Comparing Stakeholder Perspectives on Environmental ... · priced goods. The Bangladeshi textile industry occupies the supply side of this international value chain yet actors affected

Comparing Stakeholder Perspectives on

Environmental Standard Setting in the Global

Textile Industry

An analysis of stakeholder perceptions of the Zero Discharge

of Hazardous Chemicals scheme in Europe and Bangladesh

Master Thesis

submitted at the

Institute of Development Research

and Development Policy

Ruhr-Universität Bochum

By Timothy Chipperfield

Supervised by Johannes Norpoth

Bochum, April 10, 2016

1

Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 5

List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................................. 6

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... 7

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... 7

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 8

1.1 Bangladesh’s Textile Industry ................................................................................................... 8

1.2 Private Standard-Setting and Global Governance ................................................................... 10

1.3 Organizational legitimacy ....................................................................................................... 11

1.4 The Road to Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals ........................................................... 12

1.4.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 12

1.4.2 Attempts to Legitimize the Initiative ................................................................................ 14

1.5 Research Questions ................................................................................................................. 16

2. Literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 17

2.1 Accounts of Legitimacy in the Literature ................................................................................ 17

2.1.1 Organizational Literature Accounts of Legitimacy .......................................................... 17

2.1.2 Political Conceptions of Legitimacy ................................................................................ 20

2.1.3 Pragmatic Legitimacy ...................................................................................................... 21

2.2 Corporate Sustainability in Bangladesh and the ZDHC Scheme ............................................ 22

2.2.1 Literature on Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility in Bangladesh .......... 22

2.2.2 Literature on the ZDHC ................................................................................................... 23

2.2.3 Overall Research Gap ....................................................................................................... 24

3. Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................................. 24

3.1 Introduction to Pragmatic Sociology and Pragmatic Legitimacy ............................................ 24

3.2 Situated Uncertainty ................................................................................................................ 26

3.3 Disagreement ........................................................................................................................... 27

3.4 Mutual Understanding ............................................................................................................. 29

3.5 Institutionalization ................................................................................................................... 30

3.6 Worlds Explored in this Paper ................................................................................................ 31

3.6.1 Introduction to the Worlds used in this Study .................................................................. 31

3.6.2 Domestic World ............................................................................................................... 32

3.6.3 Inspired World.................................................................................................................. 33

3.6.4 Civic World ...................................................................................................................... 33

2

3.6.5 Industrial World ............................................................................................................... 33

3.6.6 Market World ................................................................................................................... 33

3.6.7 Fame World ...................................................................................................................... 34

3.6.8 Green World ..................................................................................................................... 34

3.7 Application of Pragmatic Legitimacy ..................................................................................... 34

4. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 35

4.1 Overview of the Methodological Standpoint .......................................................................... 35

4.2 Data Gathering ........................................................................................................................ 36

4.3 Selection of Interviewees and Data Sources ........................................................................... 37

4.4 Challenges in Data Collection ................................................................................................. 40

4.5 Processing Data ....................................................................................................................... 42

4.6 Ethical Considerations............................................................................................................. 45

5. Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 45

5.1 Overview of Findings .............................................................................................................. 45

5.2 Perspectives on the ZDHC Initiative ....................................................................................... 46

5.2.1 Overview of Perceptions of the ZDHC ............................................................................ 46

5.2.2 Transparency and Disclosure ........................................................................................... 47

5.2.3 Stakeholder Engagement .................................................................................................. 50

5.3 Situational Challenges for the ZDHC in Bangladesh .............................................................. 53

5.3.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 53

5.3.2 Fear and Secrecy .............................................................................................................. 53

5.3.3 The Bangladeshi State ...................................................................................................... 54

5.3.4 Civil Society and Growing Awareness ............................................................................ 55

5.3.5 Accountability and Responsibility ................................................................................... 57

5.3.6 Corruption and Cheating on Standards ............................................................................ 57

5.4 Legitimacy ............................................................................................................................... 59

5.4.1 Legitimacy from a Bangladeshi Perspective .................................................................... 59

5.4.2 Legitimacy from a European Perspective ........................................................................ 62

5.4.3 Comparing the two sets of perspectives on legitimacy .................................................... 65

6. Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 70

6.1 Conceptualizing the Findings and Analysis ............................................................................ 70

6.2 Engagement and Legitimacy ................................................................................................... 71

6.2.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 71

3

6.2.2 Civic Legitimacy Bases for Engagement ......................................................................... 72

6.2.3 Industrial Legitimacy Bases for Engagement .................................................................. 73

6.2.4 Market Legitimacy Bases for Engagement ...................................................................... 74

6.2.5 Domestic Legitimacy Bases for Engagement .................................................................. 75

6.2.6 Tensions and Syntheses between Worlds ......................................................................... 75

6.3 Legitimacy and Transparency and Disclosure ........................................................................ 77

6.3.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 77

6.3.2 Fame World Bases for Legitimacy ................................................................................... 77

6.3.3 Civic World Bases for Legitimacy ................................................................................... 78

6.3.4 Industrial World Bases for Legitimacy ............................................................................ 79

6.3.5 Market World Bases for Legitimacy ................................................................................ 79

6.3.6 Domestic World Bases for Legitimacy ............................................................................ 80

6.3.7 Tensions and Syntheses .................................................................................................... 80

6.4 Implications and Applications to Institutionalization ............................................................. 81

6.5 Critical Reflections on Power: a Blindside of Pragmatic Sociology? ..................................... 84

7 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 87

Publication Bibliography................................................................................................................... 90

Appendix 1 – Stakeholder Assumptions ........................................................................................... 95

Appendix 2 – Stakeholder Matrix ..................................................................................................... 96

Appendix 3 – Updated Stakeholder Assumptions Table ................................................................... 97

Appendix 4 –Stakeholder Matrix Showing Data Sources ................................................................. 98

Appendix 5 – Interview Guide for Bangladesh ................................................................................. 99

Appendix 6 – Interview Guide for Europe ...................................................................................... 101

Appendix 7 – Research Timeline .................................................................................................... 103

Appendix 8 - Coding of Themes into World ................................................................................... 104

Appendix 9 – Consent form for Interviewees ................................................................................. 105

Appendix 10 - Data Source List ...................................................................................................... 106

Appendix 11 – Photos from Bangladesh ......................................................................................... 107

4

5

Acknowledgements

I sincerely thank my advisor Johannes Norpoth for his dedication and support throughout my

MA thesis project. Thank you for guiding and shaping my research. I consider myself

privileged to have you as my mentor. I also thank Christian Scheper for his insightful advice

on my topic.

My thanks goes out to my interviewees in Europe and Bangladesh and especially to the

wonderful people that guided me in Bangladesh. I would not have been able to find my way

around Dhaka without your help.

I am grateful for the support and friendship of my fellow classmates for over the past year;

together, I think we make a great development team!

Lastly, thank my wonderful family and partner for their love and support while I wrote this

thesis. I could not have done it without you (seriously)!

6

List of Acronyms

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

GSCP Global Social Compliance Programme

KPI Key Performance Indicator

MNC Multinational Corporation

MRSL Manufactured Restricted Substances List

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

Org Organization

PRTD Pollutant Release and Transfer Registry

RTK Right to Know Principle

SAC Sustainable Apparel Coalition

ZDHC Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals Programme

7

List of Tables

Table 1 Desired Data Sources ........................................................................................................... 40

Table 2 Data Sources Obtained. ........................................................................................................ 41

Table 3 Assumptions about Stakeholders ......................................................................................... 95

Table 4 Updated Stakeholder Assumptions ...................................................................................... 97

Table 5 Bangladesh Interview Guide .............................................................................................. 100

Table 6 Europe Interview Guide ..................................................................................................... 102

Table 7 Data Source List. ................................................................................................................ 106

List of Figures

Figure 1 ZDHC Action Plan............................................................................................................ 145

Figure 2 Process of Pragmatic Legitimacy...................................................................................... 256

Figure 3 The Actor's Uncertainty .................................................................................................... 267

Figure 4 Disagreement and Justification ........................................................................................... 29

Figure 5 Mutual Understanding ........................................................................................................ 29

Figure 6 Institutionalization .............................................................................................................. 32

Figure 7 Overview of Worlds............................................................................................................ 32

Figure 8 Coding Example ................................................................................................................. 44

Figure 9 How to Interpret Data Source Coding ................................................................................ 46

Figure 10 Legitimacy in Bangladesh ................................................................................................ 66

Figure 11 Legitimacy in Europe. ..................................................................................................... 667

Figure 12 ZDHC Stakeholder Matrix ............................................................................................... 96

Figure 13 Stakeholder Matrix Update ............................................................................................. 103

Figure 14 Research Timetable…………………………………………………………………......104

Figure 15 World Codes ................................................................................................................... 104

Figure 16 Water Colour................................................................................................................... 107

Figure 17 Proximity to Factories. .................................................................................................... 107

Figure 18 Dye Barrels ................................................................................................................... 1078

Figure 19 Garbage in the Cannal................................................................................................... 1078

8

1. Introduction

1.1 Bangladesh’s Textile Industry

Bangladesh is a country facing enormous growing pains. As it seeks foreign capital for its

aggressive export-driven economic model (Adams et al. 2007, p. 475), serious environmental

problems are emerging. The textile industry, and in particular the garments sector, forms a

large proportion of Bangladesh’s exports, and is a key pillar of the country’s economy. In the

2013 financial year, Bangladeshi garment exports totalled $21.5 billion, making it the world's

second-largest apparel exporter (Rhuma 2013). Unfortunately, industrial pollution is one of

Bangladesh’s key environmental problems (Adams et al. 2007, p. 477). Numerous industrial

units are located on the banks of rivers and pollute the waterways on a regular basis (Sobhani

et al. 2009, p. 176). The textile industry uses several processes that discharge solvents,

volatile organic compounds, and other harsh chemicals (Multilateral Investment Guarantee

Agency 1996, p. 505). Consequently, these discharges pollute rivers and deprive indigenous

people of access to the clean water on which their livelihoods depend (Adams et al. 2007,

p. 477). Many of the chemicals used in dying, finishing and waterproofing produce a variety

of adverse health effects including endocrine, and immune system disruption (Greenpeace

2011). Some chemicals used are carcinogenic and disrupt the development of reproductive

organs, and normal organ functioning. Environmental degradation from chemical discharge

threatens the progress made on poverty reduction in Bangladesh while increasing pressure

on the poor and vulnerable by depleting vital sources of livelihood and survival (Belal et al.

2015, p. 5).

Much of the problem of hazardous chemical discharge stems from textile

manufacturers, who generally do not adhere to existing sustainability guidelines set by the

government (Belal et al. 2015, p. 5). These manufacturers have been unwilling to change

their practices voluntarily to meet these requirements, including the requirement for installing

effluent treatment plants, which has been either completely neglected or only partially

complied with.

While local textile manufacturers have been unwilling to take the necessary steps to

reduce their discharge of hazardous chemicals, the government also has not been taking

9

sufficient steps to regulate the industry. Bangladesh has a number of policies, rules,

provisions and guidelines for regulating the environmental footprints of corporations

including the Bangladesh Environmental Conservation Act (1995), the Environment

Conservation Rules (1997), and the Environment Court Act (2000). While these legally

binding rules should be guiding the environmental performance of the Bangladeshi textile

industry, there are a number of problems affecting government regulatory actions. Corruption

is seen as a problem (Adams et al. 2007, p. 478, Belal et al. 2015, p. 10, Belal & Roberts,

2010, p. 313) that affects the enforcement of existing regulation. Relevant agencies "appear

corrupt, weak and ineffective” and lack the strong political will and critical resources such

as labour, skills and knowledge to be able to implement the relevant laws (Belal, Roberts

2010, p. 313). Together, these factors have contributed to the failure of the Bangladesh

government to regulate hazardous chemical discharges effectively within its borders.

While local actors in Bangladesh including the government and suppliers have

avoided playing a role the regulation of chemicals, the textile industry itself is international.

The supply chain of garments is very long (Helmerich, Kaan 2013, p. 7), stretching from

Bangladesh to retail outlets and major brands in developed countries including Europe and

the United States. This structure emerged through Bangladesh’s aggressive private sector

export strategy (Adams et al. 2007, p. 476) and the desire of developed countries for low-

priced goods. The Bangladeshi textile industry occupies the supply side of this international

value chain yet actors affected by this value chain in Bangladesh do not have as much power,

and can be considered a vulnerable population “due to levels of poverty and a lack of

resources to cope with environmental stresses” (Belal et al. 2015, p. 6). The international

nature of the industry means that less-powerful producers in Bangladesh are sensitive to the

preferences of overseas buyers, as consumers of garments hold a large amount of sway over

large clothing brands and retailers that purchase from there (Adams et al. 2007, p. 476).

In the past, the poor health and safety records for employees in the Bangladesh

garment industry have received much more attention than its environmental problems (Belal

et al. 2015, p. 7) but this appears to be changing. As consumers and other key stakeholder

groups become more aware of the textile practices occurring in developing countries such as

Bangladesh, their sensitivity to social and environmental problems are "boosted to a new

10

level" (Gilbert, Rasche 2007, pp. 1–2). This sensitivity leads to an increasing demand for

business accountability and transparency (Adams et al. 2007, p. 476) along with a push to

improve the overall sustainability of the supply chain (Saicheua et al. 2012, p. 15).

The power of stakeholders, such as multinational corporations (MNCs) plays an

important role in shaping the Bangladeshi textile industry. Unlike disempowered local actors

such as the Bangladesh workforce, these large companies are able to dictate the standards

that they expect the Bangladesh’s clothing industry to uphold (Islam, Deegan 2008). This

stark inequality of power relationships between different stakeholder groups makes standard

accountability mechanisms close to impossible (Belal et al. 2015, p. 13).

1.2 Private Standard-Setting and Global Governance

Ineffective local regulation of the textile industry leaves a regulatory void in environmental

performance compliance in Bangladesh, but this is a reality in many developing countries

(Abbott, Snidal 2009, p. 509). As demands of garment consumers in developed countries

pressure brand name firms to improve their supply chain (Saicheua et al. 2012, p. 15; Abbott,

Snidal 2009, p. 503), these firms react by pressuring local textile producers to improve their

social and environmental practices (Islam, Deegan 2008). Despite calls to regulate the textile

industry, MSCs typically fear having to change any practices which may impede the

operations of the firm (Wilmshurst, Frost 2000, p. 13). Instead, many MNCs look towards

forms of global governance and self-regulation to solve this challenge. When these MNCs

adhere to their own standards, they are in essence self-regulating (Utting 2007, p. 380). The

value chains of these textile/garment industry MNCs are located across multiple countries,

meaning that regulations are global, as they are not confined to a specific state.1 Through

participating in global governance, corporations perform activities such as regulation which

are normally part of the state (Bernstein, Cashore 2007, p. 1). While a variety of actors

including NGOs and associations address global governance challenges, this paper focuses

specifically on a business-led private scheme.

1 Refer to section for the global situation of the textile/garment industry 1.1.

11

Businesses set up schemes to respond “to public demand, reputational concerns, and

the possibility of 'win-win' innovations to embrace corporate social responsibility (CSR),

self-regulation, and stronger requirements from suppliers" (Abbott, Snidal 2009, p. 504). By

constructing private standard-setting schemes, firms have the benefits of reduced transaction

costs, enhanced credibility and a reputation as an early adopter of socially responsible

activities (Green 2013, p. 15). Private schemes take on certain political qualities when they

govern others participating in the scheme. Like states, these private schemes require

legitimacy to conduct their operations as it helps define their relationship with their

stakeholders and the public.

1.3 Organizational legitimacy

As a basic, working definition, one can understand legitimacy as the acceptance of an

entity as appropriate and desirable by relevant societal audiences (Friedrich 2009, p. 10).

However, this definition is far from comprehensive. Legitimacy is a relational concept, which

is constituted by both discourse and institutions (Black 2008, p. 4). Audiences perceive a

legitimate organization not only as more worthy, but also as more meaningful, more

predictable, and more trustworthy (Suchman 1995, p. 575). It is easier for an entity to achieve

its goals if the scheme fits with the conceptions of legitimacy held by the actors participating

in it (Peters 2013, p. 7), as this allows the organization to access resources with more ease

(Marano, Tashman 2011, p. 1122).

Legitimacy pertains to global business-driven regulatory schemes since global

regulatory schemes sometimes face criticism regarding their lack of transparency,

consultation, democratic processes or systems of redress for affected stakeholders. These

criticisms challenge the legitimacy of these schemes (Black 2008, p. 13). If such schemes

can produce standards developed through dialog and public justification accessible to all

stakeholders, they can promote mutual understanding and increase acceptance of the scheme

in the business world (Gilbert, Rasche 2007, p. 14).

Two ways that organizations often attempt to improve their legitimacy is through

stakeholder engagement and transparency/disclosure activities. A stakeholder is a group or

12

individual who can affect or be affected by the action of an organization (Kourula 2010,

p. 396). Engaging stakeholders provides the organization with valuable feedback on the

legitimacy of standards initiatives including whether the standard is being used appropriately

and whether it reflects local concerns (Gilbert, Rasche 2007, pp. 2–3). The persistent

exclusion of less economically powerful groups, such as indigenous stakeholders from

stakeholder engagement activities poses challenges to the legitimacy of CSR initiatives

(Adams et al. 2007, p. 490) and may also pose a challenge for a private, global governance

scheme. The other avenue for increasing legitimacy is through demonstrating transparency

through the disclosure of corporate practices. Disclosure and reporting demonstrates that an

organization has responded by aligning its activities with the expectations of its audience

(Brennan, Merkl-Davies 2014, p. 606). At the same time, disclosure is a way for an

organization to improve its public perception (Wilmshurst, Frost 2000, p. 13).

Organizations including MNCs often find challenges in operating across different

countries with different views of legitimate behavior (Marano, Tashman 2011, p. 1122).

While these MNCs face different conceptions of legitimacy, global regulatory schemes may

also face a variety of perceptions of what is legitimate at different physical locations in its

value chain. The following section presents the research’s case study of an organization

operating globally, and therefore, dealing with a potential plurality of conceptions of

legitimacy.

1.4 The Road to Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals

1.4.1 Overview

The Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) programme provides an excellent

opportunity to study legitimacy in the context of business-led private global governance

schemes. The ZDHC is a private standard-setting scheme which is owned and managed by

its corporate signatory members, which now includes 18 brands (ZDHC Programme 2015c).

The goal of the ZDHC initiative is to apply standards globally. Its members are based in

developed countries while their production sites are located in developing countries like

13

Bangladesh (ZDHC Programme 2015b). The programme has set their ultimate standard of

zero hazardous chemicals discharged in 2020 (ZDHC Programme 2015a).

Much of the impetus to create the ZDHC came from Greenpeace. As part of a

campaign called “Detox”, Greenpeace published a report in July 2011 titled "Dirty Laundry"

which named 18 brands from 16 firms that discharged hazardous chemicals in textile

manufacturing (Brennan, Merkl-Davies 2014, p. 603). Greenpeace considers Detox to have

been a success, as six of the brands targeted in the campaign collaborated and developed the

Joint Roadmap towards ZDHC (Greenpeace 2014, p. 1).

While Greenpeace’s advocacy provided a strong public voice for action of hazardous

chemical discharge, and appears to have influenced the founding of the ZDHC, the two

organizations have developed an adversarial relationship. The ZDHC defends themselves,

while Greenpeace critiques the actions of its members. While the ZDHC initiative calls its

Roadmap a "highly ambitious" plan (ZDHC Programme 2015a), Greenpeace challenges the

efforts of those MNCs which do not meet the minimum criteria that it set forward in its

original Detox Initiative. It provides three dimensions of a responsible commitment including

its core principles,2 transparency, and elimination of hazardous chemical discharge

(Greenpeace 2013). Greenpeace asserts that some of these companies are making serious

progress while others are acting as "greenwashers," suggesting that the legitimacy of the

standard may be compromised by some brands.

The participating corporate members of the ZDHC make commitments to targets on

a voluntary basis and then implement the commitments themselves. They are tasked with

reporting, based on their commitments towards the overall zero discharge of hazardous

chemicals goal by 2020. According to Greenpeace, many of these companies have ambitious

Detox commitments and have already demonstrated concrete outcomes in line with their

action plans (Greenpeace 2014, p. 1).

2 Core principles include individual corporate accountability, the precautionary principle, a credible

definition of zero discharge, and the right to know for the public (Greenpeace 2013).

14

1.4.2 Attempts to Legitimize the Initiative

The ZDHC actively integrates both stakeholder engagement and disclosure practices into its

practices. The diagram below demonstrates this in its action plan:

Figure 1: Each branch of the ZDHC action plan integrates either stakeholder engagement or, in the case of the Right to

Know, it focuses on aspects of disclosure and transparency (ZDHC Programme 2013, p. VI)

The ZDHC Programme considers stakeholder engagement to be an important

component of the success of the initiative. The group engages with a wide variety of

stakeholders including: textile industry associations, NGOs, suppliers, regulatory agencies in

Asia, Europe and the United States, environmental and social NGOs, the chemical industry,

international development organizations, entrepreneurs, and academic institutions (ZDHC

Programme 2015b). Ongoing stakeholder engagement is a programme priority, and regional

stakeholder meetings are a key part of the process (ZDHC Programme 2013, p. vi).

One particular stakeholder engagement activity outlined by the ZDHC is its external

advisory board. The board is comprised of a variety of stakeholder group representatives who

provide strategic advice and help evaluate the performance of the initiative (ZDHC

Programme 2013, p. v).

Some specific stakeholders including the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC) and

the Global Social Compliance Programme (GSCP) work with the ZDHC to harmonize their

15

environmental auditing protocols (ZDHC Programme 2013, pp. 5.1). The ZDHC also defines

industry associations, suppliers, NGOs with an environmental or social focus, regulatory and

policy makers, funding organizations, academia and traditional and new media as key

stakeholders. In Bangladesh, the ZDHC noted that its suppliers are its stakeholders and gave

them a training programme for "sustainable knowledge" in the supply chain (ZDHC

Programme 2013, pp. 4.6).

Transparency and disclosure activities are also a part of the scheme, which bases its

disclosure principles on the Right-to-Know (RTK) Principle. This principle emerged from

the 1992 Rio Earth Summit as a means to protect both human rights and the environment

(United National Sustainable Development 1992, pp. 19.8). The ZDHC notes the

participation from citizens in decision-making and public access to information concerning

the environment are key points derived from the summit (ZDHC Programme 2014, p. 3). The

group asserts that the RTK approach will build trust in customers, local communities and

other stakeholders through the disclosure of performance indicators of chemical discharge

(ZDHC Programme 2013, pp. 4.7).

As part of its RTK commitments, the ZDHC reports on its progress towards its shared

goals, including quarterly reports in 2012 and then annually from 2013 to 2020 (ZDHC

Programme 2015a). So far, the group completed a list of hazardous chemicals for elimination

and this list is now publicly available (ZDHC Programme 2013, pp. 4.4). The initiative also

reports that it has developed a framework for the disclosure of data from its suppliers. It will

use this data to show its suppliers overall improvements in chemical management practices.

These progress reports give suppliers a performance rating (ZDHC Programme 2013, pp.

2.2). As of 2013, key performance indicators (KPIs) for a harmonized disclosure and

monitoring process were still being completed (ZDHC Programme 2013, pp. 4.4).

The ZDHC plans to implement a Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) as

their central means of disclosure. A PRTR is a national or regional environmental database

or inventory of potentially hazardous waste products released to the environment and

transferred off-site for treatment or disposal (United Nations Economic Commission for

Europe (UNECE) 2013). PRTRs are one of the most established methods for implementing

RTK. Other organizations use these registers to access databases of volumes of chemical

16

discharges per facility, maps showing where discharges occur, and questions and answers

related to PRTR (ZDHC Programme 2014, p.13).

1.5 Research Questions

This paper’s research objective is to uncover different perspectives on the ZDHC in this

context of environmental problems, poor-performing traditional forms of regulation and the

response from developed countries’ multinational companies to self-regulate.

This study’s research questions are: a) How do relevant stakeholder groups perceive

the ZDHC scheme in Bangladesh and in Europe? b) How do relevant stakeholder

groups view the legitimacy and specifically the legitimacy-gaining work of the ZDHC?

This study uses the pragmatic sociology approach to look at how stakeholders justify

their standpoints and conflicting perspectives. The approach reveals normative concepts of

legitimacy. This research addresses a mixture of stakeholders of the initiative representing

different levels of power and vulnerability in Bangladesh and Europe. It focuses on the

central cleavage in the international garment/textile supply chain: developed country

(European stakeholders) and developing country (Bangladesh).3 Research is conducted with

stakeholders including government, business, NGOs, associations and affected groups to get

diverse perspectives and a depth of insights. One important theme to explore is the role of

legitimacy-gaining activities including stakeholder engagement and transparency/disclosure

practices for legitimacy, and see how this relates to the normative legitimacy statements

produced by the interviewees. This study first reflects on literature on legitimacy and the

context in Chapter 2 to show the gap that this research fills. The study then elaborates on its

theoretical framework in Chapter 3 before operationalizing the theory into a methodology in

Chapter 4. Chapter 5 reveals findings from field research in both Europe and Bangladesh,

and Chapter 6 discusses and analyzes these findings. Concluding thoughts are provided in

Chapter 7.

3 Background on the textile industry is available in section 1.1.

17

2. Literature Review

2.1 Accounts of Legitimacy in the Literature

2.1.1 Organizational Literature Accounts of Legitimacy

The organizational sciences are the academic home of legitimacy theory. Several scholars

use this approach to explain why corporations engage in sustainable or socially responsible

practices as they are avenues to gaining support from society and the general public (Ahmad,

Sulaiman 2004, p. 44). This field draws on political, sociological, and anthropological

approaches to seek explanations for relevant topics such as CSR. CSR is a critical topic for

the ZDHC as its members implement the governance initiatives of the program through their

individual social and environmental corporate responsibility programs. Political conceptions

of legitimacy, in particular, appear to have shaped this field. This body of research has

provided interesting analytical tools that are more relevant to the fields of CSR and

sustainability management. Much of the literature stems from Suchman’s research and his

definition of legitimacy as ‘‘the generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an

entity are desirable, proper or appropriate’’ (Suchman 1995, p. 583). Suchman differentiated

between pragmatic,4 moral and cognitive legitimacy (Suchman 1995, p. 574). These three

types of legitimacy provide mutually reinforcing analytic dimensions (O’Dwyer et al. 2011,

p. 36).

There are different strands of literature regarding the application of legitimacy theory.

While much of the literature is focused towards the legitimacy of a corporation, Gilbert and

Rasche (2007, p. 13) expand upon Suchman’s concepts of legitimacy and apply them to

standard-setting schemes. Their research shows that studies can apply the approach to global

governance and/or private standard setting initiatives such as the ZDHC. Black later looked

at similar applications of legitimacy theory, specifically analyzing how polycentric

governance schemes respond to competing legitimacy claims as active participants (Black

2008, p. 4).

4 Suchman’s definition of pragmatic legitimacy differs starkly from the legitimacy that I use in this paper,

which uses a framework from ‘pragmatic sociology’ or ‘French pragmatism’. For more insights, refer to Cloutier and Langley (2013, p. 367).

18

Legitimacy theory has a variety of approaches to how legitimacy is constructed and

how this affects an organization. Brennan and Merkl-Davies took a relational view of

legitimacy, suggesting that legitimacy is constructed between organizations and the audience

in a "process of reciprocal influence" (2014, p. 603). Islam and Deegan also espouse a

processual perspective, as they view legitimacy as a continuous process of legitimization

since new threats to the public acceptability of an organization can arise, or past threats can

reoccur (Islam, Deegan 2008, p. 854).

Different researchers have used different methodologies while using the legitimacy

theory framework. Prior studies of organizational legitimacy often looked at corporate

documents including press releases and reports (Brennan, Merkl-Davies 2014, p. 603).

However, the research into CSR in Bangladesh so far includes Belal, Cooper and Kahn (2015,

p. 1) and Islam and Deegan (2008, p. 850), who have used a variety of interview techniques

to develop a deeper understanding of the motivations and perceptions of actors in

Bangladesh. The second stream of analysis is more pertinent to the research question as in-

depth qualitative analysis will reveal nuances that are less accessible through document

analysis. This is important for the study, as it deals with complex situations involving groups

from different socio-cultural backgrounds.

Part of the literature on legitimacy theory specifically addresses stakeholder

engagement. Marano and Tashman look at stakeholder engagement in the form of

partnerships, particularly with NGOs. They assert that social legitimacy is essential for

corporations because it helps them access resources and develop better relationships with

their stakeholders (Marano, Tashman 2011, p. 1122). Brennan and Merkl-Davies also look

at the role of stakeholders in organizational legitimacy, as social movements and NGOs

monitor and challenge the behaviour of organizations, including challenging its legitimacy

(Brennan, Merkl-Davies 2014, p. 606). Stakeholder engagement can take a variety of forms:

one form of engagement would be merely managing the expectations of powerful

stakeholders including financiers and influential lobby-groups (Adams et al. 2007, p. 474).

Another form would be collaboration, deliberation and stakeholder democracy. This type of

pressure is especially prevalent in international environmental institutions (Bernstein,

Cashore 2007, p. 7).

19

Another stream of literature within legitimacy theory looks at the role of disclosure

and transparency as ways to improve the legitimacy of an organization. Environmental

disclosures constitute aspects of company performance against environmental indicators and

are often published in annual reports (Ahmad, Sulaiman 2004, p. 45). Ahmad and Sulaiman

(2004) investigate the extent and nature of environmental disclosure in Malaysia as a test of

legitimacy theory and find limited support for the theory. Wilmshurst and Frost (2000, p. 10)

look at corporate reports and their results also show limited support for legitimacy theory as

an explanation for the management's decision to disclose certain environmental information.

This strategic nature of disclosure may mean that only positive practices are disclosed,

without revealing information negative about the organization (Islam, Deegan 2008).

Nevertheless, legitimacy theory does appear to provide a better understanding of the extent

and type of environmental disclosures made by organizations (Ahmad, Sulaiman 2004,

p. 44). While there are differences regarding the perceived usefulness of legitimacy theory,

the theory is widely used in the literature to explain the motives for corporate sustainability

initiatives. It seems likely that organizations understand the need for legitimization, making

it a pertinent framework for understanding why organizations appear to carry out activities

in order to ‘be’ legitimate.

Ahmad and Sulaiman conclude their research paper with a call for an examination of

different groups of stakeholders’ decision-making and need for environmental disclosures

(Ahmad, Sulaiman 2004, p. 56). While their article was published over a decade ago, their

call for more research into the perspectives of stakeholders is crucial since most research in

corporate legitimacy centers on corporate perspectives, rather than the stakeholders’

perspectives.

This research builds on the organizational sciences’ focus on stakeholder engagement

and transparency as legitimacy-gaining activities. Furthermore, this research takes up Ahmad

and Sulaiman’s call to hear from the perceptions of legitimacy from the stakeholders

themselves. By heeding this call, however, this study takes a decidedly different approach

than the normative framework provided by legitimacy theory.

20

2.1.2 Political Conceptions of Legitimacy

While the organizational sciences offer perspectives on legitimacy related to CSR, global

governance initiatives have more often utilized political conceptions of legitimacy. Weber

set the standard definition of legitimacy used by a majority of twenty-first century social

scientists. He asserted that legitimacy exists when relevant social agents believe that is exists.

Power relations are legitimate when the dominant or the submissive believe them to be

legitimate, and therefore "every such system attempts to cultivate the belief in its legitimacy"

(Weber 1968, p. 213).

While Weber offers researchers one dominant normative framework to analyze

legitimacy, another more recent framework of analysis divides legitimacy into two primary

categories: input and output legitimacy. Input legitimacy is where the expressed will of a

given constituency produces its own binding rules; output legitimacy refers to the effect that

the collectively-binding decision has on the constituency in terms of whether government is

serving the common good (Scharpf 1998, p. 3). Van den Berghe (2006) believes that this

dichotomy has applicability problems in regards to global governance and CSR programs.

Output legitimacy has applicability problems in that some private organizations exclude

much of the international community from their networks, and therefore lack obligations of

accountability towards them (Van den Berghe, Frederic M. 2006, p. 7). On the other hand,

input legitimacy is not normally demanded of private standards schemes since they are not

expected to represent or include all of the various perspectives in the society in which they

operate (Van den Berghe, Frederic M. 2006, p. 6).

Both Weber’s and Scharpf’s definitions offer normative accounts of legitimacy used

by political scientists in Western countries to look at traditional political entities such as the

state. However, research on political legitimacy in global governance is a new field of inquiry

(Gadinger 2013, p. 18). These theories, grounded in normative bases from research in

Western countries, exclude the voices of those involved in or affected by global governance

(Peters 2013, p. 11). Furthermore, normative, Western approaches used by academics such

as (Moravcsik 2004, p. 336) and (Bodansky 1999, p. 612) sometimes conflate Western

democracy with legitimacy, which is something that may not hold true in all societies where

global governance is applicable (Peters 2013, p. 13). This is problematic as it is partially non-

21

western societies’ judgment that will politically affect and determine the legitimacy of the

institutions in question.

Therefore, this research attempts to avoid falling into a normative path, instead

looking to pragmatic assertions of legitimacy put forward by relevant actors. This research

seeks these ‘pragmatic’ definitions of legitimacy derived from empirical research.

2.1.3 Pragmatic Legitimacy

Political or organizational management ‘objective’ accounts of legitimacy may obfuscate the

reality that different countries of cultures may have different perspectives on what is

legitimate. The normative framework from Western perspectives "fails to take into account

the plurality of legitimacy claims" (Gadinger 2013, p. 18) as there can be strong disagreement

between stakeholder claims rather than one narrative of what is ‘good.’ On the other hand, a

pragmatic approach to legitimacy sees it as a process arising from a challenge or problem

where every legitimacy struggle is a “test of strength” (Gadinger 2013, p. 20-21) as actors

struggle to define what legitimacy is in everyday life. It is a contingent product of these

negotiated legitimacy-claims between actors in daily situations of conflict. It is ascribed "on

the basis of normative structures that embody their own standards of legitimacy," (Peters

2013, p. 13) and determined through communicative processes where actors develop and

apply the standards.

Peters (2013, p. 8) suggested that research should examine the heuristic particularism,

which can detect and reconstruct different and potentially divergent views of legitimacy. He

called for socially grounded research to build these reconstructions. Gadinger (2013, p. 19)

agreed that there is a strong need for empirical research on these accounts of legitimacy,

asserting that tracking public discourse through surveys will lead to the same type of Western,

normative bias. Instead, he called for qualitative research through interviews.

Peters’ (2013, p. 14) call for research into actors' conceptions of legitimacy directs

this paper to seek pragmatic accounts of legitimacy among stakeholders of the ZDHC. He

stated that contested institutions provide a strong basis for empirically testing legitimacy

through an analysis of discourse, legitimization, and contestation. The nature of voluntary,

22

private standard-setting schemes such as the ZDHC fills a regulatory gap that in other cases

may be filled by the state. This potentially controversial case provides an excellent place to

apply pragmatic sociology.

Few studies have followed the call for more empirical accounts of pragmatic

legitimacy through pragmatic sociology from stakeholders. One notable exception is Pariotta

et al., who applied a pragmatic legitimacy test using a pragmatic theoretical framework in

order to examine legitimacy through justification during an environmental crisis in Germany

(Patriotta et al. 2011, p. 1805). One other study of note is Irwin et al.’s, which applied

pragmatic legitimacy to public engagement in scientific institutions (Irwin et al. 2013,

p. 125). In short, no such study on business-driven global environmental standard-setting

scheme such as the ZDHC has been undertaken.

2.2 Corporate Sustainability in Bangladesh and the ZDHC Scheme

2.2.1 Literature on Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility in Bangladesh

In the ZDHC mode, individual member brands make commitments that are carried out

through their individual corporate social and environmental responsibility plans. Most of

these initiatives need to be implemented in developing countries like Bangladesh, which

makes this an important topic to explore. Literature in this area mainly focuses on corporate

disclosure for Bangladeshi companies, with less focus on stakeholder engagement.

In terms of corporate disclosure, research has been growing over the past few years

and much has focussed on the textile industry, including reasons that managers do corporate

social and environmental reporting (Sobhani et al. 2009, p. 171). Sobhani, Amran and

Zainuddin (2009) began their work by examining corporate social and environmental

disclosure in Bangladesh through content analysis of disclosure reporting, revealing that

disclosure had improved over the past 10 years (p. 167). Of particular interest to this study is

their assertion that in Bangladesh’s absence of effective state mechanisms, socio-cultural

changes are leading to a rise in pressure groups that seek transparency (Sobhani et al. 2009,

p. 169). Islam and Deegan (2008, p. 850) interviewed senior executives in Bangladesh to

determine the environmental and social pressures they face, with the purpose of

23

understanding their motivation to make social and environmental disclosures. They found

that international pressures related to the expectations of the international community drove

local clothing companies to produce disclosure reports. This research has helped inform this

paper’s methodology in choosing stakeholders that are likely to be relevant based on the

interests of the ZDHC. Belal & Roberts (2010) also looked at disclosure but focused on the

perspectives of stakeholders of corporations in regards to corporate disclosure as part of CSR.

They found that there is a broad agreement amongst stakeholders about the need for it.

Interestingly, they note that those with an accounting background are skeptical about the

merits of the disclosure agenda in Bangladesh (Belal, Roberts 2010, p. 321).

In terms of stakeholder engagement, Belal, Cooper and Kahn’s (2015, p. 1) research

suggests that there are a significant number of affected groups that are not involved in

stakeholder engagement activities, and therefore may have negative views of corporate

accountability activities. They appear to have a skeptical approach to corporate

accountability in Bangladesh since the local population is not powerful enough to hold

corporations accountable.

The existing research shows that there is growing interest in corporate social and

environmental disclosure in Bangladesh, and it highlights the role that social exclusion may

play in developing countries. While the existing literature looks at Bangladeshi corporations,

this study examines the ZDHC as a private form of standard setting in global governance,

meaning it ‘governs’ some Bangladeshi companies.5 It contributes in part to the existing CSR

literature in Bangladesh by examining how stakeholders interpret the ZDHC brands’

legitimacy-gaining activities, including stakeholder engagement and transparency/disclosure

through the implementation of their own brand’s social and environmental commitments.

2.2.2 Literature on the ZDHC

The ZDHC scheme began in 2011 so there are only a few relevant articles about the scheme.

The articles include Brennan, Niamh and Merkl, (2013) and Moosmayer, Davis (2014) who

examined the origins of the scheme stemming from the pressure of the Greenpeace campaign.

5 Refer to section 1.2.

24

Brennan, Niamh and Merkl (2013) looked at the reciprocal communicative interactions

between organizations and their audiences through the lens of the ‘Dirty Laundry’ campaign.

Moosmayer and Davis (2014) looked at the Detox campaign from the perspective of the

Chinese brand Li Ning and how it responded to the influence of Greenpeace. While these

studies provided insight into how the scheme started in response to a stakeholder, they only

addressed why the scheme was constructed, and therefore have not shed light on the

perceptions of the scheme’s stakeholders.

2.2.3 Overall Research Gap

This research fills a gap concerning the perceptions held by stakeholder groups of private

standard setting initiatives, and in particular the ZDHC initiative. Other studies have

examined the conception of the initiative and the motivations behind the initiatives in

Bangladesh, but they have not examined the other side of the initiative: the viewpoints of the

stakeholders, which are important for determining what is legitimate from their perspective.

Furthermore, this research will add to the small yet growing body of research on pragmatic

legitimacy, and in doing so, shed light on what conceptions of legitimacy exists among

stakeholders.

3. Theoretical Framework

3.1 Introduction to Pragmatic Sociology and Pragmatic Legitimacy

The existing literature suggests that pragmatic sociology provides a useful lens for answering

the research questions by providing an analytical model for the perspectives of stakeholders

and for their views regarding the legitimacy of the ZDHC. Therefore, the theoretical base

guiding the research is pragmatic sociology. The research draws primarily on Boltanski and

Thévenot’s theory of justification, and more specifically, their conception of legitimacy. This

approach to legitimacy “departs from the task of moral philosophy, which is to discover some

normative rules and procedures leading to justice,” and instead explores the views of actors.

It seeks to uncover their “sense of justice” and construct a normative model around their

25

views (Boltanski, Thévenot 1999, p. 364). This theoretical framework demands that we take

the normative views of the actors seriously. The pragmatic sociology approach is inductive

and descriptive rather than deductive and normative and this theoretical position is necessary

to "detect and carefully reconstruct" different and potentially divergent views of legitimacy

(Peters 2013, p. 8). This chapter provides a systematic overview of the processual framework

of pragmatic sociology. The following figure shows the processual model of pragmatic

sociology, which will be broken down and analyzed over the course of this chapter. The

inductive and descriptive nature of the theoretical approach requires the researcher to avoid

assumptions, therefore the chapter finishes with some specific areas of focus for the

inductive, descriptive research based on the theoretical framework.

Figure 2 shows a process of how legitimacy is tested and developed during regimes of justification. This diagram draws on

information from Diaz-Bonne’s diagram (2011, p. 48), a framework from Boltanski and Thévenot (1999), and adding

legitimacy concepts from Patriotta et al (2011). The following four figures elaborate on the specific segments (A, B, C, D)

of this structure and show the process in detail.

26

3.2 Situated Uncertainty

In the pragmatic sociology model, legitimacy is something revealed through discourse. To

understand where legitimacy resides, one must look at the actors who are involved in this

everyday discourse. Actors have limited, situated rationality. The actor’s situations “are

complex arrangements or constellations of objects, cognitive formats, problems

(coordinations to be realized), institutional settings, persons, concepts” (Diaz-Bone 2011,

p. 49). The situated nature of the actors means that their cognition is located within a socio-

cultural environment and they are able to make use of empirical evidence to understand the

world. Unlike in neoclassical economics, actors in pragmatic sociology are not isolated

individuals, but are rather connected through their mutual situation. They need their socio-

cultural environment and their capacities for their critical rationality (Diaz-Bone 2011, p. 46).

Figure 3 Shows the situated nature of an actor, as they face an uncertain interactive process. This diagram also shows how

worlds are embedded within the situation as socio-cultural resources. This diagram draws on information from Diaz-

Bonne’s diagram (2011, p. 48), a framework from Boltanski and Thévenot (1999), and adding legitimacy concepts from

Patriotta et al. (2011).

Their socio-cultural situation provides actors with common sets of rules for engagement with

other actors; these are called "rules of acceptability" (Boltanski, Thévenot 1999, p. 360). By

utilizing rules of acceptability, actors regulate their mutual normative expectations in a

conflict situation. These rules constrain actors to use existing socially constructed groups of

27

criteria to justify a claim. The actor’s repertoire of these socially constructed criteria contains

a plurality of views of the common good. There is no ultimate hierarchy between these views

of the common good (Blokker 2011, p. 252) and each view of the common good has “an

explicit moral grounding” (Cloutier, Langley 2013, p. 371).

There are different names in the literature for groupings of criteria, from worlds

(Patriotta et al. 2011, p. 1809) to orders of worth (Cloutier, Langley 2013, p. 365), to

conventions (Diaz-Bone 2011, p. 56). This paper will use the term ‘worlds’ to denote these

plural ‘common goods’ as the term highlights the mutual exclusivity of each set of criteria.

Within their given situation, the actors face uncertainty, as they do not know the

outcome of their next interaction with another actor (Diaz-Bone 2011, p. 49). Despite this

uncertain situation, worlds act as shared interpersonal logics and socio-cultural resources,

allowing actors to “coordinate and to evaluate actions, individuals and objects in situations

of uncertainty" (Diaz-Bone 2011, p. 46). The nature of each world is analyzed in section 3.6.

3.3 Disagreement

Conflict can arise between actors where there is a disagreement regarding a distinct situation

or the interpretation of which world is relevant and appropriate for a given object (Blokker

2011, p. 255). Actors test even well-established norms and beliefs during these situations of

disagreement (Cloutier, Langley 2013, p. 367). These situations are also called ‘moments

critiques’ (Boltanski, Thévenot 1999, pp. 359–360). Moments critiques occur in ordinary

relationships when actors recognize a problem and realize a need for change. This realization

is both inward and retrospective, and outward, externally expressing their discontent. This

concept of testing the worth of objects situated within worlds is called ‘la grandeur’

(Boltanski, Thévenot 1999, p. 363).

Actors use the available objects as evidence “in order to pragmatically determine the

appropriateness of a given set of arrangements" (Patriotta et al. 2011, p. 1809). Objects form

the bases of these tests of worth (Diaz-Bone 2011, p. 57). These objects may represent

cultural, symbolic and material resources. Objects used in justification reference different

worlds (Boltanski, Thévenot 1999, p. 369) and by doing so, assert their world as the

28

applicable world for the given situation (Cloutier, Langley 2013, p. 367). Since these actors

share a common socio-cultural situation, they also share worlds as socio cultural resources.

The objects used in debate are grounded in these worlds through shared interpersonal

meaning. By testing objects, during moments critiques, actors verify that their normative

claims have foundation in a material or cognitive nature (Blokker 2011, p. 253) and vice-

versa: the cognitive disposition of an actor guides which objects they choose to employ and

the meaning they are given during moments critiques (Diaz-Bone 2011, p. 48).

Moments critiques serve as tests of legitimacy as actors refer to available worlds in

order to make their arguments (Patriotta et al. 2011, p. 1805). Legitimacy in this view refers

to the actors’ normative views on the appropriateness of a given world to the object of debate

(Diaz-Bone 2011, p. 47). The implications of this view of legitimacy is that the theoretical

framework of pragmatic sociology does not offer us absolute statements of legitimacy.

Instead, it asks us to look to the plurality of normative conceptions of legitimacy employed

through dialogue between actors (Peters 2013, p. 7).

Figure 4 shows a situation where two actors come together and disagree on something. They share much of their situation

including worlds and objects within those worlds. Objects are employed by the actors when making justifications. This

diagram draws on information from Diaz-Bonne’s diagram (2011, p. 48), a framework from Boltanski and Thévenot (1999),

and adding legitimacy concepts from Patriotta et al. (2011)

29

3.4 Mutual Understanding

A principle of equivalence is a commonality between actors that allows them to bring

heterogeneous objects and concepts together. To find this harmonious point of equivalence,

people must transcend their situations and find ways to interrelate (Boltanski, Thévenot 1999,

p. 361). The limited plurality of shared worlds give the actors an ability to do this (Boltanski,

Thévenot 1999, p. 365).

As actors compare common objects and worlds using worlds as harmonious

arrangements, a general state of agreement becomes possible (Patriotta et al. 2011, p. 1805).

Making an acceptable legitimacy claim to a “higher moral principle makes it easier for those

involved in the interaction to accept defeat, agree on a compromise, or demand more

evidence” (Gadinger 2013, p. 21). Collective action is also enabled by common worlds

(Cloutier, Langley 2013, p. 370). Worlds “are based on inherently different principles, and

because no two worlds can apply to the same situation without some diminishment of one or

both worlds’ core principles, the outcome of such debates determines whether collective

action can occur, and if so, on what basis" (Cloutier, Langley 2013, p. 367).

Figure 5 shows how actors can find mutual understanding through the process of justification as they share like worlds.

This diagram draws on information from Diaz-Bonne’s diagram (2011, p. 48), a framework from Boltanski and Thévenot

(1999), and adding legitimacy concepts from Patriotta et al. (2011) and additional concepts from Cloutier and Langley

(2013).

30

3.5 Institutionalization

When actors have found common ground during moments critiques, they internalize their

new logic including the way information is organized, retrieved, shown and co-produced

amongst actors. Cognition is not merely an individual activity, but rather a situated and

collective process (Diaz-Bone 2011, p. 48). Through the process of justification, the socio-

cultural meaning of objects is constructed and this influences future justification and

collective action (Diaz-Bone 2011, p. 57).

One can see the institutional environment as the collective, historically embedded use

of worlds in the socio-cultural situation. Institutionalization occurs as established worlds

demonstrate their usefulness and are used repeatedly among actors (Diaz-Bone 2011, p. 49).

While the institutional environment is fragmented along the lines of various worlds, it is not

completely chaotic as common constraints exist, shaping the behaviour of actors. For

example, “they must base their arguments on strong evidence, expressing in this way their

will to converge towards a resolution of their disagreement" (Boltanski, Thévenot 1999,

p. 366). Institutionalization is a continual, historical process as actors reframe conceptions of

legitimacy through justification in the dispute process (Patriotta et al. 2011, p. 1806). Actors

collectively institutionalize what is “deemed to be legitimate or not in a given field, which

helps explain why in certain fields, the legitimacy of any given actor, object, or practice,

regardless of the situation, will tend to always be based on criteria stemming from the same

world" (Cloutier, Langley 2013, p. 375).

Pragmatic conceptions of institutionalism attribute agency to actors as they are

considered “capable of rhetorically mobilizing repertoires of cultural-cognitive and material

resources in an effort to impose a particular worldview on a given situation… actors influence

their institutional environment as much as they are influenced by it" (Cloutier, Langley 2013,

p. 371). The pragmatic approach to institutionalism asserts that institutions exist

endogenously since actors "handle rules and apply them to situations" in order to coordinate

with one another. Through this process, the rules become internal to the actor, rather than as

external constraint as in neo-institutionalism (Diaz-Bone 2011, p. 47).

31

Actors externalize the engagement process by acting on the normative basis of the

reformulated worlds and cognitive paths (Diaz-Bone 2011, p. 48). By taking action, actors

change their situation, formalizing their collective worlds. This outward action affects

organizations, which are shaped by the actors’ prioritization of worlds (Cloutier, Langley

2013, p. 369). The process of justification and critique continually uses the available plurality

of worlds to shape organizational order and change (Blokker 2011, p. 259).

Figure 6 shows how the justification process has allowed actors to reformulate their cognitive dispositions towards worlds

and objects within their situation. They take action based on this understanding of the worlds in a historical process of

institutionalization. This diagram draws on information from Diaz-Bonne’s diagram (2011, p. 48), a framework from

Boltanski and Thévenot (1999), and adding legitimacy concepts from Patriotta et al. (2011) and additional concepts from

Cloutier and Langley (2013).

3.6 Worlds Explored in this Paper

3.6.1 Introduction to the Worlds used in this Study

Different pragmatic sociologists have ‘located’ up to a dozen worlds (Diaz-Bone 2011,

p. 47). However, this study uses what are considered to be the central worlds identified by

32

researchers as the: market world, industrial world, civic world, inspired world, fame world,

and domestic world (Blokker 2011, p. 253). Due to the importance of environment in this

study’s topic, the study also utilizes the ‘green’ world.

The following table provides a basic framework for understanding the worlds that are

utilized in this paper. The following sections give a more detailed overview of the logics of

each world.

Figure 7: Overview of Boltanski, Thévenot’s worlds derived from Boltanski, Thévenot 1999, p. 368. The addition of the

green world is sourced from Patriotta et al. (2011, pp. 1815–1816). The table shows basic characteristics of each world,

from the way one determines value from within the world, to the format of worldly knowledge, to the relationships between actors in the world, to the type of actor that is considered worthy or qualified within the given world.

3.6.2 Domestic World

Value in the domestic world is based in esteem, reputation, trust, authority, and loyalty

(Boltanski, Thévenot 1999, p. 368). The worth of an actor depends on a hierarchy of trust

which is based on the actor’s own chain of personal dependencies (Boltanski, Thévenot 1999,

p. 371). Where an actor comes from is important, as is their personal connections from their

physical locality (Cloutier, Langley 2013, p. 365). Action is legitimate when it follows

customs and exemplifies loyalty and trust in authority (Patriotta et al. 2011, p. 1810). Action

should protect, preserve and nurture the unit to which the actor belongs (Cloutier, Langley

2013, p. 365).

33

3.6.3 Inspired World

The inspired world values passion, spontaneity, creativity and inspiration (Cloutier, Langley

2013, p. 365). Non-conformance to social norms and routines is a positive trait in the inspired

world as it allows for creativity and ingenuity to flourish (Boltanski, Thévenot 1999, p. 368).

Action is legitimate if it seeks to discover or produce something new and avoids routine

(Cloutier, Langley 2013, p. 365).

3.6.4 Civic World

The civic world is the realm of collective interest, formal and official recognition, solidarity,

and equality (Boltanski, Thévenot, 1999, p. 368). Representativeness is an important

component of the civic world in terms of engagement (Irwin et al. 2013, p. 126).

Relationships between actors “should mobilize people for collective action” (Boltanski,

Thévenot 1999, p. 372). Actors are worthy if they belong to a group or represent a collective

person. Actions are legitimate if they pursue the good for all people within a collective, rather

than pursuing the interests of an individual (Cloutier, Langley 2013, p. 365).

3.6.5 Industrial World

The industrial world values precision, functionality, professionalism, efficiency and utility

(Cloutier, Langley 2013, p. 365). Technical expertise is the central measure used to

determine the value of an actor (Boltanski, Thévenot 1999, p. 372). Technology and science

are important components of optimizing a productive system so they are highly valued

components of the industrial world (Cloutier, Langley 2013, p. 365). Legitimate action is

productive, efficient and measurable (Boltanski,Thévenot 1999, p. 368) and it leads to the

better long-term functioning of a system (Cloutier, Langley 2013, p. 365).

3.6.6 Market World

The market world focuses on buyers and sellers and these actors are worthy when they are

"rich" (Boltanski, Thévenot 1999, p. 372). Actors coordinate themselves through capitalistic

34

market transactions and time is conceived in the present or along a short term investment

basis (Thévenot 2011, p. 3). An action is legitimate when it increases profit, decreases price

or increases competiveness (Cloutier, Langley 2013, p. 365).

3.6.7 Fame World

The fame world values popularity, recognition and visibility (Cloutier, Langley 2013,

p. 365). The worth of an actor is determined based on the opinions of others in this world.

Action is legitimate when it brings about public recognition and renown (Boltanski, Thévenot

1999, p. 368).

3.6.8 Green World

The green world is the realm of the ecological system and value is centered around this theme.

The green world asserts that pristine wilderness habitat and healthy natural environments are

preserved for future generations. Action is legitimate when it performs ‘environmentally

friendly’ tasks which bring about sustainability (Patriotta et al. 2011, p. 1810).

3.7 Application of Pragmatic Legitimacy

In the context of this highly inductive theoretical framework, theoretical application refers to

the selection of topics pursued in the interview and documentation process in accordance

with the theoretical framework. Pragmatic sociology is used to examine the stakeholders’

perceptions and reveal forms of pragmatic legitimacy between two groups: Bangladeshi

stakeholders and European stakeholders.

Firstly, the theoretical framework guides the search for the perspectives of

stakeholders regarding the topics of both stakeholder engagement and transparency/

disclosure. These activities were identified in section 1.3.2 as potentially critical for the

ZDHC as they may provide opportunities for legitimacy. These categories are not being

tested against a normative theoretical framework, but will be revealed organically through

35

the stakeholder’s normative perceptions of how stakeholder engagement and

transparency/disclosure relate to their situation and if applicable, explore the bases of

legitimacy that these activities are predicated upon.

Secondly, this study is guided by a descriptive approach towards the normative views

of the stakeholders. It aims to carefully interpret and follow the empirical data from

arguments made by the stakeholders and leaves space for unexpected normative views to

emerge. The stakeholder may reveal perceptions about their socio-cultural environment, the

objects within this environment or their cognitive dispositions.

Lastly and most importantly, this study aims to reveal the raw normative conceptions

of legitimacy as revealed by stakeholders during moments critiques. Specifically, the

research looks at the different worlds employed by stakeholders through the process of

justifications, which reveal bases of legitimacy pertaining to the ZDHC.

While this chapter introduced the theoretical concepts, the following chapter presents

the methodological framework used to obtain and analyze empirical data.

4. Methodology

4.1 Overview of the Methodological Standpoint

The theoretical framework of pragmatic sociology corresponds with its methodological

position (Diaz-Bone 2011, p. 54) which is generally post-positivist. This means that it values

methodological pluralism and the necessity to base a methodology on the research question

that is being addressed (Wildemuth 1993, p. 450). A positivist approach suggests a systematic

and controlled approach to research guided by a hypothesis and presumed relations among

the research subjects (Wildemuth 1993, p. 450). Conversely, pragmatic sociology’s

theoretical framework assumes that reality is at least partly socially constructed (through the

interactive process of justification), thus in this framework, in order to understand reality, we

need to understand what the actors understand. In the methodology of pragmatic sociology,

social scientists do not “have an exceptional standpoint compared to ‘normal’ actors” (Diaz-

Bone 2011, p. 54). This is an important aspect of this study, as is presents no assumptions

36

regarding the perceptions of the stakeholder to the research questions. Instead, in the

pragmatic sociology perspective, social scientists are also embedded in a socially constructed

environment, have limited rationality and share cognitive tools with the research subjects.

The researcher must hold their assumptions and listen carefully to the perceptions of the

research subjects.

In order to explain phenomena in pragmatic sociology, one must use an interpretive

process whereby the researcher explores the logic that actors use in order to coordinate

themselves during a process of justification (Diaz-Bone 2011, p. 54). Interpretive studies

“maximize the richness of detail” while examining the perspectives of participants in the

social context of the phenomenon (Wildemuth 1993, p. 465). The interpretive practice is

used to reconstruct the “complex practice of the interplay between coordinating actors and

conventions” (Diaz-Bone 2011, p. 54). Reconstruction means that rather than fully control

the study, instead, agency is attributed to the stakeholders, as the study will follow their

perceptions and base an analysis depending on what is presented in the findings.

The interpretivist and post-positivist character of this study influence both the data

gathering and the data analysis in this paper. Together they shape the assumptions why the

data is collected in the way it is. They also shape the format of this paper: rather than a

deductive framework where the researcher constrains the format to match a normative

theoretical framework, this methodology allows for the paper to follow the perspectives of

the actors in a more organic manner.

4.2 Data Gathering

This study employs qualitative research methods including data collection through

semi-structured expert interviews and analysis of relevant documents from Bangladesh and

Europe6, allowing the researcher to understand subjective experiences and attitudes, as well

as nuances and details that would otherwise not be accessible using quantitative methods.

The narratives captured in both the interviews and documents help to explain stakeholder

perspectives, leading to a more complete picture of their views on the ZDHC scheme. The

6 See Appendices 5 & 6 for related interview guides.

37

dynamic explanatory value of qualitative methods is useful for the subject matter and fit well

with pragmatic sociology.

While pragmatic sociology provides a theoretical approach, it also provides some

methodological guidelines. In pragmatic sociology, empirical data provides the researchers

with "arguments and situational devices" which allow them to "distil justifications often used

in daily life" (Boltanski, Thévenot 1999, p. 365). Pragmatic sociology requires that the

researcher listens carefully to the claims that the participants articulate in search of their

internally related interpretations and self-images (Gadinger 2013, p. 20). This makes a semi-

structured interview the optimal data collection method. When semi-structured interviews

are not available, document analysis is the default data collection method as document

analysis is a common practice for pragmatic sociologists who use them "to identify implicit

categories and conventions” (Diaz-Bone 2011, p. 58).

The interview guide was written with the goal of obtaining normative perspectives

from the interviewees, which would endear the content to a pragmatic sociology analysis.

Whenever possible, the interview process attempted to ask the participants to justify their

claim in order to see the bases of legitimacy through the worlds that the interviewee utilized.

4.3 Selection of Interviewees and Data Sources

An interpretive and exploratory study such as this study attempts to “maximize the range of

responses” in the social context, rather than looking for a representative distribution

(Wildemuth 1993, p. 465). In order to establish a meaningful basis for selecting this range of

stakeholders, this study looks to the normative approaches from both stakeholder theory and

legitimacy theory. Both theories together help explain motivations for organizations to desire

legitimacy and to work hard to be legitimate in the eyes of its important stakeholders.

Stakeholder theory asserts that in the case of conflicting priorities between an

organization and a stakeholder, the response to the stakeholder is dependent on the

stakeholder’s power, legitimacy, and the urgency of its claim. Power in this case constitutes

the ability to achieve intended outcomes and results ranging from access to resources to the

ability to mobilize support from other key stakeholders (Brennan, Merkl-Davies 2014,

38

p. 604). Early stakeholder theory studies including Roberts (1992) and Patten (1991, p. 297)

used quantitative methods to test these relationships of stakeholder power and the levels of

corporate response. While earlier studies utilized stakeholder theory at the corporate level, it

is only more recently that this theory was applied to standard-setting initiatives. Gilbert and

Rasche (2007, p. 1) examined private standard-setting initiatives through the lens of

stakeholder theory to further develop the theoretical approach and show that it is a pertinent

tool to understand why standard-setting schemes engage with stakeholders and why they

choose to work closely with certain stakeholder groups rather than others.

According to stakeholder theory, stakeholder engagement and disclosure reporting

will focus increasingly on the more powerful stakeholder in the eye of the ZDHC. Using

stakeholder theory, the research determines which stakeholders are relevant to the ZDHC

initiative. The general relevancy of a stakeholder depends on the relationship that the

stakeholder has towards the ZDHC scheme. The relationship includes the level of influence

over the scheme and the degree of how important the scheme is to the stakeholder.

Legitimacy theory is less specific than stakeholder theory in that it proposes that an

organization adopts CSR in order to legitimize its activities to the public. Legitimacy and

stakeholder theories are complementary and enrich our understanding of organization’s

motivations for CSR initiatives (Islam, Deegan 2008, p. 855-856). For this study, and in the

context of legitimacy theory, legitimize refers to the attempts by the institution to meet the

expectations of the public deems appropriate. This can refer to the norms and socio-cultural

framework that is familiar to the public as well as the fulfillment of certain expected and

tangible requirements that the public expects the organization to fulfill.

Selection criteria for participants has been primarily derived from the stakeholder

engagement planning document outlined in the ZDHC Joint Roadmap, Version 2 and these

stakeholders include industry associations, suppliers, chemical companies, NGOs with an

environmental or social focus, policymakers, funding organizations, academia, and media

(ZDHC Programme 2013, pp. 5.1). Three additional stakeholder groups were added based

on the contextualization of the scheme,7 which includes pressure from consumers at one end

of the value chain and groups affected by chemical discharge at the other. Although the

7 Refer to sections 1.1 and 1.2.

39

ZDHC report did not mention these groups, these are relevant participants as they are affected

by the activities of the initiative. This means that they are pertinent yet potentially

unrepresented interests. The study identified the groups as community groups affected by

textile production activities, domestic NGOs8, and textile consumer associations. After

selecting the stakeholders, they were categorized using a stakeholder table9 and matrix10

derived from stakeholder theory.

This study follows Brennan and Merkl-Davies’s (2014, p. 604) assertion that

organizations respond to stakeholders based on their urgency and the power of the

stakeholder. The urgency of the stakeholder’s claim is reflected as the importance or

affectedness of the stakeholder by the actions of the ZDHC. This places the stakeholder on

the Y-axis. The power of the stakeholder over the ZDHC is denoted as the influence of the

stakeholder and is represented on the X-axis. The matrix is divided into four quadrants which

are labelled A through D. Stakeholders in quadrants A and C are the primary interviewee

groups as they are the most affected by the ZDHC activities. They will most likely have more

at stake and therefore are likely to have stronger arguments for or against the legitimacy of

the initiative. Thus, they present better data in terms of normative statements on the

legitimacy of the initiative. Quadrants B and D have less of a stake in the success of the

initiative and its goals; however, they may yet be able to provide perceptions and accounts

using worlds as bases for justification. In essence, this provides the researcher with a means

of triangulating the justification accounts from groups A and C. A second and more important

cleavage within the stakeholder groups is in the physical region that they occupy. The data

collection in both Europe and Bangladesh provides useful insights into this global scheme. It

allows the study to compare perceptions in a developing country where textiles are produced

(Bangladesh), and developed countries where major brands and international NGOs are

located (Europe, primarily Germany). The breakdown of interviews is in Figure 3.

8 The ZDHC’s Joint Roadmap V2 defines NGOs as a key stakeholder however I assumed that they focus on international

NGOs and that domestic NGOs may not have had as many engagement opportunities based on Belal, Cooper and Kahn’s

(2015, p. 1) argument that local affected groups in Bangladesh are not usually engaged in textile industry CSR initiatives. 9 Appendix 1 10 Appendix 2

40

Table 1 shows the list of desired interview groups by region and degree of importance as determined by the researcher.

4.4 Challenges in Data Collection

Challenges in data collection arose from limited access to interviewees. The study had

initially predicted this challenge would occur in Bangladesh but this challenge was mitigated

by building early connections and a network to identify potential research participants. What

the researcher failed to predict were challenges in finding suitable European interview

participants. While the study planned to interview nine stakeholders, it was only able to

obtain interviews with four relevant parties. The recourse to this challenge was identifying

documents from Greenpeace and two chemical companies that contain normative statements

about the ZDHC. Document analysis is a common practice for pragmatic sociologists who

use them "to identify implicit categories and conventions” (Diaz-Bone 2011, p. 58). The

following table shows the interviews and documents the study was able to obtain.

41

Table 2 shows the list of interview groups by region and degree of importance that was actually collected.

While the researcher was not able to access the exact interviewee groups that had

been designated, the data still reflects the study’s original aims and data collection needs.

They represent a mixture of stakeholders of the initiative, representing different levels of

power and vulnerability in Bangladesh and Europe. In order to reveal diverse perspectives

and a depth of insights the interviewees include government, businesses, NGOs, associations

and affected community groups. Appendix 3 and 4 show updated applications of the

stakeholder assumptions and matrix. The figures reveal that the only groups that were chosen

for the study, yet not included in the data set were located in quadrants B and D, meaning

that they all have low importance, and medium to high degrees of influence.11

A second anticipated challenge regarded the willingness of stakeholders to provide

information on contentious issues. Despite the tense political situation, Bangladeshi

interviewees were generally willing to be interviewed on the topic. There were however,

exceptions such as interviewees who asked the researcher not to record the interview. In these

cases, the researcher took careful notes, and paid particular attention to the justifications that

the interviewees provided for their normative perspectives.

11 Refer to Appendix 3 and 4 for the updated assumptions table and stakeholder matrix.

42

As initially expected, it was also a challenge to find participants who were directly

informed about the ZDHC in Bangladesh. To overcome this hurdle, this study uses

stakeholder perspectives on initiatives for managing hazardous chemical discharges in the

textile industry and on private standard setting initiatives in Bangladesh. This information

still pertains to the ZDHC and provides the conflicting assertions and justifications that shed

light on the complexities of private standard setting for the ZDHC. The topic guide for this

group began with general questions on the struggles they face relating to the textile industry.

This helped to establish trust and understanding. Next, the field of questions narrowed to how

they challenge or defend the current state of affairs and the actions being taken to deal with

the current environmental situation. To enable stakeholders to make justifications, the topic

guide was developed to encourage key points of critique and defense surrounding points of

contention over environmental and chemical management in the textile industry.

Language also proved to be a challenge during data collection. The majority of

interviewees possessed a high level of English, enough to articulate their perspectives clearly;

however, for interviews with the affected community near the factories, the researcher

required a Bengali translator and guide. As the translation occurred during the interview, this

posed a challenge for the accuracy of the information. To ensure that the study had the correct

translation, another translator was hired to listen to those interviews and make changes to

translations where necessary. There were no major discrepancies found between the two

translations.

The challenges encountered during data collection correspond with limitations of the

potential of the study. Challenges to find relevant stakeholders who are informed,

comfortable with speaking, and able to communicate in the language of the researcher

constrain the scope of the exploration of the study, as fewer and potentially less-

representative normative statements are available for descriptive analysis.

4.5 Processing Data

A thematic analysis was used for the interviews and supplementary documents after the

interviews were transcribed. In doing so, the study used a mixed coding method inspired by

43

Patton (2002), who asserts that an inductive analysis followed by a creative synthesis allows

for broad exploration of data and then guides the analysis using analytical principles rather

than rules to identify specifics issues and nuances (Patton 2002, p. 41). The study used

MAXQDA software for analysis as it helped manage the documents and allowed the

researcher to identify a large number of themes and subsume them within pre-selected master

themes. The software was especially helpful in providing tools to analyze the relationships

between themes, which would not be possible by hand.

The study synthesized the perspectives of each stakeholder into themes related to

justification and then compared these justifications across different stakeholders using

thematic analysis. By incorporating multiple perspectives and interpreting them to produce a

larger picture, the research attempts to create holistic accounts of legitimacy amongst

stakeholders.

While the coding system was designed based on the information gathered, it was also

informed by the theoretical approach. As reflected in the theoretical framework, the study

aimed to reveal stakeholders’ normative perceptions of how stakeholder engagement and

transparency/disclosure relate to the ZDHC. These two general concepts were conceived

deductively, and segments of data were coded when they reflected these themes. Another

theoretically informed methodological approach was to follow the normative views of the

stakeholders. When they made an assertion that related to the ZDHC yet did not pertain

directly to the legitimacy of the initiative or the stakeholder engagement or

transparency/disclosure themes, this data was still coded and analyzed. Lastly, the primary

coding process used deductively utilized the worlds that were discussed in the theoretical

chapter. These deductive themes became parent themes to the inductive codes, representing

objects within these worlds. The world coding allows the study to make comparisons between

different stakeholder groups’ normative statements based on the ‘worlds’ that they are

referring to in their justifications.

Attaining the raw perceptions of legitimacy was central to this study’s findings and

analysis. The semi-inductive coding utilized a relatively large amount of thematic codes. The

study needed to ensure that important themes were not lost in the coding process since when

"you code or classify, you make things general. If you make things general, you lose

44

something” (Thévenot 2011, p. 3). The inductive codes primarily acted as sub-codes within

the seven worlds that the study had determined from the literature beforehand. The codes that

the study established were sorted into parent themes representing worlds.

Figure 8 shows an example of this study's coding. The first level codes are listed within the green world in this case. For

the full list of codes, see Appendix 6.

Some codes or sets of codes did not easily fit within the given worlds so these codes

were kept separate from the seven themes. These codes were analyzed in the light of

engagement, transparency and institutional challenges to environmental standard setting in

Bangladesh.

In order to determine moments critiques, passages were selected which were believed

to represent a normative argument related to brand-driven environmental programs. Finding

these passages is important as not “all situations are subject to an imperative of justification

to the same degree” (Boltanski, Thévenot 2000, p. 209). One potential concern regarded

whether the data collected revealed enough conflicting viewpoints since the parties were not

directly confronting one another. However, the study did find some strong elements of

disagreement in the participants’ viewpoints. To find and subjectively select moments

critiques, this study kept a broad interpretation of criticism as it can take many different forms

(Irwin et al. 2013, p. 120). This is important as clear cut argumentation is not always present

in critical moments (Brandl et al. 2014, p. 315).

World Codes Example

Green WorldEnviro - For Future Generations

Hope - Perception of Environment in the Future

Water Usage - Water Crisis

Funding Environmental Projects

Progress - Environment

Climate Change

Sustainability

Environmental Problem

Holistic Approach to Environment

Environment Policy

45

4.6 Ethical Considerations

The sensitive nature of the textile industry made it especially important to ensure the

anonymity of the interviewees. To protect the identification of interviewees, they were

provided with a consent form that stated how the information would be used, who would use

it, and what it would be used for.12 This paper does not disclose the name or the organization

of any interviewee, nor any information that would make them directly identifiable. Instead,

the study coded the interviewees.13 The documents that were collected and analyzed had

already been published and accessed through public channels so no special ethical

considerations were required. In these cases, the names appear as published in the source

documents.

5. Findings

5.1 Overview of Findings

The findings first explore the perceptions of the stakeholders to the ZDHC, with attention

given to both stakeholder engagement and disclosure activities. Then, they explore the

perceptions of challenges to the implementation and operation of these ZDHC initiatives in

Bangladesh. The findings conclude with a comparison of moments critiques, where they

study compares the forms of pragmatic legitimacy from the Bangladeshi stakeholders to the

forms of pragmatic legitimacy from the European stakeholders. This section reviews the use

of worlds and key repeated themes within those worlds.

The knowledge of the ZDHC varied across stakeholders. Most of the Bangladeshi

stakeholders interviewed were unaware of the program, including those expert stakeholders

working within the same field as the ZDHC. On the contrary, the European stakeholders

interviewed exhibited a high degree of understanding about the ZDHC. The documents

collected also had a focus on the ZDHC.

12 Refer to Appendix 7. 13 Refer to Appendix 8.

46

Figure 9 shows illustrates how to interpret the coding from various data sources. Each number of letter in the code refers

to an attribute described in the picture.

5.2 Perspectives on the ZDHC Initiative

5.2.1 Overview of Perceptions of the ZDHC

Overall, the perceptions in Europe and Bangladesh seemed quite positive towards the ZDHC.

However, this was difficult to ascertain directly as there were different levels of

understanding of the ZDHC between the stakeholder groups. The European interviewees had

a high degree of knowledge about the programme such as a textile association representative

who say “I know that they work on this initiative as well and at least with regard to chemicals,

the ZDHC is a frontrunner and the others tend to follow.”14 The lack of stakeholder

knowledge of the program in Bangladesh means this general assertion is pieced together from

various other perceptions. In Bangladesh, there appears to be a recognition that international

brands’ production standards are more rigorous than domestic companies in terms of

hazardous chemical discharge and these standards are becoming stricter. As one factory

complying with the ZDHC standards and supplying to a ZDHC member brand asserts

“initially it is difficult but we are trying. We use all of the chemicals used in the ZDHC.”15

14 EI-4-S pp 22. 15 BI-2-P pp 35.

47

This knowledge does not appear to be limited to experts but also the community members

seem to have higher expectations of the international standards, including the ZDHC.

“International buyers, before coming to this place and before ordering, if the international

buyer asks for the problem to be solved first, to just make the level playing field, then they

will order this. So if the international buyers forces the requirements to be fulfilled by the

government, then the situation could be more favorable.”16

There also appears to be consensus from the perspective of Bangladeshi stakeholders that the

introduction of international standards by organizations are helping to regulate chemical

discharges in the context of weak institutional environments.

“I think it’s impossible for the government to implement this huge task by themselves so they

need to incorporate and include civil society, academics and the larger communities. The

pressure will come from both sides, from the government - law and regulation, and from the

bottom – our roles and responsibilities; because you are destroying our environment.” 17

5.2.2 Transparency and Disclosure

Stakeholders did not provide very strong normative statements about transparency and

disclosure. Hence, this sub-chapter presents their perceptions in an abstract way, separated

from the legitimacy chapter that features stronger normative claims with justifications.

Instead of directly approaching legitimacy, this sub-chapter follows the information

presented by the stakeholder, revealing transparency and disclosure’s relationship between

actors and its situated nature.

Measures for transparency and disclosure were highlighted by Greenpeace in their

advocacy for the brands to improve their overall supply chain sustainability.

“Responsible Detox companies should set out a clear plan for the publication of precise,

relevant and locally accurate information on the use and discharge of hazardous chemicals

from individual facilities in their supply chains. It is crucial that local communities, the

general public and public interest organisations can regularly and easily access up to date

16 BI-10-P pp 22. 17 BI-8-S pp 12.

48

and detailed information, for example via the… IPE disclosure platform provides an existing,

well-known, publicly accessible and independent online database where a company’s

suppliers can disclose chemical discharge data.”18

The stakeholders, in turn, appear to mirror Greenpeace’s focus on the disclosure of data, and

state that the process of disclosure helps them in reaching their overall program goals. “In

order to achieve our goal of zero discharge of hazardous chemicals by 2020, mechanisms

for disclosure and transparency about the hazardous chemicals used in our global supply

chains are important and necessary.” 19

The RTK principle is a recurring point of discussion about transparency and

disclosure but it was mostly in regards to the questions, rather than any assertions from the

stakeholders themselves. This ‘right’ has been pushed into the agenda by Greenpeace and it

appears that this is not yet a demand of stakeholders, especially in Bangladesh. The lack of

interest in this ‘right’ raised questions regarding the ability to realize this right in developing

communities such as Bangladesh.

“Well first of all, it’s Greenpeace that wants the right to know. The first initiative is coming

from Greenpeace. I think this right to know approach is in legislation in Germany. I think

it’s really important to have a right to know for the people who are living in this area. On the

other hand, it has to be developed because it is one thing to have a right to know and it’s

another thing to actually search for this information. If you don’t have a society of people

who are searching for this information, then you don’t really benefit from it.”20

While Greenpeace perceives that all groups have a RTK, and therefore calls for the disclosure

of data to stakeholders including local communities, the study encountered perceptions that

suggest that groups such as local communities would not be able to comprehend the data that

could be disclosed. “It’s not too easy for them to understand the ZDHC but they can imagine

the color of the water going into the river.”21 22

18 ED-3-P pp 21. 19 ED-2-P pp 7. 20 EI-3-S. pp 35. 21 BI-14-P pp 34. 22 For visual confirmation of the water colour, see figure 16 in Appendix 11.

49

Even if they are presented with the data, it appears unlikely that the community

groups themselves would be able to comprehend it or know what to do with the data. For

example, one European interviewee said, “I know that there are some databases where there

are emission values of companies but I don’t know whether the communities of people there

could handle this information.”23 The communities will also have to develop the desire to

access this data and advocate for this right to companies and government officials “You have

to provide the rights but the society has to develop to really ask for that.”24

Some European and Bangladeshi stakeholders perceive government or

knowledgeable civil society organizations having a role in dealing with complex

environmental issues. They may be able to interpret the data released by the ZDHC

companies and then present this data in a simple form back to the communities. “I think the

big problem in those countries is that there (are) not enough NGOs who want to bring those

problems (up).”25

“Environmental organizations in Bangladesh should do this. CUA and BAPA for example.

Non-profits, NGOs, those who are happily engaged with these environmental issues in

Bangladesh. So these types of organizations can be the champions or the leading

organizations to solve the problem… We don’t have any alternatives to deal with these things

except to accept help from these non-profit organization groups.”26

The interviews suggest that while both groups of stakeholders believe that transparency and

disclosure activities are important, but that the European stakeholders with the help of NGOs

can only meaningfully interpret the data disclosed. Similar findings are reflected as

perspectives in terms of engagement: reflecting to whom the engagement is targeted and

which stakeholders can really be included in the process.

23 EI-4-S pp 58. 24 EI-3-S pp 35. 25 EI-4-S pp 54. 26 BI-10-P pp 26, 28.

50

5.2.3 Stakeholder Engagement

As in the previous chapter, stakeholders did not provide very strong normative statements

about stakeholder engagement. Hence, this sub-chapter also presents their perceptions in an

abstract way, also revealing stakeholder engagement’s relationship between actors and its

situated nature.

Both Bangladeshi and European stakeholders claimed that engagement with

stakeholders was important. This is because it offers the potential for financial partnership,

opens up communication channels, allows the ZDHC to gain information from the

stakeholder, and to increase the knowledge of the stakeholder about the ZDHC.

“So here there is multi-stakeholder engagement. The BGMEA, the government and the brand

partners, they discuss together all of the sustainability issues regarding the textile sector of

Bangladesh. So that gives us an opportunity to discuss with the government, to make a dialog

between the BGMEA and the government.”27

By engaging with stakeholders, some ZDHC members believe that they can increase

compliance in developing countries by increasing the level of understanding of monitoring

and enforcement agents in public or private agencies in sourcing countries.

“I think what we really want to do now is to engage with the countries that we operate in.

And get support and buy-in at the government level. So we’re seeing that start to happen

now, which is great. So we are seeing countries like China and India starting to take it to

task, to enforce regulations and to ensure that factories are operating responsibly and we

welcome that of course.”28

From the European side, the involvement of a diverse array of stakeholders was seen to be

helpful in achieving the central goals of the ZDHC.

“From government to institutions to universities to laboratories and the mills themselves. It

involves all stakeholders because it functions on them. So our success is based on the cross

collaboration between all these different stakeholders and that’s why the ZDHC is a success.

This is the only way I think we can reach our goal.”29

27 BI-14-P pp 40. 28 EI-1-P pp 12. 29 EI-2-P pp 55.

51

One European brand representative discussed the scope of what the ZDHC is working on.

While he said that every stakeholder is welcome to participate in the sessions, he also asserted

that the inclusion of stakeholders in the ZDHC’s decision making processes depends on the

activity or intellectual ‘tool’ that the ZDHC group is working on at the time.

“It all depends on which tools we are talking about. We involve different NGOS depending

on the relevant tools. For example, right now, you will see this in the newly released roadmap,

we are focusing on coming out with wastewater quality standards. We are inviting

wastewater specialists and stakeholders and NGOs to be part of that process. With our

MRSL, that involves the technical advisory committee. That is consisting of the associate

chemical companies that are part of the ZDHC but in addition; there are other associations

or NGOs that were consulted as well.”30

What seemed apparent in the Bangladesh case was it was important who the stakeholder

groups were that were included in the engagement activities. There were feelings of exclusion

among some of the more vulnerable stakeholder groups.

“Also you have to talk to the people who are from the localities. And interestingly, these

garments workers at the locality. Because they live in the area. So if the factory is emitting

more chemicals, then these chemicals are actually affecting these workers. Because the

factory owners don’t live there. They live in Gulshan or another neighborhood. The factory

workers live near the factories and they are the ones affected by the chemicals. So if anyone

wants to do something, they have to engage with these factory workers. Take their life history.

Take their everyday life and observational research. Then you will actually understand the

problems in the specific areas that need to focus on.”31 32

Overall, stakeholder engagement was considered to be a challenging activity, both by the

stakeholders in Bangladesh, but also by those stakeholders in Europe. The engagement

process is perceived to be a time consuming activity.

“…as it is such a large group, and with different interests, they have to compromise and

that’s why it takes quite long. On the other hand, there is no way out of it I think. Even as

30 EI-2-P pp 31. 31 BI-1-P pp 22. 32 For an example of community proximity to dyeing factories, see figure 17 in Appendix 11.

52

political decisions, also they have to be considered, or they have to make compromises that

take quite long. It is negative but there is no way out.”33

One challenge that was mentioned was in regards to the scope of the initiative itself. The

number of member brands is important, as it will help to determine the number of brands that

will follow the practices agreed upon at the ZDHC. Without adding more stakeholders, the

ZDHC’s global footprint would have a much smaller potential to reduce the overall

hazardous chemical discharges. By engaging a larger, more diverse group of stakeholders

and helping them commit to ZDHC targets, the ZDHC will have a much larger impact. This

point regarding members reflects a division between internal stakeholders to the ZDHC

(members) and external stakeholders (such as NGOs and associations). Which stakeholders

are involved, plays a role in creating change in the global supply chain.

“We really need to engage the global supply chain much more, so yes, we already have a lot

of US and European brands on board, that’s great. But we want to get local brands in places

like China and India on board as well so the outreach of ZDHC needs to really expand to

become more global than where we are now. This is a great platform but we are thinking big

really and that’s what we need to do.”34

While the expansion of brand partnerships and local corporate stakeholder partners in

supplying developing countries is important, engaging with established civil society

organizations is perceived to also be helpful for realizing the goals of the ZDHC. In this case,

it was suggested that partnering with a large NGO with deep connections could be helpful.

“I think what has really worked in other sustainability initiatives is connecting with other

partners, particularly ones that have access to funding and have commitments around

sustainability who can help them deliver, and fund sustainability projects in developing

countries. There are lots of opportunities there and think that’s what the ZDHC, I certainly

do at least think that they should be partnering with somebody like that to then kick start pilot

projects in the country. And we can do that. The great thing about doing that is that we’ll

have a sort of fast-track arm within the ZDHC that can get on with project, take a few more

risks, have resources behind it because the brands have only limited resources. So we can

33 EI-4-S pp 20. 34 EI-1-P pp 26.

53

access other resources and have local partners on the ground with expertise and we can also

access more funding as well to really scale this up.”35

Implementing the ZDHC Programme in Bangladesh is perceived to be a challenge because

of the weak institutional environment. The following sub-chapter will elaborate on this

theme.

5.3 Situational Challenges for the ZDHC in Bangladesh

5.3.1 Overview

The findings in this section arose organically through the normative perceptions of the

stakeholders regarding their socio-cultural environment. While this paper did pre-determine

this as a theme, the information provided interesting insights into the challenges of private

environmental standard setting in Bangladesh. These findings offer us information on the

constraints and enabling environment that an initiative in Bangladesh must work in, in order

to implement this agenda. This study presents a deeper explanation of the implications of this

in the discussion portion of this paper.

5.3.2 Fear and Secrecy

While conducting interviews in Bangladesh, the researcher noticed a general tension when

telling interviewees about the theme. In one case for example, when visiting a ZDHC-

supplying factory, the researcher was asked not to record the interview. One week later, while

visiting a government department, the official interviewee said “the textile industry is very

sensitive”.36 He noted that to talk about the textile industry, he would need special permission

from the government minister responsible for his department and that if he spoke about it, he

could be in serious trouble. He consented to notetaking, but told the researcher not to record

the interview or ask questions from the interview guide, instead, he would provide answers

to the topics he chose. Regarding fear of speaking about the textile industry, another

interviewee agreed that it was a general problem for Bangladeshi people but that he was more

35 EI-1-P pp 28. 36 BI-5-S pp 3.

54

free to speak than others “if somebody tells, me “if you open your mouth, I’ll shoot you,’ they

can’t… I have a huge backing of the army, and I’m a patriot.”37

5.3.3 The Bangladeshi State

The reason for this fear and secrecy surrounding the textile industry may be related to the

close relationship between the Government and the textile industry, which developed through

historical processes. While the textile industry was once entirely run by the state, the

privatization in the 1970s, provided an easy avenue for existing political leaders to purchase

businesses through insider channels.

“Yeah we just tried but I um felt some things which are concerned about the power structure

or something like that because the people who is taking this one are, they emit politically or

locally in a powerful person, they should say. They, I mean the factory owners, or the top

management, some have campaigned to give them. If we, I mean concentrate on this issue, I

think we will not be in such a, not be able to do something better.”38

While some of the interviewees inferred that the relationship occurred at the higher levels of

power, one community interviewee described it as a political business nexus. This nexus does

not only exist at the upper echelons of power, but also at the community level, making even

cleaning the canals difficult for the government: “It’s a political-business nexus. Some people

want to clean it and they raise their voice to government and the government has the intention

to clean it but the problem is that the owner of the place is a muscle man. A political man.”39

Despite the apparent challenges to transparent and effective legal enforcement

because of political-business linkages, the Bangladesh Government appears to understand

the need to be responsive to those concerned about the environmental impacts from the textile

industry “directly, the Department would like to know from the people if they have a

complaint. So every month have open meetings so everyone can join. This is the meet the

37 BI-7-S pp 60. 38 BI-13-P pp 24. 39 B1-9-P pp 49.

55

people program.”40 This desire to talk and to step out of the nexus and engage with common

Bangladeshis may be related to the growing awareness among its citizenry.

5.3.4 Civil Society and Growing Awareness

The political-business pressures also have an impact on civil society, as they require the

support of government to take action. “It’s a political bias. When there is a government

intervention, there is a politicization. So an NGO cannot do things on their own wind.”41

Bangladesh’s civil society organizations are perceived as generally weak in terms of dealing

with issues such as pollution. Since these programs are vulnerable to business pressures due

to the political-business linkages, sometimes tensions boil over for affected communities,

resulting in violent clashes.

“There was a factory manager that received a visit from a German brand representative.

This representative convinced him that he should invest in an ETP. The German told him that

is would be easy do to it and that he can make his installation expenses back within 8-9

months. The ETP did not work after it was finished. Nearby rice paddies were flooded with

chemicals. These rice paddies were essential for the survival of villagers nearby. The local

villagers were very angry and surrounded the factory holding bamboo weapons. The factory

manager feared for his life. He called his powerful uncle to come and save him. The uncle

facilitated contact with the villagers, responding that they would contain the chemicals. This

calmed the villagers and the factory manager was safe. The factory managed to build a

containment wall around the area where the chemicals were discharged, making it safe,”4243

Despite the lack of formal civil society organizations to advocate for hazardous chemical

discharge controls, grassroots movements appear to be advocating in regards to these issues.

“From my childhood, I was reared up with this situation. As the days passed, awareness grew

in my mind. And also I thought why me alone? Let’s form a movement. So we formed a youth

club… It’s a movement against any different type of social issues. We are very much

40 BI-5-S pp 13. 41 BI-11-P pp 11. 42 BI-3A-P pp 84. 43 See section 5.3.5 for further analysis on this passage.

56

concerned about our community. One or two times a year, we clean the environment on our

own.”44

These locally driven initiatives can in turn be met with repression and even violence from

the Bangladesh government when advocating for environmental issues: “Even a lot of

conflict arises. When government and groups conflict on the issue of cleaning this canal,

there is conflict. And lots of people died.”4546 In this case, the interviewee said that these

clashes between community environmental movements and the government occurs at least

once a year. The fact that some of these clashes result in loss of life on the side of community

members is a further reflection of the state of politics in Bangladesh, where community

members sometimes fear their government. It also reflects how important these protests must

be to the community members if they are willing to face the government and risk reprisal.

Civil society groups are perceived as becoming more aware of hazardous chemical

discharge and its impact on their health as well as the impacts on agriculture and aquaculture:

“The awareness has increased. People are more concerned about the garments industries in

developed countries. In general, people understand that chemicals are bad. So people are

very much conscious about this. In general, the civil people understand it.”47

Civil society movements to reduce environmental pollution from the textile industry

are perceived to be aided by environmental education programs and other awareness raising

activities.

“So the awareness program – the mass level awareness campaign is extremely important.

For example, the school children. The school children, if we can impart this training to them.

If these people (children) protest around the factory, saying you are killing us, stop killing us

because the pollution is coming to our food. Stop doing that. I think it will be a nice way to

shape their ethical issues.”48

The European government stakeholder also iterated the need for NGOs to be present, as they

have the ability to increase public awareness of environmental issues. “People there have

44 BI-9-P pp 15, 17. 45 BI-9-P pp 68. 46 Garbage and buildings constructed in the community canals causes hazardous dye water to flood onto

streets and into homes. See figure 19 in Appendix 11. 47 BI-6-S pp 31. 48 BI-8-S pp 20.

57

many different and other problems as well and of course they should know but it should come

so that they can understand it. I think the big problem in those countries is that there is not

enough NGOs who want to bring those problems.”49

Overall, the stakeholders may be suggesting that a virtuous cycle could be created by

increasing the both public awareness and civil society or NGO activist movement as an

increase in one will increase the presence of the other.

5.3.5 Accountability and Responsibility

The extended account in section 5.3.450 regarding the producer who faced the wrath of the

local village reflects the tensions and power dynamics between local communities and textile

producers. On the other hand, this story also offers insight into the relationship between

producers and international buyers, specifically why producers may not trust international

buyers, and in turn their standards. In the story, the producer assumed all of the risk by trying

to build an ETP, and faced the consequences alone when his attempt to comply with the

standard failed. This story suggests that there are perceptions that international buyers do not

take responsibility for their standards and that they are not accountable for the compliance of

these standards.

5.3.6 Corruption and Cheating on Standards

Any progress that is made in terms of civic awareness seems still likely to confront another

prevalent challenge. Corruption was a repeated theme throughout the interviews with the

Bangladeshi stakeholders. Many of the problems are related to the brands’ own monitoring

inspections of textile mills and factories. Some of the Bangladeshi stakeholders assert that

buyers are naïve to think that their standards are being upheld while there are easy incentives

to show compliance while actually cutting costs though non-compliance of the standards. For

example, one former chemical engineer asserted that it was common practice for certified

factories to outsource much of their production to other factories which are not certified and

49 EI-4-S pp 54. 50 BI-3A-P pp 84.

58

have much weaker environmental performance, thereby skirting the regulations set out by

the buyer.51

Likewise, corruption is an important problem, as government officials sometimes do

not enforce their regulations. As this stakeholder asserts however, they are still the preferred

agent to monitor and enforce the textile industry.

“If it works, obviously the government. Because they have the whole infrastructure. They can

come in. It’s pretty powerful. If the DOE, Department of Environment staff comes at anytime,

they have to open the door and let them come in. So that’s not an issue. The question is

corruption, and did they get a bribe to do all that.”52

Not all of the corruption involves direct forms of bribery. In some instances, the international

buyer simply overlooks the factory owners’ method of ‘cheating’ the system.

“You should visit a factory. Do it also in the middle of the night. It’s when they do most of

the dyeing. The reason is you can discharge while bypassing the system. Did you know that

they even have a fake biological system? Where there is actually nothing going on. They will

actually dump bacteria in there before a buyer comes.”53

While the European stakeholders never brought up the question of corruption as a challenge

to the implementation of the ZDHC standards, when asked, they said that if this was a

problem and that it should be addressed. These European stakeholders, however, expressed

doubt that the ZDHC could effectively work on these challenges on their own, without

engaging local partners.

“Yeah and that’s something where the ZDHC will be helpless, concerning corruption. That’s

something where probably where the political level could intervene or could rather have an

influence because corruption is something where most of the people are helpless. So that’s why I

said you have to talk to them and ask them what their real problems are. And if it’s really an

effluent plant or corruption because people are paying it off, then that’s something where we

could join forces to solve the problem.”54

51 BI-11-P pp 29. 52 BI-7-S pp 48. 53 BI-7-S 86. 54 EI-3-S pp 45.

59

5.4 Legitimacy

5.4.1 Legitimacy from a Bangladeshi Perspective

5.4.1.1 Industrial world in Bangladesh

The world55 that recurred the most in Bangladesh during moments critiques was the industrial

world. The recurring abstract objects or concepts from the industrial world during moments

critiques were ‘standards’56 and ‘chemical management.’57 These objects both reflect the

industrial world’s values as creating measurable criteria that can be used to optimize a

system. Recurring objects of debate were ‘ETPs’58, ‘factories’59 and ‘factory owners’60 and

‘management.’61 These objects reflect the situated nature of this world: within the realm of

productive systems. The following passage uses some of the terms while denouncing the

management of chemical sludge from the ETP. It uses an industrial world justification that

there is ‘less monitoring,’ which means there is worse performance. Hence, implying that

technical management of the substance would be better.

“The final out product of this ETP is environmentally sound. That is, I cannot tell you that

much. What I understand is that the sludge of that ETP is not managed properly. The sludge

is taken by some unlisted vendor but there is very less monitoring where this sludge is going.

Another important thing is containing of this chemical. This is not properly disposed of. I

mean that this is not properly handled over to the suppliers.”6263

5.4.1.2 Civic World in Bangladesh

The second most prevalent world theme found was the civic world. To make their argument,

the interviews primarily drew on objects in their local context. The most prevalent object was

55 Refer to section 3.6.1 for an overview of the different worlds. 56 See for example BI-7-S pp 26. 57 See for example BI-13-P pp 6. 58 See for example BI-4-S pp 22. 59 See for example BI-1-P pp 20. 60 See for example BI-10-P pp 42. 61 See for example BI-3A-P pp 84. 62 BI-13-P pp 18. 63 The stakeholder refers to the dye barrel. See figure 18 in Appendix 11.

60

‘rules and regulation’. These correspond with the civic world’s collective and equal

application of formal and official conditions for all. While this theme was often used in

relation to local laws and legislation, it was also referring to ZDHC rules and regulation.

“We don’t control them because that will be a problem to them but our domestic law is

enough to control them.”64

“On the other hand, the brands like C&A and H&M, the big brands, comes up with strong

commitment and they enforce regularly with a big monitoring team so they are more or less

bound to follow the ZDHC regulations.”65

Recurring critique focused on the political structure of initiatives based on the civic world’s

need for representativeness. One example of this is the theme of ‘bottom-up versus top down’

political construction of private initiatives, thereby referencing the civic world’s need for

equality among actors. This theme referred to the idea that initiatives affecting a certain group

should be led by that group, rather than led by outsiders. “This (the ZDHC) is a top-down

approach because Nike and Adidas, these big names are doing these things because they

have pressure, internationally. They have to do this to sustain their market.”66

The key object of debate was the Government of Bangladesh. The state represents the

ultimate formal collective authority in the civic world. During moments critiques, this theme

was used to describe the types of challenges that the ZDHC faces, the need for collaboration

with the government, and the relationship between government legislation and responsibility

and ZDHC rules and responsibilities.

“I think that the responsibility relies not only in the factory owners or the government

because they are both part of the game...You are pushing the country people and the

government. The government has its own standard but if you are to sort of ensure more

64 BI-4-S pp 62. 65 BI-14-P pp 12. 66 BI-1-P pp 20.

61

standards, then wouldn’t you sort of help those companies or help those people to make their

environment a little bit better?”67

5.4.1.3 Market world in Bangladesh

The market world was also prevalent in the Bangladeshi moments critique. The central joint

theme here is ‘price’ and ‘cost.’68 Which reflect the market world’s framing of legitimacy

along competitive economic terms. Some of the other objects of debate were ‘international

brands and retailers’69 and ‘buyers,’70 and these terms reflect positions occupied in a

competitive marketplace. While some stakeholders defended their positions in relation to the

cost of ZDHC compliance, others criticize the international brand members for their insistent

focus on cutting costs in a competitive industry, when improvements in environmental

practices cost money.

“Look, one thing is that the international retailers, frankly speaking, as a marginal

international interest, comes here for low price products. It’s obviously true because once

the textile factories were located in England, USA and then in Germany. Then they shifted to

Asians and in Asians, like China and Cambodia and from China it’s shifting to Bangladesh,

India and Pakistan. The reason is that here the price is low. So the factories are very

conscious of the pricing so the main challenge is that better chemistry is always more

costly.”71

5.4.1.4 Green World in Bangladesh

Of special note in the Bangladeshi case is the inclusion of the green world. In particular,

Bangladeshi stakeholders argued that water usage was important, as a looming water shortage

or crisis was perceived to be an important factor. This reflected the green world’s need for

sustainable natural environments for future generations. The dyeing industry uses a lot of

water and the types of chemicals used in the processing play a role in the amount of water

67 BI-8-S pp 14. 68 See for example BI-3A-P pp 30. 69 See for example BI-8-S pp 14. 70 See for example BI-13-P pp 28. 71 BI-14-P pp 12.

62

used: “This biggest problem is not what is coming out; it is how much they are extracting

from the groundwater that they get free. Cause when the groundwater runs dry, what’s going

to happen? They’ll move somewhere else.”72 Environmental progress was tied to this concept

as well as the green world’s focus on ‘sustainability.’ During moments critiques, these themes

were always referred to in a positive way. In the case below, a CSR worker for one of the

member brands defends the ZDHC’s initiative by saying that it is helping to produce lasting

positive changes for the environment.

“The brands from those countries are very much conscious of the environment. So those

organizations are in the countries that I had to work more intensively with environmental

issues. I have to say that they are working really, very good. They are working very detailed

and they are looking to make sustainable changes in this environmental practice here in

Bangladesh. It’s already begun in this industry. Which is a really good experience for me

and I have good feelings that they are really engaged and they are doing it the way it should

be.” 73

5.4.2 Legitimacy from a European Perspective

5.4.2.1 Industrial World in Europe

The world that recurred most in the European interviews was the industrial world.

Abstract concepts used included ‘implementation of initiatives’, a ‘long-term industrial

perspective’ and ‘supply chains’. These reflect the technical, managerial position of the

industrial world that aims to create long-term, systemic change. In this example, a brand

representative justifies the launch of the ZDHC’s manufactured restricted substances list

(MRSL) in terms of long-term change in the industry: “The launch of the ZDHC MRSL last

year was sort of a key, crucial moment and it was a great step change in the industry. We’ve

adopted that and we’re working with that, with our suppliers now. But it’s a long road and

we’re on that journey now.”74

72 BI-7-S pp 16. 73 BI-6-S pp 5. 74 E1-1-P pp 10.

63

A key object of reference was in regards to ‘chemistry’ and the ‘type of chemical

used.’ These terms both reflect the industrial world’s focus on technology and science as

responses to optimize a productive system. Some of the statements were critiques of ZDHC

brands in terms of their failure to realize a target for a specific group of chemicals: “Each of

these companies has rejected its responsibility to take full individual corporate action to

eliminate the identified hazardous chemicals PFCs.”75 A similar defense was common

among the brands who agree that targeting specific chemicals is important yet argue that they

are performing well within this domain, asserting that it technical management practices can

improve the system overall because “intelligent application of chemistry can

help make the world a better place.”76

5.4.2.2 Civic World in Europe

The civic world was also prevalent in the European case. The most common abstract

concept was ‘regulation’. The theme of ‘International NGOs’ also featured prominently, with

many references to Greenpeace. The other key object of reference was the Bangladeshi

government. The following example by a ZDHC brand representative insinuates that just

because local laws exist, it does not mean that the government is enforcing them, and that

this is an area where the ZDHC can work with government: “And also I think location-wise,

there are also the regulations. Or, I shouldn’t say regulations. All of the countries involved,

let’s say China and Bangladesh, they have laws and regulations, however, in terms of

checking - that’s a challenge.”77

5.4.2.3 Domestic World in Europe

In the domestic world, the moments critiques referred primarily to two objects: (1)

‘responsibility’ and (2) ‘coordination - collaboration.78’ The following stakeholder uses

responsibility first as an abstraction to describe what a company needs to take seriously. “I

75 ED-3-P pp 3. 76 ED-2-P pp 2. 77 EI-2-P pp 11. 78 Collaboration and cooperation can also belong to the civic world. See Section 6.2.5 for a further analysis of

collaboration and cooperation.

64

would say that on one hand, you have the single companies which have of course the

responsibility for their supply chain but sometimes they don’t take this responsibility very

seriously.”79 Responsibility corresponds to the domestic world’s focus on esteem and trust80

to the unit to which it belongs. In this case, its unit includes its company and its company’s

commitments.

In terms of cooperation and collaboration, stakeholders use it to justify motivations

and action of the ZDHC. Cooperation and collaboration can represent the discrete

relationships and personal dependencies valued in the domestic world. More cooperation and

collaboration is always considered ‘better’.

“So our success is based on the cross collaboration between all these different stakeholders

and that’s why the ZDHC is a success. This is the only way I think we can reach our goal.

Our commitment that by 2020, we’re not going to have the discharge of hazardous

chemicals.”81

“So this initiative could help to bundle the responsibilities of the single companies and it

might work out better because they have more power on the market. So at least some

companies say that they don’t have that power to change everything that they are a player

because their market share is only 10% or less and they think they can’t do anything to

change their supply chain. But if they are part of these initiatives, they have big power there

and I think they have to use this and to really go through the whole supply chain.”82

5.4.2.4 Fame World in Europe

The world of fame was predicated on two abstract objects: ‘credibility’ and ‘greenwashing.’

These reference the fame world as they both represent worth derived from the public opinions

of others. Greenwashing however, was primarily only present in one set of critiques from

one stakeholder: Greenpeace. Credibility appears to be the antithesis of Greenwashing and is

79 EI-4-S pp 24. 80 See also the connection with section 5.3.5 where the buyer showed a lack of responsibility, prompting

critique. 81 EI-2-P pp 55. 82 EI-4-S pp 24.

65

used both by Greenpeace and by other ZDHC stakeholders to defend and critique the

initiative.

“Those that have failed to act with the scale and urgency necessary towards their

commitments, hiding behind collective inaction and paper promises, find themselves in the

Greenwashers category… A credible programme of elimination needs to include the whole

group of PFCs as well as the entire product range of the company concerned, leading to the

elimination of this group of chemicals.”83

5.4.3 Comparing the two sets of perspectives on legitimacy

5.4.3.1 Overview of Comparison

In order to visualize the worlds, the inductive codes representing themes were ordered into

the appropriate worlds based on the theoretical framework criteria.84 Figures 14 and 15

visualize quantitative properties, yet they are meant as visual aids only. The themes were

repeated in moments critiques a minimum of three times, with a maximum of twenty-five

times. The size of the themes contained in each world reflects the amount of times it the

theme was identified in moments critiques. Highlighted themes are common to both the

Bangladesh and European moments critiques.

83 ED-3-P pp 17, 21. 84 Refers to section 3.6.1.

66

Figure 10 Principles of equivalence within economies of worth or ‘worlds’ of legitimacy in Bangladesh.

Figure 11 Principles of equivalence within ‘worlds’ of legitimacy in Europe.

5.4.3.2 Industrial World Comparisons

67

The industrial world played a central role in the moments critiques for both Bangladeshi and

European stakeholders, however the objects used were different in each case, seeming to

reflect objects at hand in each particular geographical region. As the industrial world consists

of the long-term maintenance of a productive system85, the objects at hand reflect the

productive system in the given country. In the case of Bangladesh, the primary objects related

to the factories themselves, which makes sense given that factories and textile mills,

including their component management and wastewater treatment facilities are located in the

country. Factories were a reference point during critique and defense. For example, one

affected community member states “the water is clear so the factory is good. They have an

ETP,”86 meaning the factory is functioning as a location for positive or negative performance,

potentially regarding the ZDHC’s supply chain activities. This becomes especially

interesting when other Bangladeshi stakeholders combine themes from the industrial world

and compare within it. In this case, a chemical expert engages in critique by asking whether

a ZDHC member is technically capable of testing compliance in an effluent treatment plant

in a factory:

“So for example I can go into the factory and ask them where is the bypass valve? If you are

bypassing the whole treatment plant, you’re not going to put it right here ‘oh this is my bypass

valve.’ It’s going to be hidden somewhere, or paved underneath something. So you have to

be savvy to do that. So a kid at 6 months experience, does he have that? No. Let alone a

foreigner who just comes from Sweden, also disoriented from the heat.”87

On the other hand, the European interviewees took an approach that focused more on the

types of chemicals used in production. This appeared to stem from their focus on improving

the input chemicals as a way to reduce hazardous chemical discharge. This type of value

could be seen as less ‘hands on’ or more academic, as the legitimating activity could be

coordinated though an office directing the productive supply chain system. The focus on the

entire supply chain gave these appeals a more holistic character. As one European brand

stakeholder states:

85 For a reference to the industrial world, refer to Figure 7 in section 3.6.1. 86 BI-9-P pp 8. 87 BI-7-S pp 50.

68

“And in terms of Fluorocarbons, we made a policy to phase them out by 2016, and again we

are making good progress there. So we’re around about 70%, well actually 75% PFC free

at the moment and we are making good progress with that policy. So in those terms, related

to Detox, we are making good progress with that policy. So last year, we were among the

leading brands in terms of Detox progress.”88

5.4.3.3 Civic World Comparisons

The second world common to both sets of interviewee groups is the civic world. While both

groups used the Bangladeshi government as an object of reference, the abstract-conceptual

frameworks used were quite different between the groups. Only Bangladeshi interviews cited

political formulation of the initiative as important. They referred to a bottom-up approach as

a desirable characteristic of this internal political formation of brand CSR initiatives. For

example, this Bangladeshi NGO asserts that having input for any initiative that affects

someone requires the affected person to be included from the political conception of the

initiative.

“You are planning for the person but he is not a stakeholder. He is your beneficiary. What

kind of joke it is. If a person does not have ownership of your program, then how are you

going to implement the project? If a person comes to my organization to work, first my

responsibility is to fill this person with ownership of the organization. He or she has to have

the same vision I have. Otherwise we can’t achieve the goal. This is the same in any kind of

project. If both of the people don’t understand their perspectives, they can’t achieve the

goal”89

The European stakeholders did refer to the importance of inclusion to stakeholder groups.

However, this is a very different perception than those in Bangladesh who advocated for a

bottom-up institutional design. In the European case, the political movement starts from the

top, and then constituent members are added in a process of consultation, instead of as

founding partners.

88 EI-I-P pp 20. 89 BI-1-P pp 37.

69

“We really need to engage the global supply chain much more, so yes, we already have a lot

of US and European brands on board, that’s great. But we want to get local brands in places

like China and India on board as well so the outreach of ZDHC needs to really expand to

become more global than where we are now. This is a great platform but we are thinking big

really and that’s what we need to do.”90

The European group referred to regulation as an abstract concept, suggesting its inclusion as

a legitimating factor would be at a strategic or managerial level.

“These chemicals are still being found in effluent from their supply chain manufacturers, in

their products and in the environment, despite decades of regulation and corporate

responsibility programmes.”91

“We are starting to see that happen at the moment and that is being driven by the suppliers

themselves, bringing in new technology and also having to conform to new regulation, like

in China for example.”92

The Bangladeshi stakeholders took a more practical approach, drawing on more concrete

example of regulation in action, especially through the topic of monitoring and enforcement.

“The international buyers do not come to investigate how people are living and how this

polluted water is affecting them. They only see the building standards, and the building code,

and whether the retailers have any proper facilities of an ETP or not. They don’t come to

investigate here to see what’s happening.”93

5.4.3.4 A near Absence of Inspiration

One interesting point worth noting is that the study did not find strong evidence of the

inspired world in moments critiques of either the Bangladeshi or the European stakeholders.

The only sub theme that may be considered part of this world was the lightly repeated theme

of ‘innovation.’94 This referenced the inspired worlds value in creating something new or

novel. Another interesting point is that one Bangladeshi stakeholder cited religion as a basis

90 EI-1-P pp 26. 91 ED-3-P pp 3. 92 EI-1-P pp 26. 93 BI-9-P pp 44. 94 See for example ED-2-P pp 6.

70

for legitimate action.95 This point is worth mentioning because it is so unique in comparison

with the themes in the other worlds identified. The paper discusses this comparison of the

worlds in terms of stakeholder engagement, disclosure and situational challenges in the

following chapter.

6. Discussion

6.1 Conceptualizing the Findings and Analysis

The introduction showed that private standard-setting global governance organizations use

stakeholder engagement and transparency/disclosure activities, as they perceive them to

increase the legitimacy of the organization.96 The study then shows that the ZDHC uses these

two types of activities, presumably because they also perceive it to increase legitimacy.97

These aspects in part led to the formation of the research question,98 which asked how

stakeholders in Bangladesh and in Europe perceive the ZDHC, as well as what this says about

the legitimacy of the ZDHC and its legitimacy-gaining activities.

The literature review revealed the need to use a descriptive theoretical framework that

gives a voice to the perceptions of the stakeholders themselves, while avoiding a positivist

normative framework to answer the research questions.99 The theoretical framework that was

able to address these criteria was pragmatic sociology. The following chapter reveals the

pragmatic sociological approach before asserting how the theory allows this study to

approach the research questions.100 It states that this paper examines stakeholder engagement

and transparency/ disclosure, pragmatic forms of legitimacy derived from worlds, and other

related perspectives on the ZDHC that arise organically through data collection.101 The

methodology further reveals the necessity for the researcher’s post positivist perspective,102

95 See section BI-11-P pp 37-43. 96 Referring to section 1.3 97 Referring to section 1.4.2 98 Referring to section 1.5 99 Referring to section 2, especially 2.1.3 & 2.2.3 100 Referring to section 3 101 Referring to section 3.7 102 Referring to section 4.1

71

requiring that the findings follow the normative perceptions revealed by stakeholders

organically. While the findings on transparency and disclosure103 and legitimacy104 were

structured in a manner that flowed from aspects highlighted by stakeholder, the situational

challenges sub-chapter105 allowed for a stronger post-positivist approach, and only unplanned

perceptions about the stakeholders’ situation were revealed.

The analysis aims to take the stakeholder’s perceptions one-step further by situating

stakeholder engagement and transparency/disclosure within the respective socio-cultural

frameworks and then discussing the implications of the stakeholder engagement and

transparency/disclosure within the situation. As discussed in the theoretical framework

chapter, the actors’ situations contain worlds as bases of legitimacy for collective action. By

using worlds and the situational challenges perceived by the stakeholders, the following two

sub-chapters proceed by first examining situated bases of legitimacy for stakeholder

engagement and then situated bases of legitimacy in transparency/disclosure. Together this

responds to the research questions posed in this study regarding what the perceptions of

stakeholders are towards the ZDHC and how this pertains to the legitimacy of the initiative

and its legitimacy-gaining activities. Next, the discussion analyzes and discusses the answers

to the research question,106 before offering critical reflections on the theoretical

framework.107

6.2 Engagement and Legitimacy

6.2.1 Overview

In order to respond to the research questions, this sub-chapter and its subsequent chapter use

worlds to reveal what is considered appropriate about the ZDHC’s stakeholder engagement

and transparency/disclosure activities. What is appropriate for a stakeholder is derived from

their base of legitimacy from a given world. This sub-section also reveals some of the

103 Referring to section 5.2, especially 5.2.2 and 5.2.3. 104 Referring to section 5.4 105 Referring to section 5.3 106 Referring to section 6.4 107 Referring to section 6.5

72

inherent tensions between the worlds, as what is inherently appropriate in one world may not

be appropriate in another world. This raises questions regarding whether the ZDHC is

meeting these challenges. In terms of engagement and legitimacy, there appears to be a strong

importance of the civic world and the industrial world.

6.2.2 Civic Legitimacy Bases for Engagement

Civic bases for legitimacy were strongly represented in both stakeholder groups and this has

important implications for the way the ZDHC engages with stakeholders. In the civic world,

"individual human beings can be seen as relevant and worthy only as they belong to a group

or as they are the representatives of a collective person [...] Relationships should mobilize

people for collective action" (Boltanski, Thévenot 1999, p. 372). One pervasive question is

who might be mobilized to produce the collective action of the ZDHC, sparking political

questions of representation and stakeholder democracy.

Representativeness is important from the perspectives of European stakeholders who

believe that by involving a diverse group of stakeholders, it can help achieve the common

goals of the ZDHC.108 Irwin et al. looked at public engagement rather than stakeholder

engagement thorough pragmatic sociology (2013, p. 126), yet their findings may be apt for

comparison here. They found that civic legitimacy was tied to the size of the group engaged

and the group included people who were pertinent to the initiative. In the case of the ZDHC,

one group from the civic world that appeared repeatedly in both the European and

Bangladeshi interviewee groups was the local government in the supplying country.109

Legitimate engagement would likely include this group, as it not only adds representativeness

but also stakeholder democracy, a related concept from the civic world.

The ‘grassroots’ democracy argument110 which suggests that movements created

from the bottom-up may be more legitimate than the top-down contain powerful implications

for stakeholder democracy. While the ZDHC was already initiated as a top-down movement,

they face legitimacy challenges regarding the feelings of exclusion that some groups feel

108 See for example BI-1-P pp 22. 109 See for example BI-4-S pp 61-64, BI-7-S pp 40, EI-4-S pp 34, and EI-3-S pp 45. 110 See for example BI-1-P pp 20.

73

toward brand driven initiatives. While it would likely be impossible to organize the

Bangladeshi people en masse to participate in the initiative, there may be opportunities for

groups representing civic legitimacy such as the Bangladeshi Government to represent these

people, providing a basis of legitimacy. One challenge to addressing this issue would be

regarding the Government’s secrecy around the textile industry.111 This begs the question of

whether the Government is truly reflecting the voices of citizens, or rather the voices of the

businesses with which they are connected.112 Despite the different context, Irwin et al. also

noted a parallel challenge regarding whether the engagement process really promotes dialog

or whether it actually restricts the possibilities for choice by feigning stakeholder openness

and dialogue (2013, p. 127). If the standards that the ZDHC is working on include dialog and

public justifications accessible to all stakeholders, it may be legitimate. This confirms Gilbert

and Rasche’s argument that this type of engagement can help the legitimacy of a standard-

setting organization (2007, p. 14).

6.2.3 Industrial Legitimacy Bases for Engagement

The industrial world113 also plays a strong role in the legitimate engagement of stakeholders,

by forming ‘how’ the stakeholders are engaged and who engages them. This world values

efficiency and professional skills and experience. Like its constitutive object, the ZDHC

supply chain, this world focuses on producing material goods and like the ZDHC programme,

it attempts to plan for the future through strategic investment (Boltanski, Thévenot 1999,

p. 372).

Patriotta et al. also found industrial legitimacy in an environmental crisis and

movement. Their study used pragmatic sociology to examine a debate on the legitimacy of

nuclear power in Germany, finding the industrial world to be the most commonly used basis

for legitimacy (2011, pp. 1815–1816). Findings suggest that stakeholders often stressed the

need for specialization and expertise,114 suggesting a technocratic form of legitimacy. A

111 See for example BI-5-S pp 3. 112 See for example B1-9-P pp 49. 113 See for example BI-13-P pp 18, ED-3-P pp 3, ED-2-P pp 2, BI-9-P pp 8, BI-7-S pp 50. 114 See for example BI-7-S pp 50 & EI-1-P pp 28.

74

technocratic argument borrows heavily from the industrial world (Patriotta et al. 2011,

p. 1826).

The findings suggest that technocrats are expected to produce impacts and outcomes

through planning and that stakeholder engagement can help with this goal.115 This was

particularly evident in the European interviews. In particular, some stakeholders suggested

that engagement could help facilitate monitoring and enforcement activities in developing

countries. On the other hand, the industrial world prizes efficiency so to be legitimate, the

process itself should not be burdensome. Irwin et al. also found this to be a consideration

during their study of public engagement in scientific research (2013, pp. 126–127).

The inclusion of stakeholders that have particular experience and specialization is

important for industrial legitimacy. One example of this would be how the European

stakeholders wish to include the chemical industry,116 as they have both the chemical

expertise and the ability to carry out the processes needed to reach the initiative’s goals.

6.2.4 Market Legitimacy Bases for Engagement

Relatively speaking, the market world appears to play a minor role in engagement, as

stakeholder engagement through the ZDHC focuses more on achieving common goals in the

industrial perspective rather than by connecting “with one another through competitive

relationships" (Boltanski, Thévenot 1999, p. 372). On the other hand, one European

stakeholder claimed that engagement could help them develop financial partnerships via the

opening of communications channels.117 For Bangladeshi stakeholders, profit was found to

be a significant legitimating factor.118 While this aspect does not appear competitive, it does

reinforce the fact that the drivers behind the initiative are private businesses looking to make

a profit, and that legitimate engagement must not hurt profitability.

115 See for example EI-1-P pp 12 & EI-2-P pp 31. 116 See for example EI-2-P pp 19. 117 See for example EI-I-P pp 28. 118 See for example BI-3AB pp 40, BI-4-S pp 16, BI-8-S pp 39, BI-13-P pp 48-50, BI-14-P pp 10.

75

6.2.5 Domestic Legitimacy Bases for Engagement

The way that people work together is important from a personal-familiar basis. In the

domestic world, who one choses to collaborate with is also important as "worth depends on

a hierarchy of trust based on a chain of personal dependencies" (Boltanski, Thévenot 1999,

p. 371). The findings suggest that European stakeholder hold collaboration and coordination

to be especially important.119 While the expansion of the ZDHC stakeholder engagement has

always been a goal of the ZDHC, an interesting question is with which NGO and civil society

stakeholders the group chooses to collaborate. Different civil society organizations have

different relationships with different stakeholders. As Marno and Tashman found,

collaborating with well-connected NGOs can increase the social legitimacy of an MNE

(2011, p. 1122), but this may also apply to a multi-stakeholder private initiatives such as the

ZDHC. The engagement of well-established, trusted organization120 provides a grounding in

domestic forms of legitimacy.

6.2.6 Tensions and Syntheses between Worlds

In the findings, the study revealed worlds used in justification in which objects were tested,

suggesting an importance of those objects to legitimacy. While some of these themes were

placed into world categories, not all of these themes belong exclusively to one world as they

have elements belonging to more than one world. Other themes suggest tensions between

worlds that have mutually incompatible characters. In reality, “Coordinating actors have to

deal with the empirical reality of a plurality of conventions, they have to cope with conflicts

between conventions and they have to work out compromises” (Diaz-Bone 2011, p. 56).

One tension in stakeholder engagement is between the market and the industrial

world. This is drawn from the complaint that stakeholder engagement is perceived to be a

time consuming process.121 While the market world values the short-term ‘time is money’

perspective, the industrial world values a long-term perspective and focuses on performance

and outcome. In this regard, legitimacy must be drawn from a balance between the two

119 See for example EI-2-P pp 45 120 See for example EI-I-P pp 28. 121 See for example EI-2-P pp 20.

76

worlds. Efficiency of stakeholder engagement could be key to meeting the legitimacy

demands of both worlds.

Another significant tension is between the civic world and the industrial world. While

the civic world demands significant stakeholder representation and elements of stakeholder

democracy, the industrial world prefers specialization and expertise, a necessarily limiting

virtue for the selection and inclusion of stakeholders. The findings reflect results from Irwin

et al.’s study on public engagement for science research. Researchers found that the civic

world was utilized to criticize the "technocratic arrogance" of the industrial world, instead

arguing for appropriate representation (Irwin et al. 2013, p. 123). It is more difficult for

Bangladeshi stakeholders to meet the technocratic expectations for engagement as the overall

level of knowledge is lower,122 however, the training that ZDHC bodies provide123 may be

increasing their skill level , making them ‘legitimate’ stakeholders capable of working on

some of the ZDHC’s intellectual ‘tools’.

One final point on engagement is a synthesis between the domestic world and the

civic world. While the original thematic coding placed ‘collaboration and coordination’

under the domestic world, it contains elements grounding legitimacy in both worlds.

Collaboration is a constituent element of stakeholder democracy and working together for an

overall, common ‘good’, indicative of the civic world. It also represents discrete bonds

between actors who choose to work together and trust each other, an important aspect from

the domestic world. The importance of this crossover is also reflected in Berstein and

Cashore’s note that international environmental institutions are increasingly under pressure

for both collaboration and stakeholder democracy (2007, p. 7). While collaboration refers to

the discrete relations and units indicative of the domestic world, stakeholder democracy

refers to the participatory, representative and egalitarian aspects of the civic world. It appears

that the ZDHC is taking this seriously, as it arose organically in justification from multiple

European stakeholders directly involved with the programme.124

122 See for example BI-8-S pp 43. 123 See for example BI-2-P pp 38-39. 124 See for example EI-2-P pp 5, EI-3-S pp 4, EI-4-S pp 18.

77

6.3 Legitimacy and Transparency and Disclosure

6.3.1 Overview

The findings from the fame world play the most important role in ensuring that a disclosure

is legitimate and that this disclosure provides a base of legitimacy for the ZDHC and its

member brands. The civic, industrial, market and domestic world also play a role, and there

are tensions between these worlds. While the findings are based in pragmatic sociology

theory and methodology, they are still fairly consistent with legitimacy theory which asserts

that companies communicate their practices in the face of pressure to appear legitimate

(Sobhani et al. 2009, p. 180). The most relevant question that arose here is ‘who’ is putting

on the pressure and how this affected other stakeholders.

6.3.2 Fame World Bases for Legitimacy

In the fame world, one is "worthy and great when they are famous, recognized, successful

and convincing" (Boltanski, Thévenot 1999, p. 371). Public image is incredibly important so

when it comes to conflicts over publication, the fame world becomes a relevant source of

legitimacy. The world of fame was primarily identified in the findings from European

stakeholders and many of these findings centered on the role of Greenpeace. Greenpeace has

been a crucial actor in publicly shaming targeted brands while pressuring them for

transparency measures.125 This study found that the stakeholders perceive Greenpeace as a

key reason to disclose data.126 While the data is meant to be publicly available, its primary

audience appears to be NGOs, especially Greenpeace. This echoes Brennan and Merkl-

Davies assertion that an organization has to respond to criticism and make its activities in

line with the expectations of its audience (2014, p. 605) which is in this case appears to be

Greenpeace.

The naming and shaming campaign by Greenpeace creates public images of specific

brands as being credible,127 as their disclosure is deemed ‘legitimate’ by Greenpeace. Non-

125 See for example ED-3-P pp 9. 126 See for example EI-1-P pp 5. 127 See for example ED-3-P pp 4.

78

credible brands are labeled ‘greenwashers.’ Credibility appears to be an important,

legitimating term that was used many times by Greenpeace.128 It is worth noting that

Bangladeshi stakeholders never organically brought up the need for corporate disclosure at

all. This may reflect the relatively small number of companies that prepare disclosures in

Bangladesh (Sobhani et al. 2009, p. 173).

The secretive nature of the textile industry in Bangladesh129 may make disclosure

practice an interesting challenge in terms of gathering information and making it public. The

findings in this regard are somewhat similar to those of Islam and Deegan who suggest that

a Bangladeshi stakeholder of the ZDHC, the BGMEA makes its disclosures strategically,

revealing only that which is positive and hiding negative news from the media (Islam, Deegan

2008, p. 863).

To be credible in the eyes of Bangladeshi stakeholders, legitimacy may be more

elusive than merely meeting Greenpeace’s disclosure criteria. Stakeholders expressed the

perception that local manufacturers regularly skirt their own environmental systems and find

ways to save money that skew and obfuscate their true practices from the brands’ or

government’s monitoring personnel.130 In these cases which reportedly occur quite often,

local stakeholders will likely judge the ‘credibility’ of the brand’s commitment by the colour

of the water that the local factories discharge,131 rather than a report featuring disclosed data

prepared by the brand’s monitoring team.

6.3.3 Civic World Bases for Legitimacy

Rights are themes associated with the civic world, as they are impersonal, collective forms

of a common good. The ‘right to know approach’ was highlighted in the ZDHC literature;

however, stakeholders report that its inclusion was part of Greenpeace’s public push132 for

disclosure. Findings do not indicate that this right has been internalized by Bangladeshi

128 See for example ED-3-P pp 4 & 8. 129 See for example BI-2-P pp 42-43 & BI-3A-P pp 81. 130 See for example BI-7-S pp 86. 131 See for example BI-9-P pp 6 & BI-8-S pp 19. 132 See for example EI-3-S pp 35.

79

stakeholders.133 This may be because Bangladeshi stakeholders are not used to obtaining and

understanding disclosure reports, as corporate disclosure reporting has been such a rare

phenomenon in Bangladesh (Sobhani et al. 2009, p. 169).

6.3.4 Industrial World Bases for Legitimacy

The type of information to disclose is important for legitimacy. Chemistry and the type of

chemicals used during production were important in both groups,134 but especially so for

European stakeholders.135 This may have to do with the more informed nature of the

interviewees selected in Europe. This theme ties to the industrial legitimacy from academia,

as some of the European stakeholders suggested that research innovations in input chemistry

(chemicals used in the manufacturing process) would be key to eliminating hazardous

chemical discharges.136

Stakeholders related the process of disclosure to reaching their overall program

goals.137 While the stakeholders did not specifically state why, judging by the other

information they gave, this study suggests that the development and publishing of metrics

common to all stakeholders fosters comparison between a company’s baseline and between

companies, and with the help of public pressure and groups such as Greenpeace, encourages

better performance along these established criteria.

6.3.5 Market World Bases for Legitimacy

The market world’s need for disclosure appears straightforward. Legitimate transparency

initiatives need to be cost effective and not hamper the profitability of companies. This is

especially important in Bangladesh where the research found a strong argument using market

legitimacy138 and where stakeholders suggested that there was a reluctance towards

133 While Bangladeshi stakeholders did discuss rights, they did not do so in relation to disclosure and the

‘right to know.’ 134 See for example BI-1-P pp 26 & BI-3AB-P pp 19-23 135 See for example EI-2-P pp 19, EI-3-S pp 6, EI-4-S pp 16, ED-2-P pp 3. 136 See for example EI-3-S pp 17. 137 See for example ED-3 S pp 10 & EI-2-P pp 23. 138 See for example BI-1-P pp 28 & BI-3A-P pp 30.

80

transparency.139 This is likely because of the worry that it may affect the bottom line of textile

factory owners when the public forces them to invest in expensive machinery and techniques

to improve its chemical management practices.

6.3.6 Domestic World Bases for Legitimacy

Responsibility is a basis for domestic legitimacy that is shared by both Bangladeshi and

European stakeholders.140 In terms of transparency, this study would suggest that

responsibility might be derived from the attention and priority that the stakeholder gives to

their reporting obligations.

6.3.7 Tensions and Syntheses

There is a strong tension between civic and industrial legitimacy in terms of transparency

and disclosure activities. This tension is parallel to the tension between these worlds noted

in the stakeholder engagement chapter. As Wilmshurst and Frost note, disclosing data

requires taking into account the information needs of the reader (2000, p. 13) and the question

here is who the reader is and what information will they need. While the industrial world

demands the disclosure of technical information that can be interpreted by technocrats, the

domestic world demands data that is understandable for its broad and inclusive public base.

In Bangladesh, the less technically inclined stakeholders did not reflect a focus on the types

of chemicals discharged. Instead, they evaluated the discharge by the colour of the water.141

Legitimate transparency and disclosure synthesizing both worlds could be possible through

mass education so that everyone can understand the reports. This is a long-term perspective;

a shorter-term perspective may be that civil society and government representatives fill the

gap by reading the technical reports and producing simplified information for the public. As

neither of these circumstances appear in the findings, it appears that the ZDHC has a

legitimacy gap in this area.

139 See for example BI-3A-P pp 81 & BI-5-S pp 3. 140 See for example BI-6-S pp 31, BI-8-S pp 12, BI-14-P pp 32, EI-1-P pp 8, EI-3-S pp 15. 141 See for example BI-14-P pp 34 & BI-8-S pp 18.

81

A second tension exists between the fame world and the market world, which have

different goals in terms of transparency and disclosure. The market world prizes cost-

reduction; this may be challenging as most stakeholders argued that better environmental

performance costs more money.142 The fame world on the other hand desires to be in the

public eye, and receive praise for ‘credible’ behavior. In the context of Bangladesh, where

corruption can be a problem in terms of monitoring discharges,143/144 the market acts as a

legitimate incentive to pay a small bribe and attain a better published result, to appease the

fame world. This is consistent with the findings of Sobhani et al.’s work in Bangladesh where

they found that the reasons for non-disclosure were poor performance and the fear of bad

publicity (2009, p. 171). Legitimate disclosure that synthesizes aspects of both worlds

ensures that the monitoring process itself is made transparent by the ZDHC, which in turn

creates space for fair competition between disclosing parties, predicated on market

legitimacy.

6.4 Implications and Applications to Institutionalization

While the previous two sub-chapters answer the research questions, this sub-chapter seeks to

do two things. Firstly, it follows the perceptions of the two groups of stakeholder further, and

provides a framework to understand the results of this study. Secondly, in doing so, it mirrors

the processual ontological framework of pragmatic sociology, as institutionalization is the

consequence of the justifications elaborated by the research subjects.

The research questions asked how stakeholders perceive the ZDHC and how that

pertains to the legitimacy of the initiative, with a focus on stakeholder engagement and

transparency/disclosure. In response to these questions, the previous two chapters informed

us of how stakeholder perceptions in Bangladesh and Europe reveal bases of legitimacy in

stakeholder engagement and disclosure/transparency for the ZDHC. These answers to the

142 See for example BI-2-P pp 36-37 & BI-3A-P pp 30, BI-7-S pp 8. 143 The findings on corruption as institutional constraints to CSR programs also reflect assertions made by

Adams et al. 2007, p. 478, Belal et al. 2015, p. 10, Belal & Roberts, 2010, p. 313. 144 See for example BI-7-S pp 86-88.

82

research questions, however, provide us with some interesting insights that pertain to the

organizational legitimacy of the ZDHC.

Organizations such as the ZDHC can follow principles common to multiple worlds

but the prioritization of these worlds can shape the type of establishment produced (Cloutier,

Langley 2013, p. 369) as the process of justification and critique uses these multiple worlds

to shape organizational order and change (Blokker 2011, p. 259). ‘Worlds’ used in

communicative discourse can be seen as bases for institutional logics and these logics are

utilized by actors to maintain the legitimacy of an institution (Patriotta et al. 2011, p. 1808).

Pragmatic institutionalism has the power to explain how and why institutional conflict is

resolved and how and why the institutions are lasting (Cloutier, Langley 2013, p. 372),

making it a logical step in the analysis of an organization such as the ZDHC.

The pragmatic sociological approach asserting multiple institutional logics fits

especially well with the theoretical approach of institutional work: “the purposive action of

individuals and organizations aimed at creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions”

(Lawrence, Suddaby 2006, p. 215). It is concerned with the status of the institution itself,

rather than simply the impact of institutions on other actors in an organizational field (Trank,

Washington 2009, p. 236). This approach has the analytical capacity to demonstrate how an

organization such as the ZDHC utilizes logic through its stakeholder engagement and

disclosure activities. This study utilizes this approach as a lens while viewing the institutional

logics provided by the previous two chapters. While it is not within the scope or the power

of this research to analyze the future contingencies that may evolve for the ZDHC, it is

important to show why and how bases for legitimacy in stakeholder engagement and

disclosure are important and how they may influence the organization going forward. To do

this, the institutional analysis is complemented with reflections using a neo-Hegelian

institutionalist perspective.

The strong prevalence of the industrial world and the civic world during moments

critiques in both Bangladesh and Europe suggest that there is significant basis for

collaboration in terms of common worlds. In the process of organizational maintenance, the

ZDHC may be wise to take both of these bases seriously. In the case of the ZHDC, this could

mean that as the two groups utilize the civic and industrial worlds the most; these may be the

83

most useful bases of legitimacy during the ongoing process of institutional maintenance and

change. The theme of collaboration could also be seen as an important concept that can

appeal to multiple worlds at the same time: at least to the domestic and civic world.145

While there are some mutual bases for legitimacy, the study has also highlighted

tension between worlds. There is interesting literature that analyzes the contradictions or

tensions between worlds. Neo-Hegelians assert that contradiction is necessary for the process

of change. It is a dynamic tension between interdependent oppositions and this

interdependency presupposes a unified system (Hargrave, Van de Ven, Andrew H. 2009,

p. 122). Worlds often create tension through contradiction because “worlds are based on

inherently different principles, and because no two worlds can apply to the same situation

without some diminishment of one or both worlds’ core principles, the outcome of such

debates determines whether collective action can occur, and if so, on what basis" (Cloutier,

Langley 2013, p. 367). The ZDHC is host to a number of tensions. A tension exists between

the fame world and the market world in disclosure activity.146 A tension also exists between

the industrial world and the market world in terms of the time spent on stakeholder

engagement.147 The strongest tension exists between the civic world and the industrial world

in terms of who to engage and what to disclose to stakeholders. If they can reconcile these

tensions in an innovative way, the ZDHC’s stakeholder engagement could be in line with

Gilbert and Rasche’s criteria by promoting mutual understanding and increasing business

world acceptance of the private initiative (Gilbert, Rasche 2007, p. 14).

Tension and contradictions between multiple worlds can be sources of institutional

innovation (Timmermans, Tavory 2012, pp. 179–180), as well as tensions between

contradictory elements within an institution (Hargrave, Van de Ven, Andrew H. 2009, p. 120,

Lawrence et al. 2009, p. 120). The stakeholders and the management of the ZDHC will have

a role to play in terms of managing these contradictions. This will require different strategies

of creative management (Hargrave, Van de Ven, Andrew H. 2009, p. 135). For example, this

may mean recognizing the contradiction between the civic and the industrial world and

finding an innovative solution such as creating forms of representation for marginalized

145 Refer to section 6.2.6. 146 See section 6.3.7. 147 See section 6.2.5.

84

stakeholder groups in order to expand stakeholder democracy while maintaining efficiency

and expertise.

Which actors or stakeholders we are discussing is obviously important as these

stakeholders endogenously conceive the institutional logic of the ZDHC and reconstruct the

meanings of it. They contribute to the interpretative process and to the following enactment

of the performative reality of institutions (Diaz-Bone 2011, p. 55). This highlights one

potential shortfall of the pragmatic sociology approach, which is discussed in the following

section.

6.5 Critical Reflections on Power: a Blindside of Pragmatic Sociology?

Pragmatic sociology offers a framework for understanding multiple conceptions of

legitimacy, providing new insights on coordination among actors and providing unique

implications for global governance initiatives such as the ZDHC. On the other hand, some

theorists have challenged this theoretical perspective, particularly in regards to the role of

power.

In pragmatic sociology, there is an assumed horizontal power arrangement, both

between criteria of views of a common good (Blokker 2011, p. 252) and between actors in

terms of power relations. Regimes of justification exclude power relations from the analysis.

Instead, pragmatic sociologists suggest that the inclusion of power within ‘regimes of

justification’ is inappropriate and that ‘regimes of violence’ may be the appropriate

frameworks to analyze situations where critique is suppressed or choices are constrained

(Cloutier, Langley 2013, p. 375, Diaz-Bone 2011, p. 49). One could argue that the

suppression of choice could be an integral part of justification. Indeed, one way that actors

can engage with each other may stifle the other’s way of engaging (Blokker 2011, p. 256).

Even if they “do not fully constrain them (the legitimacy claim), they will minimally interfere

with how much traction a non-mainstream legitimacy claim is likely to gain in a given

situation" (Cloutier, Langley 2013, p. 376).

The ‘power’ critique is pertinent to the findings in a few ways. For one, stakeholders

determine who is interacting with whom, posing an external constraint on the situation; this

85

may increase certainty for those actors while constraining the outcomes of the interactive

process. By selecting actors, one may select those which already share the same 'situation' or

similar socio-cultural environments, influencing the conventions used by the actors involved

in the interaction and therefore influencing their definition of legitimacy. Through this

process, they may be reinforcing their conventions of legitimacy, specific to their social

environment.

According to stakeholder theory,148 an organization chooses with whom to engage

and disclose information and this is dependent on the stakeholder’s power, legitimacy, and

the urgency of its claim (Brennan, Merkl-Davies 2014, p. 604). Power constitutes the ability

to achieve intended outcomes and results from the ability to mobilize support from other key

stakeholders. The ZDHC’s stakeholder engagement reflects stakeholder theory’s assertion

that they focus on those more powerful stakeholders. The findings revealed that many similar

themes were brought up by the European stakeholders and many of these reflected the initial

ZDHC website material, and those of Greenpeace. The ongoing usage of similar legitimacies

helps to form the socio-culturally rooted cognitive environments for the stakeholders. While

it may open up space for collaboration between similar socio-cultural environments in

Europe and Bangladesh, respectively, it may limit the ability for real ‘global’ coordination,

as many Bangladeshi stakeholders are excluded from the initiative.

Peters asserts that the debates about the role of legitimacy in global governance have

developed in a way that “tends to exclude the voices of those who are actually involved in,

or affected by, global governance.” Ultimately it is their judgment, their ascription that will

be politically effective and determine the legitimacy of the institutions in question (Peters

2013, p. 13). Morgan suggests that it maybe the task of another sociology to give voice to

subjugated knowledges: those perspectives that are not “heard in a specific conversation”

(2014, p. 140). This is important in the case of this study as the moral vocabularies originally

constructed by pragmatic sociologists were based on Western society (Irwin et al. 2013, p. 12

3). This means that the research forces the Bangladeshi objects of discourse into a western

framework and this is not the preferable solution. While Blokker suggests that pragmatic

sociology approach can be used to make useful macro-sociological comparisons (2011,


86

p. 257), making it a perfect analytical tool for a Bangladeshi-European comparison, the

researcher is somewhat more skeptical about the conclusions drawn from the methodological

approach. Instead, as Irwin et al. suggest, an ethnographic study, perhaps using grounded

theory should be completed first to find Bangladeshi worlds from the ‘ground up’ (2013,

p. 12 3) and in this case, it may require much more work to develop a more ‘pure’ account

of Bangladeshi perceptions of legitimacy.

Stakeholder engagement and disclosure practices have a critical role in addressing

these potential power hierarchies through mitigating information asymmetries between

actors. As elaborated in the findings, Bangladeshi stakeholders have fewer opportunities to

access data, and when they do access data, they are either unable to use it due to low levels

of understanding, fear of using or spreading the information, and a lack of civil society

organizations capable of interpreting the data and sharing the information with communities.

On the other hand, the findings suggest that the information asymmetries are not purely

unidirectional. Instead, findings suggested that due to corruption and the political-business

nexus, ‘proper’ information is not always fed back to European stakeholders. Indeed, some

actors in Bangladesh might constrain or suppress choice through altering or withholding

information. Both of these factors shape the ongoing process of ZDHC institutional

maintenance through legitimacy. Since collective action requires mutual bases for

legitimacy, addressing both information asymmetries could be important for the ZDHC going

forward. This assertion is in line with some suggestions for more research to look at

procedures that investigate, publicise and seek redress from corporate practices in developing

countries (Utting 2007, p. 386). This theoretical challenge has also been raised by one of the

founders of pragmatic sociology, and their response is that the links between interdependency

and information could constitute a common good that could be analyzed further (Thévenot

2011, p. 14).

Power is an important component in the neo-Hegelian institutional perspective.

Opposing parties are required to have power in order to engage in a struggle to produce

change. Without sufficient power, the party's position will "remain latent" and existing

institutional arrangements will go unchallenged (Hargrave, Van de Ven, Andrew H. 2009).

In order to avoid latency of economically less powerful groups such as indigenous

87

stakeholders, institutional reform should ensure that they are given a voice (Adams et al.

2007, p. 490). The lack of power of a stakeholder to engage or lack of strength of a world

could mean that tension may not manifest and that institutional change will not occur.

It is important to note that the researcher’s ontological position in this study reflects

preconceptions regarding the information retrieved. This project is based in a faculty focused

on international development, which thereby places emphasis on the vulnerable or affected

stakeholders in governance initiative. To ensure that the researcher used a transparent

framework for selecting stakeholders, an existing academic framework was used.149 The

broad definition of stakeholder as provided by stakeholder theory was consistent with

pragmatic sociology’s assertion that all actors are capable of engaging in critique and justify

actions (Irwin et al. 2013, p. 123). Despite biases inherent in any study, if we are to

understand the prospects for coordination among actors and the implications for private

initiatives in global governance, these prospects require the perspectives of both affecting as

well as affected stakeholders.

7 Conclusion

This paper offers an initial exploration of two sets of perspectives on a private standard-

setting initiative. The pragmatic sociological standpoint revealed pluralistic conceptions of

legitimacy that may pertain to organizations such as the ZDHC. Both groups of stakeholders

appear to base their arguments in the industrial world, meaning that they appeal to

technocratic, productivity-oriented conceptions of what is ‘worthwhile’. Both groups also

presented strong grounding in the egalitarian ‘civic’ world. Stakeholders in Bangladesh less

commonly drew on the market and the green worlds, while stakeholders in Europe drew more

from the fame and the domestic worlds. The inspired world was nearly completely absent

from the moments critiques identified though the interviews and document analysis.

Participants from Bangladesh perceived a number of situational challenges to

implementing an initiative such as the ZDHC in Bangladesh. Fear and secrecy, corruption, a


88

weak civil society, and strong linkages between business and Government were perceived as

hurdles for implementing ‘appropriate’ private initiatives to reduce hazardous chemical

discharge in Bangladesh. A growing awareness and new grassroots civil society movements

are seen as positive and complementary to an initiative of this type, as they could have a role

in ensuring monitoring and compliance.

Transparency and disclosure initiatives appear to have been mainly pushed into the

ZDHC agenda by Greenpeace, which bases its push on the RTK approach. Stakeholders,

especially in Bangladesh, seem unable to say how they could utilize such disclosed data in

the present context, indicating that the data targets knowledgeable stakeholders in Europe

rather than groups affected by hazardous chemical discharges. When discussing perceptions

of stakeholder engagement, stakeholders also expressed that while the level of knowledge of

the stakeholder was important, including a diverse group was also essential. This appears to

be a tension between the civic world where inclusion, egalitarianism and democracy are

valued, and the industrial world where specialization, productivity and expertise are valued.

A number of tensions between worlds within the situational context of global

governance initiatives emerged in the analysis. Not only will the bases for legitimacy have

an impact on institutional work, but also the tensions between worlds could prove to be future

sources of institutional innovation for the ZDHC initiative, as actors find new ways to

synthesize the bases of legitimacy between various worlds. Future research could look further

into how these tensions within private global governance initiatives can be manifested and

how they can innovate in this type of organization.

Pragmatic sociology is an important and powerful tool to uncovering the normative

bases of legitimacy within social engagement and practice. Its situational grounding in

ordinary practices gives us the ability to look carefully at perspectives traditionally thought

of as ‘low’ or non-intellectual beside those considered ‘high’ or academic. In this case, these

nonprofessional views are particularly important when analyzing Bangladeshi and European

perspectives of an initiative that could have profound impacts on one group, while employing

the resources of those in others. By negating epistemological hierarchy in the theoretical

approach to legitimacy, the study attempts to give importance and agency to the perspectives

of all of the stakeholders. The challenge with this is that by allowing our focus to widen, one

89

may miss the power structures pertinent to the institutionalization and institutional

maintenance of the very institution examined: the ZDHC. While pragmatic sociology is still

an important framework for examining a plurality of perspectives and the pluralities of

conceptions of worth, one should be cognizant of the insufficiency of these analyses for

examining global governance institutions. Instead, this study reiterates that it only offers a

preliminary exploration and suggests that a structuralist account could complement the

pragmatic perspective, providing an analysis of systemic power structures.

Since the pragmatic sociological vein of thought emanates from France, what is

morally ‘good’ or ‘legitimate’ may be different in Bangladesh. Future work should try to use

grounded theory to develop ethnographic understandings of worlds in Bangladeshi society.

By comparing Bangladeshi and European worlds, studies can provide a more accurate

framework of analysis and a more solid base for further studies.

In terms of the ZDHC, there appear to be high hopes from stakeholder groups in

Bangladesh and Europe about the ability of the private sector to work toward eliminating the

discharge of hazardous chemicals from their supply chain. While this should be encouraging

for stakeholders, the various ZDHC working groups should take the challenges posed by the

stakeholders in this study seriously. Much of the work that the ZDHC is taking on is already

innovative, and to deal with these situational challenges in the supplying countries while

providing meaningful engagement and disclosure, they will need to continue to innovate. It

will be more important than ever to include a range of stakeholders who can represent those

who not able to participate, while ensuring that they are technically proficient, and able to

deal with some difficult truths about the institutional environments in countries where the

initiative’s implementation takes place.

During the time that this research was being conducted, the ZDHC released their latest

version of their joint roadmap document, formalized the organization by appointing an

executive director, and opened an office in Amsterdam. The pace of transformation appears

to show movement and commitment towards the goal of eliminating hazardous chemical

discharge by 2020. As this initiative proceeds, it will offer researchers exploratory avenues

into understanding institutionalization and changes in the legitimacy of a private global

governance initiative over time.

90

Publication Bibliography

Abbott, Kenneth W.; Snidal, Duncan (2009): Strengthening International Regulation Through

Transnational New Governance. Overcoming the Orchestration Deficit. In Vand. J. Transnat'l L.

42, pp. 501–578.

Adams, Carol. A.; Rahman Belal, Ataur; Owen, David L. (2007): The views of corporate managers

on the current state of, and future prospects for, social reporting in Bangladesh. In Acc Auditing

Accountability J 20 (3), pp. 472–494. DOI: 10.1108/09513570710748599.

Ahmad, Nik Nazli; Sulaiman, Maliah (2004): Environment disclosure in Malaysia annual reports. A

legitimacy theory perspective. In Int Journal of Commerce & Mgt 14 (1), pp. 44–58. DOI:

10.1108/10569210480000173.

Belal, Ataur R.; Roberts, Robin W. (2010): Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Corporate Social

Reporting in Bangladesh. In Journal of Business Ethics 97 (2), pp. 311–324. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-

010-0511-4.

Belal, Ataur Rahman; Cooper, Stuart M.; Khan, Niaz Ahmed (2015): Corporate environmental

responsibility and accountability. What chance in vulnerable Bangladesh? In Critical Perspectives

on Accounting Article in Press. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpa.2015.01.005.

Bernstein, Steven; Cashore, Benjamin (2007): Can non-state global governance be legitimate? An

analytical framework. In Regulation Governance 1 (4), pp. 1–25. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-

5991.2007.00021.x.

Black, Julia (2008): Constructing and contesting legitimacy and accountability in polycentric

regulatory regimes. In Regulation & Governance 2 (2), pp. 1–37. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-

5991.2008.00034.x.

Blokker, P. (2011): Pragmatic sociology. Theoretical evolvement and empirical application. In

European Journal of Social Theory 14 (3), pp. 251–261. DOI: 10.1177/1368431011412344.

Bodansky, Daniel (1999): The Legitimacy of International Governance. A Coming Challenge for

International Environmental Law? In The American Journal of International Law 93 (3), pp. 596–

624.

Boltanski, Luc; Thévenot, Laurent (1999): The Sociology of Critical Capacity. In European Journal

of Social Theory 2 (3), pp. 359–377.

Boltanski, Luc; Thévenot, Laurent (2000): The reality of moral expectations. A sociology of

situated judgment. In Philosophical Explorations: An International Journal for the Philosophy of

Mind and Action 3 (3), pp. 208–231.

Brandl, J.; Daudigeos, T.; Edwards, T.; Pernkopf-Konhausner, K. (2014): Why French Pragmatism

Matters to Organizational Institutionalism. In Journal of Management Inquiry 23 (3), pp. 314–318.

DOI: 10.1177/1056492613517463.

Brennan, M. Niamh; Merkl-Davies, Doris M. (2014): Rhetoric and argument in social and

environmental reporting. the Dirty Laundry case. In Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal

27 (4), pp. 602–633. DOI: 10.1108/AAAJ-04-2013-1333.

91

Cloutier, C.; Langley, A. (2013): The Logic of Institutional Logics. Insights From French

Pragmatist Sociology. In Journal of Management Inquiry 22 (4), pp. 360–380. DOI:

10.1177/1056492612469057.

Diaz-Bone, Ranier (2011): The Methodological Standpoint of the “économie des conventions”. In

Historical Social Research 36 (4), pp. 43–63.

Friedrich, Jürgen (2009): Environment, Private Standard-Setting. 2009th ed.: Oxford University

Press. Available online at http://opil.ouplaw.com.

Gadinger, Frank (2013): Don't Be Afraid to Get Your Hands Dirty. The Case for Researching

Everyday Legitimacy. Commentary on Rethinking the Legitimacy of Global Governance: On the

Need for Sociological Research and Philosophical Foundations. In Global Cooperation Research

Papers 2, pp. 18–23.

Gilbert, Dirk Ulrich; Rasche, Andreas (2007): Opportunities and problems of standardized ethics

initiatives - A stakeholder theory perspective. In Journal of Business Ethics 82, pp. 755–773. DOI:

10.1007/s10551-007-9591-1.

Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh (1995): The Bangladesh Environment

Conservation Act, 1995. In Bangladesh Gazette Act No. 1 of 1995, pp. 2–14.

Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh (2000): The Environment Court Act, 2000,

Env. Court Act, 2000. In : Bangladesh Gazette.

Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh Ministry of Environment and Forests (1997):

The Environment Conservation Rules, 1997, E.C.R. '97. In : Bangladesh Gazette.

Green, J. F. (2013): Rethinking Private Authority. Agents and Entrepreneurs in Global

Environmental Governance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Greenpeace (2011): Eleven hazardous chemicls which should be eliminated, updated on 8/22/2011,

checked on 1/16/2016.

Greenpeace (2013): The Detox Catwalk 2015 Explained. Available online at https://secured-

static.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/code/2015/detox-

catwalk/pdf/Detox\_Catwalk\_Explained.pdf, checked on 5/8/2015.

Greenpeace (2014): Progress and hurdles on the road to Detox. Greenpeace. Available online at

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/detox/fashion/about/progress-and-hurdles-

on-the-road-to-Detox/, checked on 5/11/2015.

Hargrave, Timothy J.; Van de Ven, Andrew H. (2009): Institutional work as the creative embrace of

contradictions. In Thomas B. Lawrence, Roy Suddaby, Bernard Leca (Eds.): Institutional work.

Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, pp. 120–135.

Helmerich, Nicole; Kaan, Christopher (2013): Transnational Business Governance Interaction and

Competition between Standard Setting Initiatives. Labor standards in garment, toys and agriculture.

In Osgoode Hall Law School, Comparative Research in Law & Political Economy (51), pp. 1–22.

Irwin, A.; Jensen, T. E.; Jones, K. E. (2013): The good, the bad and the perfect. Criticizing

engagement practice. In Social Studies of Science 43 (1), pp. 118–135. DOI:

10.1177/0306312712462461.

92

Islam, Azizul Muhammad; Deegan, Craig (2008): Motivations for an organisation within a

developing country to report social responsibility information. In Acc Auditing Accountability J 21

(6), pp. 850–874. DOI: 10.1108/09513570810893272.

Kourula, Arno (2010): Corporate engagement with non-governmental organizations in different

institutional contexts—A case study of a forest products company. In Journal of World Business 45

(4), pp. 395–404. DOI: 10.1016/j.jwb.2009.08.010.

Lawrence, T. B.; Suddaby, R. (2006): Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy,

W. R. Nord (Eds.): Handbook of Organization Studies. 2nd. London and Thousand Oaks, CA:

SAGE, pp. 215–254.

Lawrence, Thomas B.; Suddaby, Roy; Leca, Bernard (Eds.) (2009): Institutional work. Actors and

Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marano, Valentina; Tashman, Pete (2011): MNE/NGO partnerships and the legitimacy of the firm.

In International Business Review 21 (6), pp. 1122–1130. DOI: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2011.12.005.

Moosmayer, Dirk C.; Davis, Susannah M. (Eds.) (2014): Game changers? NGO influence on the

CSR practices of a Chinese Sportswear frim. IACMR Conference. Beijing: University of

Notthingham Ningbo China.

Moravcsik, Andrew (2004): Is there a ‘Democratic Deficit’ in World Politics? A Framework for

Analysis. In Government and Opposition 39 (2), pp. 336–363.

Morgan, M. (2014): The poverty of (moral) philosophy. Towards an empirical and pragmatic ethics.

In European Journal of Social Theory 17 (2), pp. 129–146. DOI: 10.1177/1368431013505016.

Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (1996): Environmental Guidelines for Textiles Industry.

World Bank Group. Available online at https://www.miga.org/documents/Textiles.pdf, checked on

8/2/2015.

O’Dwyer, Brendan; Owen, David; Unerman, Jeffrey (2011): Seeking legitimacy for new assurance

forms. The case of assurance on sustainability reporting. In Accounting, Organizations and Society

36 (1), pp. 31–52. DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2011.01.002.

Patriotta, Gerardo; Gond, Jean-Pascal; Schultz, Friederike (2011): Maintaining Legitimacy.

Controversies, Orders of Worth, and Public Justifications. In Journal of Management Studies 48

(8), pp. 1804–1836. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00990.x.

Patten, Dennis M. (1991): Exposure, legitimacy, and social disclosure. In Journal of Accounting

and Public Policy 10, pp. 297–308. DOI: 10.1016/0278-4254(91)90003-3.

Patton, Michael Q. (2002): Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks,

California: SAGE Publications.

Peters, Dirk (2013): Rethinking the Legitimacy of Global Governance. On the Need for

Sociological Research and Philosophical Foundations. In Global Cooperation Research Papers 2,

pp. 5–17.

Rhuma, Paul (2013): Bangladesh Sept exports soar 36 pct on garment sales. Edited by Kim Coghill.

Reuters New Agency. Dhaka. Available online at

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/09/bangladesh-economy-exports-

idUSL6N0HZ1TV20131009, checked on 7/28/2015.

93

Roberts, Robin W. (1992): Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure. An

application of stakeholder theory. In Accounting, Organizations and Society 17 (6), pp. 595–612.

DOI: 10.1016/0361-3682(92)90015-K.

Saicheua, Vaeovan; Cooper, Tim; Knox, Alistair (Eds.) (2012): Public understanding towards

sustainable clothing and the supply chain. 37th Macromarketing Conference. Berlin, July 13-16.

Scharpf, Fritz W. (1998): Interdependence and Democratic Legitimation. In MPIfG Working Paper

98 (2), pp. 1–19.

Sobhani, Farid Ahammad; Amran, Azlan; Zainuddin, Yuserrie (2009): Revisiting the practices of

corporate social and environmental disclosure in Bangladesh. In Corporate Social Responsibility

and Environmental Management 16 (3), pp. 167–183. DOI: 10.1002/csr.193.

Suchman, Mark C. (1995): Managing Legitimacy. Strategic and Institutional Approaches. In

Academy of Management Review 20 (3), pp. 571–610. Available online at

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf.

The World Bank Group (2001): Stakeholder Matrix. Governance and Political Economy. Available

online at http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/anticorrupt/PoliticalEconomy/matix.gif, updated

on 1/28/2005, checked on 7/26/2015.

Thévenot, Laurent (2011): An Interview with Laurent Thévenot: On Engagement, Critique,

Commonality, and Sacrifice. In European Journal of Social Theory 12 (2), pp. 1–18.

Timmermans, S.; Tavory, I. (2012): Theory Construction in Qualitative Research. From Grounded

Theory to Abductive Analysis. In Sociological Theory 30 (3), pp. 167–186. DOI:

10.1177/0735275112457914.

Trank, Christine Q.; Washington, Marvin (2009): Maintaining and institution in a contested

organizational field. the work for the AACSB and its constituents. In Thomas B. Lawrence, Roy

Suddaby, Bernard Leca (Eds.): Institutional work. Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of

Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

United National Sustainable Development (Ed.) (1992): Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on

Environment & Development. Riode Janeiro, Brazil, 3-14 June. United National Sustainable

Development. Available online at

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf, checked on 8/2/2015.

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (2013): Pollutant Release and

Transfer Registry. Available online at http://www.prtr.net/, updated on 2015.

Utting, Peter (2007): Corporate responsibility and the movement of business. In Development in

Practice 15 (3-4), pp. 375–388. DOI: 10.1080/09614520500075797.

Van den Berghe, Frederic M. (2006): Good Coffee, Bad Governance. Flo’s Legitimacy. In SSRN

Electronic Journal, pp. 1–13. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1399352.

Weber, Max (1968): Economy and society. An outline of interpretive sociology / Max Weber ;

edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich ; with a new foreword by Guenther Roth ; translators,

Ephraim Fischoff [and 9 others]. With assistance of Guenther Roth, Claus Wittich. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Wildemuth, Barbara M. (1993): Post-Positivist Research. Two Examples of Methodological

Pluralism. In The Library Quarterly 63 (4), pp. 450–467.

94

Wilmshurst, Trevor D.; Frost, Geoffrey R. (2000): Corporate environmental reporting. A test of

Legitimacy Theory. In Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 13 (1), pp. 10–26. DOI:

10.1108/09513570010316126.

ZDHC Programme (2013): Joint Roadmap. Version 2. Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals

Programme.

ZDHC Programme (2014): Right To Know Chemical Disclosure Methodology Research. Joint

Roadmap Version 2 Milestone. Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals Programme.

ZDHC Programme (2015a): About ZDHC. Available online at

http://www.roadmaptozero.com/about-zdhc.php, checked on 5/10/2015.

ZDHC Programme (2015b): Joint Roadmap & Stakeholder Consultation. Zero Discharge of

Hazardous Chemicals. Available online at http://www.roadmaptozero.com/joint-roadmap.php,

checked on 5/10/2015.

ZDHC Programme (2015c): Membership. Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals Programme.

Available online at http://www.roadmaptozero.com/members.php, checked on 8/2/2015.

95

Appendix 1 – Stakeholder Assumptions

Table 3 shows the assumptions made in this study when selecting stakeholders. Assumptions were made

regarding the importance and influence of the stakeholders. These assumptions lead to the following figure:

the stakeholder matrix.

Stakeholder Group "Importance" (of the ZDHC to the Stakeholder)Importance

Level"Influence" (on the ZDHC)

Influence

Level

AcademicsInterested in understanding the ZDHC, the

environment and the textile industryLow

May steer debate through

published researchLow

Chemical IndustryNeeds to make serious changes to the chemicals

they produce, sell, and distributeMed-High

Power over chemical price,

type, distribution, availabilityMed-High

Community Groups

Near Production

Uses the textile industry for work while being

affected by pollution from textile productionHigh

Vulnerable groups with little

political voiceLow

Consumer

Associations

Represent the needs to their textile-purchasing

consumersMedium

Can publicly advocate based

on the desires of consumersMedium

Domestic NGOsTheir work deals with environmental

externalities from the textile industryMed-High

Small but growing local voice

representing regional issuesLow

Industry

Entrepreneurs

May come up with innovative ways to manage

hazardous chemicalsLow

The ZDHC needs innovations

in production technologies to

meet its goals

Medium

Innovation FundersMay put money towards innovations in the

textile sectorLow

Funding may influence the

ability of ZDHC members to

meet their targets

Med-High

International NGOsTheir work deals with global campaigns to

manage large-scale environmental risksMed-High

Ability to publicly advocate

for environmental causesMed-High

Member BrandsThe ZDHC was created by them and forms a part

of their CSR strategiesHigh

Form the body of the ZDHC

and have decision making

power

High

State RegulatorsThe ZDHC may affect the way that they regulate

the textile industryMed-Low

Can impact the ZDHC via

complementary/conflicting

regulatory mechanisms

Med-High

SuppliersProvide goods to the ZDHC; are tasked with

implementing ZDHC protocolsHigh

Can cooperate or try to find

other purchasing brandsMed-High

Textile AssociationsRepresent garment/textile companies interests;

potentially including brands and suppliersMed-Low


on the desires of companiesMed-High

96

Appendix 2 – Stakeholder Matrix

Figure 12: ZDHC Stakeholder Matrix. Design adapted from The World Bank Group 2001.The matrix shows

how stakeholder power as stakeholders over the initiative increases towards the right-side threshold of the

matrix, while the affectedness of the stakeholder in relation to the activities of the ZDHC can be seen to increase

towards the upper threshold of the matrix. Stakeholders in blue are taken from the ZDHC scheme documents

(ZDHC Programme 2013), while stakeholders in green have been added by the researcher..

97

Appendix 3 – Updated Stakeholder Assumptions Table

Table 4 shows the updated list of stakeholder assumptions and verifies which stakeholder groups provide data

for this study.

Stakeholder Group "Importance" (of the ZDHC to the Stakeholder)Importance

Level"Influence" (on the ZDHC)

Influence

Level

Represented

in Data?

AcademicsInterested in understanding the ZDHC, the

environment and the textile industryLow

May steer debate through

published researchLow Yes

Chemical IndustryNeeds to make serious changes to the chemicals

they produce, sell, and distributeMed-High

Power over chemical price,

type, distribution, availabilityMed-High Yes

Community Groups

Near Production

Uses the textile industry for work while being

affected by pollution from textile productionHigh

Vulnerable groups with little

political voiceLow Yes

Consumer

Associations

Represent the needs to their textile-purchasing

consumersMedium


on the desires of consumersMedium No

Domestic NGOsTheir work deals with environmental

externalities from the textile industryMed-High

Small but growing local voice

representing regional issuesLow Yes

Industry

Entrepreneurs

May come up with innovative ways to manage

hazardous chemicalsLow

The ZDHC needs innovations

in production technologies to

meet its goals

Medium No

Innovation FundersMay put money towards innovations in the

textile sectorLow

Funding may influence the

ability of ZDHC members to

meet their targets

Med-High No

International NGOsTheir work deals with global campaigns to

manage large-scale environmental risksMed-High

Ability to publicly advocate

for environmental causesMed-High Yes

Member BrandsThe ZDHC was created by them and forms a part

of their CSR strategiesHigh

Form the body of the ZDHC

and have decision making

power

High Yes

State RegulatorsThe ZDHC may affect the way that they regulate

the textile industryMed-Low

Can impact the ZDHC via

complementary/conflicting

regulatory mechanisms

Med-High Yes

SuppliersProvide goods to the ZDHC; are tasked with

implementing ZDHC protocolsHigh

Can cooperate or try to find

other purchasing brandsMed-High Yes

Textile AssociationsRepresent garment/textile companies interests;

potentially including brands and suppliersMed-Low


on the desires of companiesMed-High Yes

98

Appendix 4 –Stakeholder Matrix Showing Data Sources

Figure 13 shows which groups from the original stakeholder table have provided data for this study. Note that

the only groups that were targeted in the study are located in quadrants B and D, meaning that they all have

low importance, and medium to high degrees influence.

99

Appendix 5 – Interview Guide for Bangladesh

QUESTIONS

NOTES &

PROMPT

Introductions

1.1 Do you live here in Dhaka?

1.2 How long have you been living here?

Background

2.1 What type of work are you involved in?

2.2 What is the nature of your involvement with the textile industry?

2.3 How familiar are you with these brands?

Show ZDHC

image of member

brands

2.4 How have your past relations been the brands that you're familiar

with?

Environment

3.1 What do you think of the environmental situation in Bangladesh

3.2 What do you think are the three biggest challenges facing the

environment in Bangladesh

3.3 Do you know about any existing regulations for environmental

protection?

3.4 How do you view efforts for environmental protection in Bangladesh -Government

-Companies

-Domestic NGOs

-NGOs

3.5 How do you view attempts by international organizations to ensure a

clean Environment in Bangladesh?

3.6 How could these organizations/companies work better?

3.7 Is there anything that makes you upset regarding the current

situation? If so, what? Why?

3.8 How could the situation be improved?

Textile Industry

4.1 How does the textile industry impact your day-to-day life Press for examples

4.2 How do you interact with the textile industry?

Do you know

people employed

in the textile

industry?

4.3 What do you perceive to be the biggest challenge facing the textile

industry?

100

4.4 Do you feel that there have been any significant changes in industry

environmental practices over the last 2-3 years?

4.5 What are acceptable practices regarding the use of chemicals in the

textile industry? What do you think are unacceptable?

Press for examples

and for why

4.6 Is there anything that the industry is doing particularly well in terms

of chemical management?

4.7

Do you think the government needs to play a bigger role in

regulating the textile industry or should non-government actors (e.g.

brands) regulate themselves?

The ZDHC

5.1 Have you heard about their Roadmap to Zero Discharge of

Hazardous Chemicals Initiative?

If not, show short

into paper from

ZDHC

5.2 Why do you think ZDHC was created?

5.3 Do you think that this is an appropriate mechanism? Why or why not?

5.4 Does it apply to the context in Bangladesh?

5.5 Is it effective? Why?

5.6 If not, what do you see as alternatives to ZDHC? If yes, what could

be done to improve the initiative?

Other Stakeholders

6.1 How do you think or feel about the role of the following groups

regarding chemicals discharged from the textile industry?

Community

Groups Near the

Production?

Domestic NGOs?

Suppliers?

International

NGOs?

Chemical

Industry?

Member Brands?

6.2 Why do you feel this way?

Closing

7.1 Is there anything else that you think is important that we have not

discussed?

7.2 Do you have any questions for me?

7.3 Thank the participant.

Table 5 is the interview guide for stakeholders in Bangladesh.

101

Appendix 6 – Interview Guide for Europe

QUESTIONS

NOTES &

PROMPT

Introduction

1.1 Introductions

Background

2.1 What type of work are you involved in?

2.2 What is the nature of your involvement with the textile industry?

2.3 How familiar are you with these brands?

Show ZDHC image

of member brands

2.4 How have your past relations been the brands that you're familiar

with?

Environment

3.1 What do you think are the environmental challenges associated

with the global textile supply chain?

3.2 Do you know about any existing international regulations for

environmental protection?

3.3 How do you view efforts for sustainable supply chain

management by the following: Government

Companies

NGOs

3.4 How do you view attempts by international organizations to

create standards for sustainability performance?

3.5 Are there any specific challenges for applying these standards in

developing countries?

3.6 How could these organizations/companies work better?

3.7 Is there anything that makes you upset regarding the current

situation? If so, what? Why?

3.8 How could the situation be improved?

Textile Industry

4.1 How does the textile industry impact your day-to-day life Press for examples

4.2 How do you interact with the textile industry?

Do you know

people employed in

the textile industry?

4.3 What do you perceive to be the biggest challenge facing the

global textile industry?

4.4 Do you feel that there have been any significant changes in global

textile industry environmental practices over the last 2-3 years?

102

4.5 What are acceptable practices regarding the use of chemicals in

the textile industry? What do you think are unacceptable?

Press for examples

and for why

4.6 Is there anything that the industry is doing particularly well in

terms of chemical management?

4.7

Do you think the government needs to play a bigger role in

regulating the textile industry or should non-government actors

(e.g. brands) regulate themselves?

The ZDHC

5.1 Have you heard about their Roadmap to Zero Discharge of

Hazardous Chemicals Initiative?

If not, show short

into paper from

ZDHC

5.2 Why do you think ZDHC was created?

5.3 Do you think that this is an appropriate mechanism? Why or why not?

5.4 How is it applicable to a developing country? Developed

country?

5.5 Do you think it is effective? Why?

5.6 If not, what do you see as alternatives to ZDHC? If yes, what

could be done to improve the initiative?

Other Stakeholders

6.1 How do you think or feel about the role of the following groups

in regards to chemical discharges from the textile industry?

Community Groups

Near the

Production?

Domestic NGOs?

Suppliers?

International

NGOs?

Chemical Industry?

Member Brands?

6.2 Why do you feel this way?

Closing

7.1 Is there anything else that you think is important that we have not

discussed?

7.2 Do you have any questions for me?

7.3 Thank the participant.

Table 6 is the interview guide for stakeholders in Europe.

103

Appendix 7 – Research Timeline

Figure 14 shows the general timeline of when the research took place.

104

Appendix 8 - Coding of Themes into World

Figure 15 is a series of tables indicating the first-level codes that were incorporated into worlds during data analysis.

Green World Market World Civic WorldEnviro - For Future Generations Product Quality Corruption

Hope - Perception of Environment in the

Future

International Brands / Retailers Goal

Water Usage - Water Crisis Private Sector Government - Bangladesh

Funding Environmental Projects European Products Political - Business l ink in Bangladesh

Progress - Environment Contractors International NGOs & Other

Organizations

Climate Change European Companies Labor - Social Standards

Sustainability Fast Fashion Regulation & Rules

Environmental Problem Customers German Government

Holistic Approach to Environment Short Term Perspective Compromise

Environment Policy Banks Voluntary Regulation

Economic Perspective Business Associations - Bangladesh

Industrial World Buyers Social Benefits

Standard Local Business NGO - Bangladesh

Chemical Industry Demand Side Community

Supply Chain Incentives Rights

Infrastructure Price - Cost Policymakers

Long Term Industrial Perspective Marketing Political Will

Private Implementation of Industry

Initiatives

Domestic Market Civil Society

Factory Owners & MGMT Investment Bottom up vs Top Down

Scale of Initiatives Profit

Capacity Building Competition Fame WorldInternational Norms Advocacy - Bangladesh

Tools Domestic World Fashion Institutions

Efficiency Responsibil ity Awareness - Public

Technology Germany Communication

Achievements and Deliverables Culture Public Pressure

Long Term Perspective - Non

Environmental

Home - Houses Credibil ity

Specialization / Expertise Foreigner Greenwashing

Productivity & Production Loyalty Publish & Exhibit

Research & Labs & Academia Leadership Public Debate

Benefits of Industry Cooperation / Coordination /

Collaboration

Public Relations

Engineers - Engineering Family ties to textile / garment /

leather sector

Media

Factories

Machinery Inspired WorldChemical Management Religion

Scale of Industry & Production Innovation

Planning

105

Appendix 9 – Consent form for Interviewees

Student Research Consent Form

Research Project Topic: Stakeholder perceptions of a private regulatory initiative, the Zero

Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals Programme.

Researcher: Timothy Chipperfield, MA in Development Management, Institute for Development

Research and Development Policy (IEE), Ruhr University Bochum.

Email: [email protected]

Academic Supervisor: Johannes Norpoth

By consenting to participate in this study, I understand and agree to the following:

My participation is voluntary, and I am free to withdraw at any time, without giving a

reason.

The interview/focus group will be audio recorded.

My name will never be linked to anything written publically about this study and my

identity will be anonymous, unless specifically requested for.

I consent to anonymous quotes being used in presentations and publications.

I consent to anonymous data being archived, to enable secondary analysis and training

future researchers.

I am willing to share my views and experiences relating to the textile industry, the Zero

Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals Programme and the environment.

I am aware that if I have any questions after the interview or focus group, I can contact the

researcher and/or his department at the IEE, Ruhr University Bochum.

My signature indicates my willingness to participate.

Participant Signature: ___________________________

Participant Name: ___________________________ Date: ____________________

If you would like a copy of the research report, please provide your email or postal address:

……………………………………………

106

Appendix 10 - Data Source List

Table 7 shows the data sources used in the findings section.

European ZDHC Brand 1 Interview Europe EI-1-P

European ZDHC Brand 2 Interview Europe EI-2-P

Chemical Industry 1 Document Europe ED-1-P

Chemical Industry 2 Document Europe ED-2-P

International NGO Document Europe ED-3-P

Textile Association Interview Europe EI-3-S

European Domestic Government / Environmental Focus Interview Europe EI-4-S

Bangaldesh Domestic NGO Interview Bangladesh BI-1-P

Textile Suppliers/Producers/Distributors Interview Bangladesh BI-2-P

Textile Suppliers/Producers/Distributors Interview Bangladesh BI-3A-P

Textile Manufacturer Interview Bangladesh BI-3B-P

Bangladesh Government / State Institution Interview Bangladesh BI-4-S

Bangladesh Government / State Institution Interview Bangladesh BI-5-S

Former CSR Consultant Involved with ZDHC Brands Interview Bangladesh BI-6-S

Chemical Engineer / Academic Interview Bangladesh BI-7-S

Environmental Scientist /Academic Interview Bangladesh BI-8-S

Affected Community - Youth Activist Interview Bangladesh BI-9-P

Affected Community - School Principal Interview Bangladesh BI-10-P

Affected Community - Retired Chemical Engineer Interview Bangladesh BI-11-P

Affected Community - Stay at home mother Interview Bangladesh BI-12-P

International NGO Interview Bangladesh BI-13-P

ZDHC Garment Buyer Interview Bangladesh BI-14-P

107

Appendix 11 – Photos from Bangladesh

Figure 16 shows the colour of the black, tar-

like water in a community canal. The pipes

shown here are from the dying factory in the

background.

Figure 17 shows the proximity of affected

communities to the factories. On the left,

the green building is a kindergarten. One

the right with the tin walls is a dyeing

factory. Reportedly, the children here often

complained about headaches and nausea.

Figure 19 shows a community canal with

small shops and garbage threatening to

block the flow of the water. When the

water is blocked, the water runs onto the

streets and into the nearby homes.

Figure 18 shows dye barrels that are also

used to deal with the ETP sludge.

According to respondents, they are

sometimes used for personal use

afterwards, potentially causing health

issues.

Documents

Comparing Stakeholder Perspectives on Environmental ... · priced goods. The Bangladeshi textile industry occupies the supply side of this international value chain yet actors affected