Standardisation and guarantee systems: what can participatory certification offer?

Sylvaine Lemeilleur and G. Allaire

Working Papers MoISA from INRA, UMR Moïsa

Abstract: The legitimacy of certification for agricultural products depends on the belief that product labelling can provide information and guarantee the quality that consumers want. The neoclassic paradigm actually suggests that the problem of quality is to do with simple asymmetric information between economic agents. In our paper, however, we consider that the notion of quality is by no means objective: practices required (to obtain the given quality) and the credibility and legitimacy of quality control used in the different guarantee systems (to ensure standard compliance), constitute an institutionalised compromising device. This situation results from the balance of power and beliefs that exists between the organisations concerned. In this paper, we compare two different organisational mechanisms when examining the agricultural product standards designed to improve sustainable development: (i) the third party certification (TPC) is a mechanism that most public bodies recognise as being legitimate for the certification of sustainability standards; and (ii) the alternative mechanism of participatory guarantee systems (PGS), which is struggling to gain recognition from public authorities. Finally, we argue that the effectiveness of proximity and social control for guaranteeing sustainability standards in PGS seems just as credible and legitimate as the effectiveness of the independence and neutrality claimed by the TPC in the framework of international standards. In fact, TPC and PGS are alternative and complementary systems, rather than competitive systems, for implementing different sustainability standards. ....French Abstract: La légitimité de la certification des produits agricoles repose sur la croyance de la possibilité de garantir une qualité recherchée aux consommateurs, en apposant un label sur les produits concernés. Alors que le paradigme néoclassique postule que la qualité relève seulement d’une problématique liée à la distribution d’information entre les agents du marché, nous pensons que le concept de qualité ne peut pas être considéré comme objectif. De ce point de vue, les pratiques requises pour obtenir cette qualité, ainsi que la crédibilité de la manière de les contrôler pour garantir le respect de ce cahier des charges, deviennent également des compromis institutionnels, issus d’un équilibre entre des rapports de forces et des croyances des organisations concernées. Dans cet article, nous nous comparons deux dispositifs rencontrés lorsque l’on s’intéresse aux normes relevant du développement durable : (i) la certification tierce partie (CTP) qui est le dispositif le plus fréquent pour la certification de standards de durabilité internationaux (ii) les dispositifs alternatifs que constituent les systèmes de garantie participatifs (SPG) qui luttent pour obtenir une reconnaissance légale dans de nombreux pays. Nous concluons que la proximité et le contrôle social pour garantir les labels dans les SPG pourraient donc apparaitre largement autant crédibles et légitimes en termes d’efficacité que la CTP. La CTP et les SPG seraient donc des dispositifs alternatifs et complémentaires pour la mise en œuvre de standards de durabilité.

Keywords: VOLUNTARY SUSTAINABILITY STANDARDS; THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION; PARTICIPATORY GUARANTEE SYSTEMS; QUALITY; ORGANIC FARMING; INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH; STANDARDS VOLONTAIRES DE DEVELOPPEMENT DURABLE; CERTIFICATION TIERCE PARTIE; SYSTEME PARTICIPATIF DE GARANTIE; QUALITE; AGRICULTURE BIOLOGIQUE; APPROCHE INSTITUTIONNELLE (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q18 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-env
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www1.montpellier.inra.fr/bartoli/moisa/bart ... 16_pdf/WP_5_2016.pdf (application/pdf)
Our link check indicates that this URL is bad, the error code is: 404 Not Found (http://www1.montpellier.inra.fr/bartoli/moisa/bartoli/download/moisa2016_pdf/WP_5_2016.pdf [301 Moved Permanently]--> https://www1.montpellier.inrae.fr/bartoli/moisa/bartoli/download/moisa2016_pdf/WP_5_2016.pdf [301 Moved Permanently]--> https://www.institut-agro-montpellier.fr/centres-de-ressources-et-de-documentation/centre-de-documentation-pierre-bartoli/moisa/bartoli/download/moisa2016_pdf/WP_5_2016.pdf)

Related works:
Working Paper: Standardisation and guarantee systems: what can participatory certification offer? (2016)
Working Paper: Standardisation and guarantee systems: what can participatory certification offer? (2016)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:umr:wpaper:201605

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Papers MoISA from INRA, UMR Moïsa Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Isabelle Perez (isabelle.perez@inrae.fr).