Thanks for this! Added them as examples of actions. Could you explain how “setting of corporate policy” is different from corporate compliance & corporate governance? I also didn’t add the last one because it seems quite rare that policymakers would do advocacy towards corporate actors for these corporate actors to change their policy, while I believe all other activities are fairly common.
Re: setting of corporate policy, yeah, on second thought I’m less confident it’s a very useful category. The differences I had in mind were:
Corporate compliance seems to be narrower in its goals
Corporate compliance and corporate governance seem to be broader activities involving the selection and implementation of policy (?), while setting it could be the the part where the new policy is formally established (analogous to “lawmaking” and “making regulations,” which also seem like fairly narrow parts of broader processes).
it seems quite rare that policymakers would do advocacy towards corporate actors for these corporate actors to change their policy
Hm, maybe. My impression is that (at least in a US context and for high-profile cases) it’s not so rare, since Congress members occasionally directly contact businesses or pressure them (via implicit threats of harsh legislation), by, e.g., grillingthem in Congressional hearings. And advocacy from non-governmental third parties (e.g., corporate campaigns from animal advocacy organizations) might not be all that rare? But I agree it’s less common than the other, standard activities.
Thanks—I see what you mean re advocacy towards corporate actors—that would make it one of the actions in industry norms building. However, I originally had congressional grillings in mind as part of the law-making process: it serves both as expressing discontent vis-a-vis companies’ behavior, but also as a way to inform/signal for policymakers among themselves on the need for better policy/enforcement of the policy and on the prioritization of this issue (high enough on the agenda to make a public fuss about it).
Thanks for this! Added them as examples of actions. Could you explain how “setting of corporate policy” is different from corporate compliance & corporate governance? I also didn’t add the last one because it seems quite rare that policymakers would do advocacy towards corporate actors for these corporate actors to change their policy, while I believe all other activities are fairly common.
Thanks!
Re: setting of corporate policy, yeah, on second thought I’m less confident it’s a very useful category. The differences I had in mind were:
Corporate compliance seems to be narrower in its goals
Corporate compliance and corporate governance seem to be broader activities involving the selection and implementation of policy (?), while setting it could be the the part where the new policy is formally established (analogous to “lawmaking” and “making regulations,” which also seem like fairly narrow parts of broader processes).
Hm, maybe. My impression is that (at least in a US context and for high-profile cases) it’s not so rare, since Congress members occasionally directly contact businesses or pressure them (via implicit threats of harsh legislation), by, e.g., grilling them in Congressional hearings. And advocacy from non-governmental third parties (e.g., corporate campaigns from animal advocacy organizations) might not be all that rare? But I agree it’s less common than the other, standard activities.
Thanks—I see what you mean re advocacy towards corporate actors—that would make it one of the actions in industry norms building. However, I originally had congressional grillings in mind as part of the law-making process: it serves both as expressing discontent vis-a-vis companies’ behavior, but also as a way to inform/signal for policymakers among themselves on the need for better policy/enforcement of the policy and on the prioritization of this issue (high enough on the agenda to make a public fuss about it).