Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology Volume 1
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Theory in Environmental Sociology
- Part II The Economy and Environmental Sociology
- Part III Culture and Environmental Sociology
- Part IV Politics, Power, State
- 17 Conflicting Environmental Imaginaries in Post-Apartheid South Africa
- 18 The Growth in International Audit Culture: Achieving Agricultural Sustainability Inside a World of Measures?
- 19 Political Ecologies of State Land Management
- 20 Green Crime and the Treadmill of Production
- 21 Governing Science and Technology: From the Linear Model to Responsible Research and Innovation
- 22 The Paradox of Public Knowledge in Environmental Sociology
- 23 Relational Resilience and the Making of Diverse Worlds
- Part V Social Justice
- Index
- References
18 - The Growth in International Audit Culture: Achieving Agricultural Sustainability Inside a World of Measures?
from Part IV - Politics, Power, State
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 November 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology Volume 1
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Theory in Environmental Sociology
- Part II The Economy and Environmental Sociology
- Part III Culture and Environmental Sociology
- Part IV Politics, Power, State
- 17 Conflicting Environmental Imaginaries in Post-Apartheid South Africa
- 18 The Growth in International Audit Culture: Achieving Agricultural Sustainability Inside a World of Measures?
- 19 Political Ecologies of State Land Management
- 20 Green Crime and the Treadmill of Production
- 21 Governing Science and Technology: From the Linear Model to Responsible Research and Innovation
- 22 The Paradox of Public Knowledge in Environmental Sociology
- 23 Relational Resilience and the Making of Diverse Worlds
- Part V Social Justice
- Index
- References
Summary
Over the last three decades, the emergence of ‘audit culture’ providing assurance about the qualities of consumer products has become a ubiquitous element of economic worlds. In the pursuit of greater sustainability, audit systems provide a particular kind of solution to questions of environmental sustainability in the sourcing of a wide range of consumer products. In doing so, audit culture has the potential to reduce our individual actions and responses to environmental concerns from ontologies of ‘environmental citizenship’ to the more truncated ontology of ‘environmental consumerism’. This chapter examines this pivotal shift towards audit culture, and its treatment by sociologists, around three questions: 1) What is ‘audit culture’ and how has it been associated with the rise of neoliberalism in economic worlds? 2) How do audits work to empower and disempower participants in economic worlds? 3) How do audits, as technologies with intriguing powers, act to shape outcomes and perform in unexpected ways? These three questions are explored in an examination of the rise of environmental auditing in agrifood chains that have been introduced to service a rising demand for ‘sustainable’ products for Developed World consumers.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology , pp. 301 - 314Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Bell, S., and Morse, S. (2003). Measuring Sustainability: Learning from Doing. London: Routledge Earthscan.Google Scholar
Berdegué, J., Balsevich, F., Flores, L., and Reardon, T. (2005). ‘Central American supermarkets’ private standards of quality and safety in procurement of fresh fruits and vegetables’, Food Policy, 30: 254–69.Google Scholar
Burch, K., Legun, K., and Campbell, H. (2018). ‘Not defined by the numbers: distinction, dissent and democratic possibilities in debating the data’, in Forney, J., Rosin, C., and Campbell, H. (eds.), Agri-Environmental Governance as an Assemblage: Multiplicity, Power, and Transformation, 127–44. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Busch, L. (2000). ‘The moral economy of grades and standards’, Journal of Rural Studies, 16 (3): 273–83.Google Scholar
Busch, L. (2011). Standards: Recipes for Reality. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute for Technology Press.Google Scholar
Busch, L., and Tanaka, K. (1996). ‘Rites of passage: constructing quality in a commodity subsector’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 21(1): 3–27.Google Scholar
Busch, L., and Bain, C. (2004). ‘New! Improved? The transformation of the global agrifood system’, Rural Sociology, 69(3): 321–46.Google Scholar
Campbell, H., and Liepins, R. (2001). ‘Naming organics: understanding organic standards in New Zealand as a discursive field’, Sociologia Ruralis, 41(1): 21–39.Google Scholar
Campbell, H., and Stuart, A. M. (2005). ‘Disciplining the organic commodity’, in Higgins, V., and Lawrence, G. (eds.), Agricultural Governance: Globalization and the New Politics of Regulation, 84–97. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Campbell, H., Murcott, A., and Mackenzie, A. (2010). ‘Kosher in New York City, Halal in Aquitaine: challenging the relationship between neoliberalism and food auditing’, Agriculture and Human Values, 28(1): 67–79.Google Scholar
Caswell, J., Bredahl, M., and Hooker, N. (1998). ‘How quality management metasystems are affecting the food industry’, Review of Agricultural Economics, 20(2): 547–57.Google Scholar
Cooper, M. H., and Rosin, C. (2014). ‘Absolving the sins of emission: the politics of regulating agricultural greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand’, Journal of Rural Studies, 36: 391–400.Google Scholar
Cooper, M. H. (2015). ‘Measure for measure? Commensuration, commodification, and metrology in emissions markets and beyond’, Environment and Planning A, 47(9): 1787–804.Google Scholar
Farina, E., and Reardon, T. (2000). ‘Agrifood grades and standards on the extended Mercosur: their role in the changing agrifood system’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 82(5): 1170–6.Google Scholar
Forney, J., Rosin, C., and Campbell, H. (eds). (2018). Agri-Environmental Governance as an Assemblage: Multiplicity, Power, and Transformation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fulponi, L. (2006). ‘Private voluntary standards in the food system: the perspective of major food retailers in OECD countries’, Food Policy, 31: 1–13.Google Scholar
Guthman, J. (1998). ‘Regulating meaning, appropriating nature: the codification of Californian organic agriculture’, Antipode, 30(2): 135–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guthman, J. (2000). ‘Raising organic: an agro-ecological assessment of grower practices in California’, Agriculture and Human Values, 17(X): 257–66.Google Scholar
Guthman, J. (2004). Agrarian Dreams: The Paradox of Organic Farming in California, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hale, J., Legun, K. A., Campbell, H. and Carolan, M. (2019). ‘Social sustainability indicators as performance’, Geoforum, 103: 47–55.Google Scholar
Hatanaka, M., Bain, C., and Busch, L. (2005). ‘Third-party certification in the global agrifood system’, Food Policy, 30: 354–69.Google Scholar
Hatanaka, M., Konefal, J., and Constance, D. H. (2012). ‘A tripartite standards regime analysis of the contested development of a sustainable agriculture standard’, Agriculture and Human Values, 29(1): 65–78.Google Scholar
Hatanaka, M., and Konefal, J. (2013). ‘Legitimacy and standard development in multi-stakeholder initiatives: a case study of the Leonardo Academy’s Sustainable Agriculture Standard initiative’, International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture & Food, 20(2): 155–73.Google Scholar
Henry, M. (2017). ‘Meat, metrics and market devices: commensuration infrastructures and the assemblage of ‘the schedule’ in New Zealand’s red meat sector’, Journal of Rural Studies, 52: 100–9.Google Scholar
Kindleberger, C. (1983). ‘Standards as public, collective and private goods’, Kyklos, 36(3): 377–96.Google Scholar
Konefal, J., and Hatanaka, M. (2011). ‘Enacting third-party certification: a case study of science and politics in organic shrimp certification’, Journal of Rural Studies, 27(2): 125–33.Google Scholar
Krislov, S. (1997). How Nations Choose Product Standards and Standards Change Nations, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Larner, W. (2003). ‘Guest editorial: “neoliberalism?” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 21(5): 309–12.Google Scholar
Legun, K. A., and Sautier, M. (2018), ‘Sustainability programs and deliberative processes: assembling sustainable winegrowing in New Zealand’, Agriculture and Human Values, 35(4): 837–52.Google Scholar
Legun, K. A., and Henry, M. (2017). ‘Introduction to the special issue on the post-human turn in agri-food studies: thinking about things from the office to the page’, Journal of Rural Studies, 100(52): 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Heron, R. (2003). ‘Cr(eat)ing food futures: reflections on food governance issues in New Zealand’s agri-food sector’, Journal of Rural Studies, 19(1): 111–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Heron, R. (2005). ‘Re-constituting New Zealand’s agri-food chains for international competition’, in Pritchard, B., and Folds, N. (eds.), Cross-Continental Food Commodity Chains, 52–77. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mainville, D., Zylbersztajn, D., Farina, E., and Reardon, T. (2005). ‘Determinants of retailers’ decisions to use public or private grades and standards: Evidence from the fresh produce market of Sao Paulo, Brazil’, Food Policy, 30: 334–353.Google Scholar
Muirhead, J. (2020). “Indirect” land grabbing, private certification and GlobalGAP’, in Bjorkhaug, H., McMichael, P., and Muirhead, B. (eds.), Finance or Food?: The Role of Cultures, Values, and Ethics in Land Use Negotiations, 80–107. University of Toronto Press: Toronto.Google Scholar
Mutersbaugh, T. (2005). ‘Fighting standards with standards: harmonization, rents, and social accountability in certified agrofood networks’, Environment and Planning A, 37(11), 2033–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, M. (1997). The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reardon, T., Timmer, C., Barrett, C., and Berdegué, J. (2003). ‘The rise of supermarkets in Africa, Asia, and Latin America’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85 (5): 1140–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosin, C., Campbell, H., Hunt, L., and Stringer, C. (2007). ‘Audit me this! Orchard-level effects of the EurepGAP audit system on New Zealand kiwifruit producers’, in Stringer, C., and. Le Heron, R. (eds.), Agri-Food Commodity Chains and Globalising Networks, 61–74. Avebury: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Rosin, C. (2008). ‘The conventions of agri-environmental practice in New Zealand: farmers, retail driven audit schemes and a new spirit of farming’, GeoJournal, 73(1): 45–54.Google Scholar
Rosin, C., and Campbell, H. (2009). ‘Beyond bifurcation: examining the conventions of organic agriculture in New Zealand’, Journal of Rural Studies, 25(1): 35–47.Google Scholar
Rosin, C., Campbell, H., and Reid, J. (2017a). ‘Metrology and sustainability: using sustainability audits in New Zealand to elaborate the complex politics of measuring’, Journal of Rural Studies, 52: 90–9.Google Scholar
Rosin, C. J., Legun, K. A., Campbell, H., and Sautier, M. (2017b). ‘From compliance to co-production: emergent forms of agency in sustainable wine production in New Zealand’, Environment and Planning A, 49(12): 2780–99.Google Scholar
Sautier, M., Legun, K., Rosin, C., and Campbell, H. (2018). ‘Sustainability: a tool for governing wine production in New Zealand?’ Journal of Cleaner Production, 179: 347–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shore, C., and Wright, S. (1999). ‘Audit culture and anthropology: neo-liberalism in British higher education’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 5 (4): 557–75.Google Scholar
Shore, C., and Wright, S. (2000). ‘Coercive accountability: the rise of audit culture in higher education’, in Strathern, M. (ed.), Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy, 57–89. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Strathern, M. (ed.) (2000). Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar