Transnational corporations and the challenge of biosphere stewardship

Article metrics

Abstract

Sustainability within planetary boundaries requires concerted action by individuals, governments, civil society and private actors. For the private sector, there is concern that the power exercised by transnational corporations generates, and is even central to, global environmental change. Here, we ask under which conditions transnational corporations could either hinder or promote a global shift towards sustainability. We show that a handful of transnational corporations have become a major force shaping the global intertwined system of people and planet. Transnational corporations in agriculture, forestry, seafood, cement, minerals and fossil energy cause environmental impacts and possess the ability to influence critical functions of the biosphere. We review evidence of current practices and identify six observed features of change towards ‘corporate biosphere stewardship’, with significant potential for upscaling. Actions by transnational corporations, if combined with effective public policies and improved governmental regulations, could substantially accelerate sustainability efforts.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: The biosphere in the hands of a few.

References

  1. 1.

    Sheth, J. & Sisodia, R. The Rule of Three: Surviving and Thriving in Competitive Markets (Simon and Schuster, 2002).

  2. 2.

    Jacquet, J., Frank, D. & Schlottmann, C. Asymmetrical contributions to the tragedy of the commons and some implications for conservation. Sustainability 5, 1036–1048 (2013).

  3. 3.

    Axtell, R. L. Zipf distribution of US firm sizes. Science 293, 1818–1820 (2001).

  4. 4.

    Glattfelder, J. B. & Battiston, S. The architecture of power: patterns of disruption and stability in the global ownership network. SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3314648 (2019).

  5. 5.

    Gereffi, G. Global value chains in a post-Washington consensus world. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 21, 9–37 (2014).

  6. 6.

    The rise of the superstars. The Economist (15 September 2016).

  7. 7.

    Search Engines, Operating Systems and Social Media (Statcounter GlobalStats, accessed 26 February 2019); http://gs.statcounter.com/

  8. 8.

    Fichtner, J., Heemskerk, E. M. & Garcia-Bernardo, J. Hidden power of the Big Three? passive index funds, re-concentration of corporate ownership, and new financial risk. Bus. Polit. 19, 298–326 (2017).

  9. 9.

    Too Big to Feed: Exploring the Impacts of Mega-mergers, Consolidation, and Concentration of Power in the Agri-food Sector (International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, 2017).

  10. 10.

    Global Powers of Retailing (Deloitte, 2019).

  11. 11.

    Stiglitz, J. E. Globalization and its Discontents (New York Norton, 2002).

  12. 12.

    Vitali, S., Glattfelder, J. B. & Battiston, S. The network of global corporate control. PLoS ONE 6, e25995 (2011).

  13. 13.

    Folke, C. et al. Reconnecting to the biosphere. Ambio 40, 719–738 (2011).

  14. 14.

    Worm, B. & Paine, R. T. Humans as a hyperkeystone species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2118, 137–93 (2016).

  15. 15.

    Williams, M. et al. The Anthropocene biosphere. Anthr. Rev. 2, 196–219 (2015).

  16. 16.

    Dauvergne, P. & Lister, J. Big brand sustainability: governance prospects and environmental limits. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 36–45 (2012).

  17. 17.

    Clapp, J. Mega-mergers on the menu: corporate concentration and the politics of sustainability in the global food system. Glob. Environ. Polit. 18, 12–33 (2018).

  18. 18.

    Barbier, E. B., Burgess, J. C. & Dean, T. J. How to pay for saving biodiversity. Science 360, 486–488 (2018).

  19. 19.

    Potoski, M. & Prakash, A. Green clubs and voluntary governance: ISO 14001 and firms’ regulatory compliance. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 49, 235–248 (2005).

  20. 20.

    Lambin, E. F. & Thorlakson, T. Sustainability standards: interactions between private actors, civil society, and governments. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43, 369–393 (2018).

  21. 21.

    Potoski, M. & Prakash, A. Green clubs: collective action and voluntary environmental programs. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 16, 399–419 (2013).

  22. 22.

    Berliner, D. & Prakash, A. “Bluewashing” the firm? voluntary regulations, program design, and member compliance with the United Nations Global Compact. Policy Stud. J. 43, 115–138 (2015).

  23. 23.

    Brad, A. et al. The False Promise of Certification (Changing Markets Foundation, 2018).

  24. 24.

    Dauvergne, P. Will Big Business Destroy Our Planet (Polity, 2018).

  25. 25.

    Lister, J. The policy role of corporate carbon management: co-regulating ecological effectiveness. Glob. Policy 9, 538–548 (2018).

  26. 26.

    Walker, B. et al. Looming global-scale failures and missing institutions. Science 325, 1345–1346 (2009).

  27. 27.

    Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J. & Melillo, J. M. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277, 494–499 (1997).

  28. 28.

    Steffen, W. et al. Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 8252–8259 (2018).

  29. 29.

    Crona, B. I., Van Holt, T., Petersson, M., Daw, T. M. & Buchary, E. Using social-ecological syndromes to understand impacts of international seafood trade on small-scale fisheries. Glob. Environ. Change 35, 162–175 (2015).

  30. 30.

    Rockström, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).

  31. 31.

    Österblom, H. et al. Transnational corporations as ‘keystone actors’ in marine ecosystems. PLoS ONE 10, e0127533 (2015).

  32. 32.

    Galaz, V., Crona, B., Dauriach, A., Scholtens, B. & Steffen, W. Finance and the Earth system: exploring the links between financial actors and non-linear changes in the climate system. Glob. Environ. Change 53, 296–302 (2018).

  33. 33.

    Griffin, P. & Heede, C. D. P. R. The Carbon Majors Database (CDP, 2017).

  34. 34.

    Clapp, J. & Scrinis, G. Big food, nutritionism, and corporate power. Globalizations 14, 578–595 (2017).

  35. 35.

    Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018).

  36. 36.

    Beladi, H., Chakrabarti, A. & Marjit, S. Cross-border mergers in vertically related industries. Eur. Econ. Rev. 59, 97–108 (2013).

  37. 37.

    Gomes-Casseres, B. What the big mergers of 2017 tell us about 2018. Harvard Business Review (28 December 2017).

  38. 38.

    Galaz, V. et al. Global governance dimensions of globally networked risks: the state of the art in social science research. RHCPP 8, 4–27 (2017).

  39. 39.

    Sjåfjell, B. Redefining the corporation for a sustainable new economy. J. Law Soc. 45, 29–45 (2018).

  40. 40.

    Scheffer, M., van Bavel, B., van de Leemput, I. A. & van Nes, E. H. Inequality in nature and society. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 13154–13157 (2017).

  41. 41.

    Abson, D. J. et al. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46, 30–39 (2017).

  42. 42.

    Westley, F. et al. Tipping toward sustainability: emerging pathways of transformation. Ambio 40, 762–780 (2011).

  43. 43.

    Clapp, J. & Fuchs, D. A. Corporate Power in Global Agrifood Governance (MIT Press, 2009).

  44. 44.

    Murphy, S., Burch, D. & Clapp, J. Cereal Secrets: The World’s Largest Grain Traders and Global Agriculture (Oxfam Research Reports, 2012).

  45. 45.

    Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (Bloomsbury, 2011).

  46. 46.

    Thorlakson, T., de Zegher, J. F. & Lambin, E. F. Companies’ contribution to sustainability through global supply chains. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 2072–2077 (2018).

  47. 47.

    Wright, C. & Nyberg, D. Climate Change, Capitalism, and Corporations (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015).

  48. 48.

    Lubchenco, J., Cerny-Chipman, E. B., Reimer, J. N. & Levin, S. A. The right incentives enable ocean sustainability successes and provide hope for the future. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 14507–14514 (2016).

  49. 49.

    Nelson, J. Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Collective Action by Business, Governments and Civil Society to Achieve Scale and Transform Markets (Business and Sustainable Development Commission, Corporate Responsibility Initiative, Harvard Kennedy School, 2017).

  50. 50.

    Jacquet, J. Is Shame Necessary? New Uses for an Old Tool (Vintage, 2016).

  51. 51.

    Gibbs, H. K. et al. Brazil’s soy moratorium. Science 347, 377–378 (2015).

  52. 52.

    Market Transformation Initiative Fact Sheet (WWF, 2015); http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/how_wwf_market_transformation_works.pdf

  53. 53.

    Shapiro, C. Antitrust in a time of populism. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 61, 714–748 (2018).

  54. 54.

    Scott, I. Antitrust and socially responsible collaboration: a chilling combination. Am. Bus. Law J. 53, 97–144 (2016).

  55. 55.

    Vogel, D. The private regulation of global corporate conduct: achievements and limitations. Bus. Soc. 49, 68–87 (2010).

  56. 56.

    Vandenbergh, M. P. & Gilligan, J. M. Beyond Politics: The Private Governance Response to Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017).

  57. 57.

