¹ Gereffi, Gary & Korzeniewicz, Miguel, Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism (1994).Google Scholar

² Rosenau, James N. & Czempiel, Ernst Otto, Governance without government: order and change in world politics (1992).Google Scholar

³ Leibfried, Stephan & Zürn, Michael, Transformations of the State? (2005); Sol Picciotto, Regulatory Networks and Multi-Level Global Governance, in Responsible Business. Self-Governance and law in Transnational Economic Transactions 315–341 (Olaf Dilling, et. al. eds., 2008); Sol Picciotto, Regulating Global Corporate Capitalism 12 (Cambridge University Press. 2011). At the national level similar developments have been addressed in German political and legal studies under the topic of the ‘cooperative state’ (Kooperativer Staat); see Gunnar Folke Schuppert, Gemeinwohldefinition im kooperativen Staat (Definition of the Common Good in the Cooperative State), in Gemeinwohl und Gemeinsinn im Recht (Public Interest and Solidarity in Law) (Herfried Münkler & Karsten Fischer eds., 2002). However, at the transnational level there are also important differences that concern first and foremost, the de-territorialization of norm generation and compliance, and the more autonomously evolving modes of legitimacy.Google Scholar

⁴ Fabricio Gilardi et. al., Regulation In The Age Of Globalization: The Diffusion Of Regulatory Agencies Across Europe And Latin America (2006); David Levi-Faur, Varieties of Regulatory Capitalism. Getting the Most Out of the Comparative Method, 19 Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions (2006); John Braithwaite, Regulatory Capitalism. How it Works, Ideas for Making it Work Better (2008).Google Scholar

⁵ Braithwaite, supra note 4, at 1–31.Google Scholar

⁶ Braithwaite, supra note 4, at 11; Steven Vogel, Freer Markets, More Rules (1996). Compare also the recent work on Karl Polanyi highlighting this nexus in the context of globalization, e.g. Christian Joerges & Josef Falke eds., Karl Polanyi, Globalisation and the Potential of law in Transnational Markets (2011).Google Scholar

⁷ Drahos, Peter & Braithwaite, David, Information Feudalism (2002).Google Scholar

⁸ Dilling, Olaf, et. al., Introduction: Exploring Transnational Administrative Rule-Making, in Transnational Administrative Rule-Making (Olaf Dilling et. al. eds., 2011).Google Scholar

⁹ Braithwaite, supra note 4.Google Scholar

¹⁰ This article will primarily address the functions of provision and regulation, even if there are also important distributional aspects to environmental law, e.g. how environmental regulation distributes risk across different social strata.Google Scholar

¹¹ For political science, see e.g. Haufler, Virginia, A Public Role for the Private Sector (2001). For legal scholarship cf. Gunther Teubner, Global Law Without a State (1997); Benedict Kingsbury et. al., The Emergence of Global Administrative Law, 68 law and Contemporary Problems 15 (2005).Google Scholar

¹² Sachs, Noah, Jumping the Pond: Transnational Law and the Future of Chemical Regulation, 62 Vanderbilt law Review 1817 (2009); see also Dilling, Olaf, Proactive Compliance? Repercussions of National Product Regulation in Standards of Transnational Business Networks, in Responsible Business - Self-governance and law in Transnational Business Transactions 89 (Olaf Dilling et. al. eds., 2008).Google Scholar

¹³ Compare also the early work of David Vogel, Rading up: consumer and environmental regulation in a global economy (1995).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Teubner, supra note 11; Andreas Fischer-Lescano & Gunther Teubner, Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global Law, 25 Mich. J. OF Int.L. 999 (2004); Joshua Cohen & Charles F Sabel, Global Democracy?, 37 International law and Politics 763 (2006).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Kingsbury et. al., supra note 11; Kenneth Abbott & Duncan Snidal, Strengthening International Regulation Through Transnational New Governance. Overcoming the Orchestration Deficit, 42 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. (2008); Kenneth Abbott & Duncan Snidal, International Regulation without International Government. Improving IO Performance through Orchestration, TransState Working Papers. No 127 (2009); Doreen McBarnet et. al., The New Corporate Accountability: Corporate Social Responsibility and the law (2007). For regulatory discourse, see Berman, Paul Schiff, Dialectical Regulation, Territoriality, and Pluralism, 38 Conn. L. Rev. 929 (2006).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Compare, for example, David Braithwaite et. al., Can Regulation and Governance Make a Difference?, 1 Regulation & Governance (2007).Google Scholar

¹⁷ The impossibility of empirical research from a social systems theory perspective is even acknowledged by John Paterson & Gunther Teubner, Changing Maps: Empirical Legal Autopoiesis, in Theory and Method in Socio-Legal Research 215–237 (Reza Banakar & Max Travers eds., 2005).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Braithwaite, supra note 4, at 197, citing Philip Pettit, Republicanism (Clarendon Press. 1997).Google Scholar

¹⁹ See e.g. his analysis of cycles of boom, bust and regulation, Braithwaite, supra note 4, at 33.Google Scholar

²⁰ With regard to white-collar criminality, especially in tax planning, see Braithwaite, supra note 4, at 48; see also Braithwaite, David, Markets in Vice, Markets in Virtue 17 (2005). For an excellent discussion of such collective dynamics, see also the analysis of the “sub-prime” crisis and similar financial crises, George Akerlof & Robert Shiller, Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism 26–40 (2009).Google Scholar

²¹ Braithwaite, supra note 4, at 50; Braithwaite, supra note 20.Google Scholar

²² See particularly the so-called ‘Ruggie-Framework,’ Ruggie, John G., Protect, Respect and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rights, 3 Innovations (2008). For a critical account of the notion of embeddedness in this context, cf. Claire Methven O'Brian, The UN Special Representative on Business and Human Rights: Re-embedding or Dis-embedding Transnational Markets, in Karl Polanyi, Globalisation and the Potential of law in Transnational Markets 323 (Christian Joerges & Josef Falke eds., 2011).Google Scholar

²³ Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986, 42 USC §§ 11001-11050 (1988).Google Scholar

²⁴ Deena Murphy Medley, Exportation of Risk: The Case of Bhopal, available at: www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/Bhopal.aspx (last accessed: 24 April 2012); Andrew Natale, Expansion of Parent Corporate Shareholder Liability Through the Good Samaritan Doctrine: A Parent Corporation's Duty to Provide a Safe Workplace for Employees of its Subsidiary, 57 CIN. L. Rev. 717(1988).Google Scholar

²⁵ Quijano, Romeo F., Elements of the Precautionary Principle, in Precaution, Environnmental Science, and Preventive Public Policy 21, at 24 (Joel A. Tickner ed. 2003).Google Scholar

²⁶ Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, May 22, 2001, 40 I.L.M. 532, available at: http://chm.pops.int/Convention/tabid/54/Default.aspx (last accessed: 24 April 2012).Google Scholar

²⁷ Environmental Defense Fund, Toxic Ignorance. The Continuing Absence of Basic Health Testing for Top-Selling Chemicals in the United States (1997). The toxicity of a substance is usually tested with animal tests: the common standard of the LD50 stands for the dose of a chemical, of which 50% of a normal population of rats die.Google Scholar

²⁸ Dilling, Olaf, Risky Uses for Safe Technology: Towards a Legal Reconstruction of the User Perspective, in Use of Science and Technology in Business: Exploring the Impact of Using Activity for Systems, Organizations, and People 75 (Håkan Håkansson et. al. eds., 2009).Google Scholar

²⁹ For the similar distinction between ‘Entscheidungskompetenz’ (decision-making), ‘Organisationsmacht’ (organizational power) and ‘Legitimationskompetenz’ (legitimacy of competence), see Marianne Beisheim et. al. eds., Wozu Staat? Governance in Räumen begrenzter und konsolidierter Staatlichkeit (Why State? Governance in Spaces of Limited and Consolidated Statehood) 18–20 (2011).Google Scholar

³⁰ Beckert, Jens, Transnationale Solidarität: Chancen und Grenzen (Transnational Solidarity: Opportunities and Limits) 175 (2004); Robert Costanza et. al., Einführung in die ökologische Ökonomik (Introduction to Ecological Economics) 229 (2001).Google Scholar

³¹ Grossmann, Elizabeth, High Tech Trash. Digital Devices, Hidden Toxics, and Human Health (2006).Google Scholar

³² Williams, Eric, Computers and the environment: understanding and managing their impacts 2 (2003).Google Scholar

³³ Sachs, supra note 12.Google Scholar

³⁴ Xia Huo et. al., Elevated Blood Lead Levels of Children in Guiyu, an Electronic Waste Recycling Town in China, 115 Envt'l Health Persp. (2007).Google Scholar

³⁵ Biermann, Frank & Simonis, Udo E., Institutionelle Reform der Weltumweltpolitik? Zur politischen Debatte um die Gründung einer “Weltumweltorganisation” (Institutional reform of global environmental policy? On the political debate surrounding the establishment of a “World Environmental Organization”), 7 Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen (2000).Google Scholar

³⁶ Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, 22 March 1985, 26 I.L.M. 1529, available at: http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/vcpol/vcpol.html (last accessed: 24 April 2012); Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, 16 September 1987, 26 I.L.M. 1529, available at: http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201522/volume-1522-I-26369-English.pdf (last accessed: 24 April 2012); Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and Their Disposal, 22 March 1989, 28 I.L.M. 649, available at: http://www.basel.int/TheConvention/Overview/TextoftheConvention/tabid/1275/Default.aspx (last accessed: 24 April 2012); Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, 10 September 1998, 38 I.L.M. 1, available at: http://www.pic.int/TheConvention/Overview/TextoftheConvention/tabid/1048/language/en-US/Default.aspx (last accessed: 24 April 2012).Google Scholar

³⁷ Winter, Gerd, Dangerous Chemicals: A Global Problem on Its Way to Global Governance, in Umweltrecht und Umweltwissenschaft - Festschrift für Eckard Rehbinder 819 (Martin Führ et. al. eds., 2007).Google Scholar

³⁸ This is disputed, as the evidence for the improvement of environmental performance by firms using EMS, such as ISO 14000 is inconclusive; see Darnall, Nicole & Sides, Stephen, Assessing the Performance of Voluntary Environmental Programs: Does Certification Matter?, 36 The Pol'y Stud. J. (2008).Google Scholar

³⁹ Kysar, Douglas A., Preferences for Processes: The Process/Product Distinction and the Regulation of Consumer Choice, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 525 (2004).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Vogel, David, Environmental Regulation and Economic Integration, 3 J. Int. Econ. L. 265 (2000).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Sachs, supra note 12; Aaron Ezroj, How the European Union s Weee & RoHS Directives Can Help the United States Develop a Successful National E-Waste Strategy, 28 Va. Envtl L. J. 45 (2010); Tseming Yang & Robert V Percival, The Emergence of Global Environmental Law, 36 Ecology l. Q. (2009).Google Scholar

⁴² Dilling, supra note 12, at 89.Google Scholar

⁴³ Führ, Martin & Bizer, Kilian, REACH as a Paradigm Shift in Chemical Policy - Responsive Regulation and Behavioural Models, J. Clean. Prod. 327 (2007).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ackerman, Frank, Stanton, Elizabeth & Massey, Rachel, European Chemical Policy and the United States: The Impacts of REACH, Global Development and Environment Institute, (Working Paper No. 06–06) 8 (2006).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Führ & Bizer, supra note 39. REACH also sets incentives to establish cooperative risk assessment, according to Article 29 REACH, the so- called Substance Information Exchange Forum (SIEF). In the meantime, more than 3000 SIEFs have been established; see the ECHA-website, available at: http://echa.europa.eu/ (last accessed: 24 April 2012)Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Sachs, supra note 12.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Schneider, Jürg, Globale öffentliche Güter und das internationale Umweltregime (Global Public Goods and the International Environmental regime),Globale öffentliche Güter 25 (2005).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Herberg, Martin, Global Legal Pluralism and Interlegality: Environmental Self-Regulation in Multinational Enterprises as Global Law-Making, in Responsible Business. Self-Governance and law in Transnational Economic Transactions 22 (Olaf Dilling et. al. eds., 2008).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Braithwaite, supra note 4; Olaf Dilling, grenzüberschreitende Produktverantwortung: Zum prozeduralen Recht zwischenbetrieblicher Risikobewältigung (Transboundary Producer Responsibility: Towards a Procedural Law of Inter-Firm Risk Management, 2010).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Herberg, supra note 48, at 19.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Braithwaite, supra note 4, at 22. About the development of Responsible Care, see Karkkainen, Bradley, Information as Environmental Regulation, 89 Geo. L. J. 257, 305 (2001).Google Scholar

⁵² E.g. Coglianese, Cary & Nash, Jennifer, Environmental Management Systems and the New Policy Agenda, in Regulating from the Inside: Can Environmental Management Systems Achieve Policy Goals? 1 (Cary Coglianese & Jennifer Nash eds., 2001); Nicolas Berland & Marie-Claire Loison, Fabricating management practices: “Responsible Care” and corporate social responsibility, 3 Soc'y. and Bus. Rev. 41 (2008).Google Scholar

⁵³ Coglianese & Nash, supra note 48, at 2.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Berland & Loison, supra note 48. However, there seem to have been some improvements in more recent amendments of the program concerning performance measures and third-party certification.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Gunningham, Neil & Sinclair, Darren, Organizational Trust and the Limits of Management-based Regulation, 43 L. and Soc'y. Rev. 865 (2009), citing Howard.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Coglianese & Nash, supra note 48.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Power, Michael, The Audit Society. Rituals of Verification (1997). See also below, in section D(I), the fifth paragraph on the neo-institutionalist critique.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Herberg, Martin, Globalisierung und private Selbstregulierung (Globalization and the Private Self, 2007).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Herberg, supra note 48, at 27.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Id. at 27.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Herberg, supra note 58, at 134.Google Scholar

⁶² Id. at 175.Google Scholar

⁶³ Herberg, supra note 48.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Responsible Business: Self-governance and Law in Transnational Economic Transactions 3 (Olaf Dilling, Martin Herberg & Gerd Winter eds., 2008).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Confusingly they are sometimes called Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), even if they no longer “originally manufacture.” Google Scholar

⁶⁶ For details, see Dilling, supra note 45.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Lindenthal, Alexandra, Transnational Management of Hazardous Chemicals by Interfirm Cooperation and Associations, in Responsible Business: Self-Governance and law in Transnational Economic Transactions 123 (Olaf Dilling et. al. eds., 2008)‥Google Scholar

⁶⁸ For a more general account of CSR with similarly mixed results, see Kurt A. Strasser, Myths and Realities of Business Environmentalism: Good Works, Good Business, Or Greenwash? (2011).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ E.g. distinguishing between pragmatic, normative and cognitive legitimacy, see Black, Julia, Constructing and Contesting Legitimacy and Accountability in Polycentric Regulatory Regimes, 2 Reg. & Gov'e. (2008). See also Dingwerth, Klaus, The new transnationalism: transnational governance and democratic legitimacy (2007).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Alfred Rappaport, Creating Shareholder Value: The New Standard for Business Performance (1986).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Compare Milton Friedman's famous statement that “the social responsibility of the firm is to increase its profits,” in Milton Friedman, The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, New York Times Magazine (1970). Similarly, in contract law, this perspective implies that inter-firm standards must be covered by the will of the parties and at the level of the industry association, the decisions need to represent the interests of individual members. For a critical perspective on both the shareholder approach and corporate social responsibility, see e.g. Beate Sjåfjell, Internalizing Externalities in EU Law: Why Neither Corporate Governance nor Corporate Social Responsibility Provides the Answers, 40 Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev. 981 (2010).Google Scholar

⁷² It should be noted that not only from a strict economic point of view, but also in the practice of certain business lawyers, legal compliance is primarily considered in terms of the cost of non-compliance; see generally Parker, Christine, Robert Eli Rosen & Vibeke Nielsen, The Two Faces of Lawyers: Professional Ethics and Business Compliance With Regulation, 22 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 201 (2009).Google Scholar

⁷³ Cf Herberg, supra note 58; Martin Herberg, Bringing Professions Back in: A Fresh Look at the Dynamics of Insitution-Building in (World) Society, Karl Polanyi: Globalisation and the Potential of law in Transnational Markets (Christian Joerges & Josef Falke eds., 2011).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See Black, Julia, using a slightly different typology, Julia Black, Legitimacy and the Competition for Regulatory Share, LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers, No. 14 (2009).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ For a detailed analysis of the code of conduct “Unser Grundgesetz” by the chemical company BASF, see Herberg, supra note 58, at 78, and particularly at 86.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Dilling, supra note 49, at 54.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ For a very instructive account of the corresponding information deficits in U.S. chemicals law and toxic tort litigation, see Wagner, Wendy, Commons Ignorance: The Failure of Environmental Law to Produce Needed Information on Health and the Environment, in 53 Duke L. J. 1619 (2004).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ At the European level, this development is reflected in the debate about new modes of governance, Gráinne De Búrca & Joanne Scott, Law and New Governance in the EU and the US (2006).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Veronika Tacke, Beobachtungen der Wirtschaftsorganisation. Eine systemtheoretische Rekonstruktion institutionenökonomischer und neo-institutionalistischer Argumente in der Organisationsforschung (Observations of economic organization. A system-theoretical reconstruction of institutional economics and neo-institutionalist arguments in organizational research), in Institutionenökonomie und neuer Institutionalismus (Institutions, Economy and New Institutionalism) (Thomas Edeling et. al. eds., 1999).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Herberg, supra note 54.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Dilling, olaf, Grenzüberschreitende Produktverantwortung: Zum prozeduralen Recht zwischenbetrieblicher Risikobewältigung (Transboundary Producer Responsibility: Towards a Procedural Law of Inter-Firm Risk Management, 2010).Google Scholar

⁸² The concept of antagonistic cooperation has originally been used to describe partnerships between public and civil society actors in development policy. I owe to Martin Herberg the idea to use it for NGO-business-partnerships.Google Scholar

⁸³ Dingwerth, Klaus, North-South Parity in Global Governance: The Affirmative Procedures of the Forest Stewardship Council, 14 Global Governance (2008).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Coglianese & Nash, supra note 48.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative, available athttp://archive.basel.int/industry/mppi.html (last accessed: 24 April 2012).Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Black, supra note 70.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Perez, Oren, The New Universe of Green Finance: From Self-Regulation to Multi-Polar Governance, Responsible Business. Self-Governance and law in Transnational Economic Transactions 151 (Olaf Dilling et. al. eds., 2008). For various reasons, Germany is lagging beind in this development; see Benjamin J Richardson & Friederike Johanna Preu, German Socially Responsible Investment: Barriers and Opportunities, 12 Germ. L. J. (2011), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/pdfs/Vol12-No1/PDF_Vol_12_No_03 865-900_Articles_Preu_Richardson.pdf (last accessed: 24 April 2012).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Meidinger, Errol, Competitive Supragovernmental Regulation: How Could It Be Democratic?, 8 Chic. J. Int'l L. (2008).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ This does not preclude that in reality some serious shortcomings still remain; see Dingwerth, supra note 78, at 53.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Cf. Sammeck, Jan, A New Institutional Economics Perspective on Industry Self-Regulation 12 (2012).Google Scholar

⁹¹ Cf. with references Jordana, Jacinth & Levi-Faur, David, The politics of regulation: institutions and regulatory reforms for the age of governance 154 (2004). See also Foucault, Michel, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France 1977-1978 (2009); Michel Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France 1978-1979 (2008).Google Scholar

⁹² See for example, Lange, Bettina, Foucauldian-Inspired Discourse Analysis: A Contribution to Critical Environmental Law Scholarship, in law and Ecology: New Environmental Foundations (Andreas Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos ed. 2010). For a Foucaultian perspective on environmental policy in general, see John S. Dryzek, The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses (2005).Google Scholar

⁹³ Jordana & Levi-Faur, supra note 86, at 156.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Brunsson, Nils, Organization Of Hypocrisy. Talk, Decisions And Actions In Organizations (1994). or an application to CSR, with further references to John Meyer and Brian Rowan, Paul DiMaggio and Walther W. Powell, i.e. the classics of this approach, see Pauline Göthberg, Lost in Translation: The Case of Skandia's ‘Ideas for Life,’ in Managing Corporate Social Responsibility in Action: Talking, Doing and Measuring 93, at 96 (Frank Hond et. al. eds, 2007).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Göthberg, supra note 89, at 109. For a more nuanced neo-institutionalist perspective, see Stefanie Hiß, Durch Reden zum Handeln?! Zur Rolle freiwilliger Unternehmensinitiativen bei der Verbreitung von Sozialstandards (Through talk to action? On the Role of Voluntary Corporate Initiatives in the diffusion of Social Standards), 6 Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik 215 (2005).Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Braithwaite, supra note 4.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Merton, Robert K, Social Theory and Social Structure (1968).Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Id. at 194. A plus (+) signifies that goals or means are accepted; a minus (-) signifies that they are rejected; both plus and minus show that goals or means are substituted.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Brunsson, supra note 89.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ This is a significant deviation from Merton s original typology, as far as Merton (and Braithwaite) characterizes this constellation as “Innovation;” see Merton, supra note 92, at 194, 195–203.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ See especially Power, supra note 53.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Brunsson, supra note 89; Veronika Tacke, Systemrationalisierung an ihren Grenzen - Organisationsgrenzen und Funktionen von Grenzstellen in Wirtschaftsorganisationen ('System Rationalization’ at its Boundaries-Organizational Boundaries and Functions of Interfaces in Economic Organizations), 7 Managementforschung 1 (1997).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ For a pragmatic analysis of such negative, but also positive examples of corporate Codes of Conduct, see Herberg, supra note 44, at 24, 26.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Braithwaite, supra note 4, 32–63.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Apart from formal corporations and corporate groups, TNEs in a wider sense may also include contractual networks. For the qualification of franchising and just-in-time networks as corporate actors from legal perspective, see Teubner, Gunther, Hybrid Laws: Constitutionalizing Private Governance Networks, in Legality and Community (Robert Kagan & Kenneth Winston eds., 2000).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Herberg describes the three-layered systems of “paralegal” norms in transnational chemical corporations; see Herberg, supra note 54.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ For some valuable suggestions, see Braithwaite, supra note 4, at 140–156.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ See Fischer-Lescano, Andreas, Transnationales Verwaltungsrecht. Privatverwaltungsrecht, Verbandsklage und Kollisionsrecht nach der Aarhus-Konvention (Transnational Administrative Law. Private Administrative Law, Class Action and Conflict of Laws According to the Aarhus Convention), 63 Juristen Zeitung (2008).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ For a recent case of the ECJ, see C-266/09, Stichting Natuur en Milieu et al vs College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden (Nature and Environment Foundation et al vs. Board for the authorization of plant protection and biocidals), 2010 E.C.R. I-0000.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Cf. Herberg, supra note 54.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ E.g. according Article 53 of the Federal Law of Pollution Abatement (§ 53 BImSchG), so-called “Immissionsschutzbeauftragte” have to be appointed in major polluting facilities. They are responsible for monitoring the protection against air pollution, have a supervisory function and can give advice without having genuine decision-making power. Article 58 establishes protective measures concerning discrimination and dismissal. See the Bundes-Immisionsschutzgesetz [BImSchG] [Federal Immission Control Act], May 14, 1990, Federal law Gazette at 880 (Ger.).Google Scholar

¹¹² Sciulli, David, Theory of Societal Constitutionalism - Foundationsof a Non-Marxist Critical Theory (1992).Google Scholar

¹¹³ Noah Sachs discusses more nuanced responses to extraterritorial effects of regulation, but seems to apply it only to regulatory interactions between different public law jurisdictions; see Sachs, supra note 12. For a similar argument, see also the comment of Paul Schiff Berman to Robert Adieh's theory of “Dialectical Regulation,” arguing that Adieh's concept should also be applied to interactions between public regulation and private governance; see Berman, supra note 15. See also Ahdieh, Robert, Dialectical Regulation, 38 Conn. L. Rev. (2006).Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ See also the foreword by Fred Block, Polanyi, Karl, The Great Transformation: the Political and Economic Origins of Our Time 174 (2001); Karl Polanyi, The Economy as an Instituted Process, in Primitive, Archaic and Modern Economies (George Dalton ed. 1968).Google Scholar