Transnational Networks of Local and Global
Civil Society as Response to New Challenges
Dr. Brigitte Geissel
Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB)
Reichpietschufer 50, 10785 Berlin
Tel.: (+49) 030 25491325, Fax: (+49) 030 25491 318
http://www.wz-berlin.de/zkd/zcm/leute/geissel.en.htm
E-mail: geissel@wz-berlin.de
Berlin, 21 March 2006
World Society Focus Paper Series
A series edited by the World Society Foundation, Zurich
1.
Introduction
National governments are increasingly losing their ability to govern. This is mostly caused by
ongoing globalization and the allocation of power to non-state actors such as the civil society
or economy. Instead of top-down government, with the state being the crucial player, nonstate actors have gained progressively more influence and even begin to supersede the state in
some aspects of public life. Although not everybody welcomes this development some
scientists, citizens, and even politicians assume that non-state actors offer solutions to
problems previously neglected by national governments. This is especially true for challenges
which are not limited to the nation state. Local and global problems require answers which
national governments are often not willing or able to provide and thus open the floor, for
example, to transnational networks.
Transnational networks – i.e., networks of non-state actors – engage in several kinds of
activities such as lobbying or political mobilization. In this paper, I will focus on a specific
kind of transnational network, namely, so-called certification networks (also referred to as
certification or labeling systems). These networks set and implement standards for specific,
mostly social or sustainable (chains of) products such as coffee, bananas, or timber, beyond
standards decided by national governments or international governmental organizations.
Producers and businesses who fulfill the high standards of a certification network are allowed
to demonstrate their efforts by labeling their products (or companies) with the network’s
“brand”, which often secures an advantage on the market.
Transnational certification networks arouse my interest because most of them represent a
special kind of cooperation between local and transnational civil society, namely the
involvement of local actors in transnational certification processes. Or, as Taylor (2005: 129)
stated, “Certification and labelling [networks] … operate at the boundary between
globalisation processes … and localisation commitments.” I presume that cooperation
between local and transnational civil society provides potentials, e.g., enhanced legitimacy,
but does not function without conflicts, partly because of some inequalities between both
partners. Local community-based civil society groups differ normally from (often established)
trans-/national ones according to their radius of action (local versus inter-/transnational),
strategies (expressive versus instrumental, moral versus strategic argumentation), rhetorical
style (colloquial versus sophisticated), and their organizational structure (disorganizedspontaneous versus organized-efficient). Local groups tend to be less professionalized and to
have fewer resources than trans-/national groups. I assume that these and other differences
imply opportunities as well as difficulties for the cooperation. Thus the following questions
will be pivotal to the empirical analysis: What are the problems associated with the
involvement of local initiatives in transnational certification networks including, above all,
the question of conditions guaranteeing that the voices of local civil society actors are heard?
2
Furthermore it is of interest whether the involvement of local civil society potentially adds to
the achievement of transnational networks’ objectives. Two internationally recognized and
successful certification networks serve as case studies for several reasons (which will be dealt
with in detail in section 3 of this article), namely, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and
the Fair Trade Labelling Organization (FLO).
In the following sections I will first define the terms ‘civil society’ and ‘transnational
network’ and give an overview of the body of literature. Second, the sample, i.e., the
certification networks, as well as the two case studies will be described; and third, the
conceptual framework for analyzing transnational networks of ‘glocal’ civil society actors
will be discussed. Fourth, I will analyze the case studies according to the conceptual
framework. Finally, I will summarize the findings and discuss whether cooperation between
local and transnational civil society is a useful response to local and global challenges.
The characteristic problems of cooperation between non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) from the southern and northern hemisphere are not within the scope of this article.
These problems are complex and multifaceted, requiring a comprehensive and meticulous
discussion which is not possible here (e.g., Lewis 1998; Jordan/van Tuijl 2000; Teka 2000;
Ashman 2001; Tanaka 2003; Lister 2000; Ahmad 2001).
2.
Definitions and State of the Art
Since its re-emergence in the 1990s, the term ‘civil society’ has gained increasing popularity.
However, the definitions of civil society are contested and not standardized. In recent
literature, the term is applied in three ways: first, as a normative concept with many utopian
features; second, as a descriptive term; and third, as an empirical-analytical concept (see, e.g.,
Kocka 2003). In empirical studies, civil society is mostly defined either according to its
sphere – separate from market economy, private life, and state – or referring to specific
‘civilian’ types of social (inter-)actions such as self-organization, acknowledgment of ‘the
other’, non-violence, tolerance, fairness, or an orientation toward the common welfare
(Gosewinkel et al. 2004: 11-13; on global civil society: Keane 2003). Both definitions
frequently overlap. Some authors presume that ‘civilian’ types of social (inter-)actions are
prevalent in civil society associations. In this paper civil society is defined as the sphere
between state and private life, but not fully separated from the market economy, because the
networks under research act in this sphere too.
Networks are commonly “characterized by voluntary, reciprocal and horizontal patterns
of communication and exchange” (Keck/Sikkink 1999: 91). Transnational networks, in
particular, are defined as being organized by civil society and other non-state actors, in
contrast to international networks which are comprised of state agencies. In recent literature,
transnational networks are often referred to as ‘transnational advocacy networks’ to reflect
3
their specific composition as well as their issue-driven and value-driven objectives.
Widespread is the definition by Keck and Sikkink, two prominent authors in this debate: “A
transnational advocacy network includes those actors working … on an issue, who are bound
together by shared values, a common discourse, and dense exchange of information and
service” (Keck/Sikkink 1999: 89).
However, until now, there has been no generally accepted term which describes
transnational networks acting on the market and consisting often of civil society and market
actors (hybrids), such as certification networks. Pattberg (2004, 20051: 18), for example,
speaks of private governance, private-private partnerships, or of private institutionalism.
Cashore, Auld and Newson (2004: 181) talk about non-state, market-driven governance.
Haufler (2003: 238) designates these forms as multi-stakeholder regularization, and Micheletti
and Stolle (2005) define them as transnational private governance. All of these descriptions,
however, refer to similar phenomena, namely, transnational networks of non-state actors
designed to solve problems through governance without state involvement.
Transnational networks have been a vital topic of scientific and political debate for years.
Accelerated processes of transnationalization in recent decades have generated an abundance
of scholarly publications on these new forms of cooperation. Various studies have been
carried out on the emergence and rapid expansion of transnational networks (e.g.,
Keck/Sikkink 1998). Broadly speaking, these studies can be divided into three categories. The
first category of publications consists of literature motivated by political hopes that
supposedly ‘benign’ non-governmental actors would contribute to the creation of ‘a better
world’, taking the morally sound character of such initiatives for granted (e.g., Falk 1994;
Anand 1999; Willetts 2000). The second category of publications on transnational networks
contains a host of descriptive studies focusing on a particular political problem (e.g., debt
relief), policy domain (e.g., human rights), campaign (e.g., ban of landmines) or
organization/network (e.g., Peoples Global Action; Amnesty International). The third
category of publications embodies either comprehensive or comparative studies with an
analytical perspective (e.g., Keck/Sikkink 1998; Rucht 2002; Tarrow 2005). Studies in this
‘analytical’ category provide some theoretical and conceptual tools as well as basic
information on the structures, preconditions, problems, and impacts of transnational networks.
These studies have been particularly helpful for my work.
In this category, authors can be found who analyze one of the questions of interest in my
paper, the issue whether transnational networks can be seen as an option to solve urgent
global problems by circumventing the inability of inter-/national governmental organizations
(Wolf 2002; Kern 2004; Haufler 2001). Available literature has mostly focused on questions
like whether or not certification networks are able to set and implement internationally
1
See <http://www.glogov.org/upload/public%20files/pdf/publications/papers/D_Pattberg_Governance_04532R_FINAL_
glogov.pdf>, accessed October 2005.
4
accepted standards or whether they are actually efficient in terms of sales figures (e.g., Kern
2004). Scherrer et al. (1998), for example, analyzed whether transnational networks can
improve workers’ rights on the global market on a large scale; they conclude that this
possibility is doubtful. Kern’s (2004) assessment, based partly on the efficiency of
certification networks (e.g., sales figures), is moderately optimistic (similarly, Wolf 2002).2
Other questions of research, especially on the FLO, focus on impacts such as poverty
reduction at the local level (e.g., Fridell 2004: 412). Bacon (2005), for example, examines the
financial situation of small coffee producers in Nicaragua and concludes that the FLO
substantially contributes to the reduction of economic vulnerability, especially because it
guarantees stable prices and planning security. Goodman’s (2004) research implies that local
producers achieve even more advantages. In addition to stable prices and planning security,
they also gain “increased knowledge of international markets, technical production and
quality control assistance, and organizational help to expand bargaining power” (Goodman
2004: 897 f.). Transnational networks improved the lives of small-scale coffee farmers and
their families by raising wages, creating direct trade links to farming cooperatives, providing
access to affordable credit as well as technological assistance and strengthening local
initiatives (Levi/Linton 2003).3
Nevertheless, the focus of my work, the participatory aspect and the interrelation
between local and transnational civil society, was hardly scrutinized. Neither the participatory
aspect nor the interrelations between local and transnational actors, or the potential and
problems associated with the involvement have been analyzed empirically thus far. Little is
known about factors which could foster or impede the involvement of local civil society
actors in the standard-setting and certification processes; nor is much information available on
the impact of this involvement as it pertains to the effectiveness of the certification networks.
3.
Description of the Sample and Case Studies
Transnational certification networks provide interesting relations between the local and the
transnational level: their structure is multileveled; local, national, and transnational actors
interact on regular bases; finally, standards agreed on at the transnational level must be
implemented at the local level (e.g. local product, local production).
2
3
Haufler (2003: 243), for example, discusses three main problems within these kinds of transnational
networks: first, the question of problem definition (who defines the problem); second, the accountability –
as nobody was elected by the public, nobody is accountable – and third, the labels can be regarded as a
modern form of protectionism. Others look at problems with competitive networks in the field of forestry
and timber (e.g., Kern 2004).
Nevertheless, there are also critical voices, such as the following: “The movement has necessarily shifted
its focus from organising farmers to expanding the market for their products by increasing consumer
demands” (Levi/Linton 2003: 417).
5
But, first of all, what does certification mean exactly? Certification is a procedure which
assures that a product, a production process, or a service conforms to specific (social or
environmental) standards, developed by certification networks. Within recent years, the
number of certification networks has increased dramatically and an umbrella organization, the
International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance (ISEAL), was
founded. Some well-known certification networks are, for example, Rugmark (carpets), the
Flower Label Program (FLP), the Conservation Agriculture Network (CAN), the Fair Trade
Labelling Organization (FLO), the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), and the Marine
Stewardship Council (MSC).
For the following analysis, I have chosen the FLO and the FSC because both resulted
from civil society actors’ initiatives; both were founded for altruistic reasons (sustainability,
fair trade); both are hybrids, comprising actors from civil society and the market; both
networks established multi-level organizational structures; both networks are members of
ISEAL which sets high requirements for the involvement of several groups including local
civil society in its “Code of Good Practice for Setting Social and Environmental Standards”.
Accordingly, the FLO and FSC statutes demand participatory processes for standard setting
and implementation. Both certification networks are considered to be successful cases, first of
all, because the standards set by the FSC and FLO have been adopted worldwide; and second,
because sales figures for products certified by these agencies have been steadily increasing,
particularly in western developed countries where consumers tend to prefer products which
are labeled ‘sustainable’ or ‘fair trade’. Nevertheless, there are basic differences. FLO was
developed bottom-up, starting with local and national initiatives, whereas FSC started topdown as a transnational network (see below). FLO and FSC also differ according to the ‘main
actors’. Whereas FLO is based on and relies on end-consumers’ demands for fair trade goods,
the FSC depends much more on large-scale retailers. And whereas there are powerful
industrial interests in the FSC, such interests hardly exist within the FLO.4
FLO and FSC will be described in the following paragraphs. Fair trade can be defined
as “a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect [which seeks] greater
equity in international trade.” Fair trade initiatives attempt to improve “development by
offering better trading conditions to and securing the rights of marginalised producers and
workers – especially in the South.”5 The idea of supporting excluded and disadvantaged
producers by fair-minded trade relations has already existed for several decades; it was
initially developed by small groups of idealistic civil society actors in several countries (see
Paulsen 1998: 146). These small initiatives began to establish national certification networks
in order to become more efficient, for example, in the Netherlands and Germany. They
operated under different names such as TransFair, Max Havelaar, and Fair Trade Mark.
4
5
So far, there are hardly any studies which compare the FLO with the FSC. The exception here is Taylor
(2005).
See <http://www.fairtrade.net/sites/impact/partner.html>, accessed July 2004.
6
Finally, fair trade label initiatives from 17 countries founded a transnational umbrella
network, the Fair Trade Labelling Organisation International (FLO) in 1997 “to improve the
position of poor and disadvantaged producers in the developing world by setting the Fair
Trade standards and by creating a framework that enables trade to take place under conditions
respecting their interest.”6 FLO attempts to harmonize the standards of various national
initiatives, it coordinates the work of those national initiatives, and it ensures that producer
registering and product-related trading are professionally monitored.7
Table 1: Similarities and Differences between FSC and FLO
Factors Compared
FLO
FSC
Success
Yes
Yes
Year founded
1997
1993
Hybrid
Hybrid
Participatory
Participatory
Bottom-up
Top-down
Fair trade relations; achieve
more justice for the South
Sustainable forest
management (economic,
social, environmental)
Actors
Process
Emergence
Intention/objectives
Source: Own description.
FLO today deals with various certified products such as coffee, chocolate, cocoa, fruits,
fruit juices, rice, honey, sugar, footballs, or flowers. To receive the label ‘Fair Trade’,
production and trading must follow specific, now transnationally harmonized rules. Trading
standards stipulate that traders must (1) pay a price to producers, which covers the cost of
sustainable production and living; (2) pay a premium which producers can invest in
development; (3) pay partially in advance, if producers request it; and (4) sign contracts that
allow for long-term planning and sustainable production practices. FLO also invests in a
broad range of local community projects.
FLO’s sales figures have increased enormously within recent years, and the range of
certified products has enlarged significantly as well. Between 2002 and 2003, Fair-Tradelabeled sales across the world grew, according to FLO, by 42.3%. In volume, the most
important Fair Trade markets are the UK and Switzerland, together assuring a sales volume of
47,548 tonnes of Fair-Trade-labeled products. Moreover, a significant percentage of citizens
are acquainted with FLO and are interested in buying Fair Trade goods. In Germany, for
6
7
See <http://www.fairtrade.net/sites/aboutflo/why.html>, accessed September 2004.
For more details see, for example, Moore (2004), who provides a good overview on the current research
on the Fair Trade Movement.
7
example, 32% recognize the TransFair label and 50% of these citizens use the label as a guide
to purchasing.
Recently, the FLO’s governance structure was redrafted; it has not yet found its final
form.8 FLO stakeholders are divided into national initiatives, producers, and traders. At the
FLO Forum, held every three years, the producers and traders elect their representatives for
the FLO Board of Directors. The national labeling organizations elect their representatives to
the Board every third year at their members’ meeting. The FLO director is responsible for
running the network, but has to report financial and personnel matters to the Board of
Operations. Other important committees are the Standards and Policy Committee, the
Certification Committee, and the Appeals Committee. Stakeholder input into the FLO
network occurs at different levels: stakeholders elect and determine the composition of the
Board, the Standards and Policy Committee, the Certification Committee, and the Appeals
Committee. The standard development process also includes a broad consultation phase
before the Board endorses a proposed standard.9
My second case study concerns the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). The aim of the
FSC is to support environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable
management of the world’s forests. The FSC is a non-governmental, independent,
unprecedented alliance of environmental groups, the timber industry, and (local) forest
product users, representing different (social, ecological, and economic) interests vis-à-vis
forestry. The FSC was founded in 1993 by 126 stakeholders from 26 countries, predominantly
supported by another well-known transnational environmental civil society organization, the
World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and by market-driven actors such as the timber industry. After
its establishment, the FSC developed rapidly and spread to 60 more countries. As of 2006, the
FSC has also established national and regional offices in several countries, for instance,
Germany and some South American countries, to support national or regional initiatives. The
FSC sets guidelines for sustainable forest management and accredits as well as audits thirdparty certification agencies. It is well known and regarded as one of the most independent,
rigorous, and credible certification networks.
The FSC was established on a “top-down” principle. In contrast to the FLO, where local
and national Fair Trade initiatives in several countries came into existence independently and
simultaneously, and united several years later to form a transnational network, the FSC was
created by a transnational consortium as a transnational network from the outset. National
initiatives spread into individual countries years after the creation and establishment of the
FSC.
The governance structure of the FSC is transparent but complex. The General Assembly
of FSC members is the highest decision-making body within the organization. Because the
8
9
See <http://www.fair trade.net/sites/aboutflo/structure.html>, accessed September 2004.
This is in accordance with the requirements of the ISEAL code of good practice in standard setting.
8
FSC aims to achieve a balance between ecological, economic, and social interests, equal
voting rights are given to the representatives of the three groups (the economic,
environmental, and social chambers, respectively). The FSC is governed by a Board of
Directors, with equal representation from each of the three chambers. The Board of Directors
is accountable to the FSC members. It is made up of nine individuals who are elected from
each of the chambers for a three-year term. The gap between the South and the North is
recognized and an attempt has been made to rectify the situation: representatives from the
North and the South have about the same number of votes in all three chambers (Kern 2004).
The Executive Director, with the support of a multicultural professional team, runs the FSC
on a day-to-day basis from the head office in Bonn, Germany. Stakeholder input is required at
all phases, from discussion about new standards to final certification, which means that FSCaccredited certification bodies must consult with local stakeholders before carrying out an
audit.
Between 1994 and 2000, the FSC developed several principles and criteria for the
management of the forestry sector, which have been the basis for the development of national
and regional certification standards.10 The FSC Accreditation Program formally endorses (that
is, accredits) the various certification bodies, FSC national initiatives, and FSC national
standards.11 There are two types of FSC certificates available from the certification bodies,
namely, the Forest Management Certificate (FM) and the Chain of Custody Certificate
(COC). Certification must be renewed every five years.
Certified forest areas and the product chains have increased and (as of 2006) are still
doing so, not only in Western democracies, but also in the transformation countries of Central
and Eastern Europe, and in the developing countries. In 2002, there were certified forests in
60 countries and certified product chains in 65 countries. By 2004 almost 40 million hectares
of forest had been FSC certified.
4.
Analytical Frame
A set of variables can be adopted to create an analytical frame for scrutinizing the networks
according to the research questions. Generally, the transnational, national, and the local
context has to be taken into account, because every (inter-)action is structured and shaped by
10
11
FSC standards include social, environmental, and economic values. Requirements, for example, are:
protection of high conservation value forests, protection of workers’ rights and indigenous peoples’
rights. Apart from the international principles and standards, the development of national and regional
standards is allowed, but must be recognized by FSC International. National standards are developed by
national working groups. These groups must have a balanced composition of social, environmental, and
economic interests. The Board and the FSC Secretariat monitor whether any group was overly dominant
in the development or creation of standards, whether the procedure was fair, and whether all standards are
in compliance with national principles.
In 1997, for example, the first national standards (Sweden) were recognized by FSC International. As of
2004, ten regional sets of standards have been acknowledged (for details, see Kern 2004).
9
its specific context. Contexts can be differentiated in terms of their political level (local,
national, transnational) and in terms of their type. In my case study, normative-ideological
contexts, on the one hand, and institutional-statutory contexts, on the other, have to be taken
into account. Second, depending on the problems and the objectives of the network, the
involved actors and their specific resources have to be identified (Scharpf 2000). Three kinds
of actors can be differentiated here: actors affected by a network’s decision, actors with the
power to make decisions, and actors who can influence a decision to a certain extent. Finally
and most importantly, the process of implementing norms and statutes in practice has to be
considered. In order to analyze the political process in general, the so-called policy cycle was
developed, which has been under discussion since the 1990s (deLeon 1999; Sabatier 1991).
Crucial stages in this heuristic model are the initiation, estimation, selection, implementation,
evaluation, and termination of political programs. Based on this heuristic model, I refer to a
‘certification cycle’, dividing the certification process similarly into different stages. This
allows an analysis of the (possibilities for) involvement of local civil society actors at
different stages of the certification process, from discussion of standards to certification,
monitoring, and evaluation.
Different types of involvement can be identified within this process – for example,
consulting, defining agendas and priorities, sharing knowledge, or taking part in the process
of monitoring. When looking at the variety of types, a basic line can be drawn between direct
and indirect involvement. Local civil society actors can participate directly if transnational
network statutes demand their involvement, or these actors can participate indirectly, for
example, by addressing certain demands to the transnational network via other actors and
media. Another means to distinguish different forms and scopes of involvement is the
‘involvement continuum’ which ranges from the provision of mere exchange of information
at the minimal pole to full public control over the policy process at the maximum end (Gale
2004). Intermediate points along the continuum are forms such as consultation, partnership, or
delegation.
Summing up, the scientific interest focuses on the following aspects: the involvement
of local civil society in transnational networks according to (1) the normative and ideological
contexts of the network, (2) the institutional contexts and statutes of the network, and (3) the
process of actual implementation of various types of involvement in the different phases of
the certification cycle (practical experience). Finally, the following general question calls for
discussion: Does the involvement of local civil society foster or hinder the fulfillment of a
transnational network’s general objectives such as sustainability?
10
5.
Analyses
5.1
Involvement of Local Civil Society: Normative-Ideological Context
Many of the existing transnational networks oriented toward common welfare, social justice
and sustainability such as the FSC and FLO formulate strict normative missions for the
involvement of different stakeholders including local civil society in certification processes. 12
They set this high normative goal for several reasons, similar to arguments that can be found
in theories on participatory democracy. According to Wolf (2002: 190) and Geissel (2003),
the contribution of local civil society to (transnational) governance is to identify problems, to
supply (local) resources for problem solving, to provide information, to involve local
knowledge for efficient and effective solutions to problems, to facilitate the implementation
of the standards at the local level and monitor the compliance, and to observe the delegates
and representatives of the network. The main reason nevertheless is to secure and enhance the
legitimacy (and credibility) of the transnational network for the consumers.
Generally, legitimacy is defined by democratic control (see Dingwerth 2004: 86 f.). For
the transnational networks under investigation here, democratic control in a strict sense is not
really possible. Some authors even argue that transnational networks actually have no
legitimacy, because these organizations are not overseen by elected representatives and their
decision-makers are not elected by the public. Most authors, however, do not share these
views and emphasize that legitimacy can be acquired through means other than voting. These
authors identified multi-stakeholder involvement as one of the main sources of legitimacy and
credibility (e.g., Counsell/Loraas 2004).13 Because other forms of legitimization are hardly
possible, stakeholder involvement thus has a highly important role on the normativeideological level. But who demands legitimacy? In the case of certification networks the
consumers14 stand for this normative demand; they value the inclusiveness of stakeholders
and require the participation of local civil society. The FSC and FLO have reacted to this
normative demand and put strong emphasis on multi-stakeholder involvement in their
missions. The FSC, according to its own mission, “strives to involve all interested people and
groups in the development of FSC policies and standards”.15 FLO has also increased its
normative involvement requirements: “When new FLO standards are proposed or reviews of
12
13
14
15
See, for example, “Footprints in the Forest. Current Practice and Future Challenges in Forest
Certification”, <http://www.gtz.de/forest-certification>, accessed August 2004.
