IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijbget/v19y2025i6p649-670.html

Shared goals, different logics: comparison of multi-stakeholder and business-led initiatives as private governance models

Author

Listed:
  • Erin Leitheiser

Abstract

Multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) and business-led initiatives (BLIs) constitute the predominant models of private governance through which corporations engage to manage sustainability challenges, especially in their supply chains. Yet, little is known about the differences between the models or the implications thereof. This study compares MSIs and BLIs through an institutional logics lens to understand their differences and theorise about their potential to address sustainability challenges. Is it better to give a hungry person a fish or a fishing rod, and when? Using the case of the Bangladesh garment industry, this study compares a MSI and BLI which arose simultaneously and shared the same broad goals but conducted their work in very different ways. It develops a framework of differing logics of private governance, finding that MSIs embody a collective logic, well suited for addressing systemic issues and process rights, while BLIs exemplify a benevolent logic, befitting for narrowly-defined problems and measurable outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Erin Leitheiser, 2025. "Shared goals, different logics: comparison of multi-stakeholder and business-led initiatives as private governance models," International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 19(6), pages 649-670.
  • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijbget:v:19:y:2025:i:6:p:649-670
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=149871
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:ids:ijbget:v:19:y:2025:i:6:p:649-670. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=70 .

    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.