Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-swqlm Total loading time: 0.28 Render date: 2021-11-29T04:12:37.496Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Multi-stakeholder initiatives and the divergent construction and implementation of sustainable agriculture in the USA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 October 2017

Jason Konefal
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Sam Houston State University, USA
Maki Hatanaka
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Sam Houston State University, USA
Douglas H. Constance*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Sam Houston State University, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Douglas H. Constance, E-mail: Soc_dhc@shsu.edu

Abstract

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.

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, P and Sachs, C (1992) The poverty of sustainability: analysis of current positions. Agriculture and Human Values 9, 2935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, P and Sachs, C (1993) Sustainable agriculture in the United States: engagements, silences, and possibilities for transformation. In Allen, P (ed.). Food for the Future: Conditions and Contradictions of Sustainability. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 139168.Google Scholar
Bäckstrand, K (2006) Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: rethinking legitimacy, accountability, and effectiveness. European Environment 16, 290306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bain, C, Ransom, E and Higgins, V (2013) Private agri-food standards: contestation, hybridity, and the politics of standards. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 20, 110.Google Scholar
Bartley, T (2007) Institutional emergence in an era of globalization: the rise of transnational private regulation of labor and environmental conditions. American Journal of Sociology 113, 297351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beisheim, M and Dingwerth, K (2008) Procedural legitimacy and private transnational governance: are the good ones doing better. SFB-Governance Working Paper Series 14. Berlin, Germany: DFG Research Center (SFB) 700, Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
Bostrom, M (2012) A missing pillar? Challenges in theorizing and practicing social sustainability: introduction to the special issue. Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy 8, 314.Google Scholar
Brown, LG and Keyes, M (2007) A review of the draft standard for trial use. In Proceedings of the Establishing a National Sustainable Agriculture Standard Opening Stakeholder Dialogue, Emeryville, CA, October 29–30. Available at http://www.leonardoacademy.org/projecs/SustainAgStdDevelopment.htm (accessed 20 April 2009).Google Scholar
Buller, H and Roe, M (2014) Modifying and commodifying farm animal welfare: the economisation of layer chickens. Journal of Rural Studies 33, 141149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busch, L (2011) Standards: Recipes for Reality. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheyns, E (2011) Multi-stakeholder initiatives for sustainable agriculture: limits of the ‘inclusiveness’ paradigm. In Ponte, S, Gibbon, P and Vestergaard, J (eds). Governing Through Standards: Origins, Drivers and Limitations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 210235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheyns, E and Riisgaard, L (2014) Introduction to the symposium. Agriculture and Human Values 31, 409423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clay, J (2011) Freeze the footprint of food. Nature 475, 287289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Constance, DH (2010) Sustainable agriculture in the United States: a critical examination of a contested process. Sustainability 2, 4872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, HE (1996) Beyond Growth: the Economics of Sustainable Development. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Dobson, A (1996) Environmental sustainabilities: an analysis and a typology. Environmental Politics 5, 401428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowie, M (1997) Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Field to Market (2012) Environmental and Socioeconomic Indicators for Measuring Outcomes of On-Farm Agricultural Production in the United States: Second Report. Available at http://www.fieldtomarket.org (accessed 18 September 2013).Google Scholar
Field to Market (2013) Fieldprint calculator. Available at http://www.fieldtomarket.org/fieldprint-calculator (accessed 18 September 2013).Google Scholar
Foresight (2011) The Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and Choices for Global Sustainability. London: The Government Office for Science.Google Scholar
Freidberg, S (2013) Calculating sustainability in supply chain capitalism. Economy and Society 42, 571596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fridell, M, Hudson, I and Hudson, M (2008) With friends like these: the corporate response to fair trade coffee. Review of International Political Economy 40, 834.Google Scholar
Garnett, T, Appleby, MC, Balmford, A, Bateman, IJ, Benton, TG, Bloomer, P, Burlingame, B, Dawkins, M, Dolan, L, Fraser, D, Herrero, M, Hoffmann, I, Smith, P, Thornton, PK, Toulmin, C, Vermeulen, SJ and Godfray, HCJ (2013) Sustainable intensification in agriculture: premises and policies. Science 341, 3334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guthman, J (2004) Agrarian Dreams: the Paradox of Organic Farming in California. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hatanaka, M (2014) McSustainability and McJustice: certification, alternative food and agriculture, and social change. Sustainability 6, 80928112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatanaka, M and Konefal, J (2013) Legitimacy and standard development in a multi-stakeholder initiative: a case study of the Leonardo Academy's sustainable agriculture standard initiative. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 20, 155 173.Google Scholar
Hatanaka, M, Konefal, J and Constance, DH (2012) A tripartite standards regime analysis of the contested development of a sustainable agriculture standard. Agriculture and Human Values 29, 6578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, MJ and Sutherland, JW (2008) An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions. Journal of Cleaner Production 16, 16881698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IAASTD (International Assessment of Agriculture Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development) (2009) Agriculture at a Crossroads: Synthesis Report. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Jaffee, D (2014) Brewing Justice: Fair Trade Coffee, Sustainability and Survival. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Jaffee, D and Howard, PH (2010) Corporate cooptation of organic and fair trade standards. Agriculture and Human Values 27, 387399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, BG and Pearce, NA (2010) The contentiousness of markets: politics, social movements, and institutional change in markets. Annual Review of Sociology 36, 249267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konefal, J (2013) Environmental movements, market-based approaches, and neoliberalization: a case study of the sustainable seafood movement. Organization & Environment 26, 336352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konefal, J, Hatanaka, M and Constance, DH (2014) Patchworks of sustainable agriculture standards and metrics in the United States. In Constance, DH, Renard, MC and Rivera-Ferre, MG (eds). Alternative Agrifood Movements: Patterns of Convergence and Divergence, Vol. 21, Research in Rural Sociology and Development. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 257280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonardo Academy (2008) National Sustainable Agriculture Standard standards committee meeting notes. Available at https://sites.google.com/site/sustainableagstandards/sept-2008-standards-committee-meeting (accessed 9 March 2011).Google Scholar
Leonardo Academy (2013) Draft: National Sustainable Agriculture Standard LEO-4000. Madison: Leonardo Academy.Google Scholar
Loconto, A (2010) Sustainably performed: reconciling global value chain governance and performativity. Journal of Rural Social Sciences 25, 193-22t5.Google Scholar
Loconto, A and Fouilleux, E (2014) Politics of private regulation: ISEAL and the shaping of transnational sustainability governance. Regulation & Governance 8, 166185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maciel, CT and Bock, BB (2013) Modern politics in animal welfare: the changing character of governance of animal welfare and the role of private standards. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 20, 219235.Google Scholar
Morley, A, McEntee, J and Marsden, T (2014) Food futures: framing the crisis. In Marsden, T and Morley, A (eds). Sustainable Food Systems: Building a New Paradigm. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 3061.Google Scholar
National Research Council (2010) Toward Sustainable Agriculture Systems in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Neumayer, E (2003). Weak versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms. Northhampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Ponte, S (2014) Roundtabling sustainability: lessons from the biofuel industry. Geoforum 54, 261271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SISC (Stewardship Index for Specialty Crops) (2014a) Working Metrics 1.0. Available at http://www.stewardshipindex.org/working_metrics.php (accessed 8 October 2014).Google Scholar
SISC (Stewardship Index for Specialty Crops) (2014b) Metrics in Development. Available at http://www.stewardshipindex.org/working_metrics.php (accessed 8 October 2014).Google Scholar
SISC (Stewardship Index for Specialty Crops) (2015) Stewardship Index for Specialty Crops. Available at http://www.stewardshipindex.org/ (accessed 1 September 2015).Google Scholar
Solow, RM (1974) The economics of resources or the resources of economics. The American Economic Review 64, 114.Google Scholar
Tamm Hallstrom, K and Bostrom, M (2010) Transnational Multi-Stakeholder Standardization. Northhampton: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, PB (2010) The Agrarian Vision: Sustainability and Environmental Ethics. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmermans, S and Epstein, S (2010). A world of standards but not a standard world: toward a sociology of standards and standardization. Annual Review of Sociology 36, 6989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unruh, G and Ettenson, G (2010) Winning in the green frenzy. Harvard Business Review (November), 110116.Google Scholar
Williams, R, Allan, JT, Moore, R, Peterson, B, Thorne, J, Johnson, DB, Barach, J, McCauley, K, Norman, BM, Guenther, R (2010) Resignation Letter, Letter to Mr. Arny. Available at http://www.bio.org/sites/default/files/Resignation_Letter_of_Ag_Leonardo_Academy.pdf (accessed 12 March 2012).Google Scholar
8
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Multi-stakeholder initiatives and the divergent construction and implementation of sustainable agriculture in the USA
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Multi-stakeholder initiatives and the divergent construction and implementation of sustainable agriculture in the USA
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Multi-stakeholder initiatives and the divergent construction and implementation of sustainable agriculture in the USA
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *