Siape a, Eugenia; Fa ies, Elizabe h
A icle
Pla o m go e nance and ci il socie y o ganisa ions:
Tensions be ween e o m and e olu ion con inuum
In e ne Policy Re iew
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Alexande on Humbold Ins i u e o In e ne and Socie y (HIIG), Be lin
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Siape a, Eugenia; Fa ies, Elizabe h (2025) : Pla o m go e nance and ci il socie y
o ganisa ions: Tensions be ween e o m and e olu ion con inuum, In e ne Policy Re iew, ISSN
2197-6775, Alexande on Humbold Ins i u e o In e ne and Socie y, Be lin, Vol. 14, Iss. 1, pp.
1-29,
h ps://doi.o g/10.14763/2025.1.2002
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/315579
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/3.0/de/deed.en
Volume 14 |
Pla o m go e nance and ci il socie y
o ganisa ions: Tensions be ween e o m
and e olu ion con inuum
Eugenia Siape a Uni e si y College Dublin
Elizabe h Fa ies Uni e si y College Dublin
DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.14763/2025.1.2002
Published: 31 Ma ch 2025
Recei ed: 5 Ap il 2024 Accep ed: 23 Oc obe 2024
Funding: The au ho s did no ecei e any unding o his esea ch.
Compe ing In e es s: The au ho has decla ed ha no compe ing in e es s exis ha
ha e in luenced he ex .
Licence: This is an open-access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e
Commons A ibu ion 3.0 License (Ge many) which pe mi s un es ic ed use,
dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly
ci ed. h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/3.0/de/deed.en
Copy igh emains wi h he au ho (s).
Ci a ion: Siape a, E., & Fa ies, E. (2025). Pla o m go e nance and ci il socie y
o ganisa ions: Tensions be ween e o m and e olu ion con inuum. In e ne Policy
Re iew, 14(1). h ps://doi.o g/10.14763/2025.1.2002
Keywo ds: Pla o m go e nance, Ci il socie y o ganisa ions, Digi al Se ices Ac ,
Digi al igh s
Abs ac : Focusing on he Eu opean con ex and he Digi al Se ices Ac , his a icle p obes he ole
o ci il socie y o ganisa ions (CSOs) in pla o m go e nance. Theo e ically, we loca e CSOs wi hin
he pa adigm o neolibe al go e nance, which aims o limi s a e powe ad ancing a ma ke -based
a ionali y. Ci il socie y is asked wi h pushing agains bo h s a e and ma ke s, al hough in doing so
i may end up upholding he e ms o neolibe al go e nance. In his con ex , we ask, o wha ex en
can digi al igh s CSOs ul il hei no ma i e ole and how do hey pa icipa e in pla o m
go e nance? Empi ically, we ely on a se o in dep h in e iews wi h key in o man s om i e
leading EU digi al igh s CSOs, suppo ed by au oe hnog aphy and documen analysis. Ou indings
sugges ha CSOs ope a e ac oss wha we e e as he ‘ e o m e sus e olu ion’ con inuum. While
hose close o he ‘ e o m’ end aim o make inc emen al changes o imp o e pla o ms, hose
close o he ‘ e olu ion’ end ake a mo e adical iew aiming o dissol e pla o ms al oge he .
While his s uc u ing di ision e lec s posi ions ha a e c i ical in di e en ways, p agma ic issues
a ound (i) alues, p inciples and o ganisa ional aspec s; (ii) inancial dynamics including unding
and sus ainabili y; and (iii) CSO s akeholde ela ions wi h pla o ms, policy make s, and o he
CSOs, unde mine CSOs’ abili y o ac e ec i ely, le alone engage in a adical eposi ioning o
pla o m go e nance e ms and impac s.
Issue 1
I. In oduc ion
The long awai ed EU Digi al Se ices Ac (DSA) came in o o ce in No embe 2022
and ully applied ac oss he whole o he Eu opean Union in Feb ua y 2024. This
egula ion cons i u ed he i s sys ema ic a emp o egula e pla o ms. We can
hink o he DSA as ope a ing a wo le els: a he i s le el i wo ks h ough p o-
iding a se o manda o y bu b oad ules o di e en ca ego ies o pla o ms; and
a he second le el i p o ides o he de elopmen o a se o olun a y codes o
conduc which con ain speci ic guidance o he applica ion o he egula ions and
ules. Bo h make p o isions o he pa icipa ion o ci il socie y o ganisa ions
(CSOs) hough he e is a lack o speci ic de ails as o how his will happen.
The de elopmen o olun a y codes is conside ed pa o a b oade shi om
‘command and con ol’ egula ion owa ds he inco po a ion o in o mal and olun-
a y s ee ing mechanisms o he ope a ion o ansna ional co po a ions (Go wa,
2019a). These mechanisms in ol e he pa icipa ion o pla o ms hemsel es in
o ms o sel egula ion as well as he pa icipa ion o CSOs ep esen ing di e se
communi ies and in e es s. The inclusion o CSOs is oo ed in he mul is akeholde
go e nance model pionee ed by he Wo ld Summi on he In o ma ion Socie y
(Raboy and Land y, 2005) ha p esen s he c i ical e alua ion by ci il socie y o
go e nmen in o ma ion egula o y p ac ices. The model o mul is akeholde go -
e nance ypically includes h ee kinds o s akeholde s is pa o he pla o m go -
e nance iangle model (Go wa, 2019a;) which includes: s a es, NGOs including
CSOs1, and i ms. While he pla o m go e nance iangle alludes o a mul i-s ake-
holde model o go e nance, Go wa poin s ou ha he e a e powe asymme ies
be ween s akeholde s and ha ci il socie y plays a ma ginal ole, o en used o
me ely legi imise decisions (Cammae s 200; Du on, 2015; Go wa, 2019).
In b oad e ms, he in ol emen o CSOs in mul is akeholde go e nance has been
s eadily inc easing since he 1990s, and in pa icula in a eas ha local o na ional
go e nance is no longe able o comp ehensi ely add ess, o example en i on-
men al egula ion, mig a ion, and human igh s (Cammae s, 2009; c Eu opean
Commission, 2001). As Cammae s (2009) poin s ou , es ablishing links wi h CSOs
was spea headed by he UN as a means o inc easing anspa ency and accoun -
abili y. This began as ea ly as in 1945, when consul ing ci il socie y was embed-
ded in A 71 he 1945 Cha e o he UN. This concep o ci ic dialogue was sub-
sequen ly aken up by he Eu opean Commission, which, in a Whi e Pape on Eu o-
1. Al hough he e is a a ied e minology a ound o ganisa ions o ci il socie y which in pa e lec s
di e en no ma i e posi ions on he ole o hese o ganisa ions (Schoene eld, 2021; Uni ed Na ions
De elopmen P og amme, 2015), we adop he e he e m CSOs as a desc ip i e e m.
2 In e ne Policy Re iew 14(1) | 2025
pean Go e nance, explici ly inco po a ed he in ol emen o ci il socie y as pa o
a “ ein o ced cul u e o consul a ion and dialogue” (EC, 2001: 16, quo ed in Cam-
mae s, 2009: 6). Since he DSA will inco po a e mo e olun a y codes o pla -
o ms (G i in and an de Maelen, 2023), he ole o ci il socie y and ha o non
go e nmen al o ganisa ions is expec ed o be s eng hened. Howe e , o wha ex-
en do, o , indeed, can, hey ep esen use in e es s and how p ecisely do hey
shape pla o m go e nance? In his con ex , his a icle ocuses on a pa icula
kind o ac o wi hin ci il socie y, ha o digi al igh s CSOs. B oadly speaking, digi-
al igh s CSOs a e a subse o ci il socie y ha ha e ended o ad oca e o he
p o ec ion o human igh s impac ed by he use o communica ions echnologies
including he in e ne and a ious media (Access Now, 2024). In he EU we ha e
ad oca ed in a eas such as go e nmen and policing su eillance, including in elli-
gence sha ing and biome ic policing; da a go e nance, including p ocessing wi h-
ou in o med consen ; and no el o ms o igh s ha ms a ached o new echnolo-
gies, including online ha ms. Issues ha e included in e ne shu downs, digi al
iden i ies, enc yp ion, acial ecogni ion echnologies, ecommende sys ems, and
ha m ul con en s. We no e how all o hese conce ns can ha e a pla o med di-
mension, in ha pla o ms collec , e ain, analyse, con ol and exchange da a
ac oss all o hese conce ns. And so in pa icula we examine how digi al igh s
CSOs a e in ol ed in pla o m go e nance, ocusing p ima ily on hei ela ionship
wi h, and a i udes owa ds pla o ms, while also sc u inising mo e closely hei
app oach o o mula ing policy p oposals. Theo e ically, his a icle seeks o con-
ibu e o pla o m go e nance, by posi ioning i wi hin a neolibe al app oach o
go e nance, and by explo ing un esol ed ensions be ween di e en policy ac o s
and hei in e es s. Empi ically, we pose he ollowing o e a ching esea ch ques-
ion: how a e digi al igh s CSOs posi ioned and pa icipa ing in pla o m go e -
nance in Eu ope? We app oach his ques ion in an explo a o y manne , d awing on
in-dep h in e iews wi h key in o man s om i e leading CSOs in digi al igh s
and wi h ex ensi e wo k on digi al policy, suppo ed by au o-e hnog aphy and a
documen analysis o ma e ials pos ed in he CSO websi es.
Ou a gumen p oceeds as ollows. Fi s , we p o ide a b ie o e iew o he model
o mul is akeholde go e nance as i eme ged in he Wo ld Summi o he In o ma-
ion Socie y (WSIS) in he ea ly 2000s. We hen o mula e ou heo e ical app oach,
which, d awing on Michel Foucaul , posi ions ci il socie y as pa o he neolibe al
app oach o go e nance. We hen p oceed o ou empi ical analysis and discussion.
Ou indings sugges ha a s uc u ing dimension o digi al igh s CSOs ope a ing
in his space is an ideological di ision o which we e e as he ‘ e o m e sus e o-
lu ion’ con inuum. While hose close o he ‘ e o m’ end a e looking o make in-
3 Siape a, Fa ies
c emen al changes o imp o e he way pla o ms ope a e, hose close o he ‘ e -
olu ion’ end ake a mo e adical iew aiming o dissol e pla o ms and hei busi-
ness model. While his s uc u ing di ision e lec s posi ions ha a e c i ical in di -
e en ways, p agma ic issues a ound unding and he hegemonic ole o pla o ms
unde mine CSOs’ abili y o ac .
II. Se ing he con ex : mul is akeholde go e nance
and ci il socie y
In his sec ion, we discuss he in ol emen o ci il socie y o ganisa ions in go e -
nance and we speci y and jus i y ou ocus on digi al igh s CSOs. We begin by
elabo a ing on he mul i s akeholde go e nance model, and hen ocus mo e
closely on he ole o ci il socie y. The discussion illus a es wo key ensions in
he in ol emen o ci il socie y in p ocesses o go e nance: he i s ension s ems
om he powe asymme ies be ween ci il socie y and he o he ac o s in mul i
s akeholde go e nance, namely s a es and p i a e companies; and he second
ension is linked o he g ea di e si y o ci il socie y o ganisa ions and hei po-
en ially con lic ing p io i ies and in e es s.
While a mul is akeholde model o go e nance was i s in oduced in he Ea h
Summi in Rio de Janei o in 1992 (Backs and and Kylsa e , 2014), i was no un il
he UN-suppo ed Wo ld Summi o he In o ma ion Socie y (WSIS) ha i became
mo e conc e e. WSIS was a wo-phase summi o ganised by he Uni ed Na ions in
2003 and 2005, wi h he aim o es ablish a dynamic mul i s akeholde amewo k,
designed o build “a people-cen ed, inclusi e, and de elopmen -o ien ed In o ma-
ion Socie y” (Unesco, unda ed). The WSIS model o mul is akeholde go e nance
aimed o b ing go e nmen s, ci il socie y, and he p i a e sec o oge he on an
equal oo ing o add ess he challenges o go e ning he in e ne as a global in e-
g a ed digi al in as uc u e. This was he i s ime ha ci il socie y was included
as an ac i e pa icipan in add essing global challenges in in o ma ion and com-
munica ion (Raboy and Land y, 2005).
Despi e he po en ial and p omise o mul is akeholde go e nance in he WSIS
model, he eali y was di e en . As Hin z (2007) no es, while WSIS p omised ull
pa icipa ion, he implemen a ion ell sho , wi h pa icipan s om he ci il soci-
e y o en limi ed o obse e oles and excluded om c i ical decision-making
spaces. Al hough ci il socie y wo king g oups and hema ic discussions allowed
o some in luence, hei con ibu ions we e equen ly sidelined as annexes a he
han being inco po a ed in o o mal nego ia ions (Hin z, 2007). Mo e b oadly, sig-
ni ican challenges eme ged, including pe sis en powe imbalances, as go e n-
4 In e ne Policy Re iew 14(1) | 2025
men s esis ed deepe in eg a ion o non-s a e ac o s, and s uc u al ba ie s and
di ides ha excluded smalle CSOs and g ass oo s g oups due o unding and ac-
cess limi a ions (Hin z, 2007; Cammae s, 2009). While he e o e CSOs a e mean
o pa icipa e on an equal oo ing, powe imbalances o en educe hei ole o
ha o legi ima ing he p ocess o go e nance (Cos anza-Chock, 2003; Chak a a -
y, 2006).
In addi ion o he powe di e en ials be ween CSOs, s a es and i ms, he e a e
signi ican powe dynamics wi hin ci il socie y o ganisa ions. Ci il socie y is no a
monoli hic en i y bu comp ises a wide spec um o o ganisa ions, including NGOs,
g ass oo s mo emen s, p o essional associa ions, ade unions, ad ocacy g oups,
and communi y-based ne wo ks. These ep esen di e se in e es s, p io i ies, and
ideologies, anging om human igh s ad ocacy o de elopmen al o echnologi-
cal conce ns. Chak a a y (2006) showed ha he e was a clea No h-Sou h di-
ide in WSIS, whe e he No he n CSOs we e mo e ocused on ma e s o iden i y
and ecogni ion, while CSOs om he global Sou h/global majo i y coun ies aced
ba ie s o pa icipa ion and we e mo e conce ned wi h ques ions o esou ces and
economic inequali y. Focusing on powe hie a chies wi hin ci il socie y,
Chak a a y’s analysis emphasises he inadequacy o assuming ha ci il socie y
inhe en ly ep esen s he public in e es o ma ginalised oices. Ra he , she con-
side s ci il socie y as an eli e ac o , whose agendas can be shaped by dono p io i-
ies, unding cons ain s, and ins i u ional a ilia ions, which may no align wi h
g ass oo s needs. In hese e ms, Chak a a y iews ci il socie y as bo h a si e o
ad ocacy and a space o con es ed powe ela ions.
As pa o hese powe ela ions, Cos anza-Chock (2003) poin s o he ideological
alliance o WSIS and i s mul is akeholde ism wi h a neolibe al agenda. Acco ding
o he , WSIS p io i ised he p i a isa ion o in o ma ion and communica ion sys-
ems using in ellec ual p ope y igh s and mo e b oadly consolida ing he knowl-
edge commons in o p op ie a y sys ems owned by mul ina ional co po a ions.
S a e- i m pa ne ships we e amed as solu ions o b idge he digi al di ide, bu
hey p ima ily acili a ed co po a e exploi a ion o unde se ed ma ke s. In his
con ex , ci il socie y was con la ed wi h he p i a e sec o , unde mining g ass oo s
ep esen a ion and allowing co po a ions o domina e. Howe e , while WSIS was
seen as co-op ed by in e es s o i ms, digi al igh s ci il socie y g oups used i as a
pla o m o ad oca e o communica ion igh s and access and o challenge he
neolibe al amewo k. Fo Cos anza-Chock, WSIS was a ba leg ound whe e neolib-
e al policies clashed wi h g ass oo s demands o inclusi i y and equi able access.
Mo e b oadly, hese analyses o WSIS illus a e ha despi e i s in en ions, mul i-
5 Siape a, Fa ies
s akeholde go e nance is idden wi h powe inequali ies and ensions be ween
con lic ing in e es s. Since digi al igh s ci il socie y is also subjec ed o in e nal
powe hie a chies and di e si y o iews, i s pa icipa ion in go e nance is unlikely
o yield any eal di e ence in e ms o alues such as equali y and jus ice o all.
While his discussion made clea some o he his o ical p eceden s o digi al igh s
CSOs in in e ne go e nance and he ailu e o his pa icipa ion o li e up o ex-
pec a ions, he dominance o pla o m i ms saw new egula ion ha has a clea
ole o ci il socie y.
III. The neolibe al u n’s implica ions o CSO
in e en ions in o pla o m go e nance
Legal and egula o y ins umen s a he na ional and Eu opean le el a e in eg al
o pla o m go e nance in he EU. In pa icula , Go wa (2019a; 2019b) unde s ands
pla o m go e nance as consis ing o a se o mul ilaye ed ela ionships be ween
key s akeholde s, including pla o ms hemsel es, indi idual and business use s,
go e nmen s, and o he social and poli ical ac o s. The inclusion o hese ac o s
and ins umen s can be unde s ood as pa o a b oade shi owa ds neolibe al
go e nance. I he p e ious sec ion ocused on he e en s a ound WSIS, his sec-
ion expands on he heo e ical dimensions o he in ol emen o p i a e ac o s,
including co po a ions and ci il socie y in go e nance. Based on Foucaul (2008)
we explo e he (neo)libe al app oach o go e nance, posi ing ha he space c ea -
ed o CSOs eme ged wi hin his pa adigm. In his sense, he in ol emen o s ake-
holde s om ci il socie y is linked o he delega ion o s a e powe in o he hands
o non-s a e ac o s and wi h shi s in poli ical a ionali y and he exe cise o powe
(Foucaul , 2008). Theo e ically, he e o e, we loca e he eme gence o ci il socie y
as pa o (neo)libe al go e nance and his comes wi h a se o s uc u al ensions
ha can cap u e CSOs in ways ha may end up ep oducing and legi ima ing a
sys em o go e nance ha ci il socie y was o mula ed o oppose o a leas o
mi iga e i s impac . In his sense, i is he s uc u al posi ion o ci il socie y ha is
en angled wi h neolibe al go e nance, no wi hs anding he ideological s ance o
some pa s o ci il socie y agains neolibe al policies. The s uc u al posi ion occu-
pied by ci il socie y and he p inciples and alues ha unde pin a leas some pa
o i a e in cons an ension. In ou discussion below, we pu sue he a gumen ha
ci il socie y as a sec o is pa o neolibe al go e nance and as such s uc u ally
impeded in i s ques o a ‘people-cen ed’, democ a ic and equi able app oach o
go e ning echnologies. This is especially clea in pla o m go e nance and in he
egula o y app oach o he Eu opean Union’s DSA.
