A Straitjacket of Rules? The Unitarian Model of Legitimacy and Embedded Non-Compliance in Multi-stakeholder Initiatives

This paper – part of a longer study on the practice of legitimacy theory - examines the adoption of internationally accepted standards such as the ILO’s Hours of Work Conventions, as the basic rights in multi-stakeholder... [ view full abstract ]

This paper – part of a longer study on the practice of legitimacy theory - examines the adoption of internationally accepted standards such as the ILO’s Hours of Work Conventions, as the basic rights in multi-stakeholder codes of conduct (MSIs) regulating manufacturing supply chains. Using a theoretical framework based on the Unitarian Model of legitimacy, which it describes and critiques, the paper provides an empirical survey of four major MSIs application of the model. These are the Business and Social Compliance Initiative (BSCI), The Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), The Fair Labor Association (FLA), and The Fair Wear Foundation (FWF).

I find that all codes in the study adhere closely to such standards. This leads to great similarity in the rule areas of codes, with more variety in the strictness of standards and implementation practices. I show that there are evident legitimacy gains, which can translate into compliance gains, to be made from the adoption of the model. Because the ILO is a global authority on labour issues, their rules are justifiable, difficult to challenge, and exert a normative pull. They will therefore promote stronger compliance than arbitrary, theorized standards lacking such approval. They also ensure that most relevant areas are covered.

However, I show that the utility of this model varies greatly with different rules. A stronger normative pull exists towards anti-slavery rules than it does towards collective bargaining. The result is very high levels of non-compliance around some rules, with degrees of non-compliance accepted by both regulators and auditors. While this could be part of a process of norm diffusion, I argue that it appears to embedding a norm of tolerated non-compliance around some issues, weakening trust and legitimacy, as well as limiting norm entrepreneurship.

I conclude by arguing that the model is adhered to perhaps too closely, that its logic is sound but a better understanding is needed of how and when it improves workers’ rights, and that it must not be seen as a straitjacket limiting originality.