Search

Item does not contain fulltext, Transnational private regulation has been woven into the fabric of modern food safety governance. In this paper we explore the question of how domestic state actors respond to this development. We address this question in a detailed case study about the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) and domestic food safety authorities in Canada, China, and the Netherlands. Why and to what extent do these domestic actors engage with GFSI in their regulatory activities, and what are the effects? To develop a better understanding of the how and why of this interaction, the paper builds on the concept of ‘regulatory enrolment’ developed by Black (2003). As will be argued, enrolment offers a proper analytical lens through which the nature of interplay between various actors in a regulatory regime can be better appreciated and the capacity of that regime as a whole can be enhanced in smart and innovative ways.

Item does not contain fulltext, Transnational private regulation has been woven into the fabric of modern food safety governance. In this paper we explore the question of how domestic state actors respond to this development. We address this question in a detailed case study about the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) and domestic food safety authorities in Canada, China, and the Netherlands. Why and to what extent do these domestic actors engage with GFSI in their regulatory activities, and what are the effects? To develop a better understanding of the how and why of this interaction, the paper builds on the concept of ‘regulatory enrolment’ developed by Black (2003). As will be argued, enrolment offers a proper analytical lens through which the nature of interplay between various actors in a regulatory regime can be better appreciated and the capacity of that regime as a whole can be enhanced in smart and innovative ways.

Item does not contain fulltext, Transnational private regulation has been woven into the fabric of modern food safety governance. In this paper we explore the question of how domestic state actors respond to this development. We address this question in a detailed case study about the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) and domestic food safety authorities in Canada, China, and the Netherlands. Why and to what extent do these domestic actors engage with GFSI in their regulatory activities, and what are the effects? To develop a better understanding of the how and why of this interaction, the paper builds on the concept of ‘regulatory enrolment’ developed by Black (2003). As will be argued, enrolment offers a proper analytical lens through which the nature of interplay between various actors in a regulatory regime can be better appreciated and the capacity of that regime as a whole can be enhanced in smart and innovative ways.

Contains fulltext : 169543pub.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) plays a central role in the adoption and coordination of private food safety standards. In this chapter we discuss and analyse the strategy of GFSI to engage with national and international governmental actors and vice versa, with a focus on developments in the Netherlands, Canada, the United States and China. We analyze the incentives and obstacles for the different actors involved in aligning public and private transnational food governance. From the perspective of GFSI, the principal reason for engagement with public authorities, is to gain broad acceptance of its benchmarking process and recognized certification schemes. Engagement with state actors adds to the legitimacy of GFSI and is expected to contribute to the further rollout of GFSI’s meta-regulatory approach. State actors have two main arguments to engage with GFSI and related private governance arrangements in the food industry. They engage with a central global actor in the domain of private food standards in order to stress the importance and prevalence of public laws and enforcement. Another, less defensive argument is that public authorities seek to tap into the potential of private food safety schemes to contribute to public policy goals by improving food safety management systems, by ratcheting up training and auditing standards for food safety assurance industry, and by promoting a stronger professional food safety culture within industry. The result of the ongoing engagements is that food governance is increasingly multileveled, networked and thus hybrid in nature.

Item does not contain fulltext, Modern food governance is increasingly hybrid, involving not only government, but also industry and civil society actors. This volume analyzes the unfolding interplay between public and private actors in global and local food governance. How are responsibilities and risks allocated in hybrid governance arrangements, how is legitimacy ensured, and what effects do these arrangements have on industry or government practices? Authors with a background in law, economics, political science and sociology discuss these questions as regards rich empirical cases.

Contains fulltext : 169543pub.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) plays a central role in the adoption and coordination of private food safety standards. In this chapter we discuss and analyse the strategy of GFSI to engage with national and international governmental actors and vice versa, with a focus on developments in the Netherlands, Canada, the United States and China. We analyze the incentives and obstacles for the different actors involved in aligning public and private transnational food governance. From the perspective of GFSI, the principal reason for engagement with public authorities, is to gain broad acceptance of its benchmarking process and recognized certification schemes. Engagement with state actors adds to the legitimacy of GFSI and is expected to contribute to the further rollout of GFSI’s meta-regulatory approach. State actors have two main arguments to engage with GFSI and related private governance arrangements in the food industry. They engage with a central global actor in the domain of private food standards in order to stress the importance and prevalence of public laws and enforcement. Another, less defensive argument is that public authorities seek to tap into the potential of private food safety schemes to contribute to public policy goals by improving food safety management systems, by ratcheting up training and auditing standards for food safety assurance industry, and by promoting a stronger professional food safety culture within industry. The result of the ongoing engagements is that food governance is increasingly multileveled, networked and thus hybrid in nature.

Contains fulltext : 169523pub.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), Today’s food governance is no longer an attribute of national governments alone. It is increasingly hybrid, that is, the result of coordinated public and private regulatory activities that frequently transcend national state boundaries. The key to understanding that contemporary food governance lies in the interplay between different public and private actors, including their relative interests and capacities, and their activities at different levels of governance. This chapter discusses the concept of hybridization and different modes of hybridization in food governance. Drawing on the work of Abbott and Snidal, Eberlein et al and Spencer and Henson we introduce an analytical framework to study this hybridization. A comprehensive and systematic analysis of the hybridization of food governance should address the different phases and functions of (regulatory) governance: (i.e. agenda-setting and rule-making, adoption and implementation, monitoring; enforcement, evaluation and review) and other dimensions considered relevant in the literature on regulatory governance (i.e. actors involved, motivations and drivers, mechanisms and instruments, character of interaction, results and effects, change over time). The chapter concludes with a discussion of the chapters in this volume.

Contains fulltext : 169543pub.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) plays a central role in the adoption and coordination of private food safety standards. In this chapter we discuss and analyse the strategy of GFSI to engage with national and international governmental actors and vice versa, with a focus on developments in the Netherlands, Canada, the United States and China. We analyze the incentives and obstacles for the different actors involved in aligning public and private transnational food governance. From the perspective of GFSI, the principal reason for engagement with public authorities, is to gain broad acceptance of its benchmarking process and recognized certification schemes. Engagement with state actors adds to the legitimacy of GFSI and is expected to contribute to the further rollout of GFSI’s meta-regulatory approach. State actors have two main arguments to engage with GFSI and related private governance arrangements in the food industry. They engage with a central global actor in the domain of private food standards in order to stress the importance and prevalence of public laws and enforcement. Another, less defensive argument is that public authorities seek to tap into the potential of private food safety schemes to contribute to public policy goals by improving food safety management systems, by ratcheting up training and auditing standards for food safety assurance industry, and by promoting a stronger professional food safety culture within industry. The result of the ongoing engagements is that food governance is increasingly multileveled, networked and thus hybrid in nature.

Item does not contain fulltext, Modern food governance is increasingly hybrid, involving not only government, but also industry and civil society actors. This volume analyzes the unfolding interplay between public and private actors in global and local food governance. How are responsibilities and risks allocated in hybrid governance arrangements, how is legitimacy ensured, and what effects do these arrangements have on industry or government practices? Authors with a background in law, economics, political science and sociology discuss these questions as regards rich empirical cases.

Contains fulltext : 169523pub.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), Today’s food governance is no longer an attribute of national governments alone. It is increasingly hybrid, that is, the result of coordinated public and private regulatory activities that frequently transcend national state boundaries. The key to understanding that contemporary food governance lies in the interplay between different public and private actors, including their relative interests and capacities, and their activities at different levels of governance. This chapter discusses the concept of hybridization and different modes of hybridization in food governance. Drawing on the work of Abbott and Snidal, Eberlein et al and Spencer and Henson we introduce an analytical framework to study this hybridization. A comprehensive and systematic analysis of the hybridization of food governance should address the different phases and functions of (regulatory) governance: (i.e. agenda-setting and rule-making, adoption and implementation, monitoring; enforcement, evaluation and review) and other dimensions considered relevant in the literature on regulatory governance (i.e. actors involved, motivations and drivers, mechanisms and instruments, character of interaction, results and effects, change over time). The chapter concludes with a discussion of the chapters in this volume.

Item does not contain fulltext, Modern food governance is increasingly hybrid, involving not only government, but also industry and civil society actors. This volume analyzes the unfolding interplay between public and private actors in global and local food governance. How are responsibilities and risks allocated in hybrid governance arrangements, how is legitimacy ensured, and what effects do these arrangements have on industry or government practices? Authors with a background in law, economics, political science and sociology discuss these questions as regards rich empirical cases.

Contains fulltext : 169543pub.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) plays a central role in the adoption and coordination of private food safety standards. In this chapter we discuss and analyse the strategy of GFSI to engage with national and international governmental actors and vice versa, with a focus on developments in the Netherlands, Canada, the United States and China. We analyze the incentives and obstacles for the different actors involved in aligning public and private transnational food governance. From the perspective of GFSI, the principal reason for engagement with public authorities, is to gain broad acceptance of its benchmarking process and recognized certification schemes. Engagement with state actors adds to the legitimacy of GFSI and is expected to contribute to the further rollout of GFSI’s meta-regulatory approach. State actors have two main arguments to engage with GFSI and related private governance arrangements in the food industry. They engage with a central global actor in the domain of private food standards in order to stress the importance and prevalence of public laws and enforcement. Another, less defensive argument is that public authorities seek to tap into the potential of private food safety schemes to contribute to public policy goals by improving food safety management systems, by ratcheting up training and auditing standards for food safety assurance industry, and by promoting a stronger professional food safety culture within industry. The result of the ongoing engagements is that food governance is increasingly multileveled, networked and thus hybrid in nature.