How do sustainability standards consider biodiversity?

Englund, Oskar; Berndes, G.

doi:10.1002/wene.118

Cited by 18 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The SAN standard is designed to improve social outcomes on farms with more than one-third of SAN's criteria being social in nature. There is broad agreement among actors that the social criteria with which farms must comply in order to achieve the SAN/RA certification are stringent (Giovannucci and Ponte 2005;Raynolds et al 2007;Newton et al 2013;Englund and Berndes 2015). SAN's social performance criteria are as follows: 5.2; 5.3; 5.5; 5.6; 5.7; 5.8; 5.10; 5.11; 5.12; 5.13; 5.14; 5.15; 5.16; 5.17; 5.18; 6.3; 6.4; 6.5; 6.6; 6.7; 6.8; 6.9; 6.10; 6.11; 6.12; 6.13; 6.14; 6.15; 6.16; 6.17; 6.19; 7.1; 7.3; 7.4; 7.5; 7.6; as before, more details on these criteria may be found in "Appendix" and/or SAN (2011a).…”

Section: Classifying Social and Management Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Coffee certification in Brazil: compliance with social standards and its implications for social equity

Maguire‐Rajpaul

Rajpaul

McDermott

et al. 2018

Environ Dev Sustain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the relationship between compliance with social performance criteria (the social outcomes that must be achieved for certification) and procedural (management) criteria and this relationship's significance for social equity at both farm and wider landscape levels. We consider social performance compliance to be pertinent to farm-level equity, and the relative compliance of small versus large farms to be pertinent to landscapelevel equity. Certification's management requirements are often deemed disproportionately burdensome for small, resource-poor producers, and hence a barrier to landscape-level equity. There is a lack of research examining how management criteria impact the ability of different sized farms to meet certification's social performance requirements. We analysed 435 certification audits, covering all Brazilian coffee farms that sought Rainforest Alliance certification from 2006 to 2014 inclusive: 80 individual farms and 23 groups of farms. In principle, undergoing group certification permits smallholders to benefit from economies of scale. Our analysis revealed a statistically significant, positive correlation between compliance with procedural (managing sustainability plans) and social performance criteria. This correlation was stronger for groups than individual farms. Group farms' compliance was statistically equivalent to that of individual farms, suggesting that group certification is achieving its intended purpose of socio-economic levelling of certified farmers. Over time, certified farms' average compliances improved. Our findings suggest that management requirements play an important role in improving smallholders' overall social sustainability performance and that group certification may help resource-poor smallholders achieve those requirements. Further work is required to understand causal mechanisms underlying the relationships we present.

show abstract

Section: Classifying Social and Management Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Coffee certification in Brazil: compliance with social standards and its implications for social equity

Maguire‐Rajpaul

Rajpaul

McDermott

et al. 2018

Environ Dev Sustain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, when attempting to assess whether a project, process, or practice is delivering sustainability actions, analysts need to contextualise any income effects within a broader set of differently measured social and environmental benefits ( Schmelzer, 2006 ). Hence, focus on shared value or sustainability value would be more appropriate ( Englund and Berndes, 2015 , Porter and Kramer, 2011 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fair trade and staple foods: A systematic review

Ribeiro-Duthie

Gale

Murphy‐Gregory

2021

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainability certification schemes such as FAIRTRADE, FLO, WFTO and FT-USA have gained increasing markets. The significant growth of the fair trade (FT) movement in the last decades draws attention to ethical consumption. FT’s aim at improving the livelihoods of producers in developing countries and promotion of social change is considered a model that shows the benefits of trade to development. Although conveying a large number of publications, important questions about the movement remain under-explored. The literature is prolific on coffee, cacao, flowers, wine, and gold. In contrast, the engagement with staple foods – a prominent globally traded food category – seems minor. The primary objective of this review was to map the existing literature about FT and staple foods; then, to investigate the role of staple foods in the FT movement. The search strategy was designed to retrieve publications on the intersection of FT and staple foods. To date, there is no review about FT and staple foods nexus. Our systematic review addressed this gap considering FT as an alternative capable of addressing unsustainable food consumption and production impacts. Our research protocol included keywords searching across four databases, screening, and comparative analysis. From 283 documents retrieved, 49 were deemed relevant to reflect the role of staple foods in the FT movement. This systematic review discusses challenges and opportunities for the FT model to further engage with staples and recommends improvement of its environmental credentials. The present study can contribute by informing decision makers, policy makers, businesses, NGOs, producers, and consumers.

show abstract

“…Hennenberg et al also observed that bioenergy standards fall short in promoting agricultural practices with low negative impacts on biodiversity. Others find more rigor in bioenergy than forestry standards, e.g., in preventing conversion of high biodiversity value grass‐ and wetlands . However, inventories of on‐the‐ground impacts of bioenergy schemes likely have not been conducted yet, and they are still scarce for forestry schemes.…”

Section: Discussion Of Survey Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A global survey of stakeholder views and experiences for systems needed to effectively and efficiently govern sustainability of bioenergy

Stupak

Joudrey

Smith

et al. 2015

WIREs Energy & Environment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Different governance mechanisms have emerged to ensure biomass and bioenergy sustainability amidst a myriad of related public and private regulations that have existed for decades. We conducted a global survey with 59 questions which examined 192 stakeholders' views and experiences related to (1) the multi-leveled governance to which they are subjected, (2) the impacts of that governance on bioenergy production and trade, and (3) the most urgent areas for improvement of certification schemes. The survey revealed significant support along the whole supply chain for new legislation which uses market-based certification schemes to demonstrate compliance (co-regulation). Some respondents did not see a need for new regulation, and meta-standards is a promising approach for bridging divergent views, especially if other proof than certification will be an option. Most respondents had so far experienced positive or neutral changes to their bioenergy production or trade after the introduction of new sustainability governance. Legislative requirements and a green business profile were important motivations for getting certified, while lack of market advantages, administrative complexity and costs all were barriers of varying importance. A need to include, e.g., regular standard revision and dealing with conflicting criteria was identified by respondents associated with bioenergy schemes. Respondents associated with forestry schemes saw less need for revisions, but some were interested in supply chain sustainability criteria. Significant differences among schemes suggest it is crucial in the future to examine the tradeoffs between certification costs, schemes' inclusiveness, the quality of their substantive and procedural rules, and the subsequent effectiveness on-the-ground.

show abstract

How do sustainability standards consider biodiversity?

Cited by 18 publications

References 61 publications

Coffee certification in Brazil: compliance with social standards and its implications for social equity

Coffee certification in Brazil: compliance with social standards and its implications for social equity

Fair trade and staple foods: A systematic review

A global survey of stakeholder views and experiences for systems needed to effectively and efficiently govern sustainability of bioenergy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About