• No results found

Power requirement for a sustainable agriculture : the case of the global beef industry

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Power requirement for a sustainable agriculture : the case of the global beef industry"

Copied!
75
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

1

Power requirement for a sustainable agriculture:

the case of the global beef industry

Master Thesis Political Science: International Relations (selective track)

Bram van Keulen (6076602)

(2)

2

Power requirement for a sustainable agriculture:

the case of the global beef industry

Author Bram van Keulen

Student number 60766602

Discipline International Relations

Graduate School of Social Science University of Amsterdam

Research project The Global politics of investment and trade Supervisor Professor Dr. Jeffrey Harrod

Reader Dr. Luc Fransen

(3)

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of tables 5 Abbreviations 6 Abstract 8 1. INTRODUCTION 9

1.1 Problem statement, aim of the research and research question 10

1.2 Methodology, case study selection and research outline 11

2. THE STAKEHOLDER THEORY AND STRUCTURAL POWER 13

2.1 R. Edward Freeman’s Stakeholder Theory 13

2.2 Adjustments to the Stakeholder Theory 15

2.3 Susan Strange’s Structural Power 17

2.4 Conclusion: Combining Structural Power and Stakeholder Theory 21

3. SUSTAINABILITY IN GLOBAL AGRICULTURE 22

3.1 The sustainability approach in global agriculture. 22

3.2 Sustainable indicators in global agriculture 24

3.3 Conclusion 26

4. DEFINING THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE GLOBAL BEEF INDUSTRY 28

4.1 Processors: JBS S.A. and Tyson Foods, Inc. 29

4.2 Roundtables and associations: GRSB, SAI and NCBA 31

4.3 Retailers: McDonald’s Corporation and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 35

4.4 Civil Society organizations and NGO’s: WWF and Solidaridad 38

(4)

4

4.6 Conclusion 42

5. THE CURRENT POWER DIMENSIONS IN THE GLOBAL BEEF INDUSTRY 44

5.1 Who is in charge of the security structure? 44

5.2 The production power structure 47

5.3 The claim to the financial power structure 49

5.4 Power over the knowledge structure 50

5.5 The power over the secondary welfare structure in the beef industry 52

5.6 Conclusion 54

6. THE POWER REQUIREMENTS FOR A SUSTAINABLE BEEF INDUSTRY 55

6.1 The ideal power requirements for a sustainable beef industry 55

6.2 The incompatible power requirements for a sustainable global

beef industry 60 6.3 Conclusion 62 CONCLUDING REMARKS 63 Bibliography 66 Books 66 Book chapters 66 Articles 67 Specialised reports 68

News sources online 69

Stakeholders’ websites, news releases and annual report 71

(5)

5 List of tables Table

1.1 Grain and forage inputs per kilogram of animal product produced 4.1 Best Global Brands 2000 and Best Global Brands 2014

4.2 The World's Largest Employers 2012 5.1 Comparison Corporations and States 2010

(6)

6

Abbreviations

AEI Agriculture Environmental Indicator

BNDES Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social

CRSB Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef

CWA Clean Water Act

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESW Enterprise of a Sustainable World

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation

FDI Foreign Direct Investment

FSA (Beef) Farm Sustainability Assessment

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GRSB Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef

GTPS Grupo de Trabalho da Pecuária Sustentável

IBP Iowa Beef Processors

IGO International Governmental Organisation

IPE International Political Economy

LEAD Initiative The Livestock, Environment and Development Initiative

MNC Multi-National Corporation

NCBA National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

(7)

7

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OEI Office International des Épizooties

SAI Platform Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Platform

SARD Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development

SARE Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education

SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

TSC The Sustainability Consortium

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USRSB United States Roundtable for Sustainable Beef

UN United Nations

UNCSD United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development

UNDES United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

UNGPBHR United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

(8)

8 Abstract

This thesis researches the power requirements for a sustainable agriculture. The global beef industry has been selected as a case study because the expected growing demand in beef due to a growing world population in combination with its burden on the environment and the size of the industry make it the most representative case for agriculture in general. The industry will be discussed according to twelve different stakeholders representing five different categories: processors, roundtables, retailers, civil society organisations and IGO’s and state departments. By doing so the current power relations will be compared to the power relations required according to the theoretical framework and tested whether this is feasible. It will be concluded that the theoretical framework needs to be revised as the most favourable power requirements for a sustainable agriculture rest on the engagement of its stakeholders.

(9)

9

1. INTRODUCTION

The second largest meat producer in the world is Tyson Foods, Inc. This company produces on a weekly basis 41 million chickens, 133,000 head of cattle and 383,000 hogs (Tyson Foods, Inc.: 2014). Yet, there is a Brazilian company JBS S.A. that produces even more (JBS Annual and Sustainability Report, 2014: Operations, JBS Foods). Even though these numbers are hard to believe, they are most likely to increase majorly in the coming decades. By the year 2050 the world’s population will have increased to over nine billion. Together with this population growth there will be an enormous increase in the world’s middle class from mostly South and East Asia. It is expected that the amount of people who will enter the middle class will increase up to half a billion by 2030. People who will enter this middle class are most likely to consume more meat as this will become more affordable for these people (The Heinrich Böll Foundation, 2014: 48). This major increase in demand will bring, and already does, many challenges that will have to be dealt with in order to keep up with this growing demand for meat. The production of meat is very land and water resource intense. As shown in table 1.1, to produce one kilogram of fresh beef may require 13 kg of grain and 21 kg of forage, which additionally needs water in order to grow. Putting everything together it could be that a kg of fresh beef requires 200,000 liters of water (Pimentel and Pimentel, 2003: 662S). These numbers require a more sustainable approach in order to be able to keep providing beef to the growing world population.

Grain and forage inputs per kilogram of animal product produced

Livestock Grain1 Forage2

kg kg Lamb 21 30 Beef cattle 13 30 Eggs 11 -- Swine 5.9 -- Turkeys 3.8 -- Broilers 2.3 -- Dairy (milk) 0.7 1

1Data from US Department of Agriculture (11). 2Date from Morrison (14) and Heitschmidt et al (15).

(10)

10

1.1 Problem statement, aim of the research and research question

Problem statement

This research is about sustainable agriculture focusing on the global beef industry. The global beef industry is a multi-billion dollar business mostly concentrated in the Americas. The business affects millions of people and is a major burden for the environment. Think of water use, land use, deforestation, Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, etcetera. Therefore, it seems logical to reduce the amount of beef produced by the industry in order to reduce the environmental burden. Nevertheless, it is highly unlikely that a reduction in beef production will occur because of the expected rise in global demand (The Heinrich Böll Foundation, 2014: 50). With this in mind, it will be impossible to keep producing beef in the way it is done nowadays. The problem of changing the way agriculture is practiced has already been noted in the early 1980 and described in by Wes Jackson’s New Roots for Agriculture (1980). The awareness to produce more sustainably for the environment and community also became apparent by the processing corporations like Tyson in an early stage (Heritage, Tyson Foods, Inc. website). Although several actors in the beef industry are nowadays dealing with sustainability, the numbers state that the global beef industry is far from sustainable regarding the burden on the environment and a growing global demand. Simply put, the global beef industry needs to produce more with less.

Aim of the research

The purpose of this thesis is to understand the power relations among the different stakeholders of the global beef industry in order to identify what power requirements are needed for a more sustainable industry. With the knowledge that the industry, in order to survive and to meet the growing global demand for beef, will need to become more sustainable now and in the future a closer look at the power relations will be taken. With the Stakeholder Approach of R. Edward Freeman combined with the Structural Power theory of Susan Strange a selection of stakeholders of the global beef industry will be made. Subsequently, their power related to the industry and to each other will be identified. This is to clarify what the power relations are nowadays and to identify the challenges that lie ahead of the industry to ensure a sustainable future. Therefore an ideal situation regarding the different power structures of Strange will be drawn in order to test whether this ideal situation is achievable and feasible with regard to the empirical situation.

(11)

11

The aim of the research, therefore, is to use the global beef industry as a case to test what power requirements are needed to conduct a sustainable agriculture. A close look at the processing corporations, civil society organisations, International Governmental Organisations (IGO’s), roundtables and states is required in order to develop a clear and well-funded argument what the global beef industry needs to produce more with less resources.

Research question

This thesis will research the power requirements needed for a sustainable agriculture. Thereby, the case of the beef industry has been selected to provide the empirical evidence for these power requirements. Therefore the research question is:

What are the power requirements for a sustainable agriculture: the case of the global beef industry

1.2 Methodology, case study selection and research outline

Methodology

This thesis is conducted by qualitative research. This includes a literature study regarding the theoretical part, and a case study regarding the case of the global beef industry. In order to do so, both secondary and primary sources will be consulted.

The secondary sources consist of academic journals, books and book chapters. Especially books and journals on IPE, power and stakeholders will be used. Thereby, the books of R. Edward Freeman Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (1984) and Susan Strange’s States and Markets (1988) are considered to be the foundation of the theoretical background of this research, even though adjustments on this foundation will be made.

The primary sources used for this research consist of specialised reports, market reports, online news sources and company websites. The specialised reports are mainly developed by United Nations (UN) organisations such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD). However, also reports will be discussed designed by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). The beef industry has many market reports as well, mostly designed by roundtables.

(12)

12

Therefore reports of the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB), the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) as well as reports designed by The Sustainable Consortium (TSC) will be used as data collectors for the beef industry. Regarding the beef industry, many online news sources are available as well, including GreenBiz, Forbes, and several newspaper websites. Annual Reports and business information are the main sources used of company websites. These will be mainly websites of the processing and retailing corporations.

Case study selection

Sustainable agriculture is the overarching topic of this thesis. Therefore the beef industry is used as a case because it touches upon many agricultural practises such as land use, water use and crop production. This is more the case in the beef industry than for example is the case regarding the chicken industry because for beef production more food and fibre is needed and thus a higher intensity in agricultural practices. Besides, the beef industry is the largest industry in the meat sector and therefore it is more closely linked to the overall agricultural business.

Research outline

The research consists of five chapters and the conclusion. The first chapter draws the theoretical framework whereby two theories will be explained and combined. The second chapter is a descriptive part which describes sustainable agriculture in general, what is meant by it and what the most important implications are. Chapters three, four and five form the analysis of the beef industry. Chapter three introduces the stakeholders that will be used in this research. Chapter four will explain the current power relations in the beef industry and chapter five will draw the ideal power relations according to the theoretical framework. Whether this ideal situation is feasible will be discussed in the same chapter. In the concluding remarks the research question will be answered.

(13)

13

2. THE STAKEHOLDER THEORY AND STRUCTURAL POWER

In order to make an analysis of the sustainability in the agribusiness, and in particular the beef industry, a theoretical framework covering the problems and challenges of the sector needs to be designed. Therefore two theories will be used in order to build this framework. On the one hand, the Stakeholder Theory of R. Edward Freeman (Boston 1984) will be used and edited with the most recent adjustments. On the other hand, the Structural Power of Susan Strange (New York 1988) will be used in order to clarify the power relations in the beef industry.

First of all, the Stakeholder Theory as was designed by Freeman in 1984 will be explained, followed by the adjustments in the years after the first publication in order to make the theory as complete as it is nowadays. The Structural Power of Susan Strange will be explained following the Stakeholder Theory. In the final part of the theoretical framework, the link between the two regarding the sector analysis of the beef industry will be made.

2.1 R. Edward Freeman’s Stakeholder Theory

In 1984 R. Edward Freeman published his book Strategic Management: A Stakeholder

Approach. The last part of the title, A Stakeholder Approach, became the basis of a completely

new theory when it comes to organizational behavior and strategic management of corporations. Prior to this publication organizational behavior and strategic management was conducted from a shareholder point of view. This shareholder view is directed from the usual understanding of business up until the birth of the Stakeholder Theory, namely as a ‘[…] vehicle to maximise returns to the owners of capital.’ (Freeman et al. 2010: xv).

Looking at the legal rights, the shareholder view is still standing as the shareholders are legally the only stakeholders of a firm (Campbell 1997: 447). However, only worrying about exchanging products and services for money, focusing only on efficiency and effectiveness are not enough these days. Concentrating on the owners, managers and employees serving their suppliers and customers will not be sufficient for corporations to successfully do business in the future (Freeman 1984: 4). This Production View as Freeman calls it, is outdated and oversimplified. Therefore a theory needed to be designed taking more stakeholders into account than only the ones directly affected by the corporation itself. According to Freeman this change has been caused by globalization. This means that corporations need to deal with more stakeholders than ever before. Freeman’s examples are competitors, environment, civil society, government, special interest groups, etc. (Freeman et al. 2010: 24). He makes a distinction between primary or definitional stakeholders (customers, employees, suppliers and

(14)

14

financiers) and secondary or instrumental stakeholders i.e. competitors, environment, civil society, government, special interest groups, etc. (Freeman et al. 2010: 26).

External change, as Freeman calls the emergence of new groups outside the primary stakeholders, has become more noticeable and important for corporations. This means that this occurrence cannot be understood by the Shareholder or Production View as these theoretical models only focus on the internal change or primary stakeholders (Freeman 1984: 11-12). Together with this change, there seemed to be the notion that management cannot assume any longer that the primary concern of those owning shares is the return on investment. Many different stakeholders who are in one way or the other affected by the handling of affairs of a corporation should focus on these stakes of different stakeholders at least as much as on the return on investments. This calls out for a more complicated theoretical model (Freeman 1984: 9; 48).

This more complicated role that corporations face is very well caught in Freeman’s 1984 book relying on research done by R. Ackhoff in Redesigning the Future (New York 1974) and J. Post in Corporate Behavior and Social Change (Reston 1978). Both scholars talk about four basic modes in which corporations deal with this new and changing external environment. The first mode is known for its inactivity, meaning that the corporation ignores the changes and continues business as usual. The second mode is relativity, meaning that the corporation is waiting for something to occur before it will respond to any changes. This is contrary to the third mode, proactivity, meaning that the corporation tries to predict the external changes in order to position the corporation towards those changes before the changes take place. The fourth and final mode is the interactive mode meaning, that the corporation is actively involved with the external changes and aims to seek and create the future for both the corporation and all the external forces concerned (Freeman 1984: 23-24).

This framework as noted above offers a method for managers of corporations to systematically understand their external environment and to know how to deal with this changing environment in the most proactive way (Freeman 1984: 4). Regarding this thesis it is interesting to note in which of the four modes the corporation in the beef industry is moving and what that means regarding the sector’s sustainability and shifting power relations. Regarding the power relations, the theoretical framework will also focus on Susan Strange’s structural power.

One of the most striking problems regarding the Stakeholder Theory is the legitimization of the stakeholders. With a wide range of stakeholders, the chances of conflicting interests between the corporation and the stakeholder, or between stakeholders both

(15)

15

having a stake in the same corporation could be likely. Freeman connotes that being a stakeholder is synonym to having legitimacy. This means that a stakeholder, even without the direct recognition of the corporation, feels it has the legitimacy to be able to affect the behavior of the corporation (Freeman 1984: 45). This notion could change the power relations between corporation and stakeholders. In other words, when a stakeholder feels it has the legitimacy to be able to affect the handling of affairs of the corporation, the corporation will need to respect this. The external environment cannot be ignored anymore in order to make any return on investment (Freeman 1984: 9).

Summarising, the Stakeholder Theory comes down to what Freeman says: ‘The […] concept is deceptively simple.’ (Freeman 1984: 246). On the one hand it is simple, namely ‘[…] to identify those groups and individuals who can affect, or are affected by, the achievement of an organization’s purpose.’ (Freeman 1984: 246). On the other hand however, the concept is rather deceptive. There are two more levels of analysis that are more complicated than the identification of the stakeholders. These two other levels of analysis are the identification of the different stakes of the stakeholders, and what the bases of the stakeholders are for their claims, i.e. legitimisation, towards the corporation as discussed before (Freeman 1984: 247). How to cope with these levels of analysis is openly questioned by Freeman in the final part of his book. He says that it is up to future research to see whether a theory of strategic management can be constructed where, instead of the managers owning the rules towards its shareholders, the managers must act in the interests of the stakeholders (Freeman 1984: 249). This is an interesting question to deal with thirty years after its first publication. In the next section the adjustments to the original Stakeholder Approach of Freeman will be dealt with and compromised to this research in particular.

2.2 Adjustments to the Stakeholder Theory

Since the publication of Freeman in 1984 many scholars have been writing, researching and debating the Stakeholder Theory. What are the essential adjustments and how should we view the Stakeholder Theory nowadays? More importantly, which ideas of the Stakeholder Theory are most applicable in sustainable agriculture and more specifically in the beef industry?

Basically, there is a broad discussion among scholars whether the Stakeholder Theory is justified on normative, descriptive, or instrumental grounds, or on a combination of these three. First of all, it seems clear from Donaldson and Preston that a claim for the justification of the Stakeholder Theory on descriptive grounds is not adequate because it is not clearly a matter of justification but more a description of the past, the present, and the future state of affairs of

(16)

16

business (Donaldson and Preston 1995: 71, 77). Basically the discussion is about the instrumental or normative justification of the Stakeholder Theory. There is not a clear solution or a better justification among the two. It has to do with the identification of the stakeholders as well. To make this point clear we first have to turn back to Freeman. In another book released in 2010 called Stakeholder Theory: the state of the art, Freeman talks about four ideas out of which the Stakeholder Theory developed. One of these ideas is the integration thesis. The integration thesis consists of three statements:

(1) It makes no sense to talk about business without talking about ethics. (2) It makes no sense to talk about ethics without talking about business.

(3) It makes no sense to talk about either business or ethics without talking about human beings. (Freeman et al. 2010: 7).

Especially the last statement makes the discussion ongoing, whether to justify the Stakeholder Theory on instrumental or normative grounds. Donaldson, for example, argues that it is impossible to imply a purely instrumental or descriptive stakeholder interpretation. He claims that in the interpretation of the modern corporation the normative stakeholder theory is irreversible, even in its most minimal form. (Donaldson 2011: 130). This has to do with the identification of the different stakeholders. When employees, shareholders, customers, etcetera or in other words human beings are identified as being stakeholders, then it is about ethics. When talking about ethics, the normative stakeholder approach cannot be denied. In the words of Donaldson, such stakeholders are moral rights holders (Donaldson 2011: 138).

However, only focusing on the normative stakeholder approach is not satisfying either. Indeed, the focus will then only be on, as Freeman states, the primary stakeholders. That is, the stakeholders directly affected by and affecting the performance of the corporation, including suppliers, employees, shareholders, and customers (Freeman et al. 2010: 24). First of all, this is not satisfying enough regarding the amount of stakeholders. The so-called secondary stakeholders need to be taken into account as well, especially regarding the beef industry. Secondly, a normative approach is not realistic enough regarding a profit seeking corporation. The normative approach is more about doing or not doing something because it is right or wrong. In contrast, the instrumental approach is more about gaining result: ‘If you want to achieve (avoid) results X, Y, of Z, then adopt (don’t adopt) principles and practices A, B, or C.’ (Donaldson and Preston 1995: 72). It seems obvious that the normative approach is probably the most desirable approach, the instrumental approach is the more realistic one. This is due to

(17)

17

the fact that commercial corporations still view earning revenue as their number one goal. As long as this goal exists, the instrumental approach will be viable. At first sight, the instrumental stakeholder approach might seem an opportunistic approach as it is much more result driven than the moral approach of the normative view (Phillips 2003: 165). This is how the current situation is in the capitalist world. It is an illusion to think that in a capitalist world a fully normative stakeholder approach will be apparent. However, this does not mean that the Stakeholder Theory is doomed to fail. On the contrary, the instrumental stakeholder approach is nothing but realistic. In this approach stakeholders and the firm will always have to take each other into account but in a more competitive way leading to more inventive and creative solutions. This will count especially in the beef industry as will be shown in the analysis.

Apart from whether to justify the Stakeholder Theory from a normative or an instrumental perspective, or a combination of both, there is another perspective worth noticing. This perspective is drawn in the article of Mitchell et al. (1997) rejecting the normative approach and focusing on three different driving forces: urgency, power and legitimacy. They conclude that power and urgency must be paid attention to if managers are to serve the legal and moral interests of legitimate stakeholders. This means that the degree to which managers give priority to competing stakeholder claims has more to do with the power of a stakeholder and the urgency of a stakeholder to deal with than legitimacy as the driving force (Mitchell et al. 1997: 854; 882). Especially the power dimension in this view is interesting with regard to this thesis, which will be discussed next by first examining the Structural Power Theory of Susan Strange and after in the analysis in which these differences in power dimensions and priorities will be tested in the case of the beef industry.

2.3 Susan Strange’s Structural Power

In order to research what power requirements are needed to move towards sustainable agriculture, the Stakeholder Theory alone will not be sufficient. Although the Stakeholder Theory, as noted above, is of viable importance in order to understand the power requirements in sustainable agriculture, a thorough understanding of power is of equal importance. In this section the latter will be broadly discussed on the basis of the Structural Power of Susan Strange. Strange is one of the founders of International Political Economy (IPE) and has done extensive research on power dimensions in the changing world we live in nowadays. By explaining Structural Power, the four dimensions that are encompassed by it, and the secondary structures drawn from the four dimensions, a better understanding regarding the power requirements needed for sustainable agriculture will be made.

(18)

18

However, before we can understand the different dimensions of Structural Power and the secondary structures, it is needed to understand Strange’s stance regarding IPE. For Strange the central question for IPE is ‘Who benefits?’ In order to answer this question it is required to understand where power lies and how it influences different outcomes. Strange argues that the final results cannot be understood without looking at the way power has been used in order to arrive at these results:

‘[…] it is impossible to arrive at the end result, the ultimate goal of study and analysis of the international political economy without giving explicit or implicit answers to these fundamental questions about how power has been used to shape the political economy and the way in which it distributes costs and benefits, risks and opportunities to social groups, enterprises and organisations within the system.’ (Strange 1988: 22)

Regarding this power, Strange makes a distinction between two types of power: relational or bargaining power, and structural power. Relational or bargaining power is characterized by the power that one actor, whether it is a state, a group or an individual, can exercise over another actor and the way this actor acts (Strange 1996: 17). Structural power entails the power to build frameworks in which states, groups, and individuals have to operate. It entails the ability to change the rules of the game, rather than to change the way actors move within the rules which is distinctive for the relational power (Colijn and Verbeek 2000: 12). In order to understand the power requirements for sustainable agriculture the focus of this thesis will be on the structural power, containing four dimensions explained below.

The four dimensions of Structural Power

As discussed above, Structural Power as Strange explained consists of four primary dimensions or structures: security, production, finance and knowledge. The security structure means the provision of security by one actor for another. According to Strange this is not understandable in a Realist way. However, the security structure does have impact on the ‘who benefits’-question. The second dimension is the production structure. According to Strange this structure is a society’s arrangement of what is produced, by whom for whom, how and under what terms (Strange 1988: 87). This is a highly interesting structure regarding the beef industry as will be shown later in this thesis. The third power structure is finance. By finance Strange does not mean the purchasing power as is often thought. Financial power means the ability an actor has to create credit or to control the creation of credit out of which economic power evolves

(19)

19

(Strange 1988: 88). Especially with regard to a sector that is moving towards sustainability the way credit is provided, created, and divided makes the financial structure an interesting one. The final structure Strange describes as part of structural power is the knowledge structure. This structure is the least developed power dimension. The knowledge structure is characterized by the capacity to either deny knowledge, exclude others, or to convey knowledge to other actors (Strange 1988: 121). What is important to note is that the knowledge structure most often derives from consent and not, as would be thought regarding the realist domination in the 1980’s, coercion. This is also a viable point regarding the beef industry whereby a consent driven way of conveying knowledge is a way to exercise power, as will be discussed later.

It is, however, unlikely that one actor can control all four power dimensions at the same time. The way actors move along these power structures can best be explained according to a square that should be in balance. Each corner of the square contains a power structure of which an actor has the power. However, in order to keep the square in balance, another actor should be in power at another corner, meaning another power structure. That is also why Strange rejects the bilateral and hegemonic power structure when it comes to power. Instead she favours a balance of power, which Strange named Structural Power (Strange 1996: 25-26). It is important to notice about the Structural Power theory of Strange with regard to this thesis that the four power structures are not bound to only analyse the global power structures. The four power structures can also be used on a local basis (Strange 1988: 135). Although the beef industry is globally analysed, the power structures within the industry will fall under the ‘local’ power analysis. In order to analyse the power structures on this ‘local’ basis it is necessary to note what kind of interaction between the governments, corporations, markets, society (i.e. stakeholders) takes place in the industry. In order to analyse these interactions and power relations, Strange conducted a secondary power structure which can also be divided in four power dimensions.

Secondary power structure: welfare

According to Strange the secondary power structures need to be viewed as a product of the four primary power structures, something that has not always been the case in the literature on this topic (Strange 1988: 136). The secondary power structures also consist of four dimensions: transport systems i.e. sea and air, trade, energy and welfare. I will only focus on the welfare dimension as this dimension is the most viable dimension concerning the topic of this thesis and for the beef industry in particular.

(20)

20

The key of the welfare structure, similar to many of the other primary and secondary structures, is the power of an actor or authority to allocate welfare and to give or arrange benefits to other actors (Tayfur 2012: 120). Although it seems contrary to the structural power and the instrumental stakeholder approach, the welfare structure is less altruistic as it seems. Even in this structure there is a form of political-economic exchange, e.g. there is space for bargaining (Strange 1988: 209). This will be shown in the analysis and it will be concluded that in the beef industry in particular and agriculture in general, there should be more attention to the altruistic part of the welfare power structure, in order to be more sustainable. However, there are exceptions in this field. The provision of welfare from the people of one state to the people of other states most of the time contains some strategic or opportunistic motivation. The exceptions lie in internationally agreed programs on, for example, environment, food security, terrorism, etcetera (Strange 1988: 224). Especially these international programs regarding the food industry are interesting to research in the theme of this thesis. These international agreements in agriculture have been made, but whether it works and how the power relations are concerning these agreements will be shown in the analytical part.

Thereby, it should be noted that not only Strange but also scholars like Rosenau emphasise the occurrence of the shift that is taking place where power is exercised more and more by corporations instead of states (Rosenau 1990). It means that, not only should corporations gain a more prominent role in IPE, it should also be evident that these corporations are the ones who produce the world’s wealth, and thus welfare. This is no longer solely exercised by states (May 1996: 180). This directly affects the welfare structure and its altruistic character. Clearly, corporations are profit-driven entities. With the appearance of a growing amount of power with respect to states concerning the production structure and welfare structure, this means that wealth and welfare will be produced in view of the corporations’ financial performances. This may lead to a much less altruistic interpretation of the welfare structure than Strange gives (Strange 1988: 224). However, this also counts for the Stakeholder Theory discussed in the previous parts, where power lies with corporations. This may be less altruistic and more opportunistic but it can lead to a more efficient way of welfare division. This efficiency regarding a growing population and therefore regarding a growing global demand for beef is much needed in order to be able to keep producing beef without damaging the environment.

(21)

21

2.4 Conclusion: Combining Structural Power and Stakeholder Theory

The theoretical framework used for this thesis is, as has been shown, a combination of two different theories. Both theories were designed in the 1980’s by two influential scholars in Strategic Management and IPE: R. Edward Freeman and Susan Strange respectively. Although both theories have not been designed in the same field of interest, they make an almost natural combination.

On the one hand there is a broad consensus among scholars (Colijn and Verbeek, Strange, Rosenau, Donaldson, Phillips, May) that a shift in power relations has taken place whereby corporations are gaining more power in relation to states. What used to be a state affair regarding power, like security, production, knowledge, finance, has been shifted more and more towards corporations. This shift in Structural Power also means that corporations have more responsibilities, and are serving more stakeholders than they used to. This is where the Stakeholder Theory of Freeman comes into play. Corporations are no longer obliged to only serve their legal stakeholders, namely their shareholders (Mitchell et al. 1997). Even exclusively taking into account only employees, suppliers and financiers is no longer feasible for a (global) operating corporation to continue doing business in the future. This means that, with a structural power shift towards corporations, a Stakeholder Theory as designed by Freeman needs to be taken into account as well. However, regarding this thesis a few adjustments to both theories have been made. On the part of the Stakeholder Theory the focus will be more on the instrumental stakeholder approach without completely denying the normative stakeholder approach as that is almost impossible (Freeman 1984). Regarding Strange’s theory the focus will be mainly on the primary power structures and the secondary welfare structure as the analytical part of this thesis will focus mostly on the corporation and its stakeholders. Hereby, as noted above, and in line with the Stakeholder Theory and its adjustments, it should be taken into account that corporations are profit-driven meaning, that the altruistic level that is more upfront in the literature will be less apparent in this thesis. In the next section a clear description of sustainable agriculture and the sector will be given in order to get a better overall understanding of the challenges agriculture in general is facing nowadays.

(22)

22

3. SUSTAINABILITY IN GLOBAL AGRICULTURE

In this section the global agriculture in general will be discussed before turning to the case analysis of the beef industry. This is of importance for several reasons. First of all, the global beef industry is a part of global agriculture so in order to understand that sector, it is of interest to understand the basics of global agriculture as well. Secondly, at global political level agreements, reports, agendas, etcetera are mostly conducted generally for the whole global agriculture instead of sector specific arrangements. This is especially the case regarding sustainability arrangements. It is therefore of interest to discuss the general agreements and indicators of sustainability in global agriculture of different IGO’s.

3.1 The sustainability approach in global agriculture.

In 1980 Wes Jackson published his book New Roots for Agriculture. This would be the first publication where a change in agricultural practise was discussed in order to not further deplete natural resources needed to make agriculture possible. It was not before the late 1980’s that the term sustainable agriculture and the discussion around it would evolve significantly (Jackson 1980: vii-xv). However, it was the beginning of the emergence of another way of thinking about global agriculture. For the first time it was widely accepted and realized that the way global agriculture was executed would not last much longer. This is where the term sustainable agriculture has found its roots, but what does this term actually entail? Is it something governments can hold on to, exposing its power towards the market, is it a marketing valuable term for corporations, does it stand for the growing knowledge of consumers, or none of the above?

It can be said that the appearance of the term sustainable agriculture has everything to do with the ever growing population, reaching over nine billion people by 2050. This has to be the starting point. Especially IGO’s like the UN and

t

he Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) talk about food security in this matter. That is, to make food available to all people at all time taking in consideration that we are dealing with an increasingly competitive and resource-scare world (Commission on Sustainable Development 2000: 2). This means that the challenge is not only to produce enough food, but to also get it at the right place to the right people. Thereby, one has to realize that only food security does not cover the meaning of sustainable agriculture. One description of the term sustainable agriculture is well explained by a non-profit organization set up by Nestlé, Unilever, and Danone in 2002 named Sustainable Agriculture Institute Platform (SAI Platform):

(23)

23

‘Sustainable agriculture is the efficient production of safe, high quality agricultural products, in a way that protects and improves the natural environment, the social and economic conditions of farmers, their employees and local communities, and

safeguards the health and welfare of all farmed species.’

(http://www.saiplatform.org/sustainable-agriculture/definition)

In this same sense there is the Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (SARD) promotional agenda by the UN proclaiming roughly the same ideas: there should be a higher production per acre with less resources used and less intensive farming practices (UN Agenda 21 Chapter 14, 1992: 14.27 a-f). The OECD Agri-Environmental Indicators also claim that food security and higher yields per acre in a sustainable manner is the key towards ending the problem (Parris 2000: 126). Thereby, these reports are predicting a large role for (semi)governmental organisations in facing these problems. Therefore these reports provide different indicators that should be used by (semi)governmental organiations to face the challenges in a manageable way. Although it should be noted that both documents are not very recent, 1992 and 2000 respectively, they focus only on state level organisations. There is not a word or notion of corporations in both reports. And that is striking because it is the corporation that is responsible for its production and, especially regarding agriculture, the future of the business is of great interest to these corporations.

However, it seems that this stance has nothing to do with time. That is, it does not mean that in the 1990’s there was only focus on states as a more Realist way of thinking and that this all changed after the start of the new millennium. In 1996 Stuart Hart published his paper

Beyond greening: Strategies of a sustainable world. This can be seen as the founding paper for

the development of the corporate sustainability movement. Hart is also founder of the non-profit organisation Enterprise of a Sustainable World (ESW) advising corporations on their road towards sustainability (http://www.e4sw.org/). So attention is given and has been given to the corporate side of sustainability promotion as well. Strangely, there seem to be contrary notions of the way sustainable agriculture should be developed. On the one hand there is the governmental way, including IGO’s as the OECD and the UN. On the other hand there is the corporate way where it is argued that the corporations have the access to production which entails their key role regarding creating sustainable agriculture. To make it even more complicated, there is a U.S. semi-governmental organization called Sustainable Agriculture

(24)

24

Research and Education (SARE) which proclaims a more corporate way of developing sustainable agriculture. SARE has three main pillars. Two pillars are in the direction of the governmental way, that is in favor of good stewardship over land, water and air, and in favor of the quality of life of farmers. The third pillar, however, is to create long-term profit for agribusiness (SARE: 2). The contrariety of this organisation is twofold, namely not only is it funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the governmental ideas of sustainable agriculture are also prominently exposed on their website:

‘Congress has defined sustainable agriculture as an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will over the long-term:

 satisfy human food and fiber needs;

 enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agriculture economy depends;

 make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls;

 sustain the economic viability of farm operations; and

 enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole. (U.S. Code Title 7, Section 3103)’ (http://www.sare.org/About-SARE/What-is-Sustainable-Agriculture)

These standpoints of the U.S. government do not seem to be in line with the agribusiness approach of SARE, where profit is the first pillar. Congress only talks about the sustainability of ‘[....] economic viability of farm operations’. This does not mean forcing profitability.

Next, the different indicators that are used by different organisations will be discussed in order to better understand the different paths that these organisations need to take in order to create sustainable agriculture.

3.2 Sustainable indicators in global agriculture

A global view of different indicators, both from a governmental perspective as a corporation or market perspective will be given by first examining three reports from two IGO’s. The first one will be the OECD report on Agri-Environmental indicators (2000) and the other two will be reports developed by the UN (1992 and 2007, respectively).

(25)

25

The OECD report written by Kevin Parris focuses on the importance of sustainable indicators for the OECD and what indicators are selected in order to provide good policy to create sustainable agriculture (Parris 2000: 125). These so-called Agri-Environmental Indicators (AEI’s) are developed in order to cover primary agricultural issues such as: the use of natural resources and farm inputs; environmental impact on: soil and water quality, land conservation, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, and more; and the interaction between environmental, economic and social factors (Parris 2000: 129).These issues seem to be universal regarding global agricultural matters. Essential is the way these AEI’s help to solve these agricultural matters. According to the OECD report this is the role of governments who are the ideal actors to help solve these agricultural challenges, including: what the environmental impact of reducing subsidies to the agricultural sector can be; what the environmental impact of alternative agricultural instruments, such as direct payments instead of market price support can be; and, what the economic implications of meeting these environmental targets can be for the agricultural sector (Parris 2000: 130). Especially these challenges show that the OECD sees governments as the only actors to solve these problems, even though Parris admits that farmers are the decision makers: ‘[…] conceptual and methodological issues that need to be resolved including the […] enhanced understanding of the behavioural response of decision makers, such as farmers, to environmental signals provided by AEIs;’ (Parris 2000: 131). The OECD says that producers, (i.e. farmers) are the decision makers, and that a good understanding of their behaviour is needed in order to make their own indicators valuable. It seems hard to understand that key decision makers do not have any influence in creating AEI’s.

From the UN’s Agenda 21 report, a likewise view on sustainable agriculture policy seems to be present. Although the UN admits that a coherent national policy framework for sustainable agriculture and rural development (SARD) is widely absent, they do see UN agencies such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the World Bank and regional organisations as key players to work with national governments. They will have to conduct activities such as implementing integrated and sustainable agricultural development and food security strategies (UN Agenda 21 Chapter 14, 1992: 14.6, 14.11a). On the other hand, and this is clear from the actual indicators document of the Sustainable Development department of the UN, it is understandable that in order to conduct international applicable indicators on sustainable development the focus will lie on universal values created by organisations like the UN or the World Bank (UNDESA, Indicators of Sustainable Development 2007). This means that the focus is more political and policy-based than market-based. However, this focus remains therefore highly state centric and by doing that, they keep rejecting the influence and the role the market with the corporation as the key actor plays.

(26)

26

In the influential article by Stuart L. Hart it is admitted that the key problems for the future of global agriculture are social and political issues. Namely, the growing population and the growing economic welfare of the emerging economies. However, although Hart admits that these issues are far exceeding the abilities of corporations to solve them, he argues that corporations are the leading actors towards the solution of the problem (Hart 1996: 67). This standpoint also lives in the book edited by Clapp and Fuchs where a key role is dedicated to corporations. Hereby, the editors argue that it is the ‘[…] political role that corporations play in efforts to govern the global food system.’ (Clapp and Fuchs 2009: 2). It is interesting to note that on the corporation side, their evolving political role is clearly incorporated in their new way of doing business as a key player towards sustainable agriculture (Dunphy et al. 2007: 6, 7). That is also shown in the indicators Dunpy et al. provided for corporations in different stages towards sustainability. These indicators are designed for internal use, but they incorporate the changing role that is demanded for corporations nowadays. The indicators vary by development of the sustainability goals of a corporation differing from first wave indicators to third wave indicators. The latter means a corporation has been fully transformed into an enterprise that is sustainably driven from top to bottom (Dunphy et al. 2007: 17). Although these indicators are designed to change a corporation internally, the changes that are to be implemented are designed in a way that they can meet the challenges of today (Dunphy et al. 2007: 19, 20).

On the IGO side, this seems far less the case. That is, it appears that there is no changing role of IGO’s or governments in order to achieve sustainable agriculture. It seems that these organisations are still stuck in their role as actors providing rules and policy without looking at the changing aspects and roles corporations play nowadays. It seems therefore that power structures as designed by Susan Strange are shifting, that is, that it is to be researched whether certain actors are still holding certain power structures the way they used to. In other words: what are the power requirements for a sustainable agriculture. In order to develop a well-founded answer, the beef industry will be researched in the next part.

3.3 Conclusion

It is interesting to see that there are roughly two ways in which sustainable agriculture should be achieved. On the one hand there is the governmental way meaning that governmental organisations, both national and international, provide indicators through which sustainable agriculture should be achieved. On the other hand, there is the emphasis on the corporation as the key actor to achieve sustainable agriculture. This is also reflected in the formal indicators

(27)

27

designed by, on the one hand IGO’s and states, and on the other hand by and for corporations. There is a clear distinction noticeable in these indicators. The indicators designed by the OECD, the so-called AIE’s, show the focus on the (international) governmental approach without taking the market or corporations into account at all. On the other hand, the indicators designed for corporations as discussed above, show the awareness of the changing role they play in contributing to a sustainable agriculture. This contrariety between corporations and IGO’s and states on the approach for a sustainable agriculture and what that means for the power requirements will be discussed in the analytical part.

(28)

28

4. DEFINING THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE GLOBAL BEEF INDUSTRY

In order to be able to give a well-founded answer to the research question what the power requirements are for a sustainable agriculture, an analysis of the global beef industry will be given. In order to do so it is of interest to discuss several stakeholders in this industry. The analysis will be done from a corporate perspective. That is, two major corporate beef processors will be introduced first, namely JBS S.A. and Tyson Foods, Inc., and the relationship with their stakeholders will be discussed after. The reason to choose these two corporations is mainly because they are competitors in the industry and therefore stakeholders of each other as well. In addition, these two corporations are the leading corporations in the beef industry with a $120.469 and $37.6 billion revenue respectively in 2014 (JBS Financial Highlights 2014; Tyson Annual Report 2014: 23 respectively).

The size of the industry means that there are many stakeholders to take into account. With the Stakeholder Theory in mind, the analysis will go through different stakeholders of these corporations. However, because the sizes of both JBS and Tyson are too big to take all their stakeholders into account, only a few will be discussed. The stakeholders that will be discussed next to JBS and Tyson are roundtables and associations, retailers, civil society organizations and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO’s), and IGO’s. These groups of stakeholders are to be discussed in this section with a brief description. The reason to choose civil society organisations instead of, for example, labour union organisations such as The International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers‘ Associations (IUF), is twofold. First of all, the civil society organisations that will be discussed in this thesis in combination with the NCBA, who take pity on the ranchers and farmers, already take into account the stakeholders on the labour side. Secondly, the objectives of the IUF are highly compatible with the objectives of state and IGO’s with regard to the security of food and the access to labour (IUF, 2014). Therefore, concerning the objectives of this thesis it is not of viable importance to discuss an organisation like the IUF as a stakeholder next to the civil society organisations and state and IGO’s.

Twelve stakeholders in total will be discussed including JBS and Tyson. In the next chapter it will be discussed what their influence and role in the industry is and whether power relations are shifting in order to move to a sustainable industry.

(29)

29

4.1 Processors: JBS S.A. and Tyson Foods, Inc.

JBS S.A.

JBS S.A. is by far the largest meat processing company in the world, triple the size in annual revenue as the second largest processor, Tyson Foods (JBS Financial Highlights 2014; Tyson Annual Report 2014: 23 respectively). JBS started as a small family business in Brazil in 1953. From then on, it started bit by bit purchasing slaughterhouses and later other processing companies as well. Until 2005 they only expanded regionally within Brazil thereby becoming the biggest beef processor of the second largest beef producing country behind the United States (U.S.). However, they wanted more. This started in 2005 with the purchase of Swift Armour S.A., Argentina’s largest beef processing company. In 2007 they turned towards the U.S. and purchased Swift Company. This brought them for the first time into the pork and cattle industry in the U.S. and Australia. The name of Swift Company was changed into JBS USA (JBS global website; JBS USA website). It is of interest to note that with the purchase of Swift Company, JBS got financial help of $390 million from the Brazil Development Bank (BNDES) leading to a 20.6% interest in the company by the bank today (Blankfeld 2011: 2). This is of interest as this means that a semi-governmental organisation is also a financial stakeholder in the company. This can be of influence regarding the power relations towards all stakeholders. This will be discussed in the next chapter.

With the help of the BNDES JBS became the largest beef and second largest chicken processor of the world. This happened after the acquisition of Pilgrim’s Pride in 2009 (Blankfeld 2011: 3). However, although revenues kept rising every year since, together with more acquisitions in the industry debts kept rising too. Because of the immense amount of acquisitions done since 2005 by JBS its debts are immense too. This has led to a cancellation of its bid for Sara Lee and its loss in the quest for the purchase of Hillshire Brands Company which was eventually bought by Tyson (News Releases, Tyson Foods, Inc. website). Although JBS is the largest player in the industry, it is because of these debts also vulnerable especially with the small margins within the beef industry. However, in the last two years, JBS has been expanding its revenues and profits again (JBS Financial Highlights, 2013 versus 2014).On the one hand, the industry needs to be sustainable in order to keep doing business. On the other hand, focusing on sustainability also forces JBS to take into account more stakeholders than before. Therefore sustainability can also be used as an opportunistic instrument if power is

(30)

30

mostly in the hands of the corporations. Whether this is the case will be discussed in the next chapters.

Tyson Foods, Inc.

Tyson Foods, Inc. has a longer history than JB, starting in 1935 with the foundation of the company by John W. Tyson. Contrary to JBS, Tyson started its business as a chicken producer and grew to be the biggest chicken producer in the world for decades. It was only in 2001 with the acquisition of Iowa Beef Processors, Inc. (IBP) that Tyson became a big player in the beef industry (Tyson Foods, Inc.: Heritage; Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.: website). Tyson strengthened its position in 2014 by acquiring former Sara Lee Corporation, namely Hillshire Brands. JBS was also running for the acquisition through a bid by Pilgrim’s Pride (Wohl: July 02, 2014). This is interesting regarding the mutual competition between JBS and Tyson. It is also of interest regarding the further analysis as the continuing acquisition by only a few corporations tends to move towards an oligopoly, which could mean a shift in power structures.

Discussing JBS about the opportunistic approach of sustainability is touching upon environmental events which occurred in the 2000’s at Tyson. Searching through the website of Tyson, a large part is dedicated to sustainability approaches taken by Tyson itself. Tyson views itself as one of the leading companies for the last ten years regarding sustainability. Already in 1979 the then CEO Donald Tyson claimed that a corporation like Tyson needs

‘[…] to provide a specific service to society. For Tyson Foods, that means high-quality

poultry and other food products. But the corporation has to be in society, to be a good neighbor, and to do its work within a social setting.[…] Tyson Foods believes that, if we don’t take an active part in the community, we won’t deserve a place in it very long.’ (http://www.tysonfoods.com/Our-Story/Heritage.aspx)

However, apparently when it comes down to business and making money the company is less concerned about sustainability and the environment, as shown in the guilty pleas in a pollution case in 2003. In this plea it appeared that Tyson kept violating the Clean Water Act (CWA) after the execution of two earlier search warrants in the late 1990s (Corporate Ethics and Government, June 25, 2003). This could mean that the processing corporations should not take

(31)

31

the lead towards sustainable agriculture as they might be too powerful. Whether this is actually the case and how the power relations are with other stakeholders in this regard will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter.

Another side of the Tyson company is that they have a broad charity program. The company has organized the KNOW hunger campaign to help against hunger in the U.S. since 2011. The company also provided food for the coastal areas in Mexico after the oil disaster in 2010 together with Neil Young (Refrigerated Transporter: August 16, 2010). So sustainability concerning the social component seems to be broadly present at Tyson. The environmental sustainability, however, seems to be lacking as seems to have been shown by the different guilty pleas Tyson received in the early 2000’s. These concerns will be discussed later on. First, the other stakeholders will be introduced, starting with the roundtables and associations.

4.2 Roundtables and associations: GRSB, SAI and NCBA

Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB)

The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB) is one of the most influential roundtables in the industry as there are 55 members from producers, commerce & processing, retail, civil society, and other roundtable constituencies (GRSB Members, website). Among these 55 members there are also a few very influential founding members including: Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, JBS, Solidaridad, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Merck Animal Health, Elanco Animal Health, and Cargill (GRSB Annual Report 2014). It was established only recently, namely February 2012 and came into play beginning of 2013. There are basically two reasons why this roundtable is of importance to the industry and why it is not just an ordinary institution that wants to do something about sustainability. At first especially producers were afraid of that the major corporations, NGO’s and governmental organisations would come up with a set of rules provided for the producers in order to produce more sustainably (Makower: January 9, 2014). However, this was and is not the intention of the GRSB because they want every actor of the value chain to be involved in the movement towards sustainability as they believe that is the only way to achieve real sustainability for now and the future (GRSB Annual Report 2014).

The GRSB had a starting point by addressing the big question how to define sustainable beef. The second starting point was the idea to not develop a strict set of rules but rather draw a

(32)

32

line of what sustainability is considered to be (Makower: January 9, 2014). This has resulted in the approval by the GRSB members of the Principles and Criteria for Global Sustainable Beef on November 3, 2014. Sustainable beef rests on three pillars that need to be in balance: social responsibility, environmental sustainability and economic viability. In order to keep these three pillars in balance, the GRBS designed five objectives they call Principles: Natural Resources, People and the Community, Animal Health & Well-being, Food, and Efficiency and Innovation (GRSB Principles and Criteria: 5). Together with the three main pillars, these Principles are designed to prioritize Planet, People, Animals and Progress. Both the pillars and the Principles are applicable to one or more of these prioritizations.

The first Principle is the Natural Resources The criteria for this Principle include improvement of air quality, reducing GHG emissions, protection of native forests from deforestation, land management such as soil health, and management of water resources. The second Principle is People and the Community. The criteria for the second Principle include the respect of human rights according to the UNGPBHR for both corporations and individuals (The Human Rights Council June 16, 2011: Guiding Principles), respect of land and property rights, respect for cultural heritage throughout the value chain, and a safe and healthy work culture supported by training and equipment. The third Principle is Animal Health & Well-being. The criteria conducted by GRSB include adequate feed and water, animal health care, responsible use of vaccines, appropriate handling of injuries and undue pain, and animal welfare procedures on processing plants in line with the Office International des Épizooties (OEI) Terrestrial Animal Health Code (OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code 2011: Ch. 7.5, 332-355). The fourth Principle is Food including the following criteria: both food safety and beef quality are ensured by documentation, development, adoption and maintenance of both practices and management systems throughout the value chain. Other criteria are information that should be shared up and down the value chain, and food waste that should be reduced up and down the value chain as well. The final Principle is Efficiency and Innovation. These criteria focus mostly on the education, partnership and shared knowledge to be able to make more efficiently use of water resources, land, feed, energy, chemicals and maximization of carcass use and product value (GRSB Principles and Criteria).

These are the Principles and Criteria for Global Sustainable Beef created by all members of the GRSB. There have been many critical notes on the Principles and Criteria of GRSB by the sector. For example from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) arguing that the Principles and Criteria fall short on many statements made (Gelbard: May 20,

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

This research, which is specified to fair trade T-shirts and fair trade bananas, and which is done through an online survey, aims to describe whether the consumer’s fair trade

We show that while power control helps in reducing the number of transmission slots to complete a convergecast under a single frequency channel, scheduling transmissions on

Ik moet heel eerlijk zeggen dat ik eigenlijk niet weet of hier mensen in het dorp wonen die eigenlijk hulp nodig hebben.. S: En waarom je zei net dat je net onder Groningen trekt

In the theory building phase, propositions are developed on how the amount of power or control the acquirer has over the acquired, after an international acquisition or an

Op vraag van het Agentschap Ruimte en Erfgoed werd in opdracht van de stad Aarschot op 1 en 6 september 2010 een archeologisch vooronderzoek, zijnde een verkennende prospectie

In Almería wordt zowel bij tomaat, paprika als komkommer naar schatting drie tot vier keer meer werkzame stof per m 2 kas verbruikt dan in Nederland.. Bij tomaat en kom- kommer

Andere deelprogramma’s zijn nog niet begonnen met kosten-baten analyses en voor de fase van mogelijke strategieën (gereed: voorjaar 2012) gaat dit ook niet meer lukken.. FASE

Bij de beoordeling van ibandroninezuur intraveneus is geoordeeld dat intraveneuze toediening een alternatief kan zijn, indien de inname instructies voor orale bisfosfonaten niet