Certification systems (CS) set and monitor voluntary standards to make agricultural production sustainable in socioeconomic terms and agricultural trade fairer for producers and workers. They try to achieve a wide range of socioeconomic and environmental effects through bundles of interventions that include the process of standard setting and compliance, advocacy among consumers, capacity building for producers, building supply chains, price interventions, and the application of acceptable labour standards, overall to improve the wellbeing of farmers and agricultural workers. This paper presents the results of a mixed-method systematic review that synthesized the literature on socioeconomic effects of certification systems on agricultural producers and wage workers in low and middle income countries. The review followed the Campbell Collaboration guidelines for systematic reviews, and included studies published between 1990 and 2016 in different languages, with evidence on low and middle income countries. The review included a quantitative effectiveness question focused on a range of intermediate (e.g. prices, wages) and endpoint outcomes (e.g. household income). It also included a question on barriers, facilitators and contextual factors shaping effectiveness which drew on qualitative or mixed-method studies. Eligible certification systems were based on second-(industry-level) or third-party certifications, and excluded owncompany standards. For the effectiveness review, quantitative impact evaluations must use experimental or nonexperimental methods demonstrating control for selection bias. With these inclusion criteria, the review includes 43 studies used for analysing quantitative effects, and 136 qualitative studies for synthesizing barriers, enablers and other contextual factors. Most included studies report on initiatives in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa and focus primarily on agricultural producers. The quality of the included studies is mixed, and several studies are weak on a number of methodological fronts, especially on statistical reporting. Overall, there is limited and mixed evidence on the effects of CS on a range of intermediate and final socioeconomic outcomes for agricultural producers and wage workers. There are positive effects on prices and income from the sale of produce is higher for certified farmers. However, workers' wages do not seem to benefit from the presence of CS and, further along the causal chain, we find no evidence that total household income improves with certification. The integrated synthesis of quantitative and qualitative studies shows that context matters substantially in all causal chains and multiple factors shape the effectiveness and causal mechanisms that link interventions associated with certification and the wellbeing of producers, workers and their families.
The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) is an international grant-making NGO promoting evidence-informed development policies and programmes. We are the global leader in funding, producing and synthesising high-quality evidence of what works, for whom, why and at what cost. We believe that better and policy-relevant evidence will help make development more effective and improve people's lives. 3ie systematic reviews 3ie systematic reviews appraise and synthesise the available high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of social and economic development interventions in low-and middle-income countries. These reviews follow scientifically recognised review methods, and are peerreviewed and quality assured according to internationally accepted standards. 3ie is providing leadership in demonstrating rigorous and innovative review methodologies, such as using theory-based approaches suited to inform policy and programming in the dynamic contexts and challenges of low-and middle-income countries. About this reviewEffects of certification schemes for agricultural production on socio-economic outcomes in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review, was submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of grant SR6.1158 awarded under Systematic Review Window 6. This review is available on the 3ie website. 3ie is publishing this technical report as received from the authors; it has been formatted to 3ie style. 3ie will also publish a summary report of this review, designed for use by decision makers, which is forthcoming.All content is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not represent the opinions of 3ie, its donors or its board of commissioners. Any errors are also the sole responsibility of the authors. Comments or queries should be directed to the corresponding author, Carlos Oya, co2@soas.ac.uk Certification schemes (CS hereafter) set voluntary standards and monitor their compliance (through independent auditors) to make agricultural production socially sustainable and agricultural trade fairer for producers and workers. Although CS are mainly characterized by the description above, they can also be systems engaging in a wider range of activities in policy, advocacy, capacity building, and building markets and supply chains around the objectives of social sustainability. These standards matter for consumers, especially for ethical and safety-aware consumers. They are expected to contribute to a wide range of socio-economic and environmental outcomes, ultimately improving the wellbeing of farmers and agricultural workers, whether employed by corporate plantations or individual producers. They try to achieve these aims through a combination of standard-setting actions, capacity building and training different types of market interventions, such as guaranteed market outlets, price premium, and credit facilities among others, and the application of adequate labour standards. Do certification schemes work for the wellbeing of agricultural producers and workers in low and middle incom...
This Campbell systematic review examines the effectiveness of certification schemes in improving the welfare of farmers and workers. The review summarises findings from 43 quantitative studies, and 136 qualitative studies. There is not enough evidence on the effects of CS on a range of intermediate and final socioeconomic outcomes for agricultural producers and wage workers. There are positive effects on prices. But workers? wages do not seem to benefit from the presence of CS. Income from the sale of produce is higher for certified farmers, but overall household income is not. Context matters substantially for the causal chain between interventions of certification schemes and the well being of producers and workers. Generally, the quality of the studies is mixed, with a significant number of studies that are weak on a number of methodological fronts. Plain language summary Certification schemes have unclear impact on the well being of farmers and workersCertification schemes (CS) set and monitor voluntary standards to make agricultural production socially sustainable and agricultural trade fairer for producers and workers. The evidence base is very limited and inconclusive. Certification increases prices and income from produce, but not wages or total household income. Certification agencies should adopt simpler programmes adapted to local context and rigorously test their impact. What did the review study?Certification sets and monitors voluntary standards, and can encompass systems engaging in a wider range of activities in policy, advocacy, and capacity building, and in building markets and supply chains, to make agricultural production socially sustainable and agricultural trade fairer.Certification is meant to affect a wide range of socioeconomic and environmental outcomes, to improve the well being of farmers and agricultural workers employed by corporate plantations or individual producers. Certification schemes use a combination of standard‐setting actions, training, different types of market interventions, and the application of adequate labour standards.This review assesses whether certification schemes work for the well being of agricultural producers and workers in low‐ and middle‐income countries. What studies are included?Included studies evaluate the effects of CS on socioeconomic outcomes for agricultural producers and workers. Eligible CS are based on second‐ (industry‐level) or third‐party certifications, and exclude own‐company standards. For the effectiveness review, studies must use experimental or non‐experimental methods demonstrating control for selection bias. Qualitative studies are included to answer questions about barriers, facilitators and contextual factors; these report on relevant outcomes, have sufficient reporting on methods, and provide substantive evidence on relevant themes. The review includes 43 studies used for analysing quantitative effects, and 136 qualitative studies for synthesizing barriers, enablers and other contextual factors. What are the main findings of this r...
The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) is an international grant-making NGO promoting evidence-informed development policies and programmes. We are the global leader in funding, producing and synthesising high-quality evidence of what works, how, why and at what cost. We believe that better and policy-relevant evidence will make development more effective and improve people's lives. 3ie systematic reviews 3ie systematic reviews examine available high-quality evidence on the effects of social and economic development interventions in low-and middle-income countries. These reviews follow scientifically recognised review methods, and are peer reviewed and quality assured according to internationally accepted standards. 3ie is providing leadership in demonstrating rigorous review methodologies, such as using theory-based designs, for combining different types of evidence suited to respond to the complex and dynamic contexts and challenges of development. 3ie also publishes summary reports based on the full reviews that are designed for use by policymakers and programme managers. About this summary reportThis summary report, Effectiveness of agricultural certification schemes for improving socioeconomic outcomes in low and middle-income countries, 3ie Systematic Review Summary 9, is based on a full review that is available on the 3ie website. Funding for this report was provided by 3ie's core donors, which include UK aid, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Hewlett Foundation. All content is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not represent the opinions of 3ie, its donors or the 3ie Board of Commissioners. Any errors are the sole responsibility of the authors. Questions or comments about this review should be directed to the corresponding author, Carlos Oya, at co2@soas.ac.uk. The main function of certification schemes (CS) in agriculture is to set voluntary standards with specific requirements, monitor their compliance (through independent auditors) and support producers to meet them, with the goal of making agricultural production economically, socially and environmentally more sustainable and agricultural trade fairer for producers and workers. The rise of voluntary standards and their respective CS has been an important aspect of the process of globalisation of agriculture over the past three decades.The growth of certified production networks has accelerated in recent years, by expanding the range of products and the number of countries, producers and workers on a global scale. There is now a large number of standards and CS for agricultural production. Yet, the proportion of total agricultural trade that carries some certification of social sustainability remains small for most CS and products.What do certification schemes aim to achieve, and how?There are various objectives associated with CS. The range of activities they engage in is also significant. Standard-setting and monitoring and associated interventions are expected to contribute to a wide range of socio-economic ...
The challenges of screening and synthesizing qualitative research in a mixed-methods systematic review. The case of the impact of agricultural certification schemes
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.