Global Food Norms
TNCs Norms and Rules amongst the Global Food System
Globalization has expanded the rules and norms that govern the global food system. According to Phillip McMichael, the world has experienced a “transformation of food security into a private relation” (2004). Under this dynamic, global deregulation and liberalization are being viewed as an opportunity of development. Transnational corporations dominate on the construction of these rules on the global food system; therefore, accountably measures are necessary to maintain the sustainability of the food industry and to avoid any violation of human rights. Some could argue that the best way to promote a change in the global food industry is “voluntary support”, which is referred by policy …show more content…
makers as “being non-controversial, unlike regulatory routes, and so, theoretically, more likely to prompt change” (Brady 8). Others could argue that it is a government responsibility, and that corporate accountability is necessary in the global food system. The purpose of this essay is to examine the question: What role are transnational corporations (TNCs) playing in the formation of rules, norms, and institutions that govern the global food system and what are the implications for the sustainability of the global food system? In doing so, it will argue that TNCs are key players in the sustainability of the global food system; however, international accountability and government regulations are necessary in order to prevent the world from negative socioeconomic and ecological impacts. To demonstrate this point, this paper is divided into three sections. In the first section, it will provide some background information in regards to the power of food and the construction of rules amongst TNCs. In the second section, it will provide preliminary cases that implement Corporate Social Responsibility and the reasons why it is insufficient to the task of protecting human rights and the environment. In the third section, this paper will illustrate different cases of corporate power in the global food system. This will include the antithetical practices that rely on the use of heavy chemicals, such as pesticides. Furthermore, it will argue the reasons why a collective action is necessary in order to create an international regulatory system capable of holding TNC account and responsible of their actions.
TNCs dominate the global economy. A clear example is that “of the 100 largest economies of the world, 51 are corporations” (Mazur qtd in Arana). This includes the agricultural and food industry, where the world has observed the centralization of power amongst corporations. In today’s economy, TNCs are typically the “central headquarters” that standardize management approaches as well as production techniques (Brady 3). TNCs play a key role in the food supply chain and the formation of dietary habits and food policies, enhancing nations to have less ability in balancing that power (Brady 4). Additionally, it is important to understand that agripower no longer refers to the one in control of the land, but the ones who control the production (McMichael 19). Therefore, TNCs and institutions such as the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank are the ones who have the “real power.” Under this dynamic, this bodies and corporations are the ones who construct the rules amongst food production as well as the standards and regulations. Unfortunately, a priority has been given to the reproduction of money, resulting in political and socioeconomic consequences (McMichael 19). The problem with this statement is that the right of food should not be replaced by financial concerns. Moreover, governments have the “responsibility to ensure that their business activities do not have a negative impact on the right to food” (Brady 1). Additionally, global deregulation has been proposed on the Doha round as an opportunity of development; however, development and globalization will not be a problem as long as environmental, food, labour, marketing and fair trade standards are taken into consideration. Currently, from “liberalization” and “deregulation”, private actors feel free to implement different techniques in order to maximize their profit without taking into consideration the standards mentioned above. It is important to highlight the significance of food in sustaining human life. Food becomes a necessity for survival, yet access to “adequate, safe and nutritious food is a fundamental human right” (International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers ' Associations). The process of industrialization in the food sector has significantly increased in “the production of food calories at the expense of food quality” (Brady 4). Due to this, food is becoming more processed, fat consumption has increased, and the nutritional value of food has started to diminish over time. This is the first instance that highlights the importance of government intervention in the construction of norms that regulate food standards. It is a government responsibility to ensure the safety and security of its people.
Furthermore, TNCs are becoming political actors; former Prime Minister Tony Blair (2007) recognizes this new role of TNCs in one of his speeches stressing that:
“Individuals become part of mass movements for change and action…business gets involved in politics, not as partisans of a political party, but as important actors in global debate.”
Hence private political activity is no longer restricted to TNCs, who in the past looked for indirect participation through lobbying governments in order to influence policy decisions. Today TNCs are actors who posses “private political authority” and are engaging in decision making that previously was entitle to sovereign states (Kobrin 11). Political influence reaffirms the power that TNCs hold on the global food industry. This leads to issues of food safety, as well as environmental and social sustainability.
This section will outline two case studies which promote “voluntary support” by stake holders. This is also known as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), which tries to improve social and environmental performance. These are preliminary cases which asses CSR initiatives in the food industry. The study was done by Padmakshi Rana, Jim Platts & Mike Gregory (2009) who choose the following cases:
Company A
Company A operates in 60 countries, employing 50,000 people and produces gum, chocolate and candy (Company website). The founder’s strong values and principles of social responsibility, has been embodied by the Company since its establishment. Company A’s CSR strategy works towards building corporate responsibility into business strategy. The Company’s social responsibility strategy focuses on risk avoidance, reputation enhancement, /issue management, sustainable growth and competitive strategy. It has developed five categories of CSR to address social issues, which includes marketing, food and consumer issues; ethical sourcing and curement; environment, health and safety; human rights and employment standards; and community investment.
Company B
Company B is one of the leading companies in the world in fast‐moving‐consumer‐goods (FMCG), with 400 brands of food, home and personal care and a turnover of approximately £29.8 billion (Sustainable Development Report). The Company was formed with the joining of two companies that were already well established. It has its headquarters UK with operations in Europe, The Americas, Asia and Africa (around 100 countries) and employs about 179,000 people. The Group has a ‘dual structure’. The Company’s work on CSR includes integrating social, economic and environmental concerns and as a part of their assurance work, they asked Deloitte & Touche LLP, for an assurance report. Their mission is grounded on the Company’s corporate responsibility strategy to integrate social, economic and environmental considerations, focus on issues of climate change, water, sustainable agriculture, nutrition and hygiene and global partnerships.
At the end of the preliminary study, it was concluded that company A was funded on CSR’s principles, which is part of the business strategy.
Furthermore, it created a sustainable development model for corporations. In regards to the labour and community practices, company A had 5 categories that addressed social issues, which led to new approaches towards employees. It especially raises awareness amongst common issues in the cocoa industry, such as child and forced labour (Padmankshi, Platts and Gregory 19). On the other hand, company B is a much bigger corporation that was not found in the principles of CSR; however, it later on decided to add concerns on environmental, social and economic sectors. This modified the founder’s concept of ethics and responsibility (Padmankshi, Platts and Gregory 19). At this point the company starts looking after society, which is a great improvement in the accountability process. These two companies are greater examples on TNCs “voluntary action” in working towards sustainability. However, TNCs “goodwill alone has proved insufficient to the task of protecting human rights and the environment” (Action Aid Internation 41). One of the major reasons is the business logic applied by many companies who in “theory” are doing something, but in reality no changes have been made. The implementation of CSR is more practical than theoretical (Padmankshi, Platts and Gregory 19). Currently, it is estimated that out of the “64,000 TNCs operating today, …show more content…
only 1,500-2,000 produce annual CSR reports” (Action Aid Internation 41), which only accounts to a 3% of TNCs. The lack of compromise by many TNCs demonstrates that “voluntary action” is not enough in the construction of rules amongst TNCs.
Another case study that illustrates how CSR are insufficient to the sustainability of the global food system is land struggle in India; this case portrays the situation between Unilever vs. Adisavi tribals. Unilever is a TNC that has high commitment on regards to CSR, and it is respected worldwide for its “sustainable agriculture incentive” (Action Aid International 43) Unilever code of business principles read as:
“We conduct our operations with honesty, integrity and openness, and with respect for the human rights and interests of our employees. We shall similarly respect the legitimate interests of those with whom we have relationships.” (Action Aid International 40).
However Badichi Vayal, a member of the Adisavi tribal, describes how employees of Unilever’s Indian subsidiary pulled up her tea bushes in Tamil Nadu: “The [tea] estate officials with forest and revenue officials came to our land at around 10am…They were uprooting our tea plants. All our hard work. Our sweat and toil. All the officials were standing around in a circle. The village officer and watchers were pulling up our plants. Our people were begging them, protesting, pleading, women were in tears” (Action Aid International 41) Currently Adivasi tribes are fighting legally for their ancestral rights to the land. They have also been intimidated by this powerful TNC who proclaimed a commitment to CSR but does not always applied to its practices. This case study demonstrates human right violations amongst minority groups who benefit from agricultural practices. This example reinforces that “a voluntary approach to corporate regulation is insufficient and needs to be supported by a platform of minimum legal standards” (Action Aid International 43).
Furthermore, since CSR actions are voluntary, stakeholders can decide whether they want to hold responsibility for their actions. A clear example was the European Parliament trying to implement EU standards for European enterprises operating in developing countries: towards a European Code of Conduct (Brady 12), which is an international white paper, that recommends:
“the European Union not only contribute to establishing the legitimate rights of multinational enterprises, but also their duties - with due regard to the present minimum applicable international standards - in the field of environment, labour and human rights; recommends that a monitoring mechanism affording every guarantee of impartiality and independence be incorporated in such an agreement;” (Brady 12)
European parliament tried to implement measurements against Nestle because of the baby’s food marketing practices (Brady 12). Nevertheless, parliament could not implement these standards because the only option was to hold “its own public hearing” (Brady 12). At the end, Nestle refused to attend the hearing, and decided to send an auditor on their behalf who could not respond for the company’s actions (Brady 12). This case is a clear example of the need for an international government body that is binding. Furthermore, the need of this international body is necessary in order to regulate and hold TNC’s accountable for their actions in the global food industry.
Moreover, the following case demonstrates the necessity of a collective action that involves national and international intervention.
Currently the world food system “fails to recognize the social and environmental crises” built into the system (International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers ' Associations). The case study of DBCP vs. Costa Rica demonstrates the consequences of pesticides affecting the environment, as well as banana plantation workers. This is a case of massive sterilization in Costa Rica, where over 1,500 workers suffered the irreversible consequences of being sterile as well as the tremendous social changes in their life. The pesticide called DBCP was used for many years in Costa Rica during the production process of bananas. This particular case reflects the problem of trade control issues in developing countries, and the lack of accountability for seriously hazardous products such as this particular pesticide (Pesticide Hazard in Costa Rica). Moreover, this case demonstrates the power of TNCs influencing the legal system. In this particular case, the company that produces the pesticide has managed to blocked the lawsuit against the Costa Rican workers by using the “legal doctrine of forum non convenient.” (Pesticide Hazard in Costa Rica). This case demonstrates that Bananas are cheap because of the conditions in which they are grown, and that they harm the environment, as well as the people. However, no
further measurements are being taken in order to prevent it from happening again. In the same way that liberalization is expanding its market control, international law needs to increase their legal standards. The reason for this is because “national regulation is often insufficient to protect communities and ecosystems from corporate misconduct” (Action Aid Internation 38).
Another case that reflects the need of increasing international law is the Child labour on India’s cotton seed farms. TNCs, such as Advanta, Bayer, Monsanto, Syngenta and Unilever have children under the age of 10 working in the cotton fields of Andhra Pradesh (Action Aid Internation 41). Children are exposed to toxic pesticides during the process, while working up to 13 hours a day. TNCs do not employ children themselves, but they work with intermediaries who work with the local farms and hire these children. Although critics argue that “TNCs are complicit in the use of child labour because they help set and pay such low procurement prices for cotton seed that it makes it less viable for farmers to employ adult workers” (Action Aid Internation 41). A clear example of corporate power undermining people’s rights is a 13 year old-child labourer named Mallesh. He spent all day spraying pesticides on a cotton seed farm. After work, he ate a mango without washing his hand and by the morning he was dead from pesticide poisoning (Action Aid Internation 41). The case of Mallesh is not the only one; currently, the MV foundation is investigating the deaths of 36 young children from pesticide poisoning (Action Aid Internation 41). It is the government responsibility to ensure the rights of its citizens. By establishing an international regulatory body, governments will not face a conflict of interest “between implementing and enforcing laws” that make TNCs responsible of their action, while attracting foreign investment (Action Aid International 38). Additionally it will create a balance and shortage of inequality amongst countries. Moreover, it will eliminate TNCs “double standards.” An example of this is TNCs “acting more responsible in countries with tighter regulation, but less responsibly elsewhere” (Action Aid International 39).
It could be concluded that an international regulatory body is necessary in order to control TNCs in the global food system. TNCs have a substantial influence on the formation of rules that regulates them. The construction of these rules and norms directly influence in the exercise of peoples human rights. Let’s not forget that the global food system encompasses social, economic and environmental interests. States have a duty to protect their citizens of any human rights violations, including the ones portrayed by private actors such as TNCs. As of today there are a number of international standards that apply to TNC’s such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and international agreements such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the ILO Tripartite Declaration which also set standards for TNCs (Action Aid International 39). The problem with these international standards is that the legal effect serve as a “soft law”, however since it’s not an internationally agreed treaty is not legally binding on states or companies (Action Aid International).
