The article has argued that over the decade Argentine political culture has (i) configured an exclusive discursive field around sustainability initiatives and their promoters, that (ii) precluded wider norm-diffusion and regime uptake by limiting the interest of potential adherents and collaborators. Sustainability initiatives tend to be framed as corporate projects of limited social and political relevance, disconnected from national positions concerning domestic priorities, human and labor rights, and corporate practices. As a result, in the words of a local interviewee, ‘private social responsibility is not an issue in the public eye in Argentina’ (San Andrés University, 2011, pers. comm., 14 September). The ‘shallow’ salience of sustainability frames and programs in the country is conducive to a pattern of engagement featuring a disarticulated network of actors, peripheral NGOs, and proxy organizations.
Acknowledging the limitations of case studies for theory-building, the article poses that national cultural-ideological structures may be more resilient and influential than what conventional models imply, configuring discursive fields that can be either supportive or detrimental for the operation of global norms and actors. Moreover, the case suggests that some national political cultures may be more compatible and receptive than others in relation to sustainability norms, and that such compatibility constitutes a necessary condition for successful norm diffusion and regime effectiveness upon implementation. When semantically aligned with incoming regulatory frames, national cultural structures and institutions provide fertile symbolic material for the emergence and evolution of (second order) legitimacy-building processes and coordination games that underpin organizational capacity.20 Instead, when this alignment is absent, as in the Argentine case, it becomes difficult for norm-entrepreneurs and interested parties to make sense and establish meaningful communications and relations with other potential participants and allies. This interferes with the normative validity of prospective norms, amplifies competing counterframes and antagonistic positions, and deters the emergence of supporting coalitions. In this manner, the article validates the observation by Espach (2009, p. 141) that ‘effective regime implementation may be impossible’ in certain national environments, as it involves altering enduring patterns of social relations beyond the reach of design considerations, and of framing strategies. Future research could examine and validate this conclusion, considering different frames and standards, cultural environments, regime moments, and political economic trajectories.
Moreover, the article warns against accounts exclusively driven by market or power-centered considerations, and overly focused on developments in the global North. As shown, the domestic – and the domestic in the global South – emerges not as a passive context of deficit, but as a dynamic field populated by active structures, institutions, and actors. Furthermore, the case suggests that situated political actors may be better positioned to devise ‘counterframes’ that reverberate nationally, and that can potentially ‘crowd out’ new regulatory models and norms. This is clear in the case of the Kirchner governments, which over the last decade successfully promoted a political discourse that amplified certain cultural-political narratives in detriment of private governance frames and initiatives. In the context of Latin America, and of the global South in general, the historical and enduring centrality of the role of the state – not only institutionally, but also ideologically as well as discursively – remains a key variable to be considered when analyzing private governance and its diffusion, even if governmental actors are rarely found to be directly involved. Simultaneously, the case showed that low resonance does not imply that sustainability initiatives will fail to recruit relevant participants. An adversarial environment can even reinforce self-regulation as a defensive practice, as it appears to be the case with the RTRS and GRI. In this form, rationalist and cultural explanations might not be mutually exclusive and in certain instances could well complement each other, but nonetheless involve different understandings of what regime effectiveness entails and how participation is sustained.21
In conclusion, by unpacking the politics of resonance in Argentina the article has made a dual contribution to the literature. Empirically, the article further elucidated the Argentine situation in relation to sustainability governance, illuminating major structural challenges for governance actors seeking to promote private regulatory agendas. Theoretically, it advanced and evaluated a conceptual approach to transnational governance and norm-diffusion that bridges with more sociological and cultural conceptualizations, emphasizing greater attention to path dependent structures and discourses, and to the contextualization of causal mechanisms.
Abbott, K. (2012), “Engaging the public and the private in global sustainability governance”, International Affairs, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 543–564.
Amengual, M. (2013), “Pollution in the Garden of the Argentine Republic: Building State Capacity to Escape from Chaotic Regulation”, Politics & Society, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 527–560.
Barbosa, S. (2010), “Menemismo y kirchnerismo en Argentina: un análisis político discursivo de su construcción hegemónica”, Pensamiento Plural, Vol. 6, pp. 11–34.
Bartley, T. (2010), “Transnational private regulation in practice: The limits of forest and labor standards certification in Indonesia”, Business and Politics, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 1–34.
Bartley, T. (2014), “Transnational governance and the re-centered state: Sustainability or legality?”, Regulation & Governance, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 93–109.
Bartley, T. and Smith, S. (2010), “Communities of practice as cause and consequence of transnational governance: the evolution of social and environmental certiﬁcation”, in Djelic, M. and Quack, S. (Eds.),Transnational Communities:Shaping global economic governance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Benford, R. and Snow, D. (2000), “Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 26, pp. 611–639.
Berliner, D. and Prakash, A. (2012), “From norms to programs: The United Nations Global Compact and global governance”, Regulation & Governance, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 149–166.
Bernstein, S. (2004), “Legitimacy in Global Environmental Governance”, Journal of International Law and International Relations, Vol. 1 No. 1-2, pp. 139–166.
Bernstein, S. and Cashore, B. (2007), “Can non-state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework”, Regulation & Governance, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 347–371.
Braithwaite, J. (2006), “Responsive regulation and developing economies”, World Development, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 884–898.
CEADS. (2008), Desarrollo Sostenible: El Caso Argentino – Un análisis académico de 10 años de buenas prácticas empresariales, Buenos Aires.
Comtrade. (2014), “UN Comtrade Database”, available at: http://comtrade.un.org/ (accessed 17 August 2015).
CSA. (2011), “ISO 26000”, CSA-TUCA, available at: http://csa-csi.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=220&Itemid=290&lang=es (accessed 9 April 2014).
Dingwerth, K. and Pattberg, P. (2009), “World Politics and Organizational Fields: The Case of Transnational Sustainability Governance”, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 707–743.
Dobusch, L. and Quack, S. (2013), “Framing standards, mobilizing users: Copyright versus fair use in transnational regulation”, Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 52–88.
Dubash, N. and Morgan, B. (2012), “Understanding the rise of the regulatory state of the South”, Regulation & Governance, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 261–281.
Ebeling, J. and Yasué, M. (2009), “The effectiveness of market-based conservation in the tropics: Forest certification in Ecuador and Bolivia”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 1145–1153.
Engstrom, P. (2013), “A Special Relationship Gone Normal? Argentina and the Inter-American Human Rights System, 1979-2013”, Pensamiento Propio, Vol. 38 No. Jul-Dic, pp. 115–150.
Espach, R. (2006), “When is Sustainable Forestry Sustainable? The Forest Stewardship Council in Argentina and Brazil”, Global Environmental Politics, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 55–84.
Espach, R. (2009), Private Environmental Regimes in Developing Countries: Globally Sown, Locally Grown, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Etchemendy, S. and Collier, R. (2007), “Down but not out: Union resurgence and segmented neocorporatism in Argentina (2003–2007)”, Politics & Society, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 363–401.
Etchemendy, S. and Garay, C. (2011), “Argentina - Left Populism in Comparative Perspective, 2003-2009”, in Levitsky, S. and Roberts, K. (Eds.),The Resurgence of the Latin American Left, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Ferchen, M., Garcia-Herrer, A. and Nigrinis, M. (2013), “Evaluating Latin America’s Commodity Dependence on China”, BBVA Research Working Paper 13/05, pp. 1–18.
Ferree, M. (2003), “Resonance and Radicalism: Feminist Framing in the Abortion Debates of the United States and Germany”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 109 No. 2, pp. 304–244.
FSC. (2015), “The FSC International Certificate Database”, available at: http://www.fsc-uk.org/search-products-and-suppliers.4.htm (accessed 16 April 2015).
Gaggero, A. (2012), “La retirada de los grupos economicos argentinos durante la crisis y salida del regimen de convertibilidad”, Desarrollo Económico, Vol. 52, pp. 229–254.
García-López, G. a. and Arizpe, N. (2010), “Participatory processes in the soy conflicts in Paraguay and Argentina”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 196–206.
Gilbert, D., Rasche, A. and Waddock, S. (2011), “Accountability in a global economy: The emergence of international accountability standards”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 23–44.
Grajew, O. (2010), “NGOs and the United Nations Global Compact: the link between civil society and corporations”, in Rasche, A. and Kell, G. (Eds.),The United Nations Global Compact: Achievements, Trends, and Challenges, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 182–194.
GRI. (2014a), “Organizational Stakeholders”, Global Reporting Initiative, available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/network/organizational-stakeholders/Pages/default.aspx (accessed 25 November 2014).
GRI. (2014b), “What is GRI?”, available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/information/about-gri/what-is-GRI/Pages/default.aspx (accessed 17 April 2015).
GRI. (2015), “Sustainability Disclosure Database”, available at: http://database.globalreporting.org/ (accessed 16 April 2015).
Gutierrez, R. and Isuani, F. (2013), “Luces y sombras de la política ambiental argentina entre 1983 y 2013”, Revista SAAP, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 317–328.
Hahn, R. and Weidtmann, C. (2012), “Transnational Governance, Deliberative Democracy, and the Legitimacy of ISO 26000: Analyzing the Case of a Global Multistakeholder Process”, Business & Society, Vol. forthcom.
Hochstetler, K. (2002), “After the Boomerang: Environmental Movements and Politics in the La Plata River Basin”, Global Environmental Politics, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 35–57.
Inglehart, R. (1988), “The Renaissance of Political Culture”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 82 No. 4, pp. 1203–1230.
ISO. (2014a), “ISO 26000:2010 Guidance on social responsibility”, ISO, available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=42546 (accessed 8 December 2014).
ISO. (2014b), GRI G4 Guidelines and ISO 26000, Geneva.
ISO. (2015), “ISO Survey 2013”, available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-survey (accessed 16 April 2015).
Jelin, E. (1994), “The Politics of Memory: The Human Rights Movements and the Construction of Democracy in Argentina”, Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 35–58.
King, B. (2008), “A Social Movement Perspective of Stakeholder Collective Action and Influence”, Business & Society, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 21–49.
Kormann, L. (2015), Big Business and Brazil’s Economic Reforms, Routledge.
Leguizamón, A. (2014), “Modifying Argentina: GM soy and socio-environmental change”, Geoforum, Vol. 53, pp. 149–160.
Levitsky, S. and Murillo, M. (2008), “Argentina: From Kirchner to Kirchner”, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 16–30.
Lichterman, P. and Cefai, D. (2006), “The Idea of Political Culture”, in Goodin, R. and Tilly, C. (Eds.),The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 392–414.
Loya, T. and Boli, J. (1999), “Standardization in the World Polity: Technical Rationality over Power”, Constructing world culture: international nongovernmental organizations since 1875, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
MdT. (2009), RSE y Trabajo Decente en Argentina: Contexto, Desafios y Oportunidades, Buenos Aires.
Muñoz, L. and Hilbert, J. (2012), “Biocombustibles: El avance de la certificación de sustentabilidad en la Argentina”, INTA, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 1–20.
Mutti, D., Yakovleva, N., Vazquez-Brust, D. and Di Marco, M.H. (2012), “Corporate social responsibility in the mining industry: Perspectives from stakeholder groups in Argentina”, Resources Policy, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 212–222.
Nadvi, K. (2014), “‘Rising Powers’ and Labour and Environmental Standards”, Oxford Development Studies, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 137–150.
Neilson, J. and Pritchard, B. (2010), “Fairness and ethicality in their place: the regional dynamics of fair trade and ethical sourcing agendas in the plantation districts of South India”, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 42, pp. 1833–1851.
Newell, P. (2009), “Technology, Food, Power: Governing GMOs in Argentina”, in Clapp, J. and Fuchs, D. (Eds.),Corporate Power in Global Agrifood Governance, MIT Press, Cambridge, p. 253.
Newell, P. and Muro, A. (2006), “Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility in Argentina.”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 24, pp. 49–68.
NuevosAires. (2013), “Quienes Somos”, Nuevos Aires, available at: http://www.nuevosaires.org.ar/quienes-somos/ (accessed 13 July 2015).
Peña, A.M. and Davies, T. (2014), “Globalisation from Above? Corporate Social Responsibility, the Workers’ Party and the Origins of the World Social Forum”, New Political Economy, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 258–281.
Peruzzotti, E. (2001), “The nature of the new Argentine democracy. The delegative democracy argument revisited”, Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 133–155.
Pfeiffer, S. (2006), Bajo Sospecha: el lobby empresarial en la Argentina, CIPPEC - Transparency Programme, Buenos Aires.
Polletta, F. (2008), “Culture and Movements”, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 619 No. 1, pp. 78–96.
Ponte, S. (2008), “Greener than Thou: The Political Economy of Fish Ecolabeling and Its Local Manifestations in South Africa”, World Development, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 159–175.
Ponte, S. and Cheyns, E. (2013), “Voluntary standards, expert knowledge and the governance of sustainability networks”, Global Networks, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 459–477.
Rasche, A. (2009), “Toward a model to compare and analyze accountability standards - the case of the UN Global Compact”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 192–205.
Reboratti, C. (2012), “Socio-environmental Conflict in Argentina”, Journal of Latin American Geography.
Resnick, D. (2009), “The Benefits of Frame Resonance Disputes for Transnational Movements: The Case of Botswana’s Central Kalahari Game Reserve”, Social Movement Studies, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 55–72.
Richardson, N. (2009), “Export-oriented populism: commodities and coalitions in Argentina”, Studies in Comparative International Development, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 228–255.
Riggirozzi, P. (2009), “After Neoliberalism in Argentina: Reasserting Nationalism in an Open Economy”, in Grugel, J. and Riggirozzi, P. (Eds.),Governance after Neoliberalism in Latin America, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 89–113.
Romero, L. (2002), A History of Argentina in the Twentieth Century, The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park.
Ross Schneider, B. (2004), Business Politics and the State in Twentieth Century Latin America, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
RTRS. (2013), “EXECUTIVE BOARD ELECTS NEW RTRS PRESIDENT”, available at: http://22.214.171.124/Portals/0/publicaties/Magazine/2013/10/1333 RTRS New President.pdf (accessed 15 April 2015).
SADS. (2012), “Programa Nacional Trabajo y Desarrollo Sustentable”, Secretaria de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable, available at: http://www.ambiente.gov.ar/archivos/web/trabajo/file/Presentacin del Programa/UNI_SAYDS.pdf (accessed 22 July 2015).
SAI. (2015), “SA8000 Certified Facilities”, available at: http://www.saasaccreditation.org/?q=node/23 (accessed 16 April 2015).
Schorr, M. and Wainer, A. (2014), “Extranjerización e internacionalización de las burguesías latinoamericanas: el caso argentino”, Perfiles latinoamericanos, Vol. 22 No. 44, pp. 113–141.
Schouten, G., Leroy, P. and Glasbergen, P. (2012), “On the deliberative capacity of private multi-stakeholder governance: The Roundtables on Responsible Soy and Sustainable Palm Oil”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 83, pp. 42–50.
Schvarzer, J. (1996), La industria que supimos conseguir, Editorial Planeta, Buenos Aires.
Schvarzer, J. (1998), “La industria argentina en la tormenta de los 90”, Nueva Sociedad, Vol. 158, pp. 139–159.
Sikkink, K. (2008), “From Pariah State to Global Protagonist: Argentina and the Struggle for International Human Rights”, Latin American Politics and Society, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 1–29.
Snow, D. (2004), “Framing Processes, Ideology, and Discursive Fields”, in Snow, D., Soule, S. and Kriesi, H. (Eds.),The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, Blackwell, Malden.
Snow, D. and Benford, R. (1992), “Master Frames and Cycles of Protests”, in Morris, A. and McClurg Mueller, C. (Eds.),Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, Yale University Press.
Snow, D. and Benford, R. (2000), “Comment on Oliver and Johnston: Clarifying the Relationship between Framing and Ideology”, Mobilization, Vol. 5, pp. 55–60.
Somers, M. (1995), “What’s Political or Cultural about Political Culture and the Public Sphere? Toward an Historical Sociology of Concept Formation”, Sociological Theory, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 113–144.
Sutton, B. (2015), “Collective Memory and the Language of Human Rights: Attitudes toward Torture in Contemporary Argentina”, Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 73–91.
Svampa, M. and Sola Alvarez, M. (2010), “Modelo minero, resistencias sociales y estilos de desarrollo: los marcos de la discusión en la Argentina”, Ecuador Debate, Vol. 79, pp. 105–126.
Toffel, M., Hort, J. and Ouellet, M. (2015), “Codes in context: How states, markets, and civil society shape adherence to global labor standards”, Regulation & Governance, No. Forthcoming.
UNGC. (2010), An Introduction to Linkages between UN Global Compact Principles and ISO 26000 Core Subjects, UN Global Compact Office, New York.
UNGC. (2014), “Overview of the UN Global Compact”, available at: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/index.html (accessed 17 April 2015).
UNGC. (2015), “Participant Search”, available at: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/participants/search (accessed 16 April 2015).
Viola, E. (2013), “Transformations in Brazilian Deforestation and Climate Policy Since 2005”, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 109–124.
Vogel, D. (2008), “Private global business regulation”, Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 11, pp. 261–282.
Vogel, D. (2010), “The Private Regulation of Global Corporate Conduct: Achievements and Limitations”, Business & Society, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 68–87.
Waisbord, S. and Peruzzotti, E. (2009), “The environmental story that wasn’t: advocacy, journalism and the asambleismo movement in Argentina”, Media, Culture & Society, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 691–709.
Walder, A. (2009), “Political Sociology and Social Movements”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 35, pp. 393–412.
Young, R. (2004), “Dilemmas and advances in corporate social responsibility in Brazil: The work of the Ethos Institute”, Natural Resources Forum, Vol. 28, pp. 291–301.