The selection of the environment, among other political sectors, is not arbitrary. It is a calculated decision for a few particular reasons: First, the environmental sector is intrinsically important. Beyond the obvious physical importance to humanity, politically it is a salient and increasingly important topic. Issues affecting the environment have been advancing up the policy agenda as the negative effects of environmental degradation become more apparent. Second, and related to the first, as well as to issues of research design, private environmental governance is rapidly increasing. The multitude of actors operating in this space thus presents a rich space within which to analyze private authority as it evolves. Third, the environment can be broken down into several sectors that represent separate fields within one overarching sector. This provides an opportunity for analyzing within-sector differentiation (i.e., forests, fisheries, climate change, oceans). The environmental sector has an overarching logic that applies to these fields individually, yet each field has its own set of actors. This presents the opportunity to examine differences between fields (forests and fisheries in this study), within one sector (environment), and this provides for control of variation. Fourth, and finally, the environmental sector exemplifies well the transition to network governance that is taking place across political sectors—beyond just the environment. This is the case for several reasons: One, governance of the environment takes place primarily among the developed countries of the world, which leverage the power of modern communication and information processing technologies to achieve their objectives. Understanding the complexities of environmental systems degradation requires advanced information processing techniques, intensive knowledge accumulation, and the technology to support such. Thus, the effects of the networking of governance are very prominent within the environmental sector. This is not to say that the networking of power is not taking place in the developing world, but rather just that it is more prominent in the developed world—and thus more suited to analysis. Two, governance in the environmental sector is not, in its current form, ordered hierarchically. Rather, it is more horizontally oriented as non-state actors play a significant role in the ordering and governing of the sector. This is particularly the case considering the unwillingness of states to enact authoritative legislation to protect the environment. Three, there exist in the environmental sector distinguishable networks that operate, for the most part, independent of one another, for example, the industrial network and the network of environmental NGOs (ENGOs). Both sides consist of diverse collections of actors plugged into different networks along different nodes. Some of these networks plug into state authority at different points but mainly operate apart from the hierarchical structures of state authority. Four, power and authority dynamics flow between actors dynamically in this space. This can be witnessed in the rise and fall of actors attempting to leverage all forms of authority in this space to achieve outcomes. ENGOs are constantly at odds with industry and government over environmental conservation strategies. They engage in push-and-pull power struggles aimed at achieving desired objectives, and leverage intermediaries in order to further their cause. Thus, the space provides rich empirical grounds for studying the social phenomenon that is private authority. Five, information is the currency of power in this space. While material productivity is of obvious relevance and importance to those actors in the industrial networks, the ability to convey their operations as being considered sustainable is critical to remaining profitable. Conveying this data requires both the accumulation of vast metrics, measured against standards created by environmental experts using advanced scientific tools of measurement, and a firm definition of what sustainable means. Thus, it requires not just advanced scientific instrumentation to measure the effects; it also requires the technical means by which to convey and inform such broad audiences.
Structure of the Book
This book has two main parts: a theoretical component and an empirical component. Chapter 1 presents a theory of private governance authority in networked society. It will begin with an in-depth discussion on the nature of networked society, with a focus on private governance within such. This section will include an in-depth look at the constituent elements of private authority, how it flows across networks through network connectors, and why some are better able to shape the discourse than others. The purpose is to present a more robust, explanatory, and socially accurate framework for understanding private governance in the environmental sector specifically, but about the social processes involved in global governance, more generally.
As the book aims to ground private governance within its broader discursive context, the focus of chapter 2 will be on outlining the discursive structures of the environmental sector. In order to properly analyze how authority transits social networks, and the key role network connectors play, it is essential that the network architecture be accurately mapped out and clearly presented. Therefore, the discursive structure of the overarching environmental sector will be presented so that in the empirical chapters the process of construction, re-construction, and navigation of subject positions can be more accurately described. Through extensive content analysis, and secondary source research, three distinct discourses were identified within the environmental sector: the preservation discourse, the sustainable development discourse, and the environmental economism discourse. These discourses were adopted, and adapted, in varying ways, by actors and networks across varying environmental sectors. Framing the project in this way will allow for a detailed examination of how actors navigated different subject positions within this domain and how, from these subject positions, they were able to enforce rules.
Chapter 2 will briefly present the analytical framework utilized for conducting the research undertaken in this book. Due to the many variables under consideration in this work, and the complexity of the argument, it seemed appropriate to dedicate a brief chapter to explaining the process used for framing and exploring the research problem under investigation. As the book aims to ground private governance within its broader discursive context, the focus of chapter 3 will be on outlining the discursive structures of the environmental sector. In order to properly analyze how authority transits social networks, and the key role network connectors play, it is essential that the network architecture be accurately mapped out and clearly presented.
Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 are the empirical chapters and will focus on the FSC in the forestry sector and the MSC in the fisheries sector. The first chapter of each case study (i.e., chapters 4 and 6, respectively) will focus on how the FSC/MSC emerged into the subject position of a network connector through their construction and manipulation of discourse. The second chapter of each case study (i.e., chapters 5 and 7, respectively) will then focus on how the FSC/MSC then used such a subject position to wield authority, looking not just at the relationship between the FSC/MSC and those they sought to govern, but also on the role competing networks played in the process. Through a network analysis, complemented by a focus on discourse, it becomes evident that the FSC/MSC constructed an adapted form of the sustainable development discourse that could resonate to both the preservationists and the environmental economism actors. Through strategies of identity balancing and identity transference the FSC/MSC were able to gain legitimacy over their competitors. Such an approach is distinct from those that use either moral authority or instrumental value as the key factors propelling weaker actors to gain legitimation and power over stronger actors. Rather, I argue