CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22Global trade, sustainability, and social impactOil Palm Production and SustainabilitySustainable Supply Chain Management

Barking up the right tree? NGOs and corporate power for deforestation-free supply chains

Open access
Weber, Anne-Kathrin, Partzsch, Lena·2018·Sustainability
DOI 10.3390/su10113869
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Supply chain sustainability has become a key issue for multinational corporations (MNCs). Hundreds of MNCs in agri-commodity sectors have recently committed to eliminate deforestation from their supply chains. In this article, we examine the power of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) participating in two initiatives that support the implementation of such commitments: the Accountability Framework initiative (AFi) and Transparency for Sustainable Economies (Trase). Drawing on document and literature research, participant observation as well as semi-structured interviews, we find that these NGOs exercise power with MNCs, in particular in terms of raising awareness and changing corporate self-perceptions. At the same time, though, there is a bias towards representing the positions and interests of materially strong actors in global supply chains. In doing so, NGOs risk reinforcing MNCs’ power over more marginalized actors. In this light, we argue that initiatives such as AFi and Trase can only be a first step towards a new economic system that respects ecological limits and delivers social justice. In order to shape transformative change, NGOs need to more actively push discussions about equitable distribution, emancipation and justice in natural resource governance.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/su10113869

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Economically vulnerable actors may carry the burden of transparency due to an absence of visibility of all actors of the supply chain.

    “Thus, economically vulnerable actors may carry the burden of transparency due to an absence of visibility of all actors of the supply chain (Schneider et al., 2015;Weber and Partzsch, 2018;Jakku et al., 2019).”

    From Making deforestation risk visible. Discourses on bovine leather supply chain in Brazil (2020) · cites this paper as Weber and Partzsch, 2018

    Section 3 identifies a lack of supply-chain information and transparency, while Section 4.2 says transparency efforts may disadvantage smaller actors who cannot meet higher standards. The paper does not say that limited visibility of all supply-chain actors causes economically vulnerable actors to carry the burden of transparency. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Participant observation was conducted at three sessions of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), namely COP21, COP22 and COP23, and at three sessions of the Subsidiary Bodies to the Convention, namely SB42, SB43 and SB44. At each session, the authors attended numerous side events and meetings on deforestation and forest degradation with a particular focus on supply chain management. The speeches and statements were not recorded; however, detailed notes were taken.
  2. Boucher, D.; Elias, P.; Lininger, K.; May-Tobin, C.; Roquemore, S.; Saxon, E. The Root of the Problem: What's Driving Tropical Deforestation Today; Union of Concerned Scientists: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011.
  3. Murphy, D.; Bendell, J. In the Company of Partners: Business, Environmental Groups and Sustainable Development Post-Rio; The Policy Press: Bristol, UK, 1997.
  4. Bosso, C. Environment, Inc.: From Grassroots to Beltway; University Press of Kansas: Lawrence, KS, USA, 2005.
  5. Paech, N. Die Postwachstumsökonomie-Ein Vademecum. Z. Sozialökonomie 2009, 46, 28-31.
  6. Linhares-Juvenal, T.; Neeff, T. Definitions matter: Zero deforestation concepts and performance indicators. In Zero Deforestation: A Commitment to Change; Pasiecznik, N., Savenije, H., Eds.; Tropenbos International: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 3-10.
  7. Rainforest Alliance. Public Consultation Period Opens on New Accountability Framework. 2017. Available online: https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/press-releases/accountability-framework-public-consultation- open (accessed on 1 October, 2018).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Weber, A.-K., & Partzsch, L.
Affiliations
University of Freiburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Weber, Anne-Kathrin
ORCID
Venue
Sustainability
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2018-10-24
Volume
10
Issue
11
Pages
3869
ISSN
2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/su10113869
OpenAlex
W2898497405
Cited by
22
References
46
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
5.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • FreiDok plus (Universitätsbibliothek Freiburg) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Danone
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Global trade, sustainability, and social impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Oil Palm Production and Sustainability
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
Keywords
non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, deforestation-free supply chains, supply chain sustainability, natural resource governance, social justice, transformative change, power relations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review