to connect this new form of governance with one of the key actors involved, who is generally also written without a hyphen becomes: "multinational companies". The term “multi-stakeholderism” is used in a similar way in parallel with bilateralism and regionalism .

As an evolving form of global governance, only a limited number of organizations and institutions are involved in multi-stakeholderism. In a number of circles, opposing forces are actively challenging the legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness of these experimental changes in global governance.

Contemporary history and theory

Stakeholder management theory, stakeholder project management theory, and stakeholder agency theory have all contributed to the intellectual foundation for multi-stakeholder governance. However, the history and theory of multi-stakeholder governance deviates from these models in four major respects. The earlier theories describe how a central institution (be it a company, project or government agency) should formally work with related institutions (be it other organizations, institutions or communities). In multi-stakeholder governance, the central element of multi-stakeholder engagement is a public concern (e.g. climate protection, internet management or the use of natural resources) and not an existing organization. Second, the earlier theories aimed to strengthen an existing institution. In multi-stakeholder governance, multi-stakeholder groups can strengthen related institutions, but they can also marginalize institutions or functions of existing governance bodies (e.g. state regulators, UN system). Because previous theories were concerned with improving corporate operations and project management, they did not need to address the impact of multi-stakeholder decision making on public governance. They also offer autonomous groups with several interest groups little or no guidance on their internal governance rules, since the existing institution had its own functioning decision-making system.

Since multi-stakeholderism is a changing system of governance, a large part of its theoretical basis consists of a combination of formal theory and theory derived from practice. The most extensive theoretical treatise and the most detailed practical proposals is the Global Redesign Initiative (GRI) of the World Economic Forum.

Contribution of the Global Redesign Initiative of the World Economic Forum

The 600-page report "Everybody's Business: Strengthening International Cooperation in a More Interdependent World" is a comprehensive proposal for reshaping global governance. The report tries to fundamentally change the global governance system that has been built up since the Second World War . The report consists of a number of broad multi-stakeholder governance policy papers prepared by the World Economic Forum's leadership , as well as a wide range of thematic policy options. These policy and thematic program recommendations should demonstrate the ability of the new governance structure to respond to a range of global crises. These global policies include investment flows, education systems, systemic financial risk, philanthropy and social investment, emerging multinational corporations, fragile states, social entrepreneurship, energy security, international security cooperation, mining and metals, the future of government, maritime policy, and ethical values. The World Economic Forum's proposal differs from others in that it was developed as a collaborative effort by more than 750 experts from international business, government and academia who worked in sixty separate working groups for a year and a half.

The World Economic Forum also had fifty years of experience bringing together leading stakeholders from politics, business, culture, civil society, religion and other communities to discuss the way forward in global affairs. As the three co-chairs stated in their introduction to the GRI report: “It is time for a new stakeholder paradigm in international governance, analogous to the one that is anchored in the stakeholder theory of corporate governance on which the World Economic Forum itself was founded ”.

This process of explicit theoretical writings in connection with theory derived from practice has also taken place in the UN system, in independent, autonomous global commissions, in debates about the governance of the Internet and in non-governmental private bodies for the establishment of ethical and ecological standards.

Contributions from intergovernmental bodies in the UN system

The efforts of the United Nations to define multi-stakeholder governance are widely believed to have begun with the 1992 World Conference on Environment and Development (better known as the Rio Conference). There the governments created nine large nongovernmental groups that could be part of the official intergovernmental process. Ten years later, the follow-up conference in Johannesburg created a new multi-stakeholder implementation process, officially referred to as "Type II Conference Outcomes," in which transnational corporations, NGOs and governments committed to collaborate on the implementation of a specific section of the conference report.

A separate effort by the government to define multi-stakeholder governance has been a series of General Assembly resolutions on “partnerships”. In the earliest resolution (2002), the resolution “drew Member States' attention to multi-stakeholder initiatives, particularly the Secretary-General's Global Compact initiative, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, the Commission's multi-stakeholder dialogue process for sustainable Development and the Task Force Information and Communication Technologies ”. Over the next 17 years, governments refined their understanding of multi-stakeholder governance by adopting eight other related resolutions.

In the most recent partnership resolution (2019), governments laid down a number of principles that should define a multi-stakeholder partnership. Governments “emphasize that the principles and approaches underlying such partnerships and arrangements should be built on the firm foundation of the goals and principles of the United Nations, as set out in the Charter ... A partnership should be a common one Pursue a purpose, be transparent, do not give any partner of the United Nations unfair advantages, seek mutual benefit and mutual respect, accountability, respect for the modalities of the United Nations, a balanced representation of the relevant partners from industrialized and developing countries and countries with economies in transition and not affect the independence and neutrality of the United Nations system in general and of the organizations in particular ”.

In the same resolution, the government also defined “common goal” and “mutual benefit and respect” as voluntary partnerships and as “collaborative relationships between different parties, both public and non-public, in which all participants agree to work together towards a common To achieve a goal or to take on a certain task and, as mutually agreed, to share risks and responsibilities, resources and benefits ”.

Contributions from the civil society organizations involved in the UN system

Civil society organizations have had a number of parallel but different exchanges on the theory and practice of multi-stakeholder governance. Two elements of the definition of multi-stakeholder governance that are not central to the intergovernmental debate were (1) the link between democracy and multi-stakeholder governance and (2) the assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of multi-stakeholder projects.

Dodds, one of the founders of the Stakeholder Forum, argues that "involving stakeholders in the decision-making process increases the likelihood that they will work with each other and with governments at all levels to help meet the obligations of [intergovernmental] agreements." In this perspective, the development of multi-stakeholder governance marks a positive change from representative democracy to participatory, interest group-based democracy.

The report by the Transnational Institute (TNI) in Amsterdam on multistakeholderism takes a different perspective. He believes that multi-stakeholder governance puts democracy at great risk. The TNI regards the lack of a legitimate public selection process for stakeholders, the inherent power imbalance between the categories of stakeholders, especially between transnational corporations and community groups, and the interference of business interests in formal international decision-making as counterproductive for the development of a globally representative democratic system. Gleckman, a TNI employee and Senior Fellow at the Center for Governance and Sustainability, UMass-Boston, makes further arguments for the inherently undemocratic nature of multi-stakeholder governance.

Contributions from the international commissions

The Commission on Global Governance from 1991–1994, the Helsinki Process on Globalization and Democracy from 2003–2007. and the World Commission on Dams from 1998–2001 each dealt with the development of the concept of multi-stakeholderism as a force in global governance.

For example, the World Commission on Dams (WCD) was founded in 1998 as a global multi-stakeholder body by the World Bank and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) in response to growing opposition to large dam projects. The twelve members of the commission came from a wide variety of backgrounds and represented a broad spectrum of interests in large dams - including governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), dam operators and grassroots movements, companies and academics, industry associations and consultants.

In the final report of the WCD, Chair Professor Kader Asmal described the Commissioners' views on multi-stakeholder governance. He wrote: “We are a commission to heal the deep and self-inflicted wounds that are torn open where and when far too few for far too many determine how best to develop or use water and energy resources. This is often due to the nature of power and the motivation of those who question it. Recently, governments, industries and aid agencies around the world have been challenged to decide the fate of millions of people without including the poor or even the majority of the population of the countries they believe will help. In order to give legitimacy to such epochal decisions, real development has to put people first, while respecting the role of the state as mediator and often also as representative of its interests ... we do not advocate globalization if it comes from above a few men. We advocate globalization as it is led by everyone below, a new approach to global water policy and development. "

Contributions of major parties to internet governance

The role of multi-stakeholder processes in Internet governance dominated the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) 2003-2005. However, the summit failed to address the digital divide to the satisfaction of developing countries.

The final outcome of the summit, the Tunis Agenda (2005), anchored a special type of multi-stakeholder model for Internet governance, in which, under pressure from the United States, the key role of administration and management of names and addresses to the private sector ( the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN ).

