Kelly Kollman - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Related Authors

Micaela Frulli

Università degli Studi di Firenze (University of Florence)

Uploads

Papers by Kelly Kollman

International Studies Quarterly, Jun 1, 2007

What role do international business norms play in regulating the behavior of firms? Despite growi... more What role do international business norms play in regulating the behavior of firms? Despite growing acceptance of the constructivist claim that norms play an important role in international life and an increased interest in private authority by international relations (IR) scholars, surprisingly little research in the field has explored the extent or mechanisms by which norms influence the behavior of firms. I argue this oversight has more to do with the bias in political science against viewing firms as social or socializable institutions than with the applica bility of constructivist theory to firms or markets. To make this argu ment I examine the spread of sustainability norms across transnational business networks and illustrate how theories of socialization developed by IR constructivist scholars can help explain the rapid spread of these norms and the effects they have on corporate environmental gover nance. The paper ends with a call for more research on the effects of intern...

Interest Groups & Advocacy, 2022

This paper explores the role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as an element in a corporat... more This paper explores the role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as an element in a corporation’s political action repertoire. Previous research has studied lobbying and CSR as a distinct means by which corporations seek to manage their non-market environment. Analyzing CSR as a political activity, we argue that corporations engage in CSR for the same reasons that prompt them to engage in lobbying. More specifically, we expect corporations to adopt CSR frameworks that are suitable to enhance their reputation in a given political arena. To evaluate this argument, we analyze the lobbying and CSR behavior in the EU and USA of over 2000 corporations from around the world. Our results show that lobbying and adopting CSR frameworks can be predicted by similar empirical models. Moreover, controlling for common predictors and endogeneity, lobbying in the EU is associated with an increased likelihood of a corporation adopting an appropriate CSR framework. However, corporations that lobb...

The International Politics of Genetically Modified Food, 2006

Much has been written about regulatory divergence between the US and EU (Vogel, 2003; Vig and Fau... more Much has been written about regulatory divergence between the US and EU (Vogel, 2003; Vig and Faure, 2004). The case of biotechnology provides interesting insights regarding regulatory politics and how it has evolved in the US over the years. The EU has applied the ‘precautionary principle’ to regulate GM foods/agricultural biotechnology and has adopted a number of directives aimed at ensuring consumer safety. By contrast, the US has decided that GM products are no different from those made using more traditional methods. Consequently, the US government has neither enacted new statutes nor implemented new risk assessment procedures to regulate GM products. However, in recent years the US has shown signs of inching toward the EU’s biotech policy mode in terms of the core issues of labelling and the segregation of GM and non-GM crops. How does one explain such changes in US biopolitics?

Perspectives on Politics, 2004

International Studies Quarterly, 2003

This paper examines the circumstances under which economic globalization has led (and not led) to... more This paper examines the circumstances under which economic globalization has led (and not led) to a convergence in the regulation of agricultural biotechnology in the European Union (EU) and the United States. While the EU has taken a precautionary approach to regulating biotech products, the U.S. has decided that these products are no different from those made using more traditional methods. As such, the U.S. government has implemented no novel legislation or risk assessment procedures to regulate them. These varying regulatory responses pose an interesting puzzle for scholars who are interested in examining the impact of economic globalization on domestic regulatory institutions and policy outcomes. Despite the fact that agricultural biotech products were developed for highly competitive and globally integrated agri-business markets, the paper argues that biotechnology regulation has followed very different paths in the two polities with the EU mimicking the environmental politics model and the U.S. remaining largely nonadversarial in its approach. We investigate why this has occurred by focusing on differences in the domestic political economies surrounding biotechnology issues in the two regions. The paper then examines why the U.S. biotechnology policy mode recently has shown signs of gravitating toward the EU model, signifying a potential for convergence to the top. Although no new statutes have been enacted or rules adopted yet, there are noticeable changes in the regulatory climate. The paper argues that these changes can be attributed to developments in the domestic political economy, especially the StarLink episode and how this opened the ''policy window'' for the pressures of globalization to influence the potential ratcheting-up of U.S. standards. Background This paper examines why the regulation of agricultural biotechnology in the European Union (EU) and the United States (U.S.) has diverged and, why in the last three years, the U.S. is showing signs of moving toward the EU regulatory model. Given that multinational enterprises (MNEs) dominate the agricultural

International Studies Quarterly, Jun 1, 2007

What role do international business norms play in regulating the behavior of firms? Despite growi... more What role do international business norms play in regulating the behavior of firms? Despite growing acceptance of the constructivist claim that norms play an important role in international life and an increased interest in private authority by international relations (IR) scholars, surprisingly little research in the field has explored the extent or mechanisms by which norms influence the behavior of firms. I argue this oversight has more to do with the bias in political science against viewing firms as social or socializable institutions than with the applica bility of constructivist theory to firms or markets. To make this argu ment I examine the spread of sustainability norms across transnational business networks and illustrate how theories of socialization developed by IR constructivist scholars can help explain the rapid spread of these norms and the effects they have on corporate environmental gover nance. The paper ends with a call for more research on the effects of intern...

Interest Groups & Advocacy, 2022

This paper explores the role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as an element in a corporat... more This paper explores the role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as an element in a corporation’s political action repertoire. Previous research has studied lobbying and CSR as a distinct means by which corporations seek to manage their non-market environment. Analyzing CSR as a political activity, we argue that corporations engage in CSR for the same reasons that prompt them to engage in lobbying. More specifically, we expect corporations to adopt CSR frameworks that are suitable to enhance their reputation in a given political arena. To evaluate this argument, we analyze the lobbying and CSR behavior in the EU and USA of over 2000 corporations from around the world. Our results show that lobbying and adopting CSR frameworks can be predicted by similar empirical models. Moreover, controlling for common predictors and endogeneity, lobbying in the EU is associated with an increased likelihood of a corporation adopting an appropriate CSR framework. However, corporations that lobb...

The International Politics of Genetically Modified Food, 2006

Much has been written about regulatory divergence between the US and EU (Vogel, 2003; Vig and Fau... more Much has been written about regulatory divergence between the US and EU (Vogel, 2003; Vig and Faure, 2004). The case of biotechnology provides interesting insights regarding regulatory politics and how it has evolved in the US over the years. The EU has applied the ‘precautionary principle’ to regulate GM foods/agricultural biotechnology and has adopted a number of directives aimed at ensuring consumer safety. By contrast, the US has decided that GM products are no different from those made using more traditional methods. Consequently, the US government has neither enacted new statutes nor implemented new risk assessment procedures to regulate GM products. However, in recent years the US has shown signs of inching toward the EU’s biotech policy mode in terms of the core issues of labelling and the segregation of GM and non-GM crops. How does one explain such changes in US biopolitics?

Perspectives on Politics, 2004

International Studies Quarterly, 2003

This paper examines the circumstances under which economic globalization has led (and not led) to... more This paper examines the circumstances under which economic globalization has led (and not led) to a convergence in the regulation of agricultural biotechnology in the European Union (EU) and the United States. While the EU has taken a precautionary approach to regulating biotech products, the U.S. has decided that these products are no different from those made using more traditional methods. As such, the U.S. government has implemented no novel legislation or risk assessment procedures to regulate them. These varying regulatory responses pose an interesting puzzle for scholars who are interested in examining the impact of economic globalization on domestic regulatory institutions and policy outcomes. Despite the fact that agricultural biotech products were developed for highly competitive and globally integrated agri-business markets, the paper argues that biotechnology regulation has followed very different paths in the two polities with the EU mimicking the environmental politics model and the U.S. remaining largely nonadversarial in its approach. We investigate why this has occurred by focusing on differences in the domestic political economies surrounding biotechnology issues in the two regions. The paper then examines why the U.S. biotechnology policy mode recently has shown signs of gravitating toward the EU model, signifying a potential for convergence to the top. Although no new statutes have been enacted or rules adopted yet, there are noticeable changes in the regulatory climate. The paper argues that these changes can be attributed to developments in the domestic political economy, especially the StarLink episode and how this opened the ''policy window'' for the pressures of globalization to influence the potential ratcheting-up of U.S. standards. Background This paper examines why the regulation of agricultural biotechnology in the European Union (EU) and the United States (U.S.) has diverged and, why in the last three years, the U.S. is showing signs of moving toward the EU regulatory model. Given that multinational enterprises (MNEs) dominate the agricultural

Log In