Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Sustainability programs and deliberative processes: assembling sustainable winegrowing in New Zealand

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The term sustainability can be used so liberally within production industries that it becomes meaningless. There is also recognition that for sustainability to be a useful concept, it must be crafted for the context in which it is deployed. A paradox of sustainability, it seems, lies in the conflict between the practical adoptability and context specificity of programs paired with the need for significant change. One response for those grappling with this sustainability challenge has been to adopt flexible approaches to sustainability through the development of technologies and governance processes that focus on benchmarking, monitoring and ongoing change, rather than hard limits and targets. In this paper we elaborate on this point by evaluating how sustainability programs in a transition context can be seen as deliberative platforms and thus actors in governance processes. Through an analysis of the development of a sustainability program deployed in the wine industry in New Zealand, we argue that a widely adopted and clearly defined program can be an asset to democratic environmental governance, if viewed as a shared project. Drawing on interviews with key personnel in the wine industry and reviews of industry literature and media, we suggest that substantiating sustainability can have benefits for environmental governance through the precipitation of distinction and dialogue. We conclude with some suggestions about how to encourage visionary forms of practice and engagement with sustainability programs in ways that can aid their democratic development and expand the reach of their goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Sources: NZ Stats and NZW Annual Reports 1996, 2007 and 2017

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Throughout this paper, we will use the term ‘wine producers’ to refer to grape growers and winemakers simultaneously.

  2. Marlborough represents 65% of the national vineyard area and 71% of the national grape production in tonnage (New Zealand Winegrowers 2015).

  3. All names used in this paper are pseudonyms.

  4. Organophosphates are broad spectrum pesticides that can be used in agriculture. They affect the nervous system of vertebrates and insects and are classified as extremely hazardous by the World Health Organisation (World Health Organization 2010).

  5. Growers vote on whether to keep paying levies for NZW; this organization would not be able to continue without levies.

  6. In 2016, NZ Winegrowers deployed a new voting mechanism based on a one-member, one-vote basis as well as on a one-dollar-of-levy, one-vote basis (see New Zealand Winegrowers 2015). This system removes the idea of representativeness depending on the type of member (grower and winemaker), the geographical area or the size of the winery.

  7. All names used in this paper are pseudonyms.

References

  • Allen, W., J. King, and J. Oakden. 2014. Three case studies: Companion document to the Evaluation of the Sustainable Farming Fund. Wellington: Kinnect. https://www.mpi.govt.nz/document-vault/3770. Accessed March 19, 2017.

  • Anderson, B., and C. McFarlane. 2011. Assemblage and geography. Area 43 (2): 124–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bäckstrand, K. 2003. Civic science for sustainability: Reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics 3 (4): 24–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bäckstrand, K. 2004. Scientisation vs. civic expertise in environmental governance: Eco-feminist, eco-modern and post-modern responses. Environmental Politics 13 (4): 695–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bäckstrand, K. 2006. Democratizing global environmental governance? Stakeholder democracy after the world summit on sustainable development. European Journal of International Relations 12 (4): 467–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bäckstrand, K., J. Khan, A. Kronsell, and E. Lövbrand. 2010. Environmental politics and deliberative democracy: Examining the promise of new modes of governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, A., and S. Smith. 2014a. Vineyard and winery national report on water use. Christchurch: New Zealand Sustainability Dashboard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber, A., and S. Smith. 2014b. Winery national report on energy use. Christchurch: New Zealand Sustainability Dashboard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond, A. J., and A. Morrison-Saunders. 2009. Sustainability appraisal: Jack of all trades, master of none? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 27: 321–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buck, D., C. Getz, and J. Guthman. 1997. From farm to table: The organic vegetable commodity chain of Northern California. Sociologia Ruralis 37 (1): 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance. 2012. Progress Report. https://www.sustainablewinegrowing.org/docs/CSWA_2012_Progress_Report_v1.pdf. Accessed March 19, 2017.

  • Campbell, H., and C. Rosin. 2011. After the ‘organic industrial complex’: An ontological expedition through commercial organic agriculture in New Zealand. Journal of Rural Studies 27 (4): 350–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, H., J. Fairweather, and D. Stevens. 1997. Recent developments in organic food production in New Zealand: Part 2: Kiwifruit in the Bay of Plenty. Studies in Rural Sustainability Research Report No. 2. http://hdl.handle.net/10523/5321. Accessed March 19, 2017.

  • Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chile Desarrollo Sustentable. 2014. Crece certificación sustentable entre las viñas nacionales. http://www.revistagua.cl/2014/02/12/crece-certificacion-sustentable-entre-las-vinas-nacionales/ Accessed April 2, 2017.

  • Cuff, E. 1993. Problems of versions in everyday situations. Washington, DC: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLanda, M. 2006. A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory and social complexity. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 1988. A thousand plateaus. London: Athlone Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., and W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48: 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duru, M., O. Therond, and M. Fares. 2015. Designing agroecological transitions; A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 35 (4): 1237–1257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, M. 2004. Corporate environmentalism, regulatory reform, and industry self-regulation: Toward genuine regulatory reinvention in the United States. Governance 17 (2): 145–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elgert, L. 2015. Global governance and sustainability indicators: The politics of expert knowledge knowledge. In Handbook of Critical Policy Studies, eds. F. Fischer, D. Torgerson, A. Durnová, and M. Orsini, 341–357. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flick, U. 2004. Triangulation in qualitative research. In A companion to qualitative research, eds. U. Flick, E. von Kardoff, and I. Steinke, 178–183. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A. 2006. Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review 66: 66–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A., and E. O. Wright, eds. 2003. Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabzdylova, B., J. F. Raffensperger, and P. Castka. 2009. Sustainability in the New Zealand wine industry: Drivers, stakeholders and practices. Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (11): 992–998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. W. 2005. Technological transitions and system innovations: A co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. 2011. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1 (1): 24–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. 2010. Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability… and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet. Accounting, Organizations and Society 35 (1): 47–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthman, J. 2004. Agrarian dreams: The paradox of organic farming in California. Oakland: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann, A., and D. Thompson. 2004. Why Deliberative democracy. ? Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, J. W. 1996. Is agricultural sustainability a useful concept? Agricultural Systems 50: 117–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, V., and S. Lockie. 2002. Re-discovering the social: Neo-liberalism and hybrid practices of governing in rural natural resource management. Journal of Rural Studies 18 (4): 419–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horticulture New Zealand, and Plant & Food Research. 2016. FreshFacts—New Zealand Horticulture. http://www.freshfacts.co.nz/files/freshfacts-2016.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2017.

  • Howland, P. 2014a. From “civilizing” Māori to fruit- driven exuberance: An introduction to wine in New Zealand. In Social, cultural and economic impacts of wine in New Zealand, ed. Peter J. Howland, 1–21. New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Howland, P., ed. 2014b. Social, cultural and economic impacts of wine in New Zealand. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hueting, R., and L. Reijnders. 1998. Sustainability Is an Objective Concept. Ecological Economics 27 (2): 139–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hult, G. 2011. Market-focused sustainability: Market orientation plus! Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39 (1): 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, J. 2015. Framing niche-regime linkage as adaptation: An analysis of learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture across Europe. Journal of Rural Studies 40: 59–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Organisation of Vine and Wine. 2016. World vitiviniculture situation: OIV statistical report on world vitiviniculture. http://www.oiv.int/public/medias/5029/world-vitiviniculture-situation-2016.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2017.

  • Könnölä, T., and G. Unruh. 2007. Really changing the course: The limitations of environmental management systems for innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment 16 (8): 525–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlman, T., and J. Farrington. 2010. What is sustainability? Sustainability 2 (11): 3436–3448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamberton, G. 2005. Sustainability accounting—A brief history and conceptual framework. Accounting Forum 29: 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamine, C. 2011. Transition pathways towards a robust ecologization of agriculture and the need for system redesign. Cases from organic farming and IPM. Journal of Rural Studies 27: 209–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, T. M. 2007. Practices of assemblage and community forest management. Economy and Society 36 (2): 263–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockie, S., and V. Higgins. 2007. Roll-out neoliberalism and hybrid practices of regulation in Australian agri-environmental governance. Journal of Rural Studies 23 (1): 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loorbach, D. 2010. Transition management for sustainable development: A prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance 23 (1): 161–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luke, T. 2005. Neither sustainable nor development: Reconsidering sustainability in development. Sustainable Development 13 (4): 228–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manhire, J., H. Moller, A. Barber, C. Saunders, C. Macleod, C. Rosin, D. Lucock, E. Post, F. Ombler, H. Campbell, J. Benge1, J. Reid, L. Hunt, P. Hansen, P. Carey, S. Rotarangi, S. Ford, and T. Barr. 2012. The New Zealand Sustainability Dashboard Unified monitoring and learning for sustainable agriculture in New Zealand. Research Report: Number 13/01 http://www.nzdashboard.org.nz/uploads/2/3/7/3/23730248/13_01_sustainability_dashboard_final_proposal.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2017.

  • McFarlane, C. 2009. Translocal assemblages: Space, power and social movements. Geoforum 40 (4): 561–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. 1992. Deliberative democracy and social choice. Political studies 40 (1): 54–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M., K. Kearins, and S. Walton. 2006. Creating adventures in wonderland: The journey metaphor and environmental sustainability. Organization 13 (6): 801–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mog, J. 2004. Struggling with sustainability—A comparative framework for evaluating sustainable development programs. World Development 32 (12): 2139–2160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New Zealand Wine. 2013. Sustainable winegrowing New Zealand—Audit procedures for vineyards and wineries.

  • New Zealand Winegrowers. 1986. Annual report. https://www.nzwine.com/media/2099/areport_1986.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2017.

  • New Zealand Winegrowers. 1990. Annual report. https://www.nzwine.com/media/2103/areport_1990.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2017.

  • New Zealand Winegrowers. 1996. Annual report. https://www.nzwine.com/media/2109/areport_1996.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2017.

  • New Zealand Winegrowers. 2006. Annual report. https://www.nzwine.com/media/2122/areport_2006.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2017.

  • New Zealand Winegrowers. 2007. Annual report. https://www.nzwine.com/media/2125/nzw-annual-report-2007-final.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2017.

  • New Zealand Winegrowers. 2014. Annual report. https://www.nzwine.com/media/3934/nzw-ar-2014_web-r.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2017.

  • New Zealand Winegrowers. 2015. Annual report. https://www.nzwine.com/media/2129/nzw-annual-report-2015.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2017.

  • New Zealand Winegrowers. 2016. Annual report. https://www.nzwine.com/media/1214/nzw-annual-report-2016.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2017.

  • New Zealand Winegrowers. 2017. Annual report. https://www.nzwine.com/media/6600/nzw-annual-report-2017.pdf. Accessed April 15, 2018.

  • Park, N. M., J. T. S. Walker, and D. R. Wallis. 2009. Sustainable Winegrowing New Zealand® Agrichemical Benchmarking and Scorecard Report 2008.

  • Pope, J., D. Annandale, and A. Morrison-Saunders. 2004. Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24: 595–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapley, T. 2001. The art (fulness) of open-ended interviewing: Some considerations on analysing interviews. Qualitative Research 1 (3): 303–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redclift, M. 2005. Sustainable development (1987–2005): An oxymoron comes of age. Sustainable Development 13: 212–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rees, W. E. 1995. Achieving sustainability: Reform or transformation? Journal of Planning Literature 9: 343–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosin, C., and H. Campbell. 2009. Beyond bifurcation: Examining the conventions of organic agriculture in New Zealand. Journal of Rural Studies 25 (1): 35–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosin, C., H. Campbell, and J. Reid. 2017a. Metrology and sustainability: Using sustainability audits in New Zealand to elaborate the complex politics of measuring. Journal of Rural Studies 52: 90–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosin, C. J., K. A. Legun, H. Campbell, and M. Sautier. 2017b. From compliance to co-production: Emergent forms of agency in Sustainable Wine Production in New Zealand. Environment and Planning A 49 (12): 2780–2799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sautier, M., K. Legun, C. Rosin, and H. Campbell. 2018. Sustainability: A tool for governing wine production in New Zealand? Journal of Cleaner Production 179 (1): 347–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sexton, R. 2000. Industrialization and Consolidation in the U.S. Food Sector: Implications for competition and welfare. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82 (5): 1087–1104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, K. E. 2014. What are the Principles of Sustainable Agriculture and Why? Unpublished honours dissertation. University of Otago, New Zealand.

  • Simmons, K. E. 2018. Sustainable Development and Sustainable Wine New Zealand: Bridging neoliberal statecraft and locally appropriate development. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Otago, New Zealand.

  • Sneirson, J. 2009. Green is good: Sustainability, profitability, and a new paradigm for corporate governance. Iowa Law Review 94 (3): 987–1022.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stassart, P., and D. Jamar. 2008. Steak up to the horns! The conventionalization of organic stock farming: Knowledge lock-in in the agrifood chain. GeoJournal 73: 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statistics New Zealand. 2017. Infoshare database, Industry Sectors, Agriculture. http://archive.stats.govt.nz/infoshare/?url=/infoshare/. Accessed April 15, 2017.

  • Stock, P., J. Forney, S. Emery, and H. Wittman. 2014. Neoliberal natures on the farm: Farmer autonomy and cooperation in comparative perspective. Journal of Rural Studies 36: 411–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, L., R. Burton, J. Ingram, K. Blackstock, B. Slee, and N. Gotts. 2012. Triggering change: Towards a conceptualisation of major change processes in farm decision-making. Journal of Environmental Management 104: 142–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Wezemael, J. 2016. Urban governance and social complexity. In A Planner’s encounter with complexity, eds. G. de Roo and E. A. Silva, 283–307. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Wezemael, J. 2008. The contribution of assemblage theory and minor politics for democratic network governance. Planning Theory 7: 165–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanloqueren, G., and P. Baret. 2008. Why are ecological, low-input, multi-resistant wheat cultivars slow to develop commercially? A Belgian agricultural “lock-in” case study. Ecological Economics 66: 436–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanloqueren, G., and P. Baret. 2009. How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Research Policy 38: 971–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, G., and E. Shove. 2007. Ambivalence, sustainability and the governance of sociotechnical transitions. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 9: 213–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigboldus, S., L. Klerkx, C. Leeuwis, M. Schut, S. Muilerman, and H. Jochemsen. 2016. Systemic perspectives on scaling agricultural innovations. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 36: 46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods, M. 2007. Engaging the global countryside: Globalization, hybridity and the reconstitution of rural place. Progress in Human Geography 31 (4): 485–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future. In Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, ed. G. Bruntland. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. 2010. The who recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification 2009, 1–60. Geneva: World Health Organization: .

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank staff from New Zealand Winegrowers, growers and winemakers for their collaboration. Many thanks to Hugo F. Alrøe, Hugh Campbell, Madeleine Fairbairn, Zenia Kish, Mourad Hannachi and Chris Rosin for their comments on earlier drafts. We would also like to thank Elizabeth Simmons for thoughtful and engaging conversations around sustainable development and governance dynamics. The research reported in this article was conducted as part of the New Zealand Sustainability Dashboard, which is funded by the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment with co-funding from Sustainable Wine New Zealand. This publication has been written with the support of the AgreenSkills + fellowship programme which has received funding from the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement N° FP7-267196 (AgreenSkills contract). We note that both authors contributed equally as authors of the paper.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Katharine Legun and Marion Sautier contributed equally and should both be considered lead authors of the paper.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Sustainability, University of Otago, 563 Castle Street, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand

    Katharine Legun & Marion Sautier

  2. GenPhySE, Université de Toulouse, INRA, ENVT, Castanet Tolosan, France

    Marion Sautier

Authors
  1. Katharine Legun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marion Sautier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katharine Legun.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Legun, K., Sautier, M. Sustainability programs and deliberative processes: assembling sustainable winegrowing in New Zealand. Agric Hum Values 35, 837–852 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-018-9879-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-018-9879-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation