how can high-biodiversity coffee make it to the mainstream ... · biodiversity marketing...

Environmental Management (2017) 59:230–248DOI 10.1007/s00267-016-0786-z

How Can High-Biodiversity Coffee Make It to the MainstreamMarket? The Performativity of Voluntary SustainabilityStandards and Outcomes for Coffee Diversification

Cecilia Solér1 ● Cecilia Sandström1● Hanna Skoog1

Received: 4 January 2016 / Accepted: 20 October 2016 / Published online: 12 November 2016© The Author(s) 2016; This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract This article investigates the outcomes of main-stream coffee voluntary sustainability standards for high-biodiversity coffee diversification. By viewing voluntarysustainability standards certifications as performative mar-keting tools, we address the question of how such certifi-cation schemes affect coffee value creation based on uniquebiodiversity conservation properties in coffee farming. Todate, the voluntary sustainability standards literature hasprimarily approached biodiversity conservation in coffeefarming in the context of financial remuneration to coffeefarmers. The performative analysis of voluntary sustain-ability standards certification undertaken in this paper, inwhich such certifications are analyzed in terms of theireffect on mutually reinforcing representational, normalizingand exchange practices, provides an understanding of coffeediversification potential as dependent on standard criteriaand voluntary sustainability standards certification asbranding tools. We draw on a case of high-biodiversity,shade-grown coffee-farming practice in Kodagu, South-West India, which represents one of the world’s biodiversity“hotspots”.

Keywords Voluntary sustainability standards ●

Biodiversity ● Marketing performativity ● Coffeecertification

Introduction

This article focuses on mass market voluntary sustainabilitystandards (VSS) certifications as marketing tools for high-biodiversity coffee in the global coffee market. More spe-cifically, it investigates how mass market coffee VSS cer-tifications such as Rainforest Alliance (RA) and UTZ affectthe ability to diversify based on biodiversity conservationand environmental conservation in coffee farming. VSS are“voluntary pre-defined rules, procedures and methods tosystematically assess, measure, audit and/or communicatesocial and environmental behavior and/or performance ofthe firm” (Gilbert et al. 2011, p. 24). Third-party certifica-tion (TPC) is used to verify compliance with standards andlabels on coffee to ensure standards compliance for the endconsumer (Rasche 2015). The market for sustainable coffeehas undergone a rapid transformation since 2008, with anannual average growth rate of certified or verified coffeeproduction of 26 %, and VSS are recognized as strategicmanagement tools for the coffee mass market and the spe-cialty coffee market, which is increasingly moving into themainstream (Potts et al. 2014). Today, coffee is the moststandardized commodity on the global market; 40 % of allcoffee produced was standards-compliant in 2012, com-pared with 15 % in 2008 (Potts et al. 2014).

Mainstream market VSS are marketing tools increasinglyused by dominant actors in the coffee value chain to buildtrust among consumers who value sustainable-sourced cof-fee (Blackmore et al. 2012; Kolk 2013; Levy et al. 2016).These VSS are instrumental in coffee brand building amongroasters and retailers, primarily in Europe and the UnitedStates (Blackmore et al. 2012; Kolk 2013; Levy et al. 2016).Mass market sustainability certification relies on sourcing ofcertified coffee from different coffee-producing countries tosecure supply (Blackmore et al. 2012; Kolk 2013).

Cecilia Sandström and Hanna Skoog have contributed equally to thiswork.

* Cecilia Solé[email protected]

1 School of Business, Economics and Law, University ofGothenburg, Box 600, Göteborg 40530, Sweden

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s00267-016-0786-z&domain=pdf




mailto:[email protected]

Hence, for reasons of trust and recognition at the brandlevel, the sustainability assurance provided by these stan-dards does not discriminate between high-biodiversity,shade-grown, and low-biodiversity sun-exposed coffeefarming. Blending technology enables coffee roasters tomix and substitute coffees from different origins, qualities,and of different environmental and social standards as longas minimum criteria are met (Muradian and Pelupessy 2005;Varangis et al. 2003; Vellema et al. 2003). The need forlarge-scale sustainably sourced coffee for the mass market isproposed to generate a need to apply criteria that are suf-ficiently wide to allow for rapid certification in differentcoffee-producing contexts (Potts et al. 2014). Hence, cof-fees aimed at the mass market differ considerably fromspecialty coffees, which are valued based on geographicindications, quality, and taste (Muradian and Pelupessy2005). However, through mainstream coffee actors such asNespresso and Starbucks, the specialty coffee segment hasincreasingly moved into the mainstream, with specialtycoffees representing 37 % of US coffee cups in 2012(SCAA 2013).

VSS coffee certifications as marketing tools entailnumerous benefits for coffee farmers, such as trainingopportunities, improved farming practice, product quality, andlong-term trading relationships (Blackmore et al. 2012; Pottset al. 2014). The main driving force for growers to certifytheir coffee is the potential added value and economic via-bility of certification (Barham and Weber 2012; Chengappaet al. 2014), ensured by the large-scale demand for certifiedcoffee in accordance with specific VSS. However, certifica-tion comes with a cost, and although considerable price pre-miums are required for farmers to carry certification costssuccessfully (Blackman and Naranjo 2012; Blackmore et al.2012), the price premium on mainstream VSS-certified coffeevaries considerably and is sometimes very low (Blackmoreet al. 2012; Chengappa et al. 2014). For some farmers, cer-tification is too costly in relation to the financial remunerationgained, and a few studies indicate that costs of certificationaffect biodiversity conservation (see Damodaran 2002; Neil-son 2008a). Mainstream VSS are contested concerning theirability to provide environmental protection and their use tolegitimize business activities (Gereffi et al. 2001; Raynoldset al. 2007; Hess 2008). When standards criteria are met orexceeded, as in the case of shade-grown coffee meetingminimum biodiversity criteria by default, incentives for coffeefarmers to intensify environmental conservation efforts arereduced (Noblet and Teisl 2015). The VSS’ lack of dis-crimination between coffees farmed in alignment with stan-dards and those exceeding these standards results in non-discrimination between high-biodiversity and low-biodiversity coffees; therefore, VSS can impede sustainablecoffee production and consumption (Noblet and Teisl 2015).

From a marketing perspective, high-biodiversity, shade-grown coffee-farming practice is a valuable asset becausethe shade makes coffee unique and highly valued by themarket. Shade-grown coffees are considered among the bestin the world, particularly Indian and Ugandan robusta,which receive a high price premium on the world market(Karnataka Planters’ Association 2015; Ponte 2002). Coffeegrown under shade occurs in complex agroforestry systems,and coffee estates play an important role in supporting theconservation of other habitats and biodiversity (Rao 2011;Bal et al. 2011; Chethana et al. 2010). The flavor of shade-grown coffee is considered superior to, and less bitter than,that of full-sun coffee (Upendranadh and Subbaiah 2012;Vaast et al. 2006). Hence, shade-grown coffee combinesbiodiversity conservation properties and unique qualitiesvalued by the coffee market, which can improve farmerrevenue (Vaast et al. 2006), and thus sustain high-biodi-versity, shade-grown coffee farming. Speaking in terms ofqualification of coffee, high-biodiversity coffee is singu-larized, or distinguished from competing coffees, based ontaste characteristics (Callon et al. 2002). Given the highmarket value of shade-grown coffee and increasing massmarket coffee VSS certification in regions where coffee isproduced under shade (Kolk 2013), we must understandhow such certifications affect coffee diversification, that is,the ability of high-biodiversity, shade-grown coffees tofully exploit the uniqueness of their properties in the globalcoffee market. We ask, “How do mainstream VSS affecthigh-biodiversity coffees potential to create value on theglobal market?”. We adopt a socially constructivist andperformative approach in our study of the links betweencoffee diversification and VSS. From this perspective, VSSas marketing tools are not merely descriptive by makingcoffee-farming practices transparent but performative in thesense that the VSS “alter and remake social and materialrelations” (Konefal and Hatanaka 2011, p. 126), and thusintervene in the construction of markets (Araujo 2007;Muniesa et al. 2007). Marketing performativity studiesfocus on how concrete marketing activities affect markets(Mason et al. 2015). In this article, the outcomes of main-stream market coffee VSS are analyzed in terms of howthey affect the marketing potential of high-biodiversitycoffee on the global market. We use a model of marketpractice configuration (Kjellberg and Helgesson 2007) toshow how mainstream coffee VSS participate in reinforcingestablished exchange practices in this market. We use theconcept of market configurations to denote how marketpractices are configured to fit one another (Normann 2001;Storbacka and Nenonen 2011a). Our analysis provides anunderstanding of how VSS certifications configure themainstream coffee market and affect the potential for coffeediversification based on biodiversity conservation.

Environmental Management (2017) 59:230–248 231

The aim of this article is to describe how two mainstreamVSS certifications, RA and UTZ, configure coffee massmarket practice and generate outcomes relevant for themarketing of high-biodiversity, shade-grown coffee. Wedraw on a case of high-biodiversity, shade-grown coffee-farming practice in Kodagu, South-West India, whichrepresents one of the world’s biodiversity “hotspots”. Thisregion is a suitable case for three reasons: (1) The area ofKodagu is covered by rainforest and represents one of theworld’s biodiversity “hotspots”. These hotspots are char-acterized by exceptional concentrations of endemic species(Myers et al. 2000), (2) Coffee from this region is highlyvalued by the world market (Karnataka Planters’ Associa-tion 2015; Ponte 2002), (3) Coffee growers in this regionare increasingly certifying their estates according to UTZand RA standards (Chengappa et al. 2014; Neilson andPritchard 2007).

We contribute to marketing research that studies howissues of sustainability are defined and constructed bymarket actors and how these issues affect economicexchange (Boons and Mendoza 2010; D’Antone andSpencer 2014; Solér et al. 2015). In particular, we con-tribute to research on the performative power of VSS from amarketing perspective. The VSS literature approachesrepresent various perspectives (Ponte and Cheyns 2013).Institutionalist perspectives deal with private authority andthe legitimacy of the organizations and stakeholders(Reinecke et al. 2012; Riisgaard 2009). The politicaleconomy perspective focuses on issues of environmentalgovernance (Giovannucci and Ponte 2005; Ruben andZuniga 2011). A marketing perspective on VSS highlightshow markets are shaped by standards for marketing pur-poses and what environmental sustainability outcomes fol-low from dominating VSS in specific markets (D’Antoneand Spencer 2014; Ponte 2012). In this article, we expandsuch an understanding. Based on our data we describe VSSas marketing devices that shape the mainstream coffeemarket through mutual reinforcing market practices aslarge-scale supply of low-priced sustainable coffee and lowstandards for biodiversity conservation in coffee farming.

VSS Certifications as Marketing Tools

VSS certifications are valued as marketing and branddevelopment tools in the coffee industry (Blackman andNaranjo 2012; Blackmore et al. 2012; Potts et al. 2014).UTZ is one of the largest mainstream coffee certificationschemes, has partnered with Sara Lee, and has the largestshare of sustainable coffee of all the large coffee roasters inthe world (Kolk 2013). RA has developed a partnershipwith Kraft and Nespresso (Kolk 2013; Potts et al. 2014). Forcoffee roasters, the increasing mainstreaming of sustainable

supply reflects the desire to maintain market position, tosecure supply and to protect corporate reputations byinvesting in sustainable production practices (Bartley 2007;Ingenbleek et al. 2007; Neilson 2008b; Muradian andPelupessy 2005). Investment in mainstream market VSScertifications also reflects an anticipated growth in sustain-able consumer segments (Blackman and Naranjo 2012;Blackmore et al. 2012; Potts et al. 2014). It is assumed thatconsumers value and pay more for sustainably producedcommodities and that this value is reflected in a demand forthese commodities (Blackman and Naranjo 2012; Chiputwaet al. 2015; Giovannucci and Ponte 2005). Also the marketmechanism is believed to work to improve producers’environmental and social performance through price pre-miums and market access (Blackman and Naranjo 2012;Chiputwa et al. 2015; Giovannucci and Ponte 2005).

