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.
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...
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.