Overcoming the global despondency trap: strengthening corporate accountability in supply chains

Abstract

This paper re-examines why global collective action problems persist, and how to overcome them. Drawing on 140 interviews with campaigners, politicians, and businesses in 10 European countries, it suggests that many activists are stuck in a despondency trap. Never seeing radical reform, they lower their ambitions, and invest in more feasible but sub-optimal alternatives. This creates a negative feedback loop, in which the dearth of radical reform becomes self-fulfilling. But if reformists see advances at home and abroad, they may become more optimistic about collective mobilisation and break out of their despondency trap. This is shown by tracing the drivers of ground-breaking legislation. From 2018, large French firms must mitigate risks of environmental and human rights abuses in their global supply chains, or else be liable. This bill – the world’s first of its kind – was vociferously contested by businesses. But French campaigners and politicians persisted for four years, because they saw reasons for optimism. These include growing international support; public outcry; the French political culture (state intervention, and distrust of multinationals); together with a Centre-Left Government. Optimism galvanised relentless mobilisation. Legislative success in France then delivered a positive shock to activists across Europe, who were emboldened to launch similar campaigns and escape their despondency trap.

Keywords:

• Corporate accountability
• global production networks
• comparative politics
• activism
• France
• norms
• regulation

Acknowledgements

I am extremely grateful to my Belgian, Britain, Dutch, French, German and Swiss participants, who shared their reflections with me, and provided useful comments on earlier drafts. This article has greatly benefited from constructive criticism from Michaël Aklin, Tim Bartley, Daniel Berliner, Nic Cheeseman, Cees Van Dam, Nick Day, Jimmy Donaghey, Kim Elliot, Julia Grimm, Guy Grossman, Jonathan Hopkin, Dan Honig, Nathan Jensen, Christel Koop, Emma Mawdsley, Juliane Reinecke, Pseudoerasmus, Mark Vail, Martjin Zomeren, four anonymous reviewers, as well as presentation feedback at University College London, the Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute, and the Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics. Fieldwork was financed by the King’s Together Fund. The debts are many, deficits mine, and critique is very welcome.

Notes

1 Together with product quality and speed.

2 1 Firms registered in France with either: more than 5,000 employees (working for the company and its direct or indirect French-registered subsidiaries); or more than

10,000 employees (working for the company, and its direct or indirect global subsidiaries).

3 Participants helped clarify key dynamics, but did not ask me to change any quotes.

4 ‘NGOs and unions tirelessly pleaded, for several years, in favour of the duty of vigilance’ – noted Senator Didier Marie (Senat, 2017), as did Deputy Dominique Raimbourg (translated, Assemblée Nationale, 2016b).

5 French companies had joined by May 2005, as urged by President Chirac (Antal & Sobczak, 2007).

6 Mathilde Dupre (CCFD-Terre Solidaire, a Catholic Socialist NGO); Sabine Gagnier (Amnesty International France, focusing on human rights); Nayla Ajaltouni (le Collectif Éthique sur l'étiquette, specifically tackling working conditions in global supply chains); and Juliette Renaud (les Amis de la Terre, Friends of the Earth); and Sandra Cossart (Sherpa, which litigates economic crimes).

7 This echoes Simmons’ (2009): activists use international treaties to gain legitimacy and push for domestic compliance.

8 The Netherlands: The Braakhuis motion, Lower House, Session 2011-2012, 26485, No. 135; The Thieme and Van Gerven motion, Lower House, session 2013-2014, 28286, No. 753; The Van Gerven motion, Lower House, Session 2013-2014, 28286, No. 758; and The Voordewind motion, Lower House, Session 2014-2015, 34000 XVII, No. 30. In Germany, ‘Tackling Corporate Responsibility: Legal Regulation to Protect Human Rights’ was tabled but not debated.

9 These include the Netherlands Agreement on Sustainable Garments and Textiles, the German Partnership for Sustainable Textiles, the UK Ethical Trading Initiative, and Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative.

10 Indeed, it was Dutch and British activists that first protested against labour abuses in their global supply chains, founding the Clean Clothes Campaign in 1989 (Bair & Palpacuer, 2012). The Government has promoted these ideas both domestically and in its foreign policy. The school curriculum includes sustainable development and corporate social responsibility (LNVO, 2008). The Netherlands was also one of the first countries to implement the UNGPs, publishing its NAP in. The Dutch Government also prioritised business and human rights during its 2016 EU Presidency: organising a pan-European, multi-stakeholder conference (ECCJ, Mvo Platform, ENNHRI, the Netherlands presidency of the EU, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2016; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2016). From 2014, the Dutch Government convened multi-stakeholder processes to develop sector-specific agreements in high risk global value chains (starting with garments - SER, 2016).

11 NGOs and unions did request a ‘National Platform for Global Actions for Corporate Social Responsibility’ (a multi-stakeholder platform, first convened in 2012). But – according to my informants – this was primarily to enhance access to government ministries, rather than try to resolve grievances through constructive discussions with business. Relations were tense.

12 Pessimism was pervasive in my earlier interviews (2016-2018). By 2019, many activists were more optimistic, and had had started campaigns – see full discussion of this in the Conclusion.

13 These include Amis de la Terre's 2009 campaign ‘Profits réels, Responsabilités artificielles’ (supported by FCRSE and ECCJ); and the 2010 the campaign ‘Des droits pour tous, des règles pour les multinationales’ coordinated by the CRID network and FCRSE (which comprises CCFD, Amis de la Terre, Peuples Solidaires among others).

14 Key actors included Sherpa, CCFD-Terre Solidaire, Amnesty International, the Collectif Éthique sur l'étiquette, Peuples Solidaires, Les Amis de la Terre France,

CFDT, CFT, as well as academics and lawyers.

15 This is a growing trend in France: unions have broadened their coalitions to leverage impact (Milner & Mathers, 2013).

16 The Socialists and Ecologists separately tabled identical bills.

17 http://www.prix-pinocchio.org/

18 By contrast, only 23’000 people signed Oxfam Deutschland’s (2018) petition for mandatory due diligence.

19 Except Switzerland.

20 No French participants hinted at a shift in their internalised ideologies about what was right/ wrong. They were not suddenly persuaded of the need for legislation.

21 Other scholars could test/ triangulate this theory with quantitative research. Curiously, most nationally representative surveys ask participants about their internalised ideologies: ‘Do you want/believe X/Y?’. Alternatively, one might collect cross-national survey data on norm perceptions: asking respondents to estimate wider support, and prospects for legislative success (perhaps on a scale of 1–5).

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by King’s College London.

Notes on contributors

Alice Evans

Dr. Alice Evans is a Lecturer in International Development at King's College London, and Research Associate at the Harvard Kennedy School. She researches social norms, how they change, and global supply chains. Alice also hosts an podcast on global politics: ‘Rocking Our Priors’.