6 In e ne Policy Re iew 14(1) | 2025
The neolibe al model: omen ing ci il socie y o ganisa ion’s
in eg al ole in (pla o m) go e nance
Al hough he neolibe al pa adigm is well known (see Ha ey, 2007) i is wo h e-
pea ing i s key cha ac e is ics: i s ly, ha s a e and go e nmen in e en ion is
minimal bu s ill p esen in o de o sa egua d bo h he ule o law, secu i y o he
popula ion and he p inciples o ee ma ke ; secondly, he c ea ion o s a e- i m
pa ne ships as a mo e e icien and e ec i e way o o ganise. In his manne , ne-
olibe alism in oduces a new poli ical a ionali y, ha shi s he ocus om egu-
la ing ma ke s and indi iduals h ough law o go e ning h ough ma ke mecha-
nisms and sel - egula ion (Foucaul , 2008).
His o ically, in he libe al Eu opean con ex , ci il socie y eme ged ou o he en-
sions be ween he s a e and he ma ke and he di ision be ween he public and
p i a e (Colas, 2002). As he s a e di es s i s so e eign ole, i c ea es a space o
he o ganised pa o ci il socie y o uphold libe y and ac as sa egua d agains
s a e enc oachmen . In line wi h libe al iews, he s a e should allow o di e en
in e es g oups o o mula e and pu sue demands on behal o hei cons i uen-
cies; hese a e o en o ganised as ci il socie y o ganisa ions (CSOs). As we mo ed
om libe al o neolibe al posi ions, in his ‘ma ke place o ideas’ he ole o CSOs
has shi ed om upholding libe al mo al alues such as libe y and au onomy o
one in which hey compe e o in luence (Pyykkönen, 2015). While he e o e in
classic libe alism ci il socie y eme ged as an o ganised o m o collec i e exis-
ence ha egula es ci ic and poli ical pa icipa ion, wi hin he neolibe al pa a-
digm i becomes p ima ily a means by which i coun e balances and gua ds
agains s a e powe om he pe spec i e o di e en in e es g oups (Foucaul ,
2008). A he same ime, as s a es in neolibe alism a e mo e conce ned wi h ma -
e s o secu i y and wi h c ea ing a ac i e condi ions o capi al, i alls upon ci il
socie y o ad oca e and p essu e he s a e (and indus y) o egula ion o p o ec
and gua an ee ci izen and mo e b oadly human igh s (Lipschu z, 2005). Fo Fou-
caul (2008, pp. 2–13, 295–296), ci il socie y eme ged as pa o esponding o
he ques ions o “how o go e n,” “how o go e n igh ” and “how no o go e n oo
much” and i is inex icably linked o he (neo)libe al go e nmen al a ionali y
which con inuously seeks o limi i sel . CSOs a e he e o e ano he echnology o
go e nmen wi hin neolibe alism, asked wi h pushing agains s a e enc oachmen
while also p omo ing social cohesion and aiding hose ma ginalised by condi ions
o in ense compe i ion. In doing so, howe e , hey con ibu e o a he han chal-
lenge his sys em o go e nmen , because neolibe al go e nmen ali y would no
be able o unc ion wi hou he suppo o ci il socie y. Following Foucaul , in he
neolibe al model, he s a e is conce ned wi h secu i y and egula ing o keeping
7 Siape a, Fa ies
ma ke s open; he ma ke and i s logics a e expanded ac oss all pa s o socie y;
and ci il socie y ends up ha ing o deal wi h he allou o he ma ke isa ion o
e e y hing, p o iding a acade o decen alisa ion and democ a ic go e nance e en
as sys emic inequali ies a e pe pe ua ed.
Re u ning o he pla o m mul is akeholde go e nance model, while he loca ion
o CSOs in be ween s a es and pla o ms is aken o cons i u e an independen po-
si ion ou side he o mal exe cise o powe , i may in ac be an in eg al pa o i .
CSOs ope a e by seeking o b ing ma e s o he a en ion o he s a e and i ms
ac o s, whe e, in o de o be add essed, hey mus be in eg a ed in o s a e and co -
po a e a ionali ies (Lipschu z, 2005). In his sense, ci il socie y ope a es as a le-
gi ima ion mechanism no only because i adds a supe icial laye o democ a ic
pa icipa ion, bu also a a deep, s uc u al le el, as i e ec i ely ad oca es o
s a e and i ms ac o s o deal wi h p oblems h ough inco po a ing hem in hei
logics. Since in neolibe alism he s a e logic coincides wi h he ma ke , his p e-
ails. In o he wo ds, a he han ques ioning and limi ing s a e and ma ke powe ,
ci il socie y ends up ein o cing i . As Meiksins-Wood (1995) a gues, ci il socie y
ac s as a legi ima ion mechanism o (neo)libe al democ acies by ackling some o
he symp oms o inequali y, while obscu ing undamen al social di isions and sys-
emic injus ices. I is impo an o poin ou ha his happens e en i ci il socie y
o ganisa ions a e ideologically opposed o neolibe alism.
This is no o say ha ci il socie y does no ha e a ole o play in democ a ic poli-
ics bu a he o highligh he s uc u al ensions ha ci cumsc ibe i s ope a ions.
Theo is s such as Walze (1995; see also G amsci, 1971) a gue ha CSOs can in lu-
ence s a es and ma ke s by wielding knowledge and no ms as well as by shaping
public opinion. Indeed, e en Foucaul (2019) ecognized ha coun e conduc can
and does eme ge when social ac o s e lexi ely, c ea i ely and occasionally adi-
cally dis up , sub e o coun e exis ing powe s uc u es. As Pyykkönen (2015, p.
23) pu i , “ac ions in ci il socie y always also en ail a chance o change, o doing
o hinking abou hings di e en ly”. Following his line o hough (see also Lip-
schu z, 2005, p. 231) we heo ise ha CSOs can push agains he expansion o he
ma ke as well as agains s a e con ol and su eillance. Bu hey a e aced wi h a
dilemma: hey can ac in ways ha ei he unwi ingly suppo hese logics o de-
libe a ely oppose hem. How and i his happens in he con ex o pla o m go e -
nance is one o he ques ions ha anima e his a icle.
CSOs’ unin ended ole in no malising pla o m ac i i ies
Te y Flew (2021) p oposes a h ee-phase pe iodisa ion o pla o m go e nance:
8 In e ne Policy Re iew 14(1) | 2025
V. CSOs as pla o m policy ac o s: be ween e olu ion
and e o m
In his sec ion we p esen he indings o his s udy s uc u ed along hese h ee
key a eas: (i) alues, p inciples and o ganisa ional aspec s; (ii) inancial dynamics
including unding and sus ainabili y; and (iii) CSO s akeholde ela ions wi h pla -
o ms, policy make s, and o he CSOs. Al hough we posed ques ions on o ganisa-
ional ac o s and p ocedu es, ou indings sugges ha hese can be explained o
unde s ood h ough he p ism o p inciples, poli ical economic ac o s and ela-
ionships wi h o he ac o s.
(i) Values, p inciples and o ganisa ional aspec s
In app oaching he alues and p inciples and o ganisa ional aspec s ha unde pin
he wo k o he CSOs ha pa icipa ed in ou s udy, we began wi h an analysis o
hei posi ions as s a ed on hei websi es. This analysis backed up p e ious ind-
ings, such as Celes e e al’s (2023) on he eme gence o a con e gence a ound ce -
ain key igh s. Addi ionally, p inciples o independence, anspa ency and accoun -
abili y we e clea ly a icula ed ac oss all CSO websi es we looked a . A a second
le el howe e , based on ou au oe hnog aphic unde s anding coupled wi h in
dep h in e iews, a new ideological di ision eme ged, which we can desc ibe
h ough he dilemma ‘ e o m o e olu ion’: while a ‘ e olu iona y’ posi ion looks
o dissol e and e-socialise pla o ms, a “ e o mis ’ posi ion e ains pla o ms mo e
o less as hey a e bu in oduces changes o imp o emen s. We unde s and hese
posi ions as pa o a con inuum.
Mo e speci ically, ou documen analysis indica es ha EU CSOs con inue o speak
b oadly o human igh s alues in ela ion o he undamen al eedoms elabo a -
ed wi hin ea ies. CSOs a icula e bo h speci ic and non-exhaus i e igh s, includ-
ing p i acy, p o es , exp ession and assembly. Thei public acing posi ions on
igh s like p i acy emain in luenced by concep ions o igh s which p eda e he
eme gence o pla o ms (Zubo , 2019). Public acing documen s a e consis en
wi h Celes e’s (2019) a gumen ou lining CSOs no ma i e ole as one o p o iding
he basis o he c ea ion o an eme ging digi al cons i u ion con e ing undamen-
al digi al igh s - in e e ence o long s anding igh s ha p eda e digi al con-
ce ns.
This ocus on igh s ha p eda e pla o ms is nei he unexpec ed no con o e sial,
showing a s ong consensus among CSOs in e ms o co e alues. Posi ions di-
e ged howe e when i came o how hese co e alues could be de ended. I is
15 Siape a, Fa ies
he e ha he con inuum o ‘ e o m e sus e olu ion’ eme ged. This is how ou in-
o man s pu i :
“I wouldn' was e any ime on con en mode a ion while we s ill ha e a massi e
[con en ] ampli ica ion p oblem. The companies a e ce ainly no going o
swi ch o he ampli ica ion sys ems un il hey' e o ced o. [...] The DSA inside
he Eu opean Commission, hey' e se up a new p ies hood wi h i s own dogma
and obes ha e e yone's going o wea , and hey' e sp aying incense a ound
he place. And i all looks e y wo hy. And he NGOs a e w i ing hei
illumina ed manusc ip s, and i 's going g ea igh . E e yone has a ole. And i 's
p obably a comple e was e o ime. Ins ead o saying: Okay, i 's p e y clea [ he
pla o ms] a e jus big u ili ies. Le 's jus ake hem o e , o le 's b eak hem up,
you know. Le 's go big.” [In o man 1]
“My eam is en i ely ocused on challenging he undamen als o he business
model o hese pla o ms. Tha pa o he con e sa ion is by necessi y qui e
ad e sa ial and we ce ainly don' mince ou wo ds in saying ha he en i e
business model con lic s wi h human igh s, he igh o p i acy, and ha we
hink i needs o be disman led. The co e o ou wo k is a h ea o hei
con inued p o i abili y and exis ence.” [In o man 4]
These in o man s ake a ‘ e olu iona y’ posi ion pushing o disman ling he cu -
en ope a ional model o pla o ms. They ejec bo h he policymake e o s o
egula e ia he DSA and he pla o m sel - egula o y e o s. Pla o ms a e beyond
e o m and hey a e ce ainly no going o do any hing ou o hei own ini ia i e,
while he Eu opean Commission lacks he will o p ope ly egula e pla o ms as
public u ili ies. CSO in e en ion should be o ien ed owa ds ambi ious change
and no los in echnicali ies.
