Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, citizens' compliance with government preventive measures was one of the top policy priorities for governments worldwide. This study engages with socio-legal and psychological theories on compliance and proposes an analytical framework to explore the role of different psychological factors on individual-level compliance during global health crises. Using the results of three national surveys, we argue that various negative emotional states, perceptions of the ongoing crisis, and of the institutional settings are major factors influencing individual compliance across countries. Most importantly, while increased panic, anxiety, and sadness lead to higher compliance, rising anger, loneliness, and impatience decrease compliance levels. Notably, perceptions of the COVID-19 crisis—especially health concerns and a worsening financial situation—tend to elicit anger among citizens across countries, thereby further hampering their obedience with pandemic regulations. Furthermore, perceptions of public institutions also influence individual compliance. Overall, in order to ensure compliance, we suggest that policymakers and those implementing government measures take individual psychological factors into account both within and beyond the public crisis context.
{"title":"Emotions, crisis, and institutions: Explaining compliance with COVID-19 regulations","authors":"Danqi Guo, Sabrina Habich-Sobiegalla, Genia Kostka","doi":"10.1111/rego.12509","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12509","url":null,"abstract":"Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, citizens' compliance with government preventive measures was one of the top policy priorities for governments worldwide. This study engages with socio-legal and psychological theories on compliance and proposes an analytical framework to explore the role of different psychological factors on individual-level compliance during global health crises. Using the results of three national surveys, we argue that various negative emotional states, perceptions of the ongoing crisis, and of the institutional settings are major factors influencing individual compliance across countries. Most importantly, while increased panic, anxiety, and sadness lead to higher compliance, rising anger, loneliness, and impatience decrease compliance levels. Notably, perceptions of the COVID-19 crisis—especially health concerns and a worsening financial situation—tend to elicit anger among citizens across countries, thereby further hampering their obedience with pandemic regulations. Furthermore, perceptions of public institutions also influence individual compliance. Overall, in order to ensure compliance, we suggest that policymakers and those implementing government measures take individual psychological factors into account both within and beyond the public crisis context.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165453","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Elizabeth R. DeSombre, Jette Steen Knudsen, Molly Elder
Focusing on 23 greening measures, this paper systematically compares the greening efforts of the busiest container and cargo ports in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU). We move beyond accounts for general environmental differences between the EU and the US to examine how specific environmental decisions are shaped by the effects of regulatory characteristics in each region. We identify systematic variation in number and type of port greening measures adopted in the two regions. We demonstrate that differences in the number and type of measures adopted reflect the level of policy making with local policy making playing a more important role in the US compared to the EU, thus proposing a pathway through which the form of regulatory approach could influence content and extent of regulation. The EU adopts regulation that is broader in scope while US ports are more likely to address problems affecting local populations.
{"title":"Regulation from above or below: Port greening measures in the European Union and the United States","authors":"Elizabeth R. DeSombre, Jette Steen Knudsen, Molly Elder","doi":"10.1111/rego.12510","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12510","url":null,"abstract":"Focusing on 23 greening measures, this paper systematically compares the greening efforts of the busiest container and cargo ports in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU). We move beyond accounts for general environmental differences between the EU and the US to examine how specific environmental decisions are shaped by the effects of regulatory characteristics in each region. We identify systematic variation in number and type of port greening measures adopted in the two regions. We demonstrate that differences in the number and type of measures adopted reflect the level of policy making with local policy making playing a more important role in the US compared to the EU, thus proposing a pathway through which the form of regulatory approach could influence content and extent of regulation. The EU adopts regulation that is broader in scope while US ports are more likely to address problems affecting local populations.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"4 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165471","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Katarína Šipulová, Samuel Spáč, David Kosař, Tereza Papoušková, Viktor Derka
The aim of this article is to introduce a novel view on how to evaluate the share of power held by judges in judicial governance. Its contribution to court administration and the regulation of judges is three-fold. First, it provides a novel empirically tested conceptualization of judicial governance that includes 60 competences grouped into eight dimensions (ranging from selection and education of judges to case allocation and publication of judicial decisions). Second, it proposes a new Judicial Self-Governance (JSG) Index that measures how much power domestic judges hold in these eight dimensions of judicial governance. Third, by applying the JSG Index to the longitudinal data for Germany, Italy, Czechia, and Slovakia this article demonstrates that the Judicial Council model is not the only institutional model of judicial governance leading to the empowerment of judges. This means that judges can hold many powers without the existence of judicial councils and even in the Ministry of Justice model.
