Search

Vastly increased transnational business activity in recent decades has been accompanied by controversy over how to cope with its social and environmental impacts. The most prominent policy response thus far consists of international guidelines. We investigate to what extent and why citizens in a high-income country are willing to restrain companies to improve environmental and social conditions in other countries. Exploiting a real-world referendum in Switzerland, we use choice and vignette experiments with a representative sample of voters (N = 3,010) to study public demand for such regulation. Our results show that citizens prefer strict and unilateral rules (with a substantial variation of preferences by general social and environmental concern) while correctly assessing their consequences. Moreover, exposure to international norms increases demand for regulation. These findings highlight that democratic accountability can be a mechanism that motivates states to contribute to collective goods even if not in their economic interest and that awareness of relevant international norms among citizens can enhance this mechanism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Almost all regulatory policy stops at the national border. Thus, when conducting business abroad, the behaviour of firms is regulated by their host, not their home country. Yet, international institutions have issued (non-binding) codes of conduct on social/environmental aspects of firm behaviour, and various high-income countries discuss how to improve extraterritorial firm behaviour – with high political contestation over the appropriate mix of state intervention and corporate self-regulation. Exploiting a unique national referendum on this issue in Switzerland, we investigate how these interact from a public opinion standpoint. Based on a nationally representative survey experiment (N=1564), we find that while baseline support for state intervention is high (approx. 60%), corporate self-regulation decreases such support. However, only credible voluntary business initiatives lead to substantial reductions. Our results speak to a broad policy debate in European countries and the EU on how to ensure compliance of firms with human rights and environmental standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Citizens' regulatory preferences depend on perceptions of firms-state relation. • Perceived synergistic relation correlates with support for firms self-regulating. • Perception of relation rooted in beliefs about corporate motivations to be 'green'. • Study based on representative sample of Swiss voting population (N = 1677). Societal efforts towards greening the economy are typically accompanied by controversy over whether voluntary initiatives by firms or government regulation are more effective to that end. Recent research argues that public opinion plays an important role in this regard because citizens' preferences are crucial when democratic policy-makers decide. We investigate whether and how citizens' general attitudes regarding the relationship between the private sector and government can help explain their policy preferences. We argue that whether citizens perceive the state-private sector relationship as synergistic or antagonistic has an effect on their support for private sector self-regulation or government regulation respectively. We assess this argument based on information from a representative survey (N = 1677) in Switzerland. We find that citizens who regard the state-private sector relationship in environmental policy-making as synergistic favor private sector self-regulation. In contrast, citizens who regard the state-private sector relationship as antagonistic prefer either self-regulation or government intervention. We also observe that views on whether firms engage in self-regulation to gain a competitive economic advantage shape the perception of a synergistic state-private sector relationship. Our findings are relevant to current green economy debates as policy-makers in Europe and elsewhere are trying to move beyond the 'either firms or the state' paradigm in regulatory environmental politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The design of green economy policy has major implications for public support. • Citizens support corporate self-regulation subject to strong government oversight. • Citizens support joint decision-making by government, firms, and civil society. • Weaker policy measures receive more public support if decision-making is inclusive. • Inclusive decision-making has implications for the accountability of policy-makers. Environmental policy is touching on ever more aspects of corporate and individual behavior, and there is much debate over what combinations of top-down (government-imposed) and bottom-up (voluntary private sector) measures to use. In democratic societies, citizens' preferences over such combinations are crucial because they shape the political mandates based on which policymakers act. We argue that policy designs that involve private-public co-regulation receive more citizen support if they are based on inclusive decision-making, use strong transparency and monitoring mechanisms, and include a trigger for government intervention in case of ineffectiveness. Survey experiments in Switzerland (N = 1941) provide strong support for these arguments. Our research demonstrates that differences in co-regulation design have major implications for public support. Another key finding is that there seems to be a contradiction between inclusiveness and democratic accountability for policy outcomes. The findings are surprisingly consistent across two very different green economy issues we focus on empirically (decarbonization of finance, pesticides). This suggests that our study design offers a useful template for research that explores public opinion on green economy policy designs for other issues and in other countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]