Legitimacy and Standard Development in Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: A Case Study of the Leonardo Academy’s Sustainable Agriculture Standard Initiative
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
Non-state, market-driven forms of governance, especially those that use multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs), have become a prominent mechanism for regulating food and agriculture. While the standards generated by MSIs and their implementation have been studied widely, the internal practices of MSIs have received less attention. This article addresses this research gap using a case study of the Leonardo Academy’s sustainable agriculture standard initiative. Specifically, the focus is on the relationship between the standard-development process and legitimacy. Using a framework that conceptualizes legitimacy in MSIs as consisting of three interrelated processes – input, procedural, and output – we examine: 1. how the practices of the standard-development process affect the legitimacy of the Leonardo Academy’s sustainable agriculture standard initiative, and 2. how the quest for legitimacy affects the initiative. In conclusion, we contend that in- put, procedural, and output legitimacy may not always positively correlate, that legitimacy is best understood as relational, and that legitimacy in MSIs is per- formative.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Arny, m. (2008) Response to Procedural Complaint: National Sustainable Agriculture Product Standard: SCS- 001, Letter to Jane Earley, Earley and White Consulting Group, LLC and the Conventional Agriculture Associations. Leonardo Academy, 25 February. Published online
Bernstein, S. (2011) Legitimacy in intergovernmental and non-state global governance, Review of International Political Economy, 18(1), pp. 17–51.
Bernstein, S. and Cashore, B. (2007) Can non-state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework, Regulation and Governance, 1, pp 347–371.
Biotechnology induStry ASSociAtion et Al. (2008) Letter to Michael Arny, President of Leonardo Academy. Published online
Botzem, S. and Dobusch, l. (2012) Standardization cycles: a process perspective on the formation and diffusion of transnational standards, Organization Studies, 33(5–6), pp. 737–762.
Brunsson, N., Rasche, A. and Seidl, D. (2012) The Dynamics of standardization: three perspectives on standards in organization studies, Organization Studies, 33(5–6), pp. 613–632.
Busch, l. (2011) The private governance of food: equitable exchange or bizarre bazaar?, Agriculture and Human Values, 28(3), pp. 345–352.
Caldes, A. (2009) ANSI Executive Standards Council: Summary Decisions. Published online
Cashore, B., Auld, g. and Newsom, d. (2004) Governing through Markets: Forest Certification and the Emergence of Non-state Authority. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Clapp, S. (2009) USDA fails to derail ANSI sustainable ag standard, Food Chemical News, 50(48), pp. 17–18. collinS, B.l. (2008) In Support of the USDA/AMS Appeals Letter, letter to Anne Caldas, ANSI, 12 September. Published online
Conner, C. (2008) Expressing Concerns over ANSI Standards Process, Methodology, and Contents, letter to Michael Arny, President of the Leonardo Academy, 6 June. Published online
Cheyns, e. (2011) Multi-stakeholder iniatives for sustainable agriculture: limits of the ‘inclusiveness’ paradigm, in: S. Ponte, P. Gibbons and J. Vestergaard (eds) Governing through Standards: Origins, Drivers and Limitations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 210–235.
Day, l. (2008) Request for Leonardo Academy ANSI Accreditation to Be Revoked, letter to Anne Caldas, ANSI,11 September. Published online
CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
This license is acceptable for Free Cultural Works.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.