‘It’s up to the market to decide’: Revealing and concealing power in the sustainable tea supply chain

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY Critique of Anthropology Pub Date : 2021-09-01 DOI:10.1177/0308275X211038607
Matthew Archer, H. Elliott
{"title":"‘It’s up to the market to decide’: Revealing and concealing power in the sustainable tea supply chain","authors":"Matthew Archer, H. Elliott","doi":"10.1177/0308275X211038607","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2007, Unilever, the world’s largest tea company, announced plans to source its entire tea supply sustainably, beginning with the certification of its tea producers in East Africa to Rainforest Alliance standards. As a major buyer of Kenyan tea, Unilever’s decision pushed tea producers across Kenya to subscribe to Rainforest Alliance’s sustainable agriculture standard in order to maintain access to the global tea market; according to a 2018 report, over 85% of Kenya’s tea producers were Rainforest Alliance certified. Drawing on ethnographic material among supply chain actors across different sites along the sustainable tea value chain (from those designing and disseminating standards to tea traders to smallholder tea farmers), this article examines how these actors frequently attributed the power to determine the outcomes of certification to a faceless ‘market’. Deferring to ‘the market’, we observe, served primarily to mask the outsized power of lead firms (in particular Unilever) to determine conditions of tea production and trade. At the same time, ‘the market’ was also in some cases qualified by our interlocutors, allowing them implicitly (and at times explicitly) to reveal power and give it a face. Concealing and revealing power in this way, we suggest, can be seen as a mode of engagement among supply chain actors operating in ‘sustainable’ supply chains, like the Rainforest Alliance-certified Kenyan tea supply chain, in which the power of lead firms tends to be consolidated through market-driven sustainability initiatives. Such a mode of engagement mitigates exclusion from sustainable supply chains while maintaining space for critique.","PeriodicalId":46784,"journal":{"name":"Critique of Anthropology","volume":"41 1","pages":"227 - 246"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critique of Anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X211038607","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 2007, Unilever, the world’s largest tea company, announced plans to source its entire tea supply sustainably, beginning with the certification of its tea producers in East Africa to Rainforest Alliance standards. As a major buyer of Kenyan tea, Unilever’s decision pushed tea producers across Kenya to subscribe to Rainforest Alliance’s sustainable agriculture standard in order to maintain access to the global tea market; according to a 2018 report, over 85% of Kenya’s tea producers were Rainforest Alliance certified. Drawing on ethnographic material among supply chain actors across different sites along the sustainable tea value chain (from those designing and disseminating standards to tea traders to smallholder tea farmers), this article examines how these actors frequently attributed the power to determine the outcomes of certification to a faceless ‘market’. Deferring to ‘the market’, we observe, served primarily to mask the outsized power of lead firms (in particular Unilever) to determine conditions of tea production and trade. At the same time, ‘the market’ was also in some cases qualified by our interlocutors, allowing them implicitly (and at times explicitly) to reveal power and give it a face. Concealing and revealing power in this way, we suggest, can be seen as a mode of engagement among supply chain actors operating in ‘sustainable’ supply chains, like the Rainforest Alliance-certified Kenyan tea supply chain, in which the power of lead firms tends to be consolidated through market-driven sustainability initiatives. Such a mode of engagement mitigates exclusion from sustainable supply chains while maintaining space for critique.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“由市场决定”:揭示和隐藏可持续茶叶供应链中的力量
2007年,世界上最大的茶叶公司联合利华宣布计划以可持续的方式采购其全部茶叶供应,首先是对其东非茶叶生产商进行雨林联盟标准认证。作为肯尼亚茶叶的主要买家,联合利华的决定促使肯尼亚各地的茶叶生产商遵守雨林联盟的可持续农业标准,以保持进入全球茶叶市场的机会;根据2018年的一份报告,超过85%的肯尼亚茶叶生产商获得了雨林联盟的认证。本文利用可持续茶叶价值链上不同地点的供应链参与者之间的人种学材料(从设计和传播标准到茶叶贸易商再到小农户),研究了这些参与者如何经常将决定认证结果的权力归因于一个不知名的“市场”。我们观察到,推迟到“市场”主要是为了掩盖领先公司(尤其是联合利华)在决定茶叶生产和贸易条件方面的巨大权力。与此同时,在某些情况下,“市场”也由我们的对话者限定,允许他们含蓄地(有时明确地)展示权力并给它面子。我们认为,以这种方式隐藏和揭示权力可以被视为在“可持续”供应链中运作的供应链参与者之间的一种参与模式,比如雨林联盟认证的肯尼亚茶叶供应链,在该供应链中,领先公司的权力往往通过市场驱动的可持续性举措来巩固。这种参与模式减少了对可持续供应链的排斥,同时保持了批评的空间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Critique of Anthropology
Critique of Anthropology ANTHROPOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Critique of Anthropology is dedicated to the development of anthropology as a discipline that subjects social reality to critical analysis. It publishes academic articles and other materials which contribute to an understanding of the determinants of the human condition, structures of social power, and the construction of ideologies in both contemporary and past human societies from a cross-cultural and socially critical standpoint. Non-sectarian, and embracing a diversity of theoretical and political viewpoints, COA is also committed to the principle that anthropologists cannot and should not seek to avoid taking positions on political and social questions.
期刊最新文献
Introduction: Contesting the moral worlds, scales, and epistemics of energy transitions. Lithium scale-making and extractivist counter-futurities in Bolivia. ‘Occupying’ the womb: Disrupted kinship futures and sovereign logics in sexual violence during wars ‘The Girls are Alright’: Beauty work and neoliberal regimes of responsibility among young women in Urban India Kinship and the politics of responsibility: An introduction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1