Search

As third-party certification has become a prominent governance mechanism, conflicting understandings of it have emerged. Proponents advance third-party certification as a technical and objective governance mechanism, while critics argue that politics and relations of power characterize it. We reject this dichotomization both in terms of how TPC is understood, as well as understandings of science and politics. Drawing on science and technology studies, we argue that third-party certification is simultaneously science-based and political, and that both science and politics entail social and technical practices. Using a case study of an organic shrimp project in Indonesia, we examine the development and enforcement of standards. Three important findings emerge from our analysis. First, the development and enforcement of standards in a third-party certified project is partially dependent on the extent to which the interests and realities of all stakeholders are successfully translated and enrolled. Second, differences between actors in a third-party certified project are not just epistemological, but also ontological. Thus, overcoming differences in TPC entails reconciling not only interests and knowledge, but also material realities. Third, TPC is performative in that if the standards are to be adhered to, enrollment and translation have to be continuous practices. In concluding, we argue that a science and technology analysis points to the need not only to democratize TPC, but also diversify the epistemological basis of standards, and that efforts to ensure compliance need to go beyond audits.

In recent years, performance metrics and digital technologies have gained substantial support to advance on‐farm sustainability. The combined use of metrics and digital technologies represents a potentially important shift in agricultural sustainability governance, which has largely been dominated by the use of standards and certification. Focusing on the U.S. context, this paper examines the operationalization of the emerging metrics and data (M&D) approach to sustainability governance in food and agriculture. Specifically, we analyze the factors undergirding the growing usage of an M&D approach to sustainability, the structure, and practices of such an approach as well as the roles and implications for key actors in agrifood systems. Our analysis indicates that although an M&D approach to an agricultural sustainability transition potentially addresses some of the critiques and limitations associated with the use of standards and certification and has the growing support of a range of stakeholders, it also faces numerous challenges. These include a lack of incentives and insufficient value for growers, concerns over data ownership and access, and barriers to the translation of data into changes in grower management and practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) have emerged as a leading institutional approach for advancing sustainability globally. This paper examines three prominent MSIs that have developed sustainability metrics and a standard for US agriculture: Field to Market, the Stewardship Index for Specialty Crops and the National Sustainable Agricultural Standard Initiative. Using data from interviews and content analysis of initiative reports, two sets of analyses are presented. First, building on Paul Thompson's tri-partite theorization of sustainability, how each initiative is conceptualizing agricultural sustainability is analyzed. We find that two contrasting visions of sustainable agriculture for the USA have emerged from the three MSIs. One vision is a resource sufficiency approach focused on eco-efficiencies and the other vision is a functional integrity approach that emphasizes the maintenance of resilient agricultural and ecological systems. Second, we examine the governance practices of the MSIs to explain why such divergent conceptualizations of sustainability have been mapped out. We find that far from being a neutral forum, the internal dynamics of MSIs often reflect and reproduce existing power relationships among stakeholders. In concluding, we suggest that incremental improvements in sustainability can be achieved using MSIs, but more transformative changes may require other forms of governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Over the past 20 years, standards and certification have become the leading governance mechanism for determining what sustainability entails, how to measure it, and how to assess it. This system of sustainability standards has generally relied upon the third‐party certification (TPC) model to ensure that producers are complying with standards. Over the past ten to fifteen years, critiques of this model have emerged in both practitioner and academic circles that question the appropriateness of this model based on the type of knowledge that is privileged, the marginalisation of some actors, and the allocation of accountability to individual rather than collective actors. We draw upon case studies from Japan and Chile to examine the ways that participatory guarantee systems (PGS) institute practices for defining, measuring, and assessing sustainability that empower local actors – both producers and consumers. Our cases illustrate that expert and lay knowledges are both relevant and often have different strengths. We argue that PGS offer an alternative approach to sustainability governance, one that may be more democratic and hence, produce forms of sustainability that incorporate the lived experiences of people around the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using a case study of US agriculture, this paper examines how governance affects sustainability transitions in socio-technical systems. The multi-level perspective (MLP) has become a leading framework for theorizing sustainability transitions in socio-technical systems. It posits that transitions to more sustainable socio-technical systems are an outcome of external pressure at the landscape level and internal pressure emanating from niches. While the MLP is a robust analytical framework, it under-theorizes the role that governance plays in sustainability transitions. This paper addresses this research gap through examining three multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) that have developed sustainability metrics and standards for US agriculture: Field to Market; LEO-4000; and the Stewardship Index for Specialty Crops. Applying a governance analytical framework, membership selection, decision-making procedures, and access to resources are found to affect the kinds of sustainability metrics developed, as well as their likely implementation. Specifically, the governance processes functioned to channel sustainability metrics towards ones that were congruent with the existing agrifood regime, and marginalize metrics that had the potential to disrupt regime processes. Thus, this article proposes that governance is a key component of sustainability transitions, and that current usage of MSIs in much of environmental governance may function to moderate sustainability transitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Efforts to increase sustainability are increasingly being promulgated using non-state forms of governance. Currently, there are multiple multistakeholder initiatives (MSIs) working to develop sustainability standards and metrics for US agriculture. These include: LEO-4000, Field to Market, and the Sustainability Consortium. Using Paul Thompson's (2010) tripartite sustainability framework, the proposed sustainability standards and metrics of the three MSIs are assessed. Our findings indicate that the current political economic stakeholder nexus is producing incremental adjustments to the status quo of industrial agriculture. Put differently, the standards and metrics being produced by these initiatives are largely advancing programs of sustainable intensification in which sustainability is equated with increasing resource efficiencies. Hence, our research problematizes the efficacy of non-state governance approaches for transformative change in food and agriculture. The findings in this chapter are based on fieldwork conducted between 2011 and 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An interview with Doctor Lawrence Busch of the Michigan State University of Agrifood Governance and Technoscience is presented. He laments the little research that addresses issues of agricultural ecology, new crops, or improved farm field management. In reference to his book "The Eclipse of Morality" where he seemed pessimistic about the state of the world at the turn of the century, Busch claims that he did not expect the rebirth of religious fundamentalism. He praises the formation of the World Social Forum and the rise of La Via Campesina.

With neoliberal reforms and economic globalization, much of the regulation of food and agriculture is shifting from the state to the private sphere. Building on Busch's work on science, the state, and the market, this paper examines the ways in which the governance of food and agriculture has become increasingly scientized with the use of third-party certification (TPC). TPC is a rule-based governance mechanism that consists of technical rules and procedures, which are based on scientific norms and practices. Using longitudinal research on an organic shrimp project in Indonesia, this paper examines the practices of TPC. Specifically, the focus is on the extent to which the practices of TPC correspond to its rules and thus, whether or not politics and interests are removed from governance. My findings indicate that the rules of TPC are not sufficient for the removal of politics and interests. Rather, they often push them backstage. In concluding, I contend that forms of rule-based scientific governance, such as TPC, separate the governance of food and agriculture from their production and consumption. The outcome is potentially a political, yet undemocratic, form of food and agricultural governance where science functions to mask politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we introduce the Michigan State University (MSU) School of Agrifood Governance and Technoscience. Centered on the work of Dr. Lawrence Busch, the MSU School examines how science, the market, and the state function in food and agriculture, and possibilities to make these institutions more democratic, equitable, and just. Research by the MSU School consists of four specific foci: (1) actor-network theory and commodity studies, (2) standards, (3) third-party certification and tripartite standards regimes, and (4) supermarkets and supply chain management. We review each of these areas and discuss how the research in each contributes to democratizing science, the market, and the state. We then provide an overview of the articles in this special edition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]