The politics of accountability in global sustainable commodity governance: Dilemmas of institutional competition and convergence
| Published date | 01 November 2024 |
| Author | Kate Macdonald, Bahruddin,Annisa Sabrina Hartoto,Carla Unger,Paul Cisneros,Deborah Delgado Pugley,Dámaris Herrera Salazar,Poppy Sulistyaning Winanti,Nanang Indra Kurniawan |
| Date | 01 November 2024 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13426 |
838
|
Global Policy. 2024;15:838–854.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/gpol
1 | ACCOUNTABILITY POLITICS
IN GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY
GOVERNANCE
Amidst sustained scrutiny of the soci al and envi-
ronmental impacts of agro- commodity production,
market- driven modes of multi- stakeholder sustainabil-
ity governance have proliferated. Such approaches
harness market resources and incentives alongside
multi- stakeholder decision- making systems to pro-
mote sustainability in transnational agro- commodity
supply chains (Cashore,2002). Their capacity to build
legitimacy amongst diverse stakeholder s is crucial
for their ability to secure ongoing resourc ing and par-
ticipation (Biermann & Gupta,2 011). As in other do -
mains of global environmental governance (Kramarz
RESEARCH ARTICLE
The politics of accountability in global sustainable
commodity governance: Dilemmas of institutional
competition and convergence
KateMacdonald1 | Bahruddin2 | Annisa SabrinaHartoto1 | CarlaUnger1 |
PaulCisneros3 | Deborah DelgadoPugley4 | DámarisHerreraSalazar4 |
Poppy SulistyaningWinanti2 | Nanang IndraKurniawan2
Received: 17 July 2023
|
Revised: 1 August 2 024
|
Accepted: 2 Augu st 2024
DO I: 10 .1111/17 58- 589 9.13 426
This is an open ac cess article under t he terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction
in any medium, prov ided the original work i s properly cited and is not u sed for commercial pur poses.
© 2024 The Author(s). Global Policy published by D urham University and Jo hn Wiley & Sons Ltd.
1School of Socia l and Political Scienc es,
University of M elbourne, Parkville,
Victoria, Australia
2Universitas Ga djah Mada, Yogyakarta,
Indonesia
3Instituto de Altos Estudios Nacionales,
Quito, Ecuador
4Pontificia Uni versidad Católica del Per u,
Lima, Peru
Correspondence
Kate Macdonal d, School of Social
and Political S ciences, Universit y of
Melbourne, Park ville, VIC 3010, Australia.
Email: kmac@unimelb.edu.au
Funding information
Australian Research Council, Grant
Number: FT190100736
Abstract
The accountability of market- driven sustainability governance has l ong been
controversial, reflecting the deeply politi cal processes through which account-
ability contests shape governance transformations. Drawing on illustrative ex-
amples from internationally traded agro- commodity sec tors in the critical case of
Indonesia, this paper examines the contested proc esses of accountability that
have accompanied a recent period of institutional change in sustainability gov-
ernance. Amidst rising critiques of g lobal certification, there has been a paral-
lel expansion of governance approaches that prioritise capability development
over regulatory enforcement and engage more intensively with governments in
commodity- producing countries. As alternative governance models gain influ-
ence, tensions between competing governanc e stakeholders and agendas are
mirrored and amplified through parallel acc ountability contests, in which dis-
tributional conflicts between g lobal and local stakeholders are intensified by
pressures to adopt contentious systems of compliance verific ation. While ac-
countability gaps assoc iated with contrasting institutional models produce strong
pressures for partial institutional convergenc e, such convergence coexists with
new forms of institutional fragmentation, as competition between global and na-
tional certification expands to encompass competition with localised capacity-
building and jurisdictional approaches. Analysis highlights the often- neglected
role of accountability politics in shaping institutional change, while raising press-
ing questions about the distributional implications of contemporary shifts away
from global certification governance models.
|
839
DILEMMAS OF ACCOUNTABILITY
& Park, 2016 ; Mason, 2008), accountability plays a
central role in supporting pro cesses of legitimation.
Indeed, some have gone so far as to suggest that
“[a]ccountability is demanded, sup plied and studied
mainly because of the expectation that it will co ntribute
to establishing, maintaining or enhancing legitimacy”
(Koenig- Archibugi, 2010, p.1146). Yet accountability
contributes to legitimation in a very spec ific way—facil-
itating responsiveness to stakeholders by defining th e
reasons and actions that governance stakeholder s can
rightfully demand from governing bodies, scrutinising
the achievement of promised outcomes, and providing
recourse where appropriate responses are not forth-
coming (Grant & Keohane,2005; Kraft & Wolf,2018).
Existing debates about accountabil ity in market- driven
sustainable commodity g overnance have often centred
on the politics of accountability surrounding global certifi-
cation programs such as Fairtrade, Rainforest Allianc e or
the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) (Auld &
Gulbrandsen,20 10; Partzsch,2 011). Significant de bate
has surrounded competing expectati ons of both ‘input’
dimensions of accountabilit y, concerning the legitimacy
of decision- making proc esses, and ‘output’ dimensions
involving mechanisms for demonstrating that key out-
comes have been achieved (Dietz etal.,2021; Kramarz
& Park,2016; Van der Ven etal.,2018). Focusing largely
on global certification programs, existing scholarship has
provided important insights into de bates about trade- offs
between input and output accountab ility, and associated
questions about the implications of such accountability
contests for institutional competition, convergence and
change (Chan & Pattberg,2008; Newell,200 8).
Yet global certification programs now operate along-
side a broader universe of sustainability governance
models in which the dominanc e of global certification
models is being challenged by approac hes that extend
greater control to stakeholders in commodity- producing
countries and prioritise capacit y- building over reg-
ulatory tools of governance. Alternatives to global
sustainability certification encompass rival nationa l
certification programs promoted by governments in
commodity- producing countries (Schleifer etal.,2019),
alongside a range of capacit y- building partnerships
and multi- stakeholder jurisdictional governance pro-
grams that replace reliance on regulator y instruments
with broader programmatic efforts to advance sustain-
able agricultural development (Oorthuizen etal.,2018;
Poynton, 2 015). The resulting plurality of governance
instruments and scales is generating new forms of
political contestation over the accountabili ty and legiti-
macy of competing governance approaches.
Existing scholarship has not yet adequately explore d
such interactions between changing sustainability gov-
ernance approaches and contested mod els of account-
ability. This paper aims to generate new insights into
this interactive relationship, asking: How are account-
ability practices changing in response to wider shifts
away from global sustainability certication? And how
does the changing politics of accountability in turn in-
uence dynamics of competition and convergence be-
tween contrasting sustainability governance models?
To address these questions, we first present a sche-
matic overview of recent trends in agro- commodity
sustainability governance, then draw from existing schol-
arship on accountability in sus tainability governance to
conceptualise the role of accounta bility in contested
processes of governance transformation. We next ex-
plore how the rising influence of alternative governance
models has influenced contestation surrounding com-
peting accountability models, and how the politicisation
of accountability has in turn shaped institutional change.
Policy Implications
• As the legitimacy of global certification is in-
creasingly called into question, global poli-
cymakers need to become conversant with
a broader repertoire of governance models
to promote sustainable agro-commodity pro-
duction, including national sustainability cer-
tifications, capacity building sustainability
partnerships and jurisdictional approaches.
• As contrasting governance models compete for
acceptance, policymakers must make conten-
tious choices between accountability models
that prioritise responsiveness to global (down-
stream) versus local (producer country) stake-
holders. Such choices are often particularly
controversial in those schemes embracing strin-
gent standard-setting and verification systems,
which frequently become a flashpoint for con-
flicts between local and global stakeholders.
• While policymakers with narrowly defined con-
stituencies can manage such pressures by
clearly prioritising a single governance mo del,
many global sustainability governance pro-
grams are answerable to multiple stakeholders
with heterogeneous preferences. Policymakers
in such programs can benefit from exploring hy-
brid models such as jurisdic tional approaches,
which seek explicitly to accommo date both
global and local stakeholders, and regulatory
and programmatic policy instruments.
• Policymakers designing hybrid governance
models should consider not only t he potential
benefits of facilitating greater responsiveness
to producer-country stakeholders, but a lso the
risk that weakening established commitments
to third-party com pliance verification may en-
hance the discretion of powerful co mpanies and
governments to control interpretations of what
constitutes ‘sustainable’ commodity production.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting