IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v31y2014i3p425-437.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Marking the success or end of global multi-stakeholder governance? The rise of national sustainability standards in Indonesia and Brazil for palm oil and soy

Author

Listed:
  • Otto Hospes

Abstract

The RSPO and RTRS are global private partnerships that have been set up by business and civil society actors from the North to curb de-forestation and to promote sustainable production of palm oil or soy in the South. This article is about the launch of new national standards in Indonesia and Brazil that are look-alikes of the global standards but have been set up and supported by government or business actors from the South. The two main questions of this article are: do the new national standards in Indonesia and Brazil provide a fundamental challenge to the RSPO and RTRS, or do they demonstrate the successful diffusion and adoption of global private rules into national contexts? Do the new national standards help or undermine the RSPO and RTRS in their efforts to reduce de-forestation? Combining the theoretical notions of proto-institution and rival governance network, a comparative analysis is offered of the launch of the new national standards in Indonesia and Brazil. The conclusion is that, whilst the RSPO and RTRS have served as models for the general design and principles of the national standards, they really differ from the global standards in terms of normative contents: the national standards offer more room to palm oil plantations and large-scale soy producers to expand production at the expense of forests and other high conservation areas. Governments and producer associations in Indonesia and Brazil have not launched national standards to implement the RSPO or RTRS but to challenge these interventions from the North. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Otto Hospes, 2014. "Marking the success or end of global multi-stakeholder governance? The rise of national sustainability standards in Indonesia and Brazil for palm oil and soy," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(3), pages 425-437, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:31:y:2014:i:3:p:425-437
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-014-9511-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10460-014-9511-9
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-014-9511-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laura Raynolds & Douglas Murray & Andrew Heller, 2007. "Regulating sustainability in the coffee sector: A comparative analysis of third-party environmental and social certification initiatives," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 24(2), pages 147-163, June.
    2. Hospes, Otto & Valk, Olga van der & Mheen-Sluijer, Jennie van der, 2012. "Parallel Development of Five Partnerships to Promote Sustainable Soy in Brazil: Solution or Part of Wicked Problems?," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 15(B), pages 1-24, December.
    3. John McCarthy, 2012. "Certifying in Contested Spaces: private regulation in Indonesian forestry and palm oil," Third World Quarterly, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(10), pages 1871-1888.
    4. John F. McCarthy, 2012. "Certifying in Contested Spaces: Private Regulation in Indonesian Forestry and Palm Oil," Crawford School Research Papers 1210, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    5. Schouten, Greetje & Glasbergen, Pieter, 2011. "Creating legitimacy in global private governance: The case of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1891-1899, September.
    6. Mayer, Frederick & Gereffi, Gary, 2010. "Regulation and Economic Globalization: Prospects and Limits of Private Governance," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 1-25, October.
    7. Mayer Frederick & Gereffi Gary, 2010. "Regulation and Economic Globalization: Prospects and Limits of Private Governance," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(3), pages 1-27, October.
    8. Schouten, Greetje & Leroy, Pieter & Glasbergen, Pieter, 2012. "On the deliberative capacity of private multi-stakeholder governance: The Roundtables on Responsible Soy and Sustainable Palm Oil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 42-50.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bennett, Elizabeth A., 2017. "Who Governs Socially-Oriented Voluntary Sustainability Standards? Not the Producers of Certified Products," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 53-69.
    2. Janina Grabs & Graeme Auld & Benjamin Cashore, 2021. "Private regulation, public policy, and the perils of adverse ontological selection," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1183-1208, October.
    3. Gallemore, Caleb & Guisinger, Amy & Kruuse, Mikkel & Ruysschaert, Denis & Jespersen, Kristjan, 2018. "Escaping the “Teenage” Years: The Politics of Rigor and the Evolution of Private Environmental Standards," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 76-87.
    4. Ruysschaert, Denis & Salles, Denis, 2014. "Towards global voluntary standards: Questioning the effectiveness in attaining conservation goals," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 438-446.
    5. Jens Heidingsfelder & Markus Beckmann, 2020. "A governance puzzle to be solved? A systematic literature review of fragmented sustainability governance," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 355-390, August.
    6. Mikkel Kruuse & Kasper Reming Tangbæk & Kristjan Jespersen & Caleb Gallemore, 2019. "Navigating Input and Output Legitimacy in Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: Institutional Stewards at Work," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-27, November.
    7. Domenico Dentoni & Verena Bitzer & Greetje Schouten, 2018. "Harnessing Wicked Problems in Multi-stakeholder Partnerships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(2), pages 333-356, June.
    8. Atika Wijaya & Pieter Glasbergen & Pieter Leroy & Ari Darmastuti, 2018. "Governance challenges of cocoa partnership projects in Indonesia: seeking synergy in multi-stakeholder arrangements for sustainable agriculture," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 129-153, February.
    9. Sandra Moog & André Spicer & Steffen Böhm, 2015. "The Politics of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: The Crisis of the Forest Stewardship Council," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 469-493, May.
    10. Maja Tampe, 2018. "Leveraging the Vertical: The Contested Dynamics of Sustainability Standards and Labour in Global Production Networks," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 56(1), pages 43-74, March.
    11. Simon L. Bager & Eric F. Lambin, 2020. "Sustainability strategies by companies in the global coffee sector," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(8), pages 3555-3570, December.
    12. Sarah L. Stattman & Aarti Gupta & Lena Partzsch & Peter Oosterveer, 2018. "Toward Sustainable Biofuels in the European Union? Lessons from a Decade of Hybrid Biofuel Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, November.
    13. Christine Moser & Sina Leipold, 2021. "Toward “hardened” accountability? Analyzing the European Union's hybrid transnational governance in timber and biofuel supply chains," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 115-132, January.
    14. Martin Fougère & Nikodemus Solitander, 2020. "Dissent in Consensusland: An Agonistic Problematization of Multi-stakeholder Governance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 164(4), pages 683-699, July.
    15. Auld Graeme & Cashore Benjamin & Balboa Cristina & Bozzi Laura & Renckens Stefan, 2010. "Can Technological Innovations Improve Private Regulation in the Global Economy?," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(3), pages 1-42, October.
    16. Heidingsfelder, Jens, 2019. "Private sustainability governance in the making – A case study analysis of the fragmentation of sustainability governance for the gold sector," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Francesca Colli & Johan Adriaensen, 2020. "Lobbying the state or the market? A framework to study civil society organizations’ strategic behavior," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 501-513, July.
    18. Helmerich, Nicole & Raj-Reichert, Gale & Zajak, Sabrina, 2021. "Exercising associational and networked power through the use of digital technology by workers in global value chains," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 25(2), pages 142-166.
    19. Jorge A. Arevalo & Deepa Aravind, 2017. "Strategic Outcomes in Voluntary CSR: Reporting Economic and Reputational Benefits in Principles-Based Initiatives," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 201-217, August.
    20. John S. Ahlquist & Layna Mosley, 2021. "Firm participation in voluntary regulatory initiatives: The Accord, Alliance, and US garment importers from Bangladesh," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 317-343, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:31:y:2014:i:3:p:425-437. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.