Your search found 4 records
1 Simons, L. 2015. Changing the food game: market transformation strategies for sustainable agriculture. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing. 248p.
Sustainable agriculture ; Food production ; Food industry ; Food shortages ; Market structure ; Economic aspects ; Agricultural sector ; Palm oils ; Coffee industry ; Cocoa industry ; Standards ; Institution building ; State intervention ; Non governmental organizations ; Farmers ; Population growth ; Land use ; Biodiversity ; Climate change ; Subsidies ; Poverty / aFRICA / Guatemala
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: 338.1 G000 SIM Record No: H047235)
(0.47 MB)
2 Krauss, J. E.; Krishnan, A. 2021. Global decisions versus local realities: sustainability standards, priorities and upgrading dynamics in agricultural global production networks. Global Networks, 24p. (Online first) [doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12325]
Agricultural production ; Agricultural value chains ; Sustainability ; Standards ; Horticulture ; Cocoa industry ; Stakeholders ; Farmers ; Livelihoods ; Policies ; Certification ; Social aspects ; Economic aspects ; Environmental factors ; Case studies ; Models / Africa South of Sahara / Central America / Nicaragua / Kenya
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H050408)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/glob.12325
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H050408.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H050408.pdf
(1.76 MB) (1.76 MB)
Voluntary sustainability standards (VSSs) in global production networks (GPNs) have grown significantly in prominence. Existing research largely assumed that VSSs create linear upgrading outcomes for all GPN actors and has studied VSSs from the point of adoption in the GPNs, rather than a broader range of stages in their lifecycle. To address these limitations, and building on literature around power and agency in GPNs, we develop the constellation of priorities (CoP) model to unpack the diverse and often diverging boardroom (Northern lead firm) and local (Southern supplier) priorities involved in such standards. Through in-depth fieldwork on horticulture in Kenya and cocoa in Nicaragua across the VSS lifecycle, we find significant divergences in priorities between farmer groups in both countries and lead firms in the UK and Germany. We demonstrate analytically and empirically that diverging priorities coupled with power asymmetries produced contestations, leading to simultaneous economic and environmental downgrading, and social upgrading.
3 Sarpong, D. B.; Mabhaudhi, Tafadzwanashe; Minh, Thai; Cofie, Olufunke. 2022. Sustainable financing ecosystem for cocoa irrigation in Ghana: a literature review. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). CGIAR Initiative on West and Central African Food Systems Transformation. 64p.
Cocoa industry ; Irrigated farming ; Sustainability ; Financing ; Agricultural sector ; Forest ecosystems ; Ecosystem conservation ; Stakeholders ; Farmer-led irrigation ; Smallholders / Ghana
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H051654)
(1.25 MB)
Based on a systematic literature review using scientific database search engines and an opportunistic review of published and unpublished government, international and nongovernmental organization reports on cocoa from the internet, the paper explores sustainable irrigation financing feasibility and the potential for different cocoa systems. We design a conceptual framework and propose a sustainable financing ecosystem for supplemental irrigated cocoa farming in Ghana and a qualitative data collection tool based on the conceptual framework and insights from the literature review.
4 Jones, S. K.; Sanchez, A.; Wickramaratne, Chaturangi; Wakaabu, D.; Ivanova, Y.; Minh, Thai; Mockshell, J.; Sanchez-Choy, J.; Steinke, J. 2024. Are the metrics that companies use effective for monitoring supply chain sustainability? A closer look at cocoa and rice. [Policy Brief of the Agroecological Transitions for Building Resilient and Inclusive Agricultural and Food Systems (TRANSITIONS): Private Sector Incentives and Investments (PSii) for Climate Change, Resilience and Environmental Sustainability project]. Montpellier, France: Bioversity International and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). 8p.
Rice ; Agroecology ; Food systems ; Investment ; Private sector ; Incentives ; Supply chains ; Cocoa industry ; Sustainability assessment ; Sustainable production ; Monitoring systems ; Farmers ; Indicators ; Governance
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H052917)
(3.15 MB)
In a globalized world, consumers need to rely on information provided by agri-food companies to assess the impacts of the food they eat. And consumer interest in eating responsibly is growing, as stories of agriculture-driven deforestation, pollinator declines, and inhumane worker conditions hit the headlines. Major markets are responding too, by starting to require that agribusinesses demonstrate their products meet environmental and social standards (Kinderman, 2020), with the EU law banning products linked to deforestation as a recent example (http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1115/oj). Companies know they need to meet these market requirements and consumer demands, to stay competitive. Indeed, despite an initial cost spike to set up effective monitoring systems, firms benefit financially in the long term from sustainability reporting (Friske et al., 2023), as this helps expand their consumer base.
Companies have responded by seeking sustainability certification (e.g. Organic, Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance) or setting themselves sustainability targets and reporting against these. Certification remains a market niche in part due to the high costs, and has its limitations since no single certification scheme addresses social, environmental and economic sustainability dimensions. For this reason, companies seek to demonstrate their sustainability commitments using company-determined targets and monitoring systems. Yet within this space, there is no clear guidance or consensus across agrifood businesses on which targets to set, which indicators to use to measure progress towards them, and how to collect reliable data on these indicators cost-effectively. This makes it difficult to compare companies and products. It increases the likelihood that some companies are using outdated, unreliable or costly methods to collect data because of a lack of tools and knowledge transfer across regions and commodities. It also creates a risk that certain locally important negative impacts (e.g. water depletion, soil degradation, forced labour, and farmer debt-levels) are under-reported, and that the indicators in use are poorly suited to the agroecological, multifunctional farms of the future (e.g. yield measured in tons/ha is a metric well-suited to monocultures and not to agroforestry systems, where whole system yields should be captured). Companies along cocoa and rice supply chains are no exception and the way they choose to monitor sustainability impacts has worldwide importance. An estimated 5.9 million tons of cocoa is produced each year (FAOSTAT, 2022) and used in a range of products, with chocolate the best known and loved by the consumer, while 776 million tons of rice is produced and is a major staple providing approximately 20% of the world’s calories (FAOSTAT, 2022).
Companies have responded by seeking sustainability certification (e.g. Organic, Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance) or setting themselves sustainability targets and reporting against these. Certification remains a market niche in part due to the high costs, and has its limitations since no single certification scheme addresses social, environmental and economic sustainability dimensions. For this reason, companies seek to demonstrate their sustainability commitments using company-determined targets and monitoring systems. Yet within this space, there is no clear guidance or consensus across agrifood businesses on which targets to set, which indicators to use to measure progress towards them, and how to collect reliable data on these indicators cost-effectively. This makes it difficult to compare companies and products. It increases the likelihood that some companies are using outdated, unreliable or costly methods to collect data because of a lack of tools and knowledge transfer across regions and commodities. It also creates a risk that certain locally important negative impacts (e.g. water depletion, soil degradation, forced labour, and farmer debt-levels) are under-reported, and that the indicators in use are poorly suited to the agroecological, multifunctional farms of the future (e.g. yield measured in tons/ha is a metric well-suited to monocultures and not to agroforestry systems, where whole system yields should be captured). Companies along cocoa and rice supply chains are no exception and the way they choose to monitor sustainability impacts has worldwide importance. An estimated 5.9 million tons of cocoa is produced each year (FAOSTAT, 2022) and used in a range of products, with chocolate the best known and loved by the consumer, while 776 million tons of rice is produced and is a major staple providing approximately 20% of the world’s calories (FAOSTAT, 2022).
Powered by DB/Text WebPublisher, from
