The Promise and Perils of Market-based Sustainability

Keahey, Jennifer and Douglas L. Murray. 2017. “The Promise and Perils of Market-based Sustainability.” Sociology of Development 3(2): 143-162.

JENNIFER KEAHEY AND DOUGLAS L. MURRAY

Arizona State University, Email: [email protected]

The Promise and Perils of Market-based Sustainability

ABSTRACT Sustainability standards and certifications increasingly represent multi-billion

dollar brands that partner with corporate firms. We employ the case of South Africa’s Rooibos

tea industry to analyze the impacts of this shift. Examining five sustainability initiatives, our

research focuses on small-scale farmers and the power dynamics shaping their involvement. The

Rooibos initiatives engaged multiple approaches, but none realized sustainable outcomes. Third-

party and corporate efforts exposed producers to risk and reified dependency, industry actions

did not achieve intended goals, and a shared leadership project failed to address material barriers

to participation. Yet, examples of good practice offer insight into the types of policies needed to

improve outcomes. These include shifting from a hierarchical to a relational orientation by

reducing certification costs, extending support services, and ensuring inclusivity in planning and

governance. We conclude by arguing that markets are a perilous tool for development.

Sustainable trade systems nevertheless illustrate the promise of market-based sustainability as

these are providing marginal groups with a platform to demand more equitable arrangements.

Key words —global value chains (GVCs); sustainable development; fair trade; corporate social

responsibility (CSR); South Africa

mailto:[email protected]

Keahey and Murray | Promise and Perils of Market-based Sustainability 1

INTRODUCTION

World markets are experiencing a “certification revolution” due to consumer demand for goods

that meet social and environmental standards (Conroy 2007). Traditionally located at the margins

of markets, sustainable trade systems increasingly operate in partnership with major corporations

(Davenport and Low 2013). These offer a counterpoint to the destructive practices found in

global value chains, and range from third-party certifications such as Fairtrade and organics to

internally monitored corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. In addition to impacting

global markets, sustainable trade systems have begun to influence commerce in the Global

South, where actors are opening domestic markets to goods that promote both local and global

sustainability agendas (Hughes, McEwan and Bek 2015). While these shifts offer potential to

marginal producers who are seeking buyers committed to social responsibility, managing

certifications requires considerable resources and skills (Keahey 2016). There is a need to study

power dynamics as well as to determine the efficacy of practices.

In post-apartheid South Africa, the Rooibos tea industry is struggling to address stark racial

disparities deriving from a history of exploitation and exclusion (Coombe, Ives and Huizenga

2014). We employ the case of Rooibos to examine the impact of market-based approaches to

sustainability on small-scale coloured1 producers. Our study analyzes their experiences with five

initiatives that sought to benefit from or improve access to socially and environmentally

responsible markets. These include: (1) a Fairtrade packaging scheme; (2) a corporate

community tea campaign; (3) organic Rooibos seedling research; (4) a biodiversity labeling

initiative; and (5) a shared leadership program. Addressing the question of sustainability in

different ways, these efforts employed a variety of development strategies. Yet, none realized

sustainable outcomes, demonstrating the extent of challenges as well as the need to develop more

holistic approaches.


This article informs development scholarship in three key ways. First, we reveal the breadth

of market-based approaches to sustainability and examine how these are informing production in

the Global South. Whereas previous studies have focused on specific certifications and practices,

our work captures common challenges and broader potentials. Second, we show how complex

barriers reinforce disparities, hindering local efforts to meet increasingly stringent standards.

With a focus on vertical power, global value chain (GVC) studies have ignored horizontal

cleavages (Phillips 2014). The failure to account for historical, social, and environmental

influences has stymied policymaking (Bolwig et al. 2010). To address this gap, we use a network

approach to investigate “the complex ideological and material relations enacted in commodity

production and exchange” (Raynolds 2009:1085). Third, we consider good practices, providing

more comprehensive insight into the types of policies needed to improve outcomes.

After problematizing sustainability, power, and participation in relation to GVCs, we discuss

the impacts of colonialism and apartheid on South African agriculture. Next, we describe our

research methods and present case study findings. The remainder of the article analyzes Rooibos

challenges and prospects, first by distinguishing between structural and relational barriers then

by sharing promising strategies for improvement. As we discuss, sustainable trade systems offer

potential to small-scale Rooibos farmers, but there is a critical gap between intention and

practice. This gap is fueling uncertainty about the means and ends of market-based sustainability.

In our view, markets are unlikely to realize environmentally sustainable and socially just

outcomes without fundamentally transforming the terms of engagement. This includes moving

from a vertical to a relational power orientation by reducing certification costs, extending support

services, and ensuring inclusivity in planning and governance.


POWER AND PARTICIPATION IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED 1987:43) has defined

sustainability as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” In addition to focusing on environmental

factors, this report recognized the importance of social issues related to poverty and justice (Sen

2013). In recent years, business interests have promoted a three-pillar people-planet-profit model

of sustainability (Fisk 2010). It is argued that embracing socially and environmentally

responsible practices enables businesses to develop smarter innovations, assume more strategic

market positions, and achieve higher levels of growth. Increasingly prevalent in neoliberal

markets, this orientation supports multiple concerns but elevates the economic pillar by

emphasizing the notion of commercial sustainability. Yet, more specific ideas about

sustainability remain spatially and temporally complex (Mog 2004). For example, the South

African state has embraced the three-pillar model, but it also defines sustainability within the

context of post-apartheid politics. As such, it calls for collaborations that strengthen democratic

processes by raising the voices of marginal groups (DEAT 2008).

The notion of multi-stakeholder participation has become prevalent in sustainability circles.

In particular, sustainable agriculture has developed methods that connect experts with farmers to

examine uncertainties and solve complex challenges (Pretty 1995). Within the broader discourse,

scholars argue that “sustainable development should be based on local-level solutions derived

from community initiatives” rather than from top-down approaches that emphasize expert

control (Leach, Mearns and Scoones 1999:225). Indeed, participatory practices provide a means

for transcending ideological and material differences (Zaccai 2012). Yet, such initiatives are

difficult to implement and risk being coopted by elite interests when less-advantaged groups


operate at the margins of planning and governance (Lund and Saito-Jensen 2013). Rural

stakeholders are particularly vulnerable to conflicts and the subordination of local knowledge to

elite worldviews (Johansen and Chandler 2015). These issues are intensified in South Africa,

where black and coloured people experience acute poverty (Lehohla 2014), and where nearly

three quarters of the nation’s poor reside in rural areas (Neves and Du Toit 2013).

MARKET-BASED APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABILITY

GVC scholars examine the multinational production and trade processes that give rise to global

goods (Gereffi, Humphrey and Sturgeon 2005). In the neoliberal era, value chains are driven by

buyer interests, with large corporations overseeing the activities of their suppliers via corporate

standards related to product quality and increasingly to social and environmental issues that are

considered central to their brand identity (Hughes, McEwan and Bek 2013). African producers

have responded to these transformations by moving into higher-level production processes or by

acquiring certifications that enable their entry into specialized markets (Gibbon and Ponte 2005).

While these forms of upgrading provide producers with opportunities to access value-added

markets, such moves involve commercial risk (Ponte and Ewert 2009).

Conceptually distinct from state and market, civil society represents a “third sector of

development” (Viterna, Clough and Clarke 2015:173). Within global markets, certifications

generally are governed by third-party organizations that employ a voluntary approach to

production and trade regulation. Systems such as Fairtrade and organics challenge conventional

practices by redefining product quality in relation to social and environmental value (Ponte

2016). Fairtrade buyers meet minimum pricing standards for certified purchases, pay social

premiums to producer organizations, and ideally develop long-term trading relations, In return,


certified producers meet stringent production standards and regularly submit to third-party audits

(Raynolds and Greenfield 2015). Producers often seek dual Fairtrade and organic certification,

particularly in Africa where Fairtrade “is closely linked to organic initiatives in seeking to halt

environmental degradation” (Raynolds and Keahey 2008). There are cases where Fairtrade

partnerships have led to transformative industry arrangements (Doherty and Tranchell 2007).

Yet, there also is evidence that the institutionalization of standards has disproportionately served

market interests (Jaffee and Howard 2010).

In addition to sustainability certifications, market-based approaches include corporate social

responsibility (CSR). Employing the language of civil regulation, these efforts are privately

monitored and provide business interests with a way to access sustainability markets without

submitting to third-sector oversight (Matten and Moon 2008). Proponents of CSR note the

potential of markets to achieve a range of sustainability objectives; and in South Africa, the

notion of corporate citizenship is tied to post-apartheid policies that stipulate sustainability

reporting and socially responsible investments (Visser 2005). Yet, CSR efforts have been riddled

with contradictions and it is unclear whether “the curative power of compassionate capitalism”

can “stymie corporate greed” in African industries where highly inequitable practices and

relations remain intact (Blowfield and Dolan 2008:2).

Although GVC scholars have explored questions pertaining to sustainability and power,

knowledge remains limited. First, studies either ignore the influence of certifications on industry

arrangements or treat sustainability “as a modular ‘add-on’ to chain organization” (Bush et al.

2015:16). This narrow focus prevents scholars from theorizing governance beyond the limited

scope of technical management. Second, studies tend to maintain a top-down view of power that

fails to capture local dimensions, such as those based on race relations (Phillips 2014). In


contrast, the commodity network approach developed by Raynolds (2002, 2009) facilitates a

more nuanced analysis of the power dynamics occurring within certified commodities. As

sustainable trade systems employ different regulatory protocols and compete for access to

producers and markets (Nelson and Tallontire 2014), this relational orientation may be used to

clarify how market-based approaches to sustainability are impacting industries as a whole.

THE INEQUITABLE TERRAIN OF SOUTH AFRICAN AGRICULTURE

Colonial regimes appropriated land throughout sub-Saharan Africa for commercial production.

However, this process was highly uneven, and both small-scale and subsistence farming remain

prevalent in many areas of the continent. The primary exception is South Africa, where the estate

system shares several broad similarities with the development of the hacienda system in Latin

America and other colonial regimes (Lastarria-Cornhiel, Melmed-Sanjak and Phillips 1999).

During South Africa’s colonial era, white settlers appropriated land, forcing black and coloured

inhabitants into servitude. The estate model that emerged at this time became entrenched in the

twentieth century when the apartheid state promoted industrial development through large-scale

commercial production. In post-apartheid South Africa, whites have continued to own most of

the nation’s commercial farmland (Chikulo 2015). Moreover, estate production has become

increasingly concentrated. Not only do white-owned estates produce nearly all the agricultural

goods destined for markets, just five percent of these capture over 60 percent of South Africa’s

aggregate net farm income (Aliber and Cousins 2013).

Given its failure to achieve significant land reforms, the post-apartheid state has prioritized

improving labor conditions on estates. Broad-based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE)

codes have been instituted to facilitate the entry of people of color into managerial and


ownership positions in industry and trade (DTI 2009). These codes are mandated by law but as

the state lacks enforcement capacity. Fairtrade certifiers have sought to fill this gap by working

with estates to address farmworker issues. In addition to meeting global standards, certified

estates in South Africa must demonstrate progress in terms of meeting national B-BBEE

requirements as part of the Fairtrade auditing process (Kruger and Du Toit 2007).

Despite the dominance of white-owned estates, black and coloured producers have begun to

enter commercial markets, typically as small-scale farmers. The post-apartheid state has

designated these farmers as “emerging” in recognition of their historical exclusion from land and

markets (Cousins 2010). Although a few emerging farmers operate commercial estates, most of

this population resides on small plots of land in former ethnic homelands where food is grown

for subsistence as well as for sale (Aliber and Cousins 2013). The concerns of these small-scale

farmers are not well understood; thus our work focused on this population. The following section

briefly contextualizes the terrain of Rooibos production and presents our research methods.

RESEARCH ARENA AND METHODS

A member of the Cape fynbos floral kingdom, Rooibos is a uniquely South African product that

originates in the Cederberg Mountains of southwestern South Africa (Binns et al. 2007). As an

herbal tea, Rooibos joins an array of Southern products that have received the legal distinction of

terroir (Besky 2013, Biénabe and Marie-Vivien 2015). Similarly to Darjeeling tea in India,

perceptions of value in Rooibos are tied to its colonial legacy and postcolonial narratives of

sustainability that promote notions of fairness as well as the idealized imagery of cultural

production within pristine nature (Besky 2014). While white-owned estates typically are located

along the western slope of the Cederberg where wide valleys and greater rainfall support


production, coloured farmers tend to farm small plots in the arid and rugged interior. This

racialized distribution derives from the trajectory of colonial settlement that gave rise to coloured

rural areas as well as from apartheid-era dislocations that led to a near total dispossession of

arable land (May and Lahiff 2007). There are concerns that the legal distinction of terroir may

exacerbate racial disparities “by conferring benefits primarily upon white farm owners who

already control the land and means of production” (Coombe, Ives and Huizenga 2014:225).

The lead author conducted fieldwork in South Africa throughout 2010, subsequent to the

launch of numerous sustainability initiatives in Rooibos and during a period of certification

difficulties. In total, 95 interviews were completed with small-scale farmer leaders and farmers

as well as with local elders and professional experts. The latter group included: (1) producer

organizations; (2) processors, distributors, and packagers; (3) an umbrella industry network; (4)

Fairtrade organizations; (5) B-BBEE operatives; and (6) environmental groups. The lead author

also was embedded with a shared leadership program that involved a network of small-scale

farmer leaders representing several coloured communities. Participant observation of training

workshops and networking activities provided critical insight into their concerns, and

preliminary findings were shared with project stakeholders. The following section presents our

findings. After covering the multifaceted influences shaping Rooibos engagement, we discuss

the five sustainability initiatives occurring in the industry at time of research.

SOUTH AFRICA’S EMERGING ROOIBOS INDUSTRY

Emphasizing their presence at the geographic point of origin for Rooibos, small-scale farmers

discussed the importance of Rooibos to coloured heritage. According to oral histories told by

local elders, coloured people originally traveled into the Cederberg as the slaves of Afrikaner


trekkers. When these settlers left in search of more arable lands, a number of coloured people

remained in the remote mountains. Establishing homesteads in the early nineteenth century, this

population intermingled with indigenous Khoe-San peoples who taught them how to recognize

the Rooibos bush, harvest its leaves, and ferment the tea. As coloured communities became

established in the region, families commonly used wild Rooibos for household consumption and

as a traditional medicine for a variety of ailments, including indigestion and influenza.

Local informants also discussed the central role that coloured farmers played in terms of

developing varieties suitable for commercial cultivation during the early twentieth century.

While their input helped to launch the Rooibos industry, the collaboration between white and

coloured interests ended subsequent to the mid-century inception of apartheid when a state

control board assumed control over the industry and barred coloured producers from

participation. During the decades of apartheid, some local elders stated that coloured farmers

continued to cultivate Rooibos in small quantities for household consumption and informal sale.

In the early 1990s, the incoming post-apartheid government converted the control board into a

public firm and removed racial regulations. While white farmers sought to decentralize the

industry by instituting their own processing firms, coloured farmers instituted two producer

organizations in different areas of the Cederberg. After securing organic certification in the late

1990s, these two groups began to informally access Fairtrade buyers in the early 2000s.

Despite these changes, the Rooibos industry has remained heavily centralized and white-

owned estates have continued to maintain their dominant position in markets. Not only must all

Rooibos flow through a few large processors with pasteurization capacity, racial disparities in

land tenure have precluded coloured farmers from deepening their presence in markets. A recent

survey found that 93 percent of Rooibos derived from white-owned estates, with the largest


averaging 600 tons per year. In contrast, nearly all coloured farmers rented small plots of land in

marginal areas (Kruger and Associates 2010). Although this industry study defined farmers who

produce less than 10 tons of Rooibos per year as small-scale, nearly 60 percent of those involved

in our research were cultivating less than two tons per year, with only nine percent growing more

than seven tons.

In addition to critical land shortages, the sensitivity of Rooibos bushes to rainfall

differentially impacts small-scale farmers who predominantly reside in the arid interior. In

contrast to estate farmers, this group is more vulnerable to Cederberg droughts and lacks the

financial reserves to stockpile tea produced during wet years for sale in dry years, when pricing

rises. While these barriers have precluded small-scale farmers from expanding commercial

production, they have established a reputation for producing high-quality tea. According to

industry informants, tea produced in the arid interior has a more intense flavor due to the slower

rate of growth. Indeed, Rooibos continues to grow wild in lands where coloured farmers operate,

and communities have begun to harvest small quantities of wild tea to meet niche demand.


South African Ministry of Agriculture and Department of Trade and Industry

Non-governmental organizations

South African Rooibos Council

Hired-labor estates that process and distributeHired-labor estates Small farmer

organizations

Contract packagers

Large processors and distributors

Value-added manufacturers

South African packer branders

South African retailers and customers

International brokers

International retailers and customers

Small exporters

FIGURE 1.

The Rooibos Value Chain

Source: Adapted from Bramley, Biénabe, and Kirsten (2009)

Figure 1 displays a map of the Rooibos value chain. The traditional chain to the left has

continued to capture most sales, but industry diversification nonetheless is evident in the rise of

estates with processing and distribution capacity as well as in the entry of small farmer

organizations into markets. Organic tea flows through multiple channels to reach domestic and

international retailers. According to industry informants, organic certification is increasingly

viewed as a requisite for market entry and no longer guarantees premium pricing. In contrast,


Fairtrade tea provides producers with access to minimum pricing guarantees and social

premiums for development. However, unlike in other Fairtrade commodities such as coffee,

Rooibos standards have been instituted for estates as well as for small-scale farmers. Thus, in the

Fairtrade context, certified estates tend to sell tea through processors that maintain multiple

sustainability certifications while small farmer organizations sell directly to international

Fairtrade buyers who operate as small exporters.

In the following sub-sections, we discuss five initiatives that sought to advance sustainability

objectives within the Rooibos industry in the late 2000s. These included: (1) a Fairtrade

packaging scheme designed to add value to the tea produced by two small farmer cooperatives;

(2) a CSR project implemented with coloured farmers in a non-traditional Rooibos growing area;

(3) a research initiative to develop organic Rooibos seedlings; (4) a biodiversity campaign that

planned to streamline certification management via the formation of an industry label; and (5) a

training program that introduced a network of small-scale farmer leaders to the industry.

Drawing largely from interviews with a range of informants, we describe the power dynamics

shaping engagement and outcomes. The level of producer involvement varied widely; yet, even

when farmers were engaged, we found that several barriers reinforced power imbalances.

The Fairtrade Initiative

The Fair Packers scheme initially was hailed as an innovative product upgrading effort that

would enable small-scale farmers to directly export packaged tea to certified markets.

Participants comprised the members of two cooperatives that were supplying Fairtrade markets

with organic tea in the early 2000s, well before Fairtrade International instituted formal standards

for Rooibos tea. In 2005, these groups entered into an agreement with a white contract packager


to institute Fair Packers under a one-third ownership scheme. The initiative followed a business

rather than development model with the participating groups receiving neither financial nor

technical support. When Fair Packers was instituted, Rooibos markets were entering into a glut

due to record harvests. Difficulties grew when Fairtrade International formalized its Rooibos

standards in 2008, permitting estates to compete with small-scale farmers in Fairtrade exchanges.

According to an industry informant, this move led to an imbalance in Fairtrade supply and

demand as estates offered large quantities of certified tea. These events proved disastrous for the

larger cooperative which had gone into considerable debt to meet its share of the start-up costs.

In 2009 the Fair Packers arrangement collapsed. With assistance from an environmental

organization that was involved in Fairtrade development, the smaller of the two cooperatives

extracted itself from the scheme and maintained its ties to Fairtrade buyers. In contrast, the larger

group received less consistent support and faced grave challenges. This cooperative was located

in a remote region of the Cederberg where members resided at distance from one another across

rugged terrain. Moreover, cooperative staff lacked the capacity required to manage expanded

operations. Not only was initial Fairtrade certification handled by an external expert,

membership more than doubled between 2001 and 2005 in anticipation of Fairtrade certification.

While staff members possessed greater knowledge of organic standards, these had become

increasingly complex to manage exacerbating shortcomings in technical capacity.

Both the large cooperative and the Fair Packers firm underwent decertification in late 2009.

Buying out small farmer shares, the white packager reconstituted the firm without certifications

and accessed a different set of buyers. Meanwhile, the large cooperative continued to flounder.

Farming families struggled to survive without Rooibos income as the cooperative’s unsold tea

languished in the shed of a large processing firm. One Fairtrade respondent ironically referred to


this tea as “toxic” when discussing the chaos surrounding decertification. In an effort to garner

income, some members left the troubled cooperative and formed a new producer organization in

2010. This smaller group quickly moved to secure Fairtrade and organic certifications and slowly

rebuilt local ties to Fairtrade buyers who wished to support the community. Meanwhile, the

larger cooperative entered into legal disputes, and ultimately was liquidated in early 2011.

The Community Tea Initiative

In 2006, a processing firm began working with a group of predominantly small-scale coloured

farmers located in the southern reaches of the fynbos floral kingdom. While the firm framed its

engagement in terms of community development and more broadly expressed its commitment to

social sustainability, initiative emphasis was on commercial sustainability as the primary goal

was to develop an alternate production region that would ensure a steady supply of tea during

Cederberg droughts. Having secured a sustainable development grant from a multinational

foundation, the firm provided the members of a producer organization with initial agricultural

training, enabling them to begin Rooibos testing. The farmers found that Rooibos grew robustly

in the wetter southern climate, although bushes were short lived and fields required transplanting

at three times the traditional rate. By 2010 the farmers involved in this project were selling their

entire Rooibos crop to the firm which processed and sold it to a luxury supermarket chain. In

turn, this retailer marketed its commitment to social responsibility by selling the tea for minimal

profit in its South African stores.

The members of this producer organization were less impoverished than the Cederberg

population. Not only did most own rather than rent their land due to recent land reforms, a

number of farmers employed laborers. While most people in this area were small farmers, a few


were growing large quantities of Rooibos along with other herbal products. For example, one

small estate was producing 30 tons of Rooibos per year in addition to a variety of other herbal

goods. Yet, even these farmers were forced to rely upon other sources of income to maintain

their operations, and many wished to add value to their Rooibos tea via organic certification. In

contrast, interest in Fairtrade was limited. Some felt that Fairtrade did not adequately meet the

needs of an emerging farmer population as it maintained separate standards for small farmers and

hired-labor estates. While those with larger farms were encouraged to certify under the hired-

labor designation, these had significantly fewer resources than white-owned estates and felt that

such a move would not provide them with the support needed to grow their farms.

This CSR initiative helped a group of coloured farmers enter into a new commodity by

capitalizing on growing national demand for ethically produced goods. In addition to providing

producers with initial Rooibos training, the processor covered their transportation and processing

fees and promised to help the group locate funding to build a facility for first-stage processing.

However, these services represented a temporary form of assistance, and many farmers were

concerned about the long-term viability of continuing Rooibos production. Moreover, the

farmers remained entirely dependent upon the processing firm for market access. Not only was

the group’s potential for sales limited by its distance from the Cederberg, farmers lacked

knowledge in which to base business decisions and expressed an urgent need for market training.

The Organic Seedling Initiative

As the umbrella networking body for the Rooibos tea industry, the South African Rooibos

Council began funding organic seedling research in the 2000s to meet a critical barrier to organic

production. With Rooibos bushes lasting no more than 10 years in their traditional growing zone,


seedlings must be transplanted on a regular basis. Due to a lack of organic varieties, farmers have

been transplanting conventional seedlings into their organic fields, and while certifiers have

temporarily allowed this practice, industry respondents stated that the institutionalization of

standards has made the seedling issue increasingly salient. To address this concern, the Rooibos

Council hired a qualified researcher who brought international scientists into the project. By

2010, this group had failed to develop viable organic seedlings and the Council noted that it

lacked the resources to continue funding such an expensive initiative.

Meanwhile, both estates and small-scale Rooibos farmers were frustrated with the expert-

driven nature of the project and had begun to conduct their own separate tests.2 Although small-

scale farmers possessed significantly fewer resources, this group felt they had critical knowledge

to contribute as they resided at the geographic point of origin for Rooibos tea, regularly

encountered and studied wild Rooibos, and possessed intimate knowledge of this crop that in

part derived from oral histories regarding the initial development of agricultural varieties. With

support from an environmental organization, one small farmer cooperative was investing in

seedling studies to “capture local knowledge” and “build leadership”. Some members of the

decertified cooperative were informally running their own tests with no resources or support.

These producers wanted to work with the seedling scientists, though they felt that testing should

occur in in their communities and with their direct involvement.

The Rooibos Council was open to farmer participation but expressed uncertainty about how

to proceed with a multi-stakeholder effort. In addition to the race- and class-based divisions

separating estate and small-scale farmers, the differential knowledge of farmers and experts gave

rise to language barriers. When the Council attempted to connect farmers to seedling scientists

during its 2010 general meeting, the technical language used in the scientific presentations


stymied the potential for productive discussion. Not only did the session end with rancorous

questioning from white farmers, there was no opportunity for stakeholders to discuss the seedling

issue in smaller groups. The open-forum format effectively silenced the few coloured producers

in attendance. While small-scale farmer leaders had arrived at the meeting with a number of

ideas that they wished to share, they felt intimidated by the scientific language of the

presentations as well as by the acrimonious discussion that subsequently ensued.

The Biodiversity Initiative

The Right Rooibos campaign grew out of a biodiversity initiative that began in 2006 in response

to the negative impact of expanded Rooibos cultivation on rare regional flora. At that time, the

Rooibos Council worked with environmental organizations to develop an environmental

management plan and to introduce a set of guidelines for farmers. As efforts grew, the initiative

worked with industry stakeholders to integrate market considerations with guidelines for

biodiversity protection. In 2008, the Council launched Right Rooibos as a market-based

initiative, and sought to integrate broader stakeholders into the project in order to build support.

As part of this process, the campaign promoted a set of sustainability standards designed to

capture key social, economic, and environmental protocols then produced a handbook for

implementing these standards (Pretorius, Harley and Ryser 2011).

Recognizing that industries cannot change practices or behaviors without retaining some

control over the value chain, the campaign sought to strengthen the position of the Rooibos

industry in markets by instituting an integrated management system that could adapt to growing

demand for sustainably produced goods. With a social goal of extending market prospects for

marginal groups, it sought to reduce certification costs by promoting an industry label that would


be capable of capturing multiple certifications in a single auditing stream. For this to work, the

label had to exceed the requirements of international standards such as Fairtrade. To offset the

difficulties involved in meeting a stringent industry label, the campaign also worked on

instituting a Rooibos extension system that would deliver training and support to producers. It

was hoped that this extension system would provide a unified framework to: (1) ensure

environmentally sound agricultural practices; (2) support less-advantaged farmers; and (3)

develop commercially sustainable practices.

Despite the potential of an industry label, Right Rooibos suffered from a lack of resources

and failed to secure broad-based alignment. Some firms were wary of any Council effort to

streamline the industry as they felt that this could lead to a re-centralization of power. During a

Right Rooibos event, white estate farmers stated that they appreciated the possibility of single

audits and reduced costs, but these also noted the challenges involved in meeting existing

standards and expressed concerns regarding the stringency of the proposed label. In 2011, the

campaign halted its efforts to institute an industry label. However, in addition to retaining its

focus on extension services, Right Rooibos has continued to promote alignment with various

sustainability certifications. Noting that commercial sustainability is dependent upon social and

environmental responsibility, the Project Manager stated that certifications are merely a means to

an end as “the ultimate goal is for farmers to implement sustainability standards not because a

label requires it, but because this makes good business sense.”

