Global Journal of Management and Business Research, B: Economics and Commerce, Volume 23 Issue 1

(Hummels et al., 2001), outsourcing (Grossman and Helpman, 2002), global production networks (Hanson and al., 2004, Ceo, et al., 2008), GVC governance (Gereffi et Fernandez-Stark, 2016), CSR and GVC (Bair, 2005), social, political and environmental integration (Levy 2008; Coe, Dicken, and Hess 2008), task exchanges (Grossman and Rossi-Hansberg, 2008), internalization theory and GVC (Strange & Humphrey, Benito et al, 2019), innovation and cooperation (Mudambi, 2008), GVC resilience (Bair, 2005 and 2015; Gereffi and Baldwin, 2020 and 2021), reflect the importance of GVCs in the relationship among countries, multinational firms, and civil society. However, multinational firms that coordinate the activities and tasks of GVCs, are now under the scrutiny and mainly targeted for their social, governance, and environmental impact. Economists, analysts and civil society note that these business networks create significant negative externalities in both social and environmental (CNUCD, 2013; Bair et Palpacuer, 2015 ; ILOT, 2016 ; Kano et al 2020/2021 ; Ashwin & Kabeer, 2020; Gereffi et al. 2021/2022 ; Philips et al., 2022). Firms have therefore started a social turn and a green turn. However, these actions are still often considered social washing and green washing. It leads to an intense criticism of multinational firms (MNEs). Massive contradictions do exist between the ESG practices and policies of firms and their behaviors and strategies that led to the rise of mistrust and injustice feelings among various stakeholders of GVC. Among these factors, we observe negative perception of GVC, high demand for jobs and integration of local SMEs, difficulty of dialogue and communication with stakeholders, low added value captured by developing countries, non-compliance with standards of rehousing of local populations, and environmental nuisances are the biggest challenges. The concept of GVC sustainability is not limited to improving the social conditions of workers or broadening the participation of stakeholders in the value-sharing process. However, it aims to use resources reasonably, guarantee partners goods and services with good value for money, and ultimately maximize the well-being of all GVC participants. Therefore, we can anticipate that the GVCs of tomorrow will be value chains providing answers to local, social, and environmental problems and transform threats into opportunities. As a result, ESG has become the main field of the struggle of actors to improve the private governance of GVC (Bair, 2015). For governance, several specialists suggested that actors, including social actors, find ways to take advantage of ESG and force change to adapt the business models of value chains towards models that allow the sustainability of activities and the active participation of all the driving forces of value chains. However, Gereffi and Meyer respectively demonstrate how leading companies have managed to shape the field where this struggle is taking place, mobilizing ESG to control risk and maintain control along the value chain. It appears that ESG strives to absorb and disseminate social protest and political conflicts in this perspective. Finally, the logic of sustainability, long-term governance, and collaborative innovation induce the systemic transformation of GVCs. A recent study by Kano et al. (2020) identifies new themes to challenge the conceptual frameworks for the analysis of GVC. It introduces an institutional and systemic perspective. It crosses the global performance of global value chains with different factors: value sharing, mapping of the GVC ecosystem, learning, impact of leading companies, social and environmental nuisances, digitalization, and trade agreements. Thus, the multidimensional review offers a broader and sustained perspective of GVC to further integrate them into collective dynamics with other stakeholders. Another good example is a report entitled "Building Resilient Supply Chain, Revitalizing American Manufacturing, and Fostering Broad Growth," released in June 2021 by President Joe Biden's administration. It identifies five GVCs as vulnerable: semiconductors, batteries, metals, active ingredients, and large-scale public services. In this context, the authors of the McKinsey Global Institute (GSI) report on "Risk, Resilience and Rebalancing in GVCs" also suggest a dozen of measures like relocation of production, diversification of suppliers, strategic stockpiling, risk management capabilities, redundancy of transportation networks, and reduction of product complexity. Moreover, several scholars have highlighted the importance of platforms and advanced technologies in better integrating suppliers and monitoring their inventories and capacities. Nowadays, automation is used to detect changes instantly in retail trends, allowing for quick adjustments in needed projections. Similarly, artificial intelligence (AI) and automation can help improve efficiency and productivity. The increase in e- commerce delivery solutions and the importance of short, decentralized, and customer-focused supply chains (Panwar et al., 2022) is considerable. Furthermore, other authors have pointed out that we are moving into a phase of "techno-nationalism." Post- pandemic governments are likely to play a much more significant role in orchestrating GVCs, especially for more sophisticated products, where they will actively support local knowledge development and production (Gereffi, 2021). This paper considers this new context of internationalization shaping of the GVCs are organized in networks of countries (Asia, Morocco, Egypt, Turkey, Mexico, Eastern Central Europe) and SMEs, and forging new forms of relationships and innovations. ESG best practices, mergers, and strategic alliances between Building Sustainable and Stable Global Value Chains: Case Study of Morocco 2 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XXIII Issue I Version I Year 2023 ( ) B © 2023 Global Journals