ABBOTT&SNIDALInternational Regulation Without International Government

Rev Int Organ (2010) 5:315–344
DOI 10.1007/s11558-010-9092-3
International regulation without international

government: Improving IO performance
through orchestration
Kenneth W. Abbott & Duncan Snidal

Received: 22 January 2010 / Revised: 2 July 2010 / Accepted: 12 July 2010 /
Published online: 11 August 2010
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract International organizations (IOs) have been widely criticized as ineffective. Yet
scholars and practitioners assessing IO performance frequently focus on traditional modes
of governance such as treaties and inter-state dispute-resolution mechanisms. When they
observe poor performance, moreover, they often prescribe a strengthening of those same
activities. We call this reliance on traditional state-based mechanisms “International Old
Governance” (IOG). A better way to understand and improve IO performance is to
consider the full range of ways in which IOs can and do operate—including, increasingly,
by reaching out to private actors and institutions, collaborating with them, and supporting
and shaping their activities. Such actions are helping to develop an intricate global
network of public, private and mixed institutions and norms, partially orchestrated by IOs,
that we call “Transnational New Governance” (TNG). With proper orchestration by IOs,
TNG can ameliorate both “state failure”—the inadequacies of IOG—and “market
failure”—the problems that result when the creation and evolution of norm-setting
institutions is highly decentralized. Orchestration thus provides a significant way for IOs
to improve their regulatory performance. Some IOs already engage actively with private
actors and institutions—we provide a range of illustrations, highlighting the activities of
the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). Yet there remains a significant “orchestration
deficit” that provides real opportunities for IOs. We draw on the lessons of existing IO
activities to suggest additional possibilities for improving IO performance.
Keywords Regulation . International organizations . New governance . Non-state

actors . Transnational relations . Public-private partnerships . Standard setting . UNEP .
Transnational new governance . Regulatory standard setting . Governance Triangle
JEL codes F53 . F55 . F50 . F23 . K2
K. W. Abbott
Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law; School of Politics and Global Studies,
Arizona State University, P.O. Box 877906, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
D. Snidal (*)
Department of Political Science; Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago,
5828 South University Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
316 K.W. Abbott, D. Snidal
1 Introduction
Scholars and commentators assessing the performance of international organizations (IOs)

frequently look at the actions of those organizations in isolation, and in addition focus their
attention on traditional forms of international governance, such as treaty negotiations and
dispute-resolution mechanisms. Such traditional tools of governance require state consent,
apply to states, and rely on state implementation and compliance—even when they are
ultimately intended to coordinate state regulation of private actors (e.g., ILO conventions
addressing actions in the workplace), rather than state actions at the international level (e.g.,
national tariffs). When commentators observe poor IO performance, moreover, they often
call for strengthening those same activities, through additional powers or resources. We call
this reliance on traditional state-based mechanisms “International Old Governance” (IOG)
(Abbott and Snidal 2009b). By this standard IO performance is frequently unsatisfactory.
There is another way to understand IO performance, however: by taking into account
the full range of ways in which IOs can (and do) operate, especially through engagement
with non-state actors and institutions. The best known forms of engagement run from
private actors to IOs: most of the literature on the subject focuses on techniques by which
private actors influence IOs (and states) (Keck and Sikkink 1998; Finnemore and Sikkink
1998; Risse et al. 1999; Risse 2002; Price 2003) and on arrangements under which they
may participate in IO organs and activities (Charnovitz 1996–97; Otto 1996; Betsill and
Corell 2001; Corell and Betsill 2001). Here we reverse that image to examine ways in
which IOs (and states) enhance their own performance by reaching out to private actors
and institutions, collaborating with them, and supporting and shaping their activities.
These actions are helping to develop an intricate global network of public, private and
mixed institutions and norms, partially orchestrated by IOs and states, that we call
“Transnational New Governance” (TNG).1 Although it is still emerging, orchestration of
TNG provides a potentially important way to improve IO performance.
The core of the emerging TNG system is “regulatory standard setting” (RSS): the
promulgation and implementation of non-legally-binding standards of behavior,
applicable directly to private actors rather than to states, in settings that have traditionally
called for mandatory regulation. We focus specifically on RSS for business firms in areas
such as environmental protection, worker rights and human rights, where firms’ economic
activities may create social and environmental externalities. Today, IOs promulgate their
own RSS standards applicable directly to firms (e.g., OECD Guidelines for Multinational
Enterprises), collaborate with firms and NGOs to create and govern RSS norms and
institutions (e.g., UN Global Compact, Principles for Responsible Investment), and
support private RSS schemes in multiple ways (e.g., UN Environment Programme
(UNEP) support for the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)). These initiatives “represent a
new way of working for intergovernmental organisations, complementing formal
intergovernmental decision-making and commitments with more flexible involvement
of a broader range of stakeholders” (UNEP 2000). To fully assess the performance of IOs
that engage in such activities, and to appreciate the under-performance of those that do
1
“TNG” parallels domestic “New Governance” (NG): we draw on the growing NG literature in
developing our arguments (Abbott and Snidal 2009a, b; Cashore et al. 2004; Salamon 2002; de Burca and
Scott 2006; Trubek and Trubek 2007; Lobel 2004; Ayres and Braithwaite 1992).
International regulation without international government: Improving IO performance... 317
not, one must understand both the specific RSS schemes in relevant issue areas and the
entire RSS system.
In section 2, we introduce the many public, private and mixed schemes that adopt and
implement RSS standards for business; we depict those schemes on a figure we call the
Governance Triangle. Section 2 also traces the emergence of RSS over time. RSS has
mainly developed spontaneously, from the bottom up, and has evolved through
decentralized competition and collaboration. However, as we explore in section 3, IO
collaboration with, support for, and steering of nonstate actors and RSS schemes—
orchestration—have the potential to ameliorate many of the weaknesses of this highly
decentralized system. Indeed, section 4 shows how IO initiatives, as well as varied
forms of cooperation among RSS schemes themselves, have already begun to build a
more organized RSS network, one that is evolving into a system of TNG.
In TNG, “the state” (often operating collectively through IOs in the international realm)
orchestrates the creation and operation of public, private and mixed RSS schemes, in
parallel to its traditional role as regulator. Orchestration entails mobilizing and working
with private actors and institutions to achieve regulatory goals, for example, by catalyzing
voluntary and collaborative programs; convening and facilitating private collaborations;
persuading and inducing firms and industries to self-regulate; building private capacities;
negotiating regulatory targets with firms; and providing incentives for attaining those
targets (Freeman 1997–98). As is often the case, IOs are only one actor in these
governance schemes and cannot determine outcomes on their own (Gutner and
Thompson 2010). Nevertheless, effective orchestration can ameliorate both “state
failure”—the inadequacies of IOG—and “market failure”—the governance problems
that result from the spontaneous creation and decentralized evolution of RSS schemes.
Orchestration thus provides a significant way for IOs to strengthen international
regulation, improving their own performance.
TNG and IO orchestration are in their infancy, however, so we do not want to overstate
our positive claims. First, TNG has been largely spontaneous, and thus far has emerged in
only a few issue areas and economic sectors. The extent to which it can be generalized
both within and across issues is still unknown, although New Governance theory provides
some guidance as to the possibilities and difficulties. Second, RSS is often contentious and
highly politicized. Actors such as advocacy NGOs, business firms and IO officials have
conflicting views as to what standards should be implemented in an area, as well as over
the exact form and composition of RSS governance. Third, as discussed further in
section 3, RSS schemes interact with each other in ways that may strengthen or
undermine individual schemes according to the nature of that interaction and its
orchestration. Finally, many IOs are relatively weak institutions whose ability to be
successful orchestrators will depend heavily on their ability to forge and maintain
effective working relationships with other actors (states, firms and NGOs). Thus an
analysis of orchestration is necessarily somewhat speculative and suggestive at this
stage.
In section 5, we turn to more prescriptive analysis. We already see beginnings of
TNG as a result of the RSS initiatives, partnerships and support of some IOs. Yet there
remains a significant “orchestration deficit” in the RSS system that must be overcome to
realize the full potential of TNG. We draw on the lessons of existing forms of
orchestration to suggest additional possibilities for improving IO performance. This
section also shows how TNG helps address several of the important issues pertinent to
gauging IO performance—the “eye of the beholder” problem, measurement problems,

the “paradox of accountability” and the role of IOs as self-evaluators—that are raised by
the Gutner-Thompson (2010) framework paper and other papers in this issue. The final
section is a brief conclusion.
2 The Governance Triangle and the Evolution of RSS
2.1 Mapping RSS Schemes on the Governance Triangle
The number and extent of RSS schemes have expanded dramatically with the recent
intensification of economic globalization.2 Figure 1 depicts many of the most significant
schemes in terms of the participation of three categories of actors—IOs/states, NGOs
and firms—situated at the three vertices of the Governance Triangle.3 (Table 1 identifies
each scheme; we sometimes refer to schemes by their acronyms as listed there.) The
placement of a scheme is determined by each actor group’s “share” in scheme
governance: the closer a scheme is to an actor group’s vertex, the greater the governance
role of actors of that type. We divide the Triangle into seven Zones that represent the
major combinations of actors in RSS schemes.4 In addition, the dashed horizontal lines
in Fig. 1 divide the Triangle into three “tiers,” defined by the nature of IO/state
involvement:
(i) The top, “State-led” tier includes Zone 1, in which states and IOs are
dominant. This tier encompasses domestic regulation (and domestic New Gover-
nance),5 state-based IOG, and RSS schemes initiated and managed by IOs and states.
For present purposes, however, we include only a single illustration of domestic
regulation (IECA++) and of IOG (FOA++), with ++ indicating the many additional
measures these examples represent. The remaining institutions shown in Zone 1 are
IO-sponsored RSS schemes: for example, OECD represents the OECD Guidelines,
BM the WHO Code of Marketing for Breast-Milk Substitutes.
(ii) The bottom, “Private-led” tier includes Zones 2, 3 and 6, in which private
actors are dominant. This tier encompasses RSS schemes initiated and managed by
firms (Zone 2, with ++ indicating the large number of individual firm schemes),
NGOs (Zone 3) and firm-NGO combinations (Zone 6). For example, SAI is an
2
Economic globalization was also strong in the pre-1914 period, yet on most measures the late 20th
century surge in globalization reached or exceeded previous levels, especially as developing countries and
the former Soviet bloc embraced more open economic policies. Information flows are significantly more
globalized in the current period, supporting new methods of organizing global production, “whether
integrated vertically in global factories or through looser cross-border production networks.” Combined
with a reduction in the globalization and mobility of labor, these factors led to the appearance of numerous
labor rights, human rights and environmental RSS schemes. Kahler and Lake (2003).
3
For a full discussion of the Governance Triangle, its nuances and its implicit assumptions, see Abbott
and Snidal (2009a, b). Note that RSS schemes range widely in scope and scale. For example, Rugmark
organizes the certification of child-labor-free rug production in South Asia, whereas UNGC promotes
human rights, labor, environmental and corruption standards across many sectors on a global basis.
4
The vertex Zones (1, 2 and 3) are dominated by a single actor, the quadrilateral Zones (4, 5 and 6)
involve two dominant actors, while Zone 7 involves significant involvement of all three actors.
5
For examples of domestic New Governance, see Freeman (1997–98); Trubek and Trubek (2007);
Holzinger et al. (2006); Coglianese et al. (2003).
STATEs
IFC
IECA++
FOA++
State-led
1
ECO OECD
BM EMAS
ILO
UNGC
C4C
CW
TOI
SAICM
KIMB
RSB
Collaborative
ISO14
PRI 5 7 4 FI
TCO EQP
EITI TCP
VPSHR
AIP
GRI ICC
SULL 4C
WRC
3 FLA 6 SFI
WDC 2 ICMM
GG
AI RA
CERES ETI FSC
MSC FTO
IFOAM
AA
WBC
BSC
RC Private-led
RUG FLO BS+ SQF GAP++
CCC SAI PEF
GSULL MH WRAP
MAC
NGOs FIRMs
Fig. 1 The governance triangle. Filled circles (●) are RSS schemes with direct IO participation
NGO-initiated scheme, working to improve labor and social conditions through its
SA8000 code, which incorporates firms as well as labor unions and other NGOs in
its governance. IOs and states play little if any direct role in the governance of these
schemes. However, as discussed below, IOs and states often create background
conditions that facilitate (or in some cases impede) scheme operations, and provide
varied forms of support, without exerting significant control. For example, SA8000
draws extensively on standards established under ILO and UN conventions.
Schemes that benefit from such support are placed higher in the tier. These
background and supporting roles may be easy to overlook; in assessing IO
performance, however, it is essential not to ignore them.
(iii) The middle, “Collaborative” tier includes Zones 4, 5 and 7. This tier encompasses
schemes in which IOs and/or states share governance with firms and/or NGOs, creating
public-private partnerships. For example, UNGC in zone 4 represents the UN Global
Compact, in which the Executive Office of the Secretary-General and other IOs
collaborate with firms and, to a lesser extent, civil society. PRI in Zone 5 represents the
Principles for Responsible Investment, created through negotiations with financial firms
coordinated by UNEP and UNGC, with some civil society input. Bilateral and trilateral
partnerships like these are developing into new forms of “international organization” that
differ from traditional inter-governmental IOs in their informal, often networked structure
(Meidinger 2007: 9–11), their inclusion of non-state actors in governance, and their
targeting of norms and programs directly on firms, rather than on states.6
6
The tripartite structure of Zone 7 arrangements such as EITI is reminiscent of—but different from—the
tripartite state-worker-employer structure of the ILO. Among other differences, a broader range of
stakeholders typically participates in the new institutions, their governance arrangements are more fluid,
and as in most RSS schemes, their norms are voluntary and address firms directly.
Table 1 RSS schemes shown on the governance triangle
Zone 1 BM WHO Code of Marketing for Breast-milk Substitutes 1981

ECO EU Flower Eco-label 1992
EMAS EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme 1995
FOA ILO Freedom of Association and Right to Organize Convention, 1948
IECA The Employment of Children Act (India) 1938
IFC World Bank International Finance Corp. Safeguard Policies 1998
ILO International Labor Org. Declaration on Multinational Enterprises 1977
OECD OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises 1976
Zone 2 BS The Body Shop’s “Trade Not Aid” initiative 1991
BSC Business Social Compliance Initiative; labor rights standard and auditing process for
suppliers of European firms, linked to SAI, 2004
GAP Gap, Inc. individual labor rights scheme of 1992
GG Global GAP agricultural practices standards 1997 (as EUREPGAP)
ICC Int’l Chamber of Commerce Charter for Sustainable Development 1991
ICMM Int’l Council on Mining and Metals sustainable development principles, 2003
PEF Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification 1999
RC Responsible Care, chemical industry environmental scheme 1987
SFI Sustainable Forestry Initiative 1994
SQF SQF 1000, 2000, food safety, social, environmental standards 1994
WBC World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 1992
WDC World Diamond Council warranty system for conflict diamonds 2004
WRAP Worldwide Responsible Apparel Production, industry labor code 2000
Zone 3 AI Amnesty International Human Rights Guidelines for Companies 1997
CCC Clean Clothes Campaign Code of Labor Practices for apparel 1998
CERES CERES Principles on environmental practices and reporting 1989
GSULL Global Sullivan Principles on economic and social justice 1999
RA Rainforest Alliance/Sustainable Agriculture Network standard, 1993
RUG Rugmark labeling scheme to control child labor in carpets 1994
SULL Sullivan Principles 1977
WRC Worker Rights Consortium 2000
Zone 4 C4C Caring for Climate Network, 2007
CW CEO Water Mandate, 2007
EQP Equator Principles 2003
ISO14 International Organization for Standardization 14001 environmental management
standard 1996
FI UNEP Finance Initiative, 1992
TOI Tour Operators Initiative 2000
UNGC United Nations Global Compact 2000
Zone 5 PRI Principles for Responsible Investment, UN-sponsored investor scheme 2006
TCO TCO Development environmental and energy standards for computers
Zone 6 4C Common Code for the Coffee Community social, environmental, economic standards, 2006
AA AccountAbility; AA1000 framework for stakeholder accountability, ethical accounting,
auditing and reporting, 1999
ETI Ethical Trading Initiative worker rights scheme 1998
Table 1 (continued)
FLA Fair Labor Association; apparel industry scheme 1999

FLO Fairtrade Labeling Organization “fair trade” umbrella scheme 1997
FSC Forest Stewardship Council certification, labeling scheme 1993
FTO World Fair Trade Organization; standard for fair trade organizations, 2004
GRI Global Reporting Initiative; standards for social, environ. reports 1997
IFOAM International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements 1972
MAC Marine Aquarium Council standards for ornamental fish suppliers, 2001
MH Max Havelaar Fair Trade certification, labeling for coffee 1988
MSC Marine Stewardship Council 1997
SAI Social Accountability Int’l standard for supplier labor practices 1997
Zone 7 AIP Apparel Industry Partnership; Clinton Administration initiative convening firms, unions,
NGOs, other industry stakeholders 1996–7
EITI Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative; UK disclosure scheme for payments by firms,
host government expenditures 2002–03
KIMB Kimberley Process on conflict diamond trade 2003
RSB Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels, 2007
SAICM Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management, 2006
TCP Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria Partnership, 2008
VPSHR Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights 2000
2.2 Shifting Patterns of RSS
In addition to its overall expansion, the patterns of RSS have shifted dramatically
over the past 30 years, as depicted in Fig. 2.7 Figure 2 divides the schemes on the
Triangle into three time periods, based on the date of the schemes’ first forays into
RSS. We determined this periodization inductively to provide clear empirical
“snapshots” of the developing governance patterns.
Figure 2a shows the period up to 1985. The dark shading of Zone 1 reflects both
extensive, although uneven, domestic regulation (IECA++) and longstanding efforts at
the international level to develop IOG (FOA++) through IOs such as the ILO: these
were the primary forms of regulation before the mid-1980s. IOs rarely attempted to
regulate firms or other private actors directly before (or after) 1985. Notable exceptions
were the OECD and ILO efforts to regulate multinational enterprises through voluntary
codes; these have had limited success. Equally striking, in retrospect, is the absence of
private RSS initiatives in this period—with the 1977 Sullivan Principles (SULL) a rare
NGO effort and the 1972 IFOAM alliance on organic agriculture one of the few multi-
stakeholder arrangements. All this changed dramatically, however, with the emergence
of a variety of mainly private schemes after 1985.
Figure 2b shows the 1985–94 period, which witnessed the emergence in Zone 2 of
pioneering self-regulatory “corporate social responsibility” (CSR) schemes adopted by
individual firms (including GAP and BS) and by industry associations (including ICC
7
Adapted from Abbott and Snidal (2009a).
a. Pre-1985 b. 1985-94 c. Post-1994

Fig. 2 a–c Evolution of the governance triangle. Shading indicates density of schemes in each zone
and RC) (Vogel 2005). The medium shading of Zone 2 reflects the rapid spread of
self-regulatory codes. In parallel, a number of additional NGO schemes (including
CERES and RUG) emerged in Zone 3, as did multi-stakeholder schemes involving
both firms and NGOs in Zone 6—notably the 1988 MH Fair Trade certification
program and the 1993 FSC. The developments in these different zones are not
unrelated: all reflect early responses to the regulatory challenges posed by intensifying
globalization of production, often crystallized by social and environmental “demon-
stration effects” such as the 1984 Bhopal disaster, which led to the formation of RC.8
Figure 2c shows the post-1994 period. In these years, individual firm schemes
proliferated rapidly as increased regulatory and social pressures for socially responsible
behavior made it standard practice for large firms to proclaim some form of CSR. While
many CSR codes were sincere, a larger number were not implemented in effective ways
and lacked independent monitoring (Bartley 2007: 297). There was also a significant
expansion of industry schemes (such as WRAP, GG, ICMM and PEF), designed in part
to increase the credibility of firm-based schemes, and in part to promote more business-
friendly standards than those advanced by NGO and multi-stakeholder schemes. These
changes are reflected in the dark shading of Zone 2. Additional NGO schemes were
established then as well, sometimes in response to the perceived shortcomings of self-
regulation without outside scrutiny.
More striking yet is the rapid expansion of collaborative schemes. Almost all the
NGO-firm schemes in Zone 6 and the IO-firm schemes in Zone 4 were created post-1994;
this period has also seen the first tripartite arrangements among firms, NGOs and IOs—or
more frequently states—working together in Zone 7. These schemes are driven by the
advantages of collaboration among actors with different competencies and resources;
however, such schemes must contend with important internal differences, and even
conflicts, over regulatory goals and strategies (Abbott and Snidal 2009a). The medium
and light shading in Fig. 2c reflects the intensity of these developments. In sum, while
important new treaties, IOs and other IOG efforts have been adopted over the past
30 years of globalization, the pace of innovation and growth in RSS reflects an
important shift in international governance.
In addition to the shifting patterns of RSS as a whole, individual schemes may evolve
over time.9 A dynamic of particular interest involves schemes that are initiated with
8
See Mattli and Woods (2009) on the importance of demonstration effects, and Abbott and Snidal (2005)
for a discussion for demonstration effects significant to RSS.
9
Abbott and Snidal (2009a) discusses the difficulty of summarizing these changes, given that RSS
schemes involve a range of activities, from the negotiation of standards through their enforcement.
substantial IO/state involvement, as in Tier II, but once established are governed
primarily by private actors, and so move much lower on the Triangle, within Tier II or
into Tier III. For example, UNEP was essentially a co-founder of GRI, along with
CERES; however, GRI now operates as a Zone 6 firm-NGO scheme, with only limited
direct participation and support by UNEP. Similarly, while UNEP and UNGC managed
the negotiations that created PRI, that scheme is now governed primarily by its private
members. In these situations, as discussed further below, IOs play a catalytic role.
The three snapshots of RSS in Fig. 2a-c provide an imperfect account of the
development of individual RSS schemes and the RSS system over time. What they do
show is that a diverse array of schemes has been created over a relatively short period,
to address specific social and environmental problems. Over time, moreover, there has
been a progression in the nature of RSS, from a predominance of single-actor schemes
(public in Zone 1, then private in Zones 2 and 3), to private partnerships (Zone 6), and
then to public-private partnerships (Zones 4–5) and tripartite schemes (Zone 7).
Elsewhere we argue that this progression can be explained by competition, bargaining
and cooperation among actors and schemes (Abbott and Snidal 2009a). As noted earlier,
these interactions are highly political and contentious, since different actors often differ
significantly as to what standards are appropriate in a given area. For present purposes,
however, the important point is that this progression reflects the beginnings of a
fundamental shift in the role of IOs and states in global governance, from traditional
forms of regulation (IOG) in the State-led tier, to background and supporting roles in the
Private-led tier, and finally to more direct roles as orchestrator and participant in the
Collaborative tier. It is this shift that is enabling the emergence of TNG.
3 The Potential of IO Orchestration
What the snapshots in Fig. 2 do not show (except implicitly in the evolution of RSS)
are the significant inadequacies of many individual RSS schemes and of the current
system as a whole. Single-actor schemes—the most numerous on the Triangle—lack
key elements required for successful regulation: Firm schemes lack the credibility
that comes with outside scrutiny; NGO schemes lack the representativeness and
legitimacy to set global standards and the operational capacity to ensure they are
implemented.10 Firm-NGO collaborative schemes do a superior job of assembling
the competencies needed for RSS, but still lack the legitimacy and resources that IOs
and states can bring to regulatory problems. The result is that many, perhaps most, of
the RSS schemes in existence are simply not competent to provide effective and
legitimate RSS.
In addition, a central feature of the current RSS system is the existence of
multiple schemes that often compete to regulate the same issue; this can have diverse
consequences. On one hand, multiplicity and competition have significant benefits
(Fung et al. 2000): they encourage experimentation, innovation and learning (Dorf
and Sabel 1998), enable multi-faceted approaches to complex problems, allow for
10
For a fuller analysis of the “competencies” of different actors and RSS schemes, see Abbott and Snidal
(2009a).
fine-tuning to specific situations (Prakash and Potoski 2006: 73–74), and reduce the
risk of capture. On the other hand, multiplicity and competition are costly and may
also reduce the individual and collective effectiveness of schemes. Multiplicity may
unnecessarily burden firms seeking or being pressured to conform to the standards of
different RSS schemes. Conversely, multiplicity allows firms to choose to participate
only in those schemes which impose the least stringent requirements; this creates
incentives for parallel schemes—such as FSC, PEF and SFI, or FLA, WRC and
WRAP—to compete for business adherence by offering lower standards. Multiplic-
ity also makes it difficult for outsiders (such as consumers) to distinguish good
schemes from inadequate ones. There is thus no reason to believe that multiplicity
and competition will lead to appropriate RSS standards; indeed, they may aggravate
the bargaining problems faced by actors seeking to develop collaborative schemes
that incorporate broader competencies.
However, the bilateral and tripartite partnerships in the Collaborative tier, and the many
forms of public support and steering in the Private-led tier, suggest that IOs and states can
help rectify these shortcomings. Instead of (or in addition to) regulating directly, as in IOG,
however, IOs and states can work together with private actors and provide them with
oversight and support. Such orchestration can ameliorate many of the problems of RSS
just identified—such as the disproportionate number of schemes lacking essential
competencies, and the burdens, incentives and information problems created by multiple
competing schemes—thus leading to a more effective TNG system. At the same time,
these forms of engagement can help IOs to overcome some of their own regulatory
limitations.
To be successful orchestrators, however, IOs must have some degree of autonomy (or
else a mandate from member states), an interest in orchestration, and the capacity to
coordinate private actors and schemes. We consider each of these requirements in turn.
As to IO autonomy, while traditional realist and neoliberal institutionalist scholarship
viewed IOs merely as doing “what states want” (Barnett and Finnemore 2004: 2),
emerging theories of international politics now ascribe at least some circumscribed
freedom of action to IO secretariats. For example, Barnett and Finnemore rely on
Weber’s theory of bureaucracy to argue that IOs derive autonomy from the legitimacy of
their rational-legal authority and their control of expertise. Recent works in principal-
agency theory suggest that IOs derive a degree of autonomy from normal “agency
slack,” the difficulty of monitoring and control by multiple principals, and the space
created by incomplete contracts (Hawkins et al. 2006; Nielson and Tierney 2003;
Vaubel 2006). And we suggest elsewhere that even state principals will often choose to
endow IO agents with some degree of independence (Abbott and Snidal 1998; see also
Haftel and Thompson 2006). As Elsig (2010) notes in this issue, secretariat autonomy is
often an important ingredient of IO success.
As to IO interests, some theories suggest that IOs frequently pursue goals that differ
from their ostensible substantive missions, so that orchestration in support of those
missions will not be a preferred strategy. For example, principal-agent theories typically
view IOs as narrowly self-interested, acting mainly to maximize the “bureaucratic interest
of their organization” (Vaubel 2006: 137). And bureaucratic politics theories suggest that
internal bargaining among self-interested organizational units frequently produces IO
behavior at odds with the vigorous pursuit of regulatory missions (Barnett and
Finnemore 2004: 37). In contrast, however, a recent study of the influence of
environmental IOs finds “international bureaucracies more often interested in resolving

political problems than increasing their power as such” (Biermann and Siebenhüner
2009b: 8).11
At the least, the nature of IO interests is an empirical question: IOs are likely to vary
significantly in terms of their enthusiasm for orchestration, for reasons such as
bureaucratic structure and culture. On one hand, for example, UNEP has actively
engaged with private actors and RSS schemes, using orchestration to achieve substantive
goals, as we review in section 4 below. On the other hand, a striking counter-example is
the ILO, which—with its tripartite composition involving employers and workers as
well as states—would seem ideally suited for TNG. Yet Baccaro and Mele (2010)
document how the ILO has firmly rejected such approaches. Efforts by two successive
Directors-General to develop TNG strategies, including social labels and other efforts to
engage civil society, were rebuffed by the existing “social partners,” who did not want to
see their privileged position undermined: “the involvement of civil society remains
taboo” in the ILO.
As to IO capability, our critique of IOG may seem to suggest that IOs lack the capacity
to engage in successful orchestration: if IOs cannot satisfactorily coordinate the actions of
states, how can they hope to coordinate diverse private actors and schemes? But there are
two broad reasons why this conclusion is inaccurate.
First, even in the absence of the hierarchical enforcement power associated with IOG,
IOs can draw on a relatively “weak” set of coordination tools in their dealings with states;
these tools are also available for orchestration. Based on their study of environmental IOs,
Biermann et al. (2009: 47–49) and Biermann and Siebenhüner (2009c: 319–27) identify
three channels of influence available to IOs when states are the targets.
& Organizations such as UNEP, the OECD and the World Bank have cognitive
influence, shaping the information and beliefs of states. Cognitive influence can take
different forms: for example, Barnett and Finnemore (2004) see IOs as exerting
influence through expertise and the legitimacy ascribed to rational rule-making
processes; Risse et al. (1999) see them as members of transnational networks that
pressure states to observe international norms as part of a process of socialization.
& IOs such as UNEP and some treaty secretariats have normative influence, shaping and
supporting inter-state rule-making throughout the “regulatory process” (Abbott and
Snidal 2009a: 63–4), from agenda-setting through negotiation, implementation,
monitoring, and responses to non-compliance. Both the centralization of this process
in IOs and the contribution of partly autonomous secretariats enhance rule-making
(Abbott and Snidal 1998).
& IOs such as the World Bank and UN Development Program have executive influence,
assisting states to implement international norms and promoting national policy
development. Here again, Barnett and Finnemore argue similarly that IOs act as
“conveyor belts” for the diffusion of norms and models of good behavior.
11
When IOs are motivated by policy aims, our analysis of orchestration can be viewed as a positive
statement regarding what IOs will do (given the right information about policy alternatives); when IOs
have alternative goals or do not understand the potential of orchestration, then our analysis is necessarily
more normative, suggesting what IOs should do (if they had the “right” goals and information).
All three channels of influence are available and equally important in orchestration: by
exercising cognitive, normative and executive influence, IOs can strengthen and steer the
operations of private, public and collaborative RSS schemes, and can support such
schemes in their relations with states and other IOs.
Second, orchestration of nonstate actors in TNG is less challenging than the
coordination of states. While firms, NGOs and RSS schemes are protective of their
independence, they do not suffer the “sovereignty costs” experienced by states in the face
of supranational authority (Abbott and Snidal 2000). States are also the ultimate
controllers of IOs, and resist orchestration by their own “agents.” Orchestration in TNG,
in contrast, allows IOs to work through intermediaries that are often more willing—
sometimes eager—to work with IOs than are states. NGOs often see IOs as allies,
because they share common (though not always identical) goals. Firms may resist
regulation in general, but often prefer coordinated regulation through IOs to
uncoordinated regulation by multiple states combined with ad hoc pressures from
NGOs. In addition, the information, legitimacy, resources, global reach and other assets
that IOs can dispense are likely to be more highly valued by RSS schemes than by
states, which dispose of similar assets themselves. Finally, the voluntary nature of RSS
schemes makes IO orchestration more acceptable to their constituent actors, including
states.
In sum, by working through private and collaborative RSS schemes, IOs can expand
their influence with less political friction. In section 4 we examine current forms of IO
orchestration to gain insight into these possibilities.
4 Current Forms of IO Orchestration
Some IOs already engage actively with private actors and RSS schemes. We present a
number of examples in this section, highlighting the varied efforts of UNEP to illustrate
the range of mechanisms available to an individual IO. We organize our presentation
around the categories of IO involvement represented by the three tiers of the Governance
Triangle, dominated by IOs/states, private actors and collaborative arrangements,
respectively.
Our examples illustrate the potential of two general forms of IO orchestration. Directive
orchestration is the more powerful but less common of the two; it involves setting
voluntary mandates for business firms or other private actors that, once accepted, are
legally binding or else backed by significant economic or political leverage. Directive
orchestration appears mainly in the State-led tier, and even there only where IO
programs and resources provide sufficient legal authority or influence. Facilitative
orchestration involves softer mechanisms of support and steering; IO involvement with
schemes in the Private-led tier typically takes this form. The partnership relations in the
Collaborative tier encompass both directive and facilitative orchestration.
4.1 Directive Orchestration in the State-led Tier (Zone 1)
The IFC Performance Standards (IFC) illustrate a strong form of directive orchestration. In
this form, an IO adopts regulatory standards for firms as part of an operational program
(here the IFC’s lending and equity financing programs), uses economic (and/or political)
incentives to induce firms to participate voluntarily in that program, and applies its
standards as binding mandates to those that do. The IFC Standards require firms that
borrow from it to observe substantive rules on issues ranging from working conditions to
biodiversity conservation. In addition, the Standards require client firms to conduct
environmental and social impact assessments, adopt environmental management systems
and issue public reports; through these procedural requirements they seek to influence
firms’ self-regulation and internal governance. The economic leverage provided by the
IFC’s financial services allows it to engage in directive orchestration, imposing both
aspects of its Performance Standards as mandatory conditions (Hunter 2008).
Other IOs apply mandatory conditions under programs that offer potential market
benefits, rather than direct program benefits, to firms. Under the EU EMAS program, for
example, participating firms may display the EMAS logo to distinguish themselves in
the marketplace; under recent proposals, national authorities would also provide direct
incentives in the form of financial benefits, procurement opportunities and relaxations of
environmental requirements. To qualify, however, firms must conduct environmental
reviews, establish environmental management systems based on ISO 14001, carry out
environmental audits, and issue public performance reports with a view to continuous
improvement—all approved by accredited independent verifiers.12 Similarly, under the
EU eco-label program (ECO), firms whose products meet demanding ecological
criteria applied by national authorities may display the “Flower” logo in marketing
materials.13
Strong directive orchestration like that in IFC and EMAS requires substantial
regulatory authority as well as powerful incentives, and hence is relatively rare.14 Where
it does take place, it is politically feasible primarily because the underlying programs
are voluntary: firms need not apply for IFC funding or an EU eco-label. Such
programs therefore share many of the weaknesses and strengths of traditional “soft
law” addressed to states (Abbott and Snidal 2000). Their voluntary character reduces
their immediate regulatory impact even if they establish precise rules and delegate
substantial authority to IOs. For this reason, though, member states may allow IOs to
adopt such programs when they would reject mandatory regulation—partly because it
is hard for firms to lobby against voluntary programs. In addition, New Governance
theory suggests that soft regulation has independent benefits: it facilitates experimen-
tation and adaptation to particular situations, promotes stakeholder engagement, and
renders regulation less adversarial.15 Finally, soft regulation may have significant
dynamic effects: programs like IFC and EMAS implant socially- and environmentally-
oriented management systems and practices within firms, may lead firms to internalize
program norms over time, may induce business associations to address the issue
collectively (extending RSS norms across entire industries), provide important
12
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/about/summary_en.htm; http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/
pdf/com_2008_402_draft.pdf
13
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/whats_eco/ov_concept_en.htm
14
For this reason, Arnold and Whitford (2006) suggests that states should mandate the types of internal
management systems that IFC, EMAS and ECO call for, rather than leaving them to be imposed as
conditions on voluntary programs.
15
Abbott and Snidal (2009b) applies New Governance theory to the international context.
examples that promote learning by other schemes and actors, increase pressure on
nonparticipating firms, and lay the groundwork for harder regulation in the future.
4.2 Facilitative Orchestration in the Private-led Tier (Zones 2, 3, 6)
Private actors dominate the RSS schemes across the bottom tier of the Triangle. For many
such schemes, public involvement is limited to a very indirect form of facilitative
orchestration: creating general background conditions, such as national laws that enable
formation of non-profit organizations or provide tax incentives for their operations. For
other schemes, however, facilitative orchestration is more direct, consisting of various
forms of support and steering. We consider a variety of examples, arranged roughly in
order of increasing IO involvement.
The most common background role for IOs is the adoption of treaties, soft law and
other international norms addressed to states, on which private RSS schemes frequently
base their standards. For example, SAI administers its own “auditable certification
standard” for private production facilities, but bases that standard on “International Labour
Organisation (ILO) conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child.”16 Similarly, GRI bases its reporting guidelines
on “international human rights, environmental and labor treaties, standards and
conventions.”17 Some NGO and business schemes (e.g., CCC, BSCI) likewise draw
on treaties and other international norms.18
Treaty rules and other international norms provide focal points that lower the
bargaining costs of standard-setting, thereby ameliorating one of the fundamental
problems of decentralized RSS. In addition, international norms, and the actions IOs
take to promote them, help shape the cognitive context of RSS by influencing the
information, priorities and values of diverse public and private actors (Biermann et al.
2009: 47–48; Biermann and Siebenhüner 2009c: 319–24). Reliance on broadly
consensual public norms such as the core ILO conventions and Universal Declaration
also enhances the legitimacy of private RSS schemes, while ensuring that they act in
harmony with established global public policy. Finally, convergence among RSS
schemes on common international norms reduces the transactions costs of firms that
have to adhere to multiple standards.
A reciprocal background role stems from the increasing willingness of IOs to
allow RSS schemes to participate in their deliberations and programs, along with
NGOs, firms and other “major groups.”19 For example, UNEP, FAO, UNCTAD,
Codex Alimentarius Commission and ECOSOC all provide observer status or
other accreditation to IFOAM; several collaborate extensively with it.20 UNEP’s
16
http://www.sa-intl.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=473
17
http://www.globalreporting.org/AboutGRI/WhoWeAre/; Dingwerth 2007: 111
18
http://www.cleanclothes.org/faq/485; http://www.bsci-eu.org/index.php?id=2020
19
The 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, especially Agenda 21, called for
engagement with “major groups” in society to achieve sustainable development; they include business,
NGOs and labor unions.
20
http://www.ifoam.org/about_ifoam/status/index.html
annual business dialogue includes GRI and several business associations that
sponsor RSS schemes, such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC),
International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) and International Council of
Chemicals Associations, sponsor of RC.21 Participation by private schemes can
educate IOs about RSS alternatives, increasing the likelihood that IOs will develop
their own RSS schemes, engage in facilitative orchestration, or otherwise
incorporate RSS into their regulatory strategies. At the same time, IO accreditation
provides a modest form of endorsement for private schemes that meet minimum
criteria and an opportunity for limited influence over their standards and
operations.
Some IOs use their global status to catalyze private RSS as well as inter-state
negotiations and national actions, thereby supplementing IOG rule-making and
their own politically and financially constrained implementation programs.
UNEP, for example, has a mandate to “catalyze and coordinate” environmental
action in the international system, and has promoted a number of inter-
governmental treaty negotiations (Bauer 2009). Beginning in the 1980s, it also
began promoting company codes of conduct and environmental reporting.22 Since
1984, together with the social and environmental think-tank SustainAbility, UNEP
has “benchmarked” corporate environmental reports to encourage continuous
improvement. Its dialogues with business leaders, held regularly since 1984,
encourage high-level commitment to environmental responsibility. UNEP has
proposed to convene private environmental schemes and other actors in a global
process to develop common standards for communicating information on the
sustainability of commercial products.23 UNEP also supports capacity-building for
RSS in developing countries; current projects focus on eco-labeling, supply chain
management and stakeholder collaboration.24 The ILO-IFC Better Work program
similarly builds capacity for implementing labor standards across supply chains.25
Working through private actors is especially valuable for a relatively small
organization like UNEP, whose “on-the-ground activities are severely constrained
by the secretariat’s budgetary realities” (Bauer 2009: 183).
A unique example of IO catalysis is the work of the Special Representative
of the Secretary-General on Business and Human Rights, authorized by the UN
Human Rights Commission/Council. The Representative’s initial mandate was
to develop a framework of standards and procedures to address the human
rights responsibilities of business.26 His 2008 framework declared that all firms
21
http://www.unep.fr/scp/business/dialogue/2008/Oct2008_list_participants.pdf. UNEP expanded its civil
society and private sector engagement activities in 2002. See http://www.unep.org/civil_society/
PDF_docs/Enhancing_Civil_Society_Engagement_In_UNEP.pdf.
22
http://www.unep.fr/scp/business/vi/about.htm. UNEP has also described its role in helping to create
GRI as that of international catalyst (Dingwerth 2007: 110).
23
http://www.iisd.ca/mea-l/guestarticle95.html
24
http://www.unep.fr/scp/gri/history.htm; http://www.unep.fr/scp/business/dialogue/; http://www.b4esummit.
com/; http://www.unep.fr/scp/ecolabelling/; http://www.unep.fr/scp/unchaining/. A notable capacity-building
success was UNEP support for multi-stakeholder development of the East African Organic Products
Standard.
25
http://www.betterwork.org/public/global. The program grew out of the ILO’s role in monitoring labor
standards in Cambodian apparel factories under a bilateral trade agreement with the US.
26
Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2005/69, 20 April 2005.
are obliged to respect human rights in all situations, and called on firms to
implement appropriate policies, management systems and procedures. The
Representative’s current mandate emphasizes developing concrete recommenda-
tions, options and best practices, and other activities to promote implementation
of the framework.27
IOs sometimes endorse selected private RSS schemes. For example, UNEP
formally lent its name to the creation of GRI, recognized GRI as a Collaborating
Center, and helped build government support for the organization. The UN provided
its overarching imprimatur by hosting GRI’s launch ceremony. The World Summit
on Sustainable Development explicitly endorsed GRI in its Plan of Implementation;
the 2007 G-8 Summit, addressing mining in developing countries, also endorsed it,
along with UNGC and VPSHR.28 The Global Compact, which is closely linked to a
number of UN agencies, also calls on participating firms to use the GRI reporting
guidelines in preparing UNGC progress reports. Such endorsements help build
awareness, legitimacy, influence and global reach for private schemes (Dingwerth
2007, 104, 110–11).29
IOs often grant direct (although usually modest) financial support to private
schemes. For example, GRI counts among its contributors UNEP, the World Bank,
IFC and the European Commission, as well as the Global Compact. GRI’s
connection to UNEP also made it eligible to receive contributions from the UN
Foundation. Such support not only provides direct economic benefits, but also helps
RSS schemes maintain independence by diversifying their funding sources and
reducing their reliance on fees and contributions from firms. As with other donors,
recent IO contributions to GRI have primarily been designated for specific
projects.30 Such targeted contributions focus IO resources on activities that further
organizational goals. They also provide greater directive influence over targeted
programs, because individual projects can be monitored more easily than general
operations and contributions can more easily be withheld if specified performance
criteria are not met.
Many of the IO activities discussed here can be understood as facilitative
orchestration of the RSS system as a whole, not simply as support for specific schemes.
IO efforts to catalyze private RSS are attempts to fill perceived gaps in the system, such
as a dearth of environmental reporting. IO endorsements and financial support
advantage the selected institutions in the implicit competition for regulatory influence
among schemes on the Triangle. In the case of GRI, the extensive support of UNEP and
27
“Protect, Respect and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rights,” 7 April 2008, http://
www.business-humanrights.org/SpecialRepPortal/Home/ReportstoUNHumanRightsCouncil/2008; Human
Rights Council Resolution 8/7, 18 June 2008.
28
Summit Declaration: Growth and Responsibility in the World Economy, Para. 84, 7 June 2007, http://
www.g-8.de/Content/EN/Artikel/__g8-summit/anlagen/2007-06-07-gipfeldokument-wirtschaft-eng,
templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/2007-06-07-gipfeldokument-wirtschaft-eng.pdf.
29
Endorsements cannot, of course, overcome capacity deficits or structural weaknesses in private
schemes. For example, GRI largely limits its activities to promulgating reporting standards; it does not
monitor, certify or enforce their use by firms and other actors.
30
http://www.globalreporting.org/AboutGRI/Funding/; GRI Sustainability Report 2007-08 at 32, http://
www.globalreporting.org/NR/rdonlyres/E8B6ED9E-1A29-4154-A6DA-F14E6F71A2C9/2877/SR_
FINAL_09_06_with_links.pdf
the UN appears aimed at establishing the scheme as the unique global standard for
sustainability reporting.
4.3 Facilitative and Directive Orchestration in the Collaborative Tier (Zones 4, 5, 7)
Through their participation in the Collaborative tier of the Triangle, IOs facilitate the
formation and operation of collaborative schemes, and sometimes exercise directive
influence over them. Where IOs act primarily as catalysts or convenors, public-
private partnerships are frequently temporary: IO collaboration ends or is
substantially reduced once schemes are operational. In other cases, however, IOs
participate in collaborative schemes over a more extended period of time.
In the case of a temporary collaboration, as noted above, a scheme’s placement on
the Triangle may change over time: the initial relationship may appear in the heart of
the Collaborative tier, while the final scheme is placed lower in that tier or in the
Private-led tier, depending on the IO’s continuing relationship. For example, GRI
was co-founded by UNEP and CERES, which jointly selected and co-chaired its
Steering Committee;31 at that time GRI would have appeared in Zone 7, and the
influence of UNEP would have been at least partially directive. As GRI’s Firm and
NGO members assumed primary governance responsibility, however, the scheme
became largely independent of UNEP, and UNEP’s relationship became facilitative.
Because UNEP is still represented on GRI’s board and supports the scheme in
multiple ways, we now place it high in Zone 6.
With PRI, UNEP and UNGC coordinated the negotiations that produced the
scheme and its Principles. However, participating firms “accepted ownership of the
Principles” and now govern the scheme, although UNEP and UNGC remain on its
board.32 EQP (Zone 4) followed a similar path: the IFC convened leading banks and
guided negotiation of the Principles, which largely follow its Performance Standards;
participating banks now govern the scheme, but cooperate with IFC to maintain
harmony between their standards (Heal 2008; Hardenbrook 2007; Marschinski and
Behrle 2009: 112–14).
Among public-private schemes with continuing IO participation, the Global
Compact is significant as “the largest corporate citizenship and sustainability
initiative in the world—with over 5100 corporate participants and stakeholders from
over 130 countries.”33 UNGC is IO-led: Secretary-General Annan proposed a
voluntary UN scheme based on major international legal instruments, and his
Executive Office created UNGC in cooperation with the UN agencies, including
UNEP, that administer those instruments. The Office and agencies thus had directive
influence during UNGC’s formation, especially over the selection of substantive
standards and modes of operation; the Global Compact Office still manages the
scheme with support from the participating IOs. However, UNGC has been
consciously structured as a public-private initiative. Firms and other stakeholders
31
http://www.unep.fr/scp/gri/; http://www.globalreporting.org/AboutGRI/WhatWeDo/OurHistory
32
http://www.unpri.org/about/
33
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/; http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/about_the_gc/
governance_update2008.pdf
participate in governance through the Board and Leaders’ Summit, and collaborate
on implementation and related projects through local networks. Equally important,
UNGC operates in practice as a learning platform, helping firms to develop and
implement sustainable practices, business models and management tools through
engagement with other firms, external stakeholders and UN officials. Nevertheless,
UNGC remains under the primary control of IOs.
UNEP and the Global Compact have launched related schemes for UNGC
participants. Among others, the Caring for Climate initiative (C4C, Zone 4), co-
sponsored by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, commits
participating firms to act on climate change, collaborate on joint standards and
initiatives, and cooperate with IOs, governments and civil society to develop low-
carbon policies.34 Similarly, the CEO Water Mandate (CW, Zone 4) commits firms
to adopt sustainable water management practices, promote those practices
throughout their supply chains, and work with governments, IOs and civil society
to develop sustainable water policies.35
UNEP participates in other collaborative schemes independent of UNGC. For
example, in preparation for the 1992 Earth Summit, UNEP and a group of major
banks created the UNEP Finance Initiative (FI, Zone 4). The participants adopted a
code of sustainable development principles and collaborate on sustainability projects
and policy initiatives. Private insurers later joined FI, adopting their own code.
UNEP sits on the Steering Committee along with representatives of participating
firms; it worked through FI to coordinate formation of PRI and to develop GRI’s
financial “sector supplement.”36 In the area of tourism, UNEP, UNESCO and
UNWTO worked with tourism firms, with some input from environmental NGOs, to
establish the Tour Operators’ Initiative for Sustainable Tourism Development (TOI,
Zone 4). Participants commit to codes of conduct on sustainable operations and
protection of children from travel-based sexual exploitation. The three IOs are full
members of TOI with seats on its Board.37 In parallel, UNEP, UNWTO and the
Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat collaborated with firms and NGOs to
develop global criteria for sustainable tourism.38 In a third area, UNEP is
collaborating with governments, firms and NGOs in the Roundtable on Sustainable
Biofuels to develop criteria and recommendations for biofuel production.39
As these examples suggest, IOs frequently collaborate with private actors to
address social and environmental issues through programmatic activities as well as
through RSS. In a typology of public-private partnerships suggested by the UN
Secretary-General, these activities include operational projects, policy development,
34
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/Issues/Environment/Climate_Change/; http://www.unglobalcompact.
org/docs/issues_doc/Environment/CLIMATESTATEMENT_revised_postsummit.pdf; http://www.
unglobalcompact.org/docs/news_events/8.1/caring_for_climate.pdf
35
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/Issues/Environment/CEO_Water_Mandate/; http://www.unglobalcompact.
org/docs/news_events/8.1/Ceo_water_mandate.pdf
36
http://www.unepfi.org/index.html; http://www.unepfi.org/about/background/index.html; http://www.
unepfi.org/work_streams/index.html
37
http://www.toinitiative.org/index.php?id=41; http://www.toinitiative.org/index.php?id=11
38
http://www.sustainabletourismcriteria.org/
39
http://www.unep.fr/energy/activities/rsb/; http://www.unep.fr/energy/bioenergy/documents/pdf/
VersionZero.pdf
UNGC
TOI
FI
PRI SAICM C4C
RSB
CW
GSTCP
GRI
Fig. 3 Schemes with engagement by UNEP
information and learning, advocacy and fund-raising (United Nations 2001). Most of
the “Type II” partnerships created at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable
Development focus on such activities—and nearly 2/3 of them include IOs (United
Nations 2006). UNEP has initiated several sectoral programmatic collaborations;
these include the Sustainable Buildings and Construction Initiative, Partnership for
Clean Fuels and Vehicles and Global Mercury Partnership (UNEP 2009a).
4.4 UNEP as Orchestrator
We have emphasized the extensive RSS activities of UNEP in order to illustrate the
diversity of orchestration techniques available to a single IO. Figure 3 brings
together the cases we have discussed, showing only those schemes from Fig. 1 in
which UNEP participates or which it supports. We can analyze UNEP’s activities in
terms of the three tiers of the Governance Triangle.
First, significantly, in the State-led tier UNEP does not sponsor any Zone 1
standards scheme of its own, unlike, say, the OECD.40 UNEP has, however, launched
the Climate Neutral Network (CN Net), under which firms and other actors, including
public authorities, may make individualized pledges to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, communicate strategies and share experiences.41 UNEP’s limited activity
in this area may reflect member state resistance, lack of authority, economic leverage
or resources, UNEP’s relatively recent creation, or simply a strategic choice. As a
result, UNEP has limited capacity for directive orchestration of business activities.
Second, and even more striking, UNEP cooperates extensively with private actors
in all three zones of the Collaborative tier. It convened and helped organize
40
Of course, UNEP has played an active role in developing and implementing treaties and other
instruments directed at states.
41
http://www.unep.org/climateneutral/About/tabid/95/Default.aspx.
collaborative schemes such as PRI, the Global Compact and its offshoots, FI and
TOI to fill perceived gaps in the system. Especially noteworthy is UNEP’s active
engagement with business through multiple schemes in Zone 4. Even the creation of
PRI in Zone 5 involved engagement with economic actors, as its other participants
are fiduciary investors and investment managers; however, these act as NGOs with
regard to target firms. UNEP has not merely acted as a catalyst, but participates in
many of those schemes on an ongoing basis; by negotiating the terms of its
continuing participation and support, it has been able to steer, if not to direct, their
standards and structures.
Third, in the Private-led tier, UNEP’s relationship with GRI is unique: it initially
joined forces with CERES as a co-creator with directive influence, and later became
an active facilitator, endorsing, promoting and supporting GRI while participating in
its governance. In addition, beyond the cases of active participation and support
shown in Fig. 3, UNEP has long promoted company codes, benchmarked corporate
reports, and sponsored dialogues with firms and industry associations engaged in
RSS. It also accredits and cooperates with IFOAM on projects related to organic
agriculture. Finally, it is important to note that other private environmental schemes
use treaties and norms that UNEP administers as a basis for their standards; for
example, the Marine Aquarium Council (MAC) standard incorporates definitions
and principles from the Convention on Biological Diversity; the ICMM sustainable
development principles are based on the Rio Declaration.
Although these examples provide important illustrations, it is important to
remember that UNEP is exceptional in the extent to which it has pioneered TNG
approaches and orchestration. Other IOs have been less aggressive in seeking out
such possibilities and in some cases, notably the ILO as discussed above, have even
been surprisingly hostile.
5 Implications for IO Performance
5.1 Over-Reliance on IOG
Much of the scholarly and policy literature concerned with improving IO performance
has until recently called for adding or strengthening IOG structures and authorities. In
the environmental area, for example, proposals to establish some form of “world
environment organization” (WEO) have created a “vivid policy controversy” for nearly
three decades (Biermann and Siebenhüner 2009b: 3). Calls for a WEO proliferated
around the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, the 1992 Rio
Conference on Environment and Development, and the 2002 Johannesburg World
Summit on Sustainable Development (Bauer and Biermann 2005).42 No fewer than 17
academic, policy and political proposals were advanced in the latter period (Lodefalk
and Whalley 2002), driven by dissatisfaction with the authority of UNEP and by
concern over the power of the World Trade Organization.
42
Bauer and Biermann cite many of the leading sources from these periods.
These proposals have taken three general forms. Geoffrey (1992) took the most
hierarchical approach, proposing a UN environment council, parallel to the Security
Council, which could take legally binding decisions, or alternatively a specialized
agency modeled on the ILO, which could adopt binding regulations, verify state
compliance and impose sanctions.43 The two other leading approaches (each with
numerous variations) are a specialized agency modeled on the WTO, which would have
authority over other environmental IOs and treaties, and a more traditional specialized
agency44 (Biermann 2000; Bauer and Biermann 2005). Even some expressed
opponents of a WEO favor upgrading UNEP to a specialized agency (Najam 2005),
or support more modest IOG solutions, such as clustering environmental treaty bodies
to enhance their efficiency and authority (von Moltke 2005).
To be sure, consistent with the growing interest in private authority and transnational
governance (Cutler et al. 1999; Hall and Biersteker 2002; Ruggie 2004), scholars have in
recent years devoted substantial attention to public-private and private-private partner-
ships and other TNG mechanisms, in environmental policy and more generally.
Significant environmental examples include Andonova (2010); Andonova et al. (2009);
Bäckstrand (2008); Biermann and Pattberg (2008); Börzel and Risse (2005); Dingwerth
(2007); Pattberg (2007); and Pattberg and Stripple (2008). Many of these works discuss
RSS schemes appearing in Fig. 1, as well as still-emerging schemes for transnational
climate governance. While this literature has broadened the academic perspective,
however, it has to date had little impact on official deliberations. In particular, the high-
level debate on environmental governance pursued over the last decade remains focused
on IOG.
Since the Malmö Declaration of 2000, the UNEP secretariat has organized open-ended
government deliberations on reforming environmental governance known as the
“Cartagena Process” (Bauer 2009: 176). Based on these discussions and on parallel
consultations in the General Assembly (Berruga and Maurer 2006), UNEP in 2009
established a consultative group of ministers to develop concrete options, known as the
“Belgrade process” (UNEP 2009b). This group presented its “Set of Options for
Improving International Environmental Governance” in December 2009 (UNEP 2009c).
Virtually all the options identified would make “incremental” changes to existing
institutions and procedures. Moreover, apart from suggestions to enhance UNEP’s
engagement and partnerships with civil society and business as well as participation by
“major groups,” most options would strengthen inter-governmental bodies such as the
Global Ministerial Environmental Forum, the UN Environment Management Group,
and collaboration among treaty bodies.
Some ministerial participants suggested more far-reaching reforms, including creation
of a specialized agency or WEO and a new umbrella organization for sustainable
development. The group concluded, however, that it could not address such proposals
without political guidance. Accordingly, in February 2010, UNEP established a new
ministerial group to consider broader reforms (UNEP 2010a).45 A Background Paper by
43
Under the ILO model, firms and environmental NGOs would play significant roles in a WEO.
44
Under some of these proposals, private actors would be allowed significant input into decision-making.
See, e.g., Frank Biermann, “The Rationale for a World Environment Organization,” in Bauer and
Biermann (2005).
45
The same decision requested the Executive Director to identify incremental options that could be
implemented immediately or in the next UNEP work program.
the Executive Director suggesting options the new group might consider (UNEP 2010b)
focuses heavily on possible new inter-governmental bodies;46 it suggests organizations
to assess scientific information, set and coordinate the global environmental agenda,
review treaty implementation, adopt non-treaty standards for states, coordinate treaty
regimes, manage environmental funds, build national capacity, and so on. The
Background Paper does mention public-private partnerships, like those increasingly
common in global health, but views them exclusively as tools to encourage private
financial contributions.
IOG proposals like these certainly have their place; indeed they may be essential
for addressing over-arching issues like global climate change, which require large-
scale state action. In most cases, however, states remain unwilling to grant IOs
extensive authority, for a wide range of reasons including the difficulty of controlling
delegation to agencies (Nielson and Tierney 2003), “sovereignty costs” (Abbott and
Snidal 2000), the “pathologies” of international organizations (Barnett and
Finnemore 2004), and concerns over the “democratic deficit” (Dahl 1999).
Orchestration attenuates these concerns because it concentrates less power in IOs
and typically entails competition across multiple RSS schemes. In addition, IOG
proposals do not recognize the potential impact for a host of important issues of
engagement by IOs such as UNEP with RSS schemes across the Governance
Triangle. Where private behavior is the ultimate target of international policy, our
analysis suggests that reformers should devote much greater attention to enhancing
IO engagement with RSS, notably through orchestration, thereby helping to develop
an effective TNG system.
5.2 Broadening and Deepening Orchestration
Orchestration offers potentially important benefits for IOs concerned with their
policy performance. First, the possibility of orchestrating existing private and public-
private schemes, as well as of catalyzing, developing and participating in new
schemes, expands an IO’s repertoire of regulatory, promotional and operational
techniques. Through RSS, IOs can better match their activities to their often limited
resources, to specific issues and to specific global settings. Second, TNG creates
regulatory parallelism: RSS schemes address problems in multiple, diverse ways,
supplementing such traditional IO activities as promoting treaty negotiations and
state implementation. Such multi-pronged approaches are more likely to achieve
regulatory objectives than are IOG instruments alone. Third, in an era of constrained
resources, TNG allows IOs to draw on the resources, capacities and competencies of
private actors, reducing demands on their own capacities and incorporating
capacities they may not possess. Fourth, TNG may provide IOs greater legitimacy
by engaging a broad range of stakeholders.
At the same time, IO orchestration can address many of the problems of
decentralized RSS identified in section 2. Effective orchestration can ameliorate
the dominance of single-actor schemes that lack essential competencies by
46
Another suggestion is a new treaty on sustainable development to set out general objectives, principles,
rights and obligations, and establish its own implementing institutions, which would apply across multiple
treaty regimes.
promoting more effective collaborative schemes, and by endorsing and supporting

the best such schemes based on transparent criteria. Even more significant, as
shown by successful examples of IO catalysis, orchestration can ameliorate the
political difficulties that hamper public-private and private-private collaboration: it
can reduce transactions costs and bargaining problems by identifying and
convening appropriate participants and facilitating negotiations; overcome mistrust
by operating as an honest broker in negotiations; and offset differential power by
assisting weaker participants. Orchestration can also address excessive multiplicity
by endorsing and supporting superior schemes, promoting common standards
across schemes, and shaping inter-scheme competition and collaboration in line
with global policy objectives.
IO orchestration has significant advantages over individual state action in achieving
these goals. Most clearly, it avoids the chaotic multiplicity that would result if states
championed their own individual schemes, each with different standards, coverage and
approaches. The global or regional authority of IOs avoids potential conflicts resulting
from assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction by states. Finally, IOs bring competencies
that individual states lack, particularly broad global representativeness and at least a
limited degree of independence from the narrow national economic interests that often
dominate state policies. Biermann and Siebenhüner (2009b, 3) recently observed that
“often, [IO] policies support the interests of weaker actors against more powerful ones,
as well as collective international interests … as opposed to the particular interests of
powerful states.” For this reason, IO involvement can help overcome concerns that
strong countries are imposing standards on weaker states.
For all this, however, even IOs active in RSS orchestration are still taking essentially
modest steps; as noted earlier, few IOs are as active in this field as UNEP. Broadening and
deepening IO engagement in RSS would both strengthen IO performance and aid the
development of TNG. Broadening IO engagement is straightforward: additional IOs
should consider engaging in the types of activities identified in section 4: from
catalyzing private RSS and endorsing high-quality schemes, to joining with firms and
NGOs in collaborative schemes, to adopting their own schemes that offer economic or
political benefits while imposing substantive and procedural conditions. Deepening IO
engagement, in contrast, involves increasing the intensity of the RSS actions in which
particular IOs engage. In the remainder of this section, we provide several illustrations
of the potential for broadening and deepening engagement.
IOs Can Develop International Norms Suitable for Private RSS In the private-led
tier, many RSS schemes base their standards on treaties and other public norms,
with beneficial effects. For the most part, however, the role of IOs in this process
is not only passive but unintended: many of the instruments relied upon (e.g., the
major ILO conventions and Universal Declaration of Human Rights) were
created well before RSS became widespread, and those instruments were drafted
for application to states. IOs could orchestrate more effectively by promoting the
use of existing public norms by private schemes; adopting and refining future
public norms with a conscious view toward their adaptation and use by private
schemes; and involving private actors and schemes in international norm creation
to ensure that newly adopted norms meet the needs of the diverse actors
involved in RSS.
IOs Can Catalyze Private RSS In addition to the catalyzing actions discussed earlier,
most IOs have convening authority which they can deploy in more focused ways, as by
identifying appropriate public and private actors and assembling them with the goal of
creating RSS schemes, even schemes intended ultimately to be private. For example, in
2005 Secretary-General Annan invited large global investment funds and managers to
develop standards for integrating environmental, social and corporate governance
considerations into investment decisions. These meetings ultimately produced PRI.
IOs Can Promote Effective RSS Schemes Through Endorsements IOs sometimes
endorse private schemes, as discussed above. Typically, however, endorsements are ad
hoc. By adopting systematic evaluation criteria and issuing endorsements to RSS schemes
that qualify, IOs can more effectively create and communicate legitimacy for the selected
schemes, while better ensuring that those schemes respect public policies and governance
norms. Yet some IOs have been reluctant to endorse particular schemes even after
adopting evaluation criteria. For example, the World Bank worked with WWF to develop
criteria for sustainable forestry certification bodies, but stops short of endorsing any
specific scheme. Similarly, the FAO established Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish and
Fishery Products, but provides no formal recognition to schemes such as MSC, the first to
fully meet the Guidelines.47 Explicit endorsements would help high-quality private
schemes overcome two of their biggest challenges: their reliance on support from
consumers and the public, and the difficulties consumers and the public face in
distinguishing among competing schemes. Beyond endorsing RSS schemes as such, IOs
might seek opportunities to recognize firms that participate in effective schemes,
creating information that would help schemes, NGOs and the public to target laggard
firms.
IOs Can Create Stronger Positive Incentives to Promote Effective RSS Schemes In
the State-led tier, some IOs have adopted RSS schemes that offer no significant economic
benefits; as a result, these programs must eschew meaningful orchestration. Perhaps most
notably, two high-profile programs from the 1970s—the OECD Guidelines and ILO
Declaration on Multinational Enterprises (ILO)—offer at most general reputational
benefits: they provide no certification, logo or other device to distinguish complying firms
in the marketplace.48 The UNGC has moved slightly further, allowing participating
firms to use its logo on certain publications and publicizing their “Communications of
Progress” yet it still does not scrutinize firms intensively. Given the weakness of the
benefits they currently offer, none of these schemes imposes any mandatory conditions
or requires independent verification of performance. By enhancing the reputational or
market benefits such programs offer, and by partnering with private actors to undertake
strong outside evaluations, IOs could strengthen their regulatory impact.
47
http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/a0116t/a0116t01.htm#bm1.1; http://www.msc.org/newsroom/msc-news/
archive-2006/leader-in-fishery-certification-and-eco-labelling. FAO and MSC are even more deeply
interrelated: the MSC standard was a partial model for the Guidelines, while MSC originally based its
standard partially on the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, a voluntary instrument that
addresses both states and private fisheries stakeholders. See http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/v9878e/
v9878e00.htm.
48
These programs provide very modest reputational benefits by promoting their standards to labor
organizations, NGOs and other stakeholders who can directly observe firm compliance.
Other IOs use their economic power to promote RSS schemes, but do so in such soft or
indirect ways that they barely constitute facilitative orchestration, let alone directive. For
example, the eighteen IOs that procure goods and services through the UN Global
Marketplace spend over $10 billion each year, providing significant economic leverage.
The Marketplace uses that leverage to promote participation by suppliers in the Global
Compact. However, instead of imposing mandatory conditions or creating meaningful
incentives—as do the EU EMAS and eco-label programs—the Marketplace offers
support that is indirect and doubly hortatory: it “invites UN Procurement Officers to
encourage their suppliers to subscribe to the principles of the UN Global Compact.”49 In
addition, Marketplace support focuses on a single and very soft UN-sponsored scheme,
excluding other schemes that might be equally or more effective; extending support to
such schemes would amount to a significant endorsement, encouraging a beneficial
“race to the top.” The World Bank’s (2004: 31–32) sustainable forest strategy is doubly
indirect as well as hortatory: rather than directly addressing forestry firms, it speaks to
government borrowers; rather than mandating certification by acceptable RSS schemes,
it merely encourages governments to “engage independent third-party certification
bodies in performance-based monitoring of forest … operations.”
5.3 Improving the Evaluation of IO Performance
Because TNG is so new, it is premature to evaluate the performance of orchestration in

