Zur Legitimität des Entstehungsprozesses der Leitlinie ISO 26000

Chapter
Part of the Forschung und Praxis an der FHWien der WKW book series (FPGHW)

Zusammenfassung

Mit anhaltenden Globalisierungstendenzen und abnehmender staatlicher Regulierungsmacht wird nicht-staatlichen AkteurInnen zunehmend gesellschaftliche Verantwortung zugesprochen. Die Internationale Standardisierungsorganisation (ISO) nahm dies zum Anlass, einen Standard für eine solche „Social Responsibility“ zu entwerfen. Der Beitrag analysiert den multi-organisationalen Diskurs zur Findung der neuen Leitlinie ISO 26000. Im Mittelpunkt der Überlegungen steht die Legitimität des Normfindungsprozesses dieses Standards, der als Fallbeispiel von Global Governance dient.

Literatur

  1. Buchanan A, Keohane RO (2006) The legitimacy of global governance institutions. Ethics Int Aff 20:405–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Castka P, Balzarova MA (2008a) Adoption of social responsibility through the expansion of existing management systems. Ind Manage Data Syst 108:297–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Castka P, Balzarova MA (2008b) ISO 26000 and supply chains. Int J Prod Econ 111:274–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dingwerth K (2007) The new transnationalism. Basingstoke: PalgraveCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME (2007) Theory building from cases – opportunities and challenges. Acad Manage J 50:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Føllesdal A (2007) Legitimacy deficits beyond the state: diagnoses and cures. In: Hurrelmann A, Schneider S, Steffek J (Hrsg) Legitimacy in an age of global politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave, S 211–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hahn R (2012) Standardizing social responsibility? New perspectives on guidance documents and management system standards for sustainable development. IEEE – transactions on engineering. Management 59(4):717–727Google Scholar
  8. Hahn R (2013a) ISO 26000 and strategic management processes for corporate sustainability and social responsibility. Bus Strateg Environ 22(7):442–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hahn R (2013b) Zur Normierung gesellschaftlicher Verantwortung – ISO 26000 im analytischen Vergleich mit ISO 14000 und SA8000. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik 14(3):378–400Google Scholar
  10. Hahn R, Weidtmann C (2016) Transnational governance, deliberative democracy, and the legitimacy of ISO 26000: analyzing the case of a global multi-stakeholder process. Bus Soc. 55(1):90–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ISO (2004a) ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1: 5th edn. GenfGoogle Scholar
  12. ISO (2004b) New work item proposal – social responsibility: ISO/TMB N 26000. GenfGoogle Scholar
  13. ISO (2005a) Resolutions from the first meeting of ISO/TMB/WG SR: ISO/TMB/WG SR N 15. o.O.Google Scholar
  14. ISO (2005b) Guidance on stakeholder categories in the ISO/TMB/WG SR: ISO/TMB/WG SR N 48 rev. 1. o.O.Google Scholar
  15. ISO (2007a) Report of SR mirror committee survey: ISO/TMB/WG SR/TG 1 N14. o.O.Google Scholar
  16. ISO (2007b) ISO social responsibility mirror committee survey: TG1-N18. o.O.Google Scholar
  17. ISO (2007c) Operating procedure on Liaison D organizations: ISO/TMB/WG SR N 105. o.O.Google Scholar
  18. ISO (2008a) (Draft) TG 2 Action plan: ISO/TMB/WG/SR/TG 2 N7, Version 1.3. o.O.Google Scholar
  19. ISO (2008b) Resolutions from the 6th meeting of ISO/TMB/WG SR: ISO/TMB/WG SR N 154. o.O.Google Scholar
  20. ISO (2009a) Participating in the future international standard ISO 26000 on social responsibility: Brochure SR A5 – E – 6 April 2009, TG2 N088. GenfGoogle Scholar
  21. ISO (2009b) Clarifying the rules and procedures for CD, DIS, FDIS: presentation at the ISO TMB/WG SR 7th plenary meeting, ISO/TMB/WG SR N 169. Quebec 18.–22. Mai 2009Google Scholar
  22. ISO (2009c) Report of the secretariat: presentation to the agenda item 6 at the ISO/TMB/WG SR, 7th plenary meeting, Document N 153. Quebec 18.–22. MaiGoogle Scholar
  23. ISO (2009d) WG SR List of experts and observers, Version vom 28. Oktober 2009. o.O.Google Scholar
  24. ISO (2010a) Report of the secretariat: presentation to the agenda item 6 at the ISO/TMB/WG SR, 8th meeting, Document N 183. Kopenhagen 17.–21. Mai 2010Google Scholar
  25. ISO (2010b) Guidance on social responsibility – ISO 26000:2010(E). GenfGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson C, Ridgeway CL, Dowd TJ (2006) Legitimacy as a social process. Annu Rev Sociol 32:53–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klinke A (2009) Deliberative Politik in transnationalen Räumen. Politische Vierteljahreszeitschrift 50:774–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kumar R, Das TK (2007) Interpartner legitimacy in the alliance development process. J Manage Stud 44:1425–1453Google Scholar
  29. Mattli W, Büthe T (2003) Setting international standards – technological rationality of primacy of power? World Polit 56:1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matz N (2005) Financial institutions between effectiveness and legitimacy. Int Environ Agreem 5:265–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Palazzo G, Scherer AG (2006) Corporate legitimacy as deliberation. J Bus Ethics 66:71–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Quack S (2010) Law, expertise and legitimacy in transnational economic governance. Socioecon Rev 8:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Raz J (1990) Introduction. In: Raz J (Hrsg) Authority. New York: New York University Press, S 1–19Google Scholar
  34. Scharpf FW (1997) Games real actors play. Boulder Westview PressGoogle Scholar
  35. Schmiedeknecht M, Wieland J (2007) ISO 26000 as a network discourse. In: Wieland, J (Hrsg) Governanceethik und Diskursethik. Marburg: Metropolis, S 137–171Google Scholar
  36. Siggelkow, N (2007) Persuasion With Case Studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1):20 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Take I (2008) Legitimate governance beyond the nation state in comparison. International Conference of the Social-Ecological Research Programme, Berlin 22.–23. Februar 2008Google Scholar
  38. Walgenbach P, Beck N (2003) Effizienz und Anpassung. DBW 63:497–515Google Scholar
  39. WCED (1987) Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  40. Wettstein F (2010) For better or for worse: corporate responsibility beyond „Do No Harm“. Bus Ethics Q 20:275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wieland J (2007) Idealistische, ideale und reale Diskurse. In: Wieland J (Hrsg) Governanceethik und Diskursethik. Marburg: Metropolis, S 13–57Google Scholar
  42. Wolf KD (2006) Private actors and the legitimacy of governance beyond the state – conceptual outlines and empirical explorations. In: Benz A, Papadopoulos Y (Hrsg) Governance and democracy. London: Routledge, S 200–227Google Scholar
  43. Yin RK (2003) Case study research – design and methods, 3. Aufl. Thousand Oaks: SageGoogle Scholar
  44. Zürn M (2004) Global governance and legitimacy problems. Gov Oppos 39:260–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität HohenheimStuttgartDeutschland

Personalised recommendations