This paper presented two different approaches as of how accountability for TNCs should be implemented in order to prevent the world from negative socioeconomic and environmental impacts in the global food system. The first approach was CSR, which it was argue by some scholars as less controversial and theoretical prompt to change. Nevertheless, during this research it was determine that CSR is a good start, however, is not enough in order to promote the fundamental human rights amongst the food system. The fact that so little change has been achieved since its implementation shows that “the voluntary approach is at best too limited and at worst an unwarranted distraction from binding regulations” (Brady 41).
Therefore an international approach is necessary, as well as the “legal standards that currently apply primarily to states need to be extended to private businesses” (Action Aid International 39) furthermore, access to safe and nutritious food is a fundamental human right. Additionally supervision in the food supply chain is imperative. The cases of the pesticide in Costa Rica as well as in Andhra Pradesh, India reflect a weakness in the environmental regulations. Moreover, these cases illustrate the need of an international body that holds them into account for all of the atrocities and human rights violation against their workers. Due to the increasing power of TNCs and their impact on the right to food and its production process, it is necessary for “governments to act collectively as the global community to respond to the growth in size and power of companies” (Brady 41) in order to maintain the sustainability of the global food system.
Bibliography
Action Aid International. "Power hungry six reasons to regulate global food corporations." www.actionaid.org. 7 March 2012 .
Brady, Mike. Holding Coorporations Accountable in Relation to the right to Food. Cambridge, 2007.
Blair, Tony. 2007. Speech to the World Economic Forum
Clapp, Jennifer and Doris Fuchs. Corporate Power in Global Agrifood Governance. Cambridge, Massachusets: MIT Press, 2009.
International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers ' Associations. "The WTO and the World Food System: A Trade Union Approach." 2002. 6 February 2012 .
Kobrin, Stephen J. "globalization, transnational corporations and the future of global governance." 2008. 5 February 2012 .
McMichael, Philip. "Global development and the corporate food regime." July 2004. 2 March 2012 .
Padmankshi, Rana, Jim Platts and Mike Gregory. Exploration of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in multinational companies within the food industry. Queen’s Discussion Paper Series on Corporate Responsibility Research no. 2/2009. Cambridge: Belfast: Queen’s University Management School, 2009.
Pesticide Hazard in Costa Rica. 29 February 2012 .
Globalization has expanded the rules and norms that govern the global food system. According to Phillip McMichael, the world has experienced a “transformation of food security into a private relation” (2004). Under this dynamic, global deregulation and liberalization are being viewed as an opportunity of development. Transnational corporations dominate on the construction of these rules on the global food system; therefore, accountably measures are necessary to maintain the sustainability of the food industry and to avoid any violation of human rights. Some could argue that the best way to promote a change in the global food industry is “voluntary support”, which is referred by policy …show more content…
makers as “being non-controversial, unlike regulatory routes, and so, theoretically, more likely to prompt change” (Brady 8). Others could argue that it is a government responsibility, and that corporate accountability is necessary in the global food system. The purpose of this essay is to examine the question: What role are transnational corporations (TNCs) playing in the formation of rules, norms, and institutions that govern the global food system and what are the implications for the sustainability of the global food system? In doing so, it will argue that TNCs are key players in the sustainability of the global food system; however, international accountability and government regulations are necessary in order to prevent the world from negative socioeconomic and ecological impacts. To demonstrate this point, this paper is divided into three sections. In the first section, it will provide some background information in regards to the power of food and the construction of rules amongst TNCs. In the second section, it will provide preliminary cases that implement Corporate Social Responsibility and the reasons why it is insufficient to the task of protecting human rights and the environment. In the third section, this paper will illustrate different cases of corporate power in the global food system. This will include the antithetical practices that rely on the use of heavy chemicals, such as pesticides. Furthermore, it will argue the reasons why a collective action is necessary in order to create an international regulatory system capable of holding TNC account and responsible of their actions.