It is clearly stated that “the legitimacy and credibility of the consultation process is at risk if the
participation of disadvantaged stakeholders cannot be supported, leaving the consultation to those who
are better resourced” (Brynne/Mallet 2005: 4).
Generally, the existence and success of transnational certification networks depend on consumer
awareness and purchasing of goods produced in accordance with specific standards (such as sustainability
and/or social justice). Only this awareness can create a growing demand for certified goods (Bacon 2005:
497).
<http://www.fsc.org/en/about/policy_standards>, accessed October 2005.
11
existing FLO standards undertaken, consultation with a wider stakeholder group is desired.”16
In the next chapter I will discuss, how the normative missions are institutionalized in the
statutes.
5.2
Involvement of Local Civil Society: Institutional Arrangements
Both the FLO and FSC “promote broad involvement by diverse stakeholders in standards and
policy making. Both NGOs have developed formal structures to channel stakeholders’
involvement” (Taylor 2005: 140). Several rules for involvement can be found in the statutes
of the FSC and FLO (Gale 2004).
The FSC has institutionalized an elaborated and comprehensive standard-setting
procedure. Three of the FSC’s ten principles, principles II, III, and IV, ensure rights to local
communities, and protection of indigenous peoples and workers. FSC’s structural plan
includes local organizations and groups, whereby workers and indigenous peoples are
involved in different phases of the process: FSC’s standards require greater participation of
interested and concerned groups than can be found in most other certification networks’
statues. To obtain a certificate, rules also make consultation with local stakeholders
mandatory. A formalized and elaborate complaints mechanism is also open to FSC members,
which guarantees rights for local groups in the certification processes.17 The FLO also has
similar statutory rules, but for some procedures the rules have not been finalized.
The networks under investigation here have institutionalized the involvement of local
civil society in their stated missions and statutes – more so than many (inter-/national)
governmental procedures do. But do the networks fulfill their institutionalized participatory
obligation? How can the complex relationship between local and transnational actors within
these networks be described in practice?
5.3
Involvement of Local Civil Society Actors: Implementation and Practice
Involvement of stakeholders has turned out to be one of the most difficult elements of
certification networks. In practice implementation is more complex, as most reports reveal
(e.g., Brynne/Mallet 2005). Unfortunately, very little literature is available regarding the FLO,
but some studies on the FSC can be found. I shall therefore concentrate predominantly on the
FSC in this section.
There are some indications that stakeholder consultation in the FSC does not work in
practice as envisaged in its statutes. Counsel and Loraas (2004) described several cases where
the interests and complaints of ‘weak stakeholders’ such as indigenous peoples and workers
were ignored, while the wishes of ‘strong stakeholders’ such as property owners or retailers
16
17
<http://www.fairtrade.net/sites/standards/consultation.html>, accessed October 2005.
However, for dispute to become formal, at least two members of the FSC must support the complaint.
12
from the North were taken seriously. Several local (civil society) actors had difficulties
getting their voices heard. It became apparent, for example, that many local stakeholders in
certified areas had never heard about certification or the FSC. Although the involvement of
local stakeholders is mandatory for obtaining a certificate, they had not even been informed of
this in some cases. Sometimes involvement was intentionally hindered, for example, as in
Perum Perhutani in 1998, where “consultation with the local people took place in situations
intimidating to dissenting locals, whereas assessors spoke only with company-suggested
contacts” (Counsell/Loraas 2004: 39). In this and other cases local stakeholders, local
communities, and indigenous peoples are increasingly marginalized, whereas strong
stakeholders like commercial clients have been given more attention. Some authors have even
contended that the FSC has shifted subtly from being a tool for sustainable forest management
to one of improved marketing of forest products (e.g., Taylor 2005: 142). The positions of
local civil society, local communities, and forestry workers seems to have been undermined in
favor of more influential groups, at least in some regions.
Yet, neglect and/or obstruction are not the only reasons for conflict. The FSC’s partial
disregard of weak stakeholders, for instance, followed other difficulties. Local civil society is
often not able to participate as an equal stakeholder, either because of political restrictions or
lack of capacity. Many civil society groups could not meet the new challenges or take
advantage of the opportunities generated by the FSC because they were not prepared
(Counsell/Loraas 2004); in some countries they had hardly had any experience at all with
involvement and participation. In these cases capacity building would be necessary before
actual involvement can take place. Facilitators can play an important role in fulfilling this
task. Language skills, facilitation skills, and cultural sensitivity are crucial to success. A
facilitator must – some authors insist – be professionally trained in order to ensure that
weaker groups or individuals are able to participate fully (Brynne/Mallet 2005: 3).
Other certification networks deal with similar problems and have begun to develop
guidelines concerning the implementation of statutory rules for multi-stakeholder
involvement. The ISEAL Alliance for example has released several proposals to enhance the
involvement of ‘weak’ stakeholders, such as choice of location, and accessible language and
terminology (e.g., Brynne/Mallet 2005). The WWF has published a “Statement of Principles
on Indigenous Peoples and Conservation.” Some standard-setting networks, especially those
which joined the ISEAL Alliance, work with its “Guidelines for Effective Facilitation of
Multi-stakeholder Processes” (Brynne/Mallet 2005). Edmunds and Wollenberg (2002)
suggest practical steps for forest management where power imbalances exist among the
consulted parties. Hemmati (2001) described in detail strategies to achieve principles in multistakeholder processes, such as accountability, effectiveness, equity, and inclusiveness. Some
networks provide information about problems they have had and offer suggestions on how to
solve them. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) experienced, for example, that bringing
an individual from a local community, a local civil society group, or a local disadvantaged
13
group to the negotiating table did not necessarily ensure that the interests of the constituency
would be properly represented. To guarantee that so-called representatives are legitimate and
accountable to their constituencies, the MSC has developed a guideline which requires
community representatives to describe the mechanisms they have for communicating with
their constituents (see MSC Guidance for Certification Bodies in Stakeholder Consultation).
In addition to such guidelines, the actual implementation of participatory norms and
rules also depends on the power of the local civil society. This can mean strength and
resources of the local groups themselves or access to influential groups in or outside the
network, respectively. Some local groups successfully publicized their complaints concerning
some FSC certification processes which had been neglected by the FSC (see several examples
in Counsell/Loraas 2004). The FSC reacted immediately to the publicized complaints and, in
so doing, attempted to regain lost credibility. In its new Accreditation Standards, the FSC now
provides more detailed guidance to certification bodies as far as requirements for stakeholder
consultations are concerned. 18 Where statutes and guidelines have not worked, publicizing of
complaints has led to success.
5.4 Involvement of Local Civil Society: Relevance for Fulfillment of the Networks’
Objectives
In the case of the FLO, improvements to the lives of local inhabitants are at the center of
interest and, in order to fulfill this objective, those persons must be taken into account. The
case of the FSC, however, is different. Its objective is sustainability, which includes
environmental, social and economic interests. Research on the FSC does not allow us to draw
a final conclusion concerning whether the involvement of local civil society actors enhances
its objective (sustainability) or not. Other studies show mixed results this issue. Coenen et al.
(1998) claim that how involvement affects sustainability will largely depend on cultural,
institutional, and political circumstances. “[T]he apparently straightforward hypothesis that
more involvement can improve the quality of environmental decision-making becomes, on
closer analysis, a bundle of distinct propositions. With involvement a multidimensional
concept and quality multifaceted as well, one might reasonably expect different forms of
involvement to have different, and not necessarily similar, impacts on different aspects of
decision quality” (ibid.: 317; see also Fischer 2000).
Furthermore there is good evidence that local civil society actors are more concerned
about their communities’ surroundings than about global issues or sustainability outside their
neighborhoods. The attention and concerns of local civil society actors are devoted primarily
to issues which affect them directly. This phenomenon can be illustrated by Local Agenda 21
18
The top-down, respectively bottom-up emergence interestingly did not make a difference. Whether a
transnational network was established as an umbrella organization of national initiatives, such as the
FLO, or whether it was founded by a transnational consortium on the transnational level, like the FSC,
did not have an effect on the local civil society participation – at least as far as we can determine thus far.
14
(LA 21)19 initiatives and their concerns about global environmental issues such as climate
protection. According to a survey by Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) and the
German Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU),
in most countries, a global problem – viz., climate protection – is embodied only in the LA 21
programs, and only very rarely does it actually become a part of LA 21 activities. Climate
protection seems to have no priority in LA 21 initiatives. For example, although the
Norwegian LA 21 strategic papers show concern for local-global connections, global
problems in Norway only received attention in a few municipalities. Issues of local concern
were given highest priority. Also, in the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain, although
global issues are addressed occasionally, they are nevertheless dealt with as side issues. To
put another way: “Where [transnational] NGOs talk about global warming, the [local]
community talks about bad pavements.”20 Similarly, the BMU’s study stated: “One problem
associated with the Local Agenda 21 processes … is making the link between local planning
and global sustainability.” Thus, it appears that the involvement of local civil society adds to
the fulfillment of the transnational network’s objective only if the “locals” and the
“transnationals” pursue the same goals.
6.
Discussion and Conclusions
Based on the case studies, successful involvement of local civil society actors in transnational
certification networks is characterized by three factors. First, public demand to involve local
19
20
At the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, a
document called ‘Agenda 21’ was agreed upon and signed by more than 170 governments. Of particular
interest here is chapter 28 which is concerned with the role of local authorities. Chapter 28 argues that
local authorities must play a crucial part in the transition to sustainable development: “As the level of
governance closest to the people, they play a vital role in educating, mobilizing and responding to the
public to promote sustainable development” (UN 1992, Agenda 21, chapter 28.1). Chapter 28 of
Agenda 21 demands that local authorities should produce a local version of Agenda 21 by 1996, in which
they interpret the implications of ‘sustainable development’ for their locality. This however, would be
done in “a consultative process with their local populations” leading to “a consensus on a ‘Local
Agenda 21’ for the community” (UN 1992, Agenda 21, chapter 28.2). Chapter 28 was included in the
Agenda 21 document after intense lobbying by organizations like the International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), the United Towns Organisation and European Commission delegates,
and is considered as a major breakthrough for those organizations in gaining recognition on the
international stage. Local Agenda 21 is essentially a program for broad stakeholder involvement in local
policymaking. The aim is to engage all local stakeholders in a lasting dialogue process designed to
dissolve sectoral boundaries and departmentalism between the local players. Another characteristic of
Local Agenda 21 is that it gives primacy to a consensus-based process and prescribes no substantive
policy outcomes to local authorities.
Policies in Germany seem to be the exception to the rule: According to the findings of the German
Institute for Urban Affairs, German LA 21 processes consider climate protection the most important
topic. Climate protection also has the highest priority in implementation. These were the findings of
questionnaires sent to about 200 German municipalities. But this assessment must be questioned. On
closer examination, it becomes obvious that the questionnaire treated “climate protection and energy” as a
single concept, so that municipalities in fact indicated that energy and climate protection were their major
concern. In this case, it is unclear whether municipalities are thus concerned merely about local energy
costs, or whether they are really and truly concerned about the global issue of climate protection.
15
civil society in a transnational certification network is a condition sine qua non (“pressure
from consumers”). Successful involvement of local civil society in such networks occurs only
if the consumers regard doing so as significant and, correspondingly, set the normative
context. If consumers expect transnational certification networks to include local civil society
actors, these networks must promise to act in accordance with this demand, implement
corresponding rules, and try to perform as expected. In the case of both certification networks
under research here, the FSC and FLO, credibility depends on stakeholder involvement and
local civil society involvement. If they lose credibility, these networks also lose efficiency.
Consumers who do not trust a certification network will not buy products with its label.
Demand

Promise
 Involvement of “locals” 
Credibility
 Sales figures
Second, it has become clear that institutionalized, formal rules for participatory processes
are also crucial to success. The normative-mission must be institutionalized and built into the
organization’s statutes. This means having clear rules about the different steps to be taken and
forms of involvement in the certification process, and having a transparent procedure for
dealing with complaints of weaker groups like most local civil society groups tend to be. Any
set of rules governing involvement of “locals” or other weaker groups must be unequivocal,
comprehensive, and provide clear sanctions for violations. A set of guidelines for putting
these rules into actual practice also turned out to be essential.
Third, the power of local civil society actors, that is, the pressure from below, is important.
Power can mean different options in this case. The strength and resources of the local group
itself are naturally a major prerequisite. Nevertheless, access to influential actors such as the
media, competing transnational networks, or consumer groups enhances the power of local
groups as well.
Only if all three conditions (consumer pressure, institutionalized mechanisms for
involvement, pressure from local groups) are fulfilled, does the possibility for localtransnational cooperation arise, whereby local civil society actors will be heard. 21 Yet, in spite
of normative demands, institutionalized rules, and practical guidelines, the involvement of
local civil society remains complex and is not always satisfying. This is partly due to the
networks themselves, partly due to takeover by stronger stakeholders, and partly due to the
desolate situation of local civil society in some countries.
Does the involvement of local civil society facilitate the achievement of transnational
networks’ objectives? The outcomes depend on the objectives and are therefore mixed for the
FSC and FLO. Sustainability, FSC’s primary goal, requires a delicate balance between
various economic, social, and environmental demands; involvement of local civil society is
21
Nevertheless, involvement seems to be limited to just a few phases in the ‘certification cycle’ and
basically restricted to the exchange of information.
16
only one such demand. In the case of the FLO, social justice is a key aspect, which requires
local participation within the producing communities and businesses. Nevertheless the FLO
has also had to fulfill other tasks in order to prevail on the market. Both networks are
struggling to find a balance between participatory demands and economic constraints
(Bryne/Mallet 2005: 1). Both must operate on the world market and pursue their economic
objectives effectively; at the same time, they must retain their respective social and
environmental orientation (Taylor 2005: 130).
To sum up, cooperation between local and transnational civil society can be regarded as
a useful response to real global challenges which have been otherwise neglected by national
governments and international governmental organizations. The networks point to problems
which have ignored and offer possible solutions to these.22 Cooperation between local and
global civil society is fundamental in this context, because the involvement of locals lends
legitimacy to a network. Nevertheless cooperation seldom functions without conflict. A future
challenge will be for transnational civil society networks to increase their worldwide impact
while guaranteeing that local groups are not left behind.
References
Ahmad, Mokbul Morshed. 2001. “Unequal Friends: The ‘Partnership’ Between International
NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) and Local NGOs in Bangladesh.” Journal of
Rural Development 20 (3): 489-506.
Anand, Anita. 1999. “All Together Now! What Works, What Doesn’t Work and What Can
Work. Organizing Challenges for Non-Governmental Organizations.” Pp. 391-426 in
Whose World Is It Anyway? Civil Society, the United Nations, and the Multilateral
Future, edited by Foster, John W., and Anita Anand. Ottawa: United Nations
Association in Canada/Association canadienne.
Ashman, Darcy. 2001. “Strengthening North-South Partnerships for Sustainable
Development.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 30 (1): 74-98.
Bacon, Christopher. 2005. “Confronting the Coffee Crisis: Can Fair Trade, Organic, and
Specialty Coffee Reduce Small Scale Farmer Vulnerability in Northern Nicaragua?”
World Development 33 (3): 497-511.
Brynne, Abra, and Patrick Mallet. 2005. Stakeholder Consultation Practices in Standards
Development. Kaslo, Canada: ISEAL Alliance.
Cashore, Benjamin, Graeme Auld, and Deanna Newson. 2004. “Legitimizing Political
Consumerism.” Pp. 181-99 in Exploring Political Consumerism Past and Present,
edited by Micheletti, Michele, Andreas Follesdal, and Dietlind Stolle. New Brunswick:
Rutgers University, Transaction Press.
22
Nevertheless, when considering overall influence and net change, the actual impact of these civil society
networks has not been very substantial.
17
Coenen, Frans H.J.M, Dave Huitema, and Laurence J. O´Toole. 1998. Participation and the
Quality of Environmental Decision Making. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Counsell, Simon, and Kim Terje Loraas. 2004. Trading in Credibility. The myth and reality of
the Forest Stewardship Council, 2004. <http://www.rainforestfoundationuk.org/files>,
accessed January 2005.
deLeon, Peter. 1999. “The Stage Approach to the Policy Process: What Has It Done? Where
Is It Going?” Pp. 19-34 in Theories of the Policy Process, edited by Sabatier, Paul A.
Boulder, Colorado/Oxford: Westview Press.
Dingwerth, Klaus. 2004. “Effektivität und Legitimität globaler Poltiknetzwerke.” Pp. 74-95 in
Unternehmen in der Weltpolitik: Politiknetzwerke, Unternehmensregeln und die Zukunft
des Multilateralismus, edited by Brühl, Tanja, Heidi Feldt, Brigitte Hamm, Hartwig
Hummel, und Jens Martens. Bonn: Dietz Verlag.
Edmunds, David, und Eva Wollenberg. 2002. Disadvantaged Groups in Multistakeholder
Negotiations. Center for International Forestry Research Programme Report.
Falk, Richard. 1994. “The Making of Global Citizenship.” Pp. 127-40 in The Condition of
Citizenship, edited by van Steenbergen, Bart. London: Sage Publications.
Fischer, Frank. 2000. Citizens, Experts, and the Environment. The Politics of Local
Knowledge. Durham, NC and London, UK: Duke University Press.
Fridell, Gavin. 2004. “The Fair Trade Network in Historical Perspectives.” Canadian Journal
of Development Studies 25 (2): 411-28.
Gale, Fred. 2004. “The Consultation Dilemma in Private Regulatory Regimes: Negotiating
FSC Regional Standards in the United States and Canada.” Journal of Environmental
Policy and Planning 6 (1): 57-84.
Geissel, Brigitte. 2002. Lokale Vernetzung und Wissensintegration von Laien(-wissen) und
Experten(-wissen) durch neue Partizipationsformen. Expert report prepared for the
German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).
Geissel, Brigitte. 2003. “Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) – The German Case
Studies.” Pp. 223-266 in Sustainability, Innovation and Participatory Governance. A
Cross-National Study of the EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme, edited by Heinelt,
Hubert, and Randall Smith. Ashgate: Aldershot.
Goodman, Michael K. 2004. “Reading Fair Trade: Political Ecological Imaginary and the
Moral Economy of Fair Trade Foods.” Political Geography 23 (7): 891-915.
Gosewinkel, Dieter, Dieter Rucht, Wolfgang van den Daele, and Jürgen Kocka (eds.). 2004.
Zivilgesellschaft – national und transnational. WZB-Jahrbuch 2003. Berlin: Edition
Sigma, pp. 1-16.
Haufler, Virginia. 2001. A Public Role for the Private Sector. Industry Self-Regulation in a
Global Economy. Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Haufler, Virginia. 2003. “New Forms of Governance: Certification Regimes as Social
Regulations of the Global Market.” Pp. 237-247 in Social and Political Dimension on
Forest Certification, edited by Elliott, Chris, Errol Meidinger, and Gerhard Oesten.
Remagen-Oberwinter: Forstbuch.
18
Hemmati, Minu. 2001. Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability –
Beyond Deadlock and Conflict. London: Earthscan Publications.
Jordan, Lisa, and Peter van Tuijl. 2000. “Political Responsibility in Transnational NGO
Advocacy.” World Development 28 (12): 2051-2065.
Keane, John. 2003. Global Civic Society? Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Keck, Margaret E., and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy
Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Keck, Margaret E., and Kathryn Sikkink. 1999. “Transnational advocacy networks in
international and regional politics.” International Social Science Journal 51 (159): 89101.
Kern, Kristine. 2004. Global Governance Through Transnational Network Organizations. The
Scope and Limitations of Civil Society Self-Organization. WZB Discussion Paper
No. SP IV 2004-102,
Wissenschaftszentrum
Berlin
für
Sozialforschung,
<http://skylla.wz-berlin.de/pdf/2004/iv04-102.pdf>, accessed March 2006.
Kocka, Jürgen 2003. “Zivilgesellschaft in historischer Perspektive.” Forschungsjournal Neue
Soziale Bewegungen 16 (2): 29-37.
Lafferty, William M. (ed.). 1999. Implementing LA 21 in Europe. New Initiatives for
Sustainable Development. Oslo: ProSus.
Levi, Margaret, and April Linton. 2003. “Fair Trade: A Cup at a Time?” Politics and Society
31 (3): 407-432.
Lewis, David. 1998. “Development NGOs and the Challenge of Partnership: Changing
Relations between North and South.” Social Policy & Administration 32 (5): 501-512.
Lister, Sarah. 2000. “Power in Partnership? An Analysis of an NGO's Relationships with its
Partners.” Journal of International Development 12 (2): 227-39.
Micheletti, Michele, and Dietlind Stolle. 2005. Political Consumerism as Transnational
Private Governance. Paper presented at the ECPR Workshop, “Transnational Private
Governance in the Global Political Economy,” Granada, Spain, April 14-19.
Moore, Geoff. 2004. “The Fair Trade Movement: Parameters, Issues and Future Research.”
Journal of Business Ethics 53 (1-2): 73-86.
Pattberg, Philipp. 2004. “Private-Private Partnerships als innovative Modelle zur
Regel(durch)setzung? Das Beispiel des Forest Stewardship Council.” in Unternehmen
in der Weltpolitik: Politiknetzwerke, Unternehmensregeln und die Zukunft des
Multilateralismus, edited by Brühl, Tanja, Heidi Feldt, Brigitte Hamm, Hartwig
Hummel, Jens Martens. Bonn: Dietz Verlag: 143-162.
Paulsen, Olaf. 1998. “Globalization of a special kind.” Tea and Coffee Trade Journal 170 (4):
146-47.
Rucht, Dieter. 2002. “Transnationale Öffentlichkeiten und Identitäten in neuen sozialen
Bewegungen.” Pp. 327-351 in Transnationale Öffentlichkeiten und Identitäten im 20.
Jahrhundert, edited by Kaelble, Hartmut, Martin Kirsch, Alexander Schmidt-Gernig,
Frankfurt/M.: Campus.
Sabatier, Paul A. 1991. “Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process.” PS: Political Science
and Politics, 24 (2): 147-157.
19
Scharpf, Fritz W. 2000. Interaktionsformen. Akteurzentrierter Institutionalismus in der
Politikforschung. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Scherrer, Christoph, Thomas Greven, and Volker Frank. 1998. Sozialklauseln: Arbeitsrechte
im Welthandel. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.
Tanaka, Maki. 2003. Bridging the Gap Between Northern NGOs and Southern Sovereigns in
the Trade-Environment Debate: The Pursuit of Democratic Dispute Settlements in the
WTO Under the Rio Principles. Ecology Law Quarterly 30 (59): 113-188.
Tarrow, Sidney. 2005. The New Transnational Activism. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Taylor, Peter Leigh. 2005. In the Market But Not of It: Fair Trade Coffee and Forest
Stewardship Council Certification as Market-Based Social Change. World Development
33 (1): 129-147.
Teka, Tegegne. 2000. International Non-Government Organizations in Rural Development in
Ethiopia. Rhetoric and Practice. Frankfurt am Main etc.: Peter Lang.
Willetts, Peter. 2000. “Representation of private organizations in the global diplomacy of
economic policy-making.” Pp. 34-58 in Private Organizations in Global Politics, edited
by Ronit, Karsten, and Volker Schneider. London/New York: Routledge.
Wolf, Klaus Dieter. 2002. Zivilgesellschaftliche Selbstregulierung: Ein Ausweg aus dem
Dilemma des internationalen Regierens? Pp. 183-214 in Regieren in internationalen
Institutionen, edited by Jachtenfuchs, Markus, and Michéle Knodt. Opladen: Leske +
Budrich.
20