Geopolitical rivalry between China and the US is profoundly affecting transnational investments. We develop an analytical framework that augments the notion of strategic coupling to capture whether and how transnational investment projects can cohere in a geopolitically charged world. Two cases-Duisburg in Germany and the Royal Albert Dock in London, UK-are used to analyze why local development efforts hinging on Chinese capital failed to materialize. Our cases demonstrate that rather than high-profile ruptures in the coupling process the (re-)emergence of geopolitics is driving a process of dealignment between national-level priorities, such as de-risking, and the developmental aims of city-regions. This dealignment reflects more mundane geopolitical influences that need integrating into our understanding of strategic coupling. We also find that geopolitical factors alone do not determine the success or failure of such transnational investments, and analysis must include the interests of key stakeholders and the possibility of miscalculation. Our findings challenge state-centric narratives and underscore the need to account for contingent, multiscalar coalitions that shape development outcomes in the era of geopolitics.

Chinese actors have emerged as major funders and developers of large-scale transnational infrastructure projects in Europe and beyond. Despite this profound shift, geographers have not yet arrived at a clear conceptualisation of such projects. We show how the literature is overly reliant on a functional view of the Chinese state, structural economic factors, single case studies, and bilateral relations, generating monocausal explanations of outcomes. We develop a new conceptual framework emphasising variegation driven by shifting assemblages of actors, dynamic strategic coupling, and multi-scalar processes of territorialisation. To operationalise our framework, we draw on process tracing and incorporated comparisons across cases.

China's Belt and Road Initiative is the most visible manifestation of the country's wider internationalisation efforts in which infrastructure connectivity projects are central. Existing spatialised narratives of these projects have usefully focused on long-standing geopolitical binaries and bilateral state relations, as well as newer spatial ontologies of corridors, zones and networks. Yet they tend to underplay central-local state relations in the countries receiving Chinese infrastructure investment and so this paper examines these intra-state dynamics through three case studies of Chinese-backed transport projects in Germany, Italy and Hungary. Using Jessop, Brenner and Jones' ‘TPSN’ approach we argue that the promise of these infrastructure projects was virtuous insertion of places into global production networks, but in practice we see the central state over-riding local political actors. In Germany and Italy this is in the name of ‘de-risking’ Chinese investments whereby the re-centralisation of state power is a response to a perceived ‘China threat’. In Hungary, the centralised regime uses major infrastructure for legitimatory purposes and uses the growing connectivity to China as an Eastwards balance to its strained relations with Western Europe. We conclude by arguing that greater attentiveness to spatiality and power are needed in future studies of ‘de-risking’.

This paper analyses wage differences between Chinese and non-Chinese firms in Angola and Ethiopia. The growing engagement of Chinese firms in sub-Saharan Africa has generated debates about the working conditions offered to African workers. However, the evidence for many of the claims made about wages in Chinese firms operating in sub-Saharan Africa is unconvincing. In this paper the authors identify prob-lems with the existing literature and provide new comparative evidence on wages in Chinese, other for-eign and domestic firms in Angola and Ethiopia. Drawing on over 1,400 worker-level interviews the authors find that Chinese firms do not consistently pay less than comparable firms. Using a multi -scalar labour regime framework the authors show that a combination individual worker characteristics, sector specificities, and firm attributes are necessary to explain variations in wages in both countries. The national origin of firms by itself cannot explain the observed differences in wages.(c) 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

In this paper we examine the emerging politics of labour agency as new manufacturing locations are incorporated into existing global production networks, using the example of the Ethiopian apparel industry. The Ethiopian state has employed an active space-based industrial policy to attract leading apparel manufacturers into a series of new industrial parks in the country. Both investors and the Ethiopian government expected to find a large and pliant labour force willing to work for low wages. However, the new sector has already seen a wave of collective and individual resistance from workers. We ask which factors contribute to drive and constrain labour agency and shape the specific forms it takes in firms tied into leading global production networks. Drawing on a large-N quantitative survey of factory workers and in-depth qualitative interviews with managers, workers, trade union representatives and government officials, we show how the quality of industrial relations depends not just on state action and the business strategies of lead firms in production networks, but also on variegated forms of labour agency used both by organised and unorganised Ethiopian workers. We find that many industrial conflicts result from the collision of the productivity imperatives of manufacturing firms tied into demanding, but low valueadded, segments of global production networks with the expectations of workers with limited prior experience in industrial jobs, but are compounded by the contradictory actions of different state agencies, a lack of formal unionisation, and the contingent interactions of factory based grievances with local political conflicts. Industrial parks emerge as spaces of particular contestation. Our findings highlight the need to adopt an understanding of labour regimes grounded in local political realities. These findings have implications for the design of industrial policies and labour market institutions aiming to support firms and workers in emerging manufacturing clusters. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Industrial hubs can take a number of institutional forms and vary greatly in size, sectoral composition, and degree of internal coordination. What all such hubs have in common, though, is that they concentrate industrial workers in great numbers and therefore play a key role in opening up new possibilities for organizing and negotiating industrial relations. In this chapter we examine the role of industrial hubs for light manufacturing in creating and maintaining an industrial labour force in Africa and Asia. We critically review theories for understanding industrial hubs as spaces of both job creation and labour control, and show how outcomes are in part determined by incorporation into global production networks. Drawing on a wide range of empirical evidence, we provide an overview of wages and working conditions in industrial hubs in Africa and Asia, and examine the causes and consequences of gendered labour dynamics in these spaces.

This chapter charts the growth, decline, and rebirth of private large-scale coffee plantations in Ethiopia, and examines the roles of the state, the market, and private entrepreneurs in their development. Contemporary large-scale private plantations are shown to have had important historical antecedents. The re-emergence of these farms is the result of a long and complex interplay of domestic and international factors. Changes in the regulatory regime in the coffee sector interacted with developments in the world market for coffee to create conditions under which private large-scale plantations could thrive. Private plantations came to cover large areas of land and have become important sources of rural employment. The chapter uses a unique dataset to show that these plantations are among the most efficient and sophisticated coffee producers in Ethiopia.

The production and sale of coffee is central to the Ethiopian economy and the livelihoods of many Ethiopians. This chapter considers how different policy regimes have impacted its institutional development and performance. Policy has, arguably, been overly focused on the regulation of market exchange with little attention paid to improving productivity and quality. The chapter situates the Ethiopian coffee sector in the context of the global market, before presenting trends in coffee production, marketing, and trade. It discusses the evolution of market institutions in the sector, the most recent of which is the Ethiopian Commodity Exchange. The chapter highlights new and emerging forms of production organizations in Ethiopia, looking in particular at producer cooperatives as well as socially or environmentally certified coffee. Finally, the chapter considers the prospects of the coffee sector to illustrate how issues such as climate change and low productivity require strategic and long-term intervention.

•We find positive effects on prices and income from sale of certified products.•However, we find no change in overall household income and assets.•Wages for workers are not higher in certified production.•Context is crucial in explaining variation in effects.•Impact evaluations on certification need better study design and reporting.

This Campbell systematic review examines the effectiveness of certification schemes in improving the welfare of farmers and workers. The review summarises findings from 43 quantitative studies, and 136 qualitative studies. There is not enough evidence on the effects of CS on a range of intermediate and final socioeconomic outcomes for agricultural producers and wage workers. There are positive effects on prices. But workers? wages do not seem to benefit from the presence of CS. Income from the sale of produce is higher for certified farmers, but overall household income is not. Context matters substantially for the causal chain between interventions of certification schemes and the well being of producers and workers. Generally, the quality of the studies is mixed, with a significant number of studies that are weak on a number of methodological fronts. Certification schemes (CS) set and monitor voluntary standards to make agricultural production socially sustainable and agricultural trade fairer for producers and workers. The evidence base is very limited and inconclusive. Certification increases prices and income from produce, but not wages or total household income. Certification agencies should adopt simpler programmes adapted to local context and rigorously test their impact. Certification sets and monitors voluntary standards, and can encompass systems engaging in a wider range of activities in policy, advocacy, and capacity building, and in building markets and supply chains, to make agricultural production socially sustainable and agricultural trade fairer. Certification is meant to affect a wide range of socioeconomic and environmental outcomes, to improve the well being of farmers and agricultural workers employed by corporate plantations or individual producers. Certification schemes use a combination of standard-setting actions, training, different types of market interventions, and the application of adequate labour standards. This review assesses whether certification schemes work for the well being of agricultural producers and workers in low- and middle-income countries. Included studies evaluate the effects of CS on socioeconomic outcomes for agricultural producers and workers. Eligible CS are based on second- (industry-level) or third-party certifications, and exclude own-company standards. For the effectiveness review, studies must use experimental or non-experimental methods demonstrating control for selection bias. Qualitative studies are included to answer questions about barriers, facilitators and contextual factors; these report on relevant outcomes, have sufficient reporting on methods, and provide substantive evidence on relevant themes. The review includes 43 studies used for analysing quantitative effects, and 136 qualitative studies for synthesizing barriers, enablers and other contextual factors. This Campbell systematic review examines the effectiveness of certification schemes in improving the welfare of farmers and workers. The review summarises findings from 43 quantitative studies, and 136 qualitative studies. There is not enough evidence on the effects of CS on a range of intermediate and final socioeconomic outcomes for agricultural producers and wage workers. There are positive effects on prices. But workers’ wages do not seem to benefit from the presence of CS. Income from the sale of produce is higher for certified farmers, but overall household income is not. Context matters substantially for the causal chain between interventions of certification schemes and the well being of producers and workers. Generally, the quality of the studies is mixed, with a significant number of studies that are weak on a number of methodological fronts. For farmers and workers the results show there is no guarantee that living standards improve through certification. To have a positive impact, CS need favourable conditions and the support of other factors. Some of these conditions depend on deeply rooted socioeconomic factors that, in the short to medium run, will not likely be altered substantially by certification. For CS practitioners and businesses, there are several lessons to learn. Claims about impact should match what is achievable and verifiable. Standards and interventions could be revised, away from multiple standards with fewer overlaps between systems and rationalisation of interventions. Impact evaluation standards should be given more attention. CS need to develop a deeper understanding of context, and adapt and pre-test the type and range of interventions. Researchers and evaluators should consider using a range of methods for different kinds of research questions, and have a clear understanding of what kind of design is more appropriate for each question. They should also use a more consistent, rigorous approach in reporting methods