When Governance Gets Going: Certifying ‘Better Cotton’ and ‘Better Sugarcane’

Abstract

As many new certification systems for commodities have been established over the past decade, scholars have devoted sustained attention to the ways that these multi‐stakeholder governance initiatives have transformed the industries in which they were launched. With a few notable exceptions, studies in this area have continued to focus on the development and impacts of new governance mechanisms, and on the sectoral or industrial changes that have ensued. In contrast to these ‘inside‐out’ perspectives on governance innovation and change, this article considers how two prominent yet relatively under‐studied commodity governance initiatives have been shaped by the broader political economic order in which they operate. To offer an ‘outside‐in’ account of the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) and Bonsucro (formerly the Better Sugarcane Initiative), the article details recent changes in what the author terms the ‘world commodity order’, and situates the BCI and Bonsucro within this order. From this vantage point, the author ultimately makes two analytical claims: (i) that the world commodity order has not precluded the differential institutionalization of these initiatives; and (ii) that aspects of the order have circumscribed the potential of the BCI and Bonsucro to deliver pro‐poor business practices.

Saving Water while Doing Business: Corporate Agenda-Setting and Water Sustainability

“…Scholars have emphasized the risks and opportunities of private certification [7,21,24,33]. We found that certification according to the EU Organic Regulation manifests the international agenda-setting of environmental sustainability, while social aspects of water sustainability remain hidden.…”

“…The Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) and Cotton made in Africa (CmiA) are the most dominant schemes certifying cotton cultivation, based on the number of producers and volume of cotton certified. Producers who qualify for the CmiA certification are able to market their cotton as both BCI and CmiA [21,48].…”

“…Consequently, power in the global political economy has been spread out, leaving non-state actors with considerable agenda-setting power also in water governance [14]. While some scholars interpreted the inclusion of more actors as a chance for change toward more water sustainability (e.g., [31,32]), others have emphasized the winners and losers resulting from these processes, i.e., some water issues are left off public agendas (e.g., [7,21]). The latter have warned that the "privatization of world politics" [33] (authors' translation) is not leading the way, but rather preventing stricter government rules for agriculture and other sectors.…”

Work ties beget community? Assessing interactions among transnational private governance organizations in sustainable agriculture

“…Starting with bananas, the organization has since carried its model to other commodities from coffee to cattle. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF, or World Wildlife Fund in the USA) followed a similar logic; after experiences with forestry, it helped establish the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) (Schouten and Glasbergen 2011), the Round Table of Responsible Soy (RTRS) (Elgert 2012) and, most recently, Bonsucro and Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) (Sneyd 2014). Foundations, international organizations, government development agencies, auditors and large retailers have also been identified as carriers of certification, meaning that their existence in a network is seen to play an important role in expanding the formation of TPGOs.…”

“…Foundations, international organizations, government development agencies, auditors and large retailers have also been identified as carriers of certification, meaning that their existence in a network is seen to play an important role in expanding the formation of TPGOs. Examples of such agencies are, respectively, the Packard Foundation for the Roundtable for Sustainable Biofuels (Ponte 2014), the World Bank for the foundation of BCI and Bonsucro (Sneyd 2014), the German Development Corporation for the Common Code for the Coffee Community or 4C , SGS for Social Accountability International (Auld et al 2007) and the Dutch retailer Ahold, which helped establish Utz (Auld 2010).…”