*4.1. Network-Based Regulations*

As expected from the conceptual framework, it became clear in the interviews that not only individuals and organizations influence other actors and negotiations, but cooperation is also determined by institutionalized forms and processes that have become established in this multistakeholder network. GISCO's bylaws define the tasks of the committees (the executive board, general meetings and working groups), the composition of the executive board and the mode of decision making, thus providing a system of rules for the negotiations. The stakeholders involved agreed in the in the course of founding GISCO that no stakeholder group can be overruled. Such veto power for all decisions made by the executive board means that formally all stakeholder groups A to D have equal power. The underlying goal is to force consensus decisions. However, the bylaws do not stipulate that the decisions reached are binding on the members. Exclusion of members is the

only sanction available to the executive board. Furthermore, because MSI decisions are not legally binding on members, there has been no reason to make use of the sanction option to date. In addition, the bylaws do not contain any formal arbitration, just as they do not contain any concrete regulations on the conduct of members. "What we haven't implemented at all, or what we don't have in any form, is some kind of arbitration jurisdiction. We don't have that at all. [In one conflict], this led to telephone calls between the chairperson of the board and individual stakeholders in order to calm things down a bit" (B3 2020: para. 103) (The interviews were conducted in German; the quotations were translated by the authors). MSI decisions are not legally binding on members, there has been no reason to make use of the sanction option to date. In addition, the bylaws do not contain any formal arbitration, just as they do not contain any concrete regulations on the conduct of members. "What we haven't implemented at all, or what we don't have in any form, is some kind of arbitration jurisdiction. We don't have that at all. [In one conflict], this led to telephone calls between the chairperson of the board and individual stakeholders in order to calm things down a bit" (B3 2020: para. 103) (The interviews were conducted in German; the quotations were translated by the authors). In addition to formal institutions, which have their origins in bylaws of the MSI,

As expected from the conceptual framework, it became clear in the interviews that not only individuals and organizations influence other actors and negotiations, but cooperation is also determined by institutionalized forms and processes that have become established in this multistakeholder network. GISCO's bylaws define the tasks of the committees (the executive board, general meetings and working groups), the composition of the executive board and the mode of decision making, thus providing a system of rules for the negotiations. The stakeholders involved agreed in the in the course of founding GISCO that no stakeholder group can be overruled. Such veto power for all decisions made by the executive board means that formally all stakeholder groups A to D have equal power. The underlying goal is to force consensus decisions. However, the bylaws do not stipulate that the decisions reached are binding on the members. Exclusion of members is the only sanction available to the executive board. Furthermore, because

*Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 17

*4.1. Network-Based Regulations* 

In addition to formal institutions, which have their origins in bylaws of the MSI, informal institutions such as the telephone calls have emerged in the course of cooperation that affect and are reproduced by all actors. Examples of such informal institutions that underlie collaboration in GISCO include how members interact within and outside the network, how problems are solved and the typical steps of processes that emerge over time. The process steps are mutually recognized by the stakeholders involved in GISCO and perceived by interviewees as highly formalized, although it is not specified in the bylaws. Rather, the sequence of steps has evolved through collaboration, each linked by the work of the secretariat. The schematic reconstruction of an exemplary process is shown in Figure 2. informal institutions such as the telephone calls have emerged in the course of cooperation that affect and are reproduced by all actors. Examples of such informal institutions that underlie collaboration in GISCO include how members interact within and outside the network, how problems are solved and the typical steps of processes that emerge over time. The process steps are mutually recognized by the stakeholders involved in GISCO and perceived by interviewees as highly formalized, although it is not specified in the bylaws. Rather, the sequence of steps has evolved through collaboration, each linked by the work of the secretariat. The schematic reconstruction of an exemplary process is shown in Figure 2.

**Figure 2.** Process steps in GISCO. **Figure 2.** Process steps in GISCO.

(1) New content is usually discussed by the executive board and, if necessary, delegated for further elaboration to one of the three working groups (WG 1: Communication, WG 2: PRO-PLANTEURS, or WG 3: Sustainability). In these WGs, the discussion takes place between the present members. The negotiations usually extend over a longer period of time, with several meetings in which the interim results are elaborated by the secretariat and critically reviewed by the individual stakeholder groups. The influence of (1) New content is usually discussed by the executive board and, if necessary, delegated for further elaboration to one of the three working groups (WG 1: Communication, WG 2: PRO-PLANTEURS, or WG 3: Sustainability). In these WGs, the discussion takes place between the present members. The negotiations usually extend over a longer period of time, with several meetings in which the interim results are elaborated by the secretariat and critically reviewed by the individual stakeholder groups. The influence of individual persons still appears to be comparatively great at this stage and to decrease further on in the process: "Someone makes a proposal and then you look at it and then it sounds good at first and then it always goes back to the stakeholder groups again and you notice that it then becomes much more cumbersome" (B5 2020: para. 35).

(2) Subsequently, the recommendations of the WGs are distributed to the individual stakeholder groups as elaborated decision papers by the secretariat via the representatives of each stakeholder group. The development of a common position within the stakeholder groups serves to prepare the representatives for the board meetings. The evaluation of the decision papers can sometimes differ quite significantly between the stakeholder groups.

(3) After the stakeholder groups have commented on the decision papers, the board members hold a meeting to finalize a decision. If there is no consensus among the stakeholder groups, these aspects are discussed. It has happened that compromises proposed in the WGs have been withdrawn again by stakeholder groups in the board meeting. Some interviewees saw it as a strategic move to rescind compromises found in WGs at the board

meetings. If a compromise is found in the board meeting, a board resolution is passed. The interviewees characterize such resolutions, which are ultimately the main outcomes in GISCO, as compromises. However, this means that consensus is often the lowest common denominator among stakeholders. This can also be reflected in the fact that the agreed-upon formulations "sometimes become a bit fuzzy" (B5 2020: para. 47). If it is not possible to find a compromise in the board meeting, the discussions are delegated again to the WGs and/or the individual stakeholder groups. This loop is repeated with varying frequency depending on the content until, ideally, a consensus is reached among the stakeholder groups in a board meeting. If it is not possible to reach a compromise, even after several loops, such content is taken off the agenda and not pursued further (for the time being).
