Suchergebnisse

This paper investigates the creation and consequences of private regulation in global food governance. It points to the power to govern and the authority to govern as the two crucial conditions for the emergence and diffusion of private food regulation. More specifically, the paper argues that the power to govern is a function of the structural power of agrifood corporations, particularly retail food corporations in our case. The authority to govern is a function of the perceived legitimacy of retail food corporations as political actors. By linking power and authority to the material and ideational structures existing in the global political economy of food, this paper analyses the processes that serve to create, maintain and reproduce private regulation in food governance. With its analysis, the paper aims to contribute to the theoretical and empirical debates on private authority, private regulation and the challenges for sustainability in the global food system.

Lebensmittelkrisen wie BSE, die Maul- und Klauenseuche oder die Geflügelpest haben die Nachfrage nach mehr Transparenz in den komplexen und hoch industrialisierten Lebensmittelketten zu einem Eckpunkt der politischen Diskussion gemacht. Während Transparenz eine intuitiv wünschenswerte Norm darstellt, ist die Ausführung und die Umsetzung einer entsprechenden Politik jedoch eine komplexe und hochpolitische Aufgabe. Der vorliegende Beitrag untersucht das politische Potential für eine aus der Perspektive der Nachhaltigkeit angemessene Transparenzpolitik in der Europäischen Union. Basierend auf einer Policy-Netzwerk Analyse zur Schweinefleischpolitik in der Europäischen Union sowie zweien ihrer Mitgliedsstaaten zeigt er, dass die derzeitigen Kommunikations- und Vertrauensbeziehungen in den relevanten Netzwerken gegen eine Entwicklung einer derartigen Politik sprechen. Insbesondere die Einbindung der relevanten öffentlichen Akteure in Kommunikations- und Vertrauenscluster mit den wirtschaftlichen Akteuren, die eine sehr begrenzte Transparenzpolitik befürworten, und die gleichzeitige Isolation der Verbraucher-, Umwelt- und Tierschutzverbände im Netzwerk weisen darauf hin, dass das politische Potenzial für die Nachhaltigkeit fördernde Transparenzpolitik sehr begrenzt ist.

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Contents -- List of figures -- List of tables -- Acknowledgements -- List of abbreviations -- List of contributors -- Introduction: critical and transformative perspectives on global sustainability governance -- PART 1 Conceptual lenses -- 1 Power and legitimacy -- 2 Environmental governance as performance -- 3 Engaging the everyday: sustainability as resonance -- 4 Materiality and nonhuman agency -- 5 Worlding global sustainability governance -- PART 2 Ethics, principles, and debates -- 6 Justice -- 7 Representation of future generations -- 8 The 'good life' and Protected Needs -- 9 Post-Eurocentric sustainability governance: lessons from the Latin American Buen Vivir experiment -- 10 Responsibility -- 11 Religion -- 12 Sufficiency -- PART 3 Key challenges -- 13 North-South inequity and global environmental governance -- 14 Growth and development -- 15 The mining dilemma -- 16 Financialising nature -- 17 Environmental countermovements: organised opposition to climate change action in the United States -- 18 A critique of techno-optimism: efficiency without sufficiency is lost -- 19 Consumer values and consumption -- 20 The population challenge -- PART 4 Transformative approaches -- 21 Beyond magical thinking -- 22 Democracy in the Anthropocene -- 23 Living well within limits: the vision of consumption corridors -- 24 Beyond GDP: the economics of well-being -- 25 Beyond a-growth: sustainable zero growth -- 26 Work-time reduction for sustainable lifestyles -- 27 Decarbonisation -- 28 Localism, sharing, and care -- Conclusion: global sustainability governance - really? -- Index.

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Contents -- List of figures -- List of tables -- Acknowledgements -- List of abbreviations -- List of contributors -- Introduction: critical and transformative perspectives on global sustainability governance -- PART 1 Conceptual lenses -- 1 Power and legitimacy -- 2 Environmental governance as performance -- 3 Engaging the everyday: sustainability as resonance -- 4 Materiality and nonhuman agency -- 5 Worlding global sustainability governance -- PART 2 Ethics, principles, and debates -- 6 Justice -- 7 Representation of future generations -- 8 The 'good life' and Protected Needs -- 9 Post-Eurocentric sustainability governance: lessons from the Latin American Buen Vivir experiment -- 10 Responsibility -- 11 Religion -- 12 Sufficiency -- PART 3 Key challenges -- 13 North-South inequity and global environmental governance -- 14 Growth and development -- 15 The mining dilemma -- 16 Financialising nature -- 17 Environmental countermovements: organised opposition to climate change action in the United States -- 18 A critique of techno-optimism: efficiency without sufficiency is lost -- 19 Consumer values and consumption -- 20 The population challenge -- PART 4 Transformative approaches -- 21 Beyond magical thinking -- 22 Democracy in the Anthropocene -- 23 Living well within limits: the vision of consumption corridors -- 24 Beyond GDP: the economics of well-being -- 25 Beyond a-growth: sustainable zero growth -- 26 Work-time reduction for sustainable lifestyles -- 27 Decarbonisation -- 28 Localism, sharing, and care -- Conclusion: global sustainability governance - really? -- Index.

AbstractThis review article addresses the question: What lessons can we learn from work published in International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics regarding the politics of multilateral environmental agreements? What are the implications of these lessons for those responsible for creating and administering these agreements? Based on an analysis of 147 articles published over the past 20 years, the article explores issues of institutional design, institutional politics, implementation, and effectiveness. It concludes that key conditions for success in this realm include: (a) developing a toolkit that is not limited to rules-based governance, (b) paying attention to matters of implementation, (c) bearing in mind the overall regime complex, (d) developing effective leadership based on credibility and accountability, and (e) allowing for institutional adaptation.

This review article addresses the question: What lessons can we learn from work published in International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics regarding the politics of multilateral environmental agreements? What are the implications of these lessons for those responsible for creating and administering these agreements? Based on an analysis of 147 articles published over the past 20 years, the article explores issues of institutional design, institutional politics, implementation, and effectiveness. It concludes that key conditions for success in this realm include: (a) developing a toolkit that is not limited to rules-based governance, (b) paying attention to matters of implementation, (c) bearing in mind the overall regime complex, (d) developing effective leadership based on credibility and accountability, and (e) allowing for institutional adaptation.

International audience ; Democratic legitimacy is rarely associated with private governance. After all, private actors are not legitimized through elections by a . Instead of abandoning democratic principles when entering the private sphere of governance, however, this article argues in favour of employing alternative criteria of democracy in assessments. Specifically, this article uses the criteria of participation, transparency and accountability to evaluate the democratic legitimacy of private food retail governance institutions. It pursues this evaluation of the democratic legitimacy of these institutions against the background of their ambivalent impact on the sustainability of the global agrifood system. The paper refers to a range of cases of private retail standards with different governance structures and substantial foci to illustrate its argument.

Democratic legitimacy is rarely associated with private governance. After all, private actors are not legitimized through elections by a demos. Instead of abandoning democratic principles when entering the private sphere of governance, however, this article argues in favour of employing alternative criteria of democracy in assessments. Specifically, this article uses the criteria of participation, transparency and accountability to evaluate the democratic legitimacy of private food retail governance institutions. It pursues this evaluation of the democratic legitimacy of these institutions against the background of their ambivalent impact on the sustainability of the global agrifood system. The paper refers to a range of cases of private retail standards with different governance structures and substantial foci to illustrate its argument.

AbstractDuring the negotiations of the Sustainable Development Goals, the United Nations consulted worldwide nearly ten million people for their views. Such proliferating megaconsultations are often uncritically accepted as a remedy for an assumed democratic deficit of intergovernmental institutions. We argue, however, that the potential of civil society consultations to democratize global governance is constrained by the limited legitimacy of these consultations in the first place. Global consultations regularly fail to include civil society actors from developing countries, or show other sociodemographic biases. Also, they often fail to strengthen accountability between citizens, international organizations and governments. In this article, we investigate the causes of this phenomenon by exploring the relationship between the design of consultations and their democratic legitimacy. The basis for our argument is an in‐depth empirical study of three consultations carried out during the negotiations of the Sustainable Development Goals. We find that design is an important variable to explain the overall legitimacy of consultations. Yet its exact role is sometimes unexpected. Extensive material resources and open access conditions do not systematically enhance the legitimacy of the studied consultations. Instead, developing clear objectives, allocating sufficient time to participants, and formally binding the consultation to the negotiations hold considerably more promise.