Suchergebnisse

International audience ; Democratic legitimacy is rarely associated with private governance. After all, private actors are not legitimized through elections by a . Instead of abandoning democratic principles when entering the private sphere of governance, however, this article argues in favour of employing alternative criteria of democracy in assessments. Specifically, this article uses the criteria of participation, transparency and accountability to evaluate the democratic legitimacy of private food retail governance institutions. It pursues this evaluation of the democratic legitimacy of these institutions against the background of their ambivalent impact on the sustainability of the global agrifood system. The paper refers to a range of cases of private retail standards with different governance structures and substantial foci to illustrate its argument.

Democratic legitimacy is rarely associated with private governance. After all, private actors are not legitimized through elections by a demos. Instead of abandoning democratic principles when entering the private sphere of governance, however, this article argues in favour of employing alternative criteria of democracy in assessments. Specifically, this article uses the criteria of participation, transparency and accountability to evaluate the democratic legitimacy of private food retail governance institutions. It pursues this evaluation of the democratic legitimacy of these institutions against the background of their ambivalent impact on the sustainability of the global agrifood system. The paper refers to a range of cases of private retail standards with different governance structures and substantial foci to illustrate its argument.

AbstractDuring the negotiations of the Sustainable Development Goals, the United Nations consulted worldwide nearly ten million people for their views. Such proliferating megaconsultations are often uncritically accepted as a remedy for an assumed democratic deficit of intergovernmental institutions. We argue, however, that the potential of civil society consultations to democratize global governance is constrained by the limited legitimacy of these consultations in the first place. Global consultations regularly fail to include civil society actors from developing countries, or show other sociodemographic biases. Also, they often fail to strengthen accountability between citizens, international organizations and governments. In this article, we investigate the causes of this phenomenon by exploring the relationship between the design of consultations and their democratic legitimacy. The basis for our argument is an in‐depth empirical study of three consultations carried out during the negotiations of the Sustainable Development Goals. We find that design is an important variable to explain the overall legitimacy of consultations. Yet its exact role is sometimes unexpected. Extensive material resources and open access conditions do not systematically enhance the legitimacy of the studied consultations. Instead, developing clear objectives, allocating sufficient time to participants, and formally binding the consultation to the negotiations hold considerably more promise.

AbstractIn 2015, the United Nations agreed on 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as an "integrated and indivisible" set of policy objectives with the aim, among others, to unite the diverse and vast system of international organizations under one shared normative agenda. And yet, have these SDGs really become such an integrative force in global governance? Our conclusion here is negative, and our research suggests that the SDGs have not lived up to these high expectations. We find instead that the 17 global goals have not been taken up by a substantial group of international organizations, and some organizations rather cherry-pick those goals that best fit their own agenda and interests. To overcome these challenges and to fulfill the promise of integrated global sustainability governance enshrined in the SDGs, we propose three urgent actions: first, to further push the use of the SDGs across all international organizations, in particular regional organizations outside the United Nations system; second, to facilitate better collaboration across policy domains; and third, to focus attention on those SDGs that are so far "left behind."

"This paper aims to evaluate the effectiveness of private food governance in addressing the
environmental challenges facing the global food system, today. Greenhouse gas emissions,
decline of biodiversity, water pollution, pesticide use and the generation of waster are considered the new agrarian questions of this century. Crucially, the governance of such environmental strains is a rapidly emerging issue for private actors, who have become key players in global food governance. Yet, few studies have tried to understand the actual impact of private rulesetting, in general, and retail governance, in particular, in detail. Drawing on global governance literature and organisational theory, this paper evaluates the effectiveness of private food governance institutions for sustainability, in terms of their comprehensiveness, stringency, compliance and coverage. Next to this quite narrow understanding of effectiveness the paper also identifies the broader political and soci-economic influence of private food governance in terms of structural, cognitive and normative effects. The paper illustrates its arguments in two cases, namely GlobalGAP and the Marine Stewardship Council. As such, the paper advances our theoretical knowledge on private rule-setting institutions and contributes empirically to political science research by making available new data on a currently understudied case of private governance." [author's abstract]