The Farmer Leadership Initiative

In 2010, a South African training services provider responded to the challenges facing coloured

Rooibos farmers by instituting a shared leadership training program.3 As this predominantly


small-scale population lacked a cohesive leadership network due to geographic distances and

turmoil wrought by the failure of the Fair Packers initiative, this initiative involved forming a

network of community-based farmer leaders then training this group in sustainability standards,

management, and leadership. The leadership project established an equitable framework for

engagement by soliciting training interests and holding democratic elections for farmer leaders in

the participating communities. It also ensured gender inclusivity by asking each area to elect

both a male and a female farmer leader. As a result, women comprised nearly half of the

leadership network which subsequently participated in a series of multi-day training sessions and

networking events. The program concluded with information exchanges between farmers, farmer

leaders, and professional actors interested in Rooibos sustainability.

Over the course of the project, industry and organizational stakeholders facilitated training

sessions and many in the industry expressed an interest in building alliances with coloured

Rooibos producers. A major processing firm provided space for the leadership workshops,

arguing that emerging farmers represented “entrepreneurs” who “cannot grow their businesses if

they do not make direct connections with actors at multiple levels in the value chain.” The

processing firm involved in the CSR project likewise opened its doors to the leadership team via

a tour of its facility and a meeting with its lead operative. Fairtrade and Right Rooibos actors

provided the leaders with training, and the Rooibos Council worked with them to ensure an

enabling environment within its umbrella network. As a result of this engagement, in early 2011

one of the leaders was elected to the Rooibos Council’s governing board, and another was

selected as his deputy.

Despite these promising outcomes, the program experienced several limitations that stymied

the ability of the leadership network to expand upon project efforts. First, the farmer leaders


lacked access to financial and material resources and the project could not resolve these

structural disparities. As nearly all of the leaders lacked access to modern telecommunications

infrastructure, it was unclear whether the network could be maintained once the project ended.

Second, training was purposively limited to predominantly small-scale emerging farmers in order

to prioritize their concerns. This strategy supported a marginal population during a period of

production and market turbulence, but as a result the leaders had little opportunity to build

connections with white estate farmers who were experiencing similar market challenges. After

listening to the concerns of white commercial farmers at Rooibos events, some of the farmer

leaders expressed a desire to collaborate with this group, but they lacked the material resources

to pursue such an agenda.

The five initiatives discussed in this section either sought to benefit from or improve access

to sustainability standards and certifications. Addressing the question of sustainability in

different ways, these efforts engaged multiple development approaches, including third-sector

regulation, CSR, and shared leadership. Yet, each initiative experienced significant problems,

and none were able to demonstrate sustainable outcomes despite considerable resource and time

investments. In the following section, we analyze the structural and relational barriers impeding

Rooibos activities, clarifying common challenges to market-based sustainability. We then

explore broader potentials, providing suggestions for policy and practice.

THE PROMISE AND PERILS OF MARKET-BASED SUSTAINABILITY

As neoliberal trading practices have shifted the balance of power from producers to buyers, value

addition has become an important tool for Southern groups seeking to expand their presence in

world markets (Gibbon and Ponte 2005). Due to growing demand for goods that meet socially


and environmentally responsible standards, upgrading increasingly involves entry into certified

markets. While many of these efforts claim to support the interests of marginal groups, scholars

have highlighted the risks involved in product upgrading (Ponte and Ewert 2009) as well as the

difficulties involved in linking markets to conservation agendas (McEwan, Hughes and Bek

2014). As much of the discourse has focused on product upgrading, Talbot (2002) has argued in

favor of studying broader upgrading actions, such as efforts to change policies and organizational

environments. Yet, scholars and professionals have tended to narrowly focus on specific

certifications and practices, limiting understanding and hindering the development of more

holistic approaches.

Not only does the Rooibos case study substantiate the perils of market-based sustainability,

the breadth of research findings demonstrates the challenges involved in achieving more

systemic transformations. This first half of this section shows how structural and relational

barriers mutually reinforced a culture of risk and dependency across a range of initiatives. Yet,

while these barriers hindered the development of more equitable arrangements, the influence of

social standards in Rooibos demonstrates the promise of market-based sustainability. The second

half of this article shares examples of good practice. As part of our discussion, we suggest the

potential role that social standards may play in terms of diffusing power and risk.

Structural and Relational Barriers

Numerous research participants expressed a desire to transform the Rooibos industry from a

model of racial exclusion to one of interracial inclusion. Yet, progress was stymied by complex

barriers that served to mutually reinforce racial disparities. These broadly included: (1)

inequitable access to land and resources; (2) significant gaps in training, in part due to a failure to


articulate B-BBEE in the small farmer context; and (3) relational challenges deriving from

decades of racial conditioning and reinforced by top-down systems of management.

First, small-scale farmers experienced severe land shortages. In the region experiencing

cooperative turmoil, an industry informant stated that hundreds of farmers were working small

plots of land that in total would comprise two average-sized estates. Not only was most of the

Cederberg interior unsuitable for agriculture, much of the land was reserved for wilderness

conservation. In areas where arable tracts were more plentiful, land generally was owned by

whites who, according to some informants, refused to sell to coloured farmers. The broader

literature corroborates these disparities. In 1994, about 83 percent of South Africa’s commercial

farmland was white-owned and by 2007 only five percent of this land had been transferred to

people of color (Chikulo 2015). During apartheid, Church missions generally controlled access

to plots of arable land in coloured rural areas, and reform in these areas has been stymied by the

fact that there is not enough land to support equitable private ownership (Ntsebeza 2005). While

the coloured farmers involved in the CSR campaign had successfully achieved land reforms,

arable land was more plentiful in their southern region. In contrast, most small-scale Rooibos

producers have continued to rely upon a system of nominal rents to secure access to Cederberg

plots; and the stark reality is that there is not enough land to meet all of their needs.

Second, our research uncovered significant gaps in technical training and support that partly

derived from a failure to articulate economic empowerment in the context of small-scale farmers.

The post-apartheid state has instituted B-BBEE codes to promote the entry of people of color

into positions of management and ownership, and it largely supports this entry by stipulating

access to technical training (DTI 2009). In South Africa, Fairtrade certifiers have sought to

address racial disparities on estates by aligning its efforts with those of the post-apartheid state


(Keahey 2015). In products such as wine, the Fairtrade-B-BBEE alliance has provided estates

with an opportunity to address the extreme abuses endured by farmworkers under apartheid

(Linton 2012). Yet, strategies for implementing B-BBEE in the small farmer context have

remained underdeveloped. Whereas Fairtrade estates are audited to ensure that training occurs,

no such system has been put into place for small farmer organizations where both members and

managerial staff struggle to obtain access to market and managerial training. Not only did the

lack of technical support hinder the ability of small-scale farmers to manage access to certified

markets, the entry of white-owned Rooibos estates into Fairtrade exchanges helped to fuel a

crisis that led to the demise of a large producer organization.

Third, we found that decades of racial conditioning hindered the potential for multi-

stakeholder collaboration. Nandy (1997:168) has used the term “colonization of the mind” to

clarify the psychological consequences of colonialism. Such forms of racial conditioning

expanded under apartheid, when the South African state codified white supremacy via a series of

legal maneuvers that placed white people into positions of authority and privileged European

sources of knowledge (Keahey 2016). In Rooibos, we found that “experts” generally were white

and “beneficiaries” were coloured. During interviews, some small-scale farmers expressed a

sense of insecurity about communicating with white actors, with whom they often had little

contact. At public meetings, white stakeholders were assertive and readily assumed positions of

authority whereas coloured stakeholders remained quiet and deferential. Finally, the top-down

nature of engagement reinforced these racial imbalances. Event facilitators rarely solicited the

input of coloured stakeholders and most of the sustainability initiatives were led by white actors.

Although some efforts were made to address these power dimensions, opportunities for

interracial connection were stymied by geographic distances and resource shortages.


As a consequence of these complex barriers, the five initiatives exacerbated risk and

dependency. First, neither the Fairtrade nor CSR actions ensured producer access to market

training. In the case of Fairtrade, this lack of support exposed a marginal population to additional

financial hardship. Second, methods for connecting scientists with farmers have been available

for decades (Pretty 1995). Yet, there was no attempt to secure producer involvement with

organic seedling research. Not only did the lack of interest in farmer knowledge disenfranchise

this population, the failure to develop seedlings heightened uncertainty regarding the future of

organic production. Third, while the biodiversity campaign promised reduced certification costs,

the Right Rooibos label was rejected due to a perceived risk of centralized control, leaving

marginal groups particularly vulnerable to fluctuating market demands. Finally, the shared

leadership program made strides in addressing relational barriers, but failed to resolve the

resource shortages that precluded marginal groups from managing their own affairs. Despite

these challenges, we found examples of good practice that offer insight into the policies needed

to transcend ideological and material differences.

Potential for Growth

We uncovered three examples of good practice that suggest the ongoing potential of market-

based sustainability. These include: (1) shared leadership; (2) long-term commitment; and (3)

systemic upgrading. First, the shared leadership program addressed barriers in stakeholder

knowledge and relations via participatory training and networking. Not only did the training

program provide farmer leaders with access to technical knowledge, it addressed local power

imbalances by opening forums for multidirectional learning to occur. Second, some Fairtrade

buyers remained committed to small farmers after the entry of estates into Fairtrade exchanges.


These buyers supported two small farmer cooperatives during a time of market turmoil, helping

to ensure their viability. As expressed in Fairtrade’s Charter of Principles (WFTO and FTI 2009)

long-term partnerships are critical for marginal groups who require some measure of market

stability. Third, the biodiversity campaign developed an innovative framework for industry

upgrading. While this effort failed to advance the Right Rooibos label, it offered critical insight

into the systemic investments needed to realize market-based sustainability, including the dual

need for reduced certification costs and responsive extension systems.

Despite the challenges of navigating sustainability standards and certifications, most small-

scale farmers continued to desire access to these markets. This was because sustainable trade

systems provided small-scale Rooibos producers with some measure of competitive advantage.

This group was unable to produce the quantity of tea required to fare well in conventional

markets, but they could supply organic tea produced under fair conditions at the point of origin

for Rooibos. As such, certified cooperatives were uniquely positioned to meet sustainability

criteria. While buyer interest in these qualities are reflective of broader postcolonial narratives of

sustainability (Besky 2014), it is important to note that, in Rooibos, these narratives were

actively employed by small farmer cooperatives seeking to offset critical land and resource

shortages. In contrast to white industry respondents who typically defined the value of small

farmer tea in terms of flavor, small-scale farmers repeatedly invoked the language of pristine

nature and cultural heritage.

Markets are unlikely to realize environmentally sustainable and socially just outcomes

without fundamentally transforming the terms of engagement. Yet, social standards are

providing small-scale farmers with a platform to negotiate better terms. In particular, the

involvement of global civil society in markets is generating opportunities for developing


ideologically diverse coalitions (Del Felice 2012). Alternative commodity networks give rise to

multiple centers of power by mobilizing information and resources, disrupting the vertical power

of conventional value chain governance. While the more diffuse nature of power in networks

theoretically supports stakeholder involvement, in practice, decision making is by no means

immune from elite cooptation (Lund and Saito-Jensen 2013). Not only do dominant groups

possess greater authority, horizontal imbalances play a central role in maintaining unequal

arrangements in local arenas (Phillips 2014). Thus, network actors are “constrained and

empowered by the geographies and contexts within which governing occurs” (Griffin 2012:215).

If these challenges are to be effectively addressed, more inclusive policies and practices must

be developed. According to VanderHoff Boersma (2009) development programs often state an

interest in supporting marginal interests without taking their knowledge and concerns seriously.

The Rooibos study found a similar gap between intension and practice. This gap fueled the

failure of multiple Rooibos sustainability initiatives, generating uncertainty regarding the broader

potential of market-based sustainability. Yet, small-scale Rooibos farmers maintained an interest

in sustainability standards and certifications and expressed a desire for further collaboration.

With an intimate understanding of their constraints, this population stressed the importance of

reducing costs, extending services, and ensuring stakeholder participation through the formation

of shared leadership networks that support the entry of marginal groups into commodity planning

and governance.

CONCLUSION

This article has contributed to the development discourse in three key ways. First, previous

studies have examined the question of market-based sustainability within the context of specific


certifications and practices. In contrast, we clarify common challenges and broader potentials by

capturing a range of initiatives as they occurred within the Rooibos industry at one point in time.

Second, our research findings demonstrate how complex barriers mutually reinforce inequitable

terms of engagement. Employing the commodity network approach (Raynolds 2002, 2009), we

offer a more complete assessment of the power dynamics shaping Rooibos engagement, with

particular focus on structural and relational barriers. Third, we provide insight into the types of

policies needed to improve sustainability outcomes, both by capturing historical, social, and

environmental influences and by illustrating examples of good practice.

As we have discussed, the Rooibos industry operates within inequitable terrain that has been

shaped by the trajectory of colonial settlement and apartheid-era governance as well as by

neoliberal transformations that have privileged the role of buyers in value chains. In response to

growing demand for goods produced according to socially and environmentally responsible

standards, Rooibos actors sought to improve production and trade practices by investing in a

range of market, research, and training initiatives. With some exceptions, these efforts were

uncoordinated and maintained top-down systems of planning and management, resulting in the

subordination of marginal groups to elite interests. Moreover, none of the initiatives secured

sustainable outcomes. Despite these challenges, we found that sustainability standards provided

small-scale farmers with a critical platform to pursue more equitable arrangements. In our view,

this platform may be strengthened by instituting policies that facilitate the shift from vertical to

relational governance. To diffuse power and risk, professionals should focus on reducing

certification costs, extending support services, and ensuring the active inclusion of stakeholders

in planning and governance. These tasks will not be easy to realize, but they are vital to the

future of market-based sustainability.


JENNIFER KEAHEY is Assistant Professor of Sociology and Senior Sustainability Scholar at

Arizona State University. Her work examines the power dynamics of sustainable development,

with particular focus on the experiences of marginal groups. She uses qualitative and action

research methods to clarify hidden barriers to sustainability, offering insight into policy and

practice. Broadly interested in emerging economies, Keahey has conducted fieldwork in South

Africa, Ghana, and Latvia. Her work has been published in Globalizations (2016), Handbook of

Research on Fair Trade (2015), and Routledge Companion to Alternative Organization (2014).

DOUGLAS L. MURRAY is Professor of Sociology and Co-Director of the Center for Fair and

Alternative Trade at Colorado State University. In addition to publishing three books and dozens

of scholarly articles on agricultural development and social change, he has co-edited the widely

cited study, Fair Trade: The Challenges of Transforming Globalization (2007). He has been

twice awarded grants from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and has been a

Fulbright Senior Research Scholar. For over four decades, Murray has advised governments,

development agencies, and others on agricultural development, social justice, and sustainability.

FOOTNOTES

This research was supported by HortCRSP grant 09-002945-10. Co-led by the Center for Fair &

Alternative Trade (CFAT) and the Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS),

the HortCRSP project collaborated with a regional training provider and small-scale Rooibos

farmers to institute the shared leadership initiative discussed in this article.


1. In South Africa, the term coloured refers to indigenous and mixed-race individuals

who represent the majority population of South Africa’s Western Cape Province, where Rooibos

production occurs.

2. One estate farmer claimed that he had achieved preliminary successes with his organic

seedlings though more work needed to be done. While he had not been asked to participate in the

scientific research project, this respondent was unwilling to share any information regarding his

experiments as he felt that having the sole ability to produce organic seedlings would provide

him with a competitive market edge.

3. The lead author was embedded within the leadership network as a participant observer

and the leaders were active research participants during fieldwork in farming communities. The

analysis provided in this article derives solely from our interpretation of the findings.

REFERENCES

Aliber, Michael and Ben Cousins. 2013. "Livelihoods after Land Reform in South Africa."

Journal of Agrarian Change 13(1):140-65.

Besky, Sarah. 2013. "The Labor of Terroir and the Terroir of Labor: Geographical Indication and

Darjeeling Tea Plantations." Agriculture and Human Values 31(1):83-96.

Besky, Sarah. 2014. The Darjeeling Distinction: Labor and Justice on Fair-Trade Tea

Plantations in India. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Biénabe, Estelle and Delphine Marie-Vivien. 2015. "Institutionalizing Geographical Indications

in Southern Countries: Lessons Learned from Basmati and Rooibos." World

Development.


Binns, Tony, David Bek, Etienne Nel and Brett Ellison. 2007. "Sidestepping the Mainstream:

Fairtrade Rooibos Tea Production in Wupperthal, South Africa." Pp. 331-49 in

Alternative Food Geographies: Representation and Practice, edited by D. Maye, L.

Holloway and M. Kneafsey. Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd.

Blowfield, Michael E. and Catherine S. Dolan. 2008. "Stewards of Virtue? The Ethical Dilemma

of Csr in African Agriculture." Development and Change 39(1):1-23.

Bolwig, Simon, Stefano Ponte, Andries Du Toit, Lone Riisgaard and Niels Halberg. 2010.

"Integrating Poverty and Environmental Concerns into Value Chain Analysis: A

Conceptual Framework." Development Policy Review 28(2):173-94.

Bramley, Cerkia, Estelle Biénabe and Johann Kirsten. 2009. "An Economic Analysis of the

Evolution in Intellectual Property Strategies in the South African Agricultural Sector:

The Rooibos Industry." Pp. 56-83 in The Economics of Intellectual Property in South

Africa, edited by D. Kaplan: World Intellectual Property Organization.

Bush, Simon R., Peter Oosterveer, Megan Bailey and Arthur P. J. Mol. 2015. "Sustainability

Governance of Chains and Networks: A Review and Future Outlook." Journal of Cleaner

Production 107:8-19.

Chikulo, B.C. 2015. "Land Reforms in South Africa: A Review of Progress and Challenges." Pp.

33- in Land Reforms and Natural Resource Conflicts in Africa, edited by T. Numumba-

Kasongo. New York: Routledge.

Conroy, Michael. 2007. Branded: How the Certification Revolution Is Transforming Global

Corporations. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

Coombe, Rosemary J, Sarah Ives and Daniel Huizenga. 2014. "The Social Imaginary of

Geographical Indicators in Contested Environments: Politicized Heritage and the


Racialized Landscapes of South African Rooibos Tea." Pp. 224-37 in The Sage

Handbook on Intellectual Property, edited by M. David and D. Halbert. Thousand Oaks:

Sage Publications.

Cousins, Ben. 2010. "What Is a 'Smallholder'? Class-Analytic Perspectives on Small-Scale

Farming and Agrarian Reform in South Africa." PLAAS Working Paper 16.

Davenport, Eileen and William Low. 2013. "From Trust to Compliance: Accountability in the

Fair Trade Movement." Social Enterprise Journal 9(1):88-101.

DEAT. 2008. People, Planet, Prosperity: A National Framework for Sustainable Development

in South Africa. Pretoria: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.

Del Felice, Celina. 2012. "Transnational Activism and Free Trade. Exploring the Emancipatory

Potentials of Global Civil Society." Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and

Nonprofit Organizations 23(2):302-27.

Doherty, Bob and Sophi Tranchell. 2007. “‘Radical Mainstreaming’ of Fairtrade: The Case of

the Day Chocolate Company." Equal Opportunities International 26(7):693-711.

DTI. 2009. Codes of Good Practice on Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment. Pretoria:

Department of Trade and Industry.

Fisk, Peter. 2010. People Planet Profit: How to Embrace Sustainability for Innovation and

Business Growth: Kogan Page Publishers.

Gereffi, Gary, John Humphrey and Timothy Sturgeon. 2005. "The Governance of Global Value

Chains." Review of International Political Economy 12(1):78-104.

Gibbon, Peter and Stefano Ponte. 2005. Trading Down: Africa, Value Chains, and the Global

Economy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.


Griffin, Liza. 2012. "Where Is Power in Governance? Why Geography Matters in the Theory of

Governance." Political Studies Review 10(2):208-20.

Hughes, Alexandra, Cheryl McEwan and David Bek. 2013. "Retailers, Supply Networks and

Changing Articulations of Ethicality: Lessons from Flower Valley in South Africa."

Journal of Economic Geography 13(2):211-30.

Hughes, Alex, Cheryl McEwan and David Bek. 2015. "Mobilizing the Ethical Consumer in

South Africa." Geoforum 67:148-57.

Jaffee, Daniel and Philip H. Howard. 2010. "Corporate Cooptation of Organic and Fair Trade

Standards." Agriculture and Human Values 27(4):387-99.

Johansen, Pia Heike and Thomas Lund Chandler. 2015. "Mechanisms of Power in Participatory

Rural Planning." Journal of Rural Studies 40:12-20.

Keahey, Jennifer. 2015. "Fair Trade and Racial Equity in Africa." Pp. 441-56 in Handbook of

Research on Fair Trade, edited by L. T. Raynolds and E. A. Bennett. Northampton:

Edward Elgar Publishing.

Keahey, Jennifer. 2016. "Whose Knowledge Counts? Developing Fair Trade Skills in South

Africa." Globalizations 13(4):409-24.

Kruger and Associates. 2010. Rooibos Socio-Economic Study. The Hague: Ministry of

Agriculture, Nature, and Food Quality.

Kruger, Sandra and Andries Du Toit. 2007. "Reconstructing Fairness: Fair Trade Conventions

and Worker Empowerment in South African Horticulture." Pp. 200-19 in Fair Trade:

The Challenges of Transforming Globalization, edited by L. T. Raynolds, D. L. Murray

and J. Wilkinson. London: Routledge.


Lastarria-Cornhiel, Susana, Jolyne Melmed-Sanjak and Beverly Phillips. 1999. Land Tenancy in

Asia, Africa, and Latin America: A Look at the Past and a View to the Future. Madison:

Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Leach, Melissa, Robin Mearns and Ian Scoones. 1999. "Environmental Entitlements: Dynamics

and Institutions in Community-Based Natural Resource Management." World

Development 27(2):225-47.

Lehohla, Pali. 2014. Poverty Trends in South Africa: An Examination of Absolute Poverty

between 2006 and 2011. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.

Linton, April. 2012. "Growing Fair Trade in South Africa." Globalizations 9(5):725-40.

Lund, Jens Friis and Moeko Saito-Jensen. 2013. "Revisiting the Issue of Elite Capture of

Participatory Initiatives." World Development 46(0):104-12.

Matten, Dirk and Jeremy Moon. 2008. "'Implicit' and 'Explicit' Csr: A Conceptual Framework

for a Comparative Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility." Academy of

Management Review 33(2):404-24.

May, Harry and Edward Lahiff. 2007. "Land Reform in Namaqualand, 1994–2005: A Review."

Journal of Arid Environments 70(4):782-98.

McEwan, Cheryl, Alex Hughes and David Bek. 2014. "Futures, Ethics and the Politics of

Expectation in Biodiversity Conservation: A Case Study of South African Sustainable

Wildflower Harvesting." Geoforum 52(0):206-15.

Mog, Justin M. 2004. "Struggling with Sustainability: A Comparative Framework for Evaluating

Sustainable Development Programs." World Development 32(12):2139-60.

Nandy, Ashis. 1997. "Colonization of the Mind." Pp. 168-78 in The Post-Development Reader,

edited by M. Rahnema and V. Bawtree. London: Zed Books.


Nelson, Valerie and Anne Tallontire. 2014. "Battlefields of Ideas: Changing Narratives and

Power Dynamics in Private Standards in Global Agricultural Value Chains." Agriculture

and Human Values 31(3):481-97.

Neves, David and Andries Du Toit. 2013. "Rural Livelihoods in South Africa: Complexity,

Vulnerability and Differentiation." Journal of Agrarian Change 13(1):93-115.

Ntsebeza, Lungisile. 2005. "Land Tenure Reform in South Africa: A Focus on the Moravian

Church Land in the Western Cape." Pp. 55-77 in Competing Jurisdictions: Settling Land

Claims in Africa and Madagascar, edited by H. Wels and M. Spierenbug. Leiden: Brill

Academic Publishers.

Phillips, David. 2014. "Uneven and Unequal People-Centered Development: The Case of Fair

Trade and Malawi Sugar Producers." Agriculture and Human Values:1-14.

Ponte, Stefano. 2016. "Convention Theory in the Anglophone Agro-Food Literature: Past,

Present and Future." Journal of Rural Studies 44:12-23.

Ponte, Stefano and Joachim Ewert. 2009. "Which Way Is “up” in Upgrading? Trajectories of

Change in the Value Chain for South African Wine." World Development 37(10):1637-

50.

Pretorius, Gerhard, Victor Harley and Lisa Ryser. 2011. Handbook for Implementing Rooibos

Sustainability Standards. The Hague: Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality.

Pretty, Jules N. 1995. "Participatory Learning for Sustainable Agriculture." World Development

23(8):1247-63.

Raynolds, Laura T. 2002. "Consumer/Producer Links in Fair Trade Coffee Networks."

Sociologia Ruralis 42:404-24.


Raynolds, Laura T. 2009. "Mainstreaming Fair Trade Coffee: From Partnership to Traceability."

World Development 37(6):1083-93.

Raynolds, Laura T. and Jennifer A. Keahey. 2008. "Fair Trade, Gender, and the Environment in

Africa." Pp. 213-24 in The Elgar Handbook on Trade and Environment, edited by K.

Gallagher. Northampton: Edward Elgar.

Raynolds, Laura T. and Nicholas Greenfield. 2015. "Fair Trade: Movement and Markets." Pp.

24-41 in Handbook of Research on Fair Trade, edited by L. T. Raynolds and E. A.

Bennett. Northampton: Edward Elgar.

Sen, Amartya. 2013. "The Ends and Means of Sustainability." Journal of Human Development

and Capabilities 14(1):6-20.

Talbot, John M. 2002. "Tropical Commodity Chains, Forward Integration Strategies and

International Inequality: Coffee, Cocoa and Tea." Review of International Political

Economy 9(4):701-34.

VanderHoff Boersma, Francisco. 2009. "The Urgency and Necessity of a Different Type of

Market: The Perspective of Producers Organized within the Fair Trade Market." Journal

of Business Ethics 86(1):51-61.

Visser, Wayne. 2005. "Corporate Citizenship in South Africa." Journal of Corporate Citizenship

2005(18):29-38.

Viterna, Jocelyn, Emily Clough and Killian Clarke. 2015. "Reclaiming the 'Third Sector' from

'Civil Society': A New Agenda for Development Studies." Sociology of Development

1(1):173-207.

WCED. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


WFTO and FTI. 2009, "A Charter of Fair Trade Principles". Retrieved June 12, 2015

(http://www.fairtrade-

advocacy.org/images/Charter_of_Fair_Trade_principles_EN_v1.2.pdf).

Zaccai, Edwin. 2012. "Over Two Decades in Pursuit of Sustainable Development: Influence,

Transformations, Limits." Environmental Development 1(1):79-90.

Documents

The Promise and Perils of Market-based Sustainability