Corporate interest groups and their implications for global food governance

The report "Corporate interest groups and their implications for global food governance: mapping and analyzing the global corporate influence network of the transnational ultra-processed food industry " by Slater et al. investigates the corporate political strategies and influence of ultra-processed food (UPF) corporations on global food policy. Key findings include:

1. Network of Influence: Major UPF manufacturers (Nestlé, Coca-Cola, Unilever, PepsiCo, and Danone) have established extensive networks of corporate interest groups that span global, regional, and national levels. The study identified 268 interest groups connected to these corporations, highlighting the central role these companies play in coordinating industry-wide activities.
2. Political Power and Lobbying: The UPF industry's influence is sustained by organized corporate political activity (CPA), aimed at maintaining favorable policies and minimizing regulatory barriers. Corporate interest groups, including sustainability, branding, advertising, and lobbying organizations, support these efforts. This influence network strategically positions itself in power centers, such as Washington, D.C., and Brussels.
3. Focus on Multi-stakeholder Initiatives (MSIs): Many of the corporate interest groups engage in MSIs, which are often framed as sustainability or corporate social responsibility initiatives. However, the report argues that these initiatives primarily serve to legitimize the UPF industry's role in food governance while circumventing stricter regulatory measures.
4. Globalization and Corporate Expansion: The globalization of food systems, liberalization of trade, and consolidation of market power have allowed UPF corporations to become deeply embedded in global governance structures. This network acts across the entire food supply chain, impacting policy, production, marketing, and scientific research.
5. Evolution of Corporate Influence: Over the past few decades, the number and type of interest groups in the UPF network have grown, paralleling shifts in the global food regime. The report traces this growth back to the "corporate food regime" from the 1980s onward, where UPFs became central to global diets, often displacing healthier, minimally processed foods.
6. Challenges for Food Governance: The report highlights concerns over conflicts of interest, as the UPF industry maintains significant influence in policy-making spaces meant to regulate it. It suggests that global food governance systems may be compromised by this entanglement, which ultimately challenges efforts to create healthier, more sustainable food systems.

Conclusion: The UPF industry's corporate influence network represents a significant structural component of global food governance. The report advocates for recognizing the UPF industry as a core contributor to the problem of unhealthy food systems, rather than part of the solution, to facilitate transformative changes in global food policy aimed at improving health and sustainability.

This study is a call to action for stricter regulatory measures and global governance reforms to limit UPF industry influence and prioritize public health and environmental sustainability in food systems transformation(s12992-024-01020-4).

Implications:

The intense concentration of power within the ultra-processed food (UPF) industry has considerable consequences for the agricultural sector, especially as the urgency of shifting toward regenerative agricultural practices grows. Here's a breakdown of these impacts and the dynamics in play as regenerative practices begin to challenge traditional systems:

1. Influence on Agricultural Inputs and Practices

• The UPF industry's extensive network includes upstream control over inputs like seeds, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides—critical supplies for large-scale industrial farming. As UPF manufacturers rely on cheap, standardized ingredients (often monocrops like corn, wheat, soy), they promote input-heavy practices that deplete soil health, degrade biodiversity, and strain water resources.
• This dependency has created a feedback loop that entrenches farmers in chemical-intensive methods, further disconnecting them from regenerative practices that focus on soil health, biodiversity, and low-input sustainability.

2. Barriers to Regenerative Agriculture Adoption

• The centralized, high-yield model supported by UPF corporations discourages farmers from adopting regenerative practices, which typically yield less initially but are more resilient long-term. Corporate contracts, often favoring monoculture and high-input practices, leave farmers with little incentive to transition to regenerative methods that would decrease the short-term yield volume these corporations demand.
• Furthermore, the lobbying efforts of UPF corporations, through their extensive influence networks, actively resist policies or subsidies that favor regenerative approaches. They tend to prioritize policies that sustain their profit structures rather than those that support sustainable farming transitions.

3. Market Demand and Economic Pressures

• The UPF industry's high demand for uniform, commodity crops pressures farmers to produce at scale, often with little regard for environmental impact. This demand perpetuates a market in which regenerative products—diverse, nutrient-rich crops produced with lower ecological impact—are undervalued and marginalized in supply chains dominated by bulk, low-cost ingredients.
• However, as consumer awareness of regenerative practices grows, there is an emerging demand for ingredients aligned with these principles. This creates a nascent but critical shift in market dynamics, potentially driving interest in alternative supply chains that value quality, ecological impact, and diversity over sheer volume and uniformity.

4. Transition Risks and Resilience Challenges

• The UPF industry’s reliance on vast, monoculture farming networks places it at significant risk from climate-related disruptions, soil degradation, and water scarcity—all issues that regenerative agriculture directly addresses. As these challenges escalate, the long-term resilience of the UPF industry’s supply chains weakens, pushing corporations to confront the unsustainable nature of their agricultural dependencies.
• Some UPF corporations are beginning to explore “sustainable sourcing” or invest in limited regenerative pilot programs, likely to manage public perception and mitigate risk. However, these initiatives often lack the scale and depth needed for meaningful change, primarily serving as corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts rather than genuine shifts in agricultural practice.

5. Shift in Governance and Policy Influence

• As awareness of regenerative agriculture grows, pressure builds within food governance frameworks to support these methods, potentially leading to stricter regulations and incentives that favor regenerative over extractive practices. However, the UPF industry’s robust network of interest groups and lobbying efforts work to delay or dilute such policies, which could threaten their cost structures and profitability.
• This tension in food policy spaces illustrates a power struggle: regenerative advocates push for policy shifts that value ecological and human health, while UPF corporations leverage their influence to preserve the status quo, underscoring the need for stronger governance to balance these interests.

How the UPF Industry is Impacted by the Transition to Regenerative Practices

• Supply Chain Costs: A shift toward regenerative agriculture would increase ingredient costs for UPF corporations in the short term, as regenerative farming typically yields less bulk and is more labor-intensive. This creates a cost challenge in an industry focused on maximizing profits through low-cost, high-volume supply chains.
• Public Pressure and Image Management: The rising consumer demand for transparency and sustainability puts reputational pressure on UPF companies. Some have initiated greenwashing campaigns, using language that suggests alignment with sustainability while their core practices remain unchanged.
• Long-Term Adaptation Needs: The growing acknowledgment of the climate crisis and ecological degradation will eventually pressure UPF companies to reevaluate supply chain resilience. Adopting regenerative practices could offer long-term benefits by mitigating the climate risks and resource scarcities that threaten their raw material access.

In essence, the UPF industry’s concentration and control over the agricultural sector work directly against regenerative practices. However, as environmental and consumer pressures rise, the industry faces potential destabilization and adaptation pressures. This situation is a powerful argument for systemic change, where policies could enable regenerative practices to emerge as viable alternatives and ultimately transform agricultural and food systems away from the extractive model supported by the UPF industry.

Innovations Brokerage?

'Innovations Brokerage' representing farmers transitioning to sustainable practices is both timely and strategic. The ultra-processed food (UPF) industry is increasingly recognizing the importance of regenerative agriculture, with several major corporations making commitments to integrate these practices into their supply chains.

Key Focus Areas:

1. Supply Chain Integration:
2. Certification and Verification:
3. Collaborative Initiatives:

Identifying Genuine Engagement Beyond Greenwashing:

While some corporations may engage in superficial sustainability efforts, several are making substantive commitments:

• Nestlé: The company has laid out plans to support and accelerate the transition to a regenerative food system, aiming to work with over 500,000 farmers and 150,000 suppliers to advance regenerative farming practices. Nestlé
• Danone: Danone is building a more sustainable and resilient supply chain by focusing on regenerative agriculture, with initiatives to support farmers in adopting these practices. Deloitte
• PepsiCo: Beyond its acreage goals, PepsiCo has launched the Positive Agriculture Outcomes (PAO) Fund to support projects addressing challenges in agriculture, indicating a move towards substantial engagement. Resonance Global

Recommendations:

• Align with Corporate Goals: Identify corporations with clear regenerative agriculture commitments and tailor your offerings to meet their specific needs.
• Emphasize Transparency: Provide detailed data on farming practices and outcomes to demonstrate genuine sustainability efforts, appealing to companies aiming to move beyond greenwashing.
• Leverage Technology: Utilize platforms that track and report on regenerative practices, offering corporations verifiable metrics to showcase progress.

By focusing on these areas, a brokerage can effectively position itself as a valuable partner to corporations genuinely committed to integrating regenerative agriculture into their supply chains.