Fostering Corporate Responsibility through Self- and Co-regulation

2. Self- and co-regulation as governance approaches
The outputs of self- and co-regulation are not
necessarily collective norms or rules (e.g.,
codes of conduct). Instead, they might also include
any type of institutionalised structures
and processes aiming at the provision of common
goods, such as establishing a dialogue
platform or fostering a common understanding
of a problem. Although generally voluntary,
self- and co-regulation might differ in terms
of the degree of obligation they impose on addressees
(see next section). However, a common
feature of self- and co-regulation is their
collaborative and inclusive nature.
Therefore, from a societal perspective, one
would like to see governments recognise the
potential of self- and co-regulation as complements
to public regulation and subsequently
adapt their policies in a way that makes it possible
for committed private actors to be included
in governance structures and processes. However,
such governance mechanisms should not
be used arbitrarily. Rather, doing so should be
based on a careful analysis of the specific context
and of whether different types of mechanisms
might lead to good governance in terms
of legitimacy, effectiveness and efficiency. This
will increase governments’ problem-solving capacity
and the quality of governance as a whole.
At the same time, it can enhance the credibility
and acceptance of self- and co-regulation within
society at large.
Self- and co-regulation
can be legitimate,
effective and efficient
complements to traditional
governance approaches.
Benefits for public actors and society
at large
Involving private actors in governance through
self- and co-regulation has several advantages
for public authorities. Firstly, governance problems
are always problems of public authorities
because dealing with such problems is their
most important task. In this regard, companies
can help public actors by providing common
goods (e.g., environmental sustainability,
health or market efficiency). Secondly, such
forms of governance are less coercive and more
inclusive, which often results in their being
viewed as more legitimate. As a result, they
generate wider acceptance among companies
due to lower compliance costs, which can sometimes
make these forms of governance even
more effective than public regulation. Thirdly,
such instruments are less costly and more flexible
than traditional governance approaches,
which results in higher efficiency. 9
Furthermore, in order to improve the odds that
self- and co-regulation succeed, public actors
could make sure that they have sufficient capacity,
know-how and knowledge to set up and
manage a public-private-collaboration. If this is
not the case, there are several steps that governments
can take to overcome such deficits.
As has been shown within the UN system, the
public sector can gather practical knowledge
on, assume a strategic approach towards and
enhance institutional innovations for public-private
collaboration. 10
In sum, self- and co-regulation represent governance
mechanisms that are very well suited to
narrow the expectations-capability gap of traditional
governing approaches as long as certain
criteria are met (see below). They pool together
the resources and expertise of different
stakeholders and increase the short- and longterm
impacts of their mutual endeavours. As a
result, self- and co-regulation are seen as legitimate,
effective and efficient institutional innovations
that complement traditional governance
approaches.
10