Certified discourse? The politics of developing soy certification standards
Geoforum, ISSN: 0016-7185, Vol: 43, Issue: 2, Page: 295-304
2012
- 79Citations
- 184Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Certification systems are an increasingly prominent feature of privatized, market-based environmental governance. While the potential of such systems to effectively lead to sustainable outcomes continues to be of concern to researchers, a growing body of literature focuses instead on the ways in which certification systems embody politics and reflect existing power relations. This paper contributes to this literature by analyzing the processes involved in developing production standards for the certification of ‘responsible’ soy, within the emergent certification system initiated by the Roundtable on Responsible Soy (RTRS). The Discourse Coalition Framework (DCF), highlights several aspects of the RTRS that illustrate how the process of developing standards for responsible soy has been highly contested and has featured political struggles. First, broad discourse, rather than specific technical knowledge, is the basis for cohesion of different stakeholders within the RTRS. Secondly, opponents have effectively challenged the RTRS at the level of broad discourse (as opposed to specific technical criteria), but the challenge has curtailed possibilities for widespread participation in the RTRS. Thirdly, the broad discourse of responsible soy has enabled unlikely alliances that have consolidated power with profoundly political effects. These findings provide an alternative basis for critically analyzing certification systems, beyond outcome effectiveness.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718511001692; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.08.008; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84856950617&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0016718511001692; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.08.008
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know