Global Corporate Strategy Lindsay Campbell
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.) A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the
increase in NGOs’ efforts to work directly with (cooperative strategies) or against
(confrontational strategies) MNCs. This increase is in response to the pressures of globalization
and reflects a weak state role in regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-
consumerism, project collaboration that reduces the environmental impact of a particular
product or package, environmental codes of conduct, and private certification schemes—also
known as “stewardship regimes.” Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation
“wars”, monitoring organizations, and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of
NGOs and businesses create an opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than
the lobbying-based strategies that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and
limitations of citizen action, the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond
campaigns that are ad hoc, limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation.
At what point did these strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context
against/with firms? Did I miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just
new forms of NGO strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which
certain strategies are more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue
in greater depth. Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs
and corporations, categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50
multinational corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.) A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the
increase in NGOs’ efforts to work directly with (cooperative strategies) or against
(confrontational strategies) MNCs. This increase is in response to the pressures of globalization
and reflects a weak state role in regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-
consumerism, project collaboration that reduces the environmental impact of a particular
product or package, environmental codes of conduct, and private certification schemes—also
known as “stewardship regimes.” Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation
“wars”, monitoring organizations, and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of
NGOs and businesses create an opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than
the lobbying-based strategies that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and
limitations of citizen action, the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond
campaigns that are ad hoc, limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation.
At what point did these strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context
against/with firms? Did I miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just
new forms of NGO strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which
certain strategies are more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue
in greater depth. Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs
and corporations, categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50
multinational corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.) A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the
increase in NGOs’ efforts to work directly with (cooperative strategies) or against
(confrontational strategies) MNCs. This increase is in response to the pressures of globalization
and reflects a weak state role in regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-
consumerism, project collaboration that reduces the environmental impact of a particular
product or package, environmental codes of conduct, and private certification schemes—also
known as “stewardship regimes.” Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation
“wars”, monitoring organizations, and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of
NGOs and businesses create an opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than
the lobbying-based strategies that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and
limitations of citizen action, the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond
campaigns that are ad hoc, limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation.
At what point did these strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context
against/with firms? Did I miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just
new forms of NGO strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which
certain strategies are more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue
in greater depth. Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs
and corporations, categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50
multinational corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.) A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the
increase in NGOs’ efforts to work directly with (cooperative strategies) or against
(confrontational strategies) MNCs. This increase is in response to the pressures of globalization
and reflects a weak state role in regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-
consumerism, project collaboration that reduces the environmental impact of a particular
product or package, environmental codes of conduct, and private certification schemes—also
known as “stewardship regimes.” Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation
“wars”, monitoring organizations, and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of
NGOs and businesses create an opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than
the lobbying-based strategies that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and
limitations of citizen action, the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond
campaigns that are ad hoc, limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation.
At what point did these strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context
against/with firms? Did I miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just
new forms of NGO strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which
certain strategies are more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue
in greater depth. Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs
and corporations, categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50
multinational corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.) A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the
increase in NGOs’ efforts to work directly with (cooperative strategies) or against
(confrontational strategies) MNCs. This increase is in response to the pressures of globalization
and reflects a weak state role in regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-
consumerism, project collaboration that reduces the environmental impact of a particular
product or package, environmental codes of conduct, and private certification schemes—also
known as “stewardship regimes.” Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation
“wars”, monitoring organizations, and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of
NGOs and businesses create an opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than
the lobbying-based strategies that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and
limitations of citizen action, the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond
campaigns that are ad hoc, limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation.
At what point did these strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context
against/with firms? Did I miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just
new forms of NGO strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which
certain strategies are more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue
in greater depth. Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs
and corporations, categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50
multinational corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.) A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the
increase in NGOs’ efforts to work directly with (cooperative strategies) or against
(confrontational strategies) MNCs. This increase is in response to the pressures of globalization
and reflects a weak state role in regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-
consumerism, project collaboration that reduces the environmental impact of a particular
product or package, environmental codes of conduct, and private certification schemes—also
known as “stewardship regimes.” Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation
“wars”, monitoring organizations, and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of
NGOs and businesses create an opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than
the lobbying-based strategies that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and
limitations of citizen action, the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond
campaigns that are ad hoc, limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation.
At what point did these strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context
against/with firms? Did I miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just
new forms of NGO strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which
certain strategies are more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue
in greater depth. Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs
and corporations, categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50
multinational corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.) A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the
increase in NGOs’ efforts to work directly with (cooperative strategies) or against
(confrontational strategies) MNCs. This increase is in response to the pressures of globalization
and reflects a weak state role in regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-
consumerism, project collaboration that reduces the environmental impact of a particular
product or package, environmental codes of conduct, and private certification schemes—also
known as “stewardship regimes.” Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation
“wars”, monitoring organizations, and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of
NGOs and businesses create an opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than
the lobbying-based strategies that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and
limitations of citizen action, the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond
campaigns that are ad hoc, limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation.
At what point did these strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context
against/with firms? Did I miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just
new forms of NGO strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which
certain strategies are more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue
in greater depth. Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs
and corporations, categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50
multinational corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.) A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the
increase in NGOs’ efforts to work directly with (cooperative strategies) or against
(confrontational strategies) MNCs. This increase is in response to the pressures of globalization
and reflects a weak state role in regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-
consumerism, project collaboration that reduces the environmental impact of a particular
product or package, environmental codes of conduct, and private certification schemes—also
known as “stewardship regimes.” Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation
“wars”, monitoring organizations, and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of
NGOs and businesses create an opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than
the lobbying-based strategies that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and
limitations of citizen action, the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond
campaigns that are ad hoc, limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation.
At what point did these strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context
against/with firms? Did I miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just
new forms of NGO strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which
certain strategies are more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue
in greater depth. Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs
and corporations, categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50
multinational corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.) A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the
increase in NGOs’ efforts to work directly with (cooperative strategies) or against
(confrontational strategies) MNCs. This increase is in response to the pressures of globalization
and reflects a weak state role in regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-
consumerism, project collaboration that reduces the environmental impact of a particular
product or package, environmental codes of conduct, and private certification schemes—also
known as “stewardship regimes.” Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation
“wars”, monitoring organizations, and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of
NGOs and businesses create an opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than
the lobbying-based strategies that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and
limitations of citizen action, the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond
campaigns that are ad hoc, limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation.
At what point did these strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context
against/with firms? Did I miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just
new forms of NGO strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which
certain strategies are more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue
in greater depth. Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs
and corporations, categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50
multinational corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.) A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the
increase in NGOs’ efforts to work directly with (cooperative strategies) or against
(confrontational strategies) MNCs. This increase is in response to the pressures of globalization
and reflects a weak state role in regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-
consumerism, project collaboration that reduces the environmental impact of a particular
product or package, environmental codes of conduct, and private certification schemes—also
known as “stewardship regimes.” Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation
“wars”, monitoring organizations, and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of
NGOs and businesses create an opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than
the lobbying-based strategies that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and
limitations of citizen action, the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond
campaigns that are ad hoc, limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation.
At what point did these strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context
against/with firms? Did I miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just
new forms of NGO strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which
certain strategies are more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue
in greater depth. Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs
and corporations, categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50
multinational corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.) A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the
increase in NGOs’ efforts to work directly with (cooperative strategies) or against
(confrontational strategies) MNCs. This increase is in response to the pressures of globalization
and reflects a weak state role in regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-
consumerism, project collaboration that reduces the environmental impact of a particular
product or package, environmental codes of conduct, and private certification schemes—also
known as “stewardship regimes.” Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation
“wars”, monitoring organizations, and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of
NGOs and businesses create an opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than
the lobbying-based strategies that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and
limitations of citizen action, the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond
campaigns that are ad hoc, limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation.
At what point did these strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context
against/with firms? Did I miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just
new forms of NGO strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which
certain strategies are more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue
in greater depth. Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs
and corporations, categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50
multinational corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
A Global Corporate Strategy is Newell writes about the increase in NGOs’ efforts to work
directly with (cooperative strategies) or against (confrontational strategies) MNCs. This
increase is in response to the pressures of globalization and reflects a weak state role in
regulating MNCs. Cooperative strategies include eco-consumerism, project collaboration that
reduces the environmental impact of a particular product or package, environmental codes of
conduct, and private certification schemes—also known as “stewardship regimes.”
Confrontational strategies include boycotts, public relation “wars”, monitoring organizations,
and shareholder activism. He notes that the shifting roles of NGOs and businesses create an
opportunity for these sorts of global citizen action, rather than the lobbying-based strategies
that have previously been used. In discussing the possibilities and limitations of citizen action,
the author notes the challenge of “scaling up” these efforts beyond campaigns that are ad hoc,
limited in geographic scope, and focused on a particular corporation. At what point did these
strategies emerge and were they never used in the domestic context against/with firms? Did I
miss the clarification of why these are “citizen driven” and not just new forms of NGO
strategies? Finally, are there sectors or points in the supply chain at which certain strategies are
more appropriate than others? Later readings begin to address this issue in greater depth.
Rondinelli and London discuss cross-sector collaborations between NGOs and corporations,
categorizing them by the intensity of the relationship. Through a study of 50 multinational
corporations, they identified three different levels of collaboration: “arm’s length
relationships”, “interactive collaborations”, and “intensive alliances.” Arm’s length
relationships are the most common, generally consisting of voluntary employee participation
in NGO activities and corporate donations to NGOs. Interactive collaborations range from
certification schemes to stewardship councils to sale of green products, to protection of
biodiversity, animals, or plants in specific areas. Intensive collaborations—such as waste
reduction, product redesign, life cycle analyses, packaging and materials substitution—are the
most rare, due to the hurdles of trust, fear, different organizational objectives and managerial
structures that must be overcome. The authors describe strategic questions that firms can use
determine if more intensive relationships are appropriate, focused on the particular needs of
firms as business entities. These needs include: a focus on specific collaborative projects that
are feasible in a set timeframe, to create strategic alliances, to develop mutually-acceptable
procedures, and to define clearly measurable solutions. The authors main focus seems to be on
the issue of trust and the need for alliances to be strategic and not just generalized partnerships
without clear goals. Sasser et al’s piece investigates the effect of NGOs’ exertion of direct
pressure through negative campaigns on corporations, using the example of environmental
certification in the forest products sector. Their surprising finding was that these
confrontational tactics did not necessarily lead to corporations joining the NGO-sponsored
private authority regimes (FSC certification schemes). In fact, it led to something of a backlash,
with industry creating its own certification scheme (SFI) and firms that were pressured joined
that instead. In terms of environmental outcomes, though, the results seem to be similar or at
least trending in a positive direction. If environmental outcomes are similar, then do we really
consider this a failed strategy? What lessons can be learned for the future? My only other
questions to this paper was that the number of firms examined seemed small in order to draw
the conclusions that they drew, I wonder how generalizable this is to other sectors. What
exactly do they mean by the “process tracing approach” and how credible a methodology is it?
Sasser’s piece is similar in substantive focus to the previous article, but I found the details here
more useful. It describes how structure of the industry, degree of shared reputation across the
industry, and level of threat to reputation affect the firm response to direct targeting. He also
theorizes a “new boomerang effect” in which NGOs put pressure on retailers and consumers
which in turn exert pressure further up the supply chain (as in the example of Home Depot and
certification of timber products.)