and results. The review authors searched for studies published until July 2016. This Campbell Systematic Review was published in February 2017. The rise of voluntary standards and their associated certification for agricultural products is a well-established phenomenon in the contemporary dynamics of agricultural trade. Supply chain management is increasingly influenced by a proliferation of standards, and by the organisations setting and monitoring them over a growing number of products. While the objectives of standards and certification schemes (CS) vary, the focus of this review is on social sustainability standards, which are closely related to ethical trading and to schemes that focus on socio-economic outcomes of participants, essentially agricultural producers (particularly smallholders) and wage workers, whether employed by corporate plantations or individual agricultural producers. What are the effects of certification schemes for sustainable agricultural production, and their associated interventions, in terms of endpoint socio-economic outcomes for household/individual well being in low and middle income countries? Under what circumstances and why do certification schemes for agricultural commodities have the intended and/or unintended effects? What are the barriers and facilitators to such certification's intended and/or unintended effects? We systematically searched for available literature from a wide range of sources. Several bibliographical databases were consulted. A very significant amount of time was devoted to a systematic search for relevant items through hand searching in targeted databases and websites, including consultation with relevant stakeholders in the community of standard-setting organisations. In this field the ‘grey’ literature is very important. Thus, the standard bibliographic databases would not be enough to find all relevant material. Papers in English, French, Spanish, German and Portuguese were considered. The references retrieved for this review are up-to-date as of November 2015. Some key references were added in July 2016 as a result of consultations with the ISEAL Alliance. We included studies that evaluated the effects of CS on socio-economic outcomes for agricultural producers and workers. We defined eligible CS as those based on second (industry-level) or third-party certifications thereby excluding own-company standards. We examined the main types of interventions usually implemented by CS, organized around four groups: (a) capacity building, (b) market interventions (including price interventions, credit support, guaranteed market outlets, etc.); (c) premium-funded social investments, and (d) labour standards. In most cases CS adopt combinations of these groups of interventions. We included studies that report at least one intermediate or final outcome of interest. For the effectiveness review, we selected studies that use experimental and quasi-experimental methods, and other studies that demonstrated control for selection bias and sufficient confounders. We selected studies that provided relevant comparisons with non-certified groups. For questions on barriers and facilitators and contextual factors we searched for and screened qualitative studies that reported on relevant outcomes, that had sufficient reporting on methods, and provided substantive evidence on key selected themes to complement the effectiveness review. We used a combination of single screening with substantial piloting and supervision in initial stages, and double screening with arbitration for disagreements in coding and inclusion/exclusion decisions for full-text review. We developed separate coding tools according to the requirements of our two review questions. To compare effects on variable outcomes across studies we calculated standardised mean differences. The quantitative results were synthesised using inverse variance-weighted random effects meta-analysis. Only one effect size per outcome per study was included in any given synthesis. The analysis of qualitative material was organised around three main thematic areas: barriers and enablers in implementation dynamics; distributional dynamics, including gender equity issues; other internal and external contextual factors and barriers and enablers. The initial search returned 10,753 studies, which, after dropping duplicates, a large number of irrelevant papers, and applying the selection criteria, were reduced to a final sample of 43 studies from 44 papers for review question 1 (effectiveness), and 136 studies from 114 papers for review question 2. All were published between 1990 and 2016. The majority of our material comes from research reports, working papers, book chapters, and theses. The included studies for the quantitative and qualitative syntheses provide evidence on a range of rural settings in L&MICs, with dominance of cases from Latin America. Despite the fact that there are many CS operating with agricultural commodities, included studies only cover a group among them (12 CS), which have attracted more research in the form of impact evaluations. Fairtrade certification is particularly well represented in the literature, with over half of the total number of included studies. Several agricultural products are covered by the included studies but coffee (38%) and fruits (17%) combined account for more than half of studies. In terms of population, a large majority of studies (77%) focus on agricultural producers, whereas the research on employment outcomes is rather limited. The quality of the included studies is mixed. The proportion of quantitative studies with high risk of bias ratings was relatively large. There are no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but there is a range of quasi-experimental designs employing different techniques of data analysis. Given the paucity of calculable effect sizes per outcome and the variety of methods used in different studies the meta-analysis encountered difficulties, and the number of studies with low or moderate risk of bias included for the synthesis of effects for each outcome is very small. Although there are many included qualitative studies of high quality, especially ethnographic research, the overall quality of this group is mixed as well. Several studies, especially non-ethnographic contributions, are only borderline in terms of minimum reporting standards. In most cases, disaggregation by type of CS did not yield conclusive results, although for some CS results were more mixed than for others. Such is the case of Fairtrade for yields and income measures. The qualitative synthesis discussed a wide array of factors affecting the causal chain in different nodes along the chain, such as: producer organisations (POs) and their characteristics, particularly heterogeneity and power relations within them; relations with buyers and exporters; business models linking buyers and producers (whether open spot markets, contract farming or a mix); national institutions shaping the dynamics of agricultural trade and labour