Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
of the added value can hardly be called equitable, these chains seem to be very effective. There
are some examples of MLSCL-learning in watershed or catchment management schemes that
involve multistakeholder social learning. Examples of MLSCL within the organic farming
context that seek to create added value not only economically, but also ecologically and
socially within the entire chain, tend to be regionally oriented, although there are also some
transnational examples.
The development of social responsibility can be seen as a dialectic between intrinsic
(personal values) and extrinsic motivations (external pressures). This dialectic occurs at all
three levels.
A three-pronged approach to social responsibility
Although so far this Chapter has focused predominantly on the learning approach towards
social responsibility, we advocate a mix of coordination mechanisms to stimulate, regulate
and provide incentives for social responsibility throughout the supply chain. By providing
stimulating learning and cooperation among organisations that promote social responsibil-
ity, and by solidifying that what is learnt in agreed-upon and broadly supported rules and
regulation, a three-pronged approach serves the sector well. Although learning is a 'soft' tool
that allows room for errors, local variation, differing conceptualisations and the generation
of a sense of ownership and internalisation of values, regulations delimit the playing field,
also for those unable to participate in the learning and collaboration processes described in
this Chapter. Box 14.6 illustrates how the three coordination mechanisms can work together
providing a basis for change and the development of stronger social responsibility in the
organic sector.
The ICS combine the three coordination mechanisms put forth in this Chapter as potential
approaches towards social responsibility, at the farmer level, or more specifically, at the devel-
oping country small farmer cooperative level. By drawing in and developing the learning
element of internal control systems, producer organisation ICSs can become learning organi-
sations with systemic learning as a key component of their operational process.
The ICS is an example of a meeting point between grassroots and big brother learning. At
the grassroots level, farmers learn about technical aspects of organic production, learn to
organise themselves (in a cooperative in some cases) and provide documentation of their
farming practices. In addition, a structure is in place through which community initiatives
can be pursued (e.g. a Thai rice cooperative wherein self-sufficiency objectives were met via
the ICS structure). At the big brother level, the 'rules' are set by the certification body; however,
the producer organisation must adapt and internalise the standards by creating a manual that
expresses the group's goals, localising them to ref lect local challenges and risks.
Regulations and standards are necessary parameters, especially when they emerge from a
multistakeholder social learning process, and when they are not carved in stone but seen as
f lexible outcomes in need of constant revision. They are important in defining what is interna-
tionally accepted in terms of social justice. Many issues, including workers' rights, child labour
and freedom of association demand clear international guidelines as organic food chains tran-
scend local realities. Informing those who did not participate in their creation is a more instru-
mental process, although giving them meaning in a local context is not. Likewise, other issues
(see
Introduction
and
Social
responsibility
in
the
organic
context
) may be more amenable to local
variations and interpretations. For these issues, a more emancipatory learning approach
appears more appropriate. Collaboration and social learning at multiple levels throughout the
supply chain between organic and social standard-setting bodies is key to addressing and
improving this neglected piece of the organic movement.
