IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/buseth/v30y2021is1p5-24.html

Fit for addressing grand challenges? A process model for effective accountability relationships within multi‐stakeholder initiatives in developing countries

Author

Listed:
  • Esther Hennchen
  • Judith Schrempf‐Stirling

Abstract

Business is expected to contribute to grand challenges (GC) such as poverty within their corporate social responsibilities. Multi‐stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) have developed to a popular governance model to address GC. While existing scholarship has discussed the positive and negative aspects of MSIs, we know relatively little about how corporations within MSIs are held accountable. The objective of the study is to analyze the dynamics of accountability relationships between the corporate actor and the accountability forum to conceive a process model for effective accountability relationships in developing countries. We conducted an inductive study which explored the tensions the accountability forum perceives in MSI accountability relationships and the criteria to meet the forum's accountability claims. Our study identified four accountability criteria: transparency, inclusion, procedural fairness, and efficacy. Our main theoretical claim is that considering the four accountability criteria in the process of facilitating, dialoguing, and evaluating allows affected stakeholders to validate and match legitimacy claims with their own expectations, and thus, manage MSIs more effectively. Our contribution to existing scholarship on MSIs in developing countries is that we offer a novel perspective on analyzing the effectiveness of MSIs to address GC through our focus on one element of MSIs––specifically accountability. Beyond academic theorizing, this perspective may well hold value for nongovernmental organizations, policymakers, and business managers as it advances a concept of responsibility based on a set of accountability criteria which have the potential to become a cornerstone for how MSI members can organize to effectively address GC in developing countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Esther Hennchen & Judith Schrempf‐Stirling, 2021. "Fit for addressing grand challenges? A process model for effective accountability relationships within multi‐stakeholder initiatives in developing countries," Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(S1), pages 5-24, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:buseth:v:30:y:2021:i:s1:p:5-24
    DOI: 10.1111/beer.12325
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12325
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/beer.12325?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helmut Willke & Gerhard Willke, 2008. "Corporate Moral Legitimacy and the Legitimacy of Morals: A Critique of Palazzo/Scherer’s Communicative Framework," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 81(1), pages 27-38, August.
    2. Gilbert, Dirk Ulrich & Rasche, Andreas, 2007. "Discourse Ethics and Social Accountability: The Ethics of SA 8000," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 187-216, April.
    3. Wil Martens & Bastiaan Linden & Manuel Wörsdörfer, 2019. "How to Assess the Democratic Qualities of a Multi-stakeholder Initiative from a Habermasian Perspective? Deliberative Democracy and the Equator Principles Framework," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 1115-1133, April.
    4. Petra Kuenkel & Andrew Aitken, 2015. "Key Factors for the Successful Implementation of Stakeholder Partnerships: The Case of the African Cashew initiative," Springer Books, in: Verena Bitzer & Ralph Hamann & Martin Hall & Eliada Wosu Griffin-EL (ed.), The Business of Social and Environmental Innovation, edition 127, chapter 0, pages 183-197, Springer.
    5. Jamali, Dima & Karam, Charlotte & Yin, Juelin & Soundararajan, Vivek, 2017. "CSR logics in developing countries: Translation, adaptation and stalled development," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 343-359.
    6. Sébastien Mena & Daniel Waeger, 2014. "Activism for Corporate Responsibility: Conceptualizing Private Regulation Opportunity Structures," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(7), pages 1091-1117, November.
    7. Ralf Barkemeyer, 2011. "Corporate perceptions of sustainability challenges in developed and developing countries: constituting a CSR divide?," Social Responsibility Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 7(2), pages 257-281, July.
    8. Cynthia Hardy & Nelson Phillips & Thomas B. Lawrence, 2003. "Resources, Knowledge and Influence: The Organizational Effects of Interorganizational Collaboration," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(2), pages 321-347, March.
    9. Julia Black, 2008. "Constructing and contesting legitimacy and accountability in polycentric regulatory regimes," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 137-164, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Ralf Barkemeyer, 2011. "Corporate perceptions of sustainability challenges in developed and developing countries: constituting a CSR divide?," Social Responsibility Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 7(2), pages 257-281, June.
    12. Juliane Reinecke & Shaz Ansari, 2016. "Taming Wicked Problems: The Role of Framing in the Construction of Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 299-329, May.
    13. 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.
    14. David Levy & Juliane Reinecke & Stephan Manning, 2016. "The Political Dynamics of Sustainable Coffee: Contested Value Regimes and the Transformation of Sustainability," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 364-401, May.
    15. Edwin Rühli & Sybille Sachs & Ruth Schmitt & Thomas Schneider, 2017. "Innovation in Multistakeholder Settings: The Case of a Wicked Issue in Health Care," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 143(2), pages 289-305, June.
    16. Glen Whelan, 2013. "Corporate Constructed and Dissent Enabling Public Spheres: Differentiating Dissensual from Consensual Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(4), pages 755-769, July.
    17. Schouten, Greetje & Leroy, Pieter & Glasbergen, Pieter, 2012. "On the deliberative capacity of private multi-stakeholder governance: The Roundtables on Responsible Soy and Sustainable Palm Oil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 42-50.
    18. Anica Zeyen & Markus Beckmann & Stella Wolters, 2016. "Actor and Institutional Dynamics in the Development of Multi-stakeholder Initiatives," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(2), pages 341-360, May.
    19. Ralf Barkemeyer, 2011. "Corporate perceptions of sustainability challenges in developed and developing countries: constituting a CSR divide?," Social Responsibility Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 7(2), pages 257-281, June.
    20. Andreas Georg Scherer & Andreas Rasche & Guido Palazzo & André Spicer, 2016. "Managing for Political Corporate Social Responsibility: New Challenges and Directions for PCSR 2.0," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 273-298, May.
    21. Andreas Georg Scherer & Guido Palazzo, 2011. "The New Political Role of Business in a Globalized World: A Review of a New Perspective on CSR and its Implications for the Firm, Governance, and Democracy," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 899-931, June.
    22. Gilbert, Dirk Ulrich & Rasche, Andreas & Waddock, Sandra, 2011. "Accountability in a Global Economy: The Emergence of International Accountability Standards," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 23-44, January.
    23. Soundararajan, Vivek & Brown, Jill A. & Wicks, Andrew C., 2019. "Can Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives Improve Global Supply Chains? Improving Deliberative Capacity with a Stakeholder Orientation," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(3), pages 385-412, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xin Chen & Eric Hansen & Jianfeng Cai & Jichang Xiao, 2023. "The differential impact of substantive and symbolic CSR attribution on job satisfaction and turnover intention," Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 1233-1246, October.

    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. Juliane Reinecke & Jimmy Donaghey, 2021. "Political CSR at the Coalface – The Roles and Contradictions of Multinational Corporations in Developing Workplace Dialogue," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 457-486, March.
    2. Cedric E. Dawkins, 2021. "An Agonistic Notion of Political CSR: Melding Activism and Deliberation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(1), pages 5-19, April.
    3. Martin Fougère & Nikodemus Solitander, 2020. "Dissent in Consensusland: An Agonistic Problematization of Multi-stakeholder Governance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 164(4), pages 683-699, July.
    4. Julia Grimm & Rebecca C. Ruehle & Juliane Reinecke, 2024. "Building Common Ground: How Facilitators Bridge Between Diverging Groups in Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 194(3), pages 583-608, October.
    5. Janina Grabs & Graeme Auld & Benjamin Cashore, 2021. "Private regulation, public policy, and the perils of adverse ontological selection," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1183-1208, October.
    6. Richard W. Carney & Sadok El Ghoul & Omrane Guedhami & Jane W. Lu & He Wang, 2022. "Political corporate social responsibility: The role of deliberative capacity," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(8), pages 1766-1784, October.
    7. Wei Liu & Xiyan Han & Guiqin Zhou, 2025. "Enterprises’ Heterogeneous Preferences for Incentive Policies of Poverty Alleviation in China," SAGE Open, , vol. 15(1), pages 21582440251, February.
    8. Myriam C. Rapior & Marc Oberhauser, 2026. "Human Rights Violations in Global Value Chains: A Locally Grounded Governance Framework," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 203(1), pages 27-54, January.
    9. Andreas Rasche & Frank Bakker & Jeremy Moon, 2013. "Complete and Partial Organizing for Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(4), pages 651-663, July.
    10. Anna-Lena Maier, 2021. "Political corporate social responsibility in authoritarian contexts," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(4), pages 476-495, December.
    11. Verena Girschik, 2020. "Managing Legitimacy in Business‐Driven Social Change: The Role of Relational Work," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 775-804, June.
    12. Christopher Wickert, 2021. "Corporate Social Responsibility Research in the Journal of Management Studies: A Shift from a Business‐Centric to a Society‐Centric Focus," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(8), pages 1-17, December.
    13. Andreas Georg Scherer & Andreas Rasche & Guido Palazzo & André Spicer, 2016. "Managing for Political Corporate Social Responsibility: New Challenges and Directions for PCSR 2.0," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 273-298, May.
    14. Stephanie Schrage & Dirk Ulrich Gilbert, 2021. "Addressing Governance Gaps in Global Value Chains: Introducing a Systematic Typology," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(4), pages 657-672, May.
    15. Subhabrata Bobby Banerjee, 2022. "Decolonizing Deliberative Democracy: Perspectives from Below," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(2), pages 283-299, November.
    16. David Levy & Juliane Reinecke & Stephan Manning, 2016. "The Political Dynamics of Sustainable Coffee: Contested Value Regimes and the Transformation of Sustainability," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 364-401, May.
    17. Ralph Hamann & Lulamile Makaula & Gina Ziervogel & Clifford Shearing & Alan Zhang, 2020. "Strategic Responses to Grand Challenges: Why and How Corporations Build Community Resilience," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 161(4), pages 835-853, February.
    18. Jean-Pascal Gond & Luciano Barin Cruz & Emmanuel Raufflet & Mathieu Charron, 2016. "To Frack or Not to Frack? The Interaction of Justification and Power in a Sustainability Controversy," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 330-363, May.
    19. Domenico Dentoni & Verena Bitzer & Greetje Schouten, 2018. "Harnessing Wicked Problems in Multi-stakeholder Partnerships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(2), pages 333-356, June.
    20. Mai S Linneberg & Ahmad Hassan & Toke Bjerregaard, 2025. "Institutional work within the boundaries of multi-stakeholder initiatives: The relational agency of implementing partners and women cotton-pickers in practice change," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 46(1), pages 256-286, February.

    More about this item

    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:wly:buseth:v:30:y:2021:i:s1:p:5-24. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/26946424 .

    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.