practice; however, the Gutner-Thompson (2010) performance framework does help us
to identify some additional advantages of TNG over IOG in terms of facilitating the
evaluation of IO performance. While better evaluation does not guarantee better
performance, it is a supporting if not a necessary condition for it.
An important problem Gutner and Thompson (2010) identify is that IO performance
is often in the “eye of the beholder,” so that any evaluation depends on actors’
different views or objectives.50 In many RSS settings, for example, firms prefer looser
standards and less intrusive regulation, especially self-regulation, whereas NGOs
prefer tighter standards and stronger regulation, with external verification. For their
part, states vary in their views of regulation according to the positions and influence of
domestic constituents and important characteristics such as their level of development.
Michael Lipson (2010) points out that IOs are themselves terrains of contest for such
differences, although IOs are also guided by their own normative values and
organizational interests. But effectively-orchestrated TNG may mitigate the problems
resulting from diverse interests and objectives by bringing the actors together in
independent, collaborative RSS schemes. This allows the actors to work out
compromises over interests and goals, and externalizes the problem (to some extent)
from IOs, the locus of state and interest group contestation over proposals for IOG.
Although orchestration is never neutral, it attenuates the incentives that actors have to
capture IOs (as compared to IOG) relative to their incentives to address their
49
http://www.ungm.org/Info/About.aspx; http://www.ungm.org/Info/Guidelines.aspx
50
Michael Lipson (2010), in this volume, emphasizes the parallel problem of ambiguity, where actors
disagree over how to interpret IO actions.
differences through negotiation within RSS schemes. Finally, closer agreement as to

the goals of RSS helps establish clearer criteria by which to evaluate IO performance.
A closely related problem that TNG helps mitigate is the “measurement” of IO
performance. In this volume, Manfred Elsig (2010) suggests this is a particular problem
for the WTO—although in fact measurement is a problem for IOs and other public
sector organizations in general. It is certainly a problem for many RSS schemes: even
if certain outcomes are readily observable (e.g., adoption of codes by specific firms),
other outcomes are very difficult to observe and verify (e.g., effective implementation
of codes). Measurement of the impact of orchestration is thus doubly challenging,
especially when elements of orchestration are “in the background” and inherently
difficult to observe. However, the TNG system and the structure of individual RSS
schemes both enhance the measurement of performance. Given its multiplicity and
competitiveness, TNG as a system allows for comparisons across schemes that allow
some to be identified as better performing. Moreover, the composite nature of
collaborative RSS schemes empowers participating actors (especially NGOs) to
provide their own evaluations of scheme performance, in addition to any evaluations
by IOs.
This meshes nicely with the arguments regarding performance metrics advanced in
Fig. 1 of Gutner and Thompson (2010), and their implication that we need a variety of
measures to capture IO performance. In the context of orchestration and TNG more
generally, contestation among actors provides improved information and multiple
perspectives on the successes and failures of different schemes. This interaction also
produces better information regarding processes and intermediate outputs that, as
Gutner and Thompson argue, often tell us more than outcome-based metrics in this
context. Consider UNEP, which has been fairly successful in coordinating the
activities of various actors and setting standards, as described above, but which is far
too constrained (politically and in terms of resources) to produce dramatic results
through its own direct action. Evaluation of UNEP’s performance as an orchestrator
also keeps the emphasis on what the organization can reasonably be expected to
achieve, while highlighting the essential roles and performance of other actors—firms,
NGOs and states—in achieving global governance goals.
A further advantage of TNG is that it strengthens the ability of IOs to serve as
evaluators of performance. Catherine Weaver (2010) builds on the Gutner-
Thompson framework to emphasize the “paradox of accountability,” whereby IOs’
evaluations of their own programs serve the contradictory purposes of promoting
good performance and legitimizing IO operations. The tension is that IOs’ incentives
to portray themselves as effective get in the way of constructively critical self-
evaluations. Insofar as IOs are outside of individual RSS schemes, however, they are
better positioned to provide accurate evaluations of scheme performance, and can
focus on how performance can be improved without undermining their own
legitimacy. When IOs participate in collaborative RSS schemes, the multiparty
composition of those schemes means that other actors—firms, NGOs and states—are
well-positioned to counteract any tendency by IOs to whitewash their own
performance or that of the schemes. IOs are somewhat less well-positioned to
provide independent evaluations of larger RSS systems that they themselves
orchestrate, but these systems include a plethora of other actors willing to provide
checks on IO performance claims.
6 Conclusion
IOs have been broadly criticized as ineffective. The traditional IOG approaches pursued
by most IOs are especially ill-suited for addressing many issues raised by contemporary
globalization—such as the social and environmental impacts of transnational
corporations—which turn predominantly on the behavior of private actors. However,
the emergence of a wide variety of RSS schemes—private, public and mixed—opens
new possibilities for international governance and new potential roles for IOs, which are
only beginning to be explored. While IO orchestration of the emerging TNG system
offers no panacea, it does offer exciting new opportunities to improve IO performance.
Working with private partners allows IOs to expand their available capacities and
resources; it also diversifies away from their reliance on states. At the same time, such
interactions can stimulate IOs to learn and adapt, offsetting some of their bureaucratic
pathologies. To take advantage of these opportunities, however, IOs must become more
proactive in facilitative and directive orchestration. None of this is to downplay the
difficulties IOs face. The scope of problems being addressed is immense, and IOs have
relatively limited capacities; the orchestration deficit is real even if it is significantly
smaller than the IOG deficit. Given these circumstances, IO orchestration offers a
promising addition to the repertoire of IOs that may improve their performance over a
large and growing area of international regulation.
IOs have a special place in TNG because of the nature of the underlying regulatory
issues and the limitations of decentralized RSS. Individual RSS schemes sometimes
work at cross-purposes, and satisfactory schemes have not emerged in all the areas
where they could be beneficial. Only IOs have the global reach, representativeness and
legitimacy to orchestrate a successful TNG system. A few IOs—such as UNEP and the
UN Secretary-General’s office—have pioneered such approaches, but many others have
not yet risen to the challenge. There is enormous potential to broaden and deepen IO
engagement. This is the challenge and the opportunity for IOs: to improve their
performance through orchestration.
Acknowledgements We thank the editors, Tamar Gutner and Alexander Thompson, and the anonymous
reviewers for valuable comments on this paper.
References
Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (1998). Why states act through formal international organizations. Journal of
Conflict Resolution, 42(1), 3–32.
Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2000). Hard and Soft Law in International Governance. International
Organization, 54(3), 421–456.
Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2005). The international standards process: Setting and applying global
business norms. In P. Nobel (Ed.), International standards and the law (pp. 106–142). Berne:
Staempfli.
Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2009a). The governance triangle: Regulatory standards, institutions and the
shadow of the state. In W. Mattli & N. Woods (Eds.), (pp. 44–88).
Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2009b). Strengthening international regulation through transnational new
governance: overcoming the orchestration deficit. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 42(2), 501–578.
Andonova, L. B. (2010). Public-Private partnerships for the earth: politics and patterns of hybrid authority
in the multilateral system. Global Environmental Politics, 10(2), 25–53.
Andonova, L. B., Betsill, M. M., & Bulkeley, H. (2009). Transnational climate governance. Global
Environmental Politics, 9(2), 52–73.
Arnold, R., & Whitford, A. B. (2006). Making environmental self-regulation mandatory. Global
Environmental Politics, 6(4):1–12.
Ayres, I., & Braithwaite, J. (1992). Responsive regulation: Transcending the deregulation debate. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Baccaro, L., & Mele, V. (2010). Pathology of path-dependency? The ILO and the challenge of ‘new
governance’. Manuscript. University of Geneva.
Bäckstrand, K. (2008). Accountability of networked climate governance: the rise of transnational climate
partnerships. Global Environmental Politics, 8(3), 74–102.
Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the world: International organizations in global politics.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Bartley, T. (2007). Institutional emergence in an era of globalization: the rise of transnational private regulation of
labor and environmental conditions. The American Journal of Sociology, 113(2), 297–351.
Bauer, S. (2009). The secretariat of the United Nations Environment Programme: tangled up in blue. In
Biermann & Siebenhüner (Eds.), (pp.169–202).
Bauer, S., & Biermann, F. (2005). The debate on a world environment organization: An introduction. In F.
Biermann & S. Bauer (Eds.), A world environment organization: Solution or threat for effective
international environ-mental governance? Aldershot (UK): Ashgate.
Berruga, E., & Maurer, P. (2006). Co-chairmen’s summary of the informal consultative process on the
institutional framework for the UN’s environmental activities, 27 June 2006, available at http://www.
environmentalgovernance.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/reform_docs/GA_informal_plenary.pdf, visit-
ed June 8, 2010.
Betsill, M. N., & Corell, E. (2001). NGO influence in international environmental negotiations: a
framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 1(4), 65–85.
Biermann, F. (2000). The case for a world environment organization. Environment, 42(9), 22–31.
Biermann, F., & Pattberg, P. (2008). Global environmental governance: taking stock, moving forward.
Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 33, 277–294.
Biermann, F., & Siebenhüner, B. (2009a). Managers of global change: The influence of international
environmental bureaucracies. Cambridge: MIT.
Biermann, F., & Siebenhüner, B. (2009b). The role and relevance of international bureaucracies: Setting
the stage. In Biermann & Siebenhüner (Eds.), 2009a, (pp. 1–14).
Biermann, F., & Siebenhüner, B. (2009c). The influence of international bureaucracies in world politics:
Findings from the MANUS Research Program. In Biermann & Siebenhüner (Eds.) 2009a, (pp.319–49).
Biermann, F., Siebenhüner, B., Bauer, S., Busch, P. O., Campe, S., Dingwerth, K., Grothmann, T.,
Marschinski, R., & Tarradell, M. (2009). Studying the influence of international bureaucracies: A
conceptual framework. In Biermann & Siebenhüner (Eds.), 2009a, (pp. 37–74).
Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2005). Public-private partnerships: Effective and legitimate tools of
international governance. In E. Grande & L. W. Pauly (Eds.), Reconstituting political authority:
Complex sovereignty and the foundations of global governance (pp. 195–216). Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Cashore, B., Auld, G., & Newsom, D. (2004). Governing through markets: Forest certification and the
emergence of non-state authority. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Charnovitz, S. (1996–97). Two centuries of participation: ngos and international governance. Michigan
Journal of International Law, 18(1), 183–286.
Coglianese, C., Nash, J., & Olmstead, T. (2003). Performance-based regulation: prospects and limitations
in health, safety, and environmental protection. Administrative Law Review, 55(4), 705–729.
Corell, E., & Betsill, M. N. (2001). A comparative look at NGO influence in international environmental
negotiations: desertification and climate change. Global Environmental Politics, 1(4), 86–107.
Cutler, A. C., Haufler, V., & Porter, T. (Eds.). (1999). Private authority and international affairs. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Dahl, R. (1999). Can international organizations be democratic?: A skeptic’s view. In I. Shapiro &
C. Hacker-Cordon (Eds.), Democracy’s edges (pp. 19–36). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
de Burca, G., & Scott, J. (Eds.). (2006). Law and new governance in the EU and the US. Oxford: Hart.
Dingwerth, K. (2007). The new transnationalism. Transnational governance and democratic accountability.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dorf, M. C., & Sabel, C. F. (1998). A constitution of democratic experimentalism. Columbia Law Review,
98(2), 267–473.
Elsig, M. (2010). The World Trade Organization at work: performance in a member-driven milieu. Review
of International Organizations 5(3).
Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International
Organization., 52(4), 887–917.
Freeman, J. (1997–98). Collaborative governance in the administrative state. UCLA Law Review, 45(1),
1–98.
Fung, A., O’Rourke, D., & Sabel, C. (2000). Ratcheting labor standards. World Bank Social Protection
Discussion Paper No. 0011.
Geoffrey, P. (1992). New ways to make international environmental law. American Journal of
International Law, 86(1), 259–284.
Gutner, T., & Thompson, A. (2010). Explaining IO performance: A framework. Review of International
Organizations 5(3).
Haftel, Y. Z., & Thompson, A. (2006). The independence of international organizations: concept and
applications. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(2), 253–75.
Hall, R. B., & Biersteker, T. J. (Eds.). (2002). The emergence of private authority in global governance.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hardenbrook, A. (2007). The equator principles: the private financial sector’s attempt at environmental
responsibility. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 40(1), 197–232.
Hawkins, D., Lake, D., Nielson, D., & Tierney, M. (Eds.). (2006). Delegation and Agency in International
Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heal, G. (2008). When principles pay: Corporate social responsibility and the bottom line. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Holzinger, K., Knill, C., & Schäfer, A. (2006). Rhetoric or reality? new governance in EU environmental
policy. European Law Journal, 12(3), 403–420.
Hunter, D. B. (2008). Civil society networks and the development of environmental standards at
international financial institutions. Chicago Journal of International Law, 8(2), 437–478.
Kahler, M., & Lake, D. A. (2003). Globalization and governance. In M. Kahler & D. A. Lake (Eds.),
Governance in a global economy: Political authority in transition (pp. 1–30). Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Lipson, M. (2010). Performance under ambiguity: international organization performance in UN
peacekeeping. Review of International Organizations 5(3).
Lobel, O. (2004). The renew deal: the fall of regulation and the rise of governance in contemporary legal
thought. Minnesota Law Review, 89(2), 342–470.
Lodefalk, M., & Whalley, J. (2002). Reviewing proposals for a world environment organization. The
World Economy, 25(5), 601–617.
Marschinski, R., & Behrle, S. (2009). The world bank: Making the business case for the environment. In
Biermann and Siebenhüner (Eds.) 2009, (pp. 101–142).
Mattli, W., & Woods, N. (Eds.). (2009). In whose benefit? Explaining regulatory change in global politics.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Meidinger, E. (2007). Beyond Westphalia: Competitive legalization in emerging transnational regulatory
systems. In C. Brutsch & D. Lehmkuhl (Eds.), Law and legalization in transnational relations (pp.
121–143). Abingdon: Routledge.
Najam, A. (2005). Neither necessary, nor sufficient: Why organizational tinkering will not improve
environmental governance. In F. Biermann & S. Bauer (Eds.), A world environment organization:
Solution or threat for effective international environmental governance? Aldershot (UK): Ashgate.
Nielson, D., & Tierney, M. J. (2003). Delegation to international organizations: Agency theory and world
bank environmental reform. International Organization, 57(2), 241–76.
Otto, D. (1996). Nongovernmental organizations in the United Nations system: the emerging role of
international civil society. Human Rights Quarterly, 18(1), 107–141.
Pattberg, P. (2007). Private institutions, global governance. The new politics of environmental
sustainability. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Pattberg, P., & Stripple, J. (2008). Beyond the public and private divide: remapping transnational climate
governance in the 21st century. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and
Economics, 8(4), 367–388.
Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. (2006). The voluntary environmentalists: Green clubs, ISO 14001, and
voluntary regulations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Price, R. (2003). Transnational civil society and advocacy in world politics. World Politics, 55(4), 579–606.
Risse, T. (2002). Transnational actors and world politics. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. A. Simmons
(Eds.), Handbook of international relations (pp. 255–274).
Risse, T., Ropp, S. C., & Sikkink, K. (1999). The power of human rights: International norms and
domestic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ruggie, J. G. (2004). Reconstructing the global public domain—issues, actors, and practices. European
Journal of International Relations, 10(4), 499–531.
Salamon, L. M. (Ed.). (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Trubek, D. M., & Trubek, L. G. (2007). New governance and legal regulation: complementarity, rivalry,
and transformation. Columbia Journal of European Law, 13, 539–564.
UNEP (2000). Voluntary initiatives: Current status, lessons learnt and next steps. Discussion paper based
on UNEP multi-stakeholder workshop on voluntary initiatives, 20 September, Paris.
UNEP (2009a). Natural allies: Engaging civil society in UNEP’s work. (2d ed.), http://www.unep.org/
civil_society/PDF_docs/UNEP-NaturalAllies-June2009.pdf.
UNEP (2009b). Decision 25/4: International environmental governance. In Proceedings of the Governing
Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum at its twenty-fifth session, Annex I, Decisions
adopted by the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum at its twenty-fifth session,
UNEP/GC.25/17, 26 February 2009
UNEP (2009c). International environmental governance: outcome of the work of the consultative group of
ministers or high-level representatives: Note by the Executive Director. UNEP/GCSS.XI/4, 2
December 2009
UNEP. (2010a). Decision SS.XI/1, International environmental governance. In Proceedings of the
Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum at its eleventh special session, UNEP/
GCSS.XI/11, 3 March 2010
UNEP. (2010b). Options for broader reform of international environmental governance: Background paper
by the Executive Director. http://environmentalgovernance.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/
Options-for-Broader-Reform-of-IEG_17May20101.pdf.
United Nations (2001). Report of the Secretary-General, Cooperation between the United Nations and all
relevant partners, in particular the private sector. UN Doc A/56/323.
United Nations (2006). Report of the Secretary-General, Partnerships for Sustainable Development, UN
Doc E/CN.17/2006/6.
Vaubel, R. (2006). Principal-agent problems in international organizations. Review of International
Organizations, 1(2), 125–138.
Vogel, D. (2005). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility.
Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
von Moltke, K. (2005). Clustering international environmental agreements as an alternative to a world
environment organization. In F. Biermann & S. Bauer (Eds.), A world environment organization:
Solution or threat for effective international environmental governance? (pp. 175–204). Aldershot
(UK): Ashgate.
Weaver, C. (2010). The political paradox of international evaluation: the curious case of the IMF. Review
of International Organizations 5(3).
World Bank (2004). Sustaining forests: A development strategy, available at http://siteresources.
worldbank.org/INTFORESTS/Resources/SustainingForests.pdf.

ABBOTT&SNIDALInternational Regulation Without International Government

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABBOTT&SNIDALInternational Regulation Without International Government

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABBOTT&SNIDALInternational Regulation Without International Government

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rev Int Organ (2010) 5:315–344

International regulation without international

Kenneth W. Abbott & Duncan Snidal

Keywords Regulation . International organizations . New governance . Non-state

JEL codes F53 . F55 . F50 . F23 . K2

Scholars and commentators assessing the performance of international organizations (IOs)

gauging IO performance—the “eye of the beholder” problem, measurement problems,

2 The Governance Triangle and the Evolution of RSS

2.1 Mapping RSS Schemes on the Governance Triangle

Table 1 RSS schemes shown on the governance triangle

Zone 1 BM WHO Code of Marketing for Breast-milk Substitutes 1981

FLA Fair Labor Association; apparel industry scheme 1999

2.2 Shifting Patterns of RSS

a. Pre-1985 b. 1985-94 c. Post-1994

3 The Potential of IO Orchestration

environmental IOs finds “international bureaucracies more often interested in resolving

4 Current Forms of IO Orchestration

4.1 Directive Orchestration in the State-led Tier (Zone 1)

4.2 Facilitative Orchestration in the Private-led Tier (Zones 2, 3, 6)

4.3 Facilitative and Directive Orchestration in the Collaborative Tier (Zones 4, 5, 7)

Fig. 3 Schemes with engagement by UNEP

4.4 UNEP as Orchestrator

5 Implications for IO Performance

5.1 Over-Reliance on IOG

5.2 Broadening and Deepening Orchestration

promoting more effective collaborative schemes, and by endorsing and supporting

5.3 Improving the Evaluation of IO Performance

Because TNG is so new, it is premature to evaluate the performance of orchestration in

differences through negotiation within RSS schemes. Finally, closer agreement as to

You might also like