TNCs dominate the global economy. A clear example is that “of the 100 largest economies of the world, 51 are corporations” (Mazur qtd in Arana). This includes the agricultural and food industry, where the world has observed the centralization of power amongst corporations. In today’s economy, TNCs are typically the “central headquarters” that standardize management approaches as well as production techniques (Brady 3). TNCs play a key role in the food supply chain and the formation of dietary habits and food policies, enhancing nations to have less ability in balancing that power (Brady 4). Additionally, it is important to understand that agripower no longer refers to the one in control of the land, but the ones who control the production (McMichael 19). Therefore, TNCs and institutions such as the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank are the ones who have the “real power.” Under this dynamic, this bodies and corporations are the ones who construct the rules amongst food production as well as the standards and regulations. Unfortunately, a priority has been given to the reproduction of money, resulting in political and socioeconomic consequences (McMichael 19). The problem with this statement is that the right of food should not be replaced by financial concerns. Moreover, governments have the “responsibility to ensure that their business activities do not have a negative impact on the right to food” (Brady 1). Additionally, global deregulation has been proposed on the Doha round as an opportunity of development; however, development and globalization will not be a problem as long as environmental, food, labour, marketing and fair trade standards are taken into consideration. Currently, from “liberalization” and “deregulation”, private actors feel free to implement different techniques in order to maximize their profit without taking into consideration the standards mentioned above. It is important to highlight the significance of food in sustaining human life. Food becomes a necessity for survival, yet access to “adequate, safe and nutritious food is a fundamental human right” (International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers ' Associations). The process of industrialization in the food sector has significantly increased in “the production of food calories at the expense of food quality” (Brady 4). Due to this, food is becoming more processed, fat consumption has increased, and the nutritional value of food has started to diminish over time. This is the first instance that highlights the importance of government intervention in the construction of norms that regulate food standards. It is a government responsibility to ensure the safety and security of its people.
Furthermore, TNCs are becoming political actors; former Prime Minister Tony Blair (2007) recognizes this new role of TNCs in one of his speeches stressing that:
“Individuals become part of mass movements for change and action…business gets involved in politics, not as partisans of a political party, but as important actors in global debate.”
Hence private political activity is no longer restricted to TNCs, who in the past looked for indirect participation through lobbying governments in order to influence policy decisions. Today TNCs are actors who posses “private political authority” and are engaging in decision making that previously was entitle to sovereign states (Kobrin 11). Political influence reaffirms the power that TNCs hold on the global food industry. This leads to issues of food safety, as well as environmental and social sustainability.
This section will outline two case studies which promote “voluntary support” by stake holders. This is also known as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), which tries to improve social and environmental performance. These are preliminary cases which asses CSR initiatives in the food industry. The study was done by Padmakshi Rana, Jim Platts & Mike Gregory (2009) who choose the following cases:
Company A
Company A operates in 60 countries, employing 50,000 people and produces gum, chocolate and candy (Company website). The founder’s strong values and principles of social responsibility, has been embodied by the Company since its establishment. Company A’s CSR strategy works towards building corporate responsibility into business strategy. The Company’s social responsibility strategy focuses on risk avoidance, reputation enhancement, /issue management, sustainable growth and competitive strategy. It has developed five categories of CSR to address social issues, which includes marketing, food and consumer issues; ethical sourcing and curement; environment, health and safety; human rights and employment standards; and community investment.
Company B
Company B is one of the leading companies in the world in fast‐moving‐consumer‐goods (FMCG), with 400 brands of food, home and personal care and a turnover of approximately £29.8 billion (Sustainable Development Report). The Company was formed with the joining of two companies that were already well established. It has its headquarters UK with operations in Europe, The Americas, Asia and Africa (around 100 countries) and employs about 179,000 people. The Group has a ‘dual structure’. The Company’s work on CSR includes integrating social, economic and environmental concerns and as a part of their assurance work, they asked Deloitte & Touche LLP, for an assurance report. Their mission is grounded on the Company’s corporate responsibility strategy to integrate social, economic and environmental considerations, focus on issues of climate change, water, sustainable agriculture, nutrition and hygiene and global partnerships.
At the end of the preliminary study, it was concluded that company A was funded on CSR’s principles, which is part of the business strategy.
Furthermore, it created a sustainable development model for corporations. In regards to the labour and community practices, company A had 5 categories that addressed social issues, which led to new approaches towards employees. It especially raises awareness amongst common issues in the cocoa industry, such as child and forced labour (Padmankshi, Platts and Gregory 19). On the other hand, company B is a much bigger corporation that was not found in the principles of CSR; however, it later on decided to add concerns on environmental, social and economic sectors. This modified the founder’s concept of ethics and responsibility (Padmankshi, Platts and Gregory 19). At this point the company starts looking after society, which is a great improvement in the accountability process. These two companies are greater examples on TNCs “voluntary action” in working towards sustainability. However, TNCs “goodwill alone has proved insufficient to the task of protecting human rights and the environment” (Action Aid Internation 41). One of the major reasons is the business logic applied by many companies who in “theory” are doing something, but in reality no changes have been made. The implementation of CSR is more practical than theoretical (Padmankshi, Platts and Gregory 19). Currently, it is estimated that out of the “64,000 TNCs operating today, …show more content…
only 1,500-2,000 produce annual CSR reports” (Action Aid Internation 41), which only accounts to a 3% of TNCs. The lack of compromise by many TNCs demonstrates that “voluntary action” is not enough in the construction of rules amongst TNCs.