In con as , e o mis posi ions seek o iden i y posi i e CSO in e en ions o im-
p o e he way in which pla o ms ope a e. Re o mis posi ions a e also c i ical, bu
om a di e en pe spec i e. Fo example, In o man 2 e e ed o hei policy o
asking o mo e anspa en ecommende sys ems, while In o man 3 aised he
issue o ha med communi ies:
“We ind i some imes impo an o lis en o [pla o ms] o know, no hei
s a egies, bu how hey unde s and o wha kind o p oblems hey ha e when
hey a gue ha echnically some hing is impossible o do. When we a gue o
16 In e ne Policy Re iew 14(1) | 2025
anspa en ecommende sys ems, o example, and hey a gue ha hey
canno gi e anspa ency on ecommende sys ems [...] [In o man 2]
“My s and o wo k was on so o socialising he DSA. Figu ing ou wha g oups
a e going o be so o igno ed, depending on wha policy? Wha policies a e
implemen ed. I'm e y much in e es ed in b inging ques ions o jus ice om an
in e sec ionali y amewo k in o a amewo k like he digi al se ices ac . I
would no e: we' e no alking abou ace, we' e no alking abou gende . We' e
no alking abou op ions o ed ess a ound hese issues like con en ,
mode a ion, e c.. [S a e agen s] we e no in e es ed, i was like, yes bu i 's mo e
impo an ha we ha e audi s.” [In o man 3]
Re o mis posi ions he e o e assume a c i ical bu p agma ic s ance pushing o
inc emen al changes ha may imp o e pla o m go e nance, making i mo e inclu-
si e, accoun able and anspa en . These posi ions shape and in luence he ap-
p oach and s a egies hese CSO wo ke s pu sue is-à- is pla o ms and policy-
make s. Fo example, CSOs wi h a e o mis posi ion engage wi h pla o ms di ec -
ly:
“Ou co e mission is o ad oca e o he upholding o in e na ional human igh s
s anda ds in ech policy, and because no all o ha is app op ia ely done
h ough s ic egula ion, we do di ec ad ocacy o companies, so ha hey
uphold hei obliga ions o due diligence unde he in e na ional human igh s
amewo k.” [In o man 5]
A he same ime, one o ou in o man s highligh ed an impo an ension as, in
he con ex o au ho i a ian coun ies, pla o ms can play an impo an ole in sup-
po ing human igh s de ende s. While he e o e he in o man o e all assumed a
‘ e olu iona y’ posi ion hey ecognised ha his in ol ed a con adic ion in p ac-
ice because
“The monopoly powe ha hese pla o ms hold is ha he e's so many human
igh s ac o s dependen on hem basically o do hei wo k, and we kind o si in
an in e es ing space whe e we do bo h he accoun abili y wo k, a e y s ong
c i ical accoun abili y wo k. Bu also we also ac as a kind o a condui o hose
who need hem.” [In o man 4]
17 Siape a, Fa ies
This ension be ween he p incipled posi ion o ad e sa ial an agonism and he
necessi y o engaging wi h pla o ms eme ged unde a di e en guise ac oss all
a eas we co e ed. We a gue ha his is he ou come o he neolibe al app oach o
egula ion which p io i ises sel and co- egula ion, while delega ing impo an and
necessa y asks o ci il socie y wi hou a o ding o i any powe s o ac o e en in
any way sa egua ding i s abili y o ac h ough app op ia ely esou cing i . This
leads o he second a ea co e ed, he augh issue o unding.
(ii) Financial dynamics including unding and sus ainabili y
Financial independence and sus ainabili y is a c i ical ac o o ci il socie y o gan-
isa ions. This is an e e delica e p edicamen o CSOs who ha e he dual pu pose
o ad oca ing while managing unding lows. Ou analysis indica es h ee ca e-
go ies o unding s eams: membe ship, philan h opic ounda ion unding, and, o
a lesse ex en , p ojec based unding om pla o ms. Rega ding a membe ship
unding model, whe e ci izens suppo i e o he CSOs p og amma ic ad ocacy pay
annual ees, he li e a u e desc ibes how his model con e s a se o legi imacy e-
ga ding agenda se ing and ad ocacy ha he esou ce-bound dono s lack (Neie ,
2012). Howe e , he na u e o his ee s uc u e can s ill be c i iqued in ela ion o
independence conce ns gi en ha he membe ship CSOs hemsel es a e subjec
o c i iques o hie a chical ela ions, while smalle CSOs do no ha e access o he
same b oad membe ship as la ge CSOs. Tensions based on powe imbalances and
inequi able esou ce alloca ion a e no esol ed.
The second ca ego y o unding comes om la ge philan h opic ounda ion e-
liance. La ge philan h opic dono s ha e his o ically p o ided wha is desc ibed as
‘co e’ unding, enabling CSOs o deli e a ious p og ammes o wo k acco ding o
he CSOs’ mission, alues and cul u e. This is a o m o esou ce-bound dono
unded eliance ha , while main aining independence om go e nmen , none he-
less c ea es a agili y o CSOs ha may jeopa dise hei e o s o ealise ield-
le el impac s (Taylo , 2016). Indeed, he e a e examples in he li e a u e o unding
con lic s in his ca ego y: o ins ance, a la ge philan h opic o ganisa ion lessened
unding lows when Human Righ s Wa ch s a ed a Women’s Righ s P ojec (Neie ,
2012). A u he agili y a ached o la ge scale philan h opy has been he sh ink-
ing o ci il socie y h ough he g adual decline o co e unding g an s and he
ans e o p ojec based g an s based on he speci ic missions and alues o he
unde s hemsel es. Addi ionally, he la ge-scale philan h opic landscape has been
iden i ied as sh inking in Eu ope, wi h he unde s pulling ou , lea ing EU CSOs
sc ambling o ill hose de ici s.
18 In e ne Policy Re iew 14(1) | 2025
“The [ unding] landscape in Eu ope is jus sh inking, so we we e ex emely
o una e ha we ecei ed a g an om a [la ge scale US based unde ]. A he
end o he yea ha unde is pulling ou .” [In o man 5]
The inal ca ego y o di ec unding ela ionships, pla o ms, is mo e elusi e. When
asked whe he hey would be open o u u e unding ela ionships wi h pla o ms,
CSO in o man s eplied:
“No.” [In o man 1]
“Ou unding policy p e en s us om aking money om companies. Bu an
issue is aised o e and o e again a ound whe he we would be able o ake
money om big pla o ms o non igh s ela ed wo k, like ule o law o
sh inking ci ic space. Bu he decision o e and o e again is ha we don’ .”
[In o man 2]
[The e is] “an ex emely s ic policy posi ion ha we would ne e accep any
co po a e money om any co po a ion o p o i co po a ion.”[In o man 3]
“Tha 's a ha d no.” [In o man 4]
“We ha en' decided. Would we conside po en ially aking, le 's say, 10% o ou
unding om indus y, as many o he ci il socie y o ganisa ions do [wi h he
ca ea ha indus y] do no ge o dic a e any o ou policies, hey don' ha e
any in luence on i .” [In o man 5]
All CSO in o man s we e e y clea ha hey did no ecei e di ec pla o m und-
ing. Documen analysis shows how se e al o hei CSO’s public acing documen s
s a ed explici ly ha hey don’ accep unding om indus y wi h he o he s being
silen on he ma e . Ou inside pe spec i e e eals he e is o en a clea absence
o w i en policy posi ions on he ma e amongs EU CSOs. As some o ou in o -
man s explained, he absence o pla o m unding, CSO esou ce-bound dono
unded eliance and agili y may make hem suscep ible o a ious o ms o inan-
19 Siape a, Fa ies
cial in luence. The e we e commen s om ou in o man s ha o he CSOs ha e
his p ac ice oge he wi h a ia ions in posi ions owa ds u u e unding oppo u-
ni ies on a spec um be ween a ha d no o being open o s ic ly managed possi-
bili ies.
Ano he aspec o CSOs inancial ins abili y can be seen as e lec ed in hei ques
o ca e a o mal space o hei in e en ions in a ou o CSO p og amma ic
longe i y. Speci ically, while he e is a clea p incipled mo i a ion o moni o he
implemen a ion o he DSA, economic sel -p ese a ion could be in ol ed as well:
“Bu i became e y clea ha ge ing his sec ion in he Digi al Se ices Ac ,
whe e he e was anspa ency and audi ing, was so clea because i ga e ci il
socie y o ganisa ions a wo k emi . You could be like, well, we ha e access as a
esea che , o we need access o da a o do audi ing you esea ch. And ha
gi es us a ole o play [...] he e is also sel in e es o ci il socie y in pa o he
egula o y p ocess [...] he e's a push o anspa ency, o anspa ency’s sake
… ha I el like was mo e abou ci il socie y ying o ge a piece o he pie o
he wo k a he han ac ually ying o push poli icians o he EU o pla o ms o
be be e .” [In o man 4]
This p eca i y and ques o no only su i al bu also in luence can be seen as un-
de lying he ela ionships wi hin he pla o m go e nance iangle which we dis-
cuss below.
(iii) CSO s akeholde ela ions wi h pla o ms, policy make s, and
o he CSOs
The key ensions obse ed he e conce ned pla o m powe and powe s uggles o
in luence wi hin he CSO sec o . These ensions speak o he cen al p oblema ic
o neolibe al pla o m go e nance: as s a e/EU au ho i ies p io i ise a sel and co-
egula o y model h ough egula o y ins umen s like he DSA, pla o ms s ill ha e
he uppe hand, especially a ound p oblem de ini ion and solu ions; ci il socie y
o ganisa ions s i e o ac as wa chdogs bu wi hou capaci y, esou ces o de ini-
ional powe , while also ge ing pulled owa ds di e en di ec ions by he di e se
p io i ies and powe di e ence ci il socie y o ganisa ions ha e.
Ou in o man s o e ed conside able insigh s on he powe pla o ms wield, high-
ligh ing he pla o ms’ e o s o se he agenda and d i e issues in hei own way.
A c ucial way o doing his is h ough exe cising ‘so powe ’ h ough s akeholde
engagemen e en s, leading CSOs o de elop hei own p ac ices a ound hese.
20 In e ne Policy Re iew 14(1) | 2025
Some CSOs will no engage a all, while o he s will y o se some ules o his
engagemen . These o ms o indi ec in luence can be a icula ed om one o he
au ho s’ own expe ience as a CSO wo ke , who ecei ed in i a ions o a ious
mee ings and e en s by pla o ms o discuss pla o m egula ion ad ocacy e o s.
CSO wo ke s om majo and EU in luen ial CSOs we e in he oom. Pla o m ep e-
sen a i es also included o me CSO wo ke s. Pla o ms p o ided esea ch, com-
munica ions, and ad ocacy in o ma ion o aid mu ually sha ed ad ocacy goals.
Howe e , a endance is no a consis en p ac ice as some wo ke s make decisions
no o a end on a ma e o blanke p inciple, see In o man 1:
“We don' us hem, and i we can a oid being in a oom wi h hem, we do”.
O in an e alua i e way on case by case basis, see In o man 3:
“We' e cons an ly in i ed o ound ables, policy discussions, consul a ions. And
ou ake on ha is, we will conside hem on a case by case basis.”
Rega dless, his no m o indi ec capaci y suppo s om pla o ms he e o e seem
o ickle down wi h di ec and indi ec impac s: (i) di ec knowledge sha ing could
c ea e indi ec issue aming impac s; di ec ne wo k de elopmen suppo lends
o indi ec alignmen o a pla o m’s p e e ed allies; and di ec communica ion
suppo h ough CSO messaging ampli ica ion, comes wi h he indi ec ou come o
selec i e ampli ica ion o pla o ms’ p e e ed issues. These all speak o o ms o
pla o m capaci y in luence.
In pa allel, pla o ms o en co-op ci il socie y a gumen s o push hei own agen-
da, especially a ound issues o eedom o exp ession:
“I was ac ually a push om You ube […] ha co-op ed a ci il socie y le e ha
was w i en … o almos make i seem like hey aligned o ci il socie y [...] and
he e had o be e y di icul con e sa ions o say, you canno e e do ha
again, because ha 's no okay o you o do.” [In o man 5]
“And hen we eached ou o [la ge pla o m], asking hem no o e e o us and
claim ha we ha e he same a gumen s because we didn' . So we y o explain
o hem whe e we a e coming om, and e en hough he end esul o he
21 Siape a, Fa ies
conclusion is he same - he liabili y o big pla o ms should be limi ed - we a e
coming om a di e en angle.” [In o man 2]
This appa en con e gence o a gumen s is no en i ely su p ising since in libe al-
ism bo h CSOs and pla o ms can be pa o he p i a e ealm, s anding agains
s a e e o s o limi eedom. No wi hs anding he ac ha CSOs a e o ien ed o-
wa ds p ese ing he ci il libe ies o pla o m use s and pla o ms a e o ien ed
owa ds p o i , he end he o ical esul , as ou in o man pu i , is he same.
Thi dly, pla o ms shi he discussion o echnical ma e s which on he one hand
challenge CSOs ha ha e no in house echnical expe ise, and on he o he make
he discussion oo complica ed o be picked up by he media, in e e ing wi h CSO
e o s o ale public opinion.
“The e's so much o be decided on he implemen a ion side. And i 's no longe
sexy o he media. So i hey [pla o ms] ha e such an ad an age because
hey' e si ing wai ing o e e y oppo uni y o le e age in luence ia lawye s,
bu also ia hei hink anks and hei lobbyis s, and i 's ha de and ha de o
ci il socie y o kind o kick up a s ink in opposi ion, because we' e alking abou
such echnical ma e s ha don' make sense beyond he bubbles.” [In o man
3]
“Da a analysis, I don' know a single ci il socie y o ganisa ion ha would
unde s and anspa ency epo ing o algo i hms. [...] Knowledge, and especially
echnical knowledge, is missing om many, many NGOs.” [In o man 2]
Mo e b oadly, conce ns exp essed by ou in o man s ela ed o di icul ies ela ed
o digi al knowledge and echnical unde s anding. They no ed pla o m in e en-
ions in o his space, wi h pla o ms indi ec ly ec ui ing CSOs ocused on child en,
gende ed and ace igh s ha ha e es ed igh s in e es s, bu lack pa allel needed
echnical expe ise, in e nal knowledge building capaci y, o access o ci cles ha
a e connec ed o and imme sed in digi al policy con e sa ions. This esul s in di-
ides be ween igh s g oups, some o whom don’ conside some policy ami ica-
ions o hei in e en ions. Examples he e include p oposals o b eaking end o
end enc yp ion o p o ec women: .
22 In e ne Policy Re iew 14(1) | 2025
“[...] I 's easy o a e y la ge online pla o m o say, Hey, we' e suppo ing ci il
socie y, because we' e gi en X amoun o money o his well known en i y, bu
ha en i y may no ha e he necessa y kind o nuanced echnical expe ise ha
hey need a a policy le el, no jus om a ech policy le el o unde s and wha
a e he ami ica ions o some o he hings ha hey' e calling o . Online
gende based iolence is such a good example because pla o ms p o ided
unding o women's igh s o ganisa ions who will hen say, bu we should
de ini ely b eak end o end enc yp ion, o s op he sp ead o e enge, po n o
deep akes. Bu wha abou hose domes ic iolence shel e s ha depend on
end o end enc yp ed se ices, o speak di ec ly o ic ims and ge hem ou .
The si ua ions hey' e in o he women human igh s de ende s ha we ha e o
help escape om au ho i a ian egimes ely on end o end enc yp ion.”
[In o man 5]
This poin s o ensions ha a e in e nal wi hin he ield o ci il socie y o ganisa-
ions ac i e in his space. While digi al igh s CSOs ha e aken he lead in his,
CSOs ep esen ing women’s igh s and an i- acis g oups a e also inc easingly in-
ol ed. These la e CSOs can be be e connec ed o policymake s because hey
ha e a longe his o y o engagemen wi h EU policy making as well as o mal
mechanisms, such as he Gende Equali y S a egy and he EU An i-Racism Ac ion
plan, ha makes i mo e likely o hem o in luence policy in speci ic ways. Bu
he p oblem hen is ha , in combina ion wi h he dec ease in unding o digi al
igh s CSOs, his space is ipe o indus y o engage in co-op a ion:
“My conce n is he co-op ion o long s anding, e y adi ional ci il socie y
o ganisa ions ha ha e been es ablished o a e y, e y long ime wi h unding
in a sh inking ci il socie y space whe e huge unde s ha e pulled ou , especially
om Eu ope.” [In o man 5]
Bu his is no he only kind o in e nal CSO ension. Ou in o man s alluded o a
space ha can be mu ky in e ms o unding ela ionships bu also di e ing p io i-
ies and abili ies o shape he deba e. He e we can see he ‘ e o m e sus e olu-
ion’ posi ions e-eme ge. The ‘ e olu iona y’ posi ion looks o powe dynamics
and exp esses in ense scep icism:
“I can’ ac ually speak o e y s ong speci ics. Bu I s ill hink i aises conce ns
a ound wha would happen i i did come down o ce ain c unch ques ions, and
wha i means jus o be coo dina ed by a g oup is jus less adical in i s o e all
23 Siape a, Fa ies
analysis o he p oblems. Wha kind o ques ions a e asked [...] The coo dina o
has a lo o powe in deciding hese a e he op hings on ou agenda o discuss.
And maybe i i was us, we pick di e en ma e s on he agenda, and i we' e
no discussing hem a all, maybe big ech is ee o in luence hose ma e s. So
he e, I'm alking abou p io i isa ion o business model ela ed conce ns e sus,
o example, con en , cu a ion o con en mode a ion ela ed conce ns. And
ha 's speaking hypo he ically.” [In o me 3]
In con as , he ‘ e o m’ posi ion is looking o c ea e s a egic alliances wi h o he
CSOs and policy make s in o de o pu sue i s goals o pla o m policy e o m:
"Only public in e es ac o s, o human, hose o us who a e in o med by he
In e na ional Human igh s amewo k ha mee in he g oup ha we ha e. And
hen we ha e some hing called he [ edac ed]. This is an e en ha we' e done
biannually, so we' e done i unde e e y [go e nmen change] and he
[go e nmen o icial] has always suppo ed he e en s ha we' e done, and we
ne e in i e indus y o he e en s ha we do. So, i 's only CSOs, academics,
public in e es echnologis s and ins i u ions, and Membe S a es.” [In o man 5]
Al hough he sample o CSOs we looked a was small, ai ly consis en posi ions
ha e eme ged in e ms o hei app oach o pla o m go e nance. While none o
he CSOs in ou sample could be en i ely iden i ied wi h one o ano he end o he
con inuum, CSOs 1 and 3 could be placed close o he ‘ e olu ion’ end o he con-
inuum, CSO 5 was close o he ‘ e o m’ end, and CSOs 2 and 3 could be placed
somewhe e in he middle. Obse ing he di e gence o posi ions e en among o -
ganisa ions ha a e b oadly aligned in hei ision o digi al igh s, aises ques-
ions ega ding he possibili y o consensus and e ec i e ci il socie y in e en-
ions in pla o m go e nance. Addi ionally, di e ences in p io i ies and goals can
lead o agmen ed o con lic ing in e en ions, such as o example he ocus on
he business model as opposed o he ocus on con en mode a ion. Finally, i is
likely ha e o mis posi ions a e a ou ed by bo h pla o ms and egula o s, as
hey may be seen as mo e easible and less h ea ening; howe e , his may come
a he cos o achie ing long e m sys emic change.
O e all, hese ensions be ween pla o ms and CSOs and wi hin he ci il socie y
sec o o eg ound a chie p oblem in neolibe al pla o m go e nmen ali y: while
s a es ha e delega ed impo an policy asks o he p i a e sec o , which includes
bo h pla o m i ms and CSOs, hese a e unequally equipped o pa icipa e. CSOs’
lack o esou ces and (knowledge) capaci y can make hem suscep ible o pla o m
24 In e ne Policy Re iew 14(1) | 2025