This US policy of using multi-stakeholder processes to promote the privatization of functions traditionally carried out by government agencies came from the US State Department in a statement by Julie Napier Zoller, a senior official in the US Department of Economic and Business Affairs 2015 well expressed. She argued that "any meeting that is enriched by the participation of multiple stakeholders serves as an example and precedent that opens the doors for multiple stakeholders to participate in future meetings and forums".

Definition of a “stakeholder” for multi-stakeholder governance

There are generally accepted definitions for "stakeholders" in management theory and generally accepted procedures for selecting "stakeholders" in project management theory. However, there is no generally accepted definition of “stakeholders” and no generally accepted procedure for determining “stakeholders” in multi-stakeholder governance. In a democracy there is only one basic category for public decision-making, the "citizen". In contrast to the concept of “citizen” in the theory of democratic governance, the concept of “stakeholder” remains unclear and ambiguous in the theory and practice of multi-stakeholder governance.

In multi-stakeholder governance, there are three levels of “stakeholder” definitions: (1) the definition of the “stakeholder category” (e.g. company); (2) the definition or specification for the selection of organizations or institutions within a “stakeholder category” (e.g. micro-businesses or women-run businesses); and (3) the definition or specification for the selection of a single person to represent a particular organization or institution within a stakeholder category (e.g., the CEO , foreign affairs officer, or professional). In practice, it is not uncommon for the founders of a multi-stakeholder group to select a key person as a member of a multi-stakeholder group and then retrospectively classify that person and / or the person's organization in an appropriate definition category.

Multiple definitions of categories of interest groups within the UN system

At the United Nations Rio Conference in 1992, governments formally accepted nine main groups as "stakeholder" categories. The main groups designated were women, children and youth, indigenous peoples, non-governmental organizations, local authorities, workers and trade unions, business and industry, scientific and technological communities and farmers. Two decades later, the Rio + 20 conference reaffirmed the importance of effectively engaging these nine areas of society. However, other stakeholders were added at this conference, including local communities, volunteer groups and foundations, migrants and families, and the elderly and people with disabilities. As a result, governments also added private philanthropic organizations, educational and academic institutions, and other stakeholders working in areas related to sustainable development as stakeholders. The term “main groups” is now quoted as “main groups and other stakeholders”.

The governance system of the International Labor Organization (ILO) works with just three constituencies: "workers", "companies" and "government". In this tripartite system, workers and companies are on an equal footing with governments.

The World Food Security Committee (CFS) has several main categories: "Members", "Participants" and "Observers". The CFS sees itself as “the most important integrative international and intergovernmental platform on which all interest groups work together to ensure food security and nutrition for all”. However, their category “participants” encompasses a wide range of social actors: (a) UN organizations and bodies, (b) civil society and non-governmental organizations and their networks, (c) international agricultural research systems, (d) international and regional financial institutions and (e) Representatives of private sector associations and (f) private philanthropic foundations.

Multiple definitions of categories of interest groups outside the UN system (selected examples)

In contrast to the multiple definitions within the UN system, the definition of stakeholder categories for autonomous multi-stakeholder groups are generally versions of “interest-based” definitions. The ISO defines a stakeholder individual or group “as a person who has an interest in every decision or activity of an organization” (ISO 26000). Hemmati, co-founder of the MSP Institute, a multi-stakeholder support organization, defines stakeholders as "those who have an interest in a particular decision, either as individuals or as representatives of a group" (ISO 26000). This includes both people who influence or can influence a decision and those who are affected by it. The professional body of international environmental and social standards organizations, ISEAL, defines stakeholders as those "who are likely to have an interest in the standard or who are likely to be affected by its implementation and to provide them with appropriate and accessible mechanisms for participation".

Multiple definitions for selecting organizations within individual stakeholder categories

There is also no single definition or selection process to define the individual organization (s) that can "represent" a particular category of stakeholder in a particular multi-stakeholder group. For example, the government category may include national, regional, county / provincial, and local government agencies, regional intergovernmental organizations (e.g., European Commission, Organization of American States), intergovernmental secretariats (e.g., FAO, WHO) or include members of parliaments, regulators, technical experts in specific government departments and courts. The category “civil society” could similarly include non-governmental organizations at international, regional and national levels, social movements, religious bodies, professional associations, development organizations, humanitarian groups or environmental NGOs. The “economy” stakeholder category could include multinational corporations, medium-sized national companies, small and micro-local companies, international, national or local business associations, developing country companies, minority companies, women-run companies or green global companies. If "academics" is a stakeholder category, the members of the category could be social scientists, physicists, philosophers, environmental experts, religious professors, lawyers, university administrators, or some academic professional body.

Any organization designated to “represent” a advocacy category can use its own method of selecting a person to participate in an advocacy group.

The involvement of a person from a particular organization in the leadership of a multi-stakeholder group does not necessarily mean that the sponsoring organization (be it a company, a civil society organization or a government) is on board itself. The participation of a particular person can only mean that a particular office or department has chosen to work with that multi-stakeholder group. The data subject may have been given permission to connect with a specific group of stakeholders, may have been given permission to participate in their personal or professional capacity, or they may have been formally designated to represent a particular organization.

This ambiguity between the commitment of the institution as a whole and the participation of a representative from a particular office or agency can impact a number of different roles inside and outside the multi-stakeholder group. The multistakeholder group can certainly welcome it if it can publicly claim that x governments or y transnational companies are part of the multistakeholder group in order to gain greater political and economic recognition. Internally, the other participants might believe that the institutional capacity and financial resources of the parent organization are available to achieve the goals of the multi-stakeholder group.

Clear governance questions when using the term stakeholder

There are no ongoing international efforts to standardize the central multi-stakeholder governance concept of “stakeholders”, nor are there any international efforts to standardize the process of naming an organization or an individual within a particular stakeholder category.

In contrast to the use of the term “stakeholder” in management and project management theory, there are a number of demographic, political and social factors that can affect the use of the “stakeholder” concept in governance. Problems identified include (a) difficulty in balancing gender, class, ethnicity, and geographic representation in a given multi-stakeholder group; (b) the potential conflicts of interest between “business” stakeholders and their commercial markets; (c) the asymmetrical power of different categories of stakeholders and different organizations representing categories of stakeholders within a multi-stakeholder group; and (d) the lack of a review structure or judicial mechanism to object to the selection of stakeholder categories, stakeholder organizations within a category or the selection of the person to represent a stakeholder organization.

Types of multi-stakeholder governance groups

Multi-stakeholder governance arrangements are used, or proposed to be used, to address a wide range of global, regional and national challenges. These governance challenges, which often have significant political, economic, or security implications, can be categorized as follows: (1) those affecting the formulation of public policies with minimal or marginal government participation; (2) those who are involved in the definition of market economy standards that were previously a government responsibility; and (3) those involved in the implementation of major projects, often large infrastructure projects, with government involvement.

Politically oriented multi-stakeholder governance groups

Policy-oriented, multi-stakeholder governance groups are set up to address an international political issue. These groups usually arise when global actors consider political intervention necessary, but governments or intergovernmental organizations are unwilling or unable to resolve a political issue. Most multi-stakeholder governance groups meet independently of multilateral organizations , while some may involve the multilateral system for their support or promotion.

Examples of policy-oriented multi-stakeholder governance groups:

Product, finance and process-oriented multi-stakeholder groups

Product, finance and process-oriented multi-stakeholder groups are organizations that set standards for internationally traded products and processes and / or provide financing with a multi-stakeholder board.

With products, the goal is to enable ethical, environmentally and developmentally friendly products that are desired by consumers and useful to producers, manufacturers and retailers.

Processes refer to new, rapidly evolving, complex and highly effective technologies in the international market for which there are no national standards or regulatory oversight. The multi-stakeholder groups determine how the processes between competing commercial interests can work best internationally. These groups work with civil society social justice organizations, academic and government agencies to resolve conflicts and plan a path forward.

In contrast to traditional philanthropic organizations, finance-oriented multi-stakeholder groups work with a governing body that explicitly names people who “represent” the views of certain categories of stakeholders.

Examples of product-oriented multi-stakeholder groups:

Examples of process-oriented multi-stakeholder groups:

  • ICANN
  • Fairtrade International (FLO)
  • FramingNano project
  • Global partnership for business and biodiversity
  • Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative
  • Internet Management Forum (IGF)

Examples of finance-oriented multi-stakeholder groups:

  • GAVI , The Vaccine Alliance
  • CGIAR (formerly Advisory Group for International Agricultural Research)

Project-oriented multi-stakeholder groups

Project-oriented multi-stakeholder groups perform global or national tasks that governments or the multilateral system cannot perform. Global project-oriented groups achieve governance goals that are implemented through the multilateral system. National project-oriented groups deal with a public need that the respective government cannot meet. These can operate at the local, state or national level. Project-oriented multi-stakeholder groups are often referred to as public-private partnerships (PPP).

Examples of global project-oriented groups:

Examples of where national project-oriented groups can act:

Relationship of multi-stakeholderism with

Multilateral system

Different parts of the multilateral system are involved in all three types of multi-stakeholder groups in different ways. These include multi-stakeholder bodies that are convened by an intergovernmental body (e.g. Goal 17 of the SDGs ); Multi-stakeholder bodies that are organized by the secretariat of the UN system and are legally dependent on it (e.g. Global Compact ); Multi-stakeholder bodies that offer to financially support certain goals and projects of the UN; Project development organizations affiliated to the UN that consider implementation by multi-stakeholders to be more effective and efficient than implementation by a state or the UN system; Multi-stakeholder bodies that are not sponsored by the United Nations and formally allied with the UN system (e.g. WEF strategic partnership) and multi-stakeholder bodies that are not sponsored by the United Nations, in which employees of the UN system in their personal, may serve professional property.

On the other hand, some multi-stakeholder bodies are deliberately independent of the UN system. This form of withdrawal from the UN system was formulated by the Global Redesign Initiative as a “plurilateral coalition of the willing and able, often consisting of several interest groups”, who want and can work outside the intergovernmental framework. Examples of this practice are multi-stakeholder bodies that explicitly seek autonomy from legally binding state regulations and the "soft law" of the intergovernmental system (e.g. Internet governance); multi-stakeholder norm-setting bodies who believe that the UN system has not addressed their concerns and consequently choose to operate without engagement from the UN system; and international multi-stakeholder funding sources that choose to be independent of the intergovernmental process (e.g. GAVI ).

Finally, some multi-stakeholder bodies want to break away from the UN system in their daily work, but are striving for intergovernmental approval of the result of the autonomous agreements by the UN (e.g. the certification system of the Kimberley Process ).

i. The views of multilateral institutions on multi-stakeholder processes and governance

As an evolving system of global governance, different parts of the UN system describe the importance of multi-stakeholderism in different ways. For example, the World Bank notes that multi-stakeholder initiatives bring government, civil society and the private sector together to address complex development challenges for which neither party alone has the capacity, resources and expertise to do so more effectively; the Asian Development Bank claims that multi-stakeholder groups enable communities to articulate their needs, shape change processes and mobilize broad support for difficult reforms; The Global Compact believes that by bringing committed companies together with relevant experts and stakeholders, the UN can create a space for collaboration to develop and implement advanced sustainability practices in companies and to promote broad acceptance of sustainability solutions in companies around the world ; and the SDG Partnership Goal (Goal 17) aims to leverage multi-stakeholder partnerships to mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources to implement the SDG program.

ii. Public concerns raised about the engagement of multiple stakeholders in the multilateral system

Some governments, civil society organizations and the international media have questioned the legitimacy and appropriateness of multi-stakeholder engagement in multilateralism, and expressed concern that the integrity and legitimacy of the UN are jeopardized by multistakeholderism. You have challenged a strategic partnership agreement between the office of the UN Secretary-General and the World Economic Forum; the planned hosting of international conferences, which bypasses the traditional intergovernmental process of preparing for such a conference, which focuses on the involvement of multiple stakeholders in the secretariat of the UN system (Fu proposed World Food Summit); the transition from bottom-up development to top-down multi-stakeholder development; the offer of free World Economic Forum staff to the director of a treaty body of the UN system; and the process of large international, multi-stakeholder bodies that set global political goals through their philanthropy.

Transnational companies and industry-related organizations

Most transnational corporations (TNCs) and business-related organizations do not work with multi-stakeholder groups. However, the corporate sector and large TNCs are all too often viewed as key participants in a multi-stakeholder company.

Some of these companies see long-term benefits from multi-stakeholderism. For some, multi-stakeholder governance bodies are the preferred alternative to state oversight or intergovernmental designed soft law. For companies in sectors with a highly negative profile, multi-stakeholder bodies can be useful tools to find solutions to complex difficulties or to restore the public credibility of their company or sector. For other companies, multi-stakeholder groups offer an institutional entry into global governance structures or an institutional arrangement outside the UN system in order to take on a leadership role in the definition of international policies and programs (e.g. the Shaping the Future Councils of the WEF ).

For other companies, the benefits are more short-term in nature. Short term benefits include working on shaping the technical specifications for a niche international market, creating public acceptance and expectations for new markets, and managing the public perception of your company.

By far the largest number of TNUs dealing with multi-stakeholders, however, are those participating in project-oriented, public-private partnerships (PPP) at national and international level. These TNUs and their affiliated national companies can use the PPP form both to remedy state failures to meet a specific socio-economic-ecological need and to obtain state approval for the privatization of a specific sector or region of an economy to obtain.

These shifts in the role of the corporate sector are changing long-standing public-private distinctions and, as such, have implications for global and national democratic decision-making.

Civil society organizations / NGOs / social movements

One of the driving forces behind the creation of civil society organizations (CSOs), non-governmental organizations or social movements is to be independent of governments and commercial interests. With the advent of multi-stakeholder governance, some institutions have purposely moved away from this autonomous position in order to further certain institutional goals; others have joined multi-stakeholder groups, particularly PPPs, for fear of being cut off from important decisions, while the majority of these organizations remain independent of government and commercial interests and unrelated to multi-stakeholder groups.

In the first case, some civil society organizations have set up international standardization bodies in partnership with a sector-specific TNU and national companies; they have joined high-level, multi-stakeholder political groups; they participated with multi-stakeholder groups that were convened to implement the goals of the UN system (e.g. SDG goal 17); and they have joined international initiatives to monitor multi-stakeholder groups. In the second case, civil society organizations that have faced the creation of a powerful PPP believe that failure to participate would put them at a severe disadvantage locally; other civil society organizations would prefer a government or the UN system to address a particular issue and see no other way of setting standards for that section (e.g. the Global Coffee Platform).

In the third case, civil society organizations, NGOs and social movements have taken positive steps to dissuade governments, transnational corporations and other civil society organizations, NGOs and social movements from not participating in multi-stakeholder groups; some of these organizations have appealed to the UN Secretary General to withdraw from partnerships with multi-stakeholder bodies.

Governments, especially policy-making bodies, regulators, and infrastructure bureaus

Some governments work with multi-stakeholders to develop public policies or to avoid public policy development. These governments, or more precisely parts of governments, have supported multi-stakeholder groups dealing with complex public order issues, have chosen to deal with sensitive intergovernmental issues without the involvement of the UN system, and have chosen to be paramilitary To deal with issues without the involvement of the UN system (e.g. international code of conduct for private security service providers).

Governments do not consistently use multi-stakeholder bodies for policy making. In several cases, some governments use multistakeholderism as a public policy mechanism. On the same public policy issue, other governments oppose the use of multi-stakeholder bodies, preferring instead to deal with an issue through multilateral or bilateral agreements. The two clearest examples are internet governance and private international standardization bodies that work without the involvement of developing countries (the UNCTAD's forum for sustainability standards). In the case of internet governance, the main private actors in this area try to have little or no contact with governments.

All governments have regulatory bodies that set product standards. Multi-stakeholderism offers the opportunity for an alternative regulation that shifts the process of formulating and monitoring standards to a multi-stakeholder body and shifts the standards from mandatory to voluntary. Examples of this use of multi-stakeholder groups by governments are the decision to take the advice of expert-based multi-stakeholder groups instead of creating separate expert organizations at the government level, the welcoming of efforts to set multi-stakeholder standards by TNCs and civil society to avoid conflicts with TNUs in the home country and other companies (e.g. the “Accord on Fire and Building Safety” in Bangladesh) and to support voluntary private standard-setting for un- and under-managed areas (e.g. oceans). Many of these cases represent an indirect privatization of public services and goods.

Other governments or sections of government are actively involved in project-based public-private partnerships. In PPP, governments agree to grant dejure or de facto control of a natural resource (i.e. access to public water) or the area around an infrastructure project to a specific group of stakeholders . The level of control that is explicitly or implicitly transferred to the PPP and the extent to which original expectations of operations and prices are not met has become a contentious issue of governance.

Academy and professional associations

While over 250 academics supported the WEF in developing its Global Redesign Initiative, most members of the academic community and most professional associations are not involved with multi-stakeholder groups. Those academics involved in multi-stakeholder groups tend to be involved in policymaking multi-stakeholder groups or in the development of international product and process standards.

Some university experts join business-oriented multi-stakeholder committees in a similar way as they do on the boards of individual companies. In contrast to providing their expertise to a company as a consultant or board member, the academics on the board of a multi-stakeholder governance organization, especially an organization that sets international product or process standards, have moved from being a consultant and investor to a role that functionally resembles a government regulator.

In some cases, university faculties are recruited by large firms or governments to set up a government academic and business organization to open new markets for that company or companies in their sector. In other cases, multi-stakeholder groups and universities jointly organize multi-stakeholder events and research projects.

See also

Individual evidence

  1. ^ WEF (2010). "Everybody's Business: Strengthening International Cooperation in a More Interdependent World" Retrieved from report
  2. ↑ Harris Gleckman (2012). "Readers' Guide: Global Redesign Initiative". University of Massachusetts Boston. Retrieved from
  3. ^ Type II partnerships
  4. ↑ United Nations. (2002). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly: Towards global partnerships. General Assembly, 56th Session. Retrieved from refworld.org
  5. ↑ United Nations. (2018). Towards global partnerships: a principle-based approach to enhanced cooperation between the United Nations and all relevant partners. General Assembly, 73rd Session. Retrieved from www.unglobalcompact.org
  6. ↑ Dodds, F. 2019 Stakeholder Democracy: Represented Democracy in a Time of Fear, London, Routledge
  7. ↑ Buxton, N. (2019). Multistakeholderism: a critical look. TNI, Workshop Report, Amsterdam, March 2019. Retrieved from www.tni.org
  8. ↑ Gleckman, H. (2018). Multistakeholder Governance and Democracy: A Global Challenge . New York, NY: Routledge
  9. ^ The Commission on Global Governance, under the leadership of Ingvar Carlsson of Sweden and Shridath Ramphal of Guyana, issued its recommendations in the report "Our Global Neighborhood" in 1995
  10. ↑ The Helsinki Process, under the leadership of the Foreign Ministers of Finland and Tanzania issued their final report under the title "A Case for Multi-Stakeholder Cooperation" in 2008
  11. ↑ Khagram, S. (2000) Toward Democratic Governance for Sustainable Development: Transnational Civil Society organizing around big dams. AM Florin (ed) The Third Sector: The Rise of Transnational Civil Society, Tokyo and Washington DC, Japan Center for International Exchange and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, pp 83–114
  12. ^ World Commission on Dams (2000). Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision Making. Earthscan Publications, London, England and Sterling, Virginia
  13. ^ Shawn M. Powers and Michael Jablonksi, The Real Cyberwar, University of Illinois Press (2015), p. 42, citing Milton M. Mueller, Networks and States, MIT Press (2010, 2013)
  14. ^ Shawn M. Powers and Michael Jablonksi, The Real Cyberwar, University of Illinois Press (2015), p. 46
  15. ↑ Julie Zoller. (2015). Keynote remarks by Julie Zoller - Deputy Coordinator, International Communications and Information Policy, US Department of State. Retrieved from www.isoc-ny.org
  16. ↑ United Nations. (2012). Strengthening and coordinating United Nations rule of law activities, Report of the Secretary-General. 67/290 Retrieved from www.un.org
  17. ^ UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. Retrieved from www.sustainabledevelopment.un.org
  18. ↑ CFS. (nd). CFS Structure. Retrieved from www.fao.org/cfs
  19. ↑ Hemmati, M., Minu, Dodds, F., Enayati. J., and McHarry, J. (2012). Multi-stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability: Beyond Deadlock and Conflict, London: Earthscan, Box 1.1 STAKEHOLDERS.
  20. ^ ISEAL. (2014). Setting Social and Environmental Standards: ISEAL Code of Good Practice Version 6.0. Retrieved from www.isealalliance.org
  21. ↑ Gleckman, Harris 2018 Multi-stakeholder Governance and Democracy: A Global Challenge, Routledge, London
  22. ↑ Gleckman, H. (2018). Multistakeholder Governance and Democracy: A Global Challenge . New York, NY: Routledge.
  23. ↑ https://www.weforum.org/communities/global-future-councils Global Agenda Councils
  24. ^ WEF (2010). "Everybody's Business: Strengthening International Cooperation in a More Interdependent World" Building Block Three. Retrieved from report ; UMB. (nd) Four Building Blocks Introduction. University of Massachusetts Boston Center for Governance and Sustainability. Retrieved from umb.edu
  25. ^ Forest Stewardship Council
  26. ↑ Thindwa, J. (2015) “Multi stakeholder initiatives: Platforms of collective governance for development” World Bank Blogs. Retrieved from
  27. ↑ Verzosa, CC & Fiutak, TR (2019). “The“ How ”of Multistakeholder Engagement” The Governance Brief, 35th ADP.
  28. ↑ a b c U.N. (nd). “Advance sustainability leadership through innovation and action” United Nations Global Compact. Retrieved from
  29. ↑ a b U.N. (nd). Sustainable Development Goal 17. Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform. Retrieved from
  30. ↑ TNI (2019). "End the United Nations / World Economic Forum Partnership Agreement." Retrieved from
  31. ↑ Crossette, B. (2019). “As SDGs Falter, the UN Turns to the Rich and Famous”. Inter Press Service. Retrieved from
  32. ↑ Puliyel, JM (2010). "Ten years of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization" The BMJ, 340. Retrieved from
  33. ^ Safe Nano. (2006). IRGC Risk Governance Framework. Retrieved from
  34. ^ World Commission on Dams
  35. ↑ Fairtrade International. Retrieved from
  36. ↑ Schiller, B. (2017). Fixing The World's Sanitation Is A Big Business Opportunity. Fast Company. Retrieved from
  37. ↑ fn needed
  38. ^ Marine Stewardship Council
  39. ^ WEF (nd). Global Future Councils. Retrieved from
  40. ^ A b Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
  41. ↑ https://www.globalcoffeeplatform.org/accelerate-your-coffee-sustainability
  42. ↑ need
  43. ↑ Kimberley Process Certification Scheme
  44. ^ IUCN Red List
  45. ^ University of Boston Massachusetts (2012). Experts Groups by Constituency. Center for Governance and Sustainability. Retrieved from
  46. ↑ health care group
  47. ^ Kansas State University (2019). 9th Multistakeholder Partnership Meeting: Innovation for Sustainable Livestock Systems. Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock. Retrieved from