Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Transnational corporations and the challenge of biosphere stewardship


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.


All prices are NET prices.

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


  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Glattfelder, J. B. & Battiston, S. The architecture of power: patterns of disruption and stability in the global ownership network. SSRN (2019).

  5. 5.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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);

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

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

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

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

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Market Transformation Initiative Fact Sheet (WWF, 2015);

  53. 53.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 (accessed 26 February 2019).

  96. 96.

    Bell, T. The World’s Biggest Zinc Producers. The Balance (accessed 26 February 2019).

  97. 97.

    Els, F. The world’s top 10 largest gold mining companies – 2017. (accessed 26 February 2019).

  98. 98.

    Top 10 Iron ore producers based on 2015 guidance. Mining Global (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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. 125.

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


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.

Corresponding author

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 ( 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

Cite this article

Folke, C., Österblom, H., Jouffray, JB. et al. Transnational corporations and the challenge of biosphere stewardship. Nat Ecol Evol 3, 1396–1403 (2019).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing