Multi-stakeholder governance for sustainable development : analyzing the legitimation processes of the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC)

Master Thesis Political Science, International Relations

Multi-stakeholder Governance for Sustainable Development:

Analyzing the Legitimation Processes of the Aquaculture

Stewardship Council (ASC)

Annelot Beenhakker (10573372)

Transnational Sustainability Governance

Supervisor: Philip Schleifer

Second reader: Luc Fransen

June 22, 2018

Word count: 22,686

ABSTRACT

Over the past few decades multi-stakeholder arrangements have emerged as vibrant sources of standard setting and governance for sustainable development. This research aims to better understand the strategic attempts through which these arrangements try to enhance and maintain legitimacy in their issue field. It does so through an in-depth case study analysis of the legitimation dynamics that occur within the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC). The goal is not simply to falsify hypothesized mechanisms, but to inductively learn from the case in order to improve our understanding of how strategic management actions may aide organizations in influencing the perceptions of different stakeholders as they seek to acquire legitimacy. Drawing heavily on understandings from organizational sociology, the article distinguishes between three clusters of strategic legitimation actions, ranging from relatively passive forms of conforming to more proactive forms of informing and manipulation. The analysis reveals that while analytically these strategies can be separated, the empirical distinction between them is not always clear. The case inductively finds that the process of creating legitimacy involves several sequential sub-processes in which managers selectively choose among combinations of strategies so as to build legitimacy over time. It further appears from the case that the managerial space for organizations to influence stakeholder perceptions may be relatively constrained in cases where organizations face persistent and oftentimes ideological resistance from external audiences. This insight creates a more nuanced picture of the scope of influence that managerial action has when organization try to align the organization with its external environment.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of abbreviations 7

1 Introduction 8

1.1 Aquaculture expansion and the rise of private sustainability governance 8

1.2 Private governance legitimacy 9

1.3 Research question 10 1.4 Key findings 10 1.5 Societal relevance 11 1.6 Academic relevance 12 1.7 Structure 13 2 Literature review 14

2.1 Private sustainability governance and the legitimacy debate 14

2.2 Towards a sociological approach 15

3 Theoretical framework 18

3.1 Legitimacy versus legitimation 18

3.2 Core and external audiences 19

3.3 Legitimation strategies 20 3.3.1 Conforming strategies 21 3.3.2 Manipulating strategies 22 3.3.3 Informing strategies 23 3.4 Summary 24 4 Methodology 25 4.1 Research approach 25 4.2 Research design 25 4.3 Case selection 26

4.4 Data and method 27

4.4.1 Interviews 27

4.4.2 Document analysis 28

4.5 Validity and reliability concerns 28

5 The Aquaculture Stewardship Council 30

5.1 A growing market for aquaculture 30

5.1.1 Social and environmental impacts 31

5.1.2 Private governance in aquaculture 31

5.2 The case of the ASC 32

5.2.1 Foundation and standards development 32

5.3 Post-Initiation and organizational development 34

6 Conforming strategies 36

6.1 Conforming to core stakeholders’ substantive needs 36

6.2 Conforming to principled guidelines 37

7 Manipulating strategies 41

7.1 Manipulation to make certification a market requirement 41

7.2 Manipulating by building a record of social and environmental success 43

8 Informing strategies 47

8.1 Informing new or unaware aquaculture industry participants 47

8.2 Informing to enhance consumer awareness 50

9 From empirics to theory 53

9.1 Perspective 1: Legitimation as a multi-strategic process 53

9.2 Perspective 2: Legitimation as a sequential process 54

9.3 Perspective 3: Legitimation as a constrained process 55

10 Conclusion and discussion 56

10.1 Key findings and contributions 56

10.2 The way forward 57

11 Bibliography 60

12 Appendix A List of interviewees

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ASC - Aquaculture Stewardship Council BAP - Best Aquaculture Practices

FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization FSC - Forest Stewardship Council GAA - Global Aquaculture Alliance IDF - Sustainable Trade Initiative

ISEAL - International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labeling MSC - Marine Stewardship Council

NGO - Non-Governmental Organization RSPO - Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil RSPS - Roundtable on Responsible Soy UN - United Nations

US - United States

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Aquaculture expansion and the rise of private sustainability governance

Aquaculture is the fastest-growing food production sector worldwide and has become a major dietary protein source in many regions of the world (Olsen & Hasan, 2012: 120; Ottinger et al., 2016: 244). With stagnated global capture fisheries production, rising global populations, and continuing demand for seafoods, the production of safe and quality pelagic fish will be a great concern for global food security in the coming years (FAO, 2015; Deutsch et al., 2005; Béné et al., 2005; Olsen & Hasan, 2012). Important reasons for this are income growth and increased consumption in emerging export economies (Rana et al., 2009) as well as the strong recommendations from health authorities in developed countries to increase fish consumption (Olsen & Hasan, 2012: 120). In terms of environmental impacts, the rapid expansion of aquaculture is already an important source of destroyed wetlands and ecosystems, causing “large-scale land use changes, destruction and loss of coastal wetlands and pollution of waters and soils” (Ottinger et al., 2016: 244). Intensified fishing methods and the use of immediate inputs to production such as seeds and chemicals are likely to pose further threats to biodiversity in the future (Laurance et al., 2014: 107; Mangora et al., 2014: 497).

The high demand for the limited amount of fishmeal, together with the severity of environmental impacts, raise questions as to whether today’s aquaculture and food systems are capable of meeting unprecedented demand for food in ways that ensure the use of the natural resource base is sustainable (Laurance et al., 2014: 107). The need to exchange reliable information on these as well as related subjects has become a key issue for the responsible management of aquaculture. As governments have often proved unable or unwilling to regulate the environmental externalities of intensified global trade (Gereffi, 2014; Auld, 2015: 1), in more recent decades a growing number of international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and corporations have started to engage in various forms of self-regulation to insure food security and maintain ecosystem performance in aquaculture. This trend has typically emerged outside traditional state-centric policy-making domains and has resulted in the development, implementation and monitoring of codes of conduct, eco-certified standards, roundtable dialogues, fair trade labels and other types of private regulation (Auld et al., 2008: 188; Smith & Fischlein, 2010: 511; Dauvergne & Lister, 2012: 36). In the absence of well-developed and enforced international governance arrangements, such efforts have become a more and more institutionalized form of governance in the environmental policy realm (Pattberg, 2004: 9).

