"To Antipolis, my sisters!": ETSI as a forum of contestation, collaboration and orchestration.

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIOLOGY Innovation-The European Journal of Social Science Research Pub Date : 2024-08-17 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1080/13511610.2024.2379806
Panagiotis Delimatsis, Zuno Verghese
{"title":"\"To Antipolis, my sisters!\": ETSI as a forum of contestation, collaboration and orchestration.","authors":"Panagiotis Delimatsis, Zuno Verghese","doi":"10.1080/13511610.2024.2379806","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Over the years, ETSI, the prime European standard-setter for ICT standards, has experienced significant critique about its legitimacy, including more recently by the European Commission in the 2022 Standardization Strategy, which focused on the alleged deficiencies of its global participation model. Despite potential missteps in certain instances, ETSI has overall addressed such critique with remarkable success. In this article, we argue that this occurred thanks to various strategies that ETSI used to sustain its organizational resilience over the years. In regard to its interaction with its de facto controller, the European Commission, we argue that ETSI had recourse to three key resilience strategies: one where ETSI took a hard stance resisting to the Commission's desires (contestation), one where ETSI intentionally succumbed to the Commission's desires or preferences (orchestration)<b>,</b> and one where ETSI opted for a reconciliatory approach to achieve commonly set objectives serving the mutual interest (collaboration). Interestingly, such strategies were not only resilience-enhancing, but also legitimacy-conducive. This article contributes to two different strings of academic literature relating to organizational resilience, on the one hand, and institutional legitimacy, on the other, by combining them in a manner that, to the best of our knowledge, had not been done before in the relevant literature. In the discussion section, we draw observations that are pertinent to discussions and developments since the 2022 European Union's Standardization Strategy.</p>","PeriodicalId":46877,"journal":{"name":"Innovation-The European Journal of Social Science Research","volume":"37 5","pages":"1305-1329"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11835307/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Innovation-The European Journal of Social Science Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2024.2379806","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Over the years, ETSI, the prime European standard-setter for ICT standards, has experienced significant critique about its legitimacy, including more recently by the European Commission in the 2022 Standardization Strategy, which focused on the alleged deficiencies of its global participation model. Despite potential missteps in certain instances, ETSI has overall addressed such critique with remarkable success. In this article, we argue that this occurred thanks to various strategies that ETSI used to sustain its organizational resilience over the years. In regard to its interaction with its de facto controller, the European Commission, we argue that ETSI had recourse to three key resilience strategies: one where ETSI took a hard stance resisting to the Commission's desires (contestation), one where ETSI intentionally succumbed to the Commission's desires or preferences (orchestration), and one where ETSI opted for a reconciliatory approach to achieve commonly set objectives serving the mutual interest (collaboration). Interestingly, such strategies were not only resilience-enhancing, but also legitimacy-conducive. This article contributes to two different strings of academic literature relating to organizational resilience, on the one hand, and institutional legitimacy, on the other, by combining them in a manner that, to the best of our knowledge, had not been done before in the relevant literature. In the discussion section, we draw observations that are pertinent to discussions and developments since the 2022 European Union's Standardization Strategy.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
15.00%
发文量
54
期刊介绍: European integration and enlargement pose fundamental challenges for policy, politics, citizenship, culture and democracy. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research provides a unique forum for discussing these processes. It welcomes articles on all aspects of European developments that contribute to the improvement of social science knowledge and to the setting of a policy-focused European research agenda. Examples of typical subject areas covered include •Policy-Making and Agenda-Setting •Multilevel Governance •The Role of Institutions •Democracy and Civil Society •Social Structures and Integration •Sustainability and Ecological Modernisation •Science, Research, Technology and Society
期刊最新文献
The European Telecommunication Standards Institute (ETSI): in search for legitimacy and resilience of European standardisation. "To Antipolis, my sisters!": ETSI as a forum of contestation, collaboration and orchestration. ETSI As a case study of organizational resilience in standard setting: strategies that ensure thriving despite organizational challenges. Impact of authorship on citation rates: a comparative analysis of top 9999 articles in social science A systematic literature review on collaborative innovation in the public sector
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1