Suchergebnisse

Standards that codify sustainability, such as Ethical Trade, Fairtrade, Organic and Rainforest Alliance, have become a common means for value chain actors in the Global North to make statements about the values of their products and the practices of producers in the Global South. This case study of Tanzanian tea value chains takes a closer look at how sustainability, in the form of SustainabiliTea, is done by actors who did not participate in defining and standardizing the form of sustainability with which they are meant to comply. Based on data collected during a multisited ethnography, I explore the performative nature of sustainability standards. The analysis reveals sustainable projects, sustainable markets, sustainable farm management, and sustainable qualities. These multiple SustainabiliTeas work together to construct a single vision of SustainabiliTea, which is a means to sustain the enterprise. I argue that the use of standards to guide performances makes some technical and political stakes visible while rendering others invisible. By paying attention to the residual categories, the tensions between knowledge and materiality, and listening to those voices at the margins, we see what is at stake in the maintenance of SustainabiliTea: survival in the tea market.

Gouverner par les métriques: enjeux et politiques des connaissances de la sécurité alimentaire

Gouverner par les métriques: enjeux et politiques des connaissances de la sécurité alimentaire

Gouverner par les métriques: enjeux et politiques des connaissances de la sécurité alimentaire

Assurance—an intermediary's guarantee of compliance with regulatory standards—is critical for legitimate governance within the sustainability field. This legitimacy classically depends on the degrees of separation that are needed between the RIT roles to create trust in regulators and enforce the compliance of targets. Following the emergence of the ISEAL Alliance—an apex organization of sustainability standards-setters—there has been a general shift in the sustainability field whereby standard-setters have delegated some of their authority to certifiers and accreditors. This article examines this movement, through the analysis of four different models of assurance, and reveals increasing complexity being built into private systems of regulation in the sustainability field. There is an increasing incidence of multiple actors who engage in processes of intermediation and accreditation, which is rising in importance. The result is empirical and conceptual confusion around previously sacred notions such as independence and conflict of interest as measures of regulatory effectiveness.

Assurance—an intermediary's guarantee of compliance with regulatory standards—is critical for legitimate governance within the sustainability field. This legitimacy classically depends on the degrees of separation that are needed between the RIT roles to create trust in regulators and enforce the compliance of targets. Following the emergence of the ISEAL Alliance—an apex organization of sustainability standards-setters—there has been a general shift in the sustainability field whereby standard-setters have delegated some of their authority to certifiers and accreditors. This article examines this movement, through the analysis of four different models of assurance, and reveals increasing complexity being built into private systems of regulation in the sustainability field. There is an increasing incidence of multiple actors who engage in processes of intermediation and accreditation, which is rising in importance. The result is empirical and conceptual confusion around previously sacred notions such as independence and conflict of interest as measures of regulatory effectiveness.

Assurance—an intermediary's guarantee of compliance with regulatory standards—is critical for legitimate governance within the sustainability field. This legitimacy classically depends on the degrees of separation that are needed between the RIT roles to create trust in regulators and enforce the compliance of targets. Following the emergence of the ISEAL Alliance—an apex organization of sustainability standards-setters—there has been a general shift in the sustainability field whereby standard-setters have delegated some of their authority to certifiers and accreditors. This article examines this movement, through the analysis of four different models of assurance, and reveals increasing complexity being built into private systems of regulation in the sustainability field. There is an increasing incidence of multiple actors who engage in processes of intermediation and accreditation, which is rising in importance. The result is empirical and conceptual confusion around previously sacred notions such as independence and conflict of interest as measures of regulatory effectiveness.

Cet article s'intéresse aux modalités concrètes du gouvernement par régime de standardisation tripartite. Cette forme de régulation alliant standards volontaires, certification et accréditation est de plus en plus utilisée dans de nombreux domaines de l'activité économique. À partir du cas de l'agriculture biologique, pour laquelle la certification par tierce partie accréditée a été imposée par l'Union européenne à partir des années 1990, nous montrons que cette régulation repose en réalité sur une imbrication de marchés, dont nous explorons les caractéristiques et les effets. Les marchés des produits biologiques sont étroitement imbriqués dans trois marchés de services (le marché des standards, de la certification, et de l'accréditation), dont les dynamiques concurrentielles expliquent la trajectoire d'européanisation puis de globalisation du secteur. Nous soulignons aussi les limites de ce mode de régulation, dans lequel le contrôlé paie le contrôleur et qui fait peser l'essentiel du coût et des contraintes du contrôle sur les agriculteurs. Ces limites génèrent des critiques croissantes au sein du mouvement pour l'agriculture biologique, certains acteurs proposant de revenir aux formes participatives de contrôle non marchand forgées par les militants initiaux. ; This paper focuses on the actual conditions of government by tripartite standardization. This form of regulation combining voluntary standards, certification and accreditation is increasingly used in many areas of economic activity. Taking the case of organic farming, for which accredited third-party certification was imposed by the European Union from the 1990s, we show that this form of regulation is in fact based on an overlapping of markets, whose characteristics and effects are explored in this paper. The market for organic products is closely intertwined with three markets in services (the markets for standards, certification, and accreditation), whose competitive dynamics explain the path of Europeanisation and globalization taken by the sector. We also point out the limits of this mode of regulation, in which the regulated pay the regulator and which places the bulk of the cost and the constraints of regulation on farmers. These limits have generated increasing criticism within the organic food movement, with some actors proposing to return to the participatory forms of non-market regulation forged by its early activists.

Knowledge is fundamental to our ability to change practices from unsustainable to sustainable ones (Grin, Rotmans and Schot, 2010). However, sustainability has often been described as a "wicked problem", where the knowledge needed to make this transition is often inconclusive and contested (Batie, 2008; Levin et al., 2012; Peters and Pierre, 2014). These "knowledge politics" (Baert and Rubio, 2012) suggest that we should be asking important questions as we develop policy advice, such as what types of knowledge and whose knowledge is taken into consideration in the development of sustainable food systems. If we look at food systems as the value chains and institutional arrangements that connect consumption and production, we see that different actors need different types of information and are willing to trust different types of knowledge about sustainable practices. Drawing upon results from an international survey of 15 institutional innovations in linking sustainable practices with markets that was carried out by FAO and INRA, we reflect upon how these innovations are placing an emphasis on different types of knowledge as the basis for the adoption of sustainable practices. These results shed light on the type of information and knowledge required by different actors in sustainable food systems.

Knowledge is fundamental to our ability to change practices from unsustainable to sustainable ones (Grin, Rotmans and Schot, 2010). However, sustainability has often been described as a "wicked problem", where the knowledge needed to make this transition is often inconclusive and contested (Batie, 2008; Levin et al., 2012; Peters and Pierre, 2014). These "knowledge politics" (Baert and Rubio, 2012) suggest that we should be asking important questions as we develop policy advice, such as what types of knowledge and whose knowledge is taken into consideration in the development of sustainable food systems. If we look at food systems as the value chains and institutional arrangements that connect consumption and production, we see that different actors need different types of information and are willing to trust different types of knowledge about sustainable practices. Drawing upon results from an international survey of 15 institutional innovations in linking sustainable practices with markets that was carried out by FAO and INRA, we reflect upon how these innovations are placing an emphasis on different types of knowledge as the basis for the adoption of sustainable practices. These results shed light on the type of information and knowledge required by different actors in sustainable food systems.

Sustainability is considered to be a fundamental aspect of responsible research and innovation, according to Von Schomberg (2013), and the European Commission has further framed this issue as the second societal grand challenge on the horizon. Responding to this challenge requires a program of research and innovation that contributes to more sustainable agri-food systems. According to the most recent globally comparative data available (2007), the private sector spent US$19.7 billion on food and agricultural research (56 percent in food manufacturing and 44 percent in agricultural input sectors) and accounted for about half of total public and private spending on food and agricultural research and development (R&D) in high-income countries. In this paper, I explore three different MNCs – two of the leading food manufacturers (Nestlé and Unilever) and one of the leading agricultural input manufacturers (Syngenta). These three organizations are among the leaders in their sectors and have each made 'responsibility' a fundamental aspect of their innovation agenda. They have also been at the forefront of the emerging 'sustainability' field. I focus on how these MNCs are justifying the responsibility of their vision and technologies for the sustainability of agrifood systems. I pay close attention to the performative effects of the governance instruments used to distribute responsibility between actors and what this means for sustainability discourses and politics.

Knowledge is fundamental to our ability to change practices from unsustainable to sustainable ones (Grin, Rotmans and Schot, 2010). However, sustainability has often been described as a "wicked problem", where the knowledge needed to make this transition is often inconclusive and contested (Batie, 2008; Levin et al., 2012; Peters and Pierre, 2014). These "knowledge politics" (Baert and Rubio, 2012) suggest that we should be asking important questions as we develop policy advice, such as what types of knowledge and whose knowledge is taken into consideration in the development of sustainable food systems. If we look at food systems as the value chains and institutional arrangements that connect consumption and production, we see that different actors need different types of information and are willing to trust different types of knowledge about sustainable practices. Drawing upon results from an international survey of 15 institutional innovations in linking sustainable practices with markets that was carried out by FAO and INRA, we reflect upon how these innovations are placing an emphasis on different types of knowledge as the basis for the adoption of sustainable practices. These results shed light on the type of information and knowledge required by different actors in sustainable food systems.