Are Organic Standards Sufficient to Ensure Sustainable Agriculture? Lessons From New Zealand’s ARGOS and Sustainability Dashboard Projects

Merfield, Charles N.; Møller, Henrik; Manhire, Jon; Rosin, Chris; Norton, Solis; Carey, Peter; Hunt, Lesley; Reid, John D.; Benge, Jayson; Quellec, Isabelle Le; Campbell, Hugh; Lucock, David; Saunders, Caroline M.; MacLeod, Catriona J.; Barber, Andrew; McCarthy, Alaric

doi:10.5539/sar.v4n3p158

Cited by 10 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The communication of values, and of the (value-based) criteria that are used for taking decisions on daily practices and development initiatives, is crucial to establish shared values and build long-term partnerships between the involved businesses and organizations. Conversely, the concern whether organic standards are sufficient to ensure that the organic agricultural practices are sustainable has led to calls for a broadened and deepened performance-based assessment of organics [104].…”

Section: The Case Of Organic Agriculture: a Tension Between Rationalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance versus Values in Sustainability Transformation of Food Systems

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Questions have been raised on what role the knowledge provided by sustainability science actually plays in the transition to sustainability and what role it may play in the future. In this paper we investigate different approaches to sustainability transformation of food systems by analyzing the rationale behind transformative acts-the ground that the direct agents of change act upon-and how the type of rationale is connected to the role of research and how the agents of change are involved. To do this we employ Max Weber's distinction between instrumental rationality and value-rationality in social action. In particular, we compare two different approaches to the role of research in sustainability transformation: (1) Performance-based approaches that measure performance and set up sustainability indicator targets and benchmarks to motivate the agents in the food system to change; (2) Values-based approaches that aim at communicating and mediating sustainability values to enable coordinated and cooperative action to transform the food system. We identify their respective strengths and weaknesses based on a cross-case analysis of four cases, and propose that the two approaches, like Weber's two types of rationality, are complementary-because they are based on complementary observer stances-and that an optimal in-between approach therefore cannot be found. However, there are options for reflexive learning by observing one perspective-and its possible blind spots-from the vantage point of the other, so we suggest that new strategies for sustainability transformation can be found based on reflexive rationality as a third and distinct type of rationality.Keywords: complementarity; food systems; perspectives; rationality; sustainability assessment; sustainability transformation; sustainability transition; sustainability science "Like any action, social action may be determined as: (1) instrumentally rational through expectations of the behavior of objects in the environment and of other human beings, and the use of these expectations as "conditions" or "means" to attain one's own rationally pursued and calculated ends; (2) value-rational through a conscious belief in

show abstract

Section: The Case Of Organic Agriculture: a Tension Between Rationalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance versus Values in Sustainability Transformation of Food Systems

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It uses a participatory approach in which the involvement of stakeholders is contractual. It allows farmers to log self-assessed sustainability measures into an online database (Merfield et al 2015). The NZSD panel, therefore, assessed the criteria in terms of a narrower defined context than that of the newly formed and as yet not fully defined TempAg agenda and team.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When experts disagree: the need to rethink indicator selection for assessing sustainability of agriculture

Olde

Møller

Marchand

et al. 2016

Environ Dev Sustain

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainability indicators are well recognized for their potential to assess and monitor sustainable development of agricultural systems. A large number of indicators are proposed in various sustainability assessment frameworks, which raises concerns regarding the validity of approaches, usefulness and trust in such frameworks. Selecting indicators requires transparent and well-defined procedures to ensure the relevance and validity of sustainability assessments. The objective of this study, therefore, was to determine whether 123Environ Dev Sustain DOI 10.1007/s10668-016-9803-x experts agree on which criteria are most important in the selection of indicators and indicator sets for robust sustainability assessments. Two groups of experts (Temperate Agriculture Research Network and New Zealand Sustainability Dashboard) were asked to rank the relative importance of eleven criteria for selecting individual indicators and of nine criteria for balancing a collective set of indicators. Both ranking surveys reveal a startling lack of consensus amongst experts about how best to measure agricultural sustainability and call for a radical rethink about how complementary approaches to sustainability assessments are used alongside each other to ensure a plurality of views and maximum collaboration and trust amongst stakeholders. To improve the transparency, relevance and robustness of sustainable assessments, the context of the sustainability assessment, including prioritizations of selection criteria for indicator selection, must be accounted for. A collaborative design process will enhance the acceptance of diverse values and prioritizations embedded in sustainability assessments. The process by which indicators and sustainability frameworks are established may be a much more important determinant of their success than the final shape of the assessment tools. Such an emphasis on process would make assessments more transparent, transformative and enduring.

show abstract

“…The tool works by revealing and communicating the valueladen criteria used by different agents, e.g., producers, processors, retailers, consumers, etc., in the food chain for selecting goods and taking new development initiatives (Alrøe and Noe 2014b; see also an animated sketch of this tool at https://youtu.be/ UF15_4knPUA). Another tool that stretches across the food system is the New Zealand Sustainability Dashboard, which uses internet technology and smart reporting and benchmarking, in essence, primarily to build a social network for sharing information on sustainability performance among producers at the start of the supply chain (Merfield et al 2015). However, the same information simultaneously informs industry strategists and marketers, land regulators and customers making purchase choices.…”

Section: Prospects For Future Sustainability Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The success of these alternative developments depends on whether they can continue to improve in relation to their goals, and thereby maintain credibility and trust. The emergence of a plethora of broadly holistic Integrated Management sustainability assessment criteria to deliver multifunctional agriculture underscores that organic agriculture must demonstrate its performance against an extremely broad range of benefits and costs for society, economy, environment, and nature (Merfield et al 2015). The key question of this Special Feature is how best can such assessments be designed and conducted?…”

Section: Prospects For Future Sustainability Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opportunities and challenges for multicriteria assessment of food system sustainability

Alrøe¹,

Møller²,

Læssøe³

et al. 2016

E&S

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The focus of the Special Feature on "Multicriteria assessment of food system sustainability" is on the complex challenges of making and communicating overall assessments of food systems sustainability based on multiple and varied criteria. Four papers concern the choice and development of appropriate tools for making multicriteria sustainability assessments that handle built-in methodological conflicts and trade-offs between different assessment objectives. They underscore the value of linking diverse methods and tools, or nesting and stepping their deployment, to help build resilience and sustainability. They conclude that there is no one tool, one framework, or one indicator set that is appropriate for the different purposes and contexts of sustainability assessment. The process of creating the assessment framework also emerges as important: if the key stakeholders are not given a responsible and full role in the development of any assessment tool, it is less likely to be fit for their purpose and they are unlikely to take ownership or have confidence in it. Six other papers reflect on more fundamental considerations of how assessments are based in different scientific perspectives and on the role of values, motivation, and trust in relation to assessments in the development of more sustainable food systems. They recommend a radical break with the tradition of conducting multicriteria assessment from one hegemonic perspective to considering multiple perspectives. Collectively the contributions to this Special Feature identify three main challenges for improved multicriteria assessment of food system sustainability: (i) how to balance different types of knowledge to avoid that the most wellknown, precise, or easiest to measure dimensions of sustainability gets the most weight; (ii) how to expose the values in assessment tools and choices to allow evaluation of how they relate to the ethical principles of sustainable food systems, to societal goals, and to the interests of different stakeholders; and (iii) how to enable communication in such a way that the assessments can effectively contribute to the development of more sustainable food systems by facilitating a mutual learning process between researchers and stakeholders. The wider question of how to get from assessment to transformation goes across all three challenges. We strongly recommend future research on the strengths, weaknesses, and complementarities of taking a values-based rather than a performancebased approach to promoting the resilience and sustainability of coupled ecological, economic, and social systems for ensuring food security and agroecosystem health in the coming millennium.

show abstract

Are Organic Standards Sufficient to Ensure Sustainable Agriculture? Lessons From New Zealand’s ARGOS and Sustainability Dashboard Projects

Cited by 10 publications

References 29 publications

Performance versus Values in Sustainability Transformation of Food Systems

Performance versus Values in Sustainability Transformation of Food Systems

When experts disagree: the need to rethink indicator selection for assessing sustainability of agriculture

Opportunities and challenges for multicriteria assessment of food system sustainability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About