MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INITIATIVES AND THE MEDIA

This report analyzes the relationship between Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives (MSIs) and the media, focusing on the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), the Open Government Partnership (OGP), and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). It examines why these initiatives often fail to capture public attention and suggests strategies to move from mere transparency to actual government accountability.

• Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives (MSIs) generally suffer from low public profiles and are often perceived as esoteric entities known only to a small group of stakeholders and devotees, leading the public to believe they lack real-world impact.
• A media monitoring survey from mid-2016 to mid-2017 revealed that the EITI has the most prominent media footprint globally and in Africa, followed by the OGP, with the APRM lagging significantly behind.
• The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) faces significant challenges, including a lack of public awareness, administrative delays in publishing Country Review Reports (CRRs), and a failure of most member states to proceed beyond their first reviews.
• The Open Government Partnership (OGP) has a higher profile due to its association with former U.S. President Barack Obama, but it is criticized for allowing 'unambitious' National Action Plans that merely rebrand existing programs.
• The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) is highly valued by resource companies and governments but is often restricted to specialized media and experts because its reports are overly technical and abstract.
• Media sentiment toward MSIs is predominantly neutral, with a small percentage of coverage being negative, particularly regarding the EITI in Africa.
• The phenomenon of 'open-washing' occurs when governments or corporations join MSIs to gain positive publicity without any genuine intention to implement reforms or withstand scrutiny.
• There is a strategic tension between 'quiet diplomacy'—using private pressure to persuade governments—and 'naming and shaming'—using public censure to hold members accountable.
• MSIs are limited by their voluntary nature and lack of enforcement power, meaning they cannot translate transparency into accountability without the support of free media, functioning judiciaries, and strategic alliances with mass civic movements.
• To improve public engagement, the report recommends that MSIs use widely spoken local languages, utilize radio for rural areas, increase social media presence, and produce shorter, more digestible content.

APA

Fabricius, P., & Corrigan, T. (2018). MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INITIATIVES AND THE MEDIA. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2018-MSIs-Media_Multi-stakeholder-initiatives-and-the-media.pdf

Chicago

Fabricius, Peter, and Terence Corrigan. MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INITIATIVES AND THE MEDIA. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2018. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2018-MSIs-Media_Multi-stakeholder-initiatives-and-the-media.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Fabricius |first1=Peter |last2=Corrigan |first2=Terence |title=MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INITIATIVES AND THE MEDIA |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=April 2018 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2018-MSIs-Media_Multi-stakeholder-initiatives-and-the-media.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{fabricius2018multistakeholder, author = {Fabricius, Peter and Corrigan, Terence}, title = {{MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INITIATIVES AND THE MEDIA}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2018}, month = apr, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2018-MSIs-Media_Multi-stakeholder-initiatives-and-the-media.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }