The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES) recently unveiled a report titled “Who’s tipping the scales”. The report investigates the increasingly evident influence of corporations on global food governance and raises concerns about bluewashing, a practice where companies mislead consumers regarding their digital ethics and security.
Understanding The Concept of Bluewashing
Bluewashing is an instance of corporate misinformation aiming to portray a firm as more ethically and digitally secure than it actually is. This term first came into use concerning companies who committed to the United Nations Global Compact and its principles without implementing any significant policy reforms. Often, these companies make unclear claims about their data privacy, security measures, and assurance about the safety of Artificial Intelligence applications.
The concept is similar to greenwashing, which refers to deceptive marketing strategies where a company wrongfully asserts that its products or services are environmentally friendly, without taking any meaningful actions towards environmental conservation.
Key Findings of the IPES Report
Numerous findings were derived from the IPES report concerning corporate involvement in food governance. It was found that corporations have convinced governments that they play a crucial role in the discussion surrounding future food systems. The study identified a trend of increasing corporate presence in governance spaces claiming legitimacy. Consequently, such enterprises provide a critical funding source for global food governance institutions, strengthening their decision-making influence.
The Normalization Of Corporate Involvement In Food Governance
The report indicated that the role of private corporations in food governance and decision-making processes has been normalized through public-private partnerships and multi-stakeholder roundtables. There has been a significant dependency on private funding for public governance initiatives. Furthermore, the UN Food Systems Summit in 2021 emphasized the importance of corporate influence in public health governance.
Concerns Regarding Corporate Influence
Food scholars, social movements, and civil society organizations have expressed worries that the increasing corporate participation in food governance might undermine the public interest and impact people’s rights and communities.
Visible and Invisible Influence of Corporations
The report highlighted how corporations influence global food governance both openly and subtly. This corporate sway is evident in global food system platforms like the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, the Food and Land Use Coalition, and the Scaling Up Nutrition Movement. The report also identified less apparent instances of influence, such as private sector donations influencing trading, investment rules, research strategies, among other structural aspects of global food systems.
The Effects of the Covid-19 Pandemic and Other Factors on Corporate Involvement
Challenges like the Covid-19 pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and food inflation have intensified the issue of corporate involvement. These crises have resulted in funding shortages for governments and multilateral agencies, prompting increased reliance on corporations.
Examples of Corporate Involvement
Corporate influence in food governance is exhibited through instances such as the CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) relying on funding from private firms and private philanthropic institutions associated with the food industry. For instance, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the CGIAR’s second-largest donor in 2020, contributing around USD 100 million, an amount exceeding the contributions of individual governments, including the USA.
Challenges Linked to Excessive Corporate Involvement in Global Food Governance
Excessive corporate participation presents several challenges such as limited accountability, the potential for manipulating people’s eating habits through hyper-nudging, unequal distribution of benefits, lack of transparency, and exacerbation of food insecurity. It also threatens environmental degradation and could result in rural dwellers migrating to urban areas due to the rapid incorporation of technologies like robotic tractors and drones into food systems.
Recommendations From the Report
In addressing these challenges, the report recommends the establishment of robust conflict of interest and grievance policies. It calls for new mechanisms grounded in human rights that allow social movements, people’s organizations, and other civil society actors to contribute to food governance. Additionally, it advocates for creating autonomous spaces and processes for marginalized communities to voice their claims and proposals.
