The rise of multi-stakeholderism, the power of ultra-processed food corporations, and the implications for global food governance: a network analysis
Author:
Slater Scott1ORCID, Lawrence Mark2ORCID, Wood Benjamin3ORCID, Serodio Paulo4ORCID, Akker Amber Van Den5ORCID, Baker Phillip2ORCID
Affiliation:
1. School of Exercise and Nutrition Science, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia 2. Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Science, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia 3. 3. Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia 4. 4. Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, Essex, United Kingdom 5. 5. Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom
Abstract
AbstractIn 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.
Publisher
Research Square Platform LLC
Reference113 articles.
1. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023. Urbanization, agrifood systems transformation and healthy diets across the rural–urban continuum. Rome: FAO; 2023. Available from: https://www.fao.org/3/cc3017en/cc3017en.pdf. 2. IPES-Food. Breaking the cycle of unsustainable food systems, hunger, and debt. IPES-Food; 2023. Available from: http://www.ipes-food.org/pages/debtfoodcrisis. 3. Schneider K, Fanzo J, Haddad L, Herrero M, Rosero Moncayo J, Herforth A, et al. The State of Food Systems Worldwide: Counting Down to 2030. 2023. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369540536_The_State_of_Food_Systems_Worldwide_Counting_Down_to_2030. 4. Why the Great Food Transformation may not happen – A deep-dive into our food systems’ political economy, controversies and politics of evidence;Béné C;World Dev,2022 5. Summit 2021: Dismantling Democracy and Resetting Corporate Control of Food Systems;Canfield M;Front Sustain Food Syst,2021
|
|