Advertisement

Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 409–423 | Cite as

Introduction to the symposium

The exercise of power through multi-stakeholder initiatives for sustainable agriculture and its inclusion and exclusion outcomes
  • Emmanuelle CheynsEmail author
  • Lone Riisgaard
Article

Abstract

A number of multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) and commodity roundtables have been created since the 1990s to respond to the growing criticism of agriculture’s environmental and social impacts. Driven by private and global-scale actors, these initiatives are setting global standards for sustainable agricultural practices. They claim to follow the new standard-making virtues of inclusiveness and consensus and base their legitimacy on their claim of balanced representation of, and participation by, all categories of stakeholders. This principle of representing a wide range of interests with a balance of power is at the heart of a new type of action that forms part of a broader political liberal model for building coalitions of interest groups. The intention of this symposium is to assess the nature of processes and outcomes of this model while paying particular attention to the forms of inclusion and exclusion they generate. In this introduction, we highlight the differences in theoretical approaches to analyzing MSIs and the manifestation of power through them. We distinguish between more traditional political–economy approaches and approaches concerned with ideational and normative power, such as convention theory. We discuss some of the main paradoxes of MSIs related to their willingness to be “inclusive” and at the same time their exclusionary or “closure” effects due in part to interactions with existing political economic contexts and embedded power inequalities, as well as more subtle manifestations of power linked to the favoring of some forms of knowledge and engagement over others.

Keywords

Multi-stakeholder initiatives Private standards Power Sustainable agriculture Exclusion 

Abbreviations

GAP

Good agricultural practice

MSI

Multi-stakeholder initiative

NGO

Non-governmental organization

RSPO

Roundtable on sustainable palm oil

RTRS

Roundtables on responsible soy

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Carmen Bain, Lawrence Busch, Benoit Daviron, Harvey James, Michiel Khöne, Stefano Ponte, Laura Raynolds, Anne Tallontire, and Laurent Thevenot for their insightful and helpful comments on earlier versions of this introduction. We would also like to thank the participants of the international workshop ‘Governing Sustainable Agriculture through Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: Participation, knowledge and networks in action’ (Montpellier, 12–14 December) where the first drafts of the papers included in this symposium were first presented. The workshop was funded by the French National Research Agency (ANR-11-CEPL-0009, project PRIGOUE), The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark (development research project 10-107 DIIS), CIRAD and the research unit MOISA.

References

  1. Allen, A. 2013. Feminist perspectives on power. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (spring edition), ed. E.N. Zalta http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/feminist-power/.
  2. Bäckstrand, K., J. Khan, A. Kronsell, and E. Lövbrand. 2010. The promise of new modes of environmental governance. In Environmental politics and deliberative democracy: examining the promise of new modes of governance, ed. K. Bäckstrand, J. Khan, A. Kronsell, and E. Lövbrand, 3–27. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bain, C., and M. Hatanaka. 2010. The practice of third-party certification: enhancing environmental sustainability and social justice in the global south? In Calculating the social: Standards and the re-configuration of governing, ed. V. Higgins, and W. Larner, 56–74. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Barnett, M., and R. Duvall. 2005. Power in international politics. International Organization 59(1): 39–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernstein, S., and B. Cashore. 2007. Can non-state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework. Regulation and Governance 1(4): 347–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bickford, S. 1999. Reconfiguring pluralism: Identity and institutions in the inegalitarian polity. American journal of political science 1(43): 86–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boltanski, L., and L. Thévenot. 2006 [1991]. De la justification: Les économies de la grandeur. 2006. On justification: Economies of worth (trans: Porter, C.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Boström, M. 2006. Regulatory credibility and authority through inclusiveness: standardisation organizations in cases of eco-labelling. Organization 13(3): 345–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bühler, U. 2002. Participation “with justice and dignity”: Beyond the “new tyranny. Peace, Conflict and Development 1: 1–16.Google Scholar
  10. Busch, L. 2000. The moral economy of grades and standards. Journal of Rural Studies 16: 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheyns, E. 2011. Multi-stakeholder initiatives for sustainable agriculture: Limits of the “inclusiveness” paradigm. In Governing through standards: Origins, drivers and limitations, ed. S. Ponte, P. Gibbon, and J. Vestergaard, 210–235. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  12. Conway, J., and J. Singh. 2009. Is the world social forum a transnational public sphere? Nancy Fraser, critical theory and the containment of radical possibility. Theory, Culture and Society 26(5): 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahl, R. 1967. Pluralist democracy in the United States. Chicago: Rand-McNally.Google Scholar
  14. Dahl, R. 1989. Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. De Tocqueville A. 1981. De la Démocratie en Amérique, 2 tomes, François Furet (Biographie, préface et bibliographie). Paris: Garnier-Flammarion.Google Scholar
  16. Dingwerth, K., and P. Pattberg. 2009. World politics and organizational fields: the case of transnational sustainability governance. European Journal of International Relations 15(4): 707–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Djama, M., E. Fouilleux, and I. Vagneron. 2011. Standard-setting, certifying and benchmarking: A governmentality approach to sustainability standards in the agro-food sector. In Governing through standards: Origins, drivers and limitations, ed. S. Ponte, P. Gibbon, and J. Vestergaard, 184–209. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  18. Dupuy, J.-P., F. Eymard-Duvernay, O. Favereau, A. Orléan, R. Salais, and L. Thévenot. 1989. Introduction au numéro spécial de la revue économique sur l’économie des conventions. Revue économique 40(2): 141–145.Google Scholar
  19. Edmunds, D.D., and E.E. Wollenberg. 2001. A strategic approach to multi-stakeholder negotiations. Development and Change 32: 231–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (trans: Sheridan, A.). New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  21. Foucault, M. 1980. About the beginning of the hermeneutics of the self. In Religion and culture by Michel Foucault, ed. Jeremy R. Carrette. Manchester: Manchester University Press 1999.Google Scholar
  22. Foucault, M. 1983. Afterword: the subject and power. In Michel foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics, ed. H. Dreyfus, and P. Rabinow. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Fouilleux, E. 2013. Normes transnationales de développement durable. Gouvernement et action publique 1: 93–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fouilleux, E., and F. Goulet. 2013. Firmes et développement durable: Le nouvel esprit du productivisme. Etudes Rurales 2: 131–146.Google Scholar
  25. Fransen, L.W., and A. Kolk. 2007. Global rule-setting for business: A critical analysis of multi-stakeholder standards. Organization 14(5): 667–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fraser, N. 1990. Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text 25(26): 56–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fuchs, D., A. Kalfagianni, J. Clapp, and L. Busch. 2011. Introduction to symposium on private agrifood governance: Values, shortcomings and strategies. Agriculture and Human Values 28(3): 335–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gibbon, P. 2008. An analysis of the regulation of organic agriculture in the European Union, 1991–2007. Journal of Agrarian Change 8(4): 553–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gibbon, P., and E. Lazaro. 2010. Global agro-food standards and Africa: An introduction. In Global trade and agro-food standards: challenges for Africa, ed. P. Gibbon, E. Lazaro, and S. Ponte. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Glasbergen, P. 2006. The partnership paradigm: governance between trust and legitimacy. In Proceedings international planning history society conference. New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
  31. Glasbergen, P., F. Biermann, and A.P.J. A. P. 2007. Partnerships, governance and sustainable development, reflections on theory and practice. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gupta, A. 2008. Transparency under scrutiny: Information disclosure in global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics 8(2): 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hatanaka, M., C. Bain, and L. Busch. 2005. Third-party certification in the global agrifood system. Food Policy 30: 354–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Haugaard, M. 2010. Power: a “family resemblance” concept. European Journal of Cultural Studies 13(4): 419–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hughes, A. 2001. Multi-stakeholder approaches to ethical trade: Towards a reorganisation of UK retailers’ global supply chains? Journal of Economic Geography 1(4): 421–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jenkins, R., R. Pearson, and G. Seyfang. 2002. Corporate responsibility and labour rights. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  37. Leach, M., I. Scoones, and A. Stirling. 2010. Dynamics Sustainabilities: Technology, Environment, Social Justice. UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  38. Loconto, A., and E. Fouilleux. 2013. Politics of private regulation: ISEAL and the shaping of transnational sustainability governance. Regulation and Governance. doi: 10.1111/rego.12028.Google Scholar
  39. Lowi, T. 1969. The end of liberalism. New York: W.W. Norton and Co.Google Scholar
  40. Lowi, T. 1987. La deuxième république des Etats-Unis, la fin du libéralisme. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  41. Lukes, S. 2005. Power: a radical view, vol. 2. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  42. MacDonald, K.I. 2010. Business, biodiversity and new “fields” of conservation: the world conservation congress and the renegotiation of organisational order. Conservation and Society 8(4): 256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Madison, J., A. Hamilton, and J. Say. 1987 (1787). The Federalist Papers. Penguin Books: Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
  44. Mccarthy, J.F., P. Gillespie, and Z. Zen. 2012. Swimming upstream: Local Indonesian production networks in ‘globalized’ palm oil production. World Development 40(3): 555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moody, M., and L. Thévenot. 2000. Comparing models of strategy, interests, and the public good in French and American environmental disputes. In Rethinking comparative cultural sociology: Repertoires of evaluation in France and the United States, ed. M. Lamont, and L. Thévenot, 273–306. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nadvi, K. 2008. Global standards, global governance and the organization of global value chains. Journal of Economic Geography 8: 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nelson, V., A. Tallontire, and M. Opondo. 2014. Pathways of Transformation or transgression? Power relations, ethical space and labour rights in Kenyan agri-food value chains. In Food Transgressions: Making sense of contemporary food politics, eds M. Goodman and C. Sage. Surrey: Ashgate. pp. 15–38.Google Scholar
  48. Partzch, L. 2011. The legitimacy of biofuel certification. Agriculture and Human Values 28: 413-425. Google Scholar
  49. Pattberg, P.H. 2007. Private institutions and global governance: The new politics of environmental sustainability. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  50. Poncelet, E.C. 2001. “A kiss here and a kiss there”: Conflict and collaboration in environmental partnerships. Environmental Management 27(1): 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ponte, S. 2008. Greener than thou: the political economy of fish ecolabeling and its local manifestations in South Africa. World Development 36(1): 59–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ponte, S. 2013. ‘Roundtabling’sustainability: Lessons from the biofuel industry. Geoforum. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.07.008).
  53. Ponte, S., and E. Cheyns. 2013. Voluntary standards, expert knowledge and the governance of sustainability networks. Global Networks. doi: 10.1111/glob.12011.Google Scholar
  54. Ponte, S., P. Gibbon, and J. Vestergaard (eds.). 2011. Governing through standards: Origins, drivers and limitations. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  55. Raynolds, L. 2012. Fair trade: Social regulation in global food markets. Journal of Rural Studies 28: 276–287.Google Scholar
  56. Reinicke, W.H., and F. Deng, with J. M. Witte, T. Benner, B. Whitaker and J. Gershman. 2000. Critical choices: the United Nations, networks, and the future of global governance. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.Google Scholar
  57. Richard-Ferroudji, A. 2011. Limites du modèle délibératif : Composer avec différents formats de participation. Politix 4(96): 161–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schouten, G., and P. Glasbergen. 2011. Creating legitimacy in global private governance: The case of the roundtable on sustainable palm oil. Ecological Economics 70(11): 1891–1899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schouten, G., P. Leroy, and P. Glasbergen. 2012. On the deliberative capacity of private multi-stakeholder governance: The roundtables on responsible soy and sustainable palm oil. Ecological Economics 83: 42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Silva-Castañeda, L. 2012. A forest of evidence: third-party certification and multiple forms of proof—a case study of oil palm plantations in Indonesia. Agriculture and Human Values 29(3): 361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stefanick, L. 1998. Organization, administration and the environment: Will a facelift suffice, or does the patient need radical surgery? Canadian Public Administration 41(1): 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tallontire, A., M. Opondo, V. Nelson, and A. Martin. 2011. Beyond the vertical? Using value chains and governance as a framework to analyse private standards initiatives in agri-food chains. Agriculture and Human Values 28(3): 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tamm Hallstrom, K. 2004. Organising international standardization: ISO and the LASC in quest of authority. London: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  64. Thévenot, L. 1997. Un gouvernement par les normes; pratiques et politiques des formats d’information. In Cognition et information en société, eds. B. Conein and L. Thévenot, 205–241. Paris: EHESS, Raisons pratiques 8.Google Scholar
  65. Thévenot, L. 2006. L’action au pluriel. Sociologie des régimes d’engagement. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  66. Thévenot, L. 2007. The plurality of cognitive formats and engagements: moving between the familiar and the public. European Journal of Social Theory 10(3): 413–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Thévenot, L. 2009. Governing life by standards: A view from engagements. Social Studies of Sciences 39(5): 793–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thévenot, L. 2011. Power and oppression from the perspective of the sociology of engagements: a comparison with Bourdieu’s and Dewey’s critical approaches to practical activities. Irish Journal of sociology 19(1) Special issue on new social theories: 35–67.Google Scholar
  69. Thévenot, L. 2012. Convening the company of historians to go into conventions, powers, critiques and engagements. Historical Social Research 37(4): 22–35.Google Scholar
  70. Thévenot, L. 2014. Making commonality in the plural, on the basis of binding engagements. In Social bonds as freedom: Revising the dichotomy of the universal and the particular, ed. P. Dumouchel, and R. Gotoh. New York: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  71. Thévenot, L., and M. Lamont. 2000. Exploring the French and American polity. In Rethinking comparative cultural sociology: Repertoires of evaluation in France and the United States, ed. M. Lamont, and L. Thévenot, 307–327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Turcotte, M.-F. 2001. The paradox of multi-stakeholder collaborative roundtables. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 37(4): 447–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Utting, P. 2002. Regulating business via multi-stakeholder initiatives: a preliminary assessment. In Voluntary Approaches to Corporate Responsibility: Readings and a Resource Guide. R. Jenkins, P. Utting and RA. Pino. UNRISD: Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  74. Young, I.M. 1990. Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Warner, J. 2005. Multi-stakeholder platforms: Integrating society in water resource management? Ambiente and Sociedade 8(2): 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zadek, S. 2006. The logic of collaborative governance: Corporate responsibility, accountability, and the social contract, critical issue series, CSR initiative, Center for government and business. Cambridge: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  77. Zakek, S., and S. Radovich. 2006. Governing collaborative governance: Enhancing development outcomes by improving partnership governance and accountability. Accountability and the corporate social responsibility initiative, working paper 23. Cambridge: John Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CIRAD, UMR MoisaMontpellier Cedex 5France
  2. 2.Roskilde UniversitetRoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations