Fighting Standards with Standards: Harmonization, Rents, and Social Accountability in Certified Agrofood Networks

Abstract

In this paper I explore the remaking of globalized standards through harmonization, and its impact upon certified-organic and fair-trade agrofood networks. I focus on certification standards and discuss four shifts associated with globalized standards (an increased importance of multilateral institutions, changes to standards language, displacement of network-specific standards, and a shift away from relational standards). It is then argued, with reference to value-chain rent theory, that the shift to globalized standards has transformed rent relations in ways that benefit certain actors (that is, retailers) and imperil the earnings of others. In brief, globalized standards increase the costs of standards compliance, the full burden of which falls upon immiserated producers, to the point at which farmers see little economic advantage to certified-organic and fair-trade production. I then examine social-accountability standards that seek to ‘fight standards with standards’ by championing the consolidation of strong labor and environmental protections under a single label. The study suggests that a single-label strategy can be successful, yet must struggle to overcome a Polanyian double bind, for, in order to build broad coalitions necessary to extend the reach of protective standards, the coalitions must include corporate interests that prefer weaker, contract-based standards.

Corporate cooptation of organic and fair trade standards

“…Future agrifood initiatives would do well, we argue, to steer clear of state-based standards. However, that alone may not be protection enough, as both state and non-state standards are subject to ''downward harmonization'' within the context of neoliberal economic globalization (Mutersbaugh 2005).…”

“…These alternative markets at least theoretically pose a challenge to companies' externalization of environmental costs and the exploitation of small farmers and waged laborers, thus constraining their commercial practices and potentially reducing their profits. As such, argue some observers, they represent a form of social regulation, a partial Polanyian ''re-embedding'' of markets in systems of social and moral relations (Raynolds 2000;Mutersbaugh 2005; Jaffee 2007). Ironically, their success also makes them an inviting target for corporate participation, due to their creation of new spaces suitable for capital accumulation.…”

“…Several observers have focused on the ways that corporate agribusiness, distribution and retailing firms have responded to the challenge posed by the standards and third-party certification undergirding organic and fair trade ecolabels (e.g., Mutersbaugh 2005;Goodman and Goodman 2007;Jaffee 2007;Raynolds and Wilkinson 2007;Renard and Perezgrovas 2007;DuPuis and Gillon 2009). These strategies can be viewed as one part of what Fridell et al (2008, p. 23) term a ''corporate countermovement'' against the regulatory impact of such agrifood schemes.…”

Le label AB, dispositif de promesse ou de jugement ?

“…Des chercheurs ont appuyé cette crainte, explicitant divers mécanismes de pression -« conventionnalisation », « institutionnalisation » -que le « social » imposerait (Seppänen et Helenius, 2004 ;Leroux, 2006 ;Van Dam et al, 2011) ou que « le marché » exercerait directement (Buck et al, 1997 ;Guthman, 2000Guthman, , 2004Conner, 2004 ;Mutersbaugh, 2005 ;DuPuis et Gillon, 2009) ou indirectement (Tovey, 1997) sur ceux qui voudraient s'en exclure.…”

Working for social sustainability: insights from a Spanish organic production enclave

“…They have questioned its representation as a process of contemporary Polanyian style "double movement" of social resistance to the worst elements of a "market society" (Guthman 2007;Polanyi 2001). In one main current of this discussion, such forms of ethical trade are interpreted as providing a form of protective "countermovement" to the social damage of economic capitalist-led globalization (Barham 2002;Mutersbaugh 2005). Such a characterization of "countermovement" may depend on the characterization of social actors such as farmers, or export companies or cooperatives, which, depending on the case in question, can be interpreted as actors with relatively more or less power in global food systems.…”