Reading Summaries (5): Corporate cooptation of organic and fair trade standards

Article by Jaffee & Howard (2010) examining the dynamics of the organics and fair trade, focusing on a ‘‘corporate countermovement’’ in increasing corporatization and renegotiating the standards of new market sectors (organics) by the comparative analysis. The question of this observation is how does capital respond to social movements and rewrite the rules of the game in an increasingly globalized agri-food system?

 

In the U.S, organic food system has a transformation to an industry worth more than $19 billion a year. In the mid1990s, corporate participation in organics sector increased dramatically approached 1% of total U.S. food sales. In fact, 14 of the 20 largest food processors in North America have acquired organic brands or versions. By the late 1990s, more than 40 certifiers were operating at the state or regional level. Moreover, throughout the process of centralizing state authority over the meaning of organic, sales of certified organic foods in the U.S. increased with an average 20% annual growth almost every year since 1990. 

However, the necessary motivation that drives the corporation efforts to co-opt agri-food alternatives still the goal of profit rather than a commitment to the ethical values. Cooptation can be defined as ‘‘the process of absorbing new elements into the leadership or policy-determining structure of an organization as a means of averting threats to its stability or existence, in either formal or informal way.” (Selznick, 1949). Cooptation has been used as a strategy of corporations to maintain their status quo. The process through which special interests affect state intervention in any of its forms defined as regulatory captures (Dal Bo, 2006). The result of this process is increased power on the corporations to weaken or dilute standards in ways that facilitate capital accumulation and deflect challenges to the status quo.

In the U.S. system, the standards highly vulnerable to political interference on behalf of specific industries and even specific companies. For this reason, many observers emphasize the risks of rapid growth and the distinction between volume growth at any cost (‘‘growth for growth’s sake’’) versus growth with attention to foundational principles (‘‘growth to further a vision’’). Many movements’ only pay high care and opposition to the mainstream capitalist behavior, but not to the process of accumulation itself. In conclusion of these articles, both organics and fair trade cooptation stories can be read as the importance of participation scales, the crucial of the bodies initial design and structure (that regulate/govern access and certification), and the necessary of the standard setting locus. 

 

‘‘In the environmental movement, our defeats are always final, our victories always provisional. What you save today can still be destroyed tomorrow—and so often is’’ (Jose Lutzinger). I think this is the most compelling and relevant quotes that we should always remember.

original article by Daniel Jaffee & Philip H. Howard (2010)