    Auld, G., Renckens, S. & Cashore, B. Transnational private governance between the logics of empowerment and control. Regul. Gov. 9, 108–124 (2015).

  58. 58.

    De Jonge, A. & Tomasic, R. Research Handbook on Transnational Corporations (Edward Elgar, 2017).

  59. 59.

    Folke, C. et al. Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecol. Soc. 21, art41 (2016).

  60. 60.

    Geels, F. W., Sovacool, B. K., Schwanen, T. & Sorrell, S. Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonisation. Science 357, 1242–1244 (2017).

  61. 61.

    Sukhdev, P. Corporation 2020: Transforming Business for Tomorrow’s World (Island, 2012).

  62. 62.

    Blasco, J. L. & King, A. The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2017 (KPMG, 2017).

  63. 63.

    Scott, L. & McGill, A. From promise to reality: Does business really care about the SDGs? (PwC, 2018).

  64. 64.

    Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015).

  65. 65.

    Jouffray, J.-B., Crona, B., Wassénius, E., Bebbington, J. & Scholtens, B. Leverage points in the financial sector for seafood sustainability. Sci. Adv. (in the press).

  66. 66.

    Scholtens, B. & Dam, L. Banking on the equator: are banks that adopted the equator principles different from non-adopters? World Dev. 35, 1307–1328 (2007).

  67. 67.

    Fiduciary Duty in the 21st Century: UK Roadmap (UNPRI, 2016).

  68. 68.

    Gardner, T. A. et al. Transparency and sustainability in global commodity supply chains. World Dev. 121, 163–177 (2019).

  69. 69.

    Dunn, D. C. et al. Empowering high seas governance with satellite vessel tracking data. Fish Fish. 19, 729–739 (2018).

  70. 70.

    Kristjanson, P. et al. Linking international agricultural research knowledge with action for sustainable development. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 5047–5052 (2009).

  71. 71.

    Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P. & Spierenburg, M. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43, 579–591 (2014).

  72. 72.

    Cvitanovic, C., McDonald, J. & Hobday, A. J. From science to action: principles for undertaking environmental research that enables knowledge exchange and evidence-based decision-making. J. Environ. Manage. 183, 864–874 (2016).

  73. 73.

    Österblom, H., Jouffray, J.-B., Folke, C. & Rockström, J. Emergence of a global science–business initiative for ocean stewardship. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9038–9043 (2017).

  74. 74.

    Lubchenco, J. & Gaines, S. D. A new narrative for the ocean. Science 364, 911 (2019).

  75. 75.

    Dauvergne, P. & Lister, J. Eco-Business: A Big-Brand Takeover of Sustainability (MIT Press, 2013).

  76. 76.

    Raudsepp-Hearne, C. et al. Untangling the environmentalist’s paradox: why is human well-being increasing as ecosystem services degrade? Bioscience 60, 576–589 (2010).

  77. 77.

    Hamann, M. et al. Inequality and the biosphere. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43, 61–83 (2018).

  78. 78.

    Kaplinsky, R. Globalization, Poverty and Inequality (Polity, 2005).

  79. 79.

    Chapin, F. S. III et al. Ecosystem stewardship: sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 241–249 (2010).

  80. 80.

    Enqvist, J. P. et al. Stewardship as a boundary object for sustainability research: linking care, knowledge and agency. Landsc. Urban Plan. 179, 17–37 (2018).

  81. 81.

    Mateo-Sagasta, J., Zadeh, S. M. & Turral, H. More People, More Food, Worse Water? A Global Review of Water Pollution from Agriculture (FAO, 2018).

  82. 82.

    Crews, T. E. & Peoples, M. B. Legume versus fertilizer sources of nitrogen: ecological tradeoffs and human needs. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 102, 279–297 (2004).

  83. 83.

    Bünemann, E. K., Schwenke, G. D. & Van Zwieten, L. Impact of agricultural inputs on soil organisms: review. Soil Res. 44, 379–406 (2006).

  84. 84.

    Jørgensen, P. S. et al. Antibiotic and pesticide susceptibility and the Anthropocene operating space. Nat. Sustain. 1, 632–641 (2018).

  85. 85.

    Cordell, D., Turner, A. & Chong, J. The hidden cost of phosphate fertilizers: mapping multi-stakeholder supply chain risks and impacts from mine to fork. Glob. Change Peace Secur. 27, 323–343 (2015).

  86. 86.

    Bennett, E. M., Carpenter, S. R. & Caraco, N. F. Human impact on erodable phosphorus and eutrophication: a global perspective. Bioscience 51, 227–234 (2001).

  87. 87.

    Arnold, K. E., Brown, A. R., Ankley, G. T. & Sumpter, J. P. Medicating the environment: assessing risks of pharmaceuticals to wildlife and ecosystems. Proc. R. Soc. B 369, (2014).

  88. 88.

    Boxall, A. B. A., Kolpin, D. W., Halling-Sørensen, B. & Tolls, J. Are veterinary medicines causing environmental risks? Environ. Sci. Technol. 37, 286A–294A (2003).

  89. 89.

    Henriksson, P. J. G. et al. Unpacking factors influencing antimicrobial use in global aquaculture and their implication for management: a review from a systems perspective. Sustain. Sci. 13, 1105–1120 (2018).

  90. 90.

    Hendrickson, M. K. Resilience in a concentrated and consolidated food system. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 5, 418–431 (2015).

  91. 91.

    Perry, E. D., Ciliberto, F., Hennessy, D. A. & Moschini, G. Genetically engineered crops and pesticide use in US maize and soybeans. Sci. Adv. 2, e1600850 (2016).

  92. 92.

    Agriculture at a Crossroads: Synthesis Report (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, 2009).

  93. 93.

    Annual Report 2017: Investing in Sustainable Development (Nornickel, 2017).

  94. 94.

    Annual Report 2016: Advancing Transformational Сhange (Nornickel, 2016).

  95. 95.

    Bell, T. The World’s Top 10 Silver Producers. The Balance https://www.thebalance.com/the-10-biggest-silver-producers-2340234 (accessed 26 February 2019).

  96. 96.

    Bell, T. The World’s Biggest Zinc Producers. The Balance https://www.thebalance.com/the-10-biggest-zinc-producers-2013-2339743 (accessed 26 February 2019).

  97. 97.

    Els, F. The world’s top 10 largest gold mining companies – 2017. Mining.com http://www.mining.com/worlds-top-10-largest-gold-mining-companies-2017/ (accessed 26 February 2019).

  98. 98.

    Top 10 Iron ore producers based on 2015 guidance. Mining Global https://www.miningglobal.com/mining-sites/top-10-iron-ore-producers-based-2015-guidance (4 June 2015).

  99. 99.

    Sonter, L. J., Ali, S. H. & Watson, J. E. M. Mining and biodiversity: key issues and research needs in conservation science. Proc. R. Soc. B 285, (2018).

  100. 100.

    Dudka, S. & Adriano, D. C. Environmental impacts of metal ore mining and processing: a review. J. Environ. Qual. 26, 590–602 (1997).

  101. 101.

    Sengupta, M. Environmental Impacts of Mining Monitoring, Restoration, and Control (CRC, 1993).

  102. 102.

    Putting Earnings into Perspective. Facts for Addressing Energy Policy (American Petroleum Institute, 2016).

  103. 103.

    O’Rourke, D. & Connolly, S. Just oil? The distribution of environmental and social impacts of oil production and consumption. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 28, 587–617 (2003).

  104. 104.

    Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W. & Courchamp, F. Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 15, 365–377 (2012).

  105. 105.

    Edwards, P. Global Cement Top 100 Report 2017–2018. Global Cement Magazine (4 December 2017).

  106. 106.

    Uwasu, M., Hara, K. & Yabar, H. World cement production and environmental implications. Environ. Dev 10, 36–47 (2014).

  107. 107.

    Worrell, E., Price, L., Martin, N., Hendriks, C. & Meida, L. O. Carbon dioxide emissions from the global cement industry. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 26, 303–329 (2001).

  108. 108.

    Rushton, M. & Rodden, G. The Pulp and Paper International Top 100 Paper 360 (Pulp and Paper International, 2016).

  109. 109.

    Facts about Paper 2018 (Verband Deutscher Papierfabriken e.V., 2018).

  110. 110.

    Chaudhary, A., Burivalova, Z., Koh, L. P. & Hellweg, S. Impact of forest management on species richness: global meta-analysis and economic trade-offs. Sci. Rep. 6, 23954 (2016).

  111. 111.

    Clay, J. World Agriculture and the Environment: a Commodity-by-Commodity Guide to Impacts and Practices (Island, 2013).

  112. 112.

    Astrup, R., Bernier, P. Y., Genet, H., Lutz, D. A. & Bright, R. M. A sensible climate solution for the boreal forest. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 11–12 (2018).

  113. 113.

    Rogers, B. M., Soja, A. J., Goulden, M. L. & Randerson, J. T. Influence of tree species on continental differences in boreal fires and climate feedbacks. Nat. Geosci. 8, 228–234 (2015).

  114. 114.

    Jackson, J. B. C. et al. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293, 629–637 (2001).

  115. 115.

    Halpern, B. S. et al. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319, 948–952 (2008).

  116. 116.

    Tacon, A. G. J., Hasan, M. R. & Metian, M. Demand and supply of Feed Ingredients for Farmed Fish and Crustaceans: Trends and Prospects (FAO, 2011).

  117. 117.

    Kusumaningtyas, R. & van Gelder, J. W. Towards Responsible and Inclusive Financing of the Palm Oil Sector (Center for International Forestry Research, 2017).

  118. 118.

    Fitzherbert, E. B. et al. How will oil palm expansion affect biodiversity? Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 538–545 (2008).

  119. 119.

    Lam, M. K. & Lee, K. T. Renewable and sustainable bioenergies production from palm oil mill effluent (POME): win–win strategies toward better environmental protection. Biotechnol. Adv. 29, 124–141 (2011).

  120. 120.

    Cocoa Industry: Integrating Small Farmers into the Global Value Chain (UNCTAD, 2015).

  121. 121.

    De Beenhouwer, M., Aerts, R. & Honnay, O. A global meta-analysis of the biodiversity and ecosystem service benefits of coffee and cacao agroforestry. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 175, 1–7 (2013).

  122. 122.

    Leading soybean producing countries worldwide from 2012/13 to 2017/18 (in million metric tons) (Statista, US Department of Agriculture, 2018).

  123. 123.

    Global Canopy (Trase, Stockholm Environment Institute, 2018).

  124. 124.

    Da Silva, V. P., van der Werf, H. M. G., Spies, A. & Soares, S. R. Variability in environmental impacts of Brazilian soybean according to crop production and transport scenarios. J. Environ. Manage. 91, 1831–1839 (2010).

  125. 125.

    Fearnside, P. M. Soybean cultivation as a threat to the environment in Brazil. Environ. Conserv. 28, 23–38 (2001).

  126. 126.

    Salmon Farming Industry Handbook (Marine Harvest, 2018).

  127. 127.

    Taranger, G. L. et al. Risk assessment of the environmental impact of Norwegian Atlantic salmon farming. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 72, 997–1021 (2014).

  128. 128.

    The Changing Role of Multinational Companies in the Global Banana Trade (FAO, 2014).

  129. 129.

    De Barros, I., Blazy, J. M., Rodrigues, G. S., Tournebize, R. & Cinna, J. P. Emergy evaluation and economic performance of banana cropping systems in Guadeloupe (French West Indies). Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 129, 437–449 (2009).

  130. 130.

    Panhuysen, S. & Pierrot, J. Coffee Barometer 2014 (Hivos, IUCN Nederland, Oxfam Novib, Solidaridad, WWF, 2014).

  131. 131.

    Philpott, S. M. et al. Biodiversity loss in Latin American coffee landscapes: review of the evidence on ants, birds, and trees. Conserv. Biol. 22, 1093–1105 (2008).

  132. 132.

    Humbert, S., Loerincik, Y., Rossi, V., Margni, M. & Jolliet, O. Life cycle assessment of spray dried soluble coffee and comparison with alternatives (drip filter and capsule espresso). J. Clean. Prod. 17, 1351–1358 (2009).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are truly indebted to K. Arrow for deep insights and for inspiring our discussions at the annual Askö meetings in the Stockholm archipelago. Thanks also to K. Nyborg, S. Barrett and P. Ehrlich for valuable comments. Support is gratefully acknowledged from The Beijer Foundation, The Erling-Persson Family Foundation, The Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, The Walton Family Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and Mistra: The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research.

Author information

C.F., H.Ö. and J.-B.J. designed the research, collected the data and performed the analyses with support from E.F.L., W.N.A., M.S., B.I.C., M.N., S.A.L., S.R.C. and A.D.; C.F., H.Ö. and J.-B.J. led the writing of the paper, with input from E.F.L., W.N.A., M.S., B.I.C., M.N., S.A.L., S.R.C., J.M.A, S.C.III, A.-S.C., A.D., V.G., L.J.G., N.K., B.H.W., J.R.W., J.W. and A.d.Z.

Correspondence to Carl Folke.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

C.F., H.Ö., J.-B.J., B.I.C. and A.D. provide scientific support to companies in the seafood sector through the Seafood Business for Ocean Stewardship (SeaBOS) initiative (http://keystonedialogues.earth/). The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark