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

By T. Mutersbaugh. 2005

256 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Plant Science, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/46692596c4a532afec87d030abb73824b8dffb3c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

In Plant Science

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Profits and poverty: Certification's troubled link for Nicaragua's organic and fairtrade coffee producers (2011, background): “Mutersbaugh (2002) indicates that in Mexico organic coffee production is only successful when farmers have high yields and that premiums, at best, just cover production costs (Mutersbaugh, 2005).”
A Review of Ecosystem Services, Farmer Livelihoods, and Value Chains in Shade Coffee Agroecosystems (2011, background): “The audits and quality control hurdles that agencies currently face are not simply bureaucratically tangled; they are costly in terms of personnel workloads and the payment of fees for accreditation (Mutersbaugh 2005).”
Contesting the neoliberal project for agriculture: Productivist and multifunctional trajectories in the European Union and Australia (2009, background): “Attempts have been made to integrate these two literatures (e.g., Guthman, 2008; Larner, 2003; Mutersbaugh, 2005; Traub-Werner, 2007).”
Standardizing sustainable development? The Forest Stewardship Council's plantation policy review process as neoliberal environmental governance. (2010, background): “…as they theorize certification systems as instruments of social movements attempting to re-regulate commodity networks in order to protect labor and environmental attributes endangered by neoliberalization (Barham, 2002; Barnett et al., 2005; Mutersbaugh, 2005; Klooster, 2006; Guthman, 2007).”
‘Roundtabling’ sustainability: Lessons from the biofuel industry (2014, background): “multiple systems to coexist, with ‘high’ standard content only being achieved by those participating in ‘niche’ supply chains (Mutersbaugh 2005; Ingenbleek and Meulenberg 2006; Raynolds et al. 2007; Macdonald 2007).”
Greener than Thou: The Political Economy of Fish Ecolabeling and Its Local Manifestations in South Africa (2008, background): “But these certifications and labels only go part of the way, as they themselves play within specific political economies and power relations (Hanataka, Bain & Busch, 2005; Mutersbaugh, 2005a; 2005b).”
Who decides what is fair in fair trade? The agri-environmental governance of standards, access, and price (2010, background): “I show that despite adherence to several International Standards Organisations’ criteria, Fair Trade governance, like that of other third-party sustainability certification programmes, continues to be a deeply contested, socially embedded process, subject to an array of political economic constraint”
Weak Coffee: Certification and Co-Optation in the Fair Trade Movement (2012, background): “…retailers, toward longer, conventional, or “captive” chains marked by vertically integrated transnational firms, waged labor, and agribusiness plantations, and also toward the “buyer-driven” chains controlled by retailers (Brown and Getz 2008; Mutersbaugh 2005a; Raynolds andWilkinson 2007).”
From Employment Relations to Consumption Relations: Balancing Labor Governance in Global Supply Chains (2014, background): “However, firms have recognized that the multiplicity of different schemes can create so-called ‘audit fatigue’, inefficiency, confusion about requirements, lack of transparency, lack of accountability, and higher costs for companies and their suppliers (Fransen, 2011; Mutersbaugh, 2005).”
Regulating sustainability in the coffee sector: A comparative analysis of third-party environmental and social certification initiatives (2007, background): “Yet the state is implicated in private regulatory arrangements, since state norms and procedures govern accreditation and labeling in most certification systems (Mutersbaugh, 2005).”
Transnational private governance between the logics of empowerment and control (2015, background): “…benefits for participation, such as improved pay for workers, better conditions for work, improved community infrastructure, better legal compliance, and others (Newsom & Hewitt 2005; Jaffee 2007; Bacon et al. 2008; Le Mare 2008; Sustainable Commodities Initiative & Commodity Support Network 2008).”
Fair Trade Standards, Corporate Participation, and Social Movement Responses in the United States (2010, background): “…contradiction: permitting the entry of low-road competitors (who would previously have been excluded) clearly threatens to reduce the potential rent or price premium to be gained from the niche, not to mention consumer confidence in the initiative (Guthman 2004a; 2004b; Mutersbaugh 2005a).”
The Moral Economy Is a Double-edged Sword: Explaining Farmers’ Earnings and Self-exploitation in Community-Supported Agriculture (2013, background): “…than they otherwise would), made possible by (1) the discursive ideal of AFNs (e.g., local food, civic agriculture, ecological agriculture, and/or 2 Mutersbaugh (2005) called these “policy rents” or “barrier to entry rents,” while Goodman (2004, 8) called them monopoly rents because of…”
Trust, legitimacy and power in forest certification: A case study of the FSC in British Columbia (2012, background): “Over time, however, theorists have noted a shift in certification processes from ‘‘relational’’ systems based on long-term cooperation and trust-building to more socially dis-embedded processes focused on control and surveillance (Mutersbaugh, 2005; Raynolds, 2009).”