Regulation, Standards and Risk Management in the Context of Globalization

Humphrey, John

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-55041-1_2

John Humphrey⁴

Part of the book series: IDE-JETRO Series ((IDE))

749 Accesses
2 Citations

Abstract

Humphrey analyses trends in public regulations and private standards in three areas: sustainability standards in forest management, standards for food safety and product-related environmental regulations for chemicals. He explains why private standards have expanded their role in regulating trade, and also emphasizes the continuing role of public regulations and the ways in which public regulations have shaped private standards. In both areas, he shows how the increased use of preventive controls in both public regulations and private standards adopted in importing countries has far-reaching effects in exporting countries. They change the way businesses make products and show that they meet regulatory requirements and customer requirements, and they impact upon the regulatory environment of exporting countries.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

eBook: USD 16.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 129.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 129.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Quoted in de Burca et al. (2013: 735).
2.
In this paper regulation is an activity will be applied to both public and private initiatives. When considering particular instruments, there will be reference to private standards (which do not have the force of law) and public regulations (which do).
3.
The difference between a standard and a standards scheme is that a standard is a series of rules for behavior. A standards scheme also has rules, but they are complemented by monitoring and enforcement mechanisms that are designed to ensure compliance. For a discussion of the activities involved in the creation and operationalization of private standards, see Henson and Humphrey (2010, 2012).
4.
One of the drivers of these tendencies in the EU is the extension of the mechanisms for managing the internal market in the EU to relations with non-EU trading partners. Changes in food safety legislation, for example, were undertaken in response to the crisis in EU food safety and the recognition that variations in practice within the EU were not sustainable in the context of a single market.
5.
Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification.
6.
Some standards schemes may combine a variety of product and process standards. Standards relating to good agricultural practices, for example, can be aimed simultaneously at impact issues such as protecting the environment and product issues such as food safety.
7.
The term “social goal” indicates that the goal of the regulation is to affect something which has consequences external to the enterprise. If all the costs and benefits of a firm’s actions impacted clearly, directly and unambiguously on the firm, there would be no need for regulation.
8.
By the end of 2011, these included Ghana, the Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, Indonesia and Liberia (Overdevest & Zeitlin, 2014: 36).
9.
http://ec.europa.eu/world/agreements/prepareCreateTreatiesWorkspace/treatiesGeneralData.do?step=0&redirect=true&treatyId=8986&back=9341.
10.
For food of animal origin, registration of processing plants, assessments of the competence of food safety authorities in exporting countries and the importer obligations create a much more stringent regime.
11.
These safety regulations for food of animal origin have been tightened in recent years, partly in response to food safety crises such as BSE (mad cow disease), which has led to greatly increased controls on live cattle and abattoirs.
12.
As will be seen subsequently, this approach to information requirements bears parallels with the requirements on the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to prove that chemicals are harmful before imposing restrictions.
13.
See also, Vincent (2004) and Vogel (2003).
14.
The scheme was later extended to a range of other agriculture and aquaculture products.
15.
As Coglianese and Lazer (2003: 699) point out, there are varying degrees of oversight associated with management-based regulation. This can range from no examination of the systems put into place up to detailed analysis of the steps taken to ensure conformance to legislation.
16.
The rule for food processing establishments does not endorse third-party certification, but it does state that “to the extent that scientific and technical information available from GFSI or another standard setting organization provides evidence that a control measure, combination of control measures, or the food safety plan as a whole is capable of effectively controlling the identified hazards, a facility may use such information to satisfy the validation requirements of the rule” (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2015: 56054).
17.
See also the account by Simon (2012: 20–21) of these Conventions.
18.
According to Hansson and Rudén, this lack of information extends even to the chemicals produced in the largest volumes (Hansson & Rudén, 2010: 72).
19.
Similar arguments are made by Schwarzman and Wilson (2011: 103–104).
20.
For an analysis of the content of the REACH legislation and what it is designed to achieve, see Karlsson (2010), Biedenkopf (2015) and Heyvaert (2010).
21.
For further discussion of the use of the data on chemicals generated by REACH, see Biedenkopf (2015: 125–126).
22.
For countries closely tied to the EU market, such as the countries of the European Economic Area, there is no choice but to closely harmonise domestic regulations with those applying within the EU (Heyvaert, 2010: 230–231).

References

Auld, G. (2014). Constructing private governance: The rise and evolution of forest, coffee, and fishery certification. New York and London: Yale University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Bengtsson, G. (2010). Global trends in chemicals management. In J. Eriksson, M. Gilek, & C. Rudén (Eds.), Regulating chemical risks: European and global challenges (pp. 179–214). London: Springer.
Chapter Google Scholar
Bernstein, S., & Cashore, B. (2007). Can non-state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework. Regulation & Governance, 1(4), 1–25. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2007.00021.x.
Article Google Scholar
Biedenkopf, K. (2015). EU chemicals regulation: Extending its experimentalist REACH. In J. Zeitlin (Ed.), Extending experimentalist governance? The European Union and transnational regulation (pp. 107–136). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Botzem, S. (2008). Transnational expert-driven standardisation: Accountancy governance from a professional point of view. In J.-C. Graz & A. Nölke (Eds.), Transnational private governance and its limits (pp. 44–57). Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Bucht, B. (2010). Capacity building for chemicals control: Legislation, institutions, public-private relationships. In J. Eriksson, M. Gilek, & C. Rudén (Eds.), Regulating chemical risks: European and global challenges (pp. 283–299). London: Springer.
Chapter Google Scholar
Büthe, T., & Mattli, W. (2011). The new global rulers: The privatisation of regulation in the world economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Caduff, L., & Bernauer, T. (2006). Managing risk and regulation in European food safety governance. Review of Policy Research, 23(1), 153–168. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2006.00190.x.
Article Google Scholar
Calvin, L. (2003). Produce, food safety, and international trade: Response to U.S. foodborne illness outbreaks associated with imported produce. In J. Buzby (Ed.), International trade and food safety: Economic theory and case studies (pp. 74–96). Washington D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Economics Research Service.
Google Scholar
Cashore, B., & Stone, M. (2014). Does California need Delaware? Explaining Indonesian, Chinese, and United States support for legality compliance of internationally traded products. Regulation & Governance, 8(1), 49–73. doi: 10.1111/rego.12053.
Article Google Scholar
Coglianese, C., & Lazer, D. (2003). Management-based regulation: Prescribing private management to achieve public goals. Law & Society Review, 37(4), 691–730. doi: 10.1046/j.0023-9216.2003.03703001.x.
Article Google Scholar
de Burca, G., Keohane, R., & Sabel, C. (2013). New modes of pluralist global governance. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 45(3), 723–786.
Google Scholar
Diaz Rios, L., & Jaffee, S. (2008). Barrier, catalyst, or distraction? Standards, competitiveness, and Africa’s groundnut exports to Europe. Retrieved from Washington DC; World Bank, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/Making_the_Grade_ePDF2.pdf.
Eberlein, G. B., Abbott, K., Black, J., Meidinger, E., & Wood, S. (2014). Transnational business governance interactions: Conceptualisation and framework for analysis. Regulation & Governance, 8(1), 1–21. doi: 10.1111/rego.12030.
Article Google Scholar
European Commission. (2006). Guidance document: Key questions related to import requirements and the new rules on food hygiene and official food controls. Retrieved from Brussels; European Commission, Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General, http://ec.europa.eu/food/international/trade/interpretation_imports.pdf.
European Commission. (2007). Legality assurance systems: Requirements for verification. Retrieved from Brussels; European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/publication-flegt-briefing-note-series-2007-5-200703_en.pdf.
European Forest Institute. (n.d.). Indonesia’s timber legality verification system. Retrieved from Joensuu, Finland; EFI, http://www.efi.int/files/attachments/euflegt/efi_newsroom_indonesia_legality_assurance_system_ed.pdf.
Fishman, A., & Obidzinski, K. (n.d.). Verified legal? Ramifications of the EU Timber Regulation and Indonesia’s Voluntary Partnership Agreement for the legality of Indonesian timber. Retrieved from http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/Papers/PObidzinski1305.pdf.
Forest Stewardship Council. (2013). EU Timber Regulation, EUTR. Retrieved from http://www.fsc-uk.org/eu-timber-regulation-eutr.82.htm.
Fuchs, D., Kalfagianni, A., & Havinga, T. (2011). Actors in private food governance: The legitimacy of retail standards and multi-stakeholder initiatives with civil society participation. Agriculture and Human Values, 28(3), 353–367. doi: 10.1007/s10460-011-9310-5.
Article Google Scholar
Graffham, A., Karehu, E., & MacGregor, J. (2007). Impact of EurepGAP on smallscale vegetable growers in Kenya. Retrieved from Greenwich; Natural Resources Institute, http://www.dfid.gov.uk/r4d/PDF/Outputs/EcoDev/60506fresh_insights_6_EurepGapKenya.pdf.
Green, J. (2010). Private standards in the climate regime: The greenhouse gas protocol. Business and Politics, 12(3), article 3. doi: 10.2202/1469-3569.1318.
Gulbrandsen, L. (2014). Dynamic governance interactions: Evolutionary effects of state responses to non-state certification programs. Regulation & Governance, 8(1), 74–92. doi: 10.1111/rego.12005.
Article Google Scholar
Hansen, B., &Blainey, M. (2006). REACH: A step change in the management of chemicals. RECIEL, 15(3), 270–280. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9388.2006.00527.x.
Google Scholar
Hansson, S. O., & Rudén, C. (2010). REACH: What has been achieved and what needs to be done? In J. Eriksson, M. Gilek, & C. Rudén (Eds.), Regulating chemicals risks: European and global challenges (pp. 71–75). London: Springer.
Chapter Google Scholar
Henson, S., & Humphrey, J. (2010). Understanding the complexities of private standards in global agri-food chains as they impact developing countries. Journal of Development Studies, 46(9), 1628–1646. doi: 10.1080/00220381003706494.
Article Google Scholar
Henson, S., & Humphrey, J. (2012). Private standards in global agrifood chains. In A. Marx, M. Maertens, J. Swinnen, & J. Wouters (Eds.), Private standards and global governance: Economic, legal and political perspectives (pp. 98–113). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Google Scholar
Heyvaert, V. (2010). Regulating chemical risk: REACH in a global governance perspective. In J. Eriksson, M. Gilek, & C. Rudén (Eds.), Regulating chemicals risks: European and global challenges (pp. 217–237). London: Springer.
Chapter Google Scholar
Jacoby, W., &Meunier, S. (2010). Europe and the management of globalisation. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(3), 299–317. doi:10.1080/13501761003662107.
Article Google Scholar
Karlsson, M. (2010). The precautionary principle in EU and US chemicals policy: A comparison of industrial chemicals legislation. In J. Eriksson, M. Gilek, & C. Rudén (Eds.), Regulating chemical risks: European and global challenges (pp. 239–264). London: Springer.
Chapter Google Scholar
Keohane, R., & Victor, D. (2011). The regime complex for climate change. Perspectives on Politics, 9(1), 7–23. doi: 10.1017/S1537592710004068.
Article Google Scholar
Knowles, T., Moody, R., & McEachern, M. (2007). European food scares and their impact on EU food policy. British Food Journal, 109(1), 43–67. doi: 10.1108/00070700710718507.
Article Google Scholar
LGMA. (2010). California leafy green products handler marketing agreement: Audit checklist. Retrieved from Sacramento; California Leafy Green Products Handler Marketing Agreement, http://www.caleafygreens.ca.gov/sites/default/files/Audit%20Checklist%20California%207-23-10.pdf.
Marx, A., Bécault, E., & Wouters, J. (2012). Private standards in forestry: Assessing the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Forest Stewardship Council. In A. Marx, M. Maertens, J. Swinnen, & J. Wouters (Eds.), Private standards and global governance: Economic legal and political perspectives (pp. 60–97). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Google Scholar
Naiki, Y. (2010). Assessing policy reach: Japan’s chemical policy reform in response to the EU’s REACH regulation. Journal of Environmental Law, 22(2), 171–195. doi: 10.1093/jel/eqq002.
Article Google Scholar
Neeliah, S., Neeliah, H., & Goburdhun, D. (2013). Assessing the relevance of EU SPS measures on the food export sector: Evidence from a developing agri-food exporting country. Food Policy, 41, 53–62. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.04.002.
Article Google Scholar
Ollinger, M., Moore, D., & Chandran, R. (2004). Meat and poultry plant’s food safety investments: Survey findings. Retrieved from Washington DC: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/tb-technical-bulletin/tb1911.aspx.
Google Scholar
Overdevest, C., & Zeitlin, J. (2014). Assembling an experimentalist regime: Transnational governance interactions in the forest sector. Regulation & Governance, 8(1), 22–48. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01133.x.
Article Google Scholar
Perrez, F. X. (2006). The strategic approach to international chemicals management:Lost opportunity or foundation for a brave new world?. RECIEL, 15(3), 245–257. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9388.2006.00528.x.
Google Scholar
Raustiala, K., & Victor, D. (2004). The regime complex for the plant genetic resources. International Organisation, 58(2), 277–310. doi: 10.1017/S0020818304582036.
Article Google Scholar
Rodman, N. (2008). Private food safety standards and value chains: How does GLOBALG.A.P. change the sourcing strategies of German supermarkets? (Diplomarbeit im Fach Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeographie), Cologne: Cologne University.
Google Scholar
Sachs, N. (2009). Jumping the pond: Transnational Law and the future of chemical regulation. Vanderbilt Law Review, 62(6), 1817–1869.
Google Scholar
Schwarzman, M., & Wilson, M. P. (2011). Reshaping chemicals policy on two sides of the Atlantic: The promise of improved sustainability through international collaboration. In D. Vogel & J. Swinnen (Eds.), Transatlantic regulatory cooperation: The shifting roles of the EU, the US and California (pp. 102–124). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Google Scholar
Selin, H. (2013). Global chemicals politics and policy. In R. Falkner (Ed.), The handbook of global climate and environment policy (pp. 107–123). London: John Wiley & Sons.
Chapter Google Scholar
Simon, N. (2012). Managing global chemicals governance: International organisations as interplay managers. Paper prepared for Lund conference on Earth System Governance, Lund.
Google Scholar
Taylor, M. (2012). Ensuring produce safety in a global food system. Speech made at the America Trades Produce meeting, Tubac, AZ.
Google Scholar
The Commission of the European Communities. (2000). Commission Directive 2000/24/EC amending the Annexes to Council Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on cereals, foodstuffs of animal origin and certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables respectively. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 107/28, 4 May 2000. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32000L0024&from=EN.
The European Commission. (2013). Guidance document for the EU Timber Regulation. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/Final%20Guidance%20document.pdf.
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. (2002). Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 31/1, 1 February 2002. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32002R0178&from=EN.
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. (2004). Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules. Official Journal of the European Union, L 191/1, 28 May 2004. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32004R0882&from=EN.
The European Union and the Republic of Indonesia. (2011). FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreement between Indonesia and the European Union. Retrieved from Brussels; http://www.euflegt.efi.int/documents/10180/23029/FLEGT+Voluntary+Partnership+Agreement+Between+the+Republic+of+Indonesia+and+the+European+Union+-+Briefing+Note+May+2011/cfcd6026-55a9-4b7f-a28d-f147d9e6c9d5.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (1998). Guidance for industry: Guide to minimise microbial food safety hazards for fresh fruits and vegetables. Retrieved from Washington DC; U.S. Food and Drug Administration, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/ProduceandPlanProducts/UCM169112.pdf.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2013). Standards for the growing, harvesting, packing, and holding a produce for human consumption; proposed rule (corrected version).Retrieved from Washington DC; U.S. Food and Drug Administration, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/…/UCM360734.pdf.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2014). Foreign supplier verification programs for importers of food for humans and animals. Retrieved fromWashington DC; U.S. Food and Drug Administration, http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2011-N-0143-0247.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2015). Current good manufacturing practices, hazard analysis, and risk-based preventive controls for human food; final rule. Retrieved from Washington DC; U.S. Food and Drug Administration, http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2011-N-0920-1979.
UK Government. (1990). Food safety act. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/16/enacted.
United States Congress. (2010). FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. Retrieved from Washington DC; 111th Congress, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ353/pdf/PLAW-111publ353.pdf.
USDA. (2009). USDA good agricultural practices & good handling practice audit verification checklist. Retrieved from Washington DC; United States Department of Agriculture, http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5091326.
van Waarden, F. (2012). Governing global commons: The public-private protection of fish and of forests. In A. Marx, M. Maertens, J. Swinnen, & J. Wouters (Eds.), Private standards and global governance: Economic, legal and political perspectives (pp. 15–59). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Google Scholar
Vincent, K. (2004). ‘Mad Cows’ and eurocrats – Community responses to the BSE crisis. European Law Journal, 10(5), 499–517. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2004.00228.x.
Article Google Scholar
Vogel, D. (2003). The politics of risk regulation in Europe and the United States. Retrieved from Paris; Institut du Développement Durable et des Relations Internationales, http://www.iddri.org/Publications/Collections/Idees-pour-le-debat/id_0301_vogel.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

University of Sussex, Brighton, UK
John Humphrey

Authors

John Humphrey
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Humphrey .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

IDE-JETRO, Chiba-shi, Chiba, Japan
Etsuyo Michida
University of Sussex , Brighton, United Kingdom
John Humphrey
Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan
Kaoru Nabeshima

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Humphrey, J. (2017). Regulation, Standards and Risk Management in the Context of Globalization. In: Michida, E., Humphrey, J., Nabeshima, K. (eds) Regulations and International Trade. IDE-JETRO Series. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55041-1_2

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55041-1_2
Published: 09 October 2017
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55040-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55041-1
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics