The Power of Big Box Retail in Global Environmental Governance: Bringing Commodity Chains Back into IR
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on analysing the consequences for global governance of the growing power of the world’s biggest retailers, illustrating with the case of global forest governance. It argues that the rising power of big retail within global commodity chains is creating both significant challenges — and some opportunities — for global environmental governance. The analysis suggests a need for IR to focus more on the shifting political power of multinational corporations, as both barriers to, and progress in, the governance of complex global issues such as deforestation and climate change increasingly occur in the corporate sphere. More specifically, the authors see great value in bringing research on globalising commodity chains back into IR, first revealing the power dynamics within these chains, then building on this to analyse the implications for global change and world politics. This reinforces and complements the message in Bernstein et al. (in this volume) that understanding the future of global climate governance must include the complex interactions between transnational governance practices and interstate negotiations. But it also suggests a need for IR scholars to go even further to unpack the consequences of how the shifting power dynamics of governance practices within the corporate sphere are intersecting — or running parallel — with more overarching multilateral and transnational environmental processes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it