IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/glenvp/v22y2022i3p104-135.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Input Legitimacy of Voluntary Sustainability Standards and Acceptance Among Southern Producers: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Greetje Schouten
  • Hilde M. Toonen
  • Dorine Leeuwerik

Abstract

Voluntary standards are key instruments to address sustainability concerns in value chains. The legitimacy of these initiatives has been debated, particularly related to acceptance by Global South stakeholders. The governance literature has predominantly argued that initiatives employing democratic approaches to governance are more likely to increase their legitimacy. In this article, we use a configurational approach to test this proposition in relation to standard acceptance by southern producers. A qualitative comparative analysis of eight cases was carried out, linking three elements of input legitimacy (inclusion, participation, and accountability) to the outcome of standard uptake in the Global South. While our findings suggest that an inclusive governance structure is important, overall, they show no evidence to explain the presence or absence of standard acceptance in the Global South. We conclude that theoretical assumptions about democratic legitimacy cannot be confirmed and argue for further opening up the scholarly debate to include conceptualizations, methods, and approaches inclusive of different ways of creating and perceiving legitimacy.

Suggested Citation

  • Greetje Schouten & Hilde M. Toonen & Dorine Leeuwerik, 2022. "Input Legitimacy of Voluntary Sustainability Standards and Acceptance Among Southern Producers: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 22(3), pages 104-135, Summer.
  • Handle: RePEc:tpr:glenvp:v:22:y:2022:i:3:p:104-135
    DOI: 10.1162/glep_a_00666
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00666
    Download Restriction: Access to PDF is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1162/glep_a_00666?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tpr:glenvp:v:22:y:2022:i:3:p:104-135. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kelly McDougall (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.