Abstract:

Global value chains separate ownership, control, production, and exposure to social and environmental harm across multiple organizations and countries. This fragmentation creates an important responsibility problem. The company publicly blamed for an issue may not be the organization formally required to solve it, while the actual costs of remediation, monitoring, or compliance may eventually be carried by yet another actor. Responsibility in global value chains can therefore move across organizational and geographical boundaries through contracts, audits, standards, buyer requirements, and public pressure (Gereffi et al., 2005; Kano et al., 2020; Strange & Humphrey, 2019).

Existing research explains important parts of this problem. Global value chain studies show how lead firms coordinate external suppliers and exercise power without common ownership, while business ethics and global strategy research demonstrates that corporate responsibility often extends beyond formal organizational boundaries (Amaeshi et al., 2008; Egels-Zandén, 2017). Other studies examine supplier codes, cascading compliance, and the strategic use of moral claims by firms, regulators, NGOs, unions, and other actors (Narula, 2019; Reinecke & Donaghey, 2022; Mitręga, 2026). However, we still know relatively little about how a moral claim directed at one organization becomes a practical burden imposed on another, and what happens when recipients accept, resist, renegotiate, or pass that burden further along the chain.