Skip to main content

The Link between Standard-Setting NGO’s Legitimacy and Effectiveness: An Exploration of Social Mechanisms

  • Chapter

Abstract

When we talk about NGOs and their legitimacy, it is common to distinguish between advocacy NGOs on the one hand, and service provision NGOs on the other (see Franz and Martens, 2006). While the former are often evaluated in terms of the authenticity of their claim to represent others (Hahn, 2008; Mallaby, 2004), the standard currency for judging the latter are the relative efficiency and effectiveness with which an organisation provides its services and the contribution of its services to the common good (Frantz and Martens, 2006). However — and this volume provides a number of examples — the discussion about NGOs and their legitimacy more and more tends to include an evaluation of NGOs in much broader terms, such as inclusiveness, transparency, or accountability. In a move that some have interpreted as a ‘backlash against civil society’ (Clark, 2003, pp. 169–85), the legitimacy of NGOs is publicly challenged and NGOs that demand democracy or accountability are increasingly asked ‘How democratic are you?’, ‘To whom are you accountable?’ and ‘Who do you speak for and what is your claim to speak for others based on?’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • K. Bäckstrand (2006) ‘Democratizing Global Environmental Governance? Stakeholder Democracy after the World Summit on Sustainable Development’, European Journal of International Relations, 12, 4, pp. 467–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Beisheim (1997) ‘Nichtregierungsorganisationen und ihre Legitimität’, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, B 43/1997, pp. 21–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Benhabib (1996) ‘Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy’, in S. Benhabib (ed.) Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), pp. 67–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Bernstein (2004) The Elusive Basis of Legitimacy in Global Governance: Three Conceptions, Working Paper No. GHC 04/2 of the Institute for Globalization and the Human Condition (Hamilton, ON: McMaster University).

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Bernstein and B. Cashore (2004) ‘Non-State Global Governance: Is Forest Certification a Legitimate Alternative to a Global Forest Convention?’, in J. Kirton and M. Trebilcock (eds) Hard Choices, Soft Law: Combining Trade, Environment and Social Cohesion in Global Governance (Aldershot: Ashgate), pp. 33–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • T. A. Börzel and T. Risse (2005) ‘Public-Private Partnerships: Effective and Legitimate Tools of International Governance?’ in E. Grande and L. W. Pauly (eds) Complex Sovereignty: Reconstituting Political Authority in the Twenty-First Century (Toronto: University of Toronto Press), pp. 195–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Buchanan and R. Keohane (2006) ‘The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions’, Ethics and International Affairs, 20, 4, pp. 405–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. L. Campbell (2005) ‘Where Do We Stand? Common Mechanisms in Organizations and Social Movements Research’, in G. F. Davis, D. McAdan, W. R. Scott and M. N. Zald (eds) Social Movements and Organization Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 41–68.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • S. Chambers (2003) ‘Deliberative Democratic Theory’, Annual Review of Political Science, 6, pp. 307–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A. Chayes and A. Handler Chayes (1995) The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. T. Checkel (2006) ‘Tracing Causal Mechanisms’, International Studies Review, 8, 2, pp. 362–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Clark (2003) Worlds Apart: Civil Society and the Battle for Ethical Globalization (London: Earthscan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Corporate Europe Observer (2002) ‘Rio+10 and the Privatisation of “Sustainable Development”’, Corporate Europe Observer, 11, May 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • G. F. Davis and C. Marquis (2005) ‘Prospects for Organization Theory in the Early Twenty-First Century: Institutional Fields and Mechanisms’, Organization Science, 16, 4, pp. 332–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. Dickinson (2006) ‘Guidelines by Stakeholders for Stakeholder: Is it Worth the Effort?’ SDI Issues — CSR & Accountability No. 18 (Amsterdam: SDI), available at http://www.globalreporting.org/NR/rdonlyres/B2E70533–6026-4260-AF2D-06C814E860C8/0/DickinsonByStakeholdersForStakeholders.pdf, date accessed 16 January 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • P. J. DiMaggio and W. W. Powell (1983) ‘The Iron Cage Revisited. Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’, American Sociological Review, 48, 2, pp. 147–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K. Dingwerth (2007) The New Transnationalism: Transnational Governance and Democratic Legitimacy (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • K. Dingwerth and P. Pattberg (2009) ‘World Politics and Organizational Fields: The Case of Transnational Sustainability Governance’, European Journal of International Relations, 15, 4, pp. 707–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • H. Eckstein (1975) ‘Case Study and Theory in Political Science’, in F. I. Greenstein and N. W. Polsby (eds) Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 7 (Reading: Addison-Wesley), pp. 79–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Fowler and S. Heap (2000) ‘Bridging Troubled Waters: The Marine Stewardship Council’, in J. Bendell (ed.) Terms of Endearment: Business, NGOs and Sustainable Development (Sheffield: Greenleaf), pp. 135–48.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • T. M. Franck (1990) The Power of Legitimacy among Nations (New York: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Frantz and K. Martens (2006) Nichtregierungsorganisationen (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag).

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2001) GRI Update: January 2001 [on file with author].

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2002a) Dialogue on Current and Future Directions: Some Key Issues and Perspectives for and from Our Stakeholders (GRI web archive document) [on file with author].

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2002b) GRI Secretariat Memorandum: Summary of the Revisions Working Group and Related Board (20 March–September 2002) [on file with author].

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2002c) GRI Update: August 2002 [on file with author].

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2002d) GRI Update: June 2002 [on file with author].

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2002e) GRI Update: May 2002 [on file with author].

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2002f) A Historic Collaborative Achievement: Inauguration of the Global Reporting Initiative (4 April 2002) [on file with author].

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2002g) Incorporation of Stitching Global Reporting Initiative (Amsterdam: GRI).

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2003a) Business Plan 2003–2005 (Amsterdam: GRI).

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2003b) News Update October 2003 [on file with author].

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2004a) News: ‘GRI Rules the Roost’: Benchmarking Report Shows 94% of Best Reporters are Using GRI, available at http://www.globalreporting.org/news/updates/article.asp?ArticleID=366, date accessed 27 December 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2004b) Structured Feedback Process, available at http://www.globalreporting.org/feedback/SFP.asp, date accessed 21 June 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2007a) Latest News: New OS this month, available at http://www.globalreporting.org/NewsEventsPress/LatestNews/2007/NewsJan07NewOS.htm, date accessed 1 February 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2007b) available at http://www.corporateregister.com/gri/ (homepage), date accessed 17.01.2007.

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2009) What We Do, available at http://www.globalreporting.org/AboutGRI/WhatWeDo/, date accessed 15 January 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (undated-a) Stakeholder Council: Terms of Reference [on file with author].

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (undated-b) Stakeholder Council, http://www.globalreporting.org/governance/stakeholdercounc.asp, date accessed 23 March 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Göbel (2007) Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth? Some Thoughts on the Role of Inclusiveness in (Private) Transnational Governance (Mimeo, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen) (Tübingen: Eberhard-Karls-Universität).

    Google Scholar 

  • L. H. Gulbrandsen (2004) ‘Overlapping Public and Private Governance: Can Forest Certification Fill the Gaps in the Global Forest Regime?’, Global Environmental Politics, 4, 2, pp. 75–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K. Hahn (2008) NGOs’ Power of Definition: Identity Productions in Counter-Human Trafficking Discourse and the Debates on the UN Protocol, Ph.D. Dissertation (Bremen: University of Bremen).

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Hasenclever, P. Mayer, and V. Rittberger (1997) Theories of International Regimes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • C. Huckel (2005) Legitimacy and Global Governance in Managing Global Public Health, Paper presented at the conference ‘Organizing the World: Rules and Rule-Making among Organizations’, Stockholm, 13–15 October.

    Google Scholar 

  • I. Hurd (1999) ‘Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics’, International Organization, 53, 2, pp. 379–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Jachtenfuchs (2003) ‘Regieren jenseits der Staatlichkeit’, in G. Hellmann, K. D. Wolf and M. Zürn (eds) Die Neuen Internationalen Beziehungen: Forschungsstand und Perspektiven in Deutschland (Baden-Baden: Nomos), pp. 495–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. O. Keohane (2003) ‘Global Governance and Democratic Accountability’, in D. Held and M. Koenig-Archibugi (eds) Taming Globalization: Frontiers of Governance (Cambridge: Polity), pp. 130–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • G. Klosko (2000) Democratic Procedures and Liberal Consensus (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Liese and M. Beisheim (forthcoming) ‘Transnational Public-Private Partnerships and the Provision of Collective Goods in Developing Countries’, in T. Risse and U. Lehmkuhl (eds) Governance without a State? Policies and Politics in Areas of Limited Statehood.

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Mallaby (2004) ‘NGOs: Fighting Poverty, Hurting the Poor’, Foreign Policy, September/October, pp. 50–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. B. Mitchell (1998) ‘Sources of Transparency: Information Systems in International Regimes’, International Studies Quarterly, 42, 1, pp. 109–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Palenberg, W. Reinicke, and J. M. Witte (2006) Trends in Non-Financial Reporting, GPPi Research Paper Series No. 6. (Berlin: GPPI).

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Pattberg (2004) ‘“Private-Private Partnerships” als innovative Modelle zur Regel(durch)setzung? Möglichkeiten und Grenzen eines neuen Konzeptes am Beispiel des Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)’, in T. Brühl, H. Feldt, B. Hamm, H. Hummel and J. Martens (eds) Unternehmen in der Weltpolitik: Politiknetzwerke, Unternehmensregeln und die Zukunft des Multilateralismus, (Frankfurt a. M.: Dietz), pp. 143–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Risse (2006) ‘Transnational Governance and Legitimacy’, in A. Benz and I. Papadopoulos (eds) Governance and Democracy: Comparing National, European and International Experiences (London: Routledge), pp. 179–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Steets (forthcoming) Partnership Accountability. Defining Accountability Standards for Public Policy Partnerships, unpublished manuscript, Berlin/Erfurt.

    Google Scholar 

  • M. C. Suchman (1995) ‘Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches’, Academy of Management Review, 20, 3, pp. 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Tarrow (2005) The New Transnational Activism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • M. van de Kerkhof (2006) ‘Making a Difference: On the Constraints of Consensus Building and the Relevance of Deliberation in Stakeholder Dialogues’, Policy Sciences 39, 3, pp. 279–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S. Waddell (2002) The Global Reporting Initiative: Building a Corporate Reporting Strategy Globally (Boston, MA: The Global Action Network Net).

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Wapner (1996) Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics (Albany, NY: SUNY Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Willetts (ed.) (1996) The Conscience of the World: The Influence of Non-Governmental Organisations in the UN System (London: C. Hurst & Co).

    Google Scholar 

  • K. D. Wolf (2006) ‘Private Actors and the Legitimacy of Governance beyond the State. Conceptional Outlines and Empirical Explorations’, in A. Benz and I. Papadopoulos (eds) Governance and Democracy: Comparing National, European and International Experiences (London: Routledge), pp. 200–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • O. R. Young (1999) Governance in World Affairs (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Zürn (1992) Interessen und Institutionen in der internationalen Politik: Grundlegung und Anwendung des situationsstrukturellen Ansatzes (Opladen: Leske + Budrich).

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2010 Marianne Beisheim and Klaus Dingwerth

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Beisheim, M., Dingwerth, K. (2010). The Link between Standard-Setting NGO’s Legitimacy and Effectiveness: An Exploration of Social Mechanisms. In: Steffek, J., Hahn, K. (eds) Evaluating Transnational NGOs. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230277984_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics