| Many globalization narratives pit increasingly ascendant multinational corporations against disciplined states, workers, communities and ecosystems. These narratives focus on the disjuncture between the transnational coordination of corporate activities and the national and sub-national authority of most regulatory mechanisms. There is increasing evidence however, of the rise of new forms of informal regulation that are attempting to fill transnational regulatory gaps. Corporate campaigns have emerged as one example of this new breed of informal, transnational governance mechanisms. Organized by transnational networks of socially responsible investors, consumers, unions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and community representatives, these campaigns combine protest, popular education, shareholder resolutions and dialogue with corporate managers to enforce new social and environmental standards for corporate activity. In an effort to understand the potential and limitations of informal regulation, this dissertation focuses on the following three specific research questions: (1) How do corporations' organizational structures and branding strategies create opportunities for, or barriers to, stakeholder influence? (2) What are the main paths of influence used by corporate campaigns to shape corporate practice? (3) What is the depth and breadth of change achieved through corporate campaigning?; This dissertation argues that contemporary corporate structures include plenty of vulnerabilities and opportunities for campaigns to stake new demands on corporate behavior. Not all corporations are equally vulnerable to social regulation, however, nor are all campaign networks equally powerful. Successful standard setting and enforcement requires a combination of risk creation and meaningful dialogue with corporate executives. Moreover, both of these processes are informed by a complex network of mediators, including investment analysts and consultants, in addition to the campaign network itself. Finally, this dissertation argues that there is uneven development of corporate responsibilities across sectors, across issues, and among places. This uneven development is not simply a matter of a time lag between initial changes and their eventual diffusion, but rather a systemic consequence of corporate campaigning as a governance mechanism. Despite these limitations, recent shifts in campaign strategies may provide means to reinvigorate traditional (i.e. state-centered) politics as well as transform individual corporations. |