Whereas private governance activities come in many different forms, in aquaculture most of them are characterized by a multi-stakeholder governance structure (Auld, 2015: 1). Multi-stakeholder initiatives are usually characterized by complex interactions involving many stakeholders in a particular industry sector (Glasbergen, 2013: 354; Schouten & Glasbergen, 2012: 55; Bernstein, 2007; Cashore, 2002: 503). Following Mena and Palazzo’s (2012) definition, multi-stakeholder initiatives may be defined as “private governance mechanisms involving corporations, civil society organizations, and

sometimes other actors, such as governments, academia or unions, to cope with social and environmental challenges across industries and on a global scale” (Mena & Palazzo, 2012: 528). Eschewing traditional state authority, these arrangements turn to the use of the market as a coordinating mechanism for promoting sustainable production and consumption practices (Cashore, 2002: 503; Schouten & Glasbergen, 2012: 54). Most have a focus on the whole value chain and where possible work on broader approaches to creating more responsible and inclusive business models. Over the years an increasing number of multi-stakeholder initiatives were launched in key agricultural sectors such as palm oil, biofuels, beef, sugarcane and soy. Outstanding examples include the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

1.2 Private governance legitimacy

One of the central debates surrounding the rise of multi-stakeholder governance arrangements regards their legitimacy. Whereas private partnerships have been praised for promoting a market demand for sustainable products, other scholars suggest that their standards are too often driven by and serving the interests of Northern stakeholders (Nadvi, 2014: 138; Schouten & Bitzer, 2015: 175; Schouten et al., 2012: 42). So far, however, both of these perspectives have been typically informed by normative assessments of legitimacy (Gulbrandsen, 2013: 354; Schouten & Glasbergen, 2012: 55). Existing scholarship treats legitimacy mostly as a state of affairs, in which the state is considered the ultimate and exclusive rule-making authority and in which private actors need to pursue their activities within these rules (Glasbergen, 2011; Schouten & Glasbergen, 2012: 55). Legitimacy is thus derived from a binary state variable where an organization is evaluated based on how it scores on a set of external legitimacy criteria such as participation, transparency and accountability. From this perspective the legitimacy of private governance arrangements may be problematic because, for example, the private actors involved in them cannot be held accountable like state actors to those who are affected (Schouten & Glasbergen, 2012: 5; Bäckstrand et al., 2010).

While legitimacy research mainly uses a normative conceptualization of legitimacy rooted in democratic theory, these studies tell us little about the dynamics and social interactions that occur within multi-stakeholder settings (Glasbergen, 2013: 354, 365). By treating preferences and support for private governance arrangements as norm-given, normative assessments are not of much help in tracing and understanding how organizations aim to strategically build legitimacy to maintain future credibility as standard-setting authorities in their field (Bernstein, 2007: 348). Against this background, the purpose of this research is to better understand the strategic processes through which legitimacy is created and enhanced in multi-stakeholder settings. It does so by turning to innovations in organizational sociology that distinguish between three between three categories or “clusters” of legitimation strategies, i.e. conforming, manipulating and informing. These strategies provide the analytical framework for defining what managers can do to increase/maintain legitimacy. The distinction between them is important because it reveals how organizations may simultaneously be involved in proactive strategic activities so

as to gain legitimacy from different audiences, each of whom are guided by a complex interplay of motivations. The market provides the context within which material short-term motivations intersect with moral and ideological perceptions, which together determine whether and how different governance systems gain authority to make rules (Cashore, 2002: 505). These strategies in turn may aide managers in overcoming their legitimacy deficits. A focus on static or material incentives alone fails to uncover these dynamics.

In order to illustrate how legitimation strategies are employed in different organizational settings, this study draws primarily on the case of the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC), a globally recognized, market-oriented certification program that aims to promote meaningful improvements in aquaculture. The analysis focuses on questions of how the ASC aims to win their constituents’ long-term support for the program through strategic action and how it ensures to make provision for the potential participation in it of a variety of stakeholders. From this case analysis a preliminary set of explanations is derived to explicate whether and under what conditions multi-stakeholder initiatives may become accepted and recognized as authoritative governance institutions.

1.3 Research question

The focus of this research is on tracing and understanding the strategic processes through which multi-stakeholder arrangements acquire legitimacy. It thrives to do so by looking at the strategies adopted by major stakeholders in the ASC and their competitors as they vie for legitimacy. In order to gain insight into these dynamics and to elaborate normative democratic theory, the following research question is proposed:

How and to what effect did the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) employ a variety of legitimation strategies so as to increase and maintain support from different stakeholders?

By adopting a practice-oriented approach to analyze strategic legitimation practices, the analysis demonstrates how the legitimation strategies of corporate and social and environmental actors can drive the institutionalization of new governance systems. In this way the framework aims to address existing literature’s inattention to the processes through which new governance standards become accepted and the factors that influence this process.

1.4 Key findings

Going beyond the simplified categorization of legitimation strategies, this study identifies three key perspectives or findings regarding the ways in which legitimation strategies play out in real-world settings. The first perspective is that legitimation is a complex, multi-strategic process in which managers seek to pursue legitimation using a combination of strategies at the same time. In this complex

environment, the case reveals that the boundaries between legitimation strategies often become fuzzy, indicating that the conceptual difference between them should be understood as an analytical tool rather than a pure reflection of reality. The second perspective that follows from the case is that legitimation is a sequential process that tends to unfold and expand over time. Key to this perspective is the observation that organizations are unlikely to satisfy all stakeholder demands at the same time, forcing managers to choose key stakeholders to respond to before trying to please others in subsequent processes. Third, the analysis reveals that legitimation is a constrained process, in the sense that managers may not be as free to strategically choose from the entire menu or toolkit of strategies as sociological scholarship tends to suggest. Managerial space may become particularly constrained in situations where organizations suffer from persistent normative opposition on the part of external audiences. This insight creates a more nuanced picture of the scope of influence that managerial action has when organization try to align the organization with its external environment, raising further question as to the overall analytical utility of the sociological framework in these exceptional settings.

1.5 Societal relevance

The societal relevance of this research relates mainly to the social and environmental impacts associated with intensive aquaculture farming. Due to the favorable climate and availability of space, most aquaculture products are farmed in tropical and subtropical coastal lowlands (FAO, 2015: 7). Over the past decades, the development and appropriation of vast tracts of coastal areas for industrial aquaculture production has prejudiced the productive capacity of these and other ecosystems to generate food. Poor planning and management and a lack of appropriate regulations are associated with numerous examples of increasingly intensive exploitation of natural resources occurring around the world, causing a generalized destruction of coastal ecosystems such as deltas, estuaries, marshes and wetlands. Studies (e.g. Deutsch et al., 2007; Olsen & Hasan, 2012; Samerwong et al., 2018) further uncover an enormous amount of mangrove loss in tropical and subtropical regions, with some claiming over thirty percent of mangrove ecosystems now being destroyed for aquaculture production. Other issues associated with the rapid and intensified growth of aquaculture farming include water pollution, the enhancement and spread of disease, escapes, habitat impacts and social impacts to surrounding communities (Olsen & Hasan, 2012).

To address these issues, private governance initiatives have emerged to promote better managed fish farming to meet growing demands, while simultaneously minimizing the environmental footprint of commercial aquaculture. When adopted and compliance appropriately verified, their standards for responsible seafoods can help reassure retailers and consumers that the impacts related to aquaculture are minimized. Yet, such standards can only provide aquaculture industry stakeholders, as well as consumers, with the confidence that compliance with social and environmental performance has been achieved when they are initiated and developed by an organization that is perceived as credible and legitimate. Support for private governance arrangements is unlikely when the organization is generally

perceived as ineffective or inappropriate for serving its goal of addressing environmental concerns. Hence, the strategic management process of earning and maintaining legitimacy from supply-side and demand-side audiences appears crucial for organizations to ensure future support.

1.6 Academic relevance

At an academic level, this research engages with the wider debate about private governance legitimacy in the field of sustainability governance. As mentioned above, this debate has been largely dominated by traditional political science literature focusing on the democratic legitimacy of state institutions (e.g. Mueller et al., 2009; Fuchs & Kalfagianni, 2010; Fuchs et al., 2011; Hahn & Weidtmann, 2012). Although these approaches render interesting perspectives regarding the democratic quality of governance arrangements, they hardly give insights into the processes through which sustainability standards become accepted and recognized in their issue field (Bitzer & Schouten, 2015: 176). The normative focus on external democratic criteria such as accountability and transparency misses a more complex dynamic among private governance arrangements’ external audiences and the types of legitimacy-granting evaluations that emerge. Since the political science literature seems ill-equipped to address private governance legitimacy where stakeholders’ motivations appear central, this research lends support for the development of new approaches generally found outside of state-centered analyses of legitimacy issues. It does so by turning to scholarship on legitimation dynamics within organizational sociology. This scholarship is attracting attention as it provides a broader approach, that is, one that looks at the way different organizations may acquire legitimacy (Ueberbacher, 2013: 8).

Specific attention will be drawn to the works of Suchman (1995) and Cashore (2002), as well as the more recent studies of Brinkerhoff (2005) and Ueberbacher (2013). These authors have explicitly systematized different legitimation logics, focusing on the process through which different constituencies may grant some degree of approval to organizations, and on the implications of different strategies on legitimation dynamics. They conceive of legitimacy as a feature that is attributed to an organization based on generalized perceptions that organizational structures, procedures and activities are “desirable, proper, or appropriate” (Suchman, 1995: 574). Since these perceptions naturally cover a wide range, sociologists assert that the multiplicity and variability of stakeholder perceptions creates managerial space for individual organizations to “maneuver strategically within for those sources of legitimacy that they can control or influence” (Brinkerhoff, 2005: 7).

Key to a sociological understanding of legitimacy is the notion that legitimacy is a proactive enterprise that provides important opportunities for organizations to strategically choose among a diverse arsenal of legitimation strategies so as to increase legitimacy and maintain it over time. While the above-mentioned scholars have pioneered in beginning to uncover a certain systematicity in the way legitimation practices take shape, their studies were not designed to provide a more detailed or case-specific account of how these systematic patterns came to be. In attempt to fill this gap, the overall focus of this thesis is to further refine scholarly understanding of how organizations aim to acquire/maintain

legitimacy in ways that are practical, purposive and calculated. A single case study design is particularly well suited to serve this focus, as it allows for an in-depth examination of how legitimation strategies are used in actual empirical situations. Such examination also contributes to our understanding of situations in which the employment of such strategies may lead to unanticipated outcomes.

1.7 Structure

The thesis proceeds as follows: Chapter 2 provides a thorough review of the literature on private governance legitimacy. The chapter points to several critical gaps in the normative literature which together make explicit the relevance of adopting a sociological approach to legitimacy. Chapter 3 then lays out the theoretical approach of this research. Drawing on understandings developed within organizational sociology, this chapter provides the conceptual definitions which the thesis’ theoretical argument subsequently build on, with a specific focus on the difference between legitimacy and legitimation as well as on the categorization of the three legitimation strategies. Chapter 4 includes a discussion of the methodological approach, research design, case selection process, and validity and reliability implications. In Chapter 5, a concise historical overview of the development and significance of the ASC substantiates the relevance of studying conforming, manipulation and informing strategies. These strategies will subsequently be addressed in the Chapters 6, 7 and 8 respectively. The purpose of Chapter 9, the final empirical chapter, is to integrate these three chapters by mapping out the more systematic relationships as well as the unintended consequences surrounding strategic managerial legitimation actions. Finally, Chapter 10 includes a summary and a discussion of the main findings and concludes by highlighting a program for future research directions.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Private sustainability governance and the legitimacy debate

The past decades have witnessed the proliferation of private governance arrangements addressing environmental problems that link a variety of state and nonstate actors around the world. As traditional governance systems often lack the capacity to deliver and sustain sustainable production practices, these new private arrangements have emerged to fill this gap (Mayer & Gereffi, 2010: 1; Fischlein & Smith, 2010). A specific type of global private governance are multi-stakeholder arrangements. Following Steets’ early work on climate governance, multi-stakeholder arrangements can be defined as “voluntary cooperative arrangements between business and civil society actors that display minimal degree of institutionalization, have common non-hierarchical decision-making structures and address public policy issues” (Steets, 2004: 25). These arrangements are particularly distinctive for bringing together non-state actors from one or multiple sectors in a voluntary alliance with the aim to adjust their behavior in ways that support both private and public goals (Andonova et al., 2009: 61). They do this by setting standards for agricultural products, along with certifying and labeling them as sustainable or eco-friendly.

The emergence of private multi-stakeholder initiatives is particularly pronounced in the field of sustainable development. One of the central themes in the debate about transnational sustainability governance regards the legitimacy of new private governance systems (Glasbergen, 2013: 354; Schouten et al., 2012: 42; Steffek, 2009: 314). The structure of multi-stakeholder initiatives usually rests on the principle that consensual decisions gain more legitimacy once enough input is provided by all stakeholders involved in a policy issue. This means that the engagement and participation of a wide array of actors from across a global commodity chain is required (Utting, 2005: 385; Szulecki et al., 2011: 713). According to proponents, the need to include different audiences with different reasons for supporting a private governance system makes these arrangements to be considered innovative forms of governance with an ability to address the democratic deficits of international governance institutions (Bäckstrand, 2006: 292; Utting, 2005). Scholars specifically value multi-stakeholder arrangements for their potential to bridge multilateral norms by capturing the essence of what is often called ‘governance from below’ (Bäckstrand, 2006: 292; Schouten et al., 2012: 42; Bexell and Mörth, 2010: 13).

Despite the extensive body of positive assessments of multi-stakeholder initiatives, their growing significance in the field of sustainability governance has not gone unchallenged. Critics have raised questions about the legitimacy of new governance systems that are controlled by institutions that are not accountable to the public. Meno and Palazzo (2012) note in this regard that the mechanism for policymaking in multi-stakeholder settings connects to a variety of actors that “are geographically dispersed and do not form one institutionalized political container” (Mena & Palazzo, 2012: 529). Other scholars (i.e. Searcy, 2017; Fowler & Biekart, 2017) point to the fact that due to their voluntary basis, these networks operate in the absence of an independent judiciary with supporting enforcement powers.

This means that, on a general level, they are not bound to engage or represent the constituencies they affect (Abbott & Snidal, 2000, 422; Küpçü, 2005: 96). In the absence of an overarching central authority, scholars have found numerous empirical examples in which the emergence of multi-stakeholder governance may result in unequal access to competences and resources between stakeholders (Mayer & Gereffi, 2010: 19). What these studies particularly reveal is that the majority of private governance initiatives have unbalanced representation and, in many of these cases, are serving the interests of Northern industries, corporations and predominantly Washington-based NGOs (Bäckstrand, 2006: 301; Bush et al., 2013; Vince & Haward, 2017).

2.2 Towards a sociological approach

As these two different and oftentimes opposing positions in the debate on private sustainability governance reveal, analyzing and assessing legitimacy in multi-stakeholder governance may be challenging task. Thus far, however, most scholars from both positions have taken a normative, evaluative approach to legitimacy rooted in democratic theory (e.g. Mueller et al., 2009; Fuchs & Kalfagianni, 2010). Normative studies on legitimacy focus on what should count as justification for recognizing the authority of private governance arrangements rather than on how they become accepted as such (Schouten & Glasbergen, 2012: 56; Bernstein, 2011: 21; Brassett & Tsingou, 2011: 2). The majority of existing international relations scholarship works from a specific interpretation of the role of (inter-) governmental organizations as the ultimate authoritative bodies in public governance (Schouten & Glasbergen, 2012: 55; Steffek, 2009: 314; Bexell, 2014: 291). These studies assert that private governance arrangements may be as legitimate as governmental policies “if they conform to the equivalent prerequisites regarding the decision-making process” (Glasbergen, 2013: 355). From this (implicitly) normative perspective, global governance can be conceived of as a set of broadly defined norms or criteria regarding correct behavior (Brassett & Tsingou, 2011: 2; Glasbergen, 2013: 355), referring either to procedures to be fulfilled to be legitimate or to problem-solving capacities requiring collective action (Scharpf, 1999). It is assumed that fulfilling this a priori list of criteria is a precondition for enhancing the effectiveness and legitimacy of a partnership (Brassett & Tsingou, 2011).

To date, this tendency to assess legitimacy as a conditional governance feature has dominated the debate on private governance legitimacy (Glasbergen, 2013; Bernstein & Cashore, 2007: 351; Bexell, 2024: 291). While the normative approach is significant for understanding the benefits and faults of private governance arrangements (Brassett & Tsingou, 2011: 4), it informs us less about the specific processes through which new governance standards become accepted and the factors that influence this process (Brassett & Tsingou, 2011; Glasbergen, 2013; Bernstein & Cashore, 2007). The static framing of these studies suggests that it is possible to qualify the state of legitimacy based on the extent to which an organization meets a set of predetermined qualifications of what is generally considered legitimate governance. However, seeing legitimacy as an overall governance characteristic fails to uncover how legitimacy may be acquired and maintained through the strategic activity and interaction dynamics

between an organization and its relevant audiences (Glasbergen, 2013: 355; Clark, 2005). Thus, by working with a priori idealistic external criteria of what counts as legitimate governance, normative approaches tend to neglect the process of dynamic social change in which multi-stakeholder arrangements aim to develop a more sustainable alternative to current practices (Steffek, 2009: 314; Schouten & Glasbergen, 2012: 55; Glasbergen, 2013: 356).

As an addition to the literature focusing on legitimacy as a state of affairs, some scholars have suggested a more sociological approach to analyze the concept of legitimacy. This relatively underdeveloped strand in the literature studies the process of creating legitimacy by looking at the practices through which private governance systems gain support (Schouten & Glasbergen, 2012: 56; Bernstein & Cashore, 2007: 349). It recognizes the specific role of different audiences in constraining and influencing attempts for competing standard-setting arrangements to gain legitimacy. For example, early scholars such as Cashore (2002) work from the assumption that authority is granted to an organization by external audiences “who are encouraged to accept the NSMD governance system based on economic material benefits (market access, price premiums), moral suasion (the right thing to do), or because it has become an accepted and understandable practice” (Cashore, 2002: 511). Such theorizing deviates from existing scholarship in the sense that it does not evaluate private arrangements in terms of how they score on a set of predefined criteria (Steffek, 2009: 314). Alternatively, sociological scholarship conceives of legitimacy as a dynamic process of change: it assumes that legitimacy is realized through an often complex and dynamic process in which a variety of actors aim to develop a common acceptable new governance system for sustainable development (Cashore, 2002: 515; Bexell, 2014: 293; Schouten & Glasbergen, 2012: 56). From this perspective, the combination of interactions between different audiences, as well as their evaluations of prevailing standard-setting processes, determine whether this new governance systems can be considered legitimate in its global issue field.

The sociological approach has recently attracted more widespread attention in the literature focusing on private governance legitimacy. Early scholars such as Suchman (1995), Cashore (2002) and Brinkerhoff (2005) have made important methodological steps in this regard, presenting profound frameworks for analyzing the emergence of private governance arrangements, as well as raising theoretical implications regarding the effect of (strategic) management activity on legitimation dynamics. Altogether, these studies generate knowledge about how organizations’ value proposition to partners depends on the perceptions of different audiences, each of whom may have very different reasons for supporting or opposing private governance systems, ranging from economic material benefits to moral societal values and prevailing perceptions about good governance. But despite significant in the development of a sociological framework for analyzing legitimation dynamics, few attempts have been made to link and apply this broader framework to actual empirical cases. The dominant focus on theory development has led to a relative neglect of the empirical utility of a sociological legitimacy focus. This points to the importance of future empirical research into legitimacy-granting dynamics, and the relationship of different audiences in this regard. As a first attempt in this

direction, this thesis aims to integrate the theoretical significance of the sociological approach in a more practical and case-specific setting. The aim is thus to adopt a sociological perspective on the creation of legitimacy so as to develop a more fine-grained process perspective on legitimation dynamics in different organizational settings. The next chapter will further elaborate the sociological approach on legitimacy so as to set a conceptual framework for empirical investigation of legitimation dynamics.

