This paper examines the relationship between business law, organizational governance, and consumer protection through the lens of alternate dispute resolution (ADR) systems. Drawing on a law and society article, it analyzes how private organizational structures influence the construction and application of law. The paper contrasts California and Vermont's approaches to lemon law dispute resolution, demonstrating how different organizational frameworks produce different legal outcomes and can advantage repeat players at the expense of consumers. It concludes with policy recommendations aimed at ensuring fairness, stakeholder inclusion, and balanced governance in organizational dispute resolution design.
The ethical and legal dimensions of business are normally intertwined. Governments put in place effective regulations that necessitate the gathering of information, and when regulatory requirements conflict with constitutional principles, both ethical and legal questions arise. Legal strategies today increasingly include compliance programs that help institutions remain competitive. While different businesses share the common goal of attaining profit, they must also navigate the legal issues and ethical standards required in a business environment.
The discussion below examines a law and society article that focuses on dispute resolution systems in the context of consumer protection laws within organizations. The study expands on how organizational governance influences the construction and application of law.
The rise of governance in private organizations has been a subject of ongoing debate. By creating disclosures of ethics and policies, governance boards, reporting systems, and private governance structures can adopt significant rulemaking, application, sanctioning, and interpretation within their own domains. Different organizational structures — such as alternate dispute resolution (ADR) and internal grievance mechanisms — have emerged, enabling dispute resolution without involving the courts (Samuel, 2004). Internal grievance and dispute resolution processes are operated by private sectors and help resolve disputes involving consumers and other parties such as shareholders and employees.
It is well established that aggrieved parties often prefer the alternate resolution system, yet there is remarkably little research addressing the process by which law is constructed through different organizational structures. This suggests that the resolution structure itself affects the meaning and implementation of the law. Following widespread consumer complaints in the 1970s about manufacturers who failed to honor warranties for consumer products, all fifty states passed consumer lemon laws that afforded consumers powerful remedies and rights.
California and Vermont represent two distinct extremes in how disputes are resolved under lemon laws. In Vermont, consumer disputes are resolved through a dispute resolution structure operated exclusively by the state. California's lemon laws, by contrast, provide that disputes should be resolved by forums operated by external third parties and funded by automobile manufacturers. These two dispute resolution structures give different practical meanings to the same lemon laws, illustrating how business and managerial values influence the construction of law and compliance in organizations.
The study discussed in the article demonstrates how dispute resolution structures shape business and managerial values that in turn influence the law — and, consequently, how repeat players are advantaged within those structures. The comparative analysis reveals the processes and mechanisms that shape the meaning and conditions of law. The article further shows that organizational self-governance, when applied to service delivery and societal benefits, can potentially undermine the rights of those with less social and economic power. This suggests that the privatization of dispute resolution by organizations may undermine the adjudication of public and legal rights (Shauhim, 2012).
The lemon laws were designed to encourage manufacturers to make safe products and stand behind the warranties issued to consumers. If manufacturers could not fulfill their warranty obligations, consumers could seek full restitution or product replacement. Over time, however, consumers' ability to claim these remedies became increasingly contingent, and the structures became institutionalized. Organizations moved the structures out of their own institutions and contracted third parties to manage them. In all fifty states, these third-party resolution processes have since been codified into law.
According to the article, different organizations hold different values, and these differences in value emphases confer advantages on certain organizations over others. Large organizations are the repeat players that impede social reform and shape the development of law through the legal process by influencing rules that are favorable to their interests. The study of institutional organizational sociology shows that managerial values shape the way institutions respond to law and compliance.
This dynamic causes marginalization within the law because there are differences in how compliance, legality, and law itself are understood. Different business conceptions of law dissociate the meaning of law, leading to its interpretation in ways that can undermine its intent — a clear example being when sexual harassment claims are reframed as mere personality conflicts. Private institutionalization therefore protects organizations from legal liability while limiting the law's impact on managerial power.
"How large organizations gain structural ADR advantages"
"Policy reforms for fair and inclusive ADR design"
Alternate dispute resolution systems are advantageous because they serve as alternatives to litigation and help resolve many disputes that arise within organizations. These disputes are time-consuming, and courts cannot always address them effectively. Employee satisfaction, performance, and loyalty are all attributed to alternate resolution systems that provide fair outcomes. Accordingly, ADR policies should effectively engage all stakeholders during the drafting process within organizations.
You’re 60% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.