By BSD –
Curated by Business Science Daily — peer-reviewed sources, human-verified.
Learn more
About Our Curation Process
Business Science Daily curates academic research in business and economics. Each featured study is selected from reputable, peer-reviewed journals, institutional repositories, or working papers (e.g., Elsevier, Sage, NBER, SSRN).
Articles are carefully summarized to ensure clarity and accuracy, with direct citations or links to original sources. Our process emphasizes transparency, academic integrity, and accessibility for a broader audience.
Learn more in our Editorial Standards & AI Policy.
Human rights violations in Global Value Chains (GSCs) play a central role in Myriam & Oberhauser’s (2025) article published in the Journal of Business Ethics.
The authors challenge the top-down, corporation-centric approaches that have dominated human rights discourse. They instead propose a framework that positions local Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) as central actors rather than mere stakeholders.
The authors suggest that the key to effective governance lies not in sophisticated technologies or stricter compliance requirements, but in a more fundamental factor which is about empowering local communities within value chains.
Read more by navigating the tabs below.
Human Rights Violations in Global Value Chains: A Locally Grounded Governance Framework
Why this matters: Traditional Global Value Chains (GVCs) governance marginalizes local voices. This study proposes a locally grounded framework, based on 54 Civil Society Organizations (CSO) interviews across 20 countries, to center vulnerable rightsholders through iterative collaboration and conflict, addressing the root causes of human rights violations.
“Local Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) bridge the gap between rightholders and Multinational Corporations (MNCs), fostering a flow of information essential for responsive and context-aware governance. They also play a pivotal role in empowering rightholders to engage in governance processes themselves.”
Summary
Theoretical Framework
Impediments & Conditions
CSO Action & Governance
Implications
Summary
The article presents an empirically grounded theoretical model for human rights governance in global value chains that centers local civil society organizations (CSOs) and vulnerable rightsholders. Based on 54 interviews with CSOs across 20 countries, the study challenges traditional Multinational Corporations (MNCs)-centric approaches.
Core Findings:
- Local CSOs as Central Actors: Local CSOs are not peripheral but essential contributors, providing context-specific insights and bridging gaps between rightsholders and multinational corporations.
- Three Key Impediments: Lack of trust, power inequalities, and oppression of rightsholders significantly hinder effective local collaboration.
- Two Theoretical Shifts: 1) From static compliance to adaptive, locally grounded governance; 2) From linear top-down frameworks to iterative processes shaped by conflict and collaboration dynamics.
- Dialectical Governance: Effective governance requires the productive tension between collaboration (establishing shared standards) and conflict (challenging and refining those standards).
Methodology & Data:
- Sample: 54 semi-structured interviews with 56 representatives from 51 CSOs
- Geographic Coverage: 20 countries including Mozambique, Ecuador, Indonesia, Brazil, Vietnam, Ghana
- CSO Categories: Local CSOs (29 interviews), Global CSOs (11), Home CSOs (10), Mixed (4)
- Analysis: Inductive qualitative analysis following Gioia methodology
- Duration: 41 hours of interview data collected between July-November 2021
Theoretical Framework: Locally Grounded GVC Governance
The study develops a novel theoretical model that conceptualizes a shift from traditional GVC governance approaches to a locally grounded framework centered on iterative collaboration and power redistribution.
Two Core Theoretical Contributions:
- From Static Compliance to Adaptive Governance: Traditional frameworks focus on meeting minimum legal standards through cascading compliance. The new model emphasizes adaptive, context-sensitive mechanisms that evolve with local insights and rightsholder realities.
- From Linear Top-Down to Iterative Dialectical Processes: Moving beyond MNC-dictated governance to multi-actor processes where conflict and collaboration interact dynamically to shape governance outcomes.
Key Components of the Model:
- Local CSO Integration: Position local CSOs as central rather than peripheral actors
- Power Redistribution: Redistribute decision-making power from MNCs to include local stakeholders
- Iterative Feedback Loops: Continuous reassessment and refinement based on local feedback
- Contextualization: Tailoring human rights standards to local socio-political, cultural, and economic conditions
The Dialectical Element:
The model highlights the inevitable and productive interaction between conflict and collaboration:
- Collaboration: Fosters shared standards and mutual understanding
- Conflict: Challenges and refines standards in response to local needs and power inequalities
- Dynamic Interaction: This dialectic drives adaptive governance responsive to rightsholder realities
“Unlike traditional top-down approaches that rely on cascading standardized practices, our model, informed by local CSOs, can adapt to each community’s unique socio-political, cultural, and economic conditions.”
Impediments to Local Collaboration & Enabling Conditions
The study identifies three major impediments that hinder effective collaboration at the local level and outlines conditions needed to address them.
Three Key Impediments:
1. Lacking Trust and Feeling Unheard
- Local CSOs distrust MNC intentions and view due diligence as symbolic rather than substantive
- Feeling unheard by both MNCs and local governments
- Quote: “To believe that truly there is any transnational cooperation that is truly willing (…) to act responsibly, I mean, we don’t believe that is true.” (CSO 6, Uruguay)
2. Power Inequalities
- Substantial power imbalances between MNCs and local CSOs
- MNC domination of GVC governance structures limits local agency
- Roundtable negotiations often framed as “dialogues among equals” but local CSOs have little say in corporate decision-making
- Quote: “It is truly very difficult, because we as the civil society, we don’t have the power.” (CSO 48, Mozambique)
3. Oppressing Rightholders
- Suppliers systematically maintain unequal relationships by withholding information about rights
- Rightsholders fear reporting violations due to potential contract termination or physical abuse
- Structural vulnerabilities force silence despite awareness of illegal treatment
- Quote: “They just keep silent. Because they need to do the work, they need to get the income from the work, and they need to feed the family.” (CSO 33, Asia)
Enabling Conditions for Local CSO Action:
| Condition | Key Actors | Mechanism | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ensuring Local CSO Participation | Home & Global CSOs | Pressure MNCs to create spaces for local CSO involvement | Increased traceability of sensitive human rights information |
| Establishing Relationships | Local, Home & Global CSOs, MNCs | Mutual connection based on complementary capabilities | Trust-building and information sharing networks |
| Cultivating Transnational Networks | All actors | Continuous work on relationships and collaborations | Mutual learning, synergies, and long-term partnerships |
CSO Action & Governance Phases
The study details specific forms of local CSO action and outlines two collaborative phases in the governance model.
Local CSO Action: Four Key Roles
1. Empowering and Giving Voice to Rightholders
- Serve as first contact point and establish trust-based relationships
- Educate rightholders on acceptable/unacceptable workplace behavior
- Enable identification of rights violations and development of personal standards
2. Unveiling Human Rights Issues
- Leverage close relationships for direct access to first-hand information
- Focus on micro-level improvements where violations emerge
- Quote: “We cannot make any significant changes on the macro level. But we can work on a micro level with the employees of companies.” (CSO 48, Mozambique)
3. Confronting Suppliers and Governments
- Mobilize rightholders to pressure suppliers directly
- Use legal procedures (lawsuits, project halts) when possible
- Navigate tensions with local governments that may evaluate situations differently
4. Mediating Between Unequal Parties
- Act as intermediaries between powerful MNCs and vulnerable communities
- Quote: “I believe that an intermediary is needed here. These are very unequal levels—large multinational corporations on one side and the affected local communities on the other.” (CSO 5, Germany & Brazil)
Two Collaborative Governance Phases:
Phase 1: Negotiation of Human Rights Commitments
- Knowledge Sharing: Pooling distinct expertise from different CSO types
- Contextualization: Adapting universal human rights principles to local conditions
- Stakeholder Dialogues: 360-degree discussions involving producers, suppliers, political leaders, and NGOs
- Designing Measures: Joint development of prevention and remedy strategies
Phase 2: Collective Implementation of Remedy and Prevention
- Grievance Mechanisms: Accessible, trustworthy complaint procedures involving local CSOs
- Providing Remedies: Local CSO expertise guides appropriate remedial measures
- Joint Monitoring: Home and local CSOs assess suppliers and gather feedback
- Supplier Improvement: Training, incentivizing, and pressuring suppliers to comply with standards
| Traditional GVC Governance | Locally Grounded Governance |
|---|---|
| MNC-centric, top-down | Multi-actor, iterative |
| Static compliance with minimum standards | Adaptive, context-sensitive mechanisms |
| Marginalizes local voices | Centers local CSOs and rightholders |
| Linear implementation | Dialectical (conflict-collaboration) processes |
| Symbolic due diligence | Substantive, locally-informed interventions |
Implications & Future Research
Theoretical Contributions:
- Context-Sensitive Governance: Advances scholarship on GVC governance by demonstrating how local CSO integration enables context-sensitive mechanisms that genuinely uphold rightholder dignity and well-being.
- Critical CSR Extension: Challenges MNC-centric structures by showing how empowered local actors can generate context-sensitive insights and shape responsive measures.
- Dialectical Understanding: Introduces conflict-collaboration dialectic as essential driver of adaptive governance, extending current understandings with iterative elements.
Practical Implications:
For Multinational Corporations:
- Recognize local CSOs as essential partners rather than peripheral stakeholders
- Create spaces for meaningful local CSO participation in governance structures
- Invest in long-term, trust-based partnerships with local CSOs
- Develop iterative feedback mechanisms that incorporate local insights
- Accept productive conflict as part of governance refinement
For Civil Society Organizations:
- Leverage complementary strengths through transnational networks
- Home/global CSOs: Amplify local CSO voices and provide visibility
- Local CSOs: Develop strategies for both collaborative and confrontational approaches
- Build capacity for legal advocacy and direct community mobilization
For Policymakers & Regulators:
- Design regulations that incentivize local stakeholder inclusion
- Support transnational CSO networks and knowledge-sharing platforms
- Develop grievance mechanisms accessible to vulnerable rightholders
- Consider power redistribution as a legitimate regulatory objective
Limitations & Future Research Directions:
- CSO-Centric Perspective: Study adopts civil society perspective without direct MNC data collection
- Solution-Oriented Bias: May underrepresent conflictuality and power inequalities between CSOs
- Boundary Condition: Model assumes MNCs can be persuaded to integrate local CSOs
- Future Research: MNC perspectives, CSO-CSO conflicts, cases of failed influence, alternative mechanisms when MNCs resist engagement
“By centering the voices of local CSOs and rightholders, this model holds the potential not only to mitigate human rights violations but also to establish an ethical form of governance that genuinely upholds the dignity, rights, and well-being of those at the most vulnerable ends of the GVCs.”
References
Rapior, M. C., & Oberhauser, M. (2025). Human Rights Violations in Global Value Chains: A Locally Grounded Governance Framework. Journal of Business Ethics.
Key References from the Study:
- Banerjee, S. B. (2018). Transnational power and translocal governance: The politics of corporate responsibility. Human Relations, 71(6), 796-821.
- Bruijn, K., Georgallis, P., Albino-Pimentel, J., Kourula, A., & Teegen, H. (2023). MNE-civil society interactions: A systematic review and research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies.
- Castaldi, S., Wilhelm, M. M., Beugelsdijk, S., & van der Vaart, T. (2023). Extending social sustainability to suppliers: The role of GVC governance strategies and supplier country institutions. Journal of Business Ethics, 183(1), 123-146.
- Ehrnstrom-Fuentes, M. (2022). Confronting extractivism – the role of local struggles in the (un)making of place. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 18(1), 50-73.
- Gereffi, G., & Lee, J. (2016). Economic and social upgrading in global value chains and industrial clusters: Why governance matters. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(1), 25-38.
- Schormair, M. J., & Gerlach, L. M. (2020). Corporate human rights responsibility and the practice of due diligence: A analysis of the underlying motivations. Business and Human Rights Journal, 5(2), 155-180.
- Soundararajan, V., Wilhelm, M. M., & Crane, A. (2021). Humanizing research on working conditions in supply chains: Building a path to decent work. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 57(2), 3-13.
- Wilhelm, M. (2024). Mandatory due diligence legislation: A paradigm shift for the governance of sustainability in global value chains? Journal of International Business Policy.
