Empirical Assessment of Eco-Certification
Identifieur interne : 000662 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000661; suivant : 000663Empirical Assessment of Eco-Certification
Auteurs : Cristian J. Melo ; Steven A. WolfSource :
- Organization & Environment [ 1086-0266 ] ; 2005-09.
Abstract
Eco-certification is widely perceived to be an increasingly important strategy to improve the environmental performance of agriculture in an era of global trade integration and apparent weakening of regulatory capacity of nation-states. Few analyses have sought to determine whether ecolabeled products are produced in a manner that conserves natural resources and mitigates risks to ecological integrity. The authors report on a 2003 audit of farming practices in banana production in Ecuador. They find that certified farms significantly outperform noncertified farms on all environmental assessment criteria. In many cases, noncertified farms are out of compliance with Ecuadorian environmental law. Thus, there is evidence to support claims that ecocertified products pose relatively lower ecological risks. In evaluating limitations of their study, the authors note a need to develop longitudinal data sets to assessif and how certification motivates behavioral change at the level of production.
Url:
DOI: 10.1177/1086026605279461
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:C033DB23AD00AF6CBAE5C8507B47311B1D52C5A5Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Empirical Assessment of Eco-Certification</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Melo, Cristian J" sort="Melo, Cristian J" uniqKey="Melo C" first="Cristian J." last="Melo">Cristian J. Melo</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Florida International University</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Wolf, Steven A" sort="Wolf, Steven A" uniqKey="Wolf S" first="Steven A." last="Wolf">Steven A. Wolf</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Cornell University</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:C033DB23AD00AF6CBAE5C8507B47311B1D52C5A5</idno><date when="2005" year="2005">2005</date><idno type="doi">10.1177/1086026605279461</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/C033DB23AD00AF6CBAE5C8507B47311B1D52C5A5/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000662</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000662</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Empirical Assessment of Eco-Certification</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Melo, Cristian J" sort="Melo, Cristian J" uniqKey="Melo C" first="Cristian J." last="Melo">Cristian J. Melo</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Florida International University</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Wolf, Steven A" sort="Wolf, Steven A" uniqKey="Wolf S" first="Steven A." last="Wolf">Steven A. Wolf</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Cornell University</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Organization & Environment</title><idno type="ISSN">1086-0266</idno><idno type="eISSN">1552-7417</idno><imprint><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2005-09">2005-09</date><biblScope unit="volume">18</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="287">287</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="317">317</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1086-0266</idno></series><idno type="istex">C033DB23AD00AF6CBAE5C8507B47311B1D52C5A5</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1177/1086026605279461</idno><idno type="ArticleID">10.1177_1086026605279461</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1086-0266</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Eco-certification is widely perceived to be an increasingly important strategy to improve the environmental performance of agriculture in an era of global trade integration and apparent weakening of regulatory capacity of nation-states. Few analyses have sought to determine whether ecolabeled products are produced in a manner that conserves natural resources and mitigates risks to ecological integrity. The authors report on a 2003 audit of farming practices in banana production in Ecuador. They find that certified farms significantly outperform noncertified farms on all environmental assessment criteria. In many cases, noncertified farms are out of compliance with Ecuadorian environmental law. Thus, there is evidence to support claims that ecocertified products pose relatively lower ecological risks. In evaluating limitations of their study, the authors note a need to develop longitudinal data sets to assessif and how certification motivates behavioral change at the level of production.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>sage</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Cristian J. Melo</name><affiliations><json:string>Florida International University</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Steven A. Wolf</name><affiliations><json:string>Cornell University</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>corporate environmentalism</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>ecolabels</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>eco-certification</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>ecological risk-reduction index</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>green agribusiness</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Ecuador</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>bananas</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>10.1177_1086026605279461</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Eco-certification is widely perceived to be an increasingly important strategy to improve the environmental performance of agriculture in an era of global trade integration and apparent weakening of regulatory capacity of nation-states. Few analyses have sought to determine whether ecolabeled products are produced in a manner that conserves natural resources and mitigates risks to ecological integrity. The authors report on a 2003 audit of farming practices in banana production in Ecuador. They find that certified farms significantly outperform noncertified farms on all environmental assessment criteria. In many cases, noncertified farms are out of compliance with Ecuadorian environmental law. Thus, there is evidence to support claims that ecocertified products pose relatively lower ecological risks. In evaluating limitations of their study, the authors note a need to develop longitudinal data sets to assessif and how certification motivates behavioral change at the level of production.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>6.704</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>612 x 792 pts (letter)</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractCharCount>1001</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>10183</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>69068</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>31</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>142</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Empirical Assessment of Eco-Certification</title><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><volume>18</volume><publisherId><json:string>OAE</json:string></publisherId><pages><last>317</last><first>287</first></pages><issn><json:string>1086-0266</json:string></issn><issue>3</issue><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1552-7417</json:string></eissn><title>Organization & Environment</title></host><categories><wos></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>economic & social sciences</json:string><json:string>social sciences</json:string><json:string>sociology</json:string></scienceMetrix></categories><publicationDate>2005</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2005</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1177/1086026605279461</json:string></doi><id>C033DB23AD00AF6CBAE5C8507B47311B1D52C5A5</id><score>0.046844915</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C033DB23AD00AF6CBAE5C8507B47311B1D52C5A5/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C033DB23AD00AF6CBAE5C8507B47311B1D52C5A5/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/C033DB23AD00AF6CBAE5C8507B47311B1D52C5A5/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Empirical Assessment of Eco-Certification</title><title level="a" type="sub" xml:lang="en">The Case of Ecuadorian Bananas</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace><availability><p>SAGE</p></availability><date>2005</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Empirical Assessment of Eco-Certification</title><title level="a" type="sub" xml:lang="en">The Case of Ecuadorian Bananas</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Cristian J.</forename><surname>Melo</surname></persName><affiliation>Florida International University</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">Steven A.</forename><surname>Wolf</surname></persName><affiliation>Cornell University</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Organization & Environment</title><idno type="pISSN">1086-0266</idno><idno type="eISSN">1552-7417</idno><imprint><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2005-09"></date><biblScope unit="volume">18</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="287">287</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="317">317</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">C033DB23AD00AF6CBAE5C8507B47311B1D52C5A5</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1177/1086026605279461</idno><idno type="ArticleID">10.1177_1086026605279461</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2005</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Eco-certification is widely perceived to be an increasingly important strategy to improve the environmental performance of agriculture in an era of global trade integration and apparent weakening of regulatory capacity of nation-states. Few analyses have sought to determine whether ecolabeled products are produced in a manner that conserves natural resources and mitigates risks to ecological integrity. The authors report on a 2003 audit of farming practices in banana production in Ecuador. They find that certified farms significantly outperform noncertified farms on all environmental assessment criteria. In many cases, noncertified farms are out of compliance with Ecuadorian environmental law. Thus, there is evidence to support claims that ecocertified products pose relatively lower ecological risks. In evaluating limitations of their study, the authors note a need to develop longitudinal data sets to assessif and how certification motivates behavioral change at the level of production.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>corporate environmentalism</term></item><item><term>ecolabels</term></item><item><term>eco-certification</term></item><item><term>ecological risk-reduction index</term></item><item><term>green agribusiness</term></item><item><term>Ecuador</term></item><item><term>bananas</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2005-09">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C033DB23AD00AF6CBAE5C8507B47311B1D52C5A5/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus sage not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="journalpublishing.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="2.3" xml:lang="EN"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">spoae</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OAE</journal-id><journal-title>Organization & Environment</journal-title><issn pub-type="ppub">1086-0266</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Sage Publications</publisher-name><publisher-loc>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</publisher-loc></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/1086026605279461</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">10.1177_1086026605279461</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Empirical Assessment of Eco-Certification</article-title><subtitle>The Case of Ecuadorian Bananas</subtitle></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Melo</surname><given-names>Cristian J.</given-names></name><aff>Florida International University</aff></contrib></contrib-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Wolf</surname><given-names>Steven A.</given-names></name><aff>Cornell University</aff></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>09</month><year>2005</year></pub-date><volume>18</volume><issue>3</issue><fpage>287</fpage><lpage>317</lpage><abstract><p><italic>Eco-certification is widely perceived to be an increasingly important strategy to improve the environmental performance of agriculture in an era of global trade integration and apparent weakening of regulatory capacity of nation-states. Few analyses have sought to determine whether ecolabeled products are produced in a manner that conserves natural resources and mitigates risks to ecological integrity. The authors report on a 2003 audit of farming practices in banana production in Ecuador. They find that certified farms significantly outperform noncertified farms on all environmental assessment criteria. In many cases, noncertified farms are out of compliance with Ecuadorian environmental law. Thus, there is evidence to support claims that ecocertified products pose relatively lower ecological risks. In evaluating limitations of their study, the authors note a need to develop longitudinal data sets to assessif and how certification motivates behavioral change at the level of production.</italic></p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>corporate environmentalism</kwd><kwd>ecolabels</kwd><kwd>eco-certification</kwd><kwd>ecological risk-reduction index</kwd><kwd>green agribusiness</kwd><kwd>Ecuador</kwd><kwd>bananas</kwd></kwd-group><custom-meta-wrap><custom-meta xlink:type="simple"><meta-name>sagemeta-type</meta-name><meta-value>Journal Article</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta xlink:type="simple"><meta-name>search-text</meta-name><meta-value> 10.1177/1086026605279461ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / September 2005Melo, Wolf / EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF ECO-CERTIFICATION EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF ECO-CERTIFICATION The Case of Ecuadorian Bananas CRISTIAN J. MELO Florida International University STEVEN A. WOLF Cornell University Eco-certification is widely perceived to be an increasingly important strategy to improve the environmental performance of agriculture in aneraof global trade integration andapparent weakening of regulatory capacity of nation-states. Few analyses have sought to determine whether ecolabeled products are produced in a manner that conserves natural resources and mitigates risks to ecological integrity. The authors report on a 2003 audit of farming practices in banana production in Ecuador. They find that certified farms significantly out- perform noncertified farms on all environmental assessment criteria. In many cases, noncertified farms are out of compliance with Ecuadorian environmental law. Thus, there is evidence to support claims that ecocertified products pose relatively lower ecological risks. In evaluating limitations of their study, the authors note a need to develop longitudinal data setsto assessif andhowcertification motivates behavioral change at the level ofproduction. Keywords: corporate environmentalism; ecolabels; eco-certification; ecological risk- reduction index; green agribusiness; Ecuador; bananas Eco-certification has emerged as a potentially important mechanism to internalize externalities or, more formally stated in economic terms, to align private incentives with social values attached to natural resources. From the perspective of conservation, ecocertification is a potential vehicle to motivate and reward behavioral and organizational change in natural resourcebased industries, industries long responsible for local and global resource degradation. Eco-certifi- cation offers consumers an opportunity to "vote with their wallet" and simulta- neously provides primary producers, processors, and retailers a chance to pursue competitive advantages and confront mounting accountability pressures linked to sustainability. Products certified as ecofriendly (e.g., bananas, coffee, fish, lumber, tourism packages) are differentiated from generic commodities by virtue of pro- ducers' adherence to a set of technical standards--best management practices-- aimed at mitigating environmental degradation. In this article, we evaluate the eco- logical and environmental significance of ecocertification of banana production in Ecuador, the world's leading banana exporter. Authors' Note: We acknowledge valuable contributions to this article by Tom Gavin and editors and reviewers of Organization & Environment. Organization & Environment, Vol. 18 No. 3, September 2005 287-317 DOI: 10.1177/1086026605279461 © 2005 Sage Publications 287 As a collection of voluntary market-based schemes, ecocertification is an important contemporary experiment given a general loss of confidence in the abil- ity of nation-states to regulate natural resourcebased industries in an era of accel- erating globalization and liberalization (Cashore, Auld, & Newsom, 2004). A turn away from state-based regulation as a way to achieve conservation, and toward competitive interactions among firms in markets, is somewhat ironic when we con- sider that market capitalism has traditionally been seen as a primary driver of resource degradation and social disruption (Polyani, 1944). Conservation and eco- nomic activity have long been viewed as a zero-sum game (Schnaiberg, 1980). Now, people of many stripes--including prominent environmentalists (e.g., Lester Brown, Gretchen Daily, Amory Lovins) and environmental organizations (World Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense)--seek to use capitalist logic and economic self-interest to spur investment in conservation and restoration. In its most simplistic form, ecocertification serves to signal sustainability commitments in global commodity chains, thereby creating value for producers, middle agents, and consumers. We note that household consumers are sometimes but not always implicated (Green, Morton, & New, 2000). For example, Chiquita makes no attempt to inform retail supermarket shoppers in the United States that their bananas are ecocertified. Similarly, the major certifiers of forest products in the United States, Forest Stew- ardship Council and Sustainable Forestry Board, rely on major retailers'interest in environmental commitments to fuel demand for certification (e.g., Ikea, Lowes, and Home Depot). These strategies, in part, reflect the fact that retail consumers' willingness to pay a premium price for ecocertified products is weak relative to corporate incentives to protect their brands. These incentives include enhancing ability to access international markets in which certification is mandated, mitigat- ing risk of consumer boycott and investor flight, and addressing threat of future environmental regulation and foreclosure of rights to operate. To date, in addition to volumes of studies on consumers'willingness to pay pre- mium prices for ecolabeled products, critical social scientific research on ecocerti- fication has focused on comparisons of various technical standards and the ways in which certification programs are structured. This work has highlighted various weaknesses and biases, for example, failures to protect farmworkers'health and to meaningfully integrate concerns of local people into certification standards (Bray, Sanchez, & Murphy, 2002; Joshi, 2004; Murray & Raynolds, 2000; Raynolds, 2000; Raynolds & Murray, 1998; Rice, 2001). The relevant critical literature recognizes the ambiguity of ecolabeling pro- grams. Simultaneously, they can be seen as a way to promote socially conscious, community-based economic development, as a strategy of resource conservation, and as part of corporate efforts to gain and protect market share by cloaking them- selves in a green mantle of corporate citizenship. Other analysts skeptical of moti- vations underlying ecocertification highlight the ways in which product labels are employed as a non-tariff trade barrier in the face of increasing global economic integration (i.e., strategy of shielding a nation's producers from international com- petition by using a claim of environmental protection to justify trade restrictions when, arguably, there is no distinction among a homogeneous class of goods; Chambron, 1999; Consumers International, 1999; Grossman, 2000; Joshi, 2004; Kimerling, 2001; Kirchhoff, 2000). The proliferation of ecocertification efforts and the growing attention they are receiving in academic, policy, and popular are- nas stem in large part from this interpretive flexibility. Because they potentially 288 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / September 2005 serve the political and economic interests of many differently positioned actors, there is broad enthusiasm for their development. As certification has become increasingly prevalent, a stream of research has begun to examine competition among ecocertification standards and the implica- tions of selection among alternatives by primary producers, processors, and retail- ers. Cashore et al.'s (2004) study of forest certification actors' selection among alternative so-called non-state market-driven governance arrangements is relevant here. Specifically, their research aims to understand processes through which the environmental organization-backed certification option competes with the industry- sponsored program (see also Overdevest, 2004). In the specific case of bananas, Jansen's (2004) comparative study of ecolabeling commitments by Dole and Chiquita in Honduras concludes that the firms' choices of distinct forms of ecocertification can be understood to be functions of the intersection between external pressures and internal strategies of the firm. Based largely on interview data, he finds that the two certification schemes foster different technical change trajectories, which translates into differences in environmental outcomes. Although generating important insights as to the ecology of certification, Cashore et al. (2004) and Jansen (2004) do not develop field-level data on natural resources management and mismanagement. Ecolabeling is an increasingly visible part of daily life in industrialized coun- tries and a topic of substantial interdisciplinary scholarship, but empirical research on the effectiveness of these initiatives is highly limited. A review of available evi- dence of the resource conservation benefits of ecolabeling by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) concluded that it is "too early or too difficult" to evaluate the environmental effects of ecolabeling because "data relating to the environmental benefits achieved through eco-labelling is lacking" (OECD, 1997). This conclusion is reinforced by noting that of the 24 papers pub- lished in the proceedings of the 2002 "Ecolabels and the Greening of the Food Market" conference at Tufts University (Lockeretz, 2002), only 3 were grouped under the heading of "Ecolabels and Agriculture Production Techniques." Of these 3, none empirically analyzed the extent to which ecocertification conserves or fails to conserve natural resources. Given the tendency toward reliance on institutional arrangements other than the state for socioeconomic coordination (Allaire & Wolf, 2004)--utilization of com- mercial incentives and norms to motivate compliance with resource conservation standards--and corresponding proliferation of ecocertification in agriculture, for- estry, fisheries, and ecotourism--an important empirical question arises: Does ecocertification conserve natural resources, or is this a case of "greenwashing"? We address this question in this articlethrough an assessment of banana production in Ecuador conducted in 2003. We compare field- and farm-level production prac- tices of paired samples of certified and uncertified plantations to evaluate ecologi- cal risk reduction under certification. Ecological risk reduction is defined here as the product of the application of farming practices, worker training, and manage- ment routines aimed at eco-efficiency and mitigation of resource degradation. Risk reduction results from adoption of conservation practices (e.g., riparian buffer strips), as well as nonadoption of widely employed resource-degrading practices (e.g., prophylactic use of nematocides). Bananas, as the fifth largest agricultural commodity traded in the world, and Ecuador, as the world's leading banana exporter, suggest that this case provides a useful lens through which to consider this global phenomenon. The audit of farm Melo, Wolf / EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF ECO-CERTIFICATION 289 production practices we present allows us to evaluate the claims of certified pro- ducers and certification bodies. Findings support assessment of the meaning of certification at the level of production and, by extension, implications for environ- mental and human health. Our results inform understanding of the significance of ecolabeling initiatives as a conservation tool and the larger policy question of how market-based approaches to conservation can complement or substitute for state- based regulation. In the following section, we situate our analysis of conservation benefits of ecocertification in the context of international political economy. We then describe the social and environmental relations that define contemporary Ecuadorian banana production. Research methods and field survey data are presented, fol- lowed by discussion of results and a consideration of policy significance. ECOLABELING AND INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY In 1992, the United Nations (1993) called for global sustainable development through trade. Their assumption was that economic development and increases in material standards of living can occur in a way that can be environmentally sustain- able. The natural resources costs traditionally associated with increased economic activity--pollution, ecological simplification, reductions in stocks of nonrenew- able resources--can be avoided, and thus a win-win outcome can be achieved. At the same time, the traditional system of state-based (i.e., governmental) environ- mental regulation was being challenged as ineffective, excessively expensive, and overly litigious (Kettl, 2002; Mazmanian & Kraft, 1999). It was argued that the economic cost of implementing the legally required measures and enforcing com- pliance diminished the economic competitiveness of local firms and national econ- omies (Dryzek, 1997; Hausker, 1999). Furthermore, the state-based model of com- mand and control was seen as failing to spur efficiency-enhancing innovation and investment in creative responses to problems of sustainability (Porter & van der Linde, 1995). Irrespective of the validity of these critiques, advocates of state-based environ- mental regulation realized that laws could not be enforced beyond the physical and legal boundaries that define a nation. In an era of increasing global economic inte- gration and growing recognition of the transnational character of environmental problems such as deforestation, biodiversity decline, and climate change, interest in mechanisms to influence natural resource use and misuse in the home countries of rich nations'trading partners grew. There was particular interest in institutional mechanisms to enhance conservation in the ecologically rich and socioeconomi- cally poor countries of the global south. Earlier enthusiasm for policy instruments such as debt-for-nature swaps, bio- prospecting, and establishment of networks of parks and protected areas gave way to recognition that demand for hard currency through exports and local employ- ment limitedopportunities for conservation. In part due to recognition of these lim- itations, attention became focused on sustaining multifunctional landscapes, a development model in which land is managed to simultaneously produce return on investment, food, jobs, rural development, environmental services, and ecological integrity. Because free trade rules promulgated by the World Trade Organization (WTO) during this same period made it illegal for countries to block or tax imports from countries that lack legal protections for the environment, there was a need to develop new mechanisms to influence resource management behaviors at a dis- 290 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / September 2005 tance (Constance & Bonanno, 2000; Joshi, 2004; Ward, 1997). The need for such tools was amplified by the fact that during this time, neoliberal reforms (i.e., dereg- ulation and a general liberalization of commerce) led to the dismantling of regula- tory infrastructure governing many industrial sectors and many nations (Barbier, 2000; Karlsson, 2004; McCarthy & Prudham, 2004). States around the world were rolling back regulatory standards and environmental conservation infrastructure in an effort to spur economic growth and industrial competitiveness. For example, in the case of Ecuadorian bananas, the national law and administrative body govern- ing markets and natural resource conservation was largely abolished in reforms in 1998. In this political economy context, we observe the emergence of a new environ- mental conservation strategy. This new approach seeks to utilize economic actors' self-interest and market competition to enhance environmental performance of businesses. By aligning individuals' incentives with interests of an increasingly environmentally aware public, these initiatives ostensibly contribute to sustainable development. The role of nongovernmental organizations should not be over- looked in the process of harmonizing public and private interests. Eco-certification creates an opportunity for environmental advocacy organizations to develop posi- tive working relationships with industry. These environmental groups serve as third-party auditors and endorsers, putting pressure on industry to enhance stew- ardship and at the same time conferring legitimacy on these same firms. Through these arrangements, environmental advocacy organizations and commercial firms are departing from their historical position of mutual antagonists and develop- ing new ways of addressing environmental problems unresolved by state-based regulations (Boström, 2003; Crichlow, 2003; Watts, 2002). Of course, alliances between environmental organizations and industry have been criticized as an example of co-optation of critics of capitalism (Dryzek, 1997). Given this ambigu- ity, the diverse and changing roles of civil society organizations in environmental regulation is an important frontier issue in conservation studies. Although some certification systems have been put in place by national govern- ments (i.e., Swedish Environmental Choice, the German Blue Angel, the Nordic Swan, the Canadian Environmental Choice Program), the most widely recognized certification schemes are products of civil society organizations, for example, For- est Stewardship Council and the Marine Stewardship Council. Rainforest Alliance and the social justice movements grouped under the Fairtrade Labeling Organiza- tions International (Fairtrade) are two of the leading certification bodies engaging banana production (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO], 2000). THE BANANA INDUSTRY IN ECUADOR Fourteen million metric tons (Mt) of bananas were traded globally in 2000, 71% of which were produced in Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, Philippines, and Gua- temala. Ecuador produces 28% of total exports (FAO, 2003). In Ecuador, 28,619 producers maintain189,331 hectares (ha) in banana production (Agriculture Infor- mation System of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock [SICA], 2003). One hundred thirty thousand workers are employed on plantations (United Nations Environmental Programme [UNEP], 2002), and 1.1 million people benefit directly or indirectly (out of a population of 12.5 million; FAO, 2001). In 2002, Ecuador produced 4,199,156 Mt (FAO, 2003). The banana trade accounts for 22% of Ecua- dorian exports, second only to oil (UNEP, 2002). Although almost all land dedi- Melo, Wolf / EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF ECO-CERTIFICATION 291 cated to bananas in Ecuador is owned by Ecuadorians or companies supported by Ecuadorian capital (Striffler, 2002), the vast majority of bananas are produced under contract with one of five transnational companies (Dole, Chiquita, Del Monte, Fyffes, and Bonita) or their Ecuadorian subsidiaries (UNEP, 2002). This structure points directly to vital interdependencies between Ecuador, bananas, and international capital. In general, the environmental behavior of the industry is loosely regulated. As a by-product of neoliberal reform (McCarthy & Prudham, 2004), in 1998 the Banana National Program (BNP), which had up to that time been responsible for regulation, monitoring, and enforcement in banana production, was suppressed (UNEP, 2002) and replaced by the Banana National Council. This newly created institution is charged with policy coordination, development of the industry, and establishment of the referential price, but it is not charged with monitoring or enforcement functions at the level of production (UNEP, 2002). UNEP concluded that although some of the agricultural extension services provided by the BNP have been assumed by exporters and producer unions, the "functions relating to the cre- ation and implementation of controls and monitoring are still missing," and "many producers do not comply with the existing standards and regulations" (UNEP, 2002).1 Although data from Ecuador are sparse, it is widely acknowledged that com- mercial banana farming is a high-input monoculture that exerts a heavy ecological toll (Barbier, 2000; Clay, 2004). Banana monocultures have replaced highly diverse ecosystems, with large surfaces dedicated to a narrow set of cultivars related to the Cavendish variety. To maintain consistently high rates of production and uniform quality, contemporary banana cultivation is premised on intensive use of pesticides, fertilizers, and irrigation, generating on-site and off-site degradation (Colburn, 1997; Henriques, Jeffers, Lacher, & Kendall, 1997; Muños-Carpena, Ritter, Socorro, & Perez, 2002; Stern, 1999; UNEP, 2001). Organic and inorganic wastes stemming from production and processing pose additional risks to people and ecosystems (Matlock, Rogers, Edwards, & Martin, 2002; Mortensen et al., 1998). Rainforest Alliance and the organizations grouped under Fairtrade are the two leading certifiers of bananas in Ecuador. Organic agricultural certification was not considered in this study, as only 1 independent plantation was reportedly certified as organic at the time of this study.2 In 2002, Rainforest Alliance was certifying 32 large farms (more than 50 ha) owned by Reybanpac C.A. (suppliers of Chiquita Banana). These farms controlled 9,124 ha (Rainforest Alliance, unpublished). Fairtrade was certifying 1 plantation and 3 cooperatives of small holders (less than 50 ha) (Fairtrade, unpublished). The largest of these cooperatives had 340 producer-members controlling a total of 2,000 ha (Redaccion Machala, 2004). METHOD Agroecological Assessment This research seeks to compare the risk-reduction levels of certified opera- tions relative to practices of noncertified operations. Ecological risk reduction is achieved through selection of production technology and investment in practices and organizational routines that prevent and mitigate environmental degradation. Although neither Rainforest Alliance nor Fairtrade explicitly screen applicants by 292 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / September 2005 farm size, in practice, large certified farms are aligned with the former and small farms with the latter. Because farm size is highly correlated with capitalization and level of technology, there is little meaning in a comparison of risk reduction across the two leading certification organizations. The two programs service discrete pop- ulation segments. Thus, the relevant analysis is based on paired comparison; Rain- forest Alliance certified farms compared to large noncertified farms, and Fairtrade certified farms compared to small noncertified farms. To evaluate the extent to which certified farms differ from uncertified farms in ways relevant for conservation, there is a need to define appropriate and practical indicators. The categories of risk evaluated, and the specific production practices audited in the field, were derived from a model of banana production that identifies inputs and outputs of production and packing linked to resource degradation (see Figure 1a and 1b). This general agroecological model informed our review of empirical literature on banana-specific interactions with natural resources (see Table 1). This process allowed us to derive four general categories of natural resource degradation risk: land management (LM), water quality management (WQ), agrochemical management (AM), and waste management (WM). These four types of risk served to structure the farm practices audits in the field. We note that our study specifically addresses the ecological significance of certification, and thus we chose not to focus on workers'health, public health or other categories of risk. Ecological Risk-Reduction Indices Based on procedures described above, we identified a set of 29 practices (i.e., technologies, investments in infrastructure and human capital, and organizational and management routines) that contribute to ecological risks and ecological risk reductions. Detailed assessment of these 29 practices allowed us to compile a risk- reduction score for each of the four risk categories (LM, WQ, AM, WM) on each farm. Combining these four indices allows us to express a measure of total risk reduction (TRR) for each farm. See Table 2 for a list of all practices and variables used to define this set of five risk-reduction indices. See Table 3 for construction of the five indices. In presenting our results, we express risk reduction as a percentage of maximum possible risk reduction, as defined by the relevant index. In effect, we have normalized all reported scores on a scale of 0-1, with a 1 being equivalent to maximum possible risk reduction as defined in Table 3. In several instances, a specific farming practice audited in the field is included as a component of more than one risk reduction index. In effect, we are double counting those practices that contribute to more than one risk-reduction category, as they deserve to exert more weight on the overall risk-reduction score of a given producer than practices with more limited ecological implications. Recognizing that this methodological decision raises questions, we calculated risk-reduction scores for all producers based on modified algorithms in which all farm practices audited exert equal weight on aggregate risk-reduction scores.3 We then compared these modified risk-reduction scores to those based on original indices as defined in Table 3. High correlations between original and modified scores for each of the affected indices--AM (0.982, p value = .000), WQ (0.985, p value = .000), WM (0.985, p value = .000), and TRR (0.989, p value = .000)--indicate that the meth- odological choice to double count a subset of audited practices has little if any bearing on our research findings. Melo, Wolf / EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF ECO-CERTIFICATION 293 The assessment criteria that structure our field audit of production practices dis- play considerable overlap with ecocertification standards. Tables included in the appendix compare the two certification schemes featured in our study (Fairtrade and Rainforest Alliance) and current Ecuadorian law for each of the four categories of risk we identify. This information allows readers to evaluate overlap among these three standards and the relationship between these sets of standards and the risk-reduction measures employed in the present study (see Table 2). We view this overlap as interesting and important, and we will return to this question in our discussion of research results. 294 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / September 2005 Fertilizers Fungicides Banana plantation Landscape modification Inorganic waste Organic waste Water pollution Soil pollution Air pollution Water depletion Soil depletion Raw bananas To packing shed Inputs Outputs Herbicides Insecticides Nematocides Other materials Water Energy Original landscape Forest replacement Fertilizers Fungicides Banana plantation Landscape modification Inorganic waste Organic waste Water pollution Soil pollution Air pollution Water depletion Soil depletion Raw bananas To packing shed Inputs Outputs Herbicides Insecticides Nematocides Other materials Water Energy Original landscape Forest replacement FIGURE 1a: Agroecological Model of Banana Production (Plantation) Water Energy Packing materials Fungicides Raw bananas Packing shed Infrastructure Inorganic waste Organic waste Water pollution Soil pollution Air pollution Water depletion Soil depletion Processed bananas Shipment Inputs Outputs Post-harvest treatment Consumption Water Energy Packing materials Fungicides Raw bananas Packing shed Infrastructure Inorganic waste Organic waste Water pollution Soil pollution Air pollution Water depletion Soil depletion Processed bananas Shipment Inputs Outputs Post-harvest treatment Consumption FIGURE 1b: Agroecological Model of Banana Production (Processing Facility) Table1:ReviewofEmpiricalResearchonEcologicalEffectsofBananaProductionandAssociatedRisk-ReductionStrategies RiskCriterionStudyTargetEnvironmentallyRelevantFindingRecommendations UseoflandAviandiversityinbanana plantationandforest patchesg Bananacultivationidentifiedasadrivingforcebehindhabitat alterationb,c,e,g,k Forestpatchesbetweenbananaplantationsmayprovideviable habitatforbirdsg Stakingpractices(bamboovs.plastictethering)linkedtodefor- estationandpollutionbyinorganicwastek Manageplantationsforcontinuouscultivation c Integrateagricultureandconservationthroughreforestationandconservationof small-scalereservesc,g Agrochemical management Agrochemicaluse e Pestmonitoring f Avianexposuretopesti- cidesh Fertilitymanagement i Poorpesticidestoragepracticesandlackofpesticide-related trainingoffarmworkerse Useofpesticidesbannedindevel- opedcountriese Herbicideslinkedtoerosionandsoilresourcedegradation b Fungicidesandherbicidesresidualswerefoundonbirds h Reduceuseofchemicalinputs c Applyenvironmentalriskassessmentcriteriainselectionofagrochemicals c,d,e Reviewfertilitymanagementpractices c,i Improvepestmanagementsystems d,f Waste management Inadequatedisposalofinorganicwaste(plasticbagsusedfor fruitprotection)polluteadjacentwatercoursesa,c,e,k Organicwasteleftasaby-productofbananaproductionidenti- fiedassignificantpollutant b,c,k Improvewastemanagement a,c WaterqualityPesticideconcentrations inwaterandsediment samplesa Residualsofpesticides(fungicides,nematicides,andinsecti- cides)poseathreattoaquaticecosystemsa,c,d,j Nitrogenrunofffrombananaplotspollutedrinkingwater i Reducepesticideemissionsfromplantationsandpackagingfacilities a,c Establishbufferzonestoreducepesticidesandfertilizersleaching c,e a.Castillo,Rupert,andSolis(2000). b.Chambron(1999). c.Clay(2004). d.Colburn(1997). e.Henriques,Jeffers,Lacher,andKendall(1997). f.Jeger,Waller,Johanson,andGowen(1996). g.Matlock,Rogers,Edwards,andMartin(2002). h.Mortensenetal.(1998). i.Muños-Carpena,Ritter,Socorro,andPerez(2002). j.Stern(1999). k.UnitedNationsEnvironmentalProgramme(2002). 295 Study Site The study was conducted in the western lowlands of Ecuador during the sum- mer months of 2003. Fieldwork was conducted in the provinces of Los Rios, Guayas, El Oro, Canar, and Azuay. This region accounts for 81% of the total acre- age dedicated to bananas in Ecuador (SICA, 2003). Farm practices inventory of the 29 relevant indicators was executed on 47 farms through a semistructured inter- view with the owner or manager and field inspection of all relevant facilities. The semistructured interview focused on enterprise characteristics, farming practices (e.g., land use, water management, agrochemical management), farm administra- 296 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / September 2005 Table 2: Variables Definition Risk-Reduction Variable Description Indexa Scoringb LAN Establishment of the plantation destroyed native forest LM Binary TEM Material used for tethering plants (bamboo or plastic) LM TMS Source of staking material (plantations or natural stands) LM Categorical VEB Plantation has areas dedicated to uses other than bananas LM Binary RVS Ratio VSU/BAN LM Continuous VSU Vegetative barriers/forested areas surface (hectares) GD BAN Banana surface (hectares) GD HME Method used for weed control AM, WQ Categorical HPR Products used for weed control AM, WQ Categorical HER Records of weed control product usage AM Categorical IMH Method used for insect pest control AM Categorical IMM Record for insect pest control AM Categorical NME Method used for nematode control AM, WQ Categorical NHO Analytic methods for nematode control strategy AM Binary FME Method used for fungal disease control AM, WQ Categorical FRE Record keeping of fungicide use AM Categorical PTA Pest control training available to workers AM Binary PRE Record keeping of training events AM Binary AST On-farm agrochemical storage (fertilizers and pesticides) GD ASI [(ADW + AWA + AIC + AIW + ANW) / 5] AM Continuous ADW Agrochemical storage facility door with look AM Binary AWA Warning signals outside storage facility AM Binary AIC Storage facility has noncombustible floor and ceiling AM Binary AIW Storage facility has noncombustible, impermeable walls AM Binary ANW Storage built has noncombustible, impermeable shelves AM Binary OW1 Management of bananas unfit for export WM, WQ Categorical OW2 Management of banana stalks WM, WQ Categorical INW Management of inorganic waste (plastic waste) WM Categorical SLR Solid waste retention at the processing facility WQ Binary PHT Post harvest residuals treatment at processing facility WQ Binary PST On-farm pesticides storage facility GD PWT Pesticide storage facility has spill-containment system WQ Binary FST On-farm fertilizers storage facility WQ FWT Fertilizers storage facility has spill-containment system WQ Binary WAO Watercourse on plantation GD BSW Buffer zones along watercourse WQ Binary a. LM = land management; AM = agrochemical management; WM = waste management; WQ = water quality management; GD = general descriptor. b. Binary = 1 for presence of risk-reduction measure or practice, 0 for absence; Categorical = 1 for prac- tice linked to highest risk reduction (e.g., cultural control of weeds), .5 for intermediate-level practice (i.e., legal use of herbicides), 0 for most risky practice (e.g., used of banned herbicide); Continuous = value between 1 (maximum value) and 0 (minimum value). tion, supervision of workers and facilities, and environmental conservation. The interviews were conducted by the article's first author in Spanish and took, on aver- age, about 90 minutes. Field inspection was structured through a checklist and served to validate and clarify data from interviews on farm organization, infra- structure, and technical practices. Although it was not possible, we note that under ideal circumstances two or more evaluators would have independently audited production practices to enhance data reliability. Sampling Sampling of certified farms was achieved through contact with relevant coordi- nating organizations. El Guabo Association of Small Banana Producers, which represents Fairtrade-certified producers, and Ecuador's Rainforest Alliance part- ner, Conservation and Development (Conservación y Desarrollo), provided sam- ple frames from which to draw a random sample of certified farms. No reliable sample frames exist for noncertified banana producers in Ecuador. Small producers are particularly difficult to identify and contact in a systematic way. Beyond technical constraints to developing a random sample, there is deep suspicion of outsiders in the banana business, as there has been a series of recent scandalous reports of child labor on Ecuadorian banana farms (Human Rights Watch, 2002). In addition, in 2003 there was a series of series of national strikes around banana prices and considerable civil unrest (Redacción Guayaquil, 2003). These events ensured low enthusiasm for responding to researchers'questions. On this basis, a snowball sampling method was used to identify noncertified farms. Starting with two prominent and receptive growers, through personal referrals we were able to identify a set of large and small noncertified producers willing to par- ticipate in the study. These procedures yielded a sample of 13 Fairtrade-certified farms and a comparison group of 9 noncertified farms of less than 50 ha (small) and a sample of 10 Rainforest Alliancecertified farms and a comparison group of 14 farms greater than 50 ha (large). Inability to generate a random sample of noncertified farms introduces a poten- tial bias, as owners agreeing to be interviewed presumably are more progressive and less likely to be out of compliance with national laws. Thus, our data on prac- tices of noncertified farms should be interpreted conservatively. It is likely that our Melo, Wolf / EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF ECO-CERTIFICATION 297 Table 3: Ecological Risk-Reduction Indices Land management LM = LAN TMS VBF RVS+ + + 4 Water quality management WQ = HME HPR NME FME SLR PHT OW OW PWT FWT BSW+ + + + + + + + + +1 2 10 Agrochemical management AM = HME HPR HER IMH IMM NME NHO FME FME FRE PTA PRE AS+ + + + + + + + + + + + I 12 Waste management WM = OW OW INW1 2 3 + + Total risk-reduction score TRR = LM WQ AM WM+ + + 4 sample includes more farms in the high part of the risk-reduction distribution than would be the case under random sampling. As we will see, this methodological weakness does not importantly affect our results. Statistical Analysis Nonparametric Mann Whitney U tests were used to establish the statistical sig- nificance ( = .05) of differences between risk-reduction scores of paired compari- son groups (Ryan & Joiner, 2001). This test relies on median values and was cho- sen because the data from certified farms are highly skewed, and the samples are relatively small. Under such conditions, the median is considered as a more appro- priate representation of the population (Ott & Longnecker, 2001). RESULTS Our study design supports comparison of certified farms to noncertified farms of similar size (Fairtrade-certified small vs. noncertified small, and Rainforest Alliancecertified large vs. noncertified large). Although it is interesting to reflect on relative risk-reduction scores of farms certified under these two programs (and to ask which of these schemes is linked to higher risk reduction), we believe that observed differences across the certification schemes stem most notably from access to capital and level of technology rather than some essential difference between the two certification initiatives. Land Management (LM) Certified farms have higher LM risk-reduction scores than noncertified farms (see Figure 2). The median certified small farms score is 1.0, relative to .25 for noncertified small farms. The median score for certified large farms is .65, relative to .25 for noncertified large farms. These differences are statistically significant (Mann-Whitney test, p < .0002 for small farms, p < .0000 for large farms). The dis- tributions of LM risk-reduction scores for certified farms are clearly and consis- tently higher than those of noncertified farms. 298 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / September 2005 FIGURE 2: Land Management Risk-Reduction Scores by Farm Size and Certification Status At the level of individual LM index components, the frequency and intensity of farms dedicating land to vegetative barriers or riparian buffer zones (VBF) is mark- edly different on certified and uncertified farms. All certified farms had buffer zones or vegetative barriers in place, but only .12 of noncertified plantations engage in this practice. The average vegetative barrier/plantation ratio (RVS) in a noncertified farm is .01 of the total farm surface, as compared with an average of .14 RVS for large certified farms and .57 RVS for small certified farms. We note that certification is not correlated with halting conversion of virgin forest to banana cultivation, as all farms in the study are established in areas long used for agricul- ture, and there is no such conversion happening in the study area due to market conditions. Water Quality (WQ) Certified farms consistently have higher WQ risk-reduction scores than non- certified farms (see Figure 3). The median certified small farm score is .82, relative to .46 for noncertified small farms. The median certified large farm score is .73, rel- ative to .27 for noncertified large farms. These differences are statistically signifi- cant (p < .0001 for small farms and p < .0000 for large farms). Analysis of WQ on these farms highlights a correlation between certification and pollution prevention. There are two pollutants of concern associated with efflu- ent from processing sheds, organic waste from preparing and cleaning bananas, and the post-harvest treatment residuals (i.e., fungicide residuals). According to both sets of certification norms and Ecuadorian law, processing facilities on all farms should have in place solid and latex filtering and retention systems (SLR) and a sand-gravel-charcoal filtering mechanism to collect residuals. These investments avoid direct release of organic waste and fungicides to watercourses. However, Fairtrade norms suggest another approach. They recommend that fungicides should be phased out of the PHT of fruit, hence avoiding the cost of constructing and servicing a residuals. Survey results indicate that large certified farms employ a conventional end-of- pipe approach. All of them were observed to have in place SLR and PHT mecha- nisms. On the other hand, 54% small certified farmers have already built a SLR, and 46% are in the process of building them. Nevertheless, none of them had plans Melo, Wolf / EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF ECO-CERTIFICATION 299 FIGURE 3: Water Quality Management Risk-Reduction Scores by Farm Size and Cer- tification Status to build PHT. Rather, 73% of them have replaced the post-harvest fungicides thiabendazole or imazalil for an organic product that is believed to pose lower eco- logical risk. Due to the lack of information about the ecological risk of this alterna- tive fungicide, we treat the organic product as equivalent to conventional fungi- cides. However, this willingness to implement alternative measures is worth mentioning and contrasts starkly with practice on noncertified farms. One hundred percent of noncertified farms lack both SLR and PHT, and all of them use fungicides in their postharvest treatment. Agrochemical Management (AM) Certified farms' AM is significantly different than that of noncertified farms (see Figure 4). The median certified small farm risk-reduction score is .92, com- pared with .41 for noncertified small farms. The median certified large farm score is .86, compared with .36 for noncertified large farms. These differences are statis- tically significant (p < .0001 for small and p < .0000 for large farms). The distribu- tions do not overlap highlighting the magnitude and consistency of observed dif- ferences between these populations. These data indicate that certified producers use agrochemicals differently from noncertified producers. For example, Fairtrade certification requires that farms use no herbicides, and in fact no certified small farm was observed to use them. In con- trast, the use of herbicides is widespread on noncertified small farms (100% of them reported using chemical herbicides). Rainforest Alliance enforces a ban on the herbicide paraquat,4 and certified large farms were not observed to be using this product. In contrast, 53% of noncertified large farms reported using paraquat- based herbicides. Therefore, it seems likely that certified farms choose production methods with an awareness of their obligations under certification, whereas noncertified farms select on the basis of price and efficacy. A second important difference in practices reflected in the aggregate AM risk- reduction score relates to integrated pest management. Certified farms are far more likely to rely on analytic and diagnostic procedures before using agrochemi- cals (e.g., pest scouting, economic thresholds), pesticide record keeping, and pest- management training for farm workers. These techniques can enhance efficiency of the farm operation and reduce risks to workers and the environment. 300 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / September 2005 FIGURE 4: Agrochemical Management Risk-Reduction Scores by Farm Size and Cer- tification Status Waste Management (WM) Certified farms consistently have higher WM risk-reduction scores than non- certified (see Figure 5). The median for certified small farms is 1.0 versus .67 for noncertified small farms. The median for certified large farms is also 1.0, as com- pared to .33 for noncertified large farms. No significance test was performed because all certified farms achieved the maximum possible score. In terms of organic waste, 100% of certified farms and 88% of the noncertified farms surveyed reported having a secondary market for bananas that did not meet export grade. When it comes to managing banana stalks, 62% of the noncertified farmers engage in the recommended practice of returning the stalks to the planta- tion (the remaining 37% of respondents dump the stalks elsewhere). All certified farms reported returning stalks to the fields to replace organic matter. The inorganic waste of consequence in banana production is plastic used for tethering plants and covering banana bunches in the field. Lack of local waste man- agement facilities, costs of transportation, and the underdeveloped nature of the local plastic recycling industry imply that producers must incur significant costs in avoiding the common practices of open burning or random disposal on property boundaries. We observe that only 16% of noncertified producers engage in ade- quate disposal practices, as compared to 100% of certified farms. Total Risk Reduction (TRR) TRR score is an integrative, summary measure calculated by aggregating the four previous indices. Certified farms consistently have higher scores than do noncertified (see Table 4). The median certified small farm score is .91 as com- pared to .46 for noncertified small farms. The median certified large farm score is .78 total versus .34 for noncertified farms. The differences are statistically signifi- cant (p < .0001 for small farms and p < .0000 for large farms). The distribution of the scores of certified and noncertified farms do not overlap, with a gap of .19 between the maximum score of a noncertified small farm and the minimum score of a certified small farm (see Figure 6). The gap between certified large farms and noncertified large farms is .20. Thus, there is clear reason to believe Melo, Wolf / EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF ECO-CERTIFICATION 301 FIGURE 5: Waste Management Risk-Reduction Scores by Farm Size and Certification Status that certified operations will have a lower environmental impact than comparable noncertified operations. We note not only that aggregate risk reduction is higher on both large and small certified farms, but also that certified farms demonstrate higher risk reduction scores on all components this master index. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION This research is motivated by the lack of empirical evidence on the ecological effects of ecolabeling, the challenges to state-based environmental regulation posed by global trade integration, and the increasing reliance on market-based incentives to achieve public policy objectives. We compare production practices and environmental conservation investments of paired samples of certified and noncertified banana farms in Ecuador and evaluate risk reduction applied to land management, water quality, agrochemical management, and waste management. Certified farms exhibited relatively complex and comprehensive environmental management systems. In contrast, noncertified farms exhibit uneven and unstruc- tured adoption of best management practices. Our results indicate that both large and small certified farms exhibit higher risk reduction than comparable non- certified farms. The differences in practices are dramatic in that the lowest-scoring certified farm (of any size) had a higher risk-reduction score than the highest scor- ing noncertified farm. Our results support the claim that ecolabels serve to distin- 302 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / September 2005 Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for Total Risk Reduction Scores (1.0 = maximum possible risk reduction) Small Farms (<50 hectares) Large Farms (>50 hectares) Noncertified Fairtrade Noncertified Rainforest Alliance Farm Size (n = 9) Certified (n = 13) (n = 15) Certified (n=10) Median .46 .91 .34. .78 Mean .44 .87 .34 .77 Minimum .32 .76 .12 .73 Maximum .57 .94 .53 .82 Standard deviation .08 .06 .12 .03 FIGURE 6: Total Risk-Reduction Scores by Farm Size and Certification Status guish operations that have made investments in mitigating environmental degrada- tion associated with standard industrial models of production. In considering our results, the cross-sectional nature of these data makes it impossible to test causality between ecocertification and evolution of farm prac- tices. We do not have data to understand if farms made investments to become cer- tified or if certification has simply been awarded to the strata of farms engaged in socially appealing practices. Further research is needed to study if and how certifi- cation motivates investment and catalyzes innovation that pushes the distribution of technical practice toward sustainability. There is a need to understand dynamics among producers, agribusiness, markets, ecocertification systems, and the envi- ronment. Also in considering limitations of this study, because the samples are small and the noncertified producers were not selected to participate at random, there is obvious interest in collecting more and better data. The potential bias intro- duced due to methodological constraints would, however, most likely lead to upward bias in risk-reduction scores of noncertified farms. Given the dramatic sep- aration we observed between certified and noncertified farms using snowball sam- pling for the control group, correcting for this shortcoming would not add much value to the study. Last, reliance on a single auditor rather than the preferred multiple evaluator method should be recognized as a limitation of these data. As reflected in the appendix, the overlap in standards among the two ecocerti- fication schemes, Ecuadorian national law, and the assessment criteria we derive from relevant agroecological literature suggests that policy interventions-- whether they be legal codes or ecocertification schemes promoted by nongovern- ment organizations and commercial firms--are, to a greater or lesser extent, sci- ence based. The accountability criteria articulated by policy makers are consistent with general scientific understanding; thus, there is general agreement as to which ecological resources are at risk and which categories of activities in agricultural production systems should be regulated. We conclude that ecocertification schemes and bodies of national law derive legitimacy from linking themselves to sets of concerns identified as problematic by ecological science (e.g., water quality degradation, alteration of habitat, release of agrochemicals, waste management). Whether policy instruments address these concerns in an ambitious and meaningful way is not clear from consideration of the standards alone. General agreement as to relevant categories of risk must be distin- guished from specific agreement as to which production behaviors are acceptable and which are unacceptable. How high the regulatory bar should be set does not follow from agreement as to the categories of concern. Thus, greenwashing by political and economic actors can take the form of unwillingness to engage the issues linked to the greatest ecological risks or the form of addressing these issues in only a superficial way. Our study shows that ecocertified producers and ecocertification bodies are addressing the most meaningful ecological risks. As to how meaningfully they engage these issues, we report important differences in technical practices that are linked to conservation benefits. Our study is not, however, a definitive assessment, and more research is needed. In addition to highlighting superior conservation practices of ecocertified farms relative to noncertified farms, our findings point to breakdown in enforcement of domestic environmental laws. It is quite likely that barriers to technical assistance, capital, and other resources needed to upgrade practices of noncertified operations Melo, Wolf / EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF ECO-CERTIFICATION 303 interact with a lack of credible enforcement threat to sustain forms of agriculture that degrade ecological structure and functions. The suppression of the BNP has created an institutional failure, in that the monitoring and regulation of the banana industry is incoherent. More generally, we can suggest that neoliberal reforms that reduced state capacity to coordinate development without ensuring some alterna- tive institutional response also constitute institutional failures (UNEP, 2002). Regarding social justice considerations, important arguments have been made regarding ways in which ecolabeling may serve the interests of large farms and nonfarm agribusinesses to the disadvantage of small, poor producers (Murray & Raynolds, 2000; Raynolds, 2000). The study does not provide evidence to support or dismiss claims that ecocertification is environmentally progressive yet socially regressive (Bray et al., 2002). This study did find, however, that socially oriented certification (Fairtrade) and ecologically oriented certification (Rainforest Alli- ance) can coexist, and both make contributions to environmental conservation. We observe complementarity through a functional division of labor, as Fairtrade and Rainforest Alliance certify different kinds of farms and perhaps appeal to different kinds of consumers. Our findings suggest that ecocertification could potentially raise standards of environmental conservation practice more effectively than domestic law in coun- tries such as Ecuador. It should be noted, however, that certification is a tool that applies currently only to a small minority of the population of producers. Eco-cer- tification potentially has no significance for the majority of producers who do not have resources or interest in innovating. The majority of producers will either con- tinue to farm as noncertified producers, or in an alternative future they will go out of business. Both scenarios have costs. Consequently, we come to recognize a need for institutional plurality (Allaire & Wolf, 2004). In addition to support for diverse certification schemes, there is con- tinued need for state engagement in regulation and development of natural resource-based industries. The state must define and effectively enforce minimum compliance with environmental standards, and investments should be made to help producers achieve these standards. Our research findings suggest that the greatest opportunities to improve noncertified producers' practices lies in agrochemical management and water quality, as both large and small noncertified producers exhibited marked weakness on these criteria. The state, of course, is also fully rele- vant to continuous improvement of resource conservation practice on certified farms, as threat of regulation and enforcement plays an important role in motivat- ing voluntary initiatives such as ecocertification. 304 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / September 2005 APPENDIX ComparisonofFairtradeandRainforestAllianceEco-certificationStandardsandEcuadorianNationalLawAccordingtoFourCategoriesofEcologicalRisk TableA:LandUseStandardsofEcuadorianLaw(RSAB),a Fairtradeb ,andRainforestAlliancec Eco-certification NationalLawa Fairtradeb RainforestAlliancec Natural--Plantationscannotbeestablishedinvirginforest,nationalPlantationscannotbeestablishedincriticalhabitats,primary areasparks,orEcosystemsofEcologicalValue.(3.2.1)forestofadvancedstatesofsecondaryforest.(1.1.3) ----Naturalareasmustbeprotected,conserved,andrecuperated.(1.1.1) ----Expansionplansornewfarmsestablishmentmustbeauthorizedby thecertificationprogramstaff.(1.1B) ----Ifwoodisusedasafuelsource,itmustcomefromfirewood plantations.(1.2.3) ----Onlywoodfromauthorizedsources(plantations)canbeused.(1.2.4) ----Biologicalcorridorstoletwildlifemigratebetweenprotectedareas.(2.3) ----Theproducermusthaveaplanandstrategiestoprotect endangeredspecies,followingapplicablelocallaw.(2.6.B) BufferBufferzonesalongwaterbodies,drainageBufferzonesalongrivers,waterbodies,andsecondaryBufferzonesaroundprotectedandnaturalareas,rivers,roads,and zoneschannels,roads,orshrimppools.(14c)forest.(3.2.2)facilities.(1.2.A,B,C,D) Bufferzonesmustbeplantedwithnon-Noagriculturalactivitiesinthebufferzone,reforestationBufferzonemustbereforestedwithnativespecieswhen commercial,ornamentalspecies.(14e)withnativeorotherappropriatespecies.(3.2.3,3.2.4)available.(1.2.1) --Slopesofmorethan60°shouldbecoveredwithgrassesAreasnotsuitableforproductionmustberecuperated.(1.2.1) andtrees.(3.3.1,3.8) 10meters(m)"noagrochemicals/ferti-Noagriculturalactivitiesinthebufferzone.(3.2.4)10msafetyzoneinrelationwithwatersources.(1.2.A) lizers"bufferzonearoundwater wells.(17,25) --Nouseordisposalofpesticidesormanureinbuffer-- zone.(3.2.3) Note:--=noequivalentcriteria.Numbersinparenthesesrefertochapterorsubcharterorstandardorindicatorofthelaworthestandardsthatincluderelevantinformation. a.Ecuadorianenvironmentalbylawsforbananaproduction(RSAB). b.FairtradeStandardsforBananasandSmallFarmersOrganizations,version25.05.2002. c.RainforestAllianceCompleteStandardsforBananaProduction,version9.99. 305 TableB:AgrochemicalManagementStandardsofEcuadorianLaw(RSAB),a Fairtrade,b andRainforestAlliancec Eco-certification(sectionnumbersinparentheses) NationalLawa Fairtradeb RainforestAlliancec Approvedand restrictedproducts OnlypesticidesapprovedbynationalProducersmustcomplywithnationalandinternationalProducersmustcomplywithnationallawandinternationalaccords. law(SESA)canbeappliedinbananalawregardingpesticides.(3.1.1.1GS)(Values) production.(16and41) Ifnolocalruleisapplicable,thepro-PesticidesincludedinWHOClass1a+b,PAN"dirtyPesticidesincludedinPAN"dirtydozen"andFAOUNEP'sPICare ducersmustfollowtheFAOagro-dozen,"andFAOUNEP'sPICarebanned.(3.1.1.2GS)banned.(5.2.3A,B,C,D,E) chemicalsrecommendations.(48) ----OnlyEPA-approvedpesticidescanbeusedinthecrop.(5.2.2) --Herbicidesarenotallowed.CovercropsarerequiredMechanicalcontrolofweedsoruseofgroundcoverisrecommended. [3months].(3.5.1,3.8.3)(5.1A) --UseofbagstreatedwithchlorpyrifosisallowedifAlternateduseoftreatedwithno-treatedbagsisrecommended.(5.1G) replacementisnotfeasible.(3.5.3) Groundapplicationoftriazoles,Tremox(postharvestfungicide)isbanned(3.5.5)and-- bensimidazoles,orestrobilurinasthiobendazol(postharvestfungicide)istobegradually (fungicides)isbanned.(68)phasedout.(3.5.10) --Onlygranulatednematocidesareallowed.(3.5.8)-- ----Soildisinfectantswithhighresidualcharacteristicsarebanned.(5.2.3D) Agrochemicalstorage Pesticidesshouldbestoredinade-Ifindividualfarmerswishtostoreagrochemicals,theyPesticidesshouldbestoredinadequatefacilities.(5.5) quatefacilities(specificindica-mustdoitinseparated,weather-protectedboxesthat torsforpesticidestorage).(3ato3g)canbelocked.(3.5.7) Storageandmanagementmustbe--Agrochemicalsmustbesegregatedaccordingtotheirtoxicity,biocide doneaccordingtoruleINEN1927:92actionclass,andformulation;labelsmustbevisible.(5.5T) (classificationaccordingtotoxicity andformulation).(4ato4h) ThestoragefacilitymustbelocatedIfindividualfarmerswishtostoreagrochemicals,theyRecommendeddistancesbetweenagrochemstoragefacilitiesandother atleast10mfromhousingfacilities,mustdoitinseparated,weather-protectedboxesthatinfrastructure:60m.fromotherinfrastructure,120m.fromwater 306 schools,diaryfarmfacilities,andcanbelocked.(3.5.7)courses,200m.fromsourcesofdrinkablewater.(5.5A) watercourses.(3a) Wallsmustbepaintedtopermit--Wallsandfloormustbe"impermeable,noncombustibleandnon detectionofpossiblefiltrations.(3d)corrosive."(5.5D) ----Ceilingrequired.(5.5E) Itmusthaveadoorthatmustbekept--Restrictedaccess,facilitymustbe"secureagainsttheftandvandalism." locked.(3f)(5.5Q) Goodventilationrequired.(3c)--Goodventilation;openventilationisrequired.(5.5F) ----Onlytheminimalnecessaryquantityofpesticidesmustbestored. (5.5.3) ----Showers,eyewash,andsinkrequired.(5.5G) Agrochemicalmanagement Anaccreditedprofessionalmustbein)---- chargeofpesticideapplication.(1,15) Recordkeeping,withproduct,doses,RecordkeepingforanyagrochemicalapplicationisRecordkeepingforanyagrochemicalapplicationisrequired.(5.1.3) frequency,anddateisrequired.(15)required.(3.5.8,3.5.9,3.5.10) --WrittenanalysisandjustificationisrequiredbeforeTheremustbewrittenproceduresforeachplannedactivity.(9.1.1) usingpesticides.(3.1.1) Storageandmanagementmustbe---- doneaccordingtoruleINEN1927:92 (classificationaccordingtotoxicity andformulation).(4ato4h) ----Farmsmustbeableto"demonstrateacontinualreductionintoxicity andquantityofagrochemicalsused."(5.1.3) --ProducershouldimplementICMpractices.(3.1.2.1)IPM"mustbeemployed,emphasizingphysical,cultural,mechanical andbiologicalpracticestocontrolpests."(5.1.1) --Monitoringsystem(soil,water,insects,leaves,roots,Fortheuseofchemicalproducts,amonitoringandevaluationsystem diseases,andyields)mustbeimplementedandmustbeimplemented;threatlevel,zoning,andtimingconsiderations applicationofpesticides/fertilizersmustbedonemustbetakinginaccountbeforeapplications.(5.1.2) accordingtoICMcriteria.(3.1.1,3.5.8) (continued) 307 --After2years,applicationofnematocides,pesticides,Fertilizationshouldbebasedinsoilsamples,regionalconditions,and andfertilizermustbemadeaccordingtoICMleafanalysis.(5.6.4) criteria.(3.5.8) --Measurestoavoid[pest]resistancearerequired.(3.5.4)Measurestoavoidchemicalresistanceinpestpopulations(5.1.4) ----Applicationmustbejustifiedby"evidenceoftargetpestreaching damagethresholdlevels."(5.1C) --FewercyclesofaerialfumigationthanregionalUseofmechanicalcontrolsagainstBlackSigatokaissuggested. average(3.5.9)(IPM5.1D) --Agriculturaldiversificationisrequired,reducing bananamonoculturepractice.(3.2.5)-- ----Biologicalcontrolofinsectsissuggestedwhenavailable.(IPM5.1F) Occupationalsafetyandtraining Adequatefacilities(showers)must--Adequatefacilities(showers)mustbeavailableforworkers.(5.6.5) beavailableforworkers.(8a,8b) AdequatepersonalprotectionAdequatepersonalprotectionequipmentmustbeAdequatepersonalprotectionequipmentmustbeprovided.(5.6.2) equipmentmustbeprovided.provided.(4.4.2.4GS[4.2.4.3GS]) (2,5,6,8a,8d,9) Afteranyapplication,theproducer--Afterapplication,a10msafetyzonemustbedelimitedanddemarked must"post"warningsdisplayingusingpictogramswarningagainstentrancetothearea.(5.6.3AtoD) writtentextplusa"hand,skullor anyothersymbol"thatsignalsthat peopleshouldnotenter.(18) Pregnantwomen,children,andPregnantornursingwomen,peopleunder18,personsPregnantornursingwomen,workersunder18,andpersonsmentally "sick"peopleshouldnotapplywithreducedmentalcapabilitiesandwithchronicorunfitorsufferingchronicorrespiratorydiseasesshouldnotapply pesticides.(8)respiratorydiseasesshouldnotapplypesticides.(4.4.2.5)pesticides.(3.6I4). The[pesticideapplication,exporters,---- importers,andproducersofagro- chemicals]areresponsiblefor TableB(continued) NationalLawa Fairtradeb RainforestAlliancec 308 designingcontingencyplans; furthermore,theymusttraintheir personaltobeabletoreact adequately.(7) PesticideapplicationcompaniesandTheproducerorganizationmustprovidetheirmembers/Producersareresponsibleforprovidingadequatetrainingforthe agrochemicalexporters,importers,personnelwithadequatetraininginagrochemicalworkers,includingpesticides,environmentaleducation,safety, andproducersmustprovideworkersstorage,application,anddisposaloftheirresiduals.emergencyprocedures.(5.6.1) withadequatetraining.(8aand8d)(4.4.2.3) PesticideapplicationcompaniesandThetrainingmustincreasetheworkers'awarenessof-- bananaproducersmustpublishagrochemicaldanger,healthissues,andfirstaid.(4.4.2.6) informativematerialaboutthe dangersofpesticidesandfirstaid measuresincaseofpesticide poisoning.(11) Exportersmustprovide[thepro----- ducers]withtechnicalassistance inagronomicandenvironmental concerns.(28) Exportersmustprovide[thepro----- ducers]withtrainingonpesticides; also,theyareresponsiblefor implementingcomprehensive environmentalprograms.(31and32) ----Certifiedfarmsmusthaveanenvironmentaleducationprogramforthe workersandtheirfamilies.(3.4E) Note:--=noequivalentcriteria;SESA=EcuadorianServiceofAgricultureandFarmingHealth;FAO=FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations;WHO=WorldHealthOrganiza- tion;PAN=PesticidesActionNetwork;UNEP=UnitedNationsEnvironmentalProgramme;PIC=priorinformedconsent;GS=generalstandards;EPA=EnvironmentalProtectionAgency; ICM=integratedcropmanagement;IPM=integratedpestmanagement.Numbersinparenthesesrefertochapterorsubcharterorstandardorindicatorofthelaworthestandardsthatincluderele- vantinformation. a.Ecuadorianenvironmentalbylawsforbananaproduction. b.FairtradeStandardsforBananasandSmallFarmersOrganizations,version25.05.2002. c.RainforestAllianceCompleteStandardsforBananaProduction,version9.99. 309 TableC:WasteManagementStandardsofEcuadorianLaw(RSAB), a Fairtrade, b andRainforestAlliance c Eco-certification(sectionnumbersinparentheses) NationalLawa Fairtradeb RainforestAlliancec Generalpractices andinorganicwaste --Recyclingandreusingarerecommended.(3.6)Reduction,reuse,andrecyclingarerecommended.(6) Wastemanagementplanisrequired.(6.1) --TheremustbewrittenproceduresforeachplannedWastemanagementrecordkeepingisrequired(typeandvolumes).(6.1) activity.(3.6.7) ----Wasteseparationbycategoryisrequired.(6B) Wasteburningisprohibited.(20)--Burningtrashisprohibited.(6.4) Open-fireplasticwasteburning isprohibited.(20)--Burningtrashisprohibited.(6.4) ProducersmustrecoverallplasticPackagingstationsandriverbanksmustbefreeofAllplasticwastemustbecollected,reused,andadequatelydisposed. wastefromtheplantationandsendwaste[3months].(3.6.1.)Incineratorcanbeapprovedifitcomplieswithlocallegislationand ittoadequatedisposalfacilitiespermits.(6E) (authorizedforms:600-C incinerators,landfills).(20) Organicwaste ----Opendumpsareprohibited(6.4) Organicwaste(bananastalks)should--Surplusbananaandbananastalksshouldbereturnedtotheplantation. bereturnedtotheplantation.(19)(8.3.1A) TheuseoforganicdigestersandUseoforganicwaste/manureasfertilizerisCompostingoforganicwasteisstronglyrecommended;ifcompostingis otheralternativesfororganicwasterecommended.(3.6.4)notfeasible,adequatedisposition(landfill)isrecommended.(6.2,6.4) managementisrecommended.(19) 310 Organicwaste(banana)mustbeEachfarmmusthavea"sanitarydumpingplace"coveredLandfillmustcomplywithWHOrecommendations,international depositedinaplaceatleast10mwithawaterproofmembrane,drainagechannel,andstandards,andlaws.Itmustbebuiltconsideringimpermeability, fromirrigationchannels,roads,lixiviatestreatment.Thisfacilitymustbelocatedatdrainage,treatmentoflixiviates,gasesevacuation,andfinalsealing. houses;thisorganicwastemustleast100mfromanywaterbody."ToxicwastemustThelandfillcannotbeusedtodisposeWHOtoxicordangerous notcontainplasticwaste.(19)bedumpedinthisarea."(3.6.5)materials.(6LandfillsAtoG) Note:--=noequivalentcriteria;WHO=WorldHealthOrganization.Numbersinparenthesesrefertochapterorsubcharterorstandardorindicatorofthelaworthestandardsthatincluderelevant information. a.Ecuadorianenvironmentalbylawsforbananaproduction. b.FairtradeStandardsforBananasandSmallFarmersOrganizations,version25.05.2002. c.RainforestAllianceCompleteStandardsforBananaProduction,version9.99. 311 TableD:WaterQualityStandardsofEcuadorianLaw(RSAB),a Fairtrade,b andRainforestAlliancec Eco-certification(sectionnumbersinparentheses) NationalLawa Fairtradeb RainforestAlliancec Waterresourcesprotection Bufferzonesalongwaterbodies,Bufferzonesalongrivers,waterbodies,andsecondaryBufferzonesaroundprotectedandnaturalareas,rivers,roads,and drainagechannels,roads,orshrimpforest.(3.2.2)facilities.(1.2AtoD) pools.(14c) Waterwellsmustnotbesprayed(aerialfumigation).(25)-- --Waterbodies'naturalcoursesmustnotbealtered.(3.4.5)Changingthecourseofstreamsoralteringthe"naturalhydrology"is prohibited.(7.1.2) ----Nosolidwastemaybedirecteddirectlytowardanysourceofwater. (7.3C) ----Residualwatersmustbesampledandanalyzed.Residualwatersmust meetnationallawandtheprogramstandardsbeforetheycanbe released.(7.3F) ----Theplantationmusthaveaplanforrecyclingand/orreducingthe packagingfacilitywaterusage.(7.2A) ----Fuelstoragemustfulfillsafetyrequirements.(7.3A) ----Nosolidwastemaybedirecteddirectlytowardanysourceofwater. (7.3C) Pesticideresiduals Pesticideswasteandpesticide-Pesticideswasteandpesticide-pollutedwastewatermustPesticide-pollutedwastewatermustbeadequatelytreated.(6.5C) pollutedwastewatermustbebetreated(carbonorcharcoalfiltered).(3.4) adequatelytreated(sedimentation wells).(21) 312 PackagingfacilitiesmusthaveaPackagingplantwastewatermustbefilteredPackagingfacilitiesmusthaveasystemtocollectandtreattheresiduals systemtocollectandfilterthe[2years].(3.4.3)ofthepostharvesttreatment.(5.6M) residualsofthepostharvest treatment.(21) Pesticide'sapplicationclothesmustAllsprayingequipmentmustbewashedinadesignedPesticide'sapplicationclothesandequipmentmustbewashed bewashedseparately.(8c)facility,andwastewatermustbefilteredwithcarbonseparatelyinaspeciallydesignedfacility,andwastewatermustbe orcharcoal.(3.4.2)treated.(5.6H) Adequatedispositionofagro-AsanitarydumpingplacemustbeusedtodisposeofFacilitiesforadequatetreatmentofagrochemicalresidualsare chemicalresiduals(sedimentationtoxicwaste.(3.6.5)required.(6.5C) tanksorsimilar)arerequired.(17) --WastewaterfrommixingofpesticidesmustbedoneinAnyequipmentcontaminatedwithagrochemicalsmustbewashedina aplacewithimpermeablefloor.Wastewatermustbespeciallydesignedfacility.(7.3D) treated.(3.4.3) Note:--=noequivalentcriteria.Numbersinparenthesesrefertochapterorsubcharterorstandardorindicatorofthelaworthestandardsthatincluderelevantinformation. a.Ecuadorianenvironmentalbylawsforbananaproduction. b.FairtradeStandardsforBananasandSmallFarmersOrganizations,version25.05.2002. c.RainforestAllianceCompleteStandardsforBananaProduction,version9.99. 313 NOTES 1. Ecuadorian banana production is still subject to the Environmental Management Bylaws for the Banana Sector (RO 395, August 22, 2001) and overseen by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. As the United National Economic Programme (2002) found, however, closing down the Banana National Program greatly diminished environmental enforcement and compliance. 2. It should be noted that a number of the farms certified as part of Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International cooperatives were organic producers. 3. Modified risk reduction indices Land management (LM; no change from original index): LM = LAN TMS VBF RVS+ + + 4 . Water quality management (WQ): WQ = 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2HME HPR NME FME SLR PHT OW OW PWT FW+ + + + + + + + + T BSW+ 10 . Agrochemical management (AM): AM = 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 HME HPR HER IMH IMM NME NHO FME FRE PTA PR+ + + + + + + + + + E ASI+ 12 . Waste management (WM): WM = 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 OW OW INW+ + . Total risk-reduction (TRR) score: TRR = LM WQ AM WM+ + + 4 . 4. Both certification systems ban or restrict pesticides included in the Pesticides Action Network'slist ofpersistent organic pollutants, and the Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations-United Nations Environmental Programme list of products requiring prior informed consent. REFERENCES Allaire, G., & Wolf, S. (2004). Cognitive models and institutional hybridity in agrofood innovation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 29, 431-458. Barbier, E. (2000). Links between economic liberalization and rural resource degradation in the developing regions. Agricultural Economics, 23, 299-310. Boström, M. (2003). Environmental organisations in new forms of political participation: Ecological modernization and the making of voluntary rules. Environmental Values, 12, 175-193. Bray, D., Sanchez, J., & Murphy, E. (2002). Social dimensions of organic coffee production in Mexico: Lessons for eco-labeling initiatives. Society & Natural Resources, 15, 429- 446. Cashore, B., Auld, G., & Newsom, D. (2004). Governing through markets: Forest certifica- tion andthe emergence of non-state authority.NewHaven,CT: Yale University Press. Castillo, L., Ruepert, C., & Solis, E. (2000). Pesticide residue in the aquatic environment of banana plantation areas in the North Atlantic zone of Coast Rica. Environmental Toxi- cology and Chemistry, 19, 429-446. 314 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / September 2005 Chambron, A. (1999). Bananas: The TNC's green gold. In J. Madeley (Ed.), Hungry for power (pp. 46-65). London: UK Food Group. Clay, J. (2004). World agriculture and the environment: A commodity-by-commodity guide to impacts and practices. Washington, DC: Island Press. Colburn, F. (1997). Shrimp or bananas. Journal of Business Research, 38, 97-103. Constance, D., & Bonanno, A. (2000). Regulating the global fisheries: The World Wildlife Fund, Unilever, and the Marine Stewardship Council. Agriculture and Human Values, 17, 125-139. Consumers International. (1999). Green labels: Consumers interest and transatlantic trade tensions in eco-labeling. New York: Author. Crichlow, M. (2003). Neoliberalism, states, and bananas in the Windward Islands. Latin American Perspectives, 30, 37-57. Dryzek, J. (1997). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2000). Ad-hoc expert meeting on socially andenvironmentally responsible bananaproduction andtrade.Rome: Author. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2001). Banana statistics 1990- 2000. Rome: Author. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2003). The world banana econ- omy 1985-2002. Rome: Author. Green, K.,Morton, B., & New, S. (2000). Greening organizations: Purchasing, consumption and innovation. Organization & Environment, 13, 206. Grossman, P. (2000). Corporate interest and trade liberalization. Organization & Environ- ment, 13, 61. Hausker, K. (1999). The convergence of ideas on improving the environmental protection system. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies. Henriques, W., Jeffers, R., Lacher, T., & Kendall, R. (1997). Agrochemical use on banana plantations in Latin America: Perspectives on ecological risk. Environmental Toxicol- ogy and Chemistry, 16, 91-99. Human Rights Watch. (2002). Tainted harvest. New York: Author. Jansen, K. (2004). Greening bananas and institutionalizing environmentalism: Self- regulation by fruit corporations. In K. Jansen & S. Vellema (Eds.), Agribusiness and society: Corporate responses to environmentalism, market opportunities and public regulation (pp. 145-175). London: Zed Books. Jeger, M., Waller, J., Johanson, A., & Gowen, S. (1996). Monitoring in banana pest manage- ment. Crop Protection, 15, 391-397. Joshi,M.(2004).Are eco-labels consistent with world trade organization agreements? Jour- nal of World Trade, 38, 69-92. Karlsson, S. (2004). Agricultural pesticides in developing countries. Environment, 46, 22- 41. Kettl, D. (2002). Introduction. In D. F. Kettl (Ed.), Environmental governance: A report on the next generation of environmental policy (pp. 1-13). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Kimerling, J. (2001). Corporate ethics in the era of globalization: The promise and peril of international environmental standards. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Eth- ics, 14, 425-255. Kirchhoff, S. (2000). Green business and blue angels. Environmental and Resource Eco- nomics, 15, 403-420. Lockeretz, W. (Ed.). (2002). Ecolabels and the greening of the food market. Medford, MA: Tufts University. Matlock, R. B., Rogers, D., Edwards, J., & Martin, S. (2002). Avian communities in forest fragments and reforestation areas associated with banana plantations in Costa Rica. Agriculture, Ecosystems and the Environment, 91, 199-215. Mazmanian, D., & Kraft, M. (Eds.). (1999). Toward sustainable communities: Transition and transformations in environmental policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Melo, Wolf / EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF ECO-CERTIFICATION 315 McCarthy, J., & Prudham, W. (2004). Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism. Geoforum, 35, 275-283. Mortensen, S., Johnson, K., Weisskopf, C., Hooper, M., Lacher T., & Kendall R. (1998). Avian exposure to pesticides in Costa Rican banana plantations. Bulletin of Environ- mental Contamination and Toxicology, 60, 562-568. Muños-Carpena, R., Ritter, A., Socorro, A., & Perez, N. (2002). Nitrogen evolution and fate in a Canary Islands (Spain) sprinkler fertigated banana plot. Agricultural Water Man- agement, 52, 93-117. Murray, D., & Raynolds, L. (2000). Alternative trade in bananas: Obstacles and opportuni- ties for progressive social change in the global economy. Agriculture and Human Val- ues, 17, 65-74. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (1997). Eco-labelling: Actual effects of selected programmes (Working Paper 5). Ott, R., & Longnecker, M. (2001). An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury. Overdevest, C. (2004). Treadmill politics, information politics and public policy. Organiza- tion and Environment, 18, 72-90. Polanyi, K. (1944). Self protection of society. In K. Polanyi (Ed.), The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time (pp. 130-134). Boston: Beacon. Porter, M., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment- competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 97-118. Raynolds, L. (2000). Re-embedding global agriculture: The international organic and fair trade movements. Agriculture and Human Values, 17, 297-309. Raynolds, L., & Murray, D. (1998). Yes, we have no bananas: Re-regulating global and regional trade. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 7, 7-44. Redacción Guayaquil. (2003, May 19). Hoy se inicia el paro nacional de los bananero [Banana producers' national strike starts today]. El Comercio, Quito, p. A1. Redacción Machala. (2004, July 10). La intermediacion bananera aumenta en el pais [The banana intermediation increases in the country]. El Comercio, Quito, p. D1. Rice, R. (2001). Noble goals and challenging terrain: Organic and fair trade coffee move- ments in the global marketplace. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14, 39-66. Ryan, B., & Joiner, B. (2001). Minitab handbook. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury. Agriculture Information System of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. (2003). Third agricultural census. Quito: Author. Schnaiberg, A. (1980). The environment: From surplus to scarcity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Stern, A. (1999). Shrimps, bananas and mangroves: A dispute resolved. The Environmental- ist, 19, 317-323. Striffler, R. (2002). In the shadows of state and capital. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. United Nations. (1993). The global partnership for environment and development: A guide to Agenda 21. New York: Author. United Nations Environmental Programme. (2001). Environmental outlook: Latin America and the Caribbean. Mexico DF: Author. United Nations Environmental Programme. (2002). Integrated assessment of trade liberal- ization and trade-related policies: A country study on the banana sector in Ecuador. New York: United Nations. Ward, H. (1997). Trade and the environmental: Issues in voluntary eco-labelling and life cycle analysis. Review of European Community and International Law (RECIEL), 6, 139-148. Watts, M. (2002). Preface: Green capitalism, green governability. American Behavioral Sci- entist, 45, 1313-1317. 316 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / September 2005 CristianJ.Melois fromQuito,Ecuador.Heis currentlyaPh.D.studentatFloridaInternationalUniver- sity in internationalrelations. Prior to receiving his M.S. from Cornell University, he provided ecocerti- fication services for a Rainforest Alliance-affiliated nongovernmental organization in Ecuador. Steven A. Wolf is an assistant professor in the Department of Natural Resources at Cornell University, where he teaches and conductsresearch on environmentalgovernance, multifunctionallandscapeplan- ning and management, and distributed innovation in agriculture and forest industries. Melo, Wolf / EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF ECO-CERTIFICATION 317 </meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-wrap></article-meta></front><back><notes><p><list list-type="order"><list-item><p>1. Ecuadorian banana production is still subject to the Environmental Management Bylaws for the Banana Sector (RO 395, August 22, 2001) and overseen by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. As the United National Economic Programme (2002) found, however, closing down the Banana National Program greatly diminished environmental enforcement and compliance.</p></list-item><list-item><p>2. It should be noted that a number of the farms certified as part of Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International cooperatives were organic producers.</p></list-item><list-item><p>3. Modified risk reduction indices</p><p>Land management (LM; no change from original index):</p><p><italic>LM</italic> = <italic>LAN</italic>+<italic>TMS</italic>+<italic>VBF</italic>+<italic>RVS</italic>/4</p><p>Water quality management (WQ):</p><p><italic>WQ</italic> = 1/2<italic>HME</italic>+1/2<italic>HPR</italic>+1/2<italic>NME</italic>+1/2<italic>FME</italic>+<italic>SLR</italic>+<italic>PHT</italic>+1/2<italic>OW</italic>1+1/2<italic>OW</italic>2+<italic>PWT</italic>+<italic>FWT</italic>+<italic>BSW</italic>/10</p><p>Agrochemical management (AM):</p><p><italic>AM</italic> = 1/2<italic>HME</italic>+1/2<italic>HPR</italic>+<italic>HER</italic>+<italic>IMH</italic>+<italic>IMM</italic>+1/2<italic>NME</italic>+<italic>NHO</italic>+1/2<italic>FME</italic>+<italic>FRE</italic>+<italic>PTA</italic>+<italic>PRE</italic>+<italic>ASI</italic>/12</p><p>Waste management (WM):</p><p><italic>WM</italic> = 1/2<italic>OW</italic>1+1/2<italic>OW</italic>2+<italic>INW</italic>/3</p><p>Total risk-reduction (TRR) score:</p><p><italic>TRR</italic> = <italic>LM</italic>+<italic>WQ</italic>+<italic>AM</italic>+<italic>WM</italic>/4</p></list-item><list-item><p>4. Both certification systems ban or restrict pesticides included in the Pesticides Action Network’s list of persistent organic pollutants, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations-United Nations Environmental Programme list of products requiring prior informed consent.</p></list-item></list></p></notes><ref-list><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Allaire, G.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Wolf, S.</surname></name> (<year>2004</year>). <article-title>Cognitive models and institutional hybridity in agrofood innovation</article-title>. <source>Science, Technology and Human Values</source>, <volume>29</volume>, <fpage>431</fpage>-<lpage>458</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Barbier, E.</surname></name> (<year>2000</year>). <article-title>Links between economic liberalization and rural resource degradation in the developing regions</article-title>. <source>Agricultural Economics</source>, <volume>23</volume>, <fpage>299</fpage>-<lpage>310</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Boström, M.</surname></name> (<year>2003</year>). <article-title>Environmental organisations in new forms of political participation: Ecological modernization and the making of voluntary rules</article-title>. <source>Environmental Values</source>, <volume>12</volume>, <fpage>175</fpage>-<lpage>193</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bray, D.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Sanchez, J.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Murphy, E.</surname></name> (<year>2002</year>). <article-title>Social dimensions of organic coffee production in Mexico: Lessons for eco-labeling initiatives</article-title>. <source>Society & Natural Resources</source>, <volume>15</volume>, <fpage>429</fpage>-<lpage>446</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Cashore, B.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Auld, G.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Newsom, D.</surname></name> (<year>2004</year>). <source>Governing through markets: Forest certification and the emergence of non-state authority</source>. <publisher-loc>New Haven, CT</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Yale University Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Castillo, L.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Ruepert, C.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Solis, E.</surname></name> (<year>2000</year>). <article-title>Pesticide residue in the aquatic environment of banana plantation areas in the North Atlantic zone of Coast Rica</article-title>. <source>Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry</source>, <volume>19</volume>, <fpage>429</fpage>-<lpage>446</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Chambron, A.</surname></name> (<year>1999</year>). <article-title>Bananas: The TNC’s green gold</article-title>. In <name name-style="western"><surname>J. Madeley</surname></name> (Ed.), <source>Hungry for power</source> (pp. <fpage>46</fpage>-<lpage>65</lpage>). <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>UK Food Group</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Clay, J.</surname></name> (<year>2004</year>). <source>World agriculture and the environment: A commodity-by-commodity guide to impacts and practices</source>. <publisher-loc>Washington, DC</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Island Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Colburn, F.</surname></name> (<year>1997</year>). <article-title>Shrimp or bananas</article-title>. <source>Journal of Business Research</source>, <volume>38</volume>, <fpage>97</fpage>-<lpage>103</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Constance, D.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Bonanno, A.</surname></name> (<year>2000</year>). <article-title>Regulating the global fisheries: The World Wildlife Fund, Unilever, and the Marine Stewardship Council</article-title>. <source>Agriculture and Human Values</source>, <volume>17</volume>, <fpage>125</fpage>-<lpage>139</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Consumers International</surname></name>. (<year>1999</year>). <source>Green labels: Consumers interest and transatlantic trade tensions in eco-labeling</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Author</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Crichlow, M.</surname></name> (<year>2003</year>). <article-title>Neoliberalism, states, and bananas in the Windward Islands</article-title>. <source>Latin American Perspectives</source>, <volume>30</volume>, <fpage>37</fpage>-<lpage>57</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Dryzek, J.</surname></name> (<year>1997</year>). <source>The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses</source>. <publisher-loc>Cambridge, UK</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Oxford University Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations</surname></name>. (<year>2000</year>). <source>Ad-hoc expert meeting on socially and environmentally responsible banana production and trade</source>. <publisher-loc>Rome</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Author</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations</surname></name>. (<year>2001</year>). <source>Banana statistics 1990-2000</source>. <publisher-loc>Rome</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Author</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations</surname></name>. (<year>2003</year>). <source>The world banana economy 1985-2002</source>. <publisher-loc>Rome</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Author</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Green, K.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Morton, B.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>New, S.</surname></name> (<year>2000</year>). <article-title>Greening organizations: Purchasing, consumption and innovation</article-title>. <source>Organization & Environment</source>, <volume>13</volume>, <fpage>206</fpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Grossman, P.</surname></name> (<year>2000</year>). <article-title>Corporate interest and trade liberalization</article-title><source>. Organization & Environment</source>, <volume>13</volume>, <fpage>61</fpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Hausker, K.</surname></name> (<year>1999</year>). <source>The convergence of ideas on improving the environmental protection system</source>. <publisher-loc>Washington, DC</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Center for Strategic and International Studies</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Henriques, W.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Jeffers, R.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Lacher, T.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Kendall, R.</surname></name> (<year>1997</year>). <article-title>Agrochemical use on banana plantations in Latin America: Perspectives on ecological risk</article-title>. <source>Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry</source>, <volume>16</volume>, <fpage>91</fpage>-<lpage>99</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Human Rights Watch</surname></name>. (<year>2002</year>). <source>Tainted harvest</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Author</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Jansen, K.</surname></name> (<year>2004</year>). <article-title>Greening bananas and institutionalizing environmentalism: Self-regulation by fruit corporations</article-title>. In <name name-style="western"><surname>K. Jansen</surname></name> & <name name-style="western"><surname>S. Vellema</surname></name> (Eds.), <source>Agribusiness and society: Corporate responses to environmentalism, market opportunities and public regulation</source> (pp. <fpage>145</fpage>-<lpage>175</lpage>). <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Zed Books</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Jeger, M.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Waller, J.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Johanson, A.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Gowen, S.</surname></name> (<year>1996</year>). <article-title>Monitoring in banana pest management</article-title>. <source>Crop Protection</source>, <volume>15</volume>, <fpage>391</fpage>-<lpage>397</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Joshi, M.</surname></name> (<year>2004</year>). <article-title>Are eco-labels consistent with world trade organization agreements?</article-title><source>Journal of World Trade</source>, <volume>38</volume>, <fpage>69</fpage>-<lpage>92</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Karlsson, S.</surname></name> (<year>2004</year>). <article-title>Agricultural pesticides in developing countries</article-title>. <source>Environment</source>, <volume>46</volume>, <fpage>22</fpage>-<lpage>41</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kettl, D.</surname></name> (<year>2002</year>). <article-title>Introduction</article-title>. In <name name-style="western"><surname>D. F. Kettl</surname></name> (Ed.), <source>Environmental governance: A report on the next generation of environmental policy</source> (pp. <fpage>1</fpage>-<lpage>13</lpage>). <publisher-loc>Washington, DC</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Brookings Institution Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kimerling, J.</surname></name> (<year>2001</year>). <article-title>Corporate ethics in the era of globalization: The promise and peril of international environmental standards</article-title>. <source>Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics</source>, <volume>14</volume>, <fpage>425</fpage>-<lpage>255</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kirchhoff, S.</surname></name> (<year>2000</year>). <article-title>Green business and blue angels</article-title>. <source>Environmental and Resource Economics</source>, <volume>15</volume>, <fpage>403</fpage>-<lpage>420</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Lockeretz, W.</surname></name> (Ed.). (<year>2002</year>). <source>Ecolabels and the greening of the food market</source>. <publisher-loc>Medford, MA</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Tufts University</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Matlock, R. B.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Rogers, D.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Edwards, J.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Martin, S.</surname></name> (<year>2002</year>). <article-title>Avian communities in forest fragments and reforestation areas associated with banana plantations in Costa Rica</article-title>. <source>Agriculture, Ecosystems and the Environment</source>, <volume>91</volume>, <fpage>199</fpage>-<lpage>215</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mazmanian, D.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Kraft, M.</surname></name> (Eds.). (<year>1999</year>). <source>Toward sustainable communities: Transition and transformations in environmental policy</source>. <publisher-loc>Cambridge, MA</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>MIT Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>McCarthy, J.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Prudham, W.</surname></name> (<year>2004</year>). <article-title>Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism</article-title>. <source>Geoforum</source>, <volume>35</volume>, <fpage>275</fpage>-<lpage>283</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mortensen, S.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Johnson, K.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Weisskopf, C.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Hooper, M.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Lacher T.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Kendall R.</surname></name> (<year>1998</year>). <article-title>Avian exposure to pesticides in Costa Rican banana plantations</article-title>. <source>Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology</source>, <volume>60</volume>, <fpage>562</fpage>-<lpage>568</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Muños-Carpena, R.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Ritter, A.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Socorro, A.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Perez, N.</surname></name> (<year>2002</year>). <article-title>Nitrogen evolution and fate in a Canary Islands (Spain) sprinkler fertigated banana plot</article-title>. <source>Agricultural Water Management</source>, <volume>52</volume>, <fpage>93</fpage>-<lpage>117</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Murray, D.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Raynolds, L.</surname></name> (<year>2000</year>). <article-title>Alternative trade in bananas: Obstacles and opportunities for progressive social change in the global economy</article-title>. <source>Agriculture and Human Values</source>, <volume>17</volume>, <fpage>65</fpage>-<lpage>74</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development</surname></name>. (<year>1997</year>). <source>Eco-labelling: Actual effects of selected programmes</source> (Working Paper 5).</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ott, R.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Longnecker, M.</surname></name> (<year>2001</year>). <source>An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis</source>. <publisher-loc>Pacific Grove, CA</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Duxbury</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Overdevest, C.</surname></name> (<year>2004</year>). <article-title>Treadmill politics, information politics and public policy</article-title>. <source>Organization and Environment</source>, <volume>18</volume>, <fpage>72</fpage>-<lpage>90</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Polanyi, K.</surname></name> (<year>1944</year>). <article-title>Self protection of society</article-title>. In <name name-style="western"><surname>K. Polanyi</surname></name> (Ed.), <source>The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time</source> (pp. <fpage>130</fpage>-<lpage>134</lpage>). <publisher-loc>Boston</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Beacon</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Porter, M.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>van der Linde, C.</surname></name> (<year>1995</year>). <article-title>Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship</article-title>. <source>Journal of Economic Perspectives</source>, <volume>9</volume>, <fpage>97</fpage>-<lpage>118</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Raynolds, L.</surname></name> (<year>2000</year>). <article-title>Re-embedding global agriculture: The international organic and fair trade movements</article-title>. <source>Agriculture and Human Values</source>, <volume>17</volume>, <fpage>297</fpage>-<lpage>309</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Raynolds, L.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Murray, D.</surname></name> (<year>1998</year>). <article-title>Yes, we have no bananas: Re-regulating global and regional trade</article-title>. <source>International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food</source>, <volume>7</volume>, <fpage>7</fpage>-<lpage>44</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Redacción Guayaquil. (2003, May 19). Hoy se inicia el paro nacional de los bananero [Banana producers’ national strike starts today]. <italic>El Comercio</italic>, Quito, p. A1.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Redacción Machala. (2004, July 10). La intermediacion bananera aumenta en el pais [The banana intermediation increases in the country]. <italic>El Comercio</italic>, Quito, p. D1.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Rice, R.</surname></name> (<year>2001</year>). <article-title>Noble goals and challenging terrain: Organic and fair trade coffee movements in the global marketplace</article-title>. <source>Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics</source>, <volume>14</volume>, <fpage>39</fpage>-<lpage>66</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ryan, B.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Joiner, B.</surname></name> (<year>2001</year>). <source>Minitab handbook</source>. <publisher-loc>Pacific Grove, CA</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Duxbury</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Agriculture Information System of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock</surname></name>. (<year>2003</year>). <source>Third agricultural census</source>. <publisher-loc>Quito</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Author</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Schnaiberg, A.</surname></name> (<year>1980</year>). <source>The environment: From surplus to scarcity</source>. <publisher-loc>Oxford, UK</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Oxford University Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Stern, A.</surname></name> (<year>1999</year>). <article-title>Shrimps, bananas and mangroves: A dispute resolved</article-title>. <source>The Environmentalist</source>, <volume>19</volume>, <fpage>317</fpage>-<lpage>323</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Striffler, R.</surname></name> (<year>2002</year>). <source>In the shadows of state and capital</source>. <publisher-loc>Durham, NC</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Duke University Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>United Nations</surname></name>. (<year>1993</year>). <source>The global partnership for environment and development: A guide to Agenda 21</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Author</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>United Nations Environmental Programme</surname></name>. (<year>2001</year>). <source>Environmental outlook: Latin America and the Caribbean</source>. <publisher-loc>Mexico DF</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Author</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>United Nations Environmental Programme</surname></name>. (<year>2002</year>). <source>Integrated assessment of trade liberalization and trade-related policies: A country study on the banana sector in Ecuador</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>United Nations</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ward, H.</surname></name> (<year>1997</year>). <article-title>Trade and the environmental: Issues in voluntary eco-labelling and life cycle analysis</article-title>. <source>Review of European Community and International Law (RECIEL)</source>, <volume>6</volume>, <fpage>139</fpage>-<lpage>148</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Watts, M.</surname></name> (<year>2002</year>). <article-title>Preface: Green capitalism, green governability</article-title>. <source>American Behavioral Scientist</source>, <volume>45</volume>, <fpage>1313</fpage>-<lpage>1317</lpage>.</citation></ref></ref-list></back></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Empirical Assessment of Eco-Certification</title><subTitle>The Case of Ecuadorian Bananas</subTitle></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>Empirical Assessment of Eco-Certification</title><subTitle>The Case of Ecuadorian Bananas</subTitle></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Cristian J.</namePart><namePart type="family">Melo</namePart><affiliation>Florida International University</affiliation></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Steven A.</namePart><namePart type="family">Wolf</namePart><affiliation>Cornell University</affiliation></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2005-09</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2005</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">Eco-certification is widely perceived to be an increasingly important strategy to improve the environmental performance of agriculture in an era of global trade integration and apparent weakening of regulatory capacity of nation-states. Few analyses have sought to determine whether ecolabeled products are produced in a manner that conserves natural resources and mitigates risks to ecological integrity. The authors report on a 2003 audit of farming practices in banana production in Ecuador. They find that certified farms significantly outperform noncertified farms on all environmental assessment criteria. In many cases, noncertified farms are out of compliance with Ecuadorian environmental law. Thus, there is evidence to support claims that ecocertified products pose relatively lower ecological risks. In evaluating limitations of their study, the authors note a need to develop longitudinal data sets to assessif and how certification motivates behavioral change at the level of production.</abstract><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>corporate environmentalism</topic><topic>ecolabels</topic><topic>eco-certification</topic><topic>ecological risk-reduction index</topic><topic>green agribusiness</topic><topic>Ecuador</topic><topic>bananas</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Organization & Environment</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">1086-0266</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1552-7417</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">OAE</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID-hwp">spoae</identifier><part><date>2005</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>18</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>3</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>287</start><end>317</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">C033DB23AD00AF6CBAE5C8507B47311B1D52C5A5</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1177/1086026605279461</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">10.1177_1086026605279461</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource>SAGE</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Agronomie/explor/SisAgriV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000662 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000662 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Agronomie
|area= SisAgriV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:C033DB23AD00AF6CBAE5C8507B47311B1D52C5A5
|texte= Empirical Assessment of Eco-Certification
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.28. |  |