Substantive Characteristics of Legitimate Partner NGOs

  • Dorothea BaurEmail author
Part of the Issues in Business Ethics book series (IBET, volume 36)


Substantive characteristics for judging legitimate partner NGOs typically try to establish whether they raise legitimate claims. This approach contradicts the claim which was made in favour of an unconstrained public dialogue in Chapter 7. In order for the emancipatory potential of NGOs to unfold, we need a public dialogue which allows for any and all matters to be brought under critical scrutiny. The more diverse an environment, the more important it is that public debates are open to a wide range of issues and accessible to almost all actors. For example, if we state that a partner NGO is only legitimate if it raises universal claims, we might exclude those NGOs which represent indigenous communities whose claims contradict Western notions of universalism. It is argued that a focus on substantive characteristics does not provide sufficient orientation for identifying legitimate partner NGOs, and it does neither help to distinguish them from related actor types.


Universalism Particularism Public good 


  1. Adair, A. “Codes of Conduct Are Good for NGOs Too”. IPA Review 51 (1) (1999): 26–27.Google Scholar
  2. Banerjee, S.B. “Whose Land Is It Anyway? National Interest, Indigenous Stakeholders, and Colonial Discourses”. Organization & Environment 13 (1) (2000): 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benhabib, S. Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. Cambridge (UK): Polity Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. Chandhoke, N. “How Global is Global Civil Society?” Journal of World-Systems Research XI (2) (2005): 355–71.Google Scholar
  5. Fowler, A. Civil Society, NGDOs and Social Development: Changing the Rules of the Game. Geneva: UNRISD, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. Gray, R., J. Bebbington, and D. Collison. “NGOs, Civil Society and Accountability: Making the People Accountable to Capital”. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 19 (3) (2006): 319–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ignatieff, M., and A. Gutmann. Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. Vedder, A. “Towards a Defensible Conceptualization of the Legitimacy of NGOs”. In NGO Involvement in International Governance and Policy: Sources of Legitimacy, edited by A. Vedder, V. Collingwood, and A. Van Gorp, 197–211. Leiden: Brill/Martinus Nijhoff, 2007.Google Scholar
  9. Young, I.M. “Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy”. Political Theory 29 (5) (2001): 670–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Slim, H. “By What Authority? The Legitimacy and Accountability of NGOs”. The International Council on Human Rights Policy International Meeting on ‘Global Trends and Human Rights – Before and after September 11’, Geneva, January 10–12, 2002.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, L.D., and Jagadananda. “Civil Society Legitimacy and Accountability: Issues and Challenges.” 2007. Hauser Center Working Paper (32). First Accessed January 27, 2008.
  12. International Council on Human Rights Policy. Deserving Trust: Issues of accountability for human rights NGOs (Draft Report for Consultation). Geneva: International Council on Human Rights Policy, 2003.Google Scholar
  13. Nijhof, A., T. de Bruijn, and H. Honders. “Partnerships for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts and Strategic Options”. Management Decision 46 (1) (2008): 152–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of St. Gallen, Institute for Business EthicsSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations