75921635 the UN Global Compact Networks as an Instrument of Integration of Social Values in the...

7/31/2019 75921635 the UN Global Compact Networks as an Instrument of Integration of Social Values in the Global Market

1/15

1

Universit Ca' Foscari di Venezia

Course: Advanced Management Studies, A.Y. 2011/2012, Term 1

The UN Global Compact Networks as an instrument of integration of

social values in the global market

Santagiustina Carlo R. M. A.

811360

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

This paper deals with the UN Global Compact (GC) policy tools, for the diffusion

of environmentally sustainable and socially responsible business practices in private

organizations. It will focus on the role of Global Compacts Local Networks, as core

device for the emergence of multi-stakeholder, self organizing and self expandingbusiness community of socially responsible and active market actors, both proactive

and reactive. The key lecture of this paper stands on the emergence of a new socio-

cultural actorhood dimension for business, that we call Corporate Social Value

System (CSVS). The CSVS diffusion in the business arena is a forthcoming

consequence of worldwide circulation and common acceptance of Globalization-era

myths, like sustainability, corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate

citizenship (CC), etc. GC networks are the first formally institutionalized and large-

scale apparatus for the circulation of this new wave of corporate social ideals and

their governance dimension. GC networks members are carriers of those new

corporate ideals, that, if widely adopted, could produce in their institutional and

social environment a much more significant reorganization than the one that will

take place in their internal structures. Thus GCs networks case-study is of great

interest to understand which synergies and economic incentives gave way to the CSR

evolutionary process. Finally, we will try to identify the likely socio-cultural and

political consequences of this probable next step of CSR, the CSVS revolution.

Keywords: Global Compact, responsible business initiatives, sustainable markets, corporate

citizenship, Local Networks, global governance, corporate social responsibility, globalization.

INTRODUCTION

In the last three decades we have seen a deep reorganization of Businesses around the

logically re-conceptualized and rationalizing myths of sustainability and corporate social

responsibility (CSR) (Drori G. S., Meyer J. W. and Hwang H., 2006). With the globally growing

discoursization of those myths, from national to worldwide level, started an incessant

development process of new technologies of rationality, for the governance of socio-cultural

and environmental impact, of profit organizations activities, on their environment and

community (Hanley N., Moffat I., Faichney R. and Wilson M., 1999).

It is within this globalizing process, of sensitization to sustainability and CSR, that theGlobal Compact Local Networks have carved out a unique role for themselves, not only


2/15

2

within the Global Compact initiative, but also within the corporate responsibility movement,

they (the Local Networks) represent the avant-garde of the corporate responsibility

movement. Each network brings the sweeping global discussions on the proper role of

business in society down to the local level, and then sparks collaboration and collective action.

They ensure that these discussions are taken into the public domain through policy dialogues

with government officials. And as they bring these global concepts to their countries and

communities, the networks also channel their own insights, experiences, best practices and

interests up to the global arena. (UN GC, May 2011) In this paper, the tools and methods forthe exchange of experiences and best practices between affiliates of a Local Networks are

regarded as institutional platforms, for the empowerment of businesses socially responsible

behavior. The UN institutional scope of each Local Network, is disseminating the application

of the Ten Principles of corporate ethics in his country, as defined by the UNs GC (see

Appendix A for the chart with the Ten Principles). On the other hand the vertical emergence,

from the Local Networks to the global scale, of best practices and shared know-how, will be

seen as an institutional foundation of a open-sourceCSR framework: theKnowledge Sharing

System, for the global harmonization of this newly scientised socio-cultural corporate

movement.

Several reasons have been identified as to why the UN invited the private sector to

participate in voluntary corporate governance within a non-regulatory paradigm. Three

important factors can be highlighted: a financial crisis within the UN, an ideological shift, and

a change in leadership. To these we can also add the fourth factor of structural change within

business organization. (Arevalo J. A. and Fallon F. T., 2008) Starting from a brief

explanation on the emergence of Local Networks during this organizational and ideological

phase-transition towards globalism, we will try to explain:

How the culture of CSR can quickly diffuse through the GC Local Networks; What are the advantages and risks for the UN, using this form of partnership with

businesses;

Why business organizations should decide participate to Local Networks according tothe UN, and why they effectively do so;

How can the whole GC initiative turn out to be a CSR ranking system, and which arethe limits of this system.

Why participation to Local Networks should not be seen as a mere competitive factorbut has an entirely new competitive dimension;

How can Local Networks increase the socio-cultural influence and political leadershipthat business organizations can exert on other actors and institutions in their

environment; What are the binding conditions for a global CSVS revolution, and what consequences

could it bring.

It is clearly our intention, to separate the debate on technical and procedural aspects of

the Local Networks Initiative, from the one on its socio-cultural and political means and ends,

which is what interests us most. Some technical aspects of Local Networks structure are

certainly important to build a coherent-to-reality thought on the Local Network functioning

system, and thus, need to be mentioned. Nevertheless, in this paper, we will focus on what

organizations privately aim to obtain aspart of this project: that are not the organizational

benefits of implementing the GCs Principles, but the relational and reputational ones.


3/15

3

ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT OFLOCAL NETWORKS:GCs Local Networks are a UN conceived tool to catalyze the voluntary participation of

businesses in the corporate citizenship movement. The GC project, that started in the year

2000, entrusts to business organizations the initiative to establish a Local Network of the GC

in countries that dont have one yet. The GC Organization supports the organization that

assumes the responsibility of establishing a new network by transferring to the latter the

required managerial knowledge for the start-up. Therefore, potential founders, that usuallyare leaders in CSR techniques, begin by probing the environment for large and medium-sized

companies that are already CSR players and could with a small participation effort sustain

the GCs initiative. For the GC Organization the idyllic network members are organizations

with good access to local business leaders, government departments, civil society, labor

organizations and the media, according to them, these organizations can significantly drive

the effectiveness of the Local Network. (United Nations Global Compact Office, 2011) The

Global Compact Organization does not request to Local Networks fees. Likewise, it does not

provide funds to Local Networks: Networks are required to explore independent forms of

resource mobilization. (United Nations Global Compact Office, 2011) The reason why GCs

local networks are an initiative without equal within the whole UN institutional system is

that Local Networks are a self-sustained and business governance project. Local Networks

diffuse the GCs principles without any cost for the GC Organization; for this reason, if

successful, it could be the onset of a brand-new way of performing global governance. The only

requirement for single Business participants is to submit an annual Communication on

Progresses (COPs) on the Global Compact Knowledge Sharing System (KSS). The COP

document is a CSR policy report that attests the efforts that a member organization has

undertaken in the last year to apply, and behave accordingly to, the Ten Principles. If a

member organization doesnt submit her COP, after a one year grace periodthe organization

is expelled from the GCs Local Network initiative.

From its foundation in the GCs Local Network

initiative, that initially counted only 50

participants, constantly expanded. Nowadays GC

is the worlds largest voluntary corporate

citizenship initiative, with over 8,500 signatories

based in more than 135 countries. (UN, May

2011) As we can see from figure 1 and 2, the

Global Compact system showed solid growth in

the number of networks as well as participants

during the last ten years. Moreover, we can see,

from figure 2, that GC Local Networks are far

more developed in Europe than in the rest of the

World. As for number of networks Americas,

Asia/Oceania and Africa are quite similar.

Nevertheless, in Africa Local Networks have in

average fewer participants than in Asia and

Americas. As for growth trend, while Europe

participation curve follows a exponential growth,

in the other three regions (Africa, Americas,

Asia/Oceania) the curves are roughly linear and

thus the growth can be considered stable.

Figure1:

(UN,May2011)

(UN,May2011)Figure2:


4/15

4

As we can see from figure 3, Local Networks

generally have business majority governance.

Europe, in addition to business organizations,

has a strong governance participation of NGOs

and Business Associations; whilst, in Americas,

Local Networks have a higher governance

participation of Academic Institutions and UN

agencies. The Asia/Oceania governancecomposition is middle way between the

European and the American model. Instead, in

Africa Local Networks governance composition

is rather unique: it is not business dominated

and stakeholders are homogeneously

represented at the governance level. When

looking to figure 4, it is clear that even if GC

local-networks are a multi-stakeholder

platform, the whole Local Network initiative is

business oriented: this is particularly true for

Europe where the number of business

organizations within the initiative highly

overcomes other kind of GCs stakeholders. For

all four geographic areas, NGOs, Academic

Institutions and Business Associations are

respectively the second, third and fourth most

represented categories of stakeholders within

the GC Local Network initiative.

Given that those GC Local Networks are selection-process oriented forms of governance,networks should be only as legitimate as the actors involved. However, since GC Local

Network are a UN initiative the situation is slightly different from other self-organized

governance networks: through GC Local Networks, UN brings into play her reputation and

brand by sustaining and supervising the initiative: for the UN, a significant reputational

risk is associated with selecting an inappropriate private sector partner or partnership

activity, or being perceived to do so by key stakeholders, and undermining the credibility and

reputation of the entire United Nations system. (Thus) the selection process needs to be

transparent and individual actors need to live up to high standards of transparency. Criteria

for identifying and selecting participants is consequently openly communicated and applied

consistently. Accountability is an important mechanism for the selection (and evaluation) of

participants within UNGC. (Benner and al., 2004) Accordingly, the GC organization has

previously adopted accountability measures and tools, to manage the UN risks for illegitimate

membership and brand use. Those accountability measures are called Integrity Measures

(IM), and, their goal is to safeguard the credibility and integrity of the initiative and the

United Nations more generally from occasional efforts by companies to free-ride or blue wash.

(United Nations Global Compact Office, 2011) Nevertheless, since GC Local Networks follow a

peer-to-peer mechanism, encouraging business organizations to interact and share directly

their experiences with other participants, without any regular overseeing by the GC

Organization:

Figure3:

(UN,May2011)

Figure4:(UN,May2011)


5/15

5

GC Local Networks turn out to be a loosely-coupled system, in which UN has nostraight means to check the veracity of COPs, and, to see if the business initiatives

where conducted in the manner in which they were later described into such reports.

Therefore, headquarters of the GC Local Network initiative are not likely to be

effectively the UN or her GC Organization agency.

In the statement above, we did our first step into a rather uncharted area, where

organizations use a mean to ends attainment approach to design their CSVS and publicidentity: hypocritical or masked behaviors must be seen as consequences of a strong, and

often incoherent, cultural pressure from the environment, that forces market actors to change

in appearance but not in substance. Hypocritical behavior is undertaken when businesses

have an economic benefit or incentive from being incoherent. Thus without building a fully

rationalized and accountable system of economic incentives for business morality and social

responsibility, and disincentives for business hypocrisies and moral hazards, the GC initiative

will never be successful in their UN intents, that will continue to be mere means and not ends

for business organizations.

LOCAL NETWORKS: AN EMERGENT MECHANISM FOR RANKINGORGANISATIONS SOCIALACTIVISM WITHIN GC

It is important to early clarify that the UN and GC Organization, apparently, had no intention

to use the Local Networks as an instrument for ranking business organizations social

activism. Likewise, the UN and the GC probably did not think, that business organizations,

could use Local Networks to build relation-based and reputation-based heterarchies

(decentralized and dynamic governance networks), with the scope of taking advantage of

internal role and reputation. After all, since business know that opinions and beliefs are

contagious self-spreading myths, why shouldnt GC member organizations, claim to be globally

recognized by the role, merits and acknowledgement that they have within the GC LocalNetwork. Therefore, business actually use the UN GC membership has a worldwide

sponsorship and advertising platform, for diffusing in the whole competitive environment,

promotional information, about their social qualities and their UN certified CSR status.

Moreover, the Global Compact Organization truly differentiates his business members by

classifying them in distinctive: level of involvement (UN GC Office, 2011) categories.

Distinctions among organizations are mainly done on the basis of the content of the COP

disclosure. Thus the statusdepends on progress in integrating the Global Compact principles

and contributing to broader UN goals. We can thus say, that if there is a categorizing system

it means that member organizations are ranked.

Differentiation levels are applied annually using the most recent COP submitted

and analyzing the degree to which the COP demonstrates progress along two

critical dimensions:

Global Compact implementation: Companies are expected to make continuous progress

in their implementation of all Global Compact principles, and, ultimately, to achieve best

practices described in the Blueprint for Corporate Sustainability Leadership.

Transparency and disclosure: Companies are expected to communicate directly with

their stakeholders and to be transparent about the policies and processes they have put in

place to manage sustainability risk and opportunities. Companies are also expected to

progress towards the use of standard reporting guidelines (like the Global Reporting Initiative


6/15

6

(GRI) reporting framework), verification, and, ultimately, towards integrated financial and

sustainability reporting.

Business participants that submit COPs are classified by the GC Organization in

two categories:

1. A business participants that submits a timely COP that meets all the COP requirements

will be categorized as GC Active

2. A business participant that goes beyond the minimum COP requirements by adopting and

reporting on a range of sustainability governance and management processes can self-declare

themselves as GC Advanced

(United Nations Global Compact Office, 2011)

Moreover, while GC Active VS GC Advanced are the only binary classification system

within GC, there are several other distinctive roles within the GC Local Networks, that can be

acquired through participation and progress in the initiative, in the following table (Figure 5)

we have summarized the most notable high standing roles within Local Networks.

Figure 5:Local Network high standing roles (LN stands for Local Network)

LN Contact Person LN RepresentativeLN Steering

CommitteeLN Champions

It is the person who

coordinates the day-

to-day work of the

Local Network and

who is responsible forcommunicating with

the GC Organization;

management of the

initiatives

It is the person

officially nominated

by the LN members to

act on behalf of the

Local Network at the

Annual LocalNetworks Forum and

in the management of

the Local Network

logo;

Business and cultural

leaders of the LN.

Steering Committee

Members design, plan

and report on the LN

initiatives. Membersof a steering

committee should

have solid standing

and reputation in

their countries;

Companies that

demonstrate a high-

level of commitment

and interest in

leading the LN

process, who enjoy

public trust andrecognition, and thus

can lend credibility

and experience to

Global Compact

activities;

Data from: United Nations Global Compact Office, 2011;

By acquiring additional roles and raising membership status, an organization can emerge

from the Local Network mere member category. To the attainment of a new role follows:

Improved reputational visibility; New interacting and partnering possibilities at the transnational level; Superior initiative proposal and approval power within the Local Network; More possibilities of having the organization Best Practices published by the UN and

her agencies, also at international level;

Enhanced bargaining power when interacting with governance institutions; Increased capacity of mobilizing UN friendly, MDG friendly and Human Rights

friendly organizations;

Additional chances of mythicisation of the business brand;


7/15

7

Moreover the engagement in high-status roles obliges the business to a higher grade of

transparency, and increased transparency has a positive feedback effect on the accountability

of individual actors: that might be more in the spotlight in initiatives on corporate social and

environmental responsibility, and hence, the public will want to know more about them,

forcing them to live up to higher standards of accountability and reporting (Benner and al.,

2004) Besides, GC continuously improves and supports the role-diversification of members, to

grant to top-business new categories for further standing advancement and distinction, such

as the Global Compact LEAD that is a brand-new platform for corporate sustainabilityleadership: The companies that participate in Global Compact LEAD will be challenged to

implement the Blueprint for Corporate Sustainability Leadership. (United Nations Global

Compact Office, 2011) In addition there are many relation-building tools, like: The Leaders

Summits, Annual Local Network Forums and Regional Meetings; That Local Networks use to

keep in a closely-linked (straight contacts) but loosely-coupled (week hierarchic authority)

relational systems, organizations with similar roles within GC. In this way, creating stronger

links between groups of role-similar participants, those groups globally homogenize (and

emerge has a distinct GC status class) by exchanging information and involving each other in

initiatives.From all of the above described Local Network categories and role distinctions, we

can easily reconstruct the GC Rest to Bestrole-ranking mechanism (Figure 6).

Self made from information in: United Nations Global Compact Office Toolkits (2011)

"Members"canparticipatetoopeninitiativesandusetheendorserlogoforGC'sPrinciplesrelatedevents

andprojects

Whodevelops goodCOPsobtainsthe"GCAdvanced"

labelandismorelikeytobecome

partof LNsteeringcommittee

"BestPracticers"havetheircasespublishedbythe

GCforglobalrecognition

"Champions"areleaderswithin

thelocalnetworkthat

candirectlytrainother

organizations

"LEAD members"aretheprideand

flagshipofthewholeGCfortherelevanceoftheircontributionstotheGCcause, theythuspaticipatetothe

GCBlueprint

Figure6:EmergenceofdifferentiatedstatusroleswithinGC LN

Best

Rest


8/15

8

This unofficial ranking system, even if not yet formalized, is actually existing: The

membership role distinctions clearly affect the functions, responsibilities and reputational and

relational rewards for being part of the GC Local Network initiative. Moreover, these Local

Networks are above all interaction networks, and thus the notion of power is a dynamic and

always redefinable combination of:

1. Centrality: that is a measure of the interaction activity and capability of anorganization (node), it grows together with the quantity of relations (links) and thecentrality of directly linked interlocutors (neighbors).

2. Reputation: capability of being distinguished and thus preventively recognizable byother organizations within the network and environment, that gives to the

organization the opportunity to create and maintain personalized interactions and

relations with other organizations.

Both centrality ad reputation variations are closely related to the redefinition of the roles

within the GC Local Network initiative. Consequently, participants wile role progressing, will

wish to diffuse more information about their role-rank and standing within the GC system,

and to protect their reputational differentiation. They do it by asking GC to formalize more

clearly the requirements for each role, thus the entire ranking system is self-reinforcing and

autopoietic.

Finally, there are two categories of critics when considering GC a CSR policy-implementing

ranking system, and both need to be addressed:

First,Some scholars see the Compact as another code without accountability, a publicrelations document without substance. How does one know that a business that claims

to be following the principles of the Global Compact is actually doing so? Code scholars

argue that an independent group of monitors with quantifiable and objective measures

that translate general principles into operating standards is the way to assure thatcompanies are accountable.(Williams O. F. 2004)

Second, given that GC Local Networks are information-based relation-buildingpartnership networks, it is clear that Medias are expected to take a real lead and get

involved in the GC local networks agenda by becoming a partner, reinforcing

transparency and accountability of businesses, creating a media coalition for

lobbying CSR issues. Media are expected to play the roles of educator and promoter of

CSR by raising awareness and provoking public discussion on the social and

environmental responsibility of business. (United Nations Global Compact Office,

2011) Unfortunately, at the present state, space reserved to the Local Networks

initiatives and role-ranking systems in Medias is extremely narrow.

However, at least for the first critic, the UN reply was immediate, and said the following:

institutionalization does not necessarily imply registering a network in a court or building a

thick bureaucratic institution. Its administrative depth depends on the kind of institution is

required. Essentially, it is about formalizing working relationships (roles) in a governance

structure that ensures accountability and effective delivery. (United Nations Global Compact

Office, 2011)


9/15

9

LOCAL NETWORKS: TOWARDS A NEW DIMENSION OF

COMPETITION AND GOVERNANCE PARTNERSHIP

The emergence of the notion ofcosmopolitan citizenship(Linklater A., 1998) introduces

a new set of rights and obligations, applicable to the whole human race. The primary function

of cosmopolitan citizenship is to institutionalize the commitment to limitless communication

through participation in diverse global communities of discourse which reflect the

heterogeneous quality of international society. (Wagner A., 2002). GC Local Network business

joint venture reflects the fact that conventional international power relations are changing,

the cosmopolitan citizenship movement has spread in the business environment, becoming the

corporate citizenship movement, and Local Networks are one of his products. The GC

initiative and Local Networks are part of what OBrien R. (1997) has called complex

multilateralism, that is a system of social and political governance that contemplates the

participation of business organizations and civil society beside traditional state-based formal

institutions and agencies. Thus, State institutions are progressively emptied of their socio-

political governance monopoly. Hollowed State-based Governments, without global-effective

tools and resources to empower governance, will be replaced by multi-stakeholder network

governances, with no distinct and formalized Government (evolution controlling agent).

Empowerment or prevention of organizational and structurational revolutions in the

aforementioned network governance systems, doesnt anymore depend on a single formalized

entity (concept of Government). Networks organizational and structurational revolutions and

decision making, is the result of spontaneous local emergence and rearrangements of influence

and interaction relationships within the network. Namely, mere-network governance is a

multi-subject, indeterminate, unformalizable, non-bureaucratic and continuously self-emerging

and re-defining form of governance. Embeddedness is a central characteristic of networks

whereby social relations strongly influence economic activity outcomes and synergies, by

facilitating or disrupting trade and joint initiatives (Brian U. 1996). We can hence say, thatembeddedness is probably the founding working principle of the Global Compact, to which are

added three other driving organizational principles and characteristics of Local Networks,

that are:

Interdependence: Cooperation in networks is based on the premise that none of thegroups involved can address the issue at stake by itself. As a result, multisectoral

networks create bridges on a transnational scale among the public sector (national,

regional or state and local governments, as well as intergovernmental groups), the

private sector and civil society that reflect the changing roles and power among those

groups and that pull their diverse resources together.

Flexibility and openness: Global public policy networks come in various forms andorganizational shapes that can also adjust in the process of cooperation. As a result,

networks structures can facilitate constant learning from both successes and

failures.

Complementarities instead of co-optations: Networks maintain and profit fromthe diversity of their constituencies. As a result, networks facilitate the negotiation of

controversial issues and provide a framework for political discussion and tension. At

the same time, they also create the conditions for the combination and coordination of

complementary resources.

(Held D. and Koenig-Archibugi M., 2005)


10/15

10

In practice, business organizations are likely to extend those internal Local Network

principles to external relations with their stakeholders and environment. Moreover,

organizations tend to preserve and respect GC acquired links and roles, consisting of

partnership, friendship and leadership relations with:

o Businesses in the supply chain;o Civil society organizations;o

Government and administration entities;o Academic institutions;o Business associations;o Labor organizations;o Political parties and organizations;o Consulting groups and others agencies;

outside GC. The result, is the comprehensive translation of GC reputational properties and

CSVS identity outside the GC, into the competitive environment. By doing this, business

organizations that participate to the GC initiative raise tremendously their overall socio-

cultural acting power and thus mobilizing potential and socio-cultural influence on the

environment. Stakeholders of those socially responsible organizations truly start recognizing

themselves with the CSVS of the organization, that quickly diffuses through the GC Local

Network system. For instance, Universit C Foscari, that is the first Italian academic

organization that joined (in april 2011) the GC Local Network initiative, in less than one year

(2011) has done a remarkable CSR reorganizing effort (Carbon Management, Sustainability

Report, Ra.Di.Ca. project, SPPR, etc.), with great transparency (see C Foscai Sostenibile

web-page),to become the Italian academic leader in sustainability within GC initiative, and

thus attract, thanks to its CSVS, new prospective sponsors. We can say that her efforts

already paid off, because her forthcoming main sponsor and business partner: ENI, has, not

coincidentally, recently joined (23/09/2011) the Italian GC Local Network, thus thepartnership seems to have been channeled by C Foscari in the right track, the one of CSVS

reputation mutual contagion. The GC has many other examples of successful partnerships,

both, from the business and from the ethical point of view (see:China GC Local Network

Office, 2010). Nevertheless, there is concern that those partnerships are subordinating the

mission and values of the United Nations to commercial trade, investment and business rules,

and are aiding and abetting the growing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of

fundamentally undemocratic global corporations, with no accountability to governments or

peoples (Citizens Compact, 2000). As Fowler A. (2000 ) says, partnerships involve not only

different actors and institutions coming together to pursue a common goal, but also mutual

respect, transparency, balanced power relations, and the equitable distribution of benefits,responsibilities and risks; do partnership work this way within GC?

Certainly business interests are increasingly overlapping with societal objectives, and

there is a growing need for collaboration between the private sector and other stakeholders

such as governments, the United Nations system, civil society, local communities, among

others. It is increasingly clear that the private sector does not engage in partnerships only to

manage risks associated with negative externalities, but to better capitalize on opportunities.

Through engaging local and global actors in partnerships, companies can acquire a better

understanding of the nature of their operations, such as expanding the license to operate,

improving access to markets and increasing operational efficiencies. (United Nations GlobalCompact Office, 2011) Likewise through partnerships, corporate influence within the


11/15

11

multilateral system is likely to increase. As it increases, there may be growing acceptance

within the UN for development strategies that basically involve tinkering with the current

model of economic globalization that provides obvious benefits for rich countries, certain social

groups and corporations, but far less obvious benefits for poor people and countries. As

corporate influence grows, policy approaches associated with deregulation and voluntary

initiatives are likely to prevail over those that involve redistributive policies and binding

regulations. Yet, historically, it is essentially the latter that have obliged business to act in

ways more compatible with sustainable and social development. (Utting P., 2000) Theincreasing participation to GC Local Networks could thus be seen a consequence of global

step-back or standstill in the social and environmental regulation activity at global scale.

CONCLUSIONS

Since, transnational organizations demand to be heard in global policy-making.

States agents and international organizations can no longer afford to bypass the

concerns of transnational actors who have successfully mobilized around many

global issues and have strengthened their bargaining position with significant

moral, financial and knowledge resources. (Benner T. and al., 2004) As all UNbusiness partnerships GC Local Networks are justified in terms of resource

mobilization and the promotion of certain values and forms of governance. Local

Networks are means of raising money, know-how, skill, creativity and global reach

in the business community, employing it for development and ethical goals. No

matter if actors participate to this global governance platform (the GC) for a variety

of reasons, many of which have much to do with narrow self-interest rather than

with the notion of common good and corporate social responsibility. As Arevalo J.

has noticed (2008), from early on, the Compact was criticized for enhancing the

image and legitimacy of big businesses, rather than enforcing social and

environmental standards. However, institutional modernization is propelled if keyinstitutional actors integrate new ideas of their environment (trough cross-cutting

cooperation) into their arsenal of political strategies. Networked governance can

serve as a guiding principle and paradigm for creating flexible institutions and

expanding organizational visions. Global Compact Local Networks can serve as

crucial catalysts promoting the much-needed innovations in global governance, in

order to address both the operational and participatory deficits. A utopian realism

should thus lead us to further development of the networked governance approach

and CSVS diffusion. Utopian, in the sense that networked governance (and CSVS)

can help to broaden the horizon of policy options promoting the re-invention of our

political traditions for a global, as well as local, age. (Benner and al., 2004)

Corporate involvement in global governance must accordingly be formalized and

supervised by civil actors, GC goes in this direction. In this way business

implementation of social and environmental concepts will become a cultural and

political rather than a merely technical transparency-oriented governance process.

Prospective stakeholders of business organizations will ultimately become all agents,

entities and institutions who share the socio-political ideals and the cultural

identity values of a specific organization (CSVS), and will for those reasons protect

her socio-cultural dimension of existence rather than her mere business one. The

idea that in a sustainable world who cares about his environment wins involves that

civil society must help diffusing the CSVS myth, supporting this business

organizational effort, even if it is an hypocritical way of behaving.


12/15

12

Bibliography

Author Surname Name (Year), title, book or journal, publisher info, pages;

- Arevalo J. A. and Fallon F. T. (2008), Assessing corporate responsibility as acontribution to global governance: the case of the UN Global Compact, Corporate

GovernanceVOL. 8 NO. 4, pp. 456-470, Emerald Group Publishing;

- Baccaro L. and Mele V: (2011), Network Governance in International Organizations:The Case of Global Corporate Codes, Public Administration Volume 89, Issue 2, pages

451470;

- Benner T., Reinicke W. H. and Witte J. M. (2004), Multisectoral Networks inGlobalGovernance: Towards a Pluralistic System of Accountability, Government and

Opposition;

- etindamar D. and Husoy K. (2007), Corporate social responsibility practices andenvironmentally responsible behavior: the case of United Nations Global Compact,

Journal of Business Ethics, 76 (2). pp. 163-176;

- China GC Local Network Office (2010), Implementing the United Nations GlobalCompact China: Inspirational Case Examples, UN Global Compact;

- Citizens Compact (2000), published in TRAC op. cit.;- Drori G. S., Meyer J. W. and Hwang H. (2006), Globalization and Organization. World

Society and Organizational Change, Oxford University Press;

- Fowler A. (2000), NGDOs and Social Development: Changing the Rules of the Game,UNRISD;

- Haas P. M. (2004), Addressing the Global Governance Deficit, University ofMassachusetts Press;

- Hanley N., Moffat I., Faichney R. and Wilson M. (1999), Measuring sustainability: atime series of alternative indicators for Scotland, Ecological Economics, 28, pp. 5573;

- Heylighen F. (2007), The Global Superorganism: an evolutionary-cybernetic model ofthe emerging network society, Social Evolution & History, Vol. 6 No. 1, p.58-119;

- Held D. and Koenig-Archibugi M. (2005), Global Governance and PublicAccountability,Wiley-Blackwell;

- Kell G. and Levin D. (2002), The Evolution of the Global Compact Network: AnHistoric Experiment in Learning and Action, Building Effective Networks, The

Academy of Management;


13/15

13

- Linklater A. (1998), Cosmopolitan Citizenship, Citizenship Studies, vol. 2-1, p23-41;- OBrien R., (1997), Complex Multilateralism: The Global Economic Institutions and

Global Social Movements Nexus, University of Warwick Press;

- Ruggie J. G. (2004), Reconstituting the Global Public Domain: Issues, Actors andPractices; European Journal of International Relations;

- TRAC (2000), Tangled Up In Blue: Corporate Partnerships at the United Nations,www.corpwatch.org;

- United Nations Global Compact Office (2011), Global Compact Local NetworkManagement Toolkit, United Nations Press;

- United Nations Global Compact Office (May 2011), Global Compact Local NetworkReport 2011, United Nations Press;

- Utting P. (8 December 2000), UN-Business Partnerships: Whose Agenda Counts?,seminar on Partnerships for Development or Privatization of the Multilateral System,

Oslo, Norway;

- Uzzi B. (1996); The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the EconomicPerformance of Organizations: The Network Effect; American Sociological

Review,Vol.61 P.674-698;

- Wagner A. (2002), Redefining Citizenship for the 21st Century: From the NationalWelfare State to the UN Global Compact, 5th International Conference International

Society for Third Sector Research (South Africa);

- Williams O. F. (2004), The un global compact: The challenge and the promise,Business Ethics Quarterly, Volume 14, Issue 4, p755-774;


14/15

14

Online resources

Title (format)

GlobalInitiatives (web-page and youtube-TV)

C Foscai Sostenibile (web-page)

United Nations Global Compact Tools (web-page)

Global Compact Local Network, Italy (web-page)

UN Global Compact myth (video)

UN Global Compact Dilemma Game myth (video)

Who Cares Wins myth (video)

Responsible Investment myth (video)

Sustainability myth (video)


15/15

15

Appendix

A) The ten Principles of the UN Global Compact

75921635 the UN Global Compact Networks as an Instrument of Integration of Social Values in the...

Documents

Transcript of 75921635 the UN Global Compact Networks as an Instrument of Integration of Social Values in the...