气候变化领域集成服务门户(CCPortal): How do organizations in Chinese agriculture perceive sustainability certification schemes? An exploratory analysis

CCPortal

DOI	10.1111/dpr.12760
	How do organizations in Chinese agriculture perceive sustainability certification schemes? An exploratory analysis
	Wang, Xiaorui; Hu, Shen
发表日期	2024
ISSN	0950-6764
EISSN	1467-7679
起始页码	42
结束页码	3
卷号	42 期号:3
英文摘要	MotivationInitiatives to promote sustainable practices in agriculture in China have been little documented in the literature. Preliminary investigations suggested that the way agricultural certification schemes worked in China differed considerably from such schemes in Europe and the United States.PurposeWe investigated how sustainability certification schemes (SCSs) were perceived by farmers, processors, government staff, and other stakeholders in Chinese agriculture. We examine three types of certification: sustainability standards for agricultural exports; organic labelling for the domestic market; and certification of ecological practices.PurposeWe investigated how sustainability certification schemes (SCSs) were perceived by farmers, processors, government staff, and other stakeholders in Chinese agriculture. We examine three types of certification: sustainability standards for agricultural exports; organic labelling for the domestic market; and certification of ecological practices.Methods and approachWe interviewed 16 stakeholders in 2013-2014 about their experiences and perceptions of certification. The interviews were transcribed and coded to derive themes and interpretations.FindingsCertification was rigorous for agricultural exports because importers, mainly in high-income countries, demanded high standards-and were prepared to pay a premium for those standards. It was in the best interests of Chinese exporters to certify their produce. Some farming companies had specific farms that were run to make sure the standards were upheld, whereas their farms producing for the domestic market operated differently. Organic certification of produce was less systematic, with proliferation of labels used to try to convince domestic consumers that the food so labelled was safe. No single standard was used. Farmers were concerned that organic production was costly but that they would not get a price to reflect those costs. Most actors expected the state to set standards and police them. A public scheme intended as payment for environmental services also certified land managers; but the scheme as applied operated to pay farmers on low incomes often in marginal lands an income supplement-payments were not necessarily linked to environmental objectives.FindingsCertification was rigorous for agricultural exports because importers, mainly in high-income countries, demanded high standards-and were prepared to pay a premium for those standards. It was in the best interests of Chinese exporters to certify their produce. Some farming companies had specific farms that were run to make sure the standards were upheld, whereas their farms producing for the domestic market operated differently. Organic certification of produce was less systematic, with proliferation of labels used to try to convince domestic consumers that the food so labelled was safe. No single standard was used. Farmers were concerned that organic production was costly but that they would not get a price to reflect those costs. Most actors expected the state to set standards and police them. A public scheme intended as payment for environmental services also certified land managers; but the scheme as applied operated to pay farmers on low incomes often in marginal lands an income supplement-payments were not necessarily linked to environmental objectives.FindingsCertification was rigorous for agricultural exports because importers, mainly in high-income countries, demanded high standards-and were prepared to pay a premium for those standards. It was in the best interests of Chinese exporters to certify their produce. Some farming companies had specific farms that were run to make sure the standards were upheld, whereas their farms producing for the domestic market operated differently. Organic certification of produce was less systematic, with proliferation of labels used to try to convince domestic consumers that the food so labelled was safe. No single standard was used. Farmers were concerned that organic production was costly but that they would not get a price to reflect those costs. Most actors expected the state to set standards and police them. A public scheme intended as payment for environmental services also certified land managers; but the scheme as applied operated to pay farmers on low incomes often in marginal lands an income supplement-payments were not necessarily linked to environmental objectives.Policy implicationsIn China, the perception of stakeholders was that the central government should establish and monitor standards. Certification was not seen as something that private enterprise could or even should establish. This appreciation translated into dependence on central government to co-ordinate and regulate all collective action for pursuing social and environmental sustainability, leaving little space for market-led initiatives to flourish.
英文关键词	agriculture; China; perception; stakeholder; sustainability certification
语种	英语
WOS研究方向	Development Studies
WOS类目	Development Studies
WOS记录号	WOS:001162589100001
来源期刊	DEVELOPMENT POLICY REVIEW
文献类型	期刊论文
条目标识符	http://gcip.llas.ac.cn/handle/2XKMVOVA/306875
作者单位	Shandong University of Finance & Economics; Shandong University of Finance & Economics
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714	Wang, Xiaorui,Hu, Shen. How do organizations in Chinese agriculture perceive sustainability certification schemes? An exploratory analysis[J],2024,42(3).
APA	Wang, Xiaorui,&Hu, Shen.(2024).How do organizations in Chinese agriculture perceive sustainability certification schemes? An exploratory analysis.DEVELOPMENT POLICY REVIEW,42(3).
MLA	Wang, Xiaorui,et al."How do organizations in Chinese agriculture perceive sustainability certification schemes? An exploratory analysis".DEVELOPMENT POLICY REVIEW 42.3(2024).