The need for large-scale sustainably sourced coffee forthe mass market is proposed to generate an application ofstandard criteria that are sufficiently wide to allow for rapidcertification in different coffee-producing contexts (Pottset al. 2014). The stringency of standards addressing themainstream coffee market (e.g., RA and UTZ) differs fromthose VSS targeting coffee niche markets (e.g., Organic andFairtrade). Standards vary in terms of criteria coverage anddepth (Raynolds et al. 2007; Potts et al. 2014), and main-stream market VSS apply less stringent and less broadenvironmental and social certification criteria comparedwith niche market VSS (Potts et al. 2014). As an example,biodiversity-relevant criteria, such as shade-relevant controlpoints in UTZ certification in terms of “adequate number perhectare of suitable shade trees”, and RA criteria, such as “thetree community on the cultivated land consists of a mini-mum of 12 native species per hectare on average”, are wideenough to cover a range of coffee management systems interms of shade. In terms of biodiversity, broad certificationcriteria allow UTZ and RA to certify a range of differenttypes of coffee production systems with varying biodi-versity conservation properties. Critics view such broadcriteria as applying “lowest common denominator global-scale coffee codes” (Neilson 2008b, p. 192); however, massmarket VSS are viewed as the normative framework formainstream coffee actors’ sustainability initiatives(Giovannucci and Ponte 2005; Neilson and Pritchard 2007).Niche market VSS such as Organic certification and Fair-Trade offer higher price premiums to farmers than RA andUTZ certifications do (Blackmore et al. 2012; Chengappaet al. 2014; Kolk 2013), which aim for the mainstreammarket by supporting increased coffee productivity as anincentive to coffee farmers (Levy et al. 2016).

VSS certifications as coffee-branding tools require stan-dardized sign recognition that builds trust concerning sus-tainability claims among consumers of coffee (Blackmanand Naranjo 2012; Potts et al. 2014). Mainstream VSS

232 Environmental Management (2017) 59:230–248

certify coffee from different regions globally, with inherentlocally specific environmental challenges. However, asdiscussed in the VSS literature, there is a paradox in com-municating environmental governance in agricultural pro-duction, which by default is localized, by the samesustainability metric across various coffee-farming localities(Tischner and Kjærnes 2010; Osmundsvåg 2010; Ponte andRiisgaard 2011; Giovannucci and Ponte 2005; Neilson andPritchard 2007; Renard 2005). Broad biodiversity-relatedcriteria, applied to coffee management systems in differentcoffee-producing regions each with localized environmentalchallenges, have implications for the ability of coffee con-sumers to distinguish between high-biodiversity and low-biodiversity coffees. Hence, such broad criteria affect high-biodiversity coffee’s potential to create value on the main-stream coffee market (Vaast et al. 2006).

A Market Construction Perspective on VSS

From a market construction perspective, different repre-sentations of sustainable coffee, such as VSS with varyingstandard stringency, are translated into normative frame-works that correspond to specific exchange practices(D’Antone and Spencer 2014; Kjellberg and Helgesson2007; Normann 2001; Storbacka and Nenonen 2011a).There is an assumption that market elements are configuredto fit one another (Normann 2001; Storbacka and Nenonen2011a). This assumption implies that, in the case of themarketing potential of high-biodiversity coffee, coffee massmarket VSS certifications are intimately linked to marketnorms (related to biodiversity) and to specific financialremuneration and sourcing schemes (Boons and Mendoza2010; D’Antone and Spencer 2014; Levy et al. 2016). As anexample, VSS as marketing tools framing the mainstreamcoffee market attribute certain biodiversity qualities to

coffee through criteria setting, while simultaneously treatingother biodiversity-related issues (possibly those connectedto high costs) in coffee farming as so-called externalities(Callon 1998; Callon et al. 2002; Neyland and Simakova2010; Onyas and Ryan 2015b). To contain such external-ities within the mainstream coffee market would require arequalification of biodiversity coffee and a subsequentchange in sourcing and producing schemes.

The performativity of VSS criteria is particularly usefulfor understanding how coffee diversification is affected bythe use of VSS in coffee branding and marketing. Standardstend to become concrete and replace “reality” when used incertification schemes (Mason et al. 2015; Latour 1999).Figure 1, originally an illustration of how soil scientistscategorizing a specific soil sample must classify and code anumber of soil samples to do so, shows a trade-off betweenamplification and reduction in information production(Latour 1999). This suggested trade-off can help us clearlysee the mechanisms of standardization in terms of loss oflocality and particularity. In the case of high-biodiversitycoffee, the locality and particularity of this coffee is the verybase for its perceived value on the global coffee market, asthe shade cover in high-biodiversity coffee farming createsthe unique taste that is highly valued by the market.

To comprehend the relationship between mass marketVSS certification and the marketing value potential of high-biodiversity and shade-grown coffee, we describe themainstream coffee market as a market configuration inwhich market elements are configured to reinforce oneanother and achieve a high degree of configurational fitbetween elements (Storbacka and Nenonen 2011a). Theliterature identifies two types of configurative elements:market practices, that is, the interaction between marketactors in a market configuration, and market actors, whotake part in market practices (Araujo et al. 2008; Storbackaand Nenonen 2011a). The market practice literature

Successive stages

Amplification

Reduction

Locality Particularity Materiality

Comparability Standardization

Text

Fig. 1 Trade-off between whatis gained (amplification) andwhat is lost (reduction) ininformation production. Source:Latour (1999, Fig. 2.22, p. 71)


suggests that markets can be conceptualized as being con-stituted by exchange practices (activities making economicexchange possible), representational practices (activitiesproducing images of markets, bridging distances in time andbetween market actors), and normalizing practices (activ-ities establishing objectives for how a market should workaccording to certain market actors) (Kjellberg and Helges-son 2007). The three categories of market practices arenot distinct but rather are best understood as “dense areasof activity” (Kjellberg and Helgesson 2007, p. 145). VSScertifications participate in the making of the mainstreamcoffee market because they affect economic exchangesoccurring in the market through the images they representof what “coffee is sustainable” (representational practices)and through the criteria and certification established bythese standards (normalizing practices). Exchange, repre-sentational and normalizing practices are linked togetherthrough the process of translation. Translation refers to howsomething, in this case coffee VSS certification, is trans-formed into something else (Callon 1986). Figure 2 illus-trates how coffee VSS contribute to linking exchange,representational and normalizing market practices so thatthese market practices seem to have a good fit because thepractices reinforce one another through linkages betweenthem (Storbacka and Nenonen 2011a). The figure serves thepurpose of making the abstract notion of translation

concrete in the case of VSS configuring coffee marketpractice. First, in a very simplified form, Fig. 2 presents thelinkages between VSS as representing an image of what“coffee sustainably farmed according to specific standards”means, that is, representational practice, and these standardsas objectives concerning how the sustainable coffee marketshould work, that is, normalizing practices. These linkages(link A) affect market perceptions of what biodiverse coffeeis. Here representational practices (how biodiversity incoffee farming is described in specific sustainability stan-dards) affect the agreement among coffee market actorsregarding how biodiversity should be measured and attrib-uted to coffee (normalizing practices). In a similar vein,normalizing practices (market actors’ agreements regardingVSS as a legitimate biodiversity indicator for coffee) impactwhat biodiversity criteria are part of VSS standards(representational practices). Second, Fig. 2 presents lin-kages between normalizing practices and VSS as stabilizingthe exchanged coffee in terms of remuneration and supplyschemes, that is, exchange practices, that affect whether andhow VSS certification standards (in terms of biodiversityconservation) are translated into market rules and guidelines(link C). Hence, the stabilization and framing of biodiverseand sustainable coffee (and interlinked schemes of supplyand remuneration) as VSS-certified and labeled coffeeexchanged on the global market (exchange practices)

Normalizing practices, VSS produce images of how the mainstream coffee market should work

Representational practices, VSS produce images of how the mainstream coffee market works

Exchange practices, VSS stabilizes the object of exchange

A. Links affecting perceptions of what is biodiverse coffee

B. Links affecting perceptions of what is traded, biodiverse coffee or not

C. Links affecting perceptions about market rulesand guidelines for biodiversity conservation

Fig. 2 Links between how VSScontribute to exchange,representational and normalizingpractices in the coffee marketand affect perceptions ofbiodiverse coffee. This figure isan adaptation of Fig. 2 inKjellberg and Helgesson (2007)


Tab

le1

Researchinterview

respon

dents

Respo

ndent

Rolein

theIndian

coffee

valuechain

Sizeof

coffee

estate

TPC

Com

ments

Representativefrom

RFA

Certifying

body

Grower

Coffeeestate

owner

Medium

RFA

Group

-certifi

ed

Grower

Coffeeestate

owner

Medium

UTZ

Group

-certifi

ed

Grower

Coffeeestate

owner

Medium

–LefttheUTZgrou

pcertificatio

nprog

ram

Grower

Coffeeestate

owner

Medium

UTZ

Group

-certifi

ed

Grower

Coffeeestate

owner

Medium

–LefttheUTZgrou

pcertificatio

nprog

ram

Grower

Coffeeestate

owner

Medium

UTZ

Group

-certifi

ed

General

manager

Coffeeestate

ownerandtrader/exp

orter

Large

RA,UTZ,Organic

Individu

ally

certified

General

manager

Coffeeestate

ownerandtrader/exp

orter

Medium

Organic

Individu

ally

certified

General

manager

Coffeeestate

ownerandtrader/exp

orter

Large

–Activelyop

posesTPCs

Manager

Coffeeestate

ownerandtrader/exp

orterin

MNC

Large

RA,UTZ,SA80

00,

Organic

Individu

ally

certified

General

manager

Coffeeestate

ownerandtrader/exp

orterin

MNC

Large

RA,UTZ,SA80

00,

Organic

Individu

ally

certified

General

manager

Local

coffee

trader/exp

orterin

MNC

UTZ

Certifi

esestatesun

dergrou

pcertificatio

ns

General

manager

Local

coffee

trader/exp

orterin

MNC

RA,UTZ

Certifi

esestatesun

dergrou

pcertificatio

ns

General

manager

Local

coffee

trader/exp

orterin

MNC

RA,UTZ

Certifi

esestatesun

dergrou

pcertificatio

ns

Cou

ntry

manager

Coffeetrader/exp

orterin

MNC

RA,UTZ

Certifi

esestatesun

dergrou

pcertificatio

ns

Headof

R&D

Coffeetrader/exp

orterin

MNC

with

own

plantatio

nsLarge

RA,UTZ

Individu

ally

certified

Researcher

College

ofForestry

Researchin

thefieldof

coffee

cultivatio

nand

biod

iversity

conservatio

n

Researcher

Cop

enhagenBusinessSchoo

lResearchin

thefieldof

governance

andTPCs

Representativefrom

theCoffeeBoard

ofIndia

Gov

ernm

entbo

dy

Representativefrom

theCoffeeBoard

ofIndia

Gov

ernm

entbo

dy

Researcherfrom

theCoffeeBoard

ofIndia

Gov

ernm

entbo

dy


influence the stability of norms (agreement among marketactors) and the perceived legitimacy of VSS biodiversitycriteria and certification (normalizing practices). Thesenormalizing practices affect and serve the stabilization andframing of biodiverse coffee needed for coffee exchange totake place. Third, Fig. 2 illustrates linkages betweenrepresentational practices such as images of biodiversecoffee according to VSS, and exchange practices that affectmarket perceptions concerning whether biodiverse coffee istraded or not (link B). In more concrete terms, representa-tions of biodiverse coffee as VSS-certified and labeledcoffee (representational practices) influence interaction andsubsequent exchange between coffee buyers and sellers(exchange practices). As VSS (biodiversity) critera areapplied in coffee exchange practices they sustain the imageof the coffee market as dealing with issues of biodiversity incoffee farming (representational practices).

From this line of reasoning, it follows that VSS affectdiverse coffee market activities and have configurationalproperties valid for the value of biodiverse coffee on themainstream market. Hence, we can refine our initial questionand ask “How do mainstream VSS certifications configurethe mainstream market for high-biodiversity coffees?”.

Given our interest in the configurational properties ofVSS valid for the value of high-biodiverse coffee on themainstream coffee market, the market practice literature isinformative on how possible reconfiguration of this marketcan be achieved that affect the value of such coffee(Storbacka and Nenonen 2011a, b). A market actor trying toscript a given market, that is, change the configurational fitof market practice, is labeled a focal actor (Storbacka andNenonen 2011a, b). Market scripting, as the “consciousactivities conducted by a market actor to alter currentmarket configuration in its favor” (Storbacka and Nenonen2011a, b, p. 259), implies that VSS can play a crucial role asa focal actor in advancing the value position of high-biodiversity coffee within the coffee market throughapplying more stringent biodiversity criteria. The scriptingstrength of an actor is dependent on positions of relativepower in the market in terms of access to resources, infor-mation, and relationships, and of skills (Fligstein 2001;Zaheer and Bell 2005). By applying more stringent biodi-versity criteria, mainstream coffee market VSS would havean effect on normalizing practices as changed perceptions ofhow the coffee market works according to experiences ofprior market transactions and logics would follow (Brooks1995; Normann 1977; Storbacka and Nenonen 2011a, b).Such perceptions affect predominant market actors’ mentalmodels regarding how to create value (Storbacka andNenonen 2011a, b) and business models through elementsof market offerings, such as price, technology, and networkarchitecture, such as supplier remuneration schemes (Masonand Spring 2011).

Methodology

To describe two mainstream VSS certifications, RA andUTZ, as configuring coffee mass market practice and gen-erating outcomes relevant for the marketing of high-biodi-versity, shade-grown coffee, we have conducted anexploratory single case study. This case study is based on aliterature review of Indian coffee farming from a biodi-versity perspective and interviews with actors in the coffeevalue chain in Kodagu, India, and with representatives ofthe Indian government, the research community, and theRA. Given the exploratory character of this research, anaccurate and multidimensional image of mainstream VSScertifications in Indian coffee farming and marketing wasparticularly important (Eriksson and Kovalainen 2008). Asingle case study approach is appropriate when investigat-ing an extreme and unique situation (Yin 2009).

As part of this case study, 22 semi-structured personalinterviews were conducted during 4 weeks in India in Marchand September 2014, one interview was held in Copenhagen(with a researcher) and one interview was conducted viaSkype from Sweden (with a representative of RA). The fol-lowing actors were represented among the interviewees (seeTable 1): coffee growers from Kodagu, large coffee exporters/traders with ownership of estates in Kodagu, representatives ofthe Coffee Board of India, local exporters/traders, researchersinto forest conservation and private governance of global valuechains, and one representative from the RA. Respondents wererecruited through “snowball” and convenience sampling(Saunders et al. 2009). Our personal contact, a board memberof the Karnataka Planters’ Association, established the initialcontact with coffee growers in the area and, through a snow-ball effect, with other medium-sized coffee growers with eitherRA-certified or UTZ-certified coffee estates. Researchers,coffee exporters/traders, and representatives of the CoffeeBoard of India were successively approached. In addition,coffee exporters/traders trading with RA-certified or UTZ-certified coffee from Kodagu were approached through aformal e-mail to participate in the research.

Interviews with growers and estate owners focused onhow coffee-farming practice is influenced by UTZ and RAcertification. Furthermore, questions were asked about theincentives to certify. Several visits and stays on coffee estatesgave us a better understanding of Indian coffee-farmingpractice. Interviews with exporters/traders, researchers, andrepresentatives of the Coffee Board of India were aimed atfurther elucidating the incentives and effects on the level ofcertification for a coffee plantation. The interviews differed inlength from 30 to 120min and were tape-recorded andtranscribed. In some cases, written notes were taken on site.The empirical findings were analyzed in a manner suggestedby Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008), called the “case record”method. This approach is appropriate for the development of


an accurate case description in cases with many uneditedempirical data items from several sources. We were inter-ested in developing themes from the empirical data, andtheoretical concepts were used to structure the data (Ander-sen and Kragh 2011). The method of cross-checking, ortriangulating, data from multiple sources helped to distin-guish different behaviors and activities and to organizethemes (Eriksson and Kovalainen 2008).

We started the analysis of our transcribed interviews byreading the interviews one by one to gain an overallunderstanding of the subjects discussed. The coding oftranscripts using themes from literature and from inter-views, and the extrapolation of cross-interview patterns,formed an iterative analytical process. The emerging themeswere tested across interviews in order to ensure a criticalanalysis of the themes’ reliability (Eriksson and Kovalainen2008) and rigor in the case study process (Yin 2003).

The Case

The Context—Kodagu Coffee on the World Market

India produces 3.6 % of the world’s coffee (InternationalCoffee Organization (ICO) 2014). One-third of the

production comes from the coffee-producing region ofKodagu, where coffee has been grown for the past 120years. In 2014–2015, approximately 85 % of Indian coffeewas exported (The Coffee Board of India 2016). Theinternational Kodagu coffee value chain (see Fig. 3)includes large coffee estates with their own curing plantsand medium-sized estates without their own curing plant.Large estates sell their coffee directly to roasters or brandedcompanies in the international market. Medium-sizedestates sell their coffee either to the local market or to anexporter/trader who takes the coffee to the internationalmarket. The Coffee Board of India, which is a governmentalbody under the control of India’s Ministry of Commerceand Industry, plays an important role in supporting thecoffee industry and represents various interests for coffeegrowers, exporters/traders, curing plants, the labor market,and consumers (The Coffee Board of India 2014). Theresearch community is actively involved in safeguarding theunique biodiversity features of the Kodagu region. Asindicated in Fig. 3, the influence of the Coffee Board ofIndia as well as the research community is limited to coffeetrade within India.

International Coffee Market

Exporter/Trader with curing plant

Medium estate (group certified)

Trader at farm gate (local)

Large estate (individually certified) also Exporter/Trader with own curing plant

Fig. 3 The international coffeevalue chain in Kodagu


Environmental benefits of shade-grown coffee farming inKodagu

The area of Kodagu is covered by rainforest and representsone of the world’s biodiversity “hotspots”. These hotspots arecharacterized by exceptional concentrations of endemicspecies (Myers et al. 2000). Kodagu is famous for its tradi-tion of shade-grown coffee. Because of the forestation cover,coffee cultivation occurs in complex agroforestry systems,and coffee estates play an important role in supporting theconservation of other habitats and biodiversity in the region(Rao 2011; Neilson and Pritchard 2007; Bal et al. 2011;Chethana et al. 2010). Coffee estates in Kodagu have a tra-dition of retaining native trees and intercropping coffee withother species, such as pepper, cardamom, areca, citrus, andcommercial timber (e.g., silver oak), to improve the eco-nomic viability of the estates. The leaves improve the fertilityof the soil, and the shade cover helps control pests and dis-eases, and lessens the need for irrigation. Specific landtenure, tree rights, and sacred groves, traditionally known asdevarakadu, constrain growers from felling trees (Bhagwatet al. 2005a). Together with the coffee plantations, thedevarakadu and the natural forests constitute a wildlife cor-ridor, providing a contiguous habitat for tigers, elephants,leopards, and deer (Bhagwat et al. 2005a).

In India, as elsewhere, increased global competition in thecoffee market has been met by measures to increase pro-ductivity. Measures for increasing coffee yield and income inthe short term in the region of Kodagu include the opening ofshade and replacing shade-loving Arabica coffee plants withRobusta plantations (with subsequent loss of biodiversity andan increasing need for inputs such as water, fertilizers, andpesticides) (Abraham et al. 2013; Chethana et al. 2010;CAFNET (Coffee Argo-Foresty Network) 2011; Neilson andPritchard 2007). Another common means of increasing coffee-farmer income is to replace native trees with the commercial—and more profitable—silver oak. Silver oaks are fast-growingtrees that serve as an alternative income source in a time ofcoffee price recession. This replacement affects the habitatvalue of coffee estates (Damodaran 2002; Garcia et al. 2010;Neilson 2008a) because falling leaves and branches of silveroaks take a longer time to decompose compared with those ofthe native trees. One-third of the forest cover in Kodagu hasbeen lost in the last three decades, and the area under coffeecultivation has doubled, which has put pressure on the eco-system (CAFNET (Coffee Argo-Foresty Network) 2011;Chethana et al. 2010).

Certification of coffee farming in Kodagu—processes, cost,and price premiums

To reassure roasters, retailers, and consumers within theglobal coffee market that Indian growers’ farming practices

are sustainable, actors downstream of the Indian coffeevalue chain (traders and exporters) need Indian coffee to becertified (Ingenbleek et al. 2007; Renard 2005). In theIndian coffee-producing region of Kodagu, two majormainstream market VSS are present, namely, UTZ and RA,and coffee growers are increasingly certifying their farms togain market access (Chengappa et al. 2014;Neilson and Pritchard 2007).

The certification process follows a similar sequence ofsteps independent of the governance body through which itis processed. The standards are developed by the standards-setting body Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN) for theRA and by UTZ Kapeh for UTZ. Interested parties submitan application, and third parties then audit and monitorcompliance (Chengappa et al. 2014). Coffee plantations canbe individually certified or certified as a group of enterprisesin the case of a large number of smaller holders (Kleemannet al. 2014). Certification costs are proportionate to plan-tation size but are lower for group certifications (Chengappaet al. 2014). Individual certifications are primarily under-taken by larger plantations (see also Tovar et al. 2005;Chengappa et al. 2014), who work directly with certifyingbodies. Medium-sized growers are often certified under aso-called “group certification” (see also Tovar et al. 2005;Chengappa et al. 2014) initiated by an exporter/trader,which simplifies the certifying process and reduces the costsinvolved by certifying several growers at the same time. InKodagu, local representatives for traders and exportersactively recruit and group-certify coffee growers. In manycases, coffee farmers are double certified, that is, the coffeegrown on a specific farm carries both RA and UTZ certi-fication. Local representatives for traders and exporterscarry the cost of the group certification process; however,growers must carry the cost for additional investments instorage, protective clothing for workers, and documenta-tion/book-keeping, all of which are required for UTZ andRA certifications (Neilson 2008b).

Price premiums for Indian mass market-certified coffeedepend on the fluctuations in world coffee prices and thequality of the coffee (Upendranadh and Subbaiah 2012).For RA-certified and UTZ-certified Indian coffee, pricepremiums are low (US1c to US14c per pound weight ofgreen) due to high coffee prices, and fewer planters arebeing reported as undertaking certification (Chengappaet al. 2014). Premium prices are only paid if certified coffeeis sold to the company that has group-certified the planta-tion where the coffee is grown. Less than half of certifiedIndian coffee from Kodagu is actually sold as such, due tolocal traders buying coffee as non-certified at farm gates.This is a convenient alternative to transporting the coffee tothe company holding the group certificate, which is oftenlocated at a considerable distance from the planter (Chen-gappa et al. 2014).


Coffee VSS criteria related to biodiversity conservation

The two mainstream VSS engaged in certifying coffeefarms in Kodagu, UTZ and RA (Chengappa et al. 2014;Neilson and Pritchard 2007), contain biodiversity-relevantcriteria that have a direct effect on biodiversity conservationthrough tree density (shade) and tree diversity in coffeefarms. Table 2 presents a selection of criteria (for RA cer-tification) or control points (for UTZ certification) that arerelated to biodiversity conservation in Indian coffee farms.

Table 2 shows that shade-relevant control points in RAand UTZ certification are open for interpretation and willharbor a wide range of coffee production systems undershade. UTZ states that biodiversity is conserved in coffeefarms with an “adequate number per hectare of suitableshade trees”. RA criteria state that coffee farms must ensurethat “ the tree community on the cultivated land consists of aminimum of 12 native species per hectare on average”, “thetree canopy comprises at least two strata or stories”, “theoverall canopy density on the cultivated land is at least40 %”, and “in areas where the original natural vegetation isnot forest—such as grasslands, savannas, scrublands, orshrublands—must dedicate at least 30 % of the farm area forconservation or recovery of the area’s typical ecosystems”.Figure 4 presents the relationship between different coffeemanagement systems in terms of shade cover (in percent)and shade species richness (Perfecto et al. 2005). Whencontrasting RA criteria for shade cover and tree richness inTable 2 (we here concentrate on RA because UTZ criteriaon issues of shade are very broad) with the coffee man-agement systems in Fig. 4, we can conclude that rustic,traditional, and commercial polyculture and shaded mono-culture fulfill the RA criteria for biodiversity conservation.Shade percentage criteria encompass all four managementsystems depending on whether the natural vegetation isinterpreted as forest or not. Criteria such as “the overallcanopy density on the cultivated land is at least 40%” and“in areas where the original natural vegetation is not forest—such as grasslands, savannas, scrublands, or shrublands—must dedicate at least 30 % of the farm area for conservationor recovery of the area’s typical ecosystems” imply that ifforest recovery is ensured, shaded monoculture fulfills theshade percentage criteria. The shade diversity criterion thatapplies to agroforestry coffee farming, “the tree communityon the cultivated land consists of a minimum of 12 nativespecies per hectare on average”, is fulfilled by rustic, tra-ditional, and commercial polyculture. This criterion can alsobe met by non-forest-shaded monoculture (grasslands,savannas, scrublands, or shrublands) if many native speciesare found in part(s) of the plantation that increase thenumber of native trees on average. Put in other words, non-forest-shaded monoculture (see Table 1), where 30% of thefarm is dedicated to recovery of the area’s typical eco-systemT

able

2RA

andUTZstandard

biod

iversity-relevantcriteria

VSS

RA

UTZ-Certifi

ed

Criteriarelevant

forbiod

iversity

conservatio

nin

coffee

farm

ingsetby

SAN’sSustainable

Agriculture

Stand

ards

Con

trol

pointsrelevant

forbiod

iversity

conservatio

n

2.8Farmswith

agroforestry

crop

slocatedin

areaswhere

theoriginal

naturalvegetativ

ecoverisforestmust

establishandmaintainaperm

anentagroforestry

system

distribu

tedho

mog

eneously

throug

hout

theplantatio

ns.

The

agroforestry

system

’sstructuremustmeetthefollo

wingrequ

irem

ents:

CFB1:Anadequate

numberperhectareof

suitableshadetrees

areplantedand/or

maintainedon

coffee

plots

a.The

tree

commun

ityon

thecultivatedland

consistsof

aminim

umof

12nativ

especiesperhectareon

average

G.B. 47:Organic

fertilizers

andby

-produ

ctsavailableat

farm

levelareused

initially

andsupp

lementedby

inorganicfertilizer

ifnu

trientsremainlacking

b.The

tree

cano

pycomprises

atleasttwostrata

orstories

c.The

overallcano

pydensity

onthecultivatedland

isat

least40

%G.D.112:Threatenedandendang

ered

speciesin

theprod

uctio

narea

areidentifi

ed,commun

icated

togrou

pmem

bers,and

protected

Farmsin

areaswhere

theoriginal

naturalvegetatio

nisno

tforest—

such

asgrasslands,savann

as,scrublands,or

shrublands—mustdedicate

atleast30

%of

thefarm

area

forconservatio

nor

recovery

ofthearea’stypical

ecosystems.These

farm

smustim

plem

entaplan

toestablishor

recovernaturalvegetatio

nwith

intenyears

8.1The

farm

musth

avean

integrated

pest-m

anagem

entp

rogram

basedon

ecolog

icalprinciples

forthecontrolo

fharm

fulpests(insects,plants,anim

als,andmicrobes).The

prog

ram

mustgive

priority

totheuseof

physical,

mechanical,cultu

ral,andbiolog

ical

controlmetho

ds,andtheleastpo

ssible

useof

agrochem

icals

G.D. 1

13:T

hegrou

pprom

otes

ecolog

icaldiversity

byprotectin

gandenhancinghabitatsandecosystems

Source:SAN

(201

0)andUTZCertifi

ed(201

5)


and where recovery increases the average number of nativespecies per hectare to a minimum of 12, lives up to the shadediversity criteria. The different regimes of shade in coffeefarming (Perfecto et al. 2005) are presented in Fig. 4, all havedifferent implications for biodiversity; however, all but oneseemingly fit into the biodiversity criteria specified in the RAand UTZ standard for certified coffee. In Kodagu, shadeintensity in coffee farming is categorized as high shade(canopy cover >70%) with 94% native trees on average,and low shade (canopy cover <70%) with 80% native treeson avergage (Chethana et al. 2010). Hence, Kodagu coffeesencompass all shaded coffee management systems in Fig. 4and fulfill RA biodiversity criteria regardless of shadeintensity.

Kodagu Coffee Actors’ Experiences with MainstreamMarket VSS

In our analysis, three themes have emerged that relate to theexperiences of actors in the Kodagu coffee value chainconcerning mainstream market VSS and biodiversity con-servation. The three themes—which are partly interrelated—are summarized in Table 3 and described further below.

Buyer-dominated definition of biodiversity conservation

One pertinent theme across interviews was that the criteriafor biodiversity conservation in mainstream coffee certifi-cation standards are perceived as being defined by actors

Management System

Shade cover in percentage

Shade tree richness

Rustic 71-100 >50

Traditional polyculture

41-70 21-50

Commercial polyculture

31-40 6-20

Shaded monoculture

Unshaded monoculture

10-30

0

1-5

0

Fig. 4 Diagram of the differentcoffee management systems,with approximate ranges inpercent of shade cover and ofshade tree species richness(Perfecto et al. 2005)


outside India. Growers feel that the formulation andenforcement of TPC standards are imposed on them.

They [the third-party certifier] had already decidedwhat the conditions were [in Kodagu]. They looked atus suspiciously. They do not take the farmer as astakeholder; they think the farmer is the bad guy.

(Grower, medium-sized coffee estate owner certi-fied with RA)

These experiences are supported by Chengappa et al.(2014), who state that growers in Kodagu believe thatcertifications do not consider the local context and realitiesof Kodagu. Coffee growers in Kodagu have a long traditionof management practices that support the conservation ofbiodiversity in the region. The reasons behind this includethe historical limited access to water for irrigation, in whichshade has been essential to conserve water and protectplants from direct sunlight and draught.

I am the fourth generation of coffee farming, so they[the coffee growers] have been here for 200 years, andthey have been looking after the environment—theyhave saved it.

(Grower, medium-sized coffee estate owner certi-fied with UTZ)

Interviews with managers in Indian coffee trading clearlysuggest that buyers on the international coffee market sti-pulate which VSS are to be implemented among coffeegrowers in Kodagu. The exporter/trader recruits growers tothe VSS certification schemes that are in demand by inter-national buyers by paying the initial costs and the annualfees for holding the certification.

As of now, the answer is no [to certify growers asorganic]. It is all market driven. If someone asks us togo into organic farming, we would definitely do so.

But if you cannot market it, it is not viable. And also,we are in the mainstream market if we focus on thismarket—it [organic farming] is not a business case.

(General Manager from an international coffeetrader/exporter certified with UTZ)

Exporters/traders choose not to support stricter certifi-cation schemes—for example, organic coffee farming—because there is little demand for such coffee from down-stream market actors. In this case, buyer-dominated defini-tion of biodiversity conservation means that theinternational buyer is the primary driver of how biodiversecoffee farming is standardized. Coffee growers are depen-dent on the economic support given by exporters/traders tocertify their coffee as part of securing coffee exchange inthe long term. Some coffee growers actively oppose buyer-dominated definition of environmental protection inKodagu. Mainstream market coffee VSS are perceived asnot being able to distinguish the unique environmentalfeatures of Indian coffee farming. Without such dis-criminatory power, VSS are primarily viewed as a cost, notas an opportunity to capitalize on the uniqueness of high-biodiversity and shade-grown coffee.

Certification in the long-term buyer–farmer relationship

There are clear advantages for both coffee farmers andcoffee exporters/traders in certifying Kodagu coffee,according to mainstream VSS. By certifying coffee grow-ers, exporters/traders can establish closer bonds withgrowers and secure their sustainable coffee supply. Certi-fication enables farmers to sell their coffee at a specifiedprice, the so-called “price premium”. It should be noted thatcoffee growers are not required to sell their coffee to theparticular exporter/trader; nonetheless, to get their coffeecertified and to receive the expected price premium, thegrower is required to sell to that particular company(Chengappa et al. 2014). Holding a certification represents ameans for growers to become a “preferred supplier”. In theaftermath of the coffee crisis in the years 2000–2004, withdeclining prices and oversupply, the possibility of beingable to sell coffee as certified to exporters/traders at aknown price is perceived by many farmers as a means tosecure long-term market opportunity.

During our study, several growers stated that mainstreamVSS certification represents a necessary evil to upholdrelationships and access to buyers and expressed the feelingof being “forced” into the program.

We are forced to have a certification. It is not drivenby us.

(A large coffee estate owner certified with UTZ,with RA, and for organic production)

Table 3 Kodagu coffee actors’ experiences of mainstream marketVSS

Kodagu coffee actors’ experiences of mainstream market VSS

1. Buyer-dominated definition of environmental protection

VSS perceived as imposed on local actors in value chain

Group certification of smallholders initiated by exporters/traders

Buyer-driven sustainability standards

2. Certification in the long-term buyer–farmer relationship

Preferred supplier

Cost of certification

3. No remuneration for environmental protection beyondstandards

Easy certification process

Inadequate price premium


In light of increasing world demand for certified coffee,our results indicate clearly that the certification process isenforced by downstream actors in the international coffeechain, such as branded companies and roasters, who putpressure on upstream buyers and exporters/traders withoperations in India to certify coffee growers in the area. Therepresentatives of coffee exporters/traders, in both local andnational management, draw a picture of ongoing and activerecruitment of coffee farmers into both UTZ and RA cer-tification programs due to the demand for certified coffee inthe global coffee market. According to representatives ofthe Coffee Board of India, non-participation in VSS certi-fication schemes represents a barrier to trade becausegrowers increasingly have no option but to follow thegrowing demand from exporters/traders for certified coffeeaccording to dominant VSS in the mainstream market (seealso Kleeman et al. 2014).

The cost associated with certification—particularlymultiple certifications—creates a need for increased incomein Indian coffee farming.

No remuneration for environmental protection beyondstandards

In line with the high biodiversity of shade-grow coffeecultivation in Kodagu compared with other coffee-producing localities in the world, coffee growers from theregion who were interviewed expressed the ease ofbecoming certified (see also Chengappa et al. 2014).

It is a perfect fit [between criteria of VSS and nature].You don’t have to do many other things, because it isa natural fit. You just need to do some brief things tomaintain the certification. So, that is an advantage toget the certification.

(General Manager, large coffee estate and exporter/trader certified with RA, with UTZ, and for organicproduction)

The context-specific conditions of coffee farming inKodagu are more or less biodiverse by default, and coffeegrowers easily fulfill the biodiversity requirements of RAand UTZ. The shaded coffee estates of Kodagu exceed therequirements concerning tree density and native species setby VSS (SAN 2010), and biodiversity conservation is noteasily compared with that of sun-exposed coffee farming inVietnam, Brazil, or elsewhere (Neilson 2008b). Certifica-tion implies only minor improvements to farming practiceon the Kodagu estates. The most common changes forcedby certification include buying safety equipment for labor-ers (such as gloves), small items of maintenance work onthe estates, a restriction on the use and storage of fertilizersand pesticides, and administrative work such as book-keeping.

From a farmer’s perspective, the ease of becoming cer-tified should be accompanied by a price premium.

By and large, I was already doing what was required[prior to getting certified]. All of it, and more! Whatwas mandatory we already do. We even [provide]loans to the workers for marriage. No child labor,storage of chemicals, plastics disposals—all this wasbeing done. This was why I was tempted to this [VSScertification]. So if I was going to get a premium forit? Why not? But I fight over the premium. The price Iget from them [exporter/trader] is a discounted price,lower than the local market.


UTZ and RA certifications are two mass market VSSwith prices negotiated between the buyer and seller. Theydo not guarantee an assured premium, but instead theirphilosophy is that quality improvements in production andprocesses will help realize market-determined quality pre-mium and productivity gains (Kolk 2013; Levy et al. 2016).Consequently, many growers have expressed a feeling ofbeing “fooled by the system”, and several of the interviewedgrowers have chosen to leave, or are considering leaving,the VSS certification schemes.

Indirectly I probably pay for the certification bygetting a bad price.


Analysis—How RA and UTZ CertificationsConfigure the Mainstream Market for High-Biodiversity Coffee

Our findings provide input to an analysis of how the RA andUTZ certifications affect coffee mass market practices withoutcomes relevant for high-biodiversity coffees’ potential tocreate value in this market. The three themes that emergedfrom the data on the experiences of actors in the Kodagucoffee value chain have been categorized as activitiesmaking economic exchange possible (exchange practices),activities producing images of markets (representationalpractices), and activities establishing objectives for how amarket should work according to certain market actors(normalizing practices) (Kjellberg and Helgesson 2007).Despite the great numbers of activities influencing theconfiguration of the market for high-biodiversity coffee, aclear contribution to the configurational fit between main-stream coffee market practices is related to experiences ofRA and UTZ certification. These experiences contribute tothe configuration of the market for high-biodiversity coffee


in a way that affects the value creation of high-biodiversitycoffee (Fig. 5). The theme “Buyer-dominated definition ofbiodiversity conservation” provides evidence that RA andUTZ certifications contribute to perceptions that sustainableand biodiverse coffee is (and should be) defined in accor-dance with international coffee buyers’ sourcing of sus-tainable coffee in large quantities (normalizing practices inFig. 5). RA and UTZ certifications are experienced beingimposed on local farmers/traders/exporters in Kodagu andlocal exporters recruit and group-certify coffee farmers asRA or UTZ-Certified farms. RA and UTZ are the certifi-cation schemes in demand by international coffee buyersand these buyers set the rules for sourcing of sustainableand biodiverse coffee aimed for the mainstream market.Thus, certification of Kodagu coffee farms is required in

order for Kodagu coffee to be part of the mainstream coffeesupplier base (exchange practices in Fig. 5).

The theme “Certification in the long-term buyer–farmerrelationship” provides evidence that being certified accord-ing to RA and UTZ schemes is crucial for long-termbusiness relationship between coffee farmers and main-stream market exporters. Equally, it is clear that Kodagucoffee farmers are willing to pay certification costs (initialgroup certification costs are paid by the local exporter,administrative, equipment, and storage-related cost at thefarm level are carried by the farmer), costs that are related tobeing a preferred supplier and part of the mainstreammarket supplier base. Certification thus provides security forcoffee farmers as preferred suppliers and upholds theexchange of coffee aimed for the mainstream coffee market

Normalising practices:objectives concerningsustainable and biodiverse