3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 Legitimacy versus legitimation

As an addition to the main trend of studying legitimacy from a normative or state-centered perspective, the theoretical framework of this research proposes alternative ways for tracing the dynamics that occur within multi-stakeholder arrangements. Drawing on understandings developed within organizational sociology, the goal is to provide a more practical understanding of how these dynamics may hinder or enhance the extent to which these arrangements can earn legitimacy. In this regard, a closer look at the concepts of legitimacy and legitimation is in order. From a sociological standpoint, the legitimacy debate cannot be reduced to a straight choice between either legitimacy or legitimation. The sociological approach thus proposes a more engaged attitude that ‘refuses the either-or distinction in favor of a methodologically pluralist logic of ‘both and’’ (Brassett & Tsingou, 2011: 3). Key to this understanding is the idea that the legitimacy of private governance arrangements is rooted in a process of interaction among different actors, connected to a specific issue area and in a specific contextual environment (Schouten & Glasbergen, 2012: 56; Suchman, 1995: 574; Bexell, 2014: 291). A second important factor relates to the assumption that organizations are not passive actors: they comprise of agents of change that actively seek legitimation through the mobilization of targeted strategic actions that conform to constituents’ preferences or inform unaware audiences about the organization’s activities (Cashore, 2002: 516, Bexell, 2014; Clark, 2005: 254).

Seeing the creation of legitimacy both as an interactive and proactive enterprise, the sociological perspective brings to the surface the ill-defined boundaries between legitimacy and legitimation. In order to avoid ambiguity and ensure concepts are not used interchangeably, it may thus be useful to provide some additional specification about their conceptual meaning. Since legitimacy is a highly contested and elusive concept, it not easy to be precise in what the concept precisely means. However, this difficulty should also not be overstated, as there is quite some common ground between them (Steffek, 2009: 314; Ueberbacher, 2013: 6). Sociological scholarship on political legitimacy generally agrees that an organization is legitimate when organizational structures, procedures and activities appear consistent with the ‘beliefs, norms, and values that are shared in its social and cultural environment and when its audiences consider it appropriate, acceptable and/or desirable’ (cf. Ueberbacher, 2013: 6; Suchman, 1995; Hurd, 1999: 381). It follows from this conceptualization that legitimacy is a specific quality that is attributed to a governance institution, or set of institutions, which generates compliance with rules and political decisions by providing internal reasons for actors to follow them (Steffek, 2009: 314; Bexell, 2014: 29; Hurd, 1999: 3811).

Using this broad definition, legitimacy can then be distinguished quite neatly from legitimation. If legitimacy is understood as a property attributed to an institution or set of institutions, legitimation refers to the activity of either seeking or granting legitimacy (Bexell, 2014: 291). Legitimacy constitutes a feature of an arrangement which is conferred by its audiences from the legitimation process, which

includes the actual legitimacy-granting practices and evaluations of members of the arrangement and their relevant audiences (cf. Bexell, 2014: 314; Brassett & Tsingou, 2011).

Understanding the dynamics between legitimacy and legitimations is crucial because, as new ventures to their global issue field, most private governance systems are not yet familiar and legitimate to their stakeholders (Ueberbacher, 2013: 7). Or, in other cases, they may not conform to dominant beliefs and understandings because they are by definition a means of emancipation from the status quo (Rindova & Petkova, 2007: 221). In both circumstances, managers may then have to mobilize legitimation strategies that weed out and help to overcome initial legitimacy deficits when facing and interacting with potential stakeholders (Ueberbacher, 2013: 7). Importantly, such occasions demonstrate that legitimacy cannot be derived simply from an objective assessment of the environmental and social performance of its policy procedures or certification standards or an appraisal of those who are certified under these standards. They rather illustrate that legitimacy is earned through a complex interplay of actors, in which different audiences try to constrain and influence attempts for competing private governance arrangements to gain legitimacy (Cashore, 2002: 522).

3.2 Core and external audiences

As mentioned above, a key perspective in the sociological approach to private governance legitimacy is that authority is granted to private governance systems by different audiences, each of whom may have very different reasons for supporting or opposing the proposed rule system. While some may grant legitimacy based on short-term material benefits such as market access or price premiums, others may choose to become involved because the organization conforms to moral or normative perceptions about what is seen as the “right thing” to do (Cashore, 2002: 516; Brinkerhoff, 2005; Van der Aart, 2013). This means that legitimacy is essentially a relational concept in the sense that it is “constituted in a relationship between a governance arrangement and its relevant audiences” (Bitzer & Schouten, 2015: 176). In this regard, and drawing heavily Suchman (1995) and Cashore’s (2002) early works within organizational sociology on organizational legitimacy, this research distinguishes between two broad groups of “legitimacy-granting” audiences: core audiences and non-core or external audiences.

Core audiences refer to an organization’s most immediate stakeholders, usually including those actors that have “a direct interest in the policies and procedures of the organizations they legitimate” (Cashore, 2002: 511). In the field of sustainability governance, for example, firms may opt to comply to a particular governance system based on evaluations as to whether their commitment can improve market access or reduce market decline (Suchman, 1995: 589; Cashore, 2002: 517). Legitimacy relates here mostly to the instrumental value of the organization for its stakeholders in terms of how its fulfils their short-term material interests (Brinkerhoff, 2005: 4).

External audiences include those stakeholders within civil society “that have a less direct but equally important role in granting legitimacy” (Cashore, 2002: 511). Compared to core audiences, this stakeholder group is usually more varied, including customers or civil society actors in the value chain

who would put pressure on producers to accept rule standards, or environmental groups of labor unions who also play a role in shaping the content of private governance rules (Cashore, 2002: 511). Here, legitimacy derives more from the extent to which what the organization does is perceived as “making sense” in the eyes of civil society actors (Brinkerhoff, 2005: 4; Suchman, 1995: 579). In the field of sustainable development, such judgments may be associated with increasing demands and pressures from environmental groups to address environmental protection.

Distinguishing between core audiences and non-core or external audiences is important because the credibility of governance arrangements not only relies on the acceptance of those who may benefit directly from participation through economic incentives such increased market access or price premiums, but also, and perhaps more importantly, on the recognition of critical audiences who may support or oppose an organization based more on moral reasons (Glasbergen, 2013; 359; Cashore, 2002: 522). If authority is not granted through third-party audience evaluations, counter reactions are likely to arise and legitimation logics tend to alter accordingly (Cashore, 2002: 512; Schouten & Glasbergen, 2012: 69). In this context, organizations are constantly and proactively altering and revising their goals and strategies to accommodate the material interests or moral beliefs of various types of stakeholders. Their strategies are mobilized not only to address stakeholders that have to implement the standard requirements, but also to reach out to more remote audiences who have capacities to mobilize and confront an arrangement because they believe it promotes or impedes societal welfare (Deephouse & Suchman, 2008: 54).

In order to make sense of this process of legitimacy building, the distinction between core and non-core audiences helps to reveal how different audiences may grant legitimacy to an organization for very different reasons, based on their position (supply-side or demand-side) in the commodity chain. Despite variance in motivations, however, it is worth noting that some actors (i.e. workers and their unions) may hold overlapping positions in the economic and civil society category at the same time (Schouten & Glasbergen, 2012: 56). Since there are no universally shared criteria of legitimacy, legitimacy demands can differ or merge per historical context of societal context (Koppell, 2008: 192). Moreover, actors within the same audience can disagree on what constitutes legitimate authority (Bitzer & Schouten, 2015: 176). Accordingly, the distinction between core and external audiences must be considered a theoretical rationale rather than providing an instrument for theory testing per se.

3.3 Legitimation strategies

From the perspective of organizational sociology, legitimacy-building is clearly a proactive enterprise because organizations have advanced knowledge of their goals and of the need for legitimation (Suchman, 1995). Much of their activities relate to practices by which existing power and authority relations are justified or challenged by different audiences, in this case particularly those embodied in multi-stakeholder arrangements. Those practices can be conceptualized as legitimation strategies, defined most generally as “the use of public and recognized reasons to justify a claim to an issue,

embedded in multiple social and cultural institutions that set the broader frames of a legitimation process” (Goddard, 2006: 40). This process is both purposive and calculated and can be placed in the context of a target to be reached in an identified time frame (Suchman, 1995: 576).

Using a modified version of Suchman (1995) and Cashore’s (2002) categorizations of strategic legitimation processes, one can roughly distinguish between three types or “clusters” of legitimation strategies: (1) efforts to conform to the interests of immediate audiences and/or moral beliefs held by external stakeholders; (2) efforts to inform unaware audiences about the organization’s activities (3) efforts to manipulate environmental structures by creating new perceptions or beliefs regarding legitimate governance. While all three clusters involve “complex mixtures of concrete organizational change and persuasive organizational communication” (Suchman: 1995: 587), they tend to emerge quite clearly along a continuum from relatively passive forms of conformity to relatively proactive forms of manipulation (Cashore, 2002: 520-2). Given also the variety and multiplicity of stakeholder perceptions, some strategies may become more appropriate for certain stakeholders than for others. To make sense of this complex mix of strategic legitimation actions, the remainder of this section is used to further refine the conceptual difference between each strategy (schematized also in Table 1).

3.3.1 Conforming strategies

When organizations seek legitimacy through the adoption of conformist strategies, they usually position themselves within a pre-existing institutional environment. This means the organization “must meet the substantive needs of various audiences or offer decision-making access, or both” (Suchman, 1995: 587). The former involves the marketing task of responding to the interests of potential audiences, e.g. by making it easier for producers to meet the requirements of the proposed rule system or by reducing the costs of certification (Cashore, 2002: 511). As to the latter, initiators may actively seek legitimacy by including relevant stakeholders in the policy-making process and creating new opportunities for them to come to an agreement on how to govern a particular sector (Schouten & Glasbergen, 2012: 57).

When organizations opt for conforming strategies, they usually do so in response to the material demands of core audiences (Cashore, 2002: 517). These demands relate to the instrumental value of the organization for its stakeholders in terms of how it fulfils their self-interests (Brinkerhoff, 2005: 4). Most directly, the organization produces outputs such as material goods or services that stakeholders value, who in turn proffer their support. Organizations tend to prefer this type of strategy over more proactive forms of legitimation because the provision of material incentives does not require significant changes in the organization’s governance structure or policy-making process (Brinkerhoff, 2005: 4).

In more exceptional cases, organizations may apply conformist strategies to pursue objectives and activities that society understands or values as appropriate or desirable (Brinkerhoff, 2005: 4). Here the exchange relationship between the organization and its constituents results less in specific benefits for an individual stakeholder, and more in responsiveness to the stakeholders’ larger interests. Among the most common strategies of conforming to moral beliefs on the part of societal actors are efforts to

“embed new structures and practices in networks of other already legitimate institutions” (Suchman, 2995: 587). For example, organizations employ efforts to adjust their governance structure or core mission statements based on rules and guidelines of established institutions, which in the eyes of their constituents strive to achieve policy outcomes that reflect the general commitment to environmental principles and practices that their members value (Brinkerhoff, 2005: 4). In another variant, organizations can also choose to conform to external audiences’ moral beliefs and perceptions by associating themselves with existing organizations that are already seen as legitimate in their issues field. This can be important for organizations whose positive impacts are hard to measure and/or whose intended outcomes are difficult to attribute to particular actions (Van der Aart, 2015: 11). In this case, the organization may “incorporate some form of stakeholder participation and its procedures, which serves to demonstrate responsiveness, and may increase the legitimacy of the organization with that category of stakeholders” (Brinkerhoff, 2005: 4).

3.3.2 Manipulating strategies

If an organization wishes to avoid making significant changes in its governance structure or mission statements, it must move beyond conformity to other, more proactive strategies. This means the organization must “intervene preemptively in the cultural environment in order to develop bases of support specifically tailored to their distinctive needs” (Suchman, 1995: 591). Such manipulation can mean involving in activities that allow or encourage constituents to associate the organization with valued activities. For example, organizations may turn to the use of legitimated vocabularies that link organizational activities to predominant societal perceptions and, through these efforts, promulgate positive explanations of social reality (Brinkerhoff, 2005: 8). Such strategic action may be needed when organizations face the challenge of mitigating negative connotations within society.

Depending on the source and scope of opposition, the nature of manipulation strategies may vary somewhat. The easiest way to manipulate the environment is to target specific organizations or individuals with product advertising to change their views about what they want to have (Suchman, 1995: 591; van der Aart, 2015: 13). This often involves market-manipulation campaigns to persuade particular exchange partners to value the use of voluntary compliance and market mechanisms generally (Cashore, 2002: 506). In some situations, however, acceptance of an organizations’ value proposition depends more on normative stakeholder perceptions or larger societal interests (Brinkerhoff, 2005: 4). In these cases, manipulation may mean reframing issues, problems, procedures and activities in ways that create the belief that the organization is well-managed and effective in producing results (Ueberbacher, 2013; Brinkerhoff, 2005: 4). According to Suchman, the best chance for an organization to do this is by accumulating a record of technical success. When an organization performs well for a longer period of time, this often has spillover effects on other moral dynamics as well, increasing the likelihood for external audiences to accept the organization’s structures and procedures and see them as legitimate (Van der Aart, 2015: 13). This process can be amplified when more organizations in the same

issue field adopt the same structures and procedures. However, manipulating the environment by acquiring technical success can take years, and is therefore much less common and far less understood than either conforming or informing strategies (Suchman, 1995: 591).

3.3.3 Informing strategies

When organizations are engaged in informing techniques, they usually do so in an effort to increase their visibility as a governance institution within their particular sector or issue field. Such strategies employ terminologies that “connects the organization in the eyes of stakeholders to socially legitimate goals and activities” (Brinkerhoff, 2005: 8). Again, this approach can be directed both at core audiences or external stakeholders. In the former case, private governance organizations try to get word of their program out to potential constituencies who have a self-interest in supporting the organization’s rule system (Cashore, 2002: 516). These constituencies include, for example, firms in the supply chain that face increasing pressures from civil society actors to adopt more sustainable production practices, or new non-core producers who ought to be core audience but do not know about it. In the latter case, informing strategies are applied to explain to external actors in civil society that program's values match societal concerns about social or environmental issues. For example, organizations try to reach out to

consumer groups by launching market campaigns or turn to popular press to promote their standards to a wider public and, in turn, increase market demand for the commodities that are traded within their field of issue.

3.4 Summary

This chapter has set out the theoretical framework for analyzing the processes through which legitimacy of private governance arrangements can be realized. While existing scholarship defines the concepts of legitimacy and legitimation as two different ends of a spectrum, this research takes a somewhat broader and decidedly empirical approach. The main assumption set out in this framework is that legitimacy is not an overall characteristic of a governance arrangement, but rather an attribute that is created in an interactive process. Crucial to this understanding is the idea that legitimacy inherently relates to, if not fully depends on, the perceptions about collaborative advantage or sustainability issues held by the organization’s immediate as well as more remote audiences. In this context of interdependence, managers try to mediate their audiences’ perceptions by strategizing which course of action is best for the organization given the range of external pressures and how precisely to strike a good bargain between different external audiences. This process of strategizing entails a variety of conforming, manipulating and informing strategies, which together determine the conditions under which stakeholders decide to get involved or remain in an agreement or, in other cases, why they choose to resign.

4 METHODOLOGY

4.1 Research approach

The theoretical framework laid out the conceptual difference between legitimacy and legitimation and, in extension thereof, introduced three types of legitimation strategies for building and maintaining legitimacy. In this study these strategies serve as the conceptual basis for analyzing ASC’s legitimation efforts. To specify, the study gradually progressed from a very close and detailed analysis of how managers employ informing, conforming and manipulation techniques so as to cater different stakeholder demands. In this iterative process, a number of more systematic, cross-data patterns were derived that bring to the surface the complexity of legitimation dynamics. In this sense, legitimation strategies may be seen as indicators of the extent to which legitimacy is granted to an organization by core and non-core audiences. At least for the study presented here, the categorization of these strategies offers some guidance in revealing how managers can employ and combine different strategic actions as to build legitimacy and maintain it over time.

As these subsequent steps in the research process show, this research clearly followed an inductive qualitative approach to better understand the strategic attempts through which multi- stakeholder arrangements try to enhance and maintain legitimacy in their issue field. Inductive research starts with the search for explanatory factors from observations of patterns, resemblances and regularities. These observations are then used for the development of explanations - or theories - towards the end of the research. Rather than testing the validity of an existing explanation or theory, an inductive approach aims to generate meanings from the data set collected in order to identify different explanatory factors or possibilities that could explain a phenomenon (Hancke, 2009: 110). This is significantly different from a deductive approach, in which an explanation for a certain phenomenon is tested. The inductive approach corresponds to the purpose of this research by generating new insights on factors that may cause differences in the way legitimation processes play out in different multi-stakeholder arrangements. Using in-depth data in an inductive manner opens up possibilities to bring to the surface unexpected explanations for the dynamics underlying multi-stakeholder relationships and the reasons behind what we see happening in these settings.

4.2 Research design

This research adopts a single case study design to analyze legitimation dynamics that occur within multi-stakeholder settings. Single case study analyses focus on one single case (N=1) that is expected to provide insight into a causal relationship across a larger population of cases (Gerring & Seawright, 2007: 86). Because the typical case is usually well embedded in an existing model or theory, the puzzle of interest lies within the case (Seawright & Gerring, 2008: 299). Compared to a multiple or comparative case study design, a single case study approach seems better equipped to explore and describe the causal mechanism at work in a general cross-case relationship. Considering also that multiple case studies

imply less observation time for each case, a single case study makes it possible to examine the complexity of a phenomenon and is therefore more likely to produce new or high-quality insight in the factors that may influence legitimation processes of multi-stakeholder partnerships.

4.3 Case selection

The case of the ASC was selected on the basis of its organizational structure and similarities with other outstanding multi-stakeholder initiatives in the field of sustainability governance. The case shares important characteristics with other outstanding multi-stakeholder initiatives, such as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and the Roundtable on Responsible Soy (RTRS). The arrangements show overlap in driving actors, face similar sustainability problems, and have similar organizational structures (Schouten & Glasbergen, 2012). All initiatives were founded by the World-Wide Fund (WWF), in cooperation with several businesses and NGOs that actively participate in several of them. Moreover, all WWF-based initiatives - the ASC included - certify commodities that have impacts on the environment and/or on specific species. Commodities such as soy, palm oil, beef and seafoods are mainly traded as export-driven, large-scale monocultures and belong to the fastest expanding markets in contemporary global economy. Finally, WWF-based initiatives also share important characteristics in terms of governance structure: the WWF requires that decision-making processes are organized in such way that commodity chain actors, as well as other major stakeholders such as environmental organizations, have a seat in the Executive Board and General Assembly.

Overall, these shared characteristics ensure that the ASC case exemplifies a stable, cross-case relationship and is representative of the relevant population of cases. The high typicality of the case allows for an in-depth case study analysis that aims to bring to the surface the factors that cause difference in legitimation dynamics. On a more general level, the program is also illustrative for the rise and growing importance of multi-stakeholder governance over the past two decades. The case represents the development of a new global governance domain in which not only public (governmental) institutions participate but also private and non-governmental actors that seek collaboration to govern the social and environmental externalities of intensified global production. In this respect, an empirical analysis of the ASC opens up possibilities for identifying trends that may affect other WWF-based multi-stakeholder arrangements in similar ways.

A third reason for selecting this case relates to the broader debate on private sustainability governance. Since the ASC emerged as a relatively new global initiative in the field of sustainability governance, research on the program’s legitimacy is fairly limited. This makes the case particularly well placed to examine the extent to which legitimation processes can address the oft-cited democratic deficit of similar arrangements in sustainable development. Such in-depth analysis corrects normative or state-centric literatures by looking more closely at the problems of acquiring legitimacy that occur within in

multi-stakeholder settings and in interaction with different stakeholder groups. In that sense, the ASC may serve as a critical case for sustainability governance in aquaculture and the future thereof.

4.4 Data and method

This research is based on an empirical inquiry that aims to bring to the surface the factors that explain how multi-stakeholder arrangements seek legitimacy and revise their standards criteria and policies in response to the perceptions and interactions with different stakeholder groups, including supply-side actors (i.e. certified producers, retailers) and more critical demand-side audiences (i.e. consumers and activist groups). For this, process-tracing in multi-stakeholder governance settings is used, with a focus on interactions and strategies. Process tracing emphasizes the different elements of a causal process that lead to a certain outcome. It is a useful method for inductive research when the aim is not to test an existing theory, but rather to map out different causal paths from observations to explain a certain phenomenon or outcome (George & Bennett, 2005; Hancke, 2009: 65).

Using congruence methods, the analysis is based on data from a set of semi-structured interviews with ASC staff and informants from external stakeholder groups. Primary policy document and secondary document analysis on multi-stakeholder governance also support the different parts of the argument. These documents primarily include annual reports, organizational directories and reports by technical project groups. In order to ensure the inclusion of all involved interests, these documents will be supplemented by publications produced by relevant external audiences such as open letters, opinion rubrics and news articles. Combining these data sources, the qualitative foundation of this research provides possibilities for tracing particular processes of decision-making inside multi-stakeholder settings and for understanding the significance of interactions between internal and external actors. Each method is discussed in more detail below.

4.4.1 Interviews

Data on different legitimation strategies and perceptions about their effectiveness are gathered mainly through semi-structured interviews. In semi-structured interviews predefined questions are handled in such a way that the interviewee has the ability to speak in his or her own words and, if desired, to raise other relevant issues or questions. Semi-structured interviewing methods allow for more flexibility to adjust the order in which the questions are asked as well as to ask additional questions depending on how the interview proceeds. This offers the researcher the opportunity to ask process-focused questions in a more structured way.

The interviews in this study were conducted with ASC staff members as well as with representatives of external NGOs. As to the latter group, most respondents are representatives of activist groups that have publicly opposed the ASC and the way in which its standards were developed according to the principles of the WWF. In total 23 people were approached to participate in this research, five of whom confirmed to contribute. Two of these five respondents are members of the ASC Communication

Team and one is member of ASC’s Outreach Team. Two of the remaining three interviews are conducted with representatives of activist groups, i.e. the Mangrove Action Project and Nijera Kori. One interview is conducted with a documentary maker and editor of the Consumer’s Guide to Shrimp Certification (2015), a document including a critical analysis of the ASC Shrimp Standard. Of the in total five interviews conducted for this research, one took place in a face-to-face setting, three were arranged via Skype, and the remaining one was conducted via email. All interviews were conducted and analyzed in English.

Regarding the selection process, the non-probability method of purposive sampling as well as snowball sampling was used. For purposive sampling, a list was made comprising of organizations and people whose participation could ideally help to discover and explore the strategic efforts by which the ASC conforms, informs and manipulates different stakeholders as a means of creating legitimacy. Thanks to the participation of respondents from this list, snowballing was used to ask them for recommendation and contact details of other relevant experts and informants.

4.4.2 Document analysis

Document analysis is primarily based on publications and reports originating from the ASC. These documents were obtained through online search as well as through contact with interviewees. Analyzing content originating from the ASC contributed to gain insight into member preferences and perceptions and how they influence the process through which legitimacy is created. The ASC publishes monthly updates as well as annual reports on how the organizations performs in terms of overall uptake, number of certified farms, the number of farms under assessment, recently accredited certifiers, etc. Documentation on board meetings and project group meetings are also made available on the ASC website. Another important document is the Strategic Overview 2017-2021, which sets out the overall strategic plan of the ASC for the coming five years and serves as an important guideline for the activities and tasks of ASC’s functional management and communication teams.

ASC-based data content is supplemented by an examination of publications and news articles produced by external audiences such as non-core NGOs, academic reports, journalists. These documents were obtained through online search and through contact with interviewees. The inclusion of external publications is important because it ensures that all relevant perspectives and interests are considered. Moreover, it provides insight into the extent to which the ASC has been subject to public (dis)approval, which in turn may enhance understandings of the role and perceptions of non-core audiences in legitimacy-granting processes.

4.6 Validity and reliability concerns

The chosen research design and the methods used for data collection are subject to several pitfalls. In terms of research validity, case study analyses depend to a significant extent on the existence and reliability of empirical sources. This means that much of this research relies on the ability and integrity

of the researcher as the primary instrument of data collection and analysis. Both the interviews and the document analysis have been conducted by one researcher, which carries the risk that someone else would interpret the data differently which in turn could lead to slightly different conclusions. In the most extreme case, cognitive bias may alter a researcher’s reasoning and skew final conclusions. In an attempt to minimize this effect, the interviews were based on a set of broadly formulated questions so as to leave open the possibility for interviewees to raise additional issues or questions instead of forcing them to give an opinion on a very specific question.

Another validity concern is that much of the results presented here are based on data gathered through semi-structured interviews. A typical limitation of interview data is that respondents may overestimate their role in the process, or that particular interests are presented as more important than others. This means that one can never be sure whether interviewees actually tell what is important for the purpose of the research or that they deliberately present particular interests or issues as more important than others. These challenges have been covered to the best possible extent through data triangulation, that is, by corroborating interview data with other, independent material such as annual reports, newspaper articles and scientific reports. Combining interview data with secondary data allowed the researcher to check respondent’s answers with what other respondents have said as well as with what can be found in available documents and reports. In terms of data triangulation, document analysis also contributed to provide insights from the field and use them to add more context to the interview data.

When it comes to case study research, and qualitative methods for data collection more generally, one also needs to be aware of the issue of reliability. Reliability means that if you apply the same procedure for measuring a concept or variable, you will end up with the same results (all else being equal). Checking for reliability can be especially challenging in the case of interviewing, as potential interviewees may have different conceptions or interpretations about a certain concept or issue. The semi-structured character of the interviews has been particularly useful in covering these weaknesses. Semi-structured interview methods may enhance the reliability of the research because the interviews are (partly) structured by a set of clearly specified questions. This makes it easier to replicate the interviews because interviewees will be to a lesser extent influenced by the personal wordings of the researcher. To make sure there is minimal misperception or confusion about key concepts or issues, the researcher used as much as possible the respondent’s words and stay as much as possible in the respondent’s world. In addition, and in the same way as with validity concerns, the reliability of the research can also be enhanced through data triangulation. Supplementing interview analysis with document analysis is useful because the latter allows for less deviation and more structured categorizations of concepts that can more easily be repeated.