From standard takers to standard makers? The role of knowledge‐intensive intermediaries in setting global sustainability standards

Abstract

Standards are increasingly being geared towards addressing social and ecological concerns in global production networks, but to facilitate sustainable development locally, global standards need to integrate the context‐specific needs of actors in developing countries. However, most standards are still developed in the Global North, while the inclusion of actors from developing countries remains limited. Nonetheless, there is recent evidence of some countries from the Global South proactively influencing transnational and global standard setting and, in these processes, knowledge is a decisive factor. Accordingly, in this article we argue that a dynamic and knowledge‐based perspective can provide more detailed insights into how actors from developing countries contribute to standard setting processes. In this respect, special types of organizations – namely knowledge‐intensive intermediaries (KIIs) – play an essential, yet unrecognized, role. Here, to illustrate the strategies that KIIs use to influence global standard setting, we investigate the South African organization ‘Fair Trade in Tourism’.

Global value chains and the rise of the Global South: unpacking twenty‐first century polycentric trade

“…Fair Trade geared to markets in the Global South may have very different imagined geographies -far from those associated with poverty and geographical othering, but focusing on greater inclusivity (Doherty et al 2015). South Africa's 'Fair Trade in Tourism' standard is an example of one that involves Southern actors playing key roles, yet its process of formation is related to rather than independent of Northern standards (Strambach and Surmeier 2017). Moreover, aspects of ethical consumption are now more global than before, challenging assumptions that they are the sole preserve of Northern consumers or economies.…”

Dynamic capability building and social upgrading in tourism - Potentials and limits of sustainability standards

“…For example, researchers found that most tourism standards focus on the environmental dimensions of sustainability while the integration of social criteria is often insufficient (Font, 2013). Additionally, many tourism sustainability standards, set and enforced along GVCs, have been developed by actors in the Global North and therefore often lack local contextual relevance (Strambach & Surmeier, 2018). Correspondingly, small-, medium-and micro enterprises (SMMEs) from the Global South are often excluded from tourism GVCs because of difficulties in covering implementation costs and limited capabilities for meeting the requirements of international tour operators' standards (Christian, 2012).…”

“…At the same time, the FTT-standard integrates global demands for more sustainable organisational practices within tourism (Strambach & Surmeier, 2013). Therefore, it provides valuable insights on how sustainability standards can promote capability building and social upgrading in tourism GVCs where, for example, the FTT-standard is required by international tour operators focusing on sustainable tourism (Strambach & Surmeier, 2018).…”

The politics of norm domestication in private transnational business regulation: A typology and illustrations

“…Resistance to global regulatory agendas is often justified on the basis of concerns about compliance capacity, in the form of technical barriers to compliance, excessive compliance costs associated with demanding prescriptive rules, or strict auditing procedures involving costly data or auditing requirements (Auld et al, 2015). For example, in the Indian tea sector, representatives of the Planters' Association have challenged the feasibility of compliance with both Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade standards, claiming that: “certain provisions are impractical, creating problems for citizens, even law‐abiding citizens.” 7 In other contexts, such capacity issues have been characterised as problems of “spatial discrimination” with regard to the participation in certification programmes of countries with weaker capacity to comply with demanding social and environmental standards (Auld et al, 2015; Strambach & Surmeier, 2018).…”

“…In response to such challenges from local actors, many have concluded, with Strambach and Surmeier, (2018, p. 353), that “To promote sustainable development processes locally, it is essential for global standards to accommodate the context‐specific needs of actors in developing countries.” Accommodating the values and interests of regulatory targets can make rules more functionally accessible or achievable, while also supporting behavioural change via stronger alignment with regulatory targets' prior values and motivations. Reconciling such processes of domestication with a regulatory logic of control requires that global regulators retain significant levels of strategic control over processes of local contextual accommodation—a goal that has been pursued via several strategies.…”