多方利益相关者主义的兴起、超级加工食品公司的力量以及对全球粮食治理的影响:网络分析

IF 3.5 2区 社会学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Scott Slater, Mark Lawrence, Benjamin Wood, Paulo Serodio, Amber Van Den Akker, Phillip Baker
{"title":"多方利益相关者主义的兴起、超级加工食品公司的力量以及对全球粮食治理的影响:网络分析","authors":"Scott Slater,&nbsp;Mark Lawrence,&nbsp;Benjamin Wood,&nbsp;Paulo Serodio,&nbsp;Amber Van Den Akker,&nbsp;Phillip Baker","doi":"10.1007/s10460-024-10593-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The rise of multi-stakeholder institutions (MIs) involving the ultra-processed food (UPF) industry has raised concerns among food and public health scholars, especially with regards to enhancing the legitimacy and influence of transnational food corporations in global food governance (GFG) spaces. However, few studies have investigated the governance composition and characteristics of MIs involving the UPF industry, nor considered the implications for organizing global responses to UPFs and other major food systems challenges. We address this gap by conducting a network analysis to map global MIs involving the UPF industry, drawing data from web sources, company reports, business and market research databases, and academic and grey literature. We identified 45 such global food system MIs. Of these, executives from the UPF industry or affiliated interest groups held almost half (<i>n</i> = 263, or 43.8%) of the total 601 board seat positions. Executives from a small number of corporations, especially Unilever (<i>n</i> = 20), Nestlé (<i>n</i> = 17), PepsiCo Inc (<i>n</i> = 14), and The Coca-Cola Company (<i>n</i> = 13) held the most board seat positions, indicating centrality to the network. Board seats of these MIs are dominated by executives from transnational corporations (<i>n</i> = 431, or 71.7%), high-income countries (<i>n</i> = 495, or 82.4%), and four countries (United States, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands) (<i>n</i> = 350, or 58.2%) in particular. This study shows that MIs involving the UPF industry privilege the interests of corporations located near exclusively in the Global North, draw legitimacy through affiliations with multi-lateral agencies, civil society groups and research institutions, and represent diverse corporate interests involved in UPF supply chains. Corporate-anchored multi-stakeholderism, as a form of GFG governance, raises challenges for achieving food systems transformation, including the control and reduction of UPFs in human diets.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7683,"journal":{"name":"Agriculture and Human Values","volume":"42 1","pages":"177 - 192"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10460-024-10593-0.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The rise of multi-stakeholderism, the power of ultra-processed food corporations, and the implications for global food governance: a network analysis\",\"authors\":\"Scott Slater,&nbsp;Mark Lawrence,&nbsp;Benjamin Wood,&nbsp;Paulo Serodio,&nbsp;Amber Van Den Akker,&nbsp;Phillip Baker\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10460-024-10593-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The rise of multi-stakeholder institutions (MIs) involving the ultra-processed food (UPF) industry has raised concerns among food and public health scholars, especially with regards to enhancing the legitimacy and influence of transnational food corporations in global food governance (GFG) spaces. However, few studies have investigated the governance composition and characteristics of MIs involving the UPF industry, nor considered the implications for organizing global responses to UPFs and other major food systems challenges. We address this gap by conducting a network analysis to map global MIs involving the UPF industry, drawing data from web sources, company reports, business and market research databases, and academic and grey literature. We identified 45 such global food system MIs. Of these, executives from the UPF industry or affiliated interest groups held almost half (<i>n</i> = 263, or 43.8%) of the total 601 board seat positions. Executives from a small number of corporations, especially Unilever (<i>n</i> = 20), Nestlé (<i>n</i> = 17), PepsiCo Inc (<i>n</i> = 14), and The Coca-Cola Company (<i>n</i> = 13) held the most board seat positions, indicating centrality to the network. Board seats of these MIs are dominated by executives from transnational corporations (<i>n</i> = 431, or 71.7%), high-income countries (<i>n</i> = 495, or 82.4%), and four countries (United States, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands) (<i>n</i> = 350, or 58.2%) in particular. This study shows that MIs involving the UPF industry privilege the interests of corporations located near exclusively in the Global North, draw legitimacy through affiliations with multi-lateral agencies, civil society groups and research institutions, and represent diverse corporate interests involved in UPF supply chains. Corporate-anchored multi-stakeholderism, as a form of GFG governance, raises challenges for achieving food systems transformation, including the control and reduction of UPFs in human diets.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7683,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Agriculture and Human Values\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"177 - 192\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10460-024-10593-0.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Agriculture and Human Values\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-024-10593-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agriculture and Human Values","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-024-10593-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

涉及超加工食品(UPF)行业的多利益相关者机构(MIs)的兴起引起了食品和公共卫生学者的关注,特别是在提高跨国食品公司在全球食品治理(GFG)领域的合法性和影响力方面。然而,很少有研究调查了涉及UPF行业的MIs的治理组成和特征,也没有考虑到组织全球应对UPF和其他主要粮食系统挑战的影响。我们通过进行网络分析来绘制涉及UPF行业的全球MIs,从网络资源、公司报告、商业和市场研究数据库以及学术和灰色文献中提取数据,从而解决了这一差距。我们确定了45个这样的全球粮食系统MIs。其中,来自UPF行业或附属利益集团的高管几乎占据了601个董事会席位中的一半(n = 263,或43.8%)。少数公司的高管,特别是联合利华(n = 20)、雀巢(n = 17)、百事公司(n = 14)和可口可乐公司(n = 13)占据了最多的董事会席位,表明了网络的中心地位。这些高级管理人员的董事会席位主要由跨国公司(n = 431,或71.7%)、高收入国家(n = 495,或82.4%)和四个国家(美国、瑞士、英国和荷兰)(n = 350,或58.2%)的高管把持。这项研究表明,涉及UPF行业的MIs为位于全球北方的公司提供了特权,通过与多边机构、民间社会团体和研究机构的联系获得合法性,并代表了UPF供应链中涉及的各种公司利益。以企业为基础的多利益相关方主义,作为一种GFG治理形式,为实现粮食系统转型(包括控制和减少人类饮食中的upf)带来了挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The rise of multi-stakeholderism, the power of ultra-processed food corporations, and the implications for global food governance: a network analysis

The rise of multi-stakeholder institutions (MIs) involving the ultra-processed food (UPF) industry has raised concerns among food and public health scholars, especially with regards to enhancing the legitimacy and influence of transnational food corporations in global food governance (GFG) spaces. However, few studies have investigated the governance composition and characteristics of MIs involving the UPF industry, nor considered the implications for organizing global responses to UPFs and other major food systems challenges. We address this gap by conducting a network analysis to map global MIs involving the UPF industry, drawing data from web sources, company reports, business and market research databases, and academic and grey literature. We identified 45 such global food system MIs. Of these, executives from the UPF industry or affiliated interest groups held almost half (n = 263, or 43.8%) of the total 601 board seat positions. Executives from a small number of corporations, especially Unilever (n = 20), Nestlé (n = 17), PepsiCo Inc (n = 14), and The Coca-Cola Company (n = 13) held the most board seat positions, indicating centrality to the network. Board seats of these MIs are dominated by executives from transnational corporations (n = 431, or 71.7%), high-income countries (n = 495, or 82.4%), and four countries (United States, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands) (n = 350, or 58.2%) in particular. This study shows that MIs involving the UPF industry privilege the interests of corporations located near exclusively in the Global North, draw legitimacy through affiliations with multi-lateral agencies, civil society groups and research institutions, and represent diverse corporate interests involved in UPF supply chains. Corporate-anchored multi-stakeholderism, as a form of GFG governance, raises challenges for achieving food systems transformation, including the control and reduction of UPFs in human diets.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Agriculture and Human Values
Agriculture and Human Values 农林科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
97
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: Agriculture and Human Values is the journal of the Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society. The Journal, like the Society, is dedicated to an open and free discussion of the values that shape and the structures that underlie current and alternative visions of food and agricultural systems. To this end the Journal publishes interdisciplinary research that critically examines the values, relationships, conflicts and contradictions within contemporary agricultural and food systems and that addresses the impact of agricultural and food related institutions, policies, and practices on human populations, the environment, democratic governance, and social equity.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信