journalistiek over mondiale samenwerking

The coffee we drink, the clothes we wear, and the phones we carry are all products of global value chains. Yet behind these everyday commodities lies a difficult question: who benefits, who decides, and who is left behind? At a co-creation event in the Netherlands, policymakers, practitioners, researchers, entrepreneurs, and students came together to explore whether international value chains can truly work for everyone.

At first glance, an international value chain may seem like a simple combination of three words: international, value, and chain. Yet together, the concept tells a story about everyone (people), everything (products), and everywhere (places).

On 27 May 2026, at the Larenstein Estate in Velp, Vice Versa and Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences brought together policymakers, opinion leaders, policy advisors, development practitioners, entrepreneurs, students, and researchers to explore a central question: How can international value chains work for everyone?

As is often the case, discussions about global value chains generated more questions than answers. What appeared to be a straightforward question quickly unfolded into a broader conversation about actors (who), challenges (what), urgency (when), causes (why), values (which), and solutions (how). These themes would shape discussions throughout the day.

The event opened with a reflection on the evolution of value chain thinking. Marco Verschuur, researcher and lecturer in sustainable value chains at the university, traced how approaches within international development have changed over time. In his welcoming remarks, he described how value chain thinking has evolved over time.

Earlier approaches focused on value chain development, value addition, governance, fair trade, and value chain financing. More recent discussions, he noted, have shifted towards sustainable value chains, green trade, climate-just value chains, and climate-smart value chains.

As part of its commitment to sustainability and international development, Van Hall Larenstein has integrated sustainable value chain approaches into its undergraduate, postgraduate, and professional education programmes. Through these courses, students are encouraged to engage directly with real-world challenges affecting international value chains.

The co-creation event itself was co-conceived and initiated by Wouter van Tongeren, a student of International Development and Management at the university. To challenge participants’ sense of agency, he invited them to reflect on their daily lives. The food on their plates, the clothes they wear, the transport they use, and the technologies that connect them are all products of global value chains.

His comparison of development cooperation to a fishing rod raised questions about whether the system truly works as intended. Van Tongeren argued that colonialism may not have disappeared but rather evolved. While the actors and instruments have changed, he suggested that the underlying logic remains largely intact.

As he put it, “The architecture of current global value chains was not built from scratch; it was inherited.” This conviction underpins his view that much of Europe’s wealth accumulation has been linked to the extraction of land, labour, and resources from the Global South.

As an aspiring development practitioner, Van Tongeren used his remarks to highlight persistent geopolitical tensions, power imbalances, and inequalities in decision-making. His contribution also demonstrated the value of involving young people in debates on global value chains, bringing fresh perspectives that challenge conventional approaches and reshape how solutions are imagined.

Policy Perspective

The metaphor of development cooperation as a “fishing rod” remains open to debate, particularly among practitioners with extensive experience in the sector. From a policy perspective, Bram Wits, Deputy Head of Trade for Development, reminded participants that development cooperation is operating in an increasingly constrained environment as aid budgets continue to shrink. In such circumstances, he argued, adaptability and critical reflection are essential to rethinking how international development is approached in these uncertain times.

Partly in response to these pressures, the Dutch government is increasingly seeking to work more strategically with other European Union member states. However, this approach comes with its own challenges. In his view, closer alignment with broader European development frameworks can sometimes limit the government’s flexibility and responsiveness.

Maintaining a distinct Dutch identity, he argued, remains important. The government must continue demonstrating to its citizens the value and relevance of investing public resources in development cooperation.

Drawing on years of experience in diplomacy and international development, Wits also reflected on the power dynamics within and between global value chains. His interactions with farmers in West Africa led him to challenge narratives that place responsibility for inequality solely on actors in the Global North. Political and economic elites within producing countries, particularly in the Global South, also play a role in sustaining unequal systems and outcomes.

Addressing these inequalities, therefore, requires more than examining relationships between producing and consuming countries. It also demands a closer look at how power is exercised, maintained, negotiated, and contested within producing countries themselves.

This perspective echoes Ellen Mangnus’ call for the democratisation of value chains, which challenges the tendency to view farmers, workers, and local communities as passive recipients of development interventions rather than active agents of change.

The temptation to assign responsibility to one region of the world risks oversimplifying a far more complex reality. Governments in both producing and consuming countries are imperfect actors, each navigating its own governance constraints and development challenges. The question is not who is entirely to blame, but how different actors influence the rules, incentives, and outcomes that shape global value chains.

At the same time, governments face practical limitations in engaging every actor involved in a value chain. This presents a significant obstacle to meaningful transformation. As a result, governments, including the Netherlands, must continue exploring not whether to work with businesses and other stakeholders who understand the lived realities of value creation, labour conditions, and resource distribution, but how to do so effectively.

Practitioners’ perspectives

From the practitioners’ perspective, transforming global value chains is not the responsibility of a single actor. Rather, it is set in motion by a combination of pressures, opportunities, and institutional capacities that different stakeholders bring to the table.

Reflecting on their experiences across the value chain landscape, the panellists highlighted a range of approaches to addressing persistent challenges: supporting governments of low- and middle -income countries to organise well-informed and participatory decision-making (Commissie mer / NCEA), accounting for the true cost of production through true pricing (True Price), strengthening labour conditions through collective bargaining (FNV Mondiaal), and expanding the role of social enterprises in decision-making processes (Kumasi Drinks).

Representing diverse organisations and mandates, the speakers shared their perspectives on how, within their respective mandates and capacities, they are working to address the interconnected challenges embedded within global value chains.

Their reflections provided grounded examples of what it takes to build systems that are not only economically viable but also socially just and environmentally sustainable. While the panellists approached the question of inclusion from different angles, their perspectives proved largely complementary.

Frans Dekker, Policy Advisor at FNV Mondiaal, argued that meaningful inclusion begins by ensuring that workers and trade unions have a seat at the table—not on the menu. His remarks underscored the importance of representation and collective voice in shaping decisions that directly affect workers’ rights and livelihoods.

Linda Klunder, co-founder of Kumasi Drinks, emphasised that representation alone is not enough. Decisions made around the table must ultimately translate into action. In her view, businesses are uniquely positioned to turn commitments into practical improvements and deliver tangible results.

Edy Blom, Senior Advisor at Commissie mer, encouraged participants to move beyond participation as an end in itself and consider whose agency is ultimately strengthened through these processes. She questioned whether sufficient space is left for producing countries to shape their own decisions.

Adding another dimension to the discussion, Claire van den Broek, Managing Director of True Price, challenged the tendency to view value chains primarily through a financial lens. She argued that conventional measures of value often fail to account for environmental degradation and social costs. From her perspective, inclusivity is not only about who participates in decision-making, but also about which values, impacts, and interests are recognised when decisions are made.

Finding common ground

Despite their different institutional backgrounds, the panellists converged on several key issues. First, there was broad agreement that systemic change within global value chains is both urgent and necessary.

At the same time, participants acknowledged that transformation is neither quick nor linear. It requires sustained engagement, continuous negotiation, and collaboration among a wide range of actors.

Second, while development cooperation is increasingly constrained by shrinking budgets and shifting political priorities, the panellists argued that these pressures should not become an excuse for slowing down efforts towards more inclusive and sustainable systems. If anything, the current context demands greater creativity, stronger partnerships, and more strategic use of limited resources.

Third, the discussion highlighted the need to confront the inconsistencies and double standards that often characterise international trade and development. Kwame Asamoah, a PhD researcher at Wageningen University, questioned whether existing policies, standards, and market incentives are genuinely aligned with the transformative ambitions many actors claim to pursue.

Finally, participants reflected on the role of innovation. While innovation was widely recognised as an important driver of change, the panellists cautioned against pursuing it as an end in itself. Instead, they argued that greater attention must be paid to who benefits from innovation, whose interests it serves, and whether it contributes to more equitable, sustainable, and inclusive outcomes.

Yet if the discussions demonstrated anything, it was that the challenges surrounding global value chains are far more complex than they first appear. Rather than bringing participants closer to a single solution, the diversity of perspectives revealed just how many interconnected questions remain unresolved.

Nuancing the complexity

Complexity was the buzzword of the day, and for good reason. It was in the Innovation Labs that participants came face to face with the everyday realities of coffee farmers in Colombia, cashew farmers in Sierra Leone, cacao farmers in Ghana, and avocado farmers in Kenya. In doing so, one of the central challenges of global value chains became clear: those who create much of the value are often the least rewarded for it.

Despite producing commodities that generate significant profits, many farmers continue to struggle with low incomes and precarious livelihoods. Similar patterns can be observed across sectors such as textiles, footwear, and leather, where workers often face unsafe working conditions, inadequate protection from exploitation, and wages that fall short of providing a decent standard of living.

The Innovation Labs were intended to bring these realities into sharper focus. They were designed around interconnected themes—including farmers’ positions within global markets, workers’ rights, gender (in)equality, fair trade, the tension between national interests and international responsibilities, and the governance of global agrifood systems.

To do so, the labs employed a range of interactive and experiential learning methods, including The Food for All game, role-playing exercises, videos, case studies, power walks, group discussions, and collaborative reflection sessions.

Participants were not only exposed to the inequalities embedded within global production systems, but were also invited to step into the shoes of different actors and experience first-hand how power, risks, opportunities, costs, and rewards are distributed along the chain.

The labs also served as co-creation sessions where participants were challenged to think beyond diagnosis and contribute practical ideas for advancing the transformation agenda.

By the time participants reconvened in the plenary, the conversation had shifted noticeably. The focus was no longer on whether international value chains could work for everyone, but on identifying concrete steps to bring that ambition closer to reality.

From diagnosing complexity to exploring solutions

Transforming value chains is neither simple nor quick. It is a long-term process of negotiation, collaboration, and adaptation that requires sustained commitment from governments, businesses, civil society organisations, and actors across both producing and consuming countries.

Throughout the day, one message emerged clearly: meaningful change is driven not only by ambitious declarations, but by consistent actions taken by individuals and institutions within their spheres of influence. To anchor the discussion, the moderator, Ama van Dantzig, posed a simple but powerful question: What is the one practical thing you are going to do tomorrow?

The question challenged innovation lab hosts to move beyond diagnosing problems and focus instead on actions they could take back to their organisations, networks, and professional communities. The responses were notably pragmatic.

Rather than proposing grand solutions, representatives from organisations including Woord en Daad, FNV Mondiaal, the Equal Trade Alliance, HAS Green Academy, the Netherlands Food Partnership, CBI, True Price, and Commissie mer reflected on the practical steps needed to keep the transformation agenda moving forward.

Their suggestions revealed a shared recognition that complexity cannot be avoided; it must be embraced. Transforming value chains requires navigating competing interests among farmers, traders, small and medium-sized enterprises, importers, and exporters.

It also demands a stronger focus on those who remain most vulnerable within these systems, particularly smallholder farmers and producer cooperatives, through greater access to information, stronger representation, and more meaningful participation in decision-making processes. It also implies supporting governments of producing countries to shape and improve inclusive decision-making.

Several participants emphasised the need to look beyond conventional measures of success. Procurement decisions, for example, should not be guided solely by cost and quality considerations, but also by questions of where and how products are sourced.

Others highlighted the importance of strengthening partnerships with actors in producer countries and paying closer attention to informal trade networks and actors, whose contributions are often overlooked despite their significant influence on how markets function in practice.

Questions of power also remained central. Participants repeatedly returned to the issue of who sets the rules, determines prices, and shapes outcomes within value chains. Addressing these imbalances requires stronger cross-border solidarity, particularly among trade unions and labour movements. Equally important is the democratisation of value chains, giving farmers and producers a greater voice in decisions about pricing, standards, and governance.

The discussions further challenged the tendency to treat economic development and environmental sustainability as competing objectives. Instead, participants argued that the two are deeply interconnected and should be pursued as mutually reinforcing goals.

This perspective was closely linked to calls for placing human values at the centre of decision-making, strengthening producer ownership, and ensuring that economic systems work not only for markets but also for the people whose labour sustains them.

Innovation and entrepreneurship also emerged important as pathways for change, particularly when supporting young people and emerging enterprises. At the same time, participants stressed the need to explore alternative approaches, including Equal Trade economic models, that seek to create more balanced and equitable relationships within existing trading systems.

The event began with one question and ended with many more. Perhaps that was the point. Questions of power, inclusion, sustainability, and justice cannot be resolved in a day, a year, or even a decade.

They require continuous reflection, experimentation, and dialogue. The real test begins now. Will governments, businesses, organisations, and citizens continue asking the difficult questions—and, more importantly, act on them?

The future of international value chains depends not on having all the answers, but on the willingness to challenge assumptions, rethink established practices, and work collectively towards systems that serve people, planet, peace, prosperity, and partnerships alike.