relations; barriers imposed by direct and indirect certification costs, which negatively affect adoption or the size of benefits accruing to producers; availability of additional external support, often critical for adoption and sustained maintenance of standards; inconsistency in monitoring and auditing practices; heterogeneity of participant groups and the effects of inequality on POs management and the sharing of benefits; difficulties in addressing deep-rooted structures of inequality based on gender; the relative invisibility of large segments of agricultural wage workers, Not ably those employed by small farmers. The mixed and inconclusive quantitative effects, combined with the wide range of contextual factors to take into consideration, underline that CS operate in complex environments with multiple interventions, goals, actors and contexts, and as such they do not operate in a social, institutional and economic vacuum. Overall, we found mixed results and a dominance of weak or not statistically significant effects. There were both positive and negative effects for different outcomes. Even within a given CS there is substantial variation in effects across different outcomes. Thus, it is hard to conclude anything about whether any particular CS performs better compared to others over a range of outcomes. Without more systematic high-quality quantitative evidence on intermediate and final outcomes it is difficult to draw meaningful conclusions with actionable findings. Context hugely matters, as the range of contextual factors and barriers and enablers is vast. This is not surprising and most Theories of Change developed for selected CS acknowledge the centrality of context specificity. Nonetheless, the reviewed qualitative research reveal a number of key barriers and facilitators or contextual features that seem important to understanding the impact of CS. Practitioners can extract some lessons about the kinds of contextual factors that seem prominent in mediating the impact of their interventions, such as the characteristics of POs with which they partner, the deep-rooted social relations of inequality, including gender dynamics, in rural areas of L&MICs; the direct and indirect certification costs, and their determinants; the specificities of each supply chain and especially existing relations between established buyers and producers; and the national and local contexts of regulation and economic development. There are various implications for researchers. First, there is scarcity of high-quality impact evaluations, and a disproportionate attention to some CS and almost no attention to several other CS. The volume of research with rigorous study designs has fortunately expanded in the last 10 years but this review calls for more studies and on more outcomes, especially on employment effects, which have received less attention so far. Second, mixed-methods theory-based evaluations with appropriate counterfactual designs are likely to generate more valuable findings, given the importance of context and the need to link effects with barriers and facilitators in each study. Third, reporting standards must be improved, so published papers should devote more space and attention to reporting details of how research was conducted, limitations and all the relevant statistical information. Many studies had to be excluded from this review or from effect size calculations because of basic reporting gaps.

Campbell Systematic ReviewsVolume 11, Issue 1 p. 1-71 PROTOCOLOpen Access Protocol for a Systematic Review: Effects of Certification Systems for Agricultural Commodity Production on Socio-economic Outcomes in Low and Middle-Income Countries Carlos Oya, Carlos OyaSearch for more papers by this authorDeborah Johnston, Deborah JohnstonSearch for more papers by this authorEvans Muchiri, Evans MuchiriSearch for more papers by this authorFlorian Schaefer, Florian SchaeferSearch for more papers by this authorDafni Skalidou, Dafni SkalidouSearch for more papers by this authorKelly Dickson, Kelly DicksonSearch for more papers by this authorClaire Stansfield, Claire StansfieldSearch for more papers by this author Carlos Oya, Carlos OyaSearch for more papers by this authorDeborah Johnston, Deborah JohnstonSearch for more papers by this authorEvans Muchiri, Evans MuchiriSearch for more papers by this authorFlorian Schaefer, Florian SchaeferSearch for more papers by this authorDafni Skalidou, Dafni SkalidouSearch for more papers by this authorKelly Dickson, Kelly DicksonSearch for more papers by this authorClaire Stansfield, Claire StansfieldSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 July 2015 https://doi.org/10.1002/CL2.144Citations: 2 Linked article: Systematic review. AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat BACKGROUND Introduction The role of international trade in reducing poverty and increasing welfare in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains an issue of controversy and debate (Winters, 2003; McCulloch et al., 2001). Open economies may perform better in the long term, Winters (2002) argues, but in the short term trade liberalisation can have adverse effects on the most vulnerable actors in the economy and some risk getting trapped in poverty. This is likely to happen to agricultural producers in developing countries, as Nicholls and Opal (2004) highlight, where deficient microeconomic conditions (poor market information, limited access to markets and credit, lack of ability to adapt rapidly to market changes, among others) are coupled with chronic macroeconomic failures, such as the lack of infrastructure and investment, heavy dependence on only few primary commodities and corruption. Primary commodity producers are often particularly vulnerable to price volatility and inadequate and asymmetric price transmission mechanisms. In addition, international markets for agricultural commodities are increasingly demanding in terms of quality and production conditions, whether related to social or environmental sustainability (Henson & Humphrey, 2010). For example, demand trends in consuming countries have included the emergence of the ‘specialty coffee market’, which is becoming ever more important as traceability and other specific features become valued by consumers (Daviron & Ponte, 2005). Partly as a result of these broad world demand trends in agricultural trade, a wide range of voluntary private standards (or codes of conduct) have emerged in the past few decades to complement public standards to deal with the trade in agricultural commodities, typically monitored through private audits and third-party certification (Barrientos et al., 2003; Schuster & Maertens, 2015). Such voluntary private standards can be classified either as own company standards, which affect only the workings and supply chain of a single company, or collective standards at both national and international levels, which are available to any number of actors as long as they can fulfil the requirements set by the standard (Henson & Humphrey, 2010). We focus in particular on certification schemes for agricultural commodity production, by which we mean collective standards, subject to third-party certification and auditing processes. Usually these standards should or tend to conform to internationally recognised guidelines such as ISO/IEC 17065:20121. A broad definition provided by ISO/IEC states that ‘the overall aim of certifying products, processes or services is to give confidence to all interested parties that a product, process or service fulfils specified requirements’2. Since such standards increasingly determine the terms of integration of agricultural producers in LMICs into global supply chains (Gibbon & Ponte, 2005), an important debate has emerged about the effectiveness of certification in raising the welfare of direct producers and workers. Given the wide range of certification schemes, certified products and countries involved, it is perhaps not surprising that impact evaluations have found different results. Many studies tend to report mixed findings with some positive and other negative elements, or cases where effects are only marginal (Nelson & Martin, 2013). Some have even found that certification schemes may actually undermine the incomes of the poorest farmers (Henson & Jaffee, 2008), some reported positive impacts for some certification types, but not others (Chiputwa, Spielman & Qaim, 2014), others found effects only for richer farmers (Hansen & Trifković, 2014), while still others showed how certification schemes can help raise rural incomes and reduce poverty (Maertens & Swinnon, 2009). In the case of Fair Trade3 standards the evidence from primary studies is not conclusive either and the quality of studies measuring effectiveness is uneven and uncertain, as a number of studies and metareviews show (Ruben, 2013; FTEPR, 2014; Valkila & Nygren, 2009, Terstappen et al., 2012, International Trade Centre, 2011; Nelson & Pound, 2009; Nelson & Martin, 2013). Many of these studies and existing meta-reviews acknowledge the fact that mixed results may be consistent with the inherent complexities within these different types of interventions, the presence of many factors outside the control of interventions, such as the specifics of commodities and value chains considered, the different standards in question, as well as the diversity of implementation contexts, even within the same certification scheme. This debate is likely to become increasingly relevant as the sales of agricultural commodities through market channels that require these kinds of certification expand rapidly. For example, in the case of Fairtrade, there are now more than 30,000 certified products worldwide (Fairtrade International, 2014) and the UK market has grown to over 4,500 Fairtrade certified products (http://20years.fairtrade.org.uk/). In the UK in 2013 alone ‘sales of Fairtrade products exceeded an estimated value of £1.7bn, a 12% increase on 2012’ (Fairtrade Foundation, 2014, p. 11). Part of the growth of certified products like Fairtrade has to do with the fact that large suppliers and retailers have embraced the branding opportunities involved, as in the case of Nestlé, which launched its own Fair Trade coffee in 2005, and Sara Lee/Douwe Egberts’ growing association with UTZ Certified coffee for the European market (Tropical Commodity Coalition, 2012). Description of Certification Schemes and their Interventions Most certification schemes (CS hereafter) for agricultural commodity production have their roots in ideas about ethical trading in Europe and the US going back at least to the 1980s (Blowfield, 1999; Barratt-Brown, 1993). With supply chains lengthening as a result of the spread of global value chains, consumers – and some firms –began to question the pay and working conditions of the workers and producers in LMICs. Ethical trade seemed to offer an alternative and by the late 1990s voluntary private standards were firmly established in a number of sectors (Barrientos, 2000). More recently, food standards, aimed primarily at quality assurance, have become vital to food exports from LMICs (Hansen & Trifković, 2014). Generally, certification schemes aim to improve on the effects of free trade by offering better trading conditions, supporting smallholder producer organisations to gain better market access, assisting to enhance product quality, designing specific interventions or incentives to raise productivity, or a combination of these aspects. A challenge for any study of certification of agricultural commodities is that standards tend ‘to vary in terms of their reach and objectives’ and ‘there are also major differences regarding the scope of the offering of certified commodities and products’ (von Hagen et al., 2010: 1). They encompass a wide range of different goals and of different methods of achieving those goals. An important differentiation has to be made between the act of licensing itself and direct interventions that precede or follow the licensing process. While the act of certification itself is not a development intervention per se, the introduction of codified standards, often, but not always, in the form of a consumer label following an auditing process, may induce behavioural changes in farmers, resulting for example in specific investments that benefit production conditions and open access to better market opportunities, without any direct intervention at farm level by the certifying body. But most certification schemes do require direct interventions at the level of the farm, the producer group or the workers’ group. In short, different certification schemes are best understood as bundles of interventions, guided by a variety of theories of change. As a result, certification schemes differ greatly in the populations they target, in the outcomes they seek to certify, in the implementation models, and in the audit and certification process itself. Besides, levels of compliance and requirements for improvement over time will also vary between certification schemes. There are certification schemes which operate primarily to enhance the quality and sustainable farming practices achieved by agricultural producers to ensure their products qualify for better market niches, more amenable to sustainable income generation, as is the case of some MPS certificates for flowers, or GlobalG.A.P. (previously EurepG.A.P.) for horticultural produce, which, for example, do not result in consumer labels. Other schemes more directly seek to establish ethical trading conditions by offering alternative markets with higher prices and/or floor prices that cover the costs of production. Amongst these certification schemes, one influential set are Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) schemes and particularly Fairtrade, which aim to address the adverse effects of international trade by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, small agricultural producers, workers and their communities and helping them to organise to achieve these goals (Dragusanu et al., 2014). Fair trade-type schemes, unlike other CS more concerned about the quality and characteristics of the product, were primarily designed to directly affect socio-economic outcomes and the empowerment of agricultural producers and workers through different direct interventions, originally as an alternative to perceived ‘unfair’ free market channels (Barratt-Brown, 1993). Fairtrade, for instance, operates through a set of standardised and audited interventions (floor prices, provision of a premium, credit-availability, assistance to access the market, support to small producer organisations –SPOs – such as small farmers’ cooperatives and/or workers’ organisations, and so forth) which are conditional on a number of requirements related to democratic processes, participation, transparency and the adherence to environmental and labour standards (see Fairtrade ToCs for a more detailed account of the various pathways to impact considered in relation to their different aims and interventions)4. It is worth mentioning that sometimes CS coexist alongside additional interventions by NGOs that adhere to the CS social and environmental sustainability standards, as is the case of OXFAM and the Fairtrade certification or TechnoServe (see section on study design for a more detailed discussion). Therefore, as well as the direct interventions being implemented by CS themselves, there is often some form of external support (by NGOs, donor agencies, buyers) which may have been leveraged because the producers or groups of producers have obtained a certification. This can affect the interpretation of findings, so the review will have to consider these additional factors as part of the moderator analysis, as long as these instances are actually reported by included studies. The range of mediating factors is obviously wide and variegated. However, an important aspect, given that the focus is on agricultural commodities, are the market conditions and value chain characteristics for each particular commodity that may be subject to a range of standards set and monitored by various CS. Therefore, some CS may be more or less effective in reaching some socio-economic outcomes depending on the nature of the value chain and also on the dynamics of agricultural commodity markets, particularly for interventions that focus on prices and premium for producers. Commodity market cycles are likely to have an impact on producers and their workers thereby affecting the interpretation of findings about effects of CS depending on the period of time considered, even in the case of longitudinal studies. Overall, in any case, by implementing the various bundles of interventions, CS are expected to produce positive outcomes that improve the wellbeing of beneficiaries in terms of higher and more stable incomes, better services to improve businesses, as well as education, health and other aspects of human welfare, and decent working conditions for wage workers. These interventions are expected to directly and indirectly empower marginalised agricultural producers, workers and their communities. A further complication is that CS increasingly expand their set of standards to qualify for a wider range of markets, products and consumers, and to compete with other certification schemes. A quick scoping survey of CS shows that overlaps may be significant and the wording of standards and codes of conduct are often strikingly similar despite very different histories and modus operandi5. Each certifying organisation may operate different certifications at the same time, depending on the standards applied and the target group (whether small or large farmers, workers, individual producers or organisations). Therefore it is not possible to assign a particular type of certification to a single particular scheme. Many of these schemes, for example apply conventional decent work ILO labour standards as part of their commitment to ethical trade, or share emphasis on ‘sustainable farming methods’. In other words, while CS may be very different in some respects they may also overlap substantially on some of their standards. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between a certification scheme (Fairtrade, MPS, Utz Certified, Rainforest Alliance, and so forth) and a standard (more broadly social or environmental standards, and, more specifically, a living wage, the prohibition of certain chemicals, democracy in producer organisations, and so forth). Moreover, overlaps may also happen at the beneficiary level, when producer organisations or individual producers/employers may receive more than one certification making attribution particularly difficult especially when studies do not report the timing of different certifications and the extent of compliance for each of the certifications (see for instance Woubie et al., 2015 on the implications of double certification). A related challenge in any review of studies of the effects of certification on socio-economic outcomes is that a particular type of certification can be provided by a variety of certifying bodies/organisations, which may fall under the broad category of voluntary ‘social sustainability standards’ and conform to broad internationally recognised guidelines such as ISO/IEC 17065:2012, which replaced ISO/IEC Guide 65:19966. For instance, Fair Trade certification may be provided by the Fairtrade International (FLO), or alternative trade organisations within the WFTO, such as CTM Altromercato. Indeed, the Fair Trade network has evolved significantly in the past three decades and has given rise to a variety of organisations that may share a similar ethos and objectives but may differ in terms of focus, outreach, interventions and auditing processes (Jaffee & Henson, 2004; ProForest, 2005; Muradian & Pelupessy, 2005; Kolk, 2005). There can also be various levels of certification by the same certifying body as in the case of MPS, depending on what particular standards are applied. There is therefore a multiplicity of standards and certifications that often overlap and compete with one another (von Hagen et al., 2010). The types of CS that are the focus of this review are described in detail in section 3.1.2. A systematic review could in theory be conducted on every single intervention, which could happen under different CS, as in the case of labour standards interventions that are common to most schemes subscribing to ethical trade standards. However, the reality is that most CS operate with bundles of interventions and most studies will report on the certifications and not on single interventions. Also, seemingly similar interventions may be structured and implemented differently in different places and at different times, encompassing different intervention components. For example, technical assistance and capacity building for better farming practices or to improve organisational performance, may be implemented with a variety of intervention components. This makes the analysis of the causal chain particularly complicated because endpoint outcomes may be attributable to a bundle of interventions without sufficient evidence on which particular intervention component is more effective. For example, in the case of MPS-SQ is the certification more effective because of the enforcement of labour standards or because of the quality standards imposed and their spillover effects on other intermediate outcomes? In the case of Fair Trade-type interventions, if effects on endpoint outcomes are considered positive, can they be attributed to the setting of a price premium or to the adequate investment of a premium or simply to a balanced combination of both in addition to other direct support to producers’ organisations? Most impact evaluations will find it difficult to disentangle the specific effects of these different interventions under the same scheme. At the same time, most CS will consider that what matters is the specific mix of interventions, for instance including various forms of capacity building for producers, and not any one intervention in particular. However, studies may report relevant information that may give insights into the key causal mechanisms either through quantitative or qualitative evidence and this will be used to assess Review Question 2 (see the section on objectives for questions addressed in this review). HOW THE INTERVENTIONS MIGHT WORK A major challenge for this review will be that different certification schemes that aim to improve the welfare of agricultural producers and workers in agriculture differ in their model of intervention and in their theory of change (ToC). For example, Fair Trade schemes focus on prices, market access and organisational empowerment, while MPS is mainly about sustainable quality and social standards, and UTZ Certified, while similar to Fair Trade schemes in terms of the broad aims, works in terms of improvements in farming practices and quality rather than price mechanisms. Moreover, each certification scheme may also incorporate different grades of certification, as in the case of MPS for flowers, or the different standards applied by Fairtrade to SPOs (Small Producer Organisations) or HLOs (Hired Labour Organisations, that is, large-scale plantations). Given the wide variety of certification schemes, their intended outcomes and methods of intervention there is no single theory of change that is valid for all types of certification schemes. There have been attempts by researchers to develop a ToC valid for more than one CS (Nelson & Martin, 2011; Nelson & Martin, 2013). Indeed in 2009, as reported by these authors, ‘sustainability standards had yet to articulate their own theories of change […] although this situation has now changed as a result of the ISEAL Impacts Code and with contributions from this research project’, including subsequent studies that drew on NRI reports to develop ToC for impact assessments. Some certification schemes have also recently produced an explicit theory of change, but readers may benefit from consulting the ToC developed, for example, by Utz Certified and Fairtrade as indicative examples7. ISEAL, as an umbrella organisation for a range of sustainability standards have also produced a ToC and routinely publish drafts and discussions of ToC for individual member organisations8. Drawing from these initial attempts at developing ToC to evaluate impact evidence on sustainable standards, as well as on the recent ToC developed by CS themselves, we have produced a simplified synthetic ToC that summarises the key linkages in the causal chain between types of interventions, intermediate outcomes and endpoint outcomes, bearing in mind the focus of this review on socio-economic outcomes, and in line with some earlier attempts such as Nelson and Martin (2011). Some of the organisational ToC mentioned above, particularly the one developed in 2013 by Fairtrade, may be more complex and multifaceted than the synthetic ToC we propose here. This is because CS like Fairtrade also focus on actions and advocacy among consumers to expand the market for Fairtrade certified products and generally the values of Fair Trade. They also include environmental standards as part of the broad canvass of sustainable outcomes. The focus of this review is, however, on the role of standards and interventions that more directly affect the wellbeing of producers and workers involved in the production of certified commodities. The aim is not to evaluate the work of all these different CS, rather to evaluate and synthesise the existing evidence on socio-economic outcomes associated with interventions under CS as defined in this review. This is necessary to keep the review manageable and allow a consistent framework that can be applied to a wider range of CS. Below are illustrations of how different types of interventions, which are used by different certification schemes, may affect intended outcomes, and therefore the assumed causal chains, which will be analysed in this review. 1. Price and contract interventions. Interventions to offer price premium or floor prices are expected to → contribute to higher and more stable producer prices, which can → result in higher net profits for agricultural producers, assuming they are not offset by high certification costs. In addition, both pre-payment, credit and longer-term contracts can → improve income stability and reduce vulnerability to shocks. These effects can → result in higher income and consumption at household level. 2. Market access interventions. Access to alternative and/or additional market certification schemes can → contribute to: higher prices; better contracts; strengthened market power and negotiation capacities of producer organisations and ultimately → to their members’ empowerment. 3. Product quality. Better farming practices (including in some cases environmental standards developed through organic farming practices that may lead to better remunerated markets) and associated technical assistance (capacity building) are expected to → lead to higher agricultural incomes and strengthened market power of beneficiaries thereby → raising their capacity to invest in their own production. 4. Monitoring of producer organisation practices and technical assistance (capacity building) to producer organisations and individual agricultural producers. Democracy standards (Fairtrade) and other organisational improvements can → result in strengthened organisations in terms of their legitimacy, participation and capacity to negotiate, which → can lead to members’ empowerment and access to better services. 5. Premium. The premium, as an additional sum of money paid on top of the minimum price → can be invested (by farmers and workers’ organisations) in a variety of assets/infrastructure (for example, social, environmental and economic developmental projects), leading to possible positive outcomes → better education and health access/outcomes; incomes if economic infrastructure/assets improve; empowerment via strengthened beneficiary organisations; better working conditions. 6. Labour standards. Their implementation can directly → impact workers’ wellbeing through of living/better wages, and better working conditions, especially when health and safety conditions improve and affect workers’ health. Outcomes should be reviewed for workers employed by all types of agricultural producers from smallholder to large scale organisations. In Figure 1 we present a simplified synthetic theory of change, which captures the overall logic of interventions under certification schemes. This is synthesised from multiple theories of change from some of the most prominent CS types. The synthetic theory of change was developed to be broad enough to be able to capture all intervention methods we are going to encounter under various certification schemes. It summarises potential causal pathways to impact and key assumptions for four different broad categories of intervention, namely interventions around farm practices, on prices, markets and purchasing agreements, on labour standards and through premiums. Some schemes focus on one or more of the interventions mentioned, while others focus only on one. This synthetic theory of change illustrates the difficulties inherent in aggregating results on effectiveness over a heterogeneous body of schemes and interventions. A key aspect of any theory of change is a listing of the assumptions that must hold at each step along the causal chain for interventions to have their desired effect. If assumptions do not hold effects may be diminished, skewed, or entirely absent. In the worst case there may even be unintended adverse effects on producers or workers. However, assumptions also differ in their importance for different interventions and thereby certification types. For instance in some cases farmers’ pre-existing capacities and therefore self-selection into the scheme (as in quality-oriented schemes) are more important than others (such as Fair Trade schemes for example, see section on study design for more details). In other cases assumptions about distribution of benefits among members of a group matter more when beneficiaries are targeted in groups (as with the premium in Fairtrade certification of SPOs for instance) than when they are targeted individually. The distribution of benefits may also not be equal between workers and employers, where large employers are targeted, or there may be differences between different types of workers. The distribution of personal protective gear may for instance benefit the most at risk workers (for example, sprayers), but may have very little impact on workers who are less at right (for example, those in packaging). Finally, it is important to note that this review does not take the ToC shown below as the definitive ToC that will guide the final analysis of findings. This simplified ToC may omit some other possible pathways to impact that may not conform to the chains illustrated in the diagram. However, it provides what we think are the most important ones, based on knowledge of literature and other ToC that have been developed so far. In any case, the results of the integrated synthesis for Review questions 1 and 2 will be used to update and reconsider some of the linkages, assumptions and pathways to impact anticipated in the ToC developed for this protocol. It is also hoped that the resulting ToC will be of use to organisations in the process of revising or developing their own ToC, given that a ToC of certification standards is still work in progress. Figure 1. Simplified synthetic theory of changeOpen in figure viewerPowerPoint WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO DO THIS REVIEW? This systematic review will address the extent to which, and under what conditions, interventions under various certification schemes for agricultural commodity production result in higher socio-economic welfare for agricultural producers and workers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) – questions about which there is an ongoing and as yet unsettled debate. As briefly noted above, the current evidence base for the overall impact of interventions resulting from certification schemes for agricultural commodity production on agricultural producers and workers is generally mixed in terms of the reported results, including a range of studies that report either quite positive or negative results. There have, however, been some attempts to systematically review the evidence. A study by the International Trade Centre (2011), one of a four part review series on certification schemes, for instance seeks to present the overall findings of the relevant literature using systematic review methods. Unfortunately, the study uses vote counti

In the presence of standardized production technology and the possibility of potentially unlimited market rendered by international trade, there is clear comparative advantages to be realized in experimenting with industrial polices in the leather industry in Ethiopia. This paper reviews wide arrays of policy interventions in the industry and, more modestly, attempts to link these interventions with the performance observed in the industry. We find that industrial policies in the leather sector have been largely effective driving strong growth. This growth, however, has not been in par with its potentials. Market problems along the supply-chain, liquidity constraint, limited processing and marketing capacity, inefficient regulations and enforcement capacity and coordination problem have culminated into below-potential levels of production and, hence, export earnings. We believe that, impressive results to date notwithstanding, important improvements still need to be made in terms of policy responsiveness and in ensuring growth is broad-based across relevant value chains. While building market institutions to bring down transactions costs will improve the effectiveness of industrial polices in the sector, policy makers should ensure that existing regulations are transparent, enforceable and do not impose undue burden on investments in the industry. Continuous channels of communication and information exchanges between the private sector and the regulatory organ would accelerate the understanding of constraints and their apt solutions.

The New Delhi Statement of 1990 called for universal water supply coverage by the year 2000, a goal that was later replaced by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the timeframe of 2015. As we are fast approaching this deadline, discussions are already under way for targets beyond the MDGs. In the wake of these developments, it is worth taking stock of what we can learn from existing efforts to measure access to water supply, sanitation and hygiene services. This article zooms in on one aspect of sector monitoring national inventories carried out in many developing countries as a first step to improve sector performance monitoring. Using the example of the National WASH Inventory in Ethiopia, under way in 2010/11, as a case study, we examine possible reasons why so often these costly and human resource-intensive baselines tend to remain underutilised.