Another case study that illustrates how CSR are insufficient to the sustainability of the global food system is land struggle in India; this case portrays the situation between Unilever vs. Adisavi tribals. Unilever is a TNC that has high commitment on regards to CSR, and it is respected worldwide for its “sustainable agriculture incentive” (Action Aid International 43) Unilever code of business principles read as:
“We conduct our operations with honesty, integrity and openness, and with respect for the human rights and interests of our employees. We shall similarly respect the legitimate interests of those with whom we have relationships.” (Action Aid International 40).
However Badichi Vayal, a member of the Adisavi tribal, describes how employees of Unilever’s Indian subsidiary pulled up her tea bushes in Tamil Nadu: “The [tea] estate officials with forest and revenue officials came to our land at around 10am…They were uprooting our tea plants. All our hard work. Our sweat and toil. All the officials were standing around in a circle. The village officer and watchers were pulling up our plants. Our people were begging them, protesting, pleading, women were in tears” (Action Aid International 41) Currently Adivasi tribes are fighting legally for their ancestral rights to the land. They have also been intimidated by this powerful TNC who proclaimed a commitment to CSR but does not always applied to its practices. This case study demonstrates human right violations amongst minority groups who benefit from agricultural practices. This example reinforces that “a voluntary approach to corporate regulation is insufficient and needs to be supported by a platform of minimum legal standards” (Action Aid International 43).
Furthermore, since CSR actions are voluntary, stakeholders can decide whether they want to hold responsibility for their actions. A clear example was the European Parliament trying to implement EU standards for European enterprises operating in developing countries: towards a European Code of Conduct (Brady 12), which is an international white paper, that recommends:
“the European Union not only contribute to establishing the legitimate rights of multinational enterprises, but also their duties - with due regard to the present minimum applicable international standards - in the field of environment, labour and human rights; recommends that a monitoring mechanism affording every guarantee of impartiality and independence be incorporated in such an agreement;” (Brady 12)
European parliament tried to implement measurements against Nestle because of the baby’s food marketing practices (Brady 12). Nevertheless, parliament could not implement these standards because the only option was to hold “its own public hearing” (Brady 12). At the end, Nestle refused to attend the hearing, and decided to send an auditor on their behalf who could not respond for the company’s actions (Brady 12). This case is a clear example of the need for an international government body that is binding. Furthermore, the need of this international body is necessary in order to regulate and hold TNC’s accountable for their actions in the global food industry.
Moreover, the following case demonstrates the necessity of a collective action that involves national and international intervention.
Currently the world food system “fails to recognize the social and environmental crises” built into the system (International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers ' Associations). The case study of DBCP vs. Costa Rica demonstrates the consequences of pesticides affecting the environment, as well as banana plantation workers. This is a case of massive sterilization in Costa Rica, where over 1,500 workers suffered the irreversible consequences of being sterile as well as the tremendous social changes in their life. The pesticide called DBCP was used for many years in Costa Rica during the production process of bananas. This particular case reflects the problem of trade control issues in developing countries, and the lack of accountability for seriously hazardous products such as this particular pesticide (Pesticide Hazard in Costa Rica). Moreover, this case demonstrates the power of TNCs influencing the legal system. In this particular case, the company that produces the pesticide has managed to blocked the lawsuit against the Costa Rican workers by using the “legal doctrine of forum non convenient.” (Pesticide Hazard in Costa Rica). This case demonstrates that Bananas are cheap because of the conditions in which they are grown, and that they harm the environment, as well as the people. However, no
further measurements are being taken in order to prevent it from happening again. In the same way that liberalization is expanding its market control, international law needs to increase their legal standards. The reason for this is because “national regulation is often insufficient to protect communities and ecosystems from corporate misconduct” (Action Aid Internation 38).
Another case that reflects the need of increasing international law is the Child labour on India’s cotton seed farms. TNCs, such as Advanta, Bayer, Monsanto, Syngenta and Unilever have children under the age of 10 working in the cotton fields of Andhra Pradesh (Action Aid Internation 41). Children are exposed to toxic pesticides during the process, while working up to 13 hours a day. TNCs do not employ children themselves, but they work with intermediaries who work with the local farms and hire these children. Although critics argue that “TNCs are complicit in the use of child labour because they help set and pay such low procurement prices for cotton seed that it makes it less viable for farmers to employ adult workers” (Action Aid Internation 41). A clear example of corporate power undermining people’s rights is a 13 year old-child labourer named Mallesh. He spent all day spraying pesticides on a cotton seed farm. After work, he ate a mango without washing his hand and by the morning he was dead from pesticide poisoning (Action Aid Internation 41). The case of Mallesh is not the only one; currently, the MV foundation is investigating the deaths of 36 young children from pesticide poisoning (Action Aid Internation 41). It is the government responsibility to ensure the rights of its citizens. By establishing an international regulatory body, governments will not face a conflict of interest “between implementing and enforcing laws” that make TNCs responsible of their action, while attracting foreign investment (Action Aid International 38). Additionally it will create a balance and shortage of inequality amongst countries. Moreover, it will eliminate TNCs “double standards.” An example of this is TNCs “acting more responsible in countries with tighter regulation, but less responsibly elsewhere” (Action Aid International 39).
It could be concluded that an international regulatory body is necessary in order to control TNCs in the global food system. TNCs have a substantial influence on the formation of rules that regulates them. The construction of these rules and norms directly influence in the exercise of peoples human rights. Let’s not forget that the global food system encompasses social, economic and environmental interests. States have a duty to protect their citizens of any human rights violations, including the ones portrayed by private actors such as TNCs. As of today there are a number of international standards that apply to TNC’s such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and international agreements such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the ILO Tripartite Declaration which also set standards for TNCs (Action Aid International 39). The problem with these international standards is that the legal effect serve as a “soft law”, however since it’s not an internationally agreed treaty is not legally binding on states or companies (Action Aid International).
This paper presented two different approaches as of how accountability for TNCs should be implemented in order to prevent the world from negative socioeconomic and environmental impacts in the global food system. The first approach was CSR, which it was argue by some scholars as less controversial and theoretical prompt to change. Nevertheless, during this research it was determine that CSR is a good start, however, is not enough in order to promote the fundamental human rights amongst the food system. The fact that so little change has been achieved since its implementation shows that “the voluntary approach is at best too limited and at worst an unwarranted distraction from binding regulations” (Brady 41).
Therefore an international approach is necessary, as well as the “legal standards that currently apply primarily to states need to be extended to private businesses” (Action Aid International 39) furthermore, access to safe and nutritious food is a fundamental human right. Additionally supervision in the food supply chain is imperative. The cases of the pesticide in Costa Rica as well as in Andhra Pradesh, India reflect a weakness in the environmental regulations. Moreover, these cases illustrate the need of an international body that holds them into account for all of the atrocities and human rights violation against their workers. Due to the increasing power of TNCs and their impact on the right to food and its production process, it is necessary for “governments to act collectively as the global community to respond to the growth in size and power of companies” (Brady 41) in order to maintain the sustainability of the global food system.
Bibliography
Action Aid International. "Power hungry six reasons to regulate global food corporations." www.actionaid.org. 7 March 2012 .
Brady, Mike. Holding Coorporations Accountable in Relation to the right to Food. Cambridge, 2007.
Blair, Tony. 2007. Speech to the World Economic Forum
Clapp, Jennifer and Doris Fuchs. Corporate Power in Global Agrifood Governance. Cambridge, Massachusets: MIT Press, 2009.
International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers ' Associations. "The WTO and the World Food System: A Trade Union Approach." 2002. 6 February 2012 .
Kobrin, Stephen J. "globalization, transnational corporations and the future of global governance." 2008. 5 February 2012 .
McMichael, Philip. "Global development and the corporate food regime." July 2004. 2 March 2012 .
Padmankshi, Rana, Jim Platts and Mike Gregory. Exploration of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in multinational companies within the food industry. Queen’s Discussion Paper Series on Corporate Responsibility Research no. 2/2009. Cambridge: Belfast: Queen’s University Management School, 2009.
Pesticide Hazard in Costa Rica. 29 February 2012 .