Lecture 1 - Intro - 15 september
Rationale behind course
- ‘Change’ or ‘transformation’ towards sustainability has taken an increasingly central
position in sustainability research, and policy and management discourse in recent
years.
- We understand change as: ‘the move towards more sustainable and equitable
futures, which can be approached both in a normative way (what is the good and
desirable thing to do) and in an analytical way (what actually happens, how and why)’
(Patterson et al. 2016).
Ingredients for change: governance
- ‘The purposeful and authoritative steering of societal processes by political actors
towards sustainability’ (Biermann et al. 2016)
- Governance and politics are central to understanding, analyzing and shaping change
towards sustainability because:
- Governance is inherently implicated in any intentional effort to shape ‘change’; and
- Sustainability changes are deeply and unavoidably political, and need to be
recognized as such.
Private governance
- Cooperative rule-making by firms and/or civil society organizations with little or no
direct involvement from governments, governmental agencies or intergovernmental
organizations.
- Focus on private standards as the most prominent form of private governance.
Ingridients for change: firm
The firm is central to understanding, analyzing and shaping change towards sustainability
because:
- It is firms that are changing or need to change towards sustainability; and
- They do so in different ways and to different extents; and
- Some are more successful than others.
Lecture 2 - The power to govern for sustainability transformations - 15 november
“for those of us deeply concerned about the long-term existence of life as we know it, to
avoid power is to risk condoning a system that is inherently unsustainable and unjust, both in
the short and long term, and at home and abroad. Shying away from power allows the trends
to play out to their logical and tragic ends. Asking about power, uncovering the hidden and
exposing the inequitable is a civic obligation,
,a sustainability imperative, and a justice prerequisite.”
Conceptualisation of power
Power is the ability of (business) actors to successfully pursue a desired political objective
(Fuchs 2005).
Three faces of power:
- Instrumental: direct influence on policy outputs
- Structural: influence on the input side of political processes
- Discursive: ability to frame norms and ideas
Instrumental power (informative)
● Concept of instrumental power:
○ ‘Ability of A to make B do something that they would otherwise not do’
○ Visible contestation over policy outputs.
● Key form of influence:
○ Political lobbying of state representatives at the national or international level.
○ Either by individual firms (usually TNCs (Transnational cooperations) or
umbrella organizations (e.g. International Chamber of Commerce).
● Key sources of influence:
○ Organizational and financial resources.
○ Established channels of access and influence.
○ Provision of policy relevant knowledge and expertise.
Lobbying in the US
- In Washington after the Republican takeover on Capitol Hill in 2000, the number of
registered lobbyists skyrocketed to 34,750.
- It is estimated that businesses spend around $1.5 billion per year on lobbying.
- Certain businesses are much more active in lobbying than others. E.g. The
pharmaceutical and health products industry lobbied on more than 1,400
congressional bills over a 7 year period and spent a total of $612 million on lobbying.
COP26
- Questions legitimacy, some groups were shut out op key negotiations
Revolving doors
- The US Center for Public Integrity found that some 240 former members of Congress
and agency heads are now active lobbyists, and an additional 2,200 lobbyists used to
work in senior government positions.
- Problem of force: creates an incentive
- President of european mission was later a leader at goldman sachs
Lobbying in the EU
- The EU has the fastest growth in lobbying activities of any democratic system with
the business lobby in Brussels alone comprising of hundreds of corporate
representatives and business associations.
- 70% of lobby organizations in the EU represent big business.
,Structural power
● Concept of structural power:
○ Ability to keep things off the agenda (agenda-setting power).
○ Ability to create rules and standards (rule-setting power). Without
governance.
● Key forms of influence:
○ Implicit or explicit threat of relocation of investments.
○ Problem: largely invisible dimension of power and difficult to research in its
agenda-setting form.
● Key sources of influence:
○ Level of market concentration.
○ Importance to economic growth, employment and innovation.
○ Dependence of political elites on economic success for political legitimacy
and electoral success.
Developments in structural power
- Tremendous growth in Foreign Direct Investment over the years:
e.g. since the 1970s growth in FDI overtook the average growth both of the world
economy and of world trade. Indicator of wealth as well as more concentration in the
business economy.
- Tremendous increase in market size via integration of global markets:
Multinationals account for about half of the world’s trade in goods, two-thirds of which
is internalized; that is, it takes place within multinational corporations themselves.
- Increase in control over knowledge and innovation:
In the first decades of the 21st century the top 200 multinationals held 90% of the
world’s patents. Less over financial markets and material goods.
Discursive power
● Concept of discursive power:
○ Ability to shape norms and ideas. Can also be a solution.
○ Ability not only to pursue interests but also to create them.
● Key forms of influence:
○ Communication strategies to shape public and elite perceptions of
environmental problems and solutions.
○ Framing of environmental issues that require business involvement and
solutions.
● Key sources of influence:
○ Ability to buy media time and finance advertisements and information
campaigns.
○ New media giants (twitter, facebook etc.)
How issues are framed can change over time. Some things become a business opportunity.
It can be a motivation for change. Make it about positive things.
Developments in discursive power: Framing issues
Developments in discursive power: framing themselves
- ‘The business case’
, - 'Because our size enables us to help create markets for clean technologies that exist
today, but don’t have fully established markets . . . I ask, what happens to the solar
panel market if Wal-Mart makes a large commitment to solar panels? What happens
to the cost of compact fluorescent light bulbs or green building materials? Wal-Mart is
one of the largest construction companies in the US, so if we start using a specific
building material, does it then become more affordable for everyone?'
Tyson: try to reinvent themselfs and invest in alternatives. Part of transition
Developments in discursive power: Framing other actors
- E.g. ‘Governments don’t make any goods, businesses do. So, it’s going to be
companies, not governments, that solve these problems’ (vice president of Wal-
Mart).
Private governance as a function of business power
● Instrumental power allows business actors to relax or stop state regulation from
developing in key issue areas, hence implicitly creating the need for private actors to
step in;
● Control over economy/markets/knowledge sectors allows business actors to develop
own rules and standards (often in collaboration with civil society organizations);
● Ability to frame norms and ideas allows business actors to have the consent of
society for their role as legitimate governance actors.
Three faces of power work together. Interrelated and supportive.
The growth of private governance
- Over decades there is stagnation.
- Smaller triangle: form of regulation
- Shows development of private governance
The fragility of business power
- Business is not a unitary actor;
- Differences between large corporations and medium and small-size businesses;
- Vulnerability of business to scandals and changes of societal norms and values.
Conclusion
➔ Power can be examined in three main dimensions: instrumental, structural and
discursive, which are interrelated.
➔ Business power across these dimensions has been growing over the years.
Rationale behind course
- ‘Change’ or ‘transformation’ towards sustainability has taken an increasingly central
position in sustainability research, and policy and management discourse in recent
years.
- We understand change as: ‘the move towards more sustainable and equitable
futures, which can be approached both in a normative way (what is the good and
desirable thing to do) and in an analytical way (what actually happens, how and why)’
(Patterson et al. 2016).
Ingredients for change: governance
- ‘The purposeful and authoritative steering of societal processes by political actors
towards sustainability’ (Biermann et al. 2016)
- Governance and politics are central to understanding, analyzing and shaping change
towards sustainability because:
- Governance is inherently implicated in any intentional effort to shape ‘change’; and
- Sustainability changes are deeply and unavoidably political, and need to be
recognized as such.
Private governance
- Cooperative rule-making by firms and/or civil society organizations with little or no
direct involvement from governments, governmental agencies or intergovernmental
organizations.
- Focus on private standards as the most prominent form of private governance.
Ingridients for change: firm
The firm is central to understanding, analyzing and shaping change towards sustainability
because:
- It is firms that are changing or need to change towards sustainability; and
- They do so in different ways and to different extents; and
- Some are more successful than others.
Lecture 2 - The power to govern for sustainability transformations - 15 november
“for those of us deeply concerned about the long-term existence of life as we know it, to
avoid power is to risk condoning a system that is inherently unsustainable and unjust, both in
the short and long term, and at home and abroad. Shying away from power allows the trends
to play out to their logical and tragic ends. Asking about power, uncovering the hidden and
exposing the inequitable is a civic obligation,
,a sustainability imperative, and a justice prerequisite.”
Conceptualisation of power
Power is the ability of (business) actors to successfully pursue a desired political objective
(Fuchs 2005).
Three faces of power:
- Instrumental: direct influence on policy outputs
- Structural: influence on the input side of political processes
- Discursive: ability to frame norms and ideas
Instrumental power (informative)
● Concept of instrumental power:
○ ‘Ability of A to make B do something that they would otherwise not do’
○ Visible contestation over policy outputs.
● Key form of influence:
○ Political lobbying of state representatives at the national or international level.
○ Either by individual firms (usually TNCs (Transnational cooperations) or
umbrella organizations (e.g. International Chamber of Commerce).
● Key sources of influence:
○ Organizational and financial resources.
○ Established channels of access and influence.
○ Provision of policy relevant knowledge and expertise.
Lobbying in the US
- In Washington after the Republican takeover on Capitol Hill in 2000, the number of
registered lobbyists skyrocketed to 34,750.
- It is estimated that businesses spend around $1.5 billion per year on lobbying.
- Certain businesses are much more active in lobbying than others. E.g. The
pharmaceutical and health products industry lobbied on more than 1,400
congressional bills over a 7 year period and spent a total of $612 million on lobbying.
COP26
- Questions legitimacy, some groups were shut out op key negotiations
Revolving doors
- The US Center for Public Integrity found that some 240 former members of Congress
and agency heads are now active lobbyists, and an additional 2,200 lobbyists used to
work in senior government positions.
- Problem of force: creates an incentive
- President of european mission was later a leader at goldman sachs
Lobbying in the EU
- The EU has the fastest growth in lobbying activities of any democratic system with
the business lobby in Brussels alone comprising of hundreds of corporate
representatives and business associations.
- 70% of lobby organizations in the EU represent big business.
,Structural power
● Concept of structural power:
○ Ability to keep things off the agenda (agenda-setting power).
○ Ability to create rules and standards (rule-setting power). Without
governance.
● Key forms of influence:
○ Implicit or explicit threat of relocation of investments.
○ Problem: largely invisible dimension of power and difficult to research in its
agenda-setting form.
● Key sources of influence:
○ Level of market concentration.
○ Importance to economic growth, employment and innovation.
○ Dependence of political elites on economic success for political legitimacy
and electoral success.
Developments in structural power
- Tremendous growth in Foreign Direct Investment over the years:
e.g. since the 1970s growth in FDI overtook the average growth both of the world
economy and of world trade. Indicator of wealth as well as more concentration in the
business economy.
- Tremendous increase in market size via integration of global markets:
Multinationals account for about half of the world’s trade in goods, two-thirds of which
is internalized; that is, it takes place within multinational corporations themselves.
- Increase in control over knowledge and innovation:
In the first decades of the 21st century the top 200 multinationals held 90% of the
world’s patents. Less over financial markets and material goods.
Discursive power
● Concept of discursive power:
○ Ability to shape norms and ideas. Can also be a solution.
○ Ability not only to pursue interests but also to create them.
● Key forms of influence:
○ Communication strategies to shape public and elite perceptions of
environmental problems and solutions.
○ Framing of environmental issues that require business involvement and
solutions.
● Key sources of influence:
○ Ability to buy media time and finance advertisements and information
campaigns.
○ New media giants (twitter, facebook etc.)
How issues are framed can change over time. Some things become a business opportunity.
It can be a motivation for change. Make it about positive things.
Developments in discursive power: Framing issues
Developments in discursive power: framing themselves
- ‘The business case’
, - 'Because our size enables us to help create markets for clean technologies that exist
today, but don’t have fully established markets . . . I ask, what happens to the solar
panel market if Wal-Mart makes a large commitment to solar panels? What happens
to the cost of compact fluorescent light bulbs or green building materials? Wal-Mart is
one of the largest construction companies in the US, so if we start using a specific
building material, does it then become more affordable for everyone?'
Tyson: try to reinvent themselfs and invest in alternatives. Part of transition
Developments in discursive power: Framing other actors
- E.g. ‘Governments don’t make any goods, businesses do. So, it’s going to be
companies, not governments, that solve these problems’ (vice president of Wal-
Mart).
Private governance as a function of business power
● Instrumental power allows business actors to relax or stop state regulation from
developing in key issue areas, hence implicitly creating the need for private actors to
step in;
● Control over economy/markets/knowledge sectors allows business actors to develop
own rules and standards (often in collaboration with civil society organizations);
● Ability to frame norms and ideas allows business actors to have the consent of
society for their role as legitimate governance actors.
Three faces of power work together. Interrelated and supportive.
The growth of private governance
- Over decades there is stagnation.
- Smaller triangle: form of regulation
- Shows development of private governance
The fragility of business power
- Business is not a unitary actor;
- Differences between large corporations and medium and small-size businesses;
- Vulnerability of business to scandals and changes of societal norms and values.
Conclusion
➔ Power can be examined in three main dimensions: instrumental, structural and
discursive, which are interrelated.
➔ Business power across these dimensions has been growing over the years.
