{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017067494181536073, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0062063615205585725, 'mean_word_length': 5.7539267015706805, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Practice Multiplicity in the Implementation of Private Regulation Programs

This chapter discusses practice multiplicity in the implementation of private regulation programs. As private regulation unfolded through the 1990s and early 2000s, the number of codes of conduct also proliferated — and there are now likely numerous different codes across different companies, each with some degree of variation. While codes relating to labor standards were initially quite diverse, individual company codes have gradually coalesced into multi stakeholder institution (MSI) codes or industrywide codes. Nevertheless, wide variations remain. All this variation is a problem: it “complicates the work that industry players have to do to implement policies” and “contributes to a sense of confusion among an external audience of consumers, governments, and activists groups.” This confusion and debate is the result of practice multiplicity and is a fundamental cause of the decoupling between private regulation policies and positive outcomes for workers. For a more detailed view of practice multiplicity in action, the chapter turns to an empirical investigation regarding multiplicity in the implementation of private regulation approaches by different companies sourcing from the same supplier.