How data-driven, privately ordered sustainability governance shapes US food supply chains: The case of field to market
Introduction
Multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) that promote sustainability in US agriculture reflect the convergence of two trends. First, beginning in the 1970s, actors from across the political spectrum criticized governments for their poor record on environmental sustainability (Dryzek, 2013). Second, private organizations increasingly adopted the role as primary driver of sustainability, in particular in the agri-food system (Dauvergne and Lister, 2013; Freidberg, 2017, 2020; Konefal et al., 2019a). Driven by consumer concerns and the negative impacts of environmental degradation on agricultural production, many agri-food corporations, food retailers, and farmer associations proclaim support for sustainability (Dauvergne and Lister, 2013; Friedberg, 2017, 2019; Jaffee and Howard, 2010). Consumer-facing companies in those supply chains are increasingly turning to on-farm data to show that they are meeting their sustainability claims (Carolan, 2000a; Konefal et al., 2019a).
Private actors, corporate and non-profit, develop novel systems of accountability to facilitate non-state governance of agriculture and food supply chains, a trend linked to the rise of neoliberalism (Busch, 2010, 2011; Marsden et al., 2010). However, the specific approaches and regulatory frameworks that private entities develop to facilitate transactions often remain overlooked by structural critiques of neoliberalism. One such approach is private ordering—the operational alignment of private companies through contracts without direct government regulations (Cahoy and Leland, 2009, Quinn, 2009, Schwarcz, 2002, Vandenbergh, 2013). Private ordering emerged in the middle ages (Schwarcz, 2002), but it has become prominent with the deregulations that began in the 1980s (Quinn, 2008).1 Opposition to regulations became so powerful that the US federal government did not pass any environmental policies between 1991 and 2012 (Vandebergh, 2013). Supporters of private ordering assume that self-regulating private firms find more efficient than the state. This perspective is consistent with the belief that governments are cumbersome bureaucracies compared to the private sector (Mazzucato, 2013). Various anti-government and pro-business voices contend that big-government bureaucracies overwhelm the spontaneity and entrepreneurship of the private sector with red tape and paperwork (Fleming, 2020).
Multi-stakeholder initiatives such as Field to Market, the Stewardship Index of Specialty Crops, the National Sustainable Agricultural Standard Initiative, the U.S. Cotton Trust Protocol, and the U.S. Roundtable For Sustainable Beef represent systems of private ordering in the field of sustainable agriculture governance (Konefal et al., 2014, 2019a). Our paper probes the implications of multi-stakeholder sustainability governance for accountability and power relations within food supply chains by examining Field to Market, the largest U.S. agricultural sustainability MSI today. Since Field to Market and other MSIs are constantly evolving, it is impossible to make definite claims about multi-stakeholder governance. But as Field to Market aspires to become a leading platform for sustainability efforts in US agriculture, and already involves some of the most powerful food system actors, it is important to pay attention to an MSI that has the potential to reshape US agriculture. We begin by discussing three ideal types of accountability systems in the US agriculture and food system: community-based, state-led, and private-ordering systems. We then present Field to Market and explain how its metrics-based approach to sustainability relies on aggregating farm-level data. We move on to discuss how the change towards data-driven private ordering affects the accountability and distribution of power within food supply chains. Finally, we contend that sustainability metrics create nascent, privately ordered bureaucracies.
Section snippets
Multi-stakeholder initiatives, sustainability governance, and accountability systems
Environmental protection used to be the authority of the state. Now, governments share this responsibility with private actors (Bostrom et al., 2015, Vandenbergh, 2013). MSIs have become the preferred approach of sustainability governance (Ponte, 2014). MSIs vary in how they are constituted and resourced (Bain et al., 2013; Cheyns and Riisgaard, 2011; Konefal et al., 2019a), but they typically convene interested parties from different sectors to address, and often govern, shared issues or
The case: field to market
We approach our inquiry through a case study of Field to Market, the most prominent MSI in US agriculture. Field to Market was founded in 2006 by twelve agri-food corporations and non-governmental organizations to improve sustainability in US row-crop production. It has since grown to comprise 137 stakeholders and ten full-time employees. The MSI has enrolled 3,700,000 acres in its program as of 2019 (Field to Market, 2020). One of Field to Market's main innovations have been eight metrics of
Data gathering and analysis
We gathered data as part of a four-year, USDA-funded project to evaluate the capacity of MSIs to promote sustainable innovation among farmers. Although we engaged three MSIs, we focus on Field to Market in this paper because it is the most established one with a comparably larger number of enrolled farms. We gathered publications, reports, and press releases from Field to Market and its stakeholders. We conducted participant observations at three Field to Market stakeholder meetings. We
Intended and unintended effects of data-driven, privately ordered sustainability governance
We explore five consequences of Field to Market's data-driven sustainability governance. First, we document the stated goal of sustainability metrics to continuously improve agricultural production. Second, we examine how metrics coordinate supply chains and shift decision-making power from farmers to off-farm actors who make the marketing claims. Third, we discuss whether sustainability metrics facilitate the commodification of farm-level data, and whether this might lead to farmers being paid
A privately ordered bureaucracy
The Fieldprint ®platform is showing characteristics of an emerging bureaucracy. Max Weber (1978) described bureaucracies as forms of social organization in which particular functions of society and the economy are fulfilled according to permanent, written procedures and rules that prescribe a particular division of labor. In Field to Market, this functional goal is the improvement of agricultural sustainability and accountability. To this end, the Fieldprint® platform exchanges data on
Conclusion
The metrics developed by Field to Market constitute a significant change in the governance of food supply chains and the production of accountability within agriculture. Although our analysis focuses on Field to Market, the most established MSI within US agriculture, our findings are relevant beyond this single case. Many of the aspects that we describe in this paper—the creation of accountability through data, the sharing and accumulation of data through generalized procedures, a bureaucratic
Author statement
Johann Strube: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Original Draft, Leland Glenna: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - Original Draft, Supervision, Maki Hatanaka: Methodology, Investigation, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Jason Konefal: Methodology, Investigation, Writing - Review & Editing, David Conner: Investigation, Writing - Review & Editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The Pennsylvania State University is a member of Field to Market.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a USDA-AFRI grant (Award Number 2017-68006-26235). We thank Damian Maye for feedback on an earlier draft of this paper.
References (67)
- et al.
Why farmers adopt best management practice in the United States: a meta-analysis of the adoption literature
J. Environ. Manag.
(2012) - et al.
Sustainable and responsible supply chain governance: challenges and opportunities
J. Clean. Prod.
(2015) - et al.
Crop advisers as conservation intermediaries: perceptions and policy implications for relying on nontraditional partners to increase U.S. farmers' adoption of soil and water conservation practices
Land Use Pol.
(2019) - et al.
Farm management information systems: current situation and future perspectives
Comput. Electron. Agric.
(2015) - et al.
Third-party certification in the global agrifood system
Food Pol.
(2005) Assembling governance: the role of standards in the Tanzanian tea Industry
J. Clean. Prod.
(2015)Roundtabling sustainability: lessons from the biofuel industry
Geoforum
(2014)- et al.
Private agri-food standards: contestation, hybridity and the politics of standards
Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food
(2013) Transnational corporations and global governance
Annu. Rev. Sociol.
(2018)Can fairy tales come true? The surprising story of neoliberalism and world agriculture
Sociol. Rural.
(2010)
The private governance of food: equitable exchange or bizarre bazaar
Agric. Hum. Val.
New! Improved? The transformation of the global agrifood system
Rural Sociol.
Private ordering and public energy innovation policy
Fla. State Univ. Law Rev.
Automated agrifood futures: robotics, labor and the distributive politics of digital agriculture
J. Peasant Stud.
Acting like an algorithm: digital farming platforms and the trajectories they (need not) lock‐in
Agric. Hum. Val.
Introduction to the symposium
Agric. Hum. Val.
Child's play: the case against the department of labor for its failure to protect children working on America ’s tobacco farms
Am. Univ. Law Rev.
‘The right hybrid for every acre’: assembling the social worlds of corn and soy seed-selling in conventional agricultural techniques
Sociol. Rural.
Power in global value chains
Rev. Int. Polit. Econ.
Eco-Business: A Big-Brand Takeover of Sustainability
The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses
Local food systems and sustainable communities
Am. J. Alternative Agric.
Sustainability Metrics
Annual Report 2019
Cross-Sector Dialogues
Hayek shrugged: why bureuacracy didn't die under neoliberalism but boomed instead
New Form.
Land grab/data grab: precision agriculture and its new horizons
J. Peasant Stud.
Big food and little data: the slow harvest of corporate food supply chain sustainability
Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.
“Unable to determine”: limits to metrical governance in agricultural supply chains
Sci. Technol. Hum. Val.
General Mills Commits to Sustainably Source 10 Priority Ingredients by 2020
Global responsibility report
Systemic constraints to ecological well-being: the case of the 1985 food security act
Rural Sociol.
Industry perceptions of university-industry relationships related to agricultural biotechnology research
Rural Sociol.
Cited by (12)
Governance challenges for sustainable food systems: the return of politics and territories
2023, Current Opinion in Environmental SustainabilityEconomic and risk analysis of sustainable practice adoption among U.S. corn growers
2023, Agricultural SystemsBuilding cleaner production: How to anchor sustainability in the food production chain?
2022, Environmental AdvancesCitation Excerpt :To this end, the research questions addressed in this review aim to (1) assess how the scientific literature and drivers on sustainability in the food production chain have evolved in recent years, (2) identify the established and proposed sustainability metrics and indicators tools for food production chain, (3) to investigate the environmental burden expended by the main segments of the food production chain, (4) bring together the state of the art of sustainable strategies already implemented by the food industry, and highlight their promising results, and (5) discuss how cost and value insights can contribute to anchoring sustainability in the food production chain. As is known, so far, the research found in the literature has focused on covering the sustainability topic in the food production chain specifying the environmental performance (Krishnan et al., 2019; Loiseau et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2021; Deprá et al., 2022), food waste management (Karki et al., 2021; Krishnan et al., 2022; Latka et al., 2022; Magalhães et al., 2022), profitability and markets (Dary and James, 2019; Aliyi et al., 2021; Strube et al., 2021; Sánchez et al., 2022), environmental-financial (Jackson and Singh, 2015; Chen and Holden, 2018; Barbosa et al., 2022; Escobar et al., 2022); and/or eco-social (Petit et al., 2018; Cooreman-Algoed et al., 2022; Plamondon et al., 2022). Indeed, they are relevant contributions to the literature, which served as building blocks for us to would walk to a new sustainable level.
Governing food futures: Towards a ‘responsibility turn’ in food and agriculture
2022, Journal of Rural StudiesCitation Excerpt :Thus, this special issue reflects the importance given by contemporary societies to private forms of governance, but it also leaves open the question of what role state-imposed devices and regulations play in responsibilisation processes. In this regard, Strube et al. (2021) address private sustainability efforts in their examination of the multi-stakeholder Field to Market initiative, pointing to an important shift in governance that involves the governing of food systems by digital technologies and data. By specifying the consequences of this shift (improved coordination of supply chains, commodification of farm data management, changed meanings of sustainability), the authors underpin that digital transformation has implications for how responsibility and accountability strategies are carried out and enforced in food systems (Power, 2019).
Regenerative landscape design: an integrative framework to enhance sustainability planning
2023, Ecology and SocietyContested agri-food futures: Introduction to the Special Issue
2023, Agriculture and Human Values