Photographs supplied by the SCI Administrator as attendee of the talk.

Nedson Ng’oma reflecting on regulatory approaches to human rights and environment due diligence in global value chain

On the 20th of February, Stephanie Barrientos, an Emeritus Professor of the Global Development Institute delivered a talk on the Regulatory Approaches to Human Rights and Environment Due Diligence in Global Value Chains. It looked at how this regulatory approach compares to Voluntary Sustainability Standards (VSS) in terms of effectiveness, particularly for smallholder farmers and casual workers, and its engagement with civil society organisations.

The VSS, as highlighted in the talk, have been particularly prominent in global production networks and global value chain research. Defined as private standards that require products to meet specific economic, social and environmental sustainability metrics, these come in different shapes and sizes. Stephanie categorised them in terms of who controls the standards – is it the public (e.g. governmental or intergovernmental entities), private (firms or industries) or social (e.g. civil society organisations) bodies? Although these efforts acknowledge the possible adverse impacts of production networks, their scope remains limited (see in discussion in the works of Jean-Pascal Gond and Marty Otanez). In addition to the exploitative repercussions of sourcing practices in global production networks, another recurring critique of VSS (and associated initiatives) has been its failure to capture the experiences of those at the bottom of the production network. In agricultural production networks (agro-GPNs), these are often tenant farmers and seasonal workers. Usually, these are also landless migrants from already marginalised communities.

Will a regulatory approach prioritize social and environmental justice?

Barrientos’ talk highlights the increasing relevance of regulatory approaches to governance of production networks. These are centred on (national and international) legislation, and how these map out requirements for production and sourcing practices of corporations in the remit of the legislation. Although there are some national regulations, the most prominent, that was also the focus of Barrientos, is the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD). With an estimated 55,000 companies under its scope, it aims to ‘foster sustainable and responsible corporate behaviour in companies’ operations and across their global value chains.’ Sustainability in this sense is both social and environmental, looking at labour rights, discrimination, biodiversity, chemical and waste management, and pollution prevention. The CSDDD necessitates that the companies under its governance ‘identify, prevent and mitigate’ the adverse human rights and environmental repercussions throughout their production network. It is important to note that this has not occurred in a vacuum. It is the result of campaigns from civil society organisations (CSOs), that have demanded a legal basis for sustainable sourcing practices.

While Barrientos highlighted the promising signs of this approach in reaching smallholder farmers, and fostering multi-actor collaboration, she also pointed out how the logic of most corporations’ sourcing practices will not be altered much. This is particularly concerning given that these are the underlying causes of the social and environmental issues that typify globalised production. Furthermore, drawing on her extensive expertise and experience in the field, she also stressed the substantive work that has already been happening under other forms of governance, particularly Voluntary Sustainability Standard. Given that, at least some, had gone above and beyond to ensure social and environmental sustainability, would a regulatory approach mean a reversion to the (often lower) mandated standards?

The regulatory turn in governance: implications for corporate and state power dynamics

The emergence of these regulatory approaches to governance has translated into a growing influence of the state, given its central role in the design, and enforcement of regulations. This has already been seen in the discussions of the CSDDD. For instance, some countries, likely reflecting corporate interests, are pushing for a watered down version of the CSDDD legislation. Barrientos also highlights how this makes the effectiveness of the regulatory approach sensitive to geopolitics as legislations in the era of competition often reverberating to other globally (and sectorally) integrated regions.

At a more fundamental level, the regulatory shift in governance requires a reevaluation of GPN-state relations. While there has been limited engagement with the ways states both shape and are shaped by GPNs (see Rory Horner’s discussion), the focus has often remained on inter-firm relations and their socio-economic implications. A regulatory approach, however, highlights the fundamental role of the state, positioning it not just as a non-firm actor in the background of production networks but as a key player in their dynamics.

It can shed the light on the uneven manner corporate and state power intersect geographically, extending the understanding of how state-capital relations undergird the particularities of regulatory forms of governance. For example, Malawi’s reluctance to sign and ratify regulations to the tobacco industry, such as the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) – a treaty that seeks to limit the health impacts of the tobacco production networks, and countries’ dependence on it, is considered. It becomes evident that this is not simply a reflection of the country’s insertion into the tobacco production network – as other tobacco producers have signed and ratified the FCTC, but a manifestation of the co-evolution of the state legislative infrastructure with the socio-economic needs for the TPN given the substantial historic overlap between tobacco estate owners and the political elite. Seen in this manner, it is important to not only engage with the structural logics of production networks when looking at its interactions with the state’s regulatory regime, but also, how territoriality figures into these wider dynamics.

Barrientos’s talk highlights not only its changing composition, as well as the emerging opportunities and challenges. Academically, this points to a need to re-engage with the politics of the state, in relation either with other states (geopolitics) or other GPN actors (e.g. state-capital relations). For example, when seen through my area of research – the impacts of the tobacco production network on livelihoods in Malawi, this talk did more than simply highlight an under-researched dimension of global production networks. Drawing on the discussion with Barrientos, I am now interested in looking at the tensions and struggles between regulatory forms of governance with the other forms (e.g. VSS). Of primary focus within this would be Malawi’s regulatory regime, and how it shapes (and is shaped) by these tensions and struggles, given the nature of its geopolitics and state-capital relations.

Related