IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v42y2025i1d10.1007_s10460-024-10593-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Scott Slater

    (Deakin University)

  • Mark Lawrence

    (Deakin University
    Deakin University)

  • Benjamin Wood

    (Deakin University)

  • Paulo Serodio

    (University of Essex)

  • Amber Akker

    (University of Bath)

  • Phillip Baker

    (University of Sydney)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Scott Slater & Mark Lawrence & Benjamin Wood & Paulo Serodio & Amber Akker & Phillip Baker, 2025. "The rise of multi-stakeholderism, the power of ultra-processed food corporations, and the implications for global food governance: a network analysis," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 42(1), pages 177-192, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:42:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s10460-024-10593-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-024-10593-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-024-10593-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-024-10593-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maywa Montenegro de Wit & Matt Canfield & Alastair Iles & Molly Anderson & Nora McKeon & Shalmali Guttal & Barbara Gemmill-Herren & Jessica Duncan & Jan Douwe Ploeg & Stefano Prato, 2021. "Editorial: Resetting Power in Global Food Governance: The UN Food Systems Summit," Development, Palgrave Macmillan;Society for International Deveopment, vol. 64(3), pages 153-161, December.
    2. Domenico Dentoni & Verena Bitzer & Greetje Schouten, 2018. "Harnessing Wicked Problems in Multi-stakeholder Partnerships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(2), pages 333-356, June.
    3. Doris Fuchs & Agni Kalfagianni & Tetty Havinga, 2011. "Actors in private food governance: the legitimacy of retail standards and multistakeholder initiatives with civil society participation," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(3), pages 353-367, September.
    4. Anthony Fardet & Edmond Rock, 2020. "Ultra-Processed Foods and Food System Sustainability: What Are the Links?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-26, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Amber van den Akker & Alice Fabbri & Scott Slater & Anna B. Gilmore & Cecile Knai & Harry Rutter, 2024. "Mapping actor networks in global multi-stakeholder initiatives for food system transformation," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 16(5), pages 1223-1234, October.
    2. Deborah Martens & Annelien Gansemans & Jan Orbie & Marijke D'Haese, 2018. "Trade Unions in Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: What Shapes Their Participation?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-27, November.
    3. Greetje Schouten & Otto Hospes, 2018. "Public and Private Governance in Interaction: Changing Interpretations of Sovereignty in the Field of Sustainable Palm Oil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    4. Maryono, Maryono & Killoes, Aditya Marendra & Adhikari, Rajendra & Abdul Aziz, Ammar, 2024. "Agriculture development through multi-stakeholder partnerships in developing countries: A systematic literature review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    5. Srivardhini K. Jha & E. Richard Gold & Laurette Dubé, 2021. "Modular Interorganizational Network Governance: A Conceptual Framework for Addressing Complex Social Problems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-21, September.
    6. Margareet Visser & Matthew Alford, 2024. "Governance and Power Across Intersecting Value Chains: The Case of South African Apples," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 189(1), pages 69-86, January.
    7. Awad, Mohamed Hassan, 2023. "Everything, all the time: Engaging the social problem of homelessness in entrepreneurship research and practice," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).
    8. Castellari, Elena & Soregaroli, Claudio & Venus, Thomas J. & Wesseler, Justus, 2018. "Food processor and retailer non-GMO standards in the US and EU and the driving role of regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 26-37.
    9. Lea Stadtler & Luk N. Wassenhove, 2023. "Between Intensity and Diversity: Leveraging the Role of Place in Cross-Sector Partnerships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(4), pages 773-791, May.
    10. Anna Clare Bull & Jagjit Plahe & Lachlan Gregory, 2021. "International Investment Agreements and the Escalation of Private Power in the Global Agri-Food System," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 519-533, May.
    11. Howard, Rebecca Joy & Tallontire, Anne & Stringer, Lindsay & Marchant, Rob, 2015. "Unraveling the Notion of “Fair Carbon”: Key Challenges for Standards Development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 343-356.
    12. Tanita Northcott & Mark Lawrence & Christine Parker & Phillip Baker, 2023. "Ecological regulation for healthy and sustainable food systems: responding to the global rise of ultra-processed foods," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(3), pages 1333-1358, September.
    13. Ralph Hamann & Lulamile Makaula & Gina Ziervogel & Clifford Shearing & Alan Zhang, 2020. "Strategic Responses to Grand Challenges: Why and How Corporations Build Community Resilience," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 161(4), pages 835-853, February.
    14. Agni Kalfagianni, 2014. "Addressing the Global Sustainability Challenge: The Potential and Pitfalls of Private Governance from the Perspective of Human Capabilities," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 122(2), pages 307-320, June.
    15. Angelika Zimmermann & Nora Albers & Jasper O. Kenter, 2022. "Deliberating Our Frames: How Members of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives Use Shared Frames to Tackle Within-Frame Conflicts Over Sustainability Issues," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(3), pages 757-782, July.
    16. Yu, Mengyan & Umair, Muhammad & Oskenbayev, Yessengali & Karabayeva, Zhаnsaya, 2023. "Exploring the nexus between monetary uncertainty and volatility in global crude oil: A contemporary approach of regime-switching," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(PB).
    17. Onesmo Z. Sigalla & Madaka Tumbo & Jane Joseph, 2021. "Multi-Stakeholder Platform in Water Resources Management: A Critical Analysis of Stakeholders’ Participation for Sustainable Water Resources," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-16, August.
    18. Herman Lelieveldt, 2020. "Out of tune or well tempered? How competition agencies direct the orchestrating state," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 465-480, July.
    19. Aurélien Décamps & Oihab Allal-Chérif & Anne Gombault, 2021. "Fostering Knowledge of the Sustainable Development Goals in Universities: The Case of Sulitest," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-17, November.
    20. Manyise, Timothy & Dentoni, Domenico, 2021. "Value chain partnerships and farmer entrepreneurship as balancing ecosystem services: Implications for agri-food systems resilience," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:42:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s10460-024-10593-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.