Growing in value: NGOs, social movements and the cultivation of developmental value chains in Uttarakhand, India

Abstract

The social consequences of global value chains -including their effects on economic development -are shaped, in part, by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and social movement organizations (SMOs). While scholars have extensively explored the causes and effects of downstream corporate social responsibility, we know little about the influence of upstream NGOs and SMOs in shaping value chains. To address this lacuna, I draw on a case study of rural development organizations in the Indian state of Uttarakhand. I find that these groups build marginal producers' organizational and technical capacity, assist producers in meeting certification standards, and work to cultivate alternative value chain segments, both local and global. Results suggest that NGOs and SMOs help marginal producers to engage more profitably with corporate value chains, even as they simultaneously pursue strategies that are more contentious and that aim to create deeper structural change.

Green Capital Accumulation: Business and Sustainability Management in a World of Global Value Chains

“…From a broader perspective, however, GVCs are also shaped by actors who do not directly produce, transform, handle or trade products and services -such as civil society organizations, social movements, consumer groups, networks of experts and policy-makers, and multi-stakeholder initiatives and partnerships for sustainability (Bair and Palpacuer, 2015, Bair, 2017, Nickow, 2015, Ponte and Sturgeon, 2014. Finally, states and international organizations play a key role in constructing and maintaining GVCs through facilitative, regulatory and distributive interventions (Nadvi and Raj-Reichert, 2015, Neilson and Pritchard, 2011, Mayer and Phillips, 2017.…”

Introduction to the Handbook on Global Value Chains

“…They focus on the set of social relations that secure commodity production and related processes of exclusion (Bair and Werner, 2011b) and highlight the social and spatial contours of production through everyday practices and struggles over the creation and appropriation of value (see also Neilson and Pritchard, 2011). Their implicit take on governance shifts attention from the dynamics of integrative efforts (participation in value chains) to a more nuanced picture that includes the agency that allows less powerful actors to disarticulate and disentangle from uneven and exploitative GVC relations, or to exert the power of refusing to participate -leading to the consideration of alternative actors, non-actors and anti-actors (Berndt and Boeckler, 2011;Goger, 2013;Havice and Campling, 2013;Nickow, 2015).…”

Efeitos do padrão 4C na produção brasileira de café sustentável.

“…Essa abordagem feita pela análise da cadeia de valor ganha ainda mais importância quando resolvemos observar a distribuição de poder aos agentes da cadeia (Nickow, 2015).…”

“…Isso acontece porque em geral os métodos de análise de desempenho de uma cadeia de suprimento visam a maximização de valor da cadeia como um todo, enquanto a análise da cadeia de valor leva em consideração que existe uma forte tendência a se priorizar os resultados do driver da cadeia (agente com maior poder) em detrimento do resultado global (Nickow, 2015). Na figura II abaixo vemos um exemplo genérico dessas situações.…”

“…Fonte: Elaborada pelo autor baseado em Nickow (2015) Nesse exemplo há duas situações: a primeira em que o valor total gerado é maior (50), e o driver da cadeia captura (25) e a segunda em que o resultado da cadeia é menor (45), mas o driver da cadeia captura um valor maior (30).…”