{"title":"Judicial Self-Governance Index: Towards better understanding of the role of judges in governing the judiciary.","authors":"Katarína Šipulová, Samuel Spáč, David Kosař, Tereza Papoušková, Viktor Derka","doi":"10.1111/rego.12453","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12453","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this article is to introduce a novel view on how to evaluate the share of power held by judges in judicial governance. Its contribution to court administration and the regulation of judges is three-fold. First, it provides a novel empirically tested conceptualization of judicial governance that includes 60 competences grouped into eight dimensions (ranging from selection and education of judges to case allocation and publication of judicial decisions). Second, it proposes a new Judicial Self-Governance (JSG) Index that measures how much power domestic judges hold in these eight dimensions of judicial governance. Third, by applying the JSG Index to the longitudinal data for Germany, Italy, Czechia, and Slovakia this article demonstrates that the Judicial Council model is not the only institutional model of judicial governance leading to the empowerment of judges. This means that judges can hold many powers without the existence of judicial councils and even in the Ministry of Justice model.</p>","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"17 1","pages":"22-42"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10078789/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9264535","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
US regulatory agencies have been encouraged to consider the equity and distributional impacts of regulations for decades. This paper examines the extent to which such analysis is done and provides recommendations for improving it. We analyze 189 regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) that monetize at least some benefits and costs prepared by a variety of agencies from October 2003 to January 2021. We find that only two RIAs calculated the net benefits of a policy for a specific demographic group. Furthermore, only 21% of RIAs calculate some benefits by group (typically for demographic groups) and only 20% calculate some costs by group (typically for industry groups such as small entities). Overall, the differences between presidential administrations are relatively small compared to the differences between agencies in their performance using our measures of distributional analysis. We then evaluate a sample of 23 analyses related to environmental justice (EJ) prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) between January 2010 and January 2022. The EJ analyses frequently identify disproportionate exposures to pollutants for a variety of groups and discuss the effects of proposed regulations on these exposures, but they rarely consider the distribution of costs and less than half consider any alternatives. To date, virtually no agency prepares a distributional analysis that could help regulators evaluate whether a proposed regulation, on net, advantages or disadvantages a particular group and whether an alternative could generate a preferred distributional outcome.
{"title":"Incorporating equity and justice concerns in regulation","authors":"Caroline Cecot, Robert W. Hahn","doi":"10.1111/rego.12508","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12508","url":null,"abstract":"US regulatory agencies have been encouraged to consider the equity and distributional impacts of regulations for decades. This paper examines the extent to which such analysis is done and provides recommendations for improving it. We analyze 189 regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) that monetize at least some benefits and costs prepared by a variety of agencies from October 2003 to January 2021. We find that only two RIAs calculated the net benefits of a policy for a specific demographic group. Furthermore, only 21% of RIAs calculate some benefits by group (typically for demographic groups) and only 20% calculate some costs by group (typically for industry groups such as small entities). Overall, the differences between presidential administrations are relatively small compared to the differences between agencies in their performance using our measures of distributional analysis. We then evaluate a sample of 23 analyses related to environmental justice (EJ) prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) between January 2010 and January 2022. The EJ analyses frequently identify disproportionate exposures to pollutants for a variety of groups and discuss the effects of proposed regulations on these exposures, but they rarely consider the distribution of costs and less than half consider any alternatives. To date, virtually no agency prepares a distributional analysis that could help regulators evaluate whether a proposed regulation, on net, advantages or disadvantages a particular group and whether an alternative could generate a preferred distributional outcome.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"12 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165626","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Joan-Ramon Borrell, Carmen García, Juan Luis Jiménez
This paper estimates the impact of reforming competition authorities on perceived antitrust effectiveness using methods of causal inference. We study how 20 countries reformed their competition authorities in depth between 1995 and 2020, and what has been the outcome of such reforms in the perceived competition policy effectiveness by the business community compared with 18 control countries in a balanced panel. As the political economy literature warned, we find that reforms paradoxically have not always improved antitrust effectiveness. Some of the reforms approved stalled or backlashed as politicians opted for a Machiavelli option: undertaking “counter-reforms” even in the name of an apparent but deceptive progressiveness and pro-competition drive.
{"title":"The difficult road to a better competition policy: How do competition authorities reforms affect antitrust effectiveness?","authors":"Joan-Ramon Borrell, Carmen García, Juan Luis Jiménez","doi":"10.1111/rego.12507","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12507","url":null,"abstract":"This paper estimates the impact of reforming competition authorities on perceived antitrust effectiveness using methods of causal inference. We study how 20 countries reformed their competition authorities in depth between 1995 and 2020, and what has been the outcome of such reforms in the perceived competition policy effectiveness by the business community compared with 18 control countries in a balanced panel. As the political economy literature warned, we find that reforms paradoxically have not always improved antitrust effectiveness. Some of the reforms approved stalled or backlashed as politicians opted for a Machiavelli option: undertaking “counter-reforms” even in the name of an apparent but deceptive progressiveness and pro-competition drive.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"12 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165629","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Reputation scholars in the field of regulation tend to focus on the strategic nature—or: “agency”—of reputation management. We know fairly little about the precise nature of the dynamics and conflicts between structural and agential factors that are experienced by regulators in practice, and how these dynamics impact reputation management and its outcomes. This study addresses these questions, using conceptual language from the strategic-relational approach to study the reputation management of the Belgian financial regulator during an event of high reputational salience: the global financial crisis. The results present an image of a regulator as a strategic actor who—either consciously or more intuitively—calculated its possible moves in light of a strategically selective context (which, in turn, was constantly evolving as a result of strategic actions). This contributes to a more complex and behaviorally realistic understanding of regulatory reputation management.
{"title":"Reputation management as an interplay of structure and agency: A strategic-relational approach","authors":"Jan Boon","doi":"10.1111/rego.12506","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12506","url":null,"abstract":"Reputation scholars in the field of regulation tend to focus on the strategic nature—or: “agency”—of reputation management. We know fairly little about the precise nature of the dynamics and conflicts between structural and agential factors that are experienced by regulators in practice, and how these dynamics impact reputation management and its outcomes. This study addresses these questions, using conceptual language from the strategic-relational approach to study the reputation management of the Belgian financial regulator during an event of high reputational salience: the global financial crisis. The results present an image of a regulator as a strategic actor who—either consciously or more intuitively—calculated its possible moves in light of a strategically selective context (which, in turn, was constantly evolving as a result of strategic actions). This contributes to a more complex and behaviorally realistic understanding of regulatory reputation management.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"11 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165634","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Despite the salience of transparency in policy and democracy debates a global measurement of transparency has always been missing. In its absence, measuring the impact of transparency on accountability and corruption for a large number of countries has been difficult, with scholars using more or less adequate proxies. This paper introduces a new measurement of real transparency—the T-index—using 14 de facto components, based on direct observations of official websites in 129 countries and five de jure components, based on the transparency laws and conventions adopted. The resulting index is a measurement with very good internal and external validity and moderate precision. The paper argues that de facto transparency must be considered alongside de jure (legal) transparency if we are to judge the impact (or lack of) transparency against accountability and corruption, as a large implementation gap exists, in particular in poor countries, between legal commitments and real transparency. The T-index has significant impact on both perception and objective indicators of corruption, including perceived change in corruption over time as measured by the Global Corruption Barometer. An analysis of outliers shows that high transparency alone is not sufficient to achieve control of corruption, especially in countries with low human development and poor rule of law, although transparency is a robust predictor of corruption with GDP controls. The data with all sources is available for download as T-index 2022 dataset: DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7225627 and an interactive webpage developed for updates is available at www.corruptionrisk.org/transparency.
{"title":"Transparency and corruption: Measuring real transparency by a new index","authors":"Alina Mungiu-Pippidi","doi":"10.1111/rego.12502","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12502","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the salience of transparency in policy and democracy debates a global measurement of transparency has always been missing. In its absence, measuring the impact of transparency on accountability and corruption for a large number of countries has been difficult, with scholars using more or less adequate proxies. This paper introduces a new measurement of real transparency—the T-index—using 14 <i>de facto</i> components, based on direct observations of official websites in 129 countries and five <i>de jure</i> components, based on the transparency laws and conventions adopted. The resulting index is a measurement with very good internal and external validity and moderate precision. The paper argues that <i>de facto</i> transparency must be considered alongside <i>de jure</i> (legal) transparency if we are to judge the impact (or lack of) transparency against accountability and corruption, as a large implementation gap exists, in particular in poor countries, between legal commitments and real transparency. The T-index has significant impact on both perception and objective indicators of corruption, including perceived change in corruption over time as measured by the Global Corruption Barometer. An analysis of outliers shows that high transparency alone is not sufficient to achieve control of corruption, especially in countries with low human development and poor rule of law, although transparency is a robust predictor of corruption with GDP controls. The data with all sources is available for download as T-index 2022 dataset: DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7225627 and an interactive webpage developed for updates is available at www.corruptionrisk.org/transparency.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"10 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165645","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Regulatory failure caused by overlapping regulations is ubiquitous, with examples in all jurisdictions across a range of disciplines. Overlapping regulation can be problematic. It obscures policy objectives and hinders the development of effective and clear regulation. In addition, regulatory overlap can inflict real costs on businesses through repetitive inspections and data collection efforts. It is particularly burdensome when agencies issue conflicting rules with inconsistent standards. Recognizing that regulatory overlap exists and is a problem provides the context to this program of research. Our research project was an exploration using a systematic quantitative literature review (SQLR) method to better understand the way regulatory failure, caused by overlapping regulations, has featured in academic literature. The SQLR method was chosen as it employs a systematic process to consolidate a sample of literature, and quantitative measures to draw connections between different academic sources. Ultimately, our research concluded that the literature does not provide clear prescriptive principles for reducing unnecessary regulatory overlap. This begs a question as to whether more research is needed in this area, or alternatively whether the complexities raised by regulatory overlap are not reducible to general principles.
{"title":"Regulatory overlap: A systematic quantitative literature review","authors":"Lachlan Robb, Trent Candy, Felicity Deane","doi":"10.1111/rego.12504","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12504","url":null,"abstract":"Regulatory failure caused by overlapping regulations is ubiquitous, with examples in all jurisdictions across a range of disciplines. Overlapping regulation can be problematic. It obscures policy objectives and hinders the development of effective and clear regulation. In addition, regulatory overlap can inflict real costs on businesses through repetitive inspections and data collection efforts. It is particularly burdensome when agencies issue conflicting rules with inconsistent standards. Recognizing that regulatory overlap exists and is a problem provides the context to this program of research. Our research project was an exploration using a systematic quantitative literature review (SQLR) method to better understand the way regulatory failure, caused by overlapping regulations, has featured in academic literature. The SQLR method was chosen as it employs a systematic process to consolidate a sample of literature, and quantitative measures to draw connections between different academic sources. Ultimately, our research concluded that the literature does not provide clear prescriptive principles for reducing unnecessary regulatory overlap. This begs a question as to whether more research is needed in this area, or alternatively whether the complexities raised by regulatory overlap are not reducible to general principles.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"5 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165821","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article makes important contributions to governance research by studying the implementation of policies with high potential for goal incongruence between intermediaries and regulators. Building on a regulatory intermediation framework and prevailing theories from organizational institutionalism, we propose an original typology that classifies intermediaries' strategies for coping with challenging regulations. Furthermore, we explain the choice of these strategies based on intermediaries' value systems, the degree of interdependency with the regulator, and policy ambiguity. The empirical strategy is based on the case of Catholic, Protestant, and Muslim religious organizations engaged in the implementation of abortion and euthanasia policies in Belgium. These latter constitute a typical case of policy implementation that prompts value conflicts between permissive official regulations and intermediaries' conservative values on life-and-death issues.
{"title":"Regulatory intermediaries and value conflicts in policy implementation: Religious organizations and life-and-death policies in Belgium","authors":"Irina Ciornei, Eva-Maria Euchner, Michalina Preisner, Ilay Yesil","doi":"10.1111/rego.12500","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12500","url":null,"abstract":"This article makes important contributions to governance research by studying the implementation of policies with high potential for goal incongruence between intermediaries and regulators. Building on a regulatory intermediation framework and prevailing theories from organizational institutionalism, we propose an original typology that classifies intermediaries' strategies for coping with challenging regulations. Furthermore, we explain the choice of these strategies based on intermediaries' value systems, the degree of interdependency with the regulator, and policy ambiguity. The empirical strategy is based on the case of Catholic, Protestant, and Muslim religious organizations engaged in the implementation of abortion and euthanasia policies in Belgium. These latter constitute a typical case of policy implementation that prompts value conflicts between permissive official regulations and intermediaries' conservative values on life-and-death issues.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"4 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165842","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Following a long-standing and highly contested policy debate, in June 2021, the German parliament passed the Supply Chain Due Diligence Act requiring mandatory due diligence (MDD) of large companies, holding them accountable for the impacts of their supply chain operations abroad. Applying the discursive agency approach and using evidence from policy documents and 21 interviews with key stakeholders, we analyze the political strategies that paved the way toward MDD in Germany. The decisive strategy was an innovative benchmarking and monitoring mechanism that provided the legitimacy for a law and opened a window of opportunity for MDD supporters. Civil society and supportive politicians used this window of opportunity to build broad political coalitions that included the support of some companies. We discuss the ramifications of these findings for understanding the domestic politics behind the newly emerging norm of foreign corporate accountability.
{"title":"From voluntary to mandatory corporate accountability: The politics of the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act","authors":"David Weihrauch, Sophia Carodenuto, Sina Leipold","doi":"10.1111/rego.12501","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12501","url":null,"abstract":"Following a long-standing and highly contested policy debate, in June 2021, the German parliament passed the Supply Chain Due Diligence Act requiring mandatory due diligence (MDD) of large companies, holding them accountable for the impacts of their supply chain operations abroad. Applying the discursive agency approach and using evidence from policy documents and 21 interviews with key stakeholders, we analyze the political strategies that paved the way toward MDD in Germany. The decisive strategy was an innovative benchmarking and monitoring mechanism that provided the legitimacy for a law and opened a window of opportunity for MDD supporters. Civil society and supportive politicians used this window of opportunity to build broad political coalitions that included the support of some companies. We discuss the ramifications of these findings for understanding the domestic politics behind the newly emerging norm of foreign corporate accountability.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"4 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165844","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：