IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/mlucee/201603.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

NGO credibility as private or public good? A governance perspective on how to improve NGO advocacy in public discourse

Author

Listed:
  • Hielscher, Stefan
  • Winkin, Jan
  • Pies, Ingo

Abstract

Though research in the field of business and society is increasingly involved with the sector of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and their advocacy function, in particular in relation to business corporations, the literature remains largely silent on how feasible reforms can help establish public trust in and credibility of NGOs by improving the quality and reliability of their contributions to real-life public discourses. In an effort to fill this gap, we argue that fostering the collective credibility of NGO advocacy requires focusing on the level of governance of NGO accountability. Based on a fundamental conceptual distinction between a private-goods dimension and a public-goods dimension of NGO accountability, we can show that semantic confusion can complicate functional solutions to establish collective NGO credibility and public trust. We illustrate our argument with a case study of a worldwide governance initiative in this sector, the „INGO-Accountability Charter“, including qualitative-empirical results on five expert interviews with representatives of NGO member organizations.

Suggested Citation

  • Hielscher, Stefan & Winkin, Jan & Pies, Ingo, 2016. "NGO credibility as private or public good? A governance perspective on how to improve NGO advocacy in public discourse," Discussion Papers 2016-03, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:mlucee:201603
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/170450/1/dp2016-03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthias Georg Will & Stefan Hielscher, 2014. "How do Companies Invest in Corporate Social Responsibility? An Ordonomic Contribution for Empirical CSR Research," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-23, July.
    2. Ingo Pies & Markus Beckmann & Stefan Hielscher, 2010. "Value Creation, Management Competencies, and Global Corporate Citizenship: An Ordonomic Approach to Business Ethics in the Age of Globalization," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 94(2), pages 265-278, June.
    3. Williamson, Oliver E., 2010. "Transaction Cost Economics: The Natural Progression," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 86(3), pages 215-226.
    4. Sanjiv Erat & Uri Gneezy, 2012. "White Lies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(4), pages 723-733, April.
    5. Hielscher, Stefan & Beckmann, Markus & Pies, Ingo, 2014. "Participation versus Consent: Should Corporations Be Run according to Democratic Principles?1," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(4), pages 533-563, October.
    6. Baur, Dorothea & Palazzo, Guido, 2011. "The Moral Legitimacy of NGOs as Partners of Corporations," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(4), pages 579-604, October.
    7. Dorothea Baur & Hans Schmitz, 2012. "Corporations and NGOs: When Accountability Leads to Co-optation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 106(1), pages 9-21, March.
    8. Stefan Hielscher & Matthias Georg Will, 2014. "Mental Models of Sustainability: Unearthing and Analyzing the Mental Images of Corporate Sustainability with Qualitative Empirical Research," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(6), pages 708-719, November.
    9. Johan F. M. Swinnen & Pasquamaria Squicciarini & Thijs Vandemoortele, 2011. "The food crisis, mass media and the political economy of policy analysis and communication," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(3), pages 409-426, August.
    10. Burger, Ronelle & Owens, Trudy, 2010. "Promoting Transparency in the NGO Sector: Examining the Availability and Reliability of Self-Reported Data," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1263-1277, September.
    11. Valentinov, Vladislav & Hielscher, Stefan & Pies, Ingo, 2015. "Nonprofit organizations, institutional economics, and systems thinking," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 491-501.
    12. Peninah Thomson & Tom Lloyd, 2011. "The new world," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Women and the New Business Leadership, chapter 0, pages 24-48, Palgrave Macmillan.
    13. Guido Palazzo & Andreas Scherer, 2006. "Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A Communicative Framework," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 66(1), pages 71-88, June.
    14. Pies, Ingo & Hielscher, Stefan & Beckmann, Markus, 2009. "Moral Commitments and the Societal Role of Business: An Ordonomic Approach to Corporate Citizenship," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 375-401, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pies, Ingo & Beckmann, Markus & Hielscher, Stefan, 2012. "The political role of the business firm: An ordonomic concept of corporate citizenship developed in comparison with the Aristoleian idea of individual citizenship," Discussion Papers 2012-1, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    2. Markus Beckmann & Stefan Hielscher & Ingo Pies, 2014. "Commitment Strategies for Sustainability: How Business Firms Can Transform Trade‐Offs Into Win–Win Outcomes," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 18-37, January.
    3. Vladislav Valentinov & Lioudmila Chatalova, 2016. "Institutional Economics, Social Dilemmas, and the Complexity-Sustainability Trade-off (A response to Hielscher and Pies)," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 488-491, May.
    4. Pies, Ingo & Hielscher, Stefan & Everding, Sebastian, 2020. "Do hybrids impede sustainability? How semantic reorientations and governance reforms can produce and preserve sustainability in sharing business models," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 174-185.
    5. Ingo Pies & Philipp Schreck & Karl Homann, 2021. "Single-objective versus multi-objective theories of the firm: using a constitutional perspective to resolve an old debate," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 779-811, April.
    6. Pies, Ingo & Hielscher, Stefan, 2019. "Fighting corruption: How binding commitments of business firms can help to activate the self-regulating forces of competitive markets," Discussion Papers 2019-04, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    7. Stefan Hielscher & Ingo Pies, 2016. "Emergent Social Dilemmas in Modern Society: An Institutional Economics Perspective (A comment on Valentinov and Chatalova)," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 483-487, May.
    8. Felix Carl Schultz & Robert Jaroslav Reinhardt, 2022. "Facilitating systemic eco‐innovation to pave the way for a circular economy: A qualitative‐empirical study on barriers and drivers in the European polyurethane industry," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(5), pages 1646-1675, October.
    9. Vladislav Valentinov & Lioudmila Chatalova, 2016. "Institutional Economics and Social Dilemmas: a Systems Theory Perspective," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 138-149, January.
    10. Stefan Hielscher & Ingo Pies & Vladislav Valentinov & Lioudmila Chatalova, 2016. "Rationalizing the GMO Debate: The Ordonomic Approach to Addressing Agricultural Myths," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-10, May.
    11. Hielscher, Stefan & Pies, Ingo & Valentinov, Vladislav & Chatalova, Lioudmila, 2016. "Rationalizing the GMO debate: The ordonomic approach to addressing agricultural myths," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(5), pages 1-10.
    12. Islam, Muhammad Azizul & Deegan, Craig & Haque, Shamima, 2021. "Corporate human rights performance and moral power: A study of retail MNCs’ supply chains in Bangladesh," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    13. Will, Matthias Georg & Hielscher, Stefan, 2013. "How do companies invest in corporate social responsibility? An ordonomic contribution for empirical CSR research," Discussion Papers 2013-3, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    14. Will, Matthias Georg & Pies, Ingo, 2014. "Discourse and regulation failures: The ambivalent influence of NGOs on political organizations," Discussion Papers 2014-2, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    15. Lisa Herzog, 2017. "No Company is an Island. Sector-Related Responsibilities as Elements of Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 146(1), pages 135-148, November.
    16. Anna Remišová & Anna Lašáková & Alexandra Bohinská, 2019. "Reasons of Unethical Business Practices in Slovakia: The Perspective of Non-Governmental Organizations' Representatives," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 67(2), pages 565-581.
    17. Rohan Miller & Grant Michelson, 2013. "Fixing the Game? Legitimacy, Morality Policy and Research in Gambling," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 116(3), pages 601-614, September.
    18. Matthias Georg Will & Stefan Hielscher, 2014. "How do Companies Invest in Corporate Social Responsibility? An Ordonomic Contribution for Empirical CSR Research," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-23, July.
    19. Suchanek Andreas, 2012. "Unternehmensverantwortung als Vermeidung relevanter Inkonsistenzen / Corporate Responsibility: The Avoidance of Relevant Inconsistencies," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 63(1), pages 241-260, January.
    20. Cedric Dawkins, 2014. "The Principle of Good Faith: Toward Substantive Stakeholder Engagement," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 121(2), pages 283-295, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Business-NGO Relations; NGO Accountability; Public Discourse; Governance; Ordonomics; Business-NGO-Beziehungen; NGO Accountability; Öffentliche Diskurse; Governance; Ordonomik;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:mlucee:201603. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wwhalde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.