The ideology of innovation: philanthropy and racial capitalism in global food governance

Canfield, Matthew

doi:10.1080/03066150.2022.2099739

Cited by 14 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These concerns relate to the reputational risk to the UN systems values of independence, impartiality, and integrity (Canfield et al 2021) and a growing body of scholarship suggesting that multi-stakeholderism (as a GFG model) and MIs collectively (as a structural governance mechanism), both prioritise the interests of the corporate sector through, for example, voluntary self-regulation (Corporate Accountability 2023) and market based technological solutions (e.g. : UPF reformulation, high-input intensive agriculture, biofortification) (Michéle et al 2019) to systemic challenges, and their ability to truly transform food systems is limited (Béné 2022;IPES-Food 2023b;Canfield 2022;Herens et al 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The rise of multi-stakeholderism, the power of ultra-processed food corporations, and the implications for global food governance: a network analysis

Slater,

Lawrence,

Wood

et al. 2024

Agric Hum Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The rise of multi-stakeholderism, the power of ultra-processed food corporations, and the implications for global food governance: a network analysis

Slater,

Lawrence,

Wood

et al. 2024

Agric Hum Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These concerns relate to the reputational risk to the UN's systems values of independence, impartiality, and integrity (5) and a growing body of scholarship suggesting that multi-stakeholderism (as a GFG model) and MIs collectively (as a structural governance mechanism), both prioritise the interests of the corporate sector through, for example, voluntary 'self-regulation' (39) and market based technological solutions (e.g. : UPF reformulation, high-input intensive agriculture, bioforti cation) (33) to systemic challenges, and their ability to truly transform food systems is limited (21,31,40).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following these changes in GFG, in recent decades, aligned groups of state institutions, international organizations, civil society, and TNFCs have since formed prominent 'multistakeholder institutions' (MIs). Many of these MIs have driven the creation of new undemocratic 'middle' spaces in GFG (30), implementing unaccountable multi-stakeholder initiatives, programmes and projects which often substitute multilateral responses to major food system challenges (31). Examples of these are now numerous in GFG (32), however, in recent years, GFG scholars have raised con icts of interest concerns (24) and questions regarding their effectiveness, stating that the activities they lead often lack validation by empirical research (28,33).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The rise of multi-stakeholderism, the power of ultra-processed food corporations, and the implications for global food governance: a network analysis

Slater,

Lawrence,

Wood

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent decades, multi-stakeholder institutions (MIs) involving the ultra-processed food (UPF) industry have presented themselves as "part of the solution" to addressing malnutrition and other food systems sustainability challenges. This has raised concerns for many health and global food governance (GFG) scholars; however, few studies have investigated the governance composition and characteristics of these MIs, nor considered the implications for responses to UPFs and other major food systems challenges. We aimed to address this gap by conducting a network analysis, drawing quantitative and qualitative data from web sources, company reports, business and market research databases, and relevant academic and grey literature. In total, 45 global food systems MIs were identified. When combined, UPF industry executives and their business associates held almost half (n=263, or 43.8%) of the total 601 MI leadership positions, with Unilever (n=20), Nestlé (n=17), PepsiCo Inc (n=14), and The Coca-Cola Company (n=13) the most central to the network. Categorisation by various characteristics showed that 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, are dominant amongst the leadership of the MIs analysed. This study provides empirical evidence that many MIs, both hide the UPF industry’s harmful effects, and continue the perpetuation of long-standing food system inequalities and injustices. MIs involving the UPF industry are now a major structural feature of the GFG system, and regulatory changes are needed, to ensure a public health and sustainability first approach in GFG is prioritized.

show abstract

“No one is talking about food”: making agriculture a “business” in Ghana

Rock

2023

Agric Hum Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At the turn of the 21st century, a collection of donors created the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) to spark a “new” Green Revolution on the African continent. Since its inception, AGRA’s mission has revolved around a series of interventions designed around the idea of making agriculture a “business.” In this paper, I ask how AGRA puts such discourses into practice with a particular focus in Ghana. To do so, I draw on a television show produced by AGRA called Kuapa, organizational literature, and to a lesser extent, interviews, to assess how AGRA materializes its goals in Ghana. Ultimately, I argue that a focus on discourse not only provides insight into how AGRA conceptualizes agricultural transformation, but also how AGRA pursues agronomic, political, and social changes in the countries in which it intervenes.

show abstract

The ideology of innovation: philanthropy and racial capitalism in global food governance

Cited by 14 publications

References 63 publications

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-stakeholderism, the power of ultra-processed food corporations, and the implications for global food governance: a network analysis

The rise of multi-stakeholderism, the power of ultra-processed food corporations, and the implications for global food governance: a network analysis

“No one is talking about food”: making agriculture a “business” in Ghana

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About