The Argumentative Co-Production of Business Practices and International Environmental Regulation: The Case of Heavy Fuel Oil in Arctic Shipping

This paper examines the causal relationship between environmental practices of business and their international regulation. It proposes a theory of argumentative co-production that posits a dialectic link between the two. Business practices shape the content and power of competing arguments in regulatory negotiations through technological and operational expertise. The ensuing policy choices then reinforce the business practices that previously informed them. I empirically probe to what extent this mechanism can explain the regulation of heavy fuel oil (HFO) use by ships in Arctic waters. The use of HFO poses high environmental risks in case of accidental spills and contributes to Arctic warming through emissions of black carbon. From 2009 to 2020, the International Maritime Organization has moved from nonregulation to guidance on fuel choice and further to the ongoing development of a mandatory HFO ban. I process-trace this regulatory transition drawing on negotiation documents, audio recordings of meetings, participant observation, and interviews. The analysis finds that the voluntary phaseout of HFO by several shipping companies has been an important precursor to recent regulatory developments. Progressive environmental practices of corporate frontrunners have facilitated the mobilization of states in support of a mandatory ban. The paper concludes that argumentative co-production complements explanations which stress the ideational influence of epistemic communities and the material influence of cooperating or conflicting business interests.