Sustainability governance and upgrading in the automotive and autoparts global value chain: SME´s oportunities from Córdoba-Argentina

AMATO, CELINA NOÉ

Amsterdam

Conferencia; SASE 34TH ANNUAL MEETING; 2022

SASE

This paper contributes with an analytical theoretical framework on sustainability governance in the automotive-autoparts Global Value Chain [GVC] (Gereffi, Humphrey & Sturgeon, 2005; Gibbon, Bair & Ponte, 2008; McDermott & Corredoira, 2010; Pavlínek & Ženka, 2011; Ponte & Sturgeon, 2014; Sturgeon & Van Biesebroeck, 2011) from Córdoba-Argentina.The main goal is to study the governance influence in the sustainability criteria transmission and adoption in this GVC (Boström et al., 2015; Bush et al., 2015; Kogg & Mont, 2012; Ponte & Gibbon, 2005; Schnittfeld & Busch, 2016; Sturgeon, 2011) and the local small and medium enterprises [SMEs] possibilities to achieve upgrading through these criteria (Achabou, Dekhili & Hamdoun, 2017; Barrientos, Gereffi & Rossi, 2010; Bernhardt & Milberg, 2011; De Marchi et al., 2019; Gereffi, 2019; Gereffi & Lee, 2016; Giuliani, Petrobelli & Rabellotti, 2005; Golini et al., 2018). A qualitative research methodology was chosen (Eisenhardt, 1989; Stake, 2005; Yin, 1989). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants from 18 organizations. Primary data were analyzed in stages (Miles & Huberman, 1984; Taylor & Bogdan, 1998) helping by ATLAS®ti software.As results, it is highlighted that leading companies governance of this GVC is very strong in relation to the sustainability criteria transmission and adoption, but it only reaches the directly related links, configuring two SMEs worlds (López, 2008): those that supply leading companies and those that do not. This governance does not reach local SMEs that do not supply leading companies, hence their possibilities to insert into the GVC through these criteria are very scarce. To counteract this situation, other actors have been gaining ground in sustainability aspects, such as various associations and organisations in relation to social struggles (Bush et al., 2015) and the State in terms of environmental regulations, generating a more multipolar and collective sustainability governance (Dallas et al., 2019; Ponte, 2014). However, their power in relation to that of the leading companies is very low, particularly that of the State.Sustainability governance is exercised in different ways: by leading companies as coordination and standardization, with internal mechanisms (own sustainability standards, coercive and related to the global governance of the chain) (Nadvi, 2008); among the actors that do not supply leading companies, with external mechanisms such as standards and certifications (Ponte & Gibbon, 2005), highlighting a quality culture (Barletta et al., 2013; Sessa, 2013); the part of associations and organisations with more diffuse mechanisms (Dallas, Ponte & Sturgeon, 2019), where cooperation and customer demand are the source of power, the best example being the Argentine trade unions; and on the part of the State with normative, direct mechanisms, highlighting the need for integration of judicial mechanisms for control (Dalle, Fossati & Lavopa, 2013), especially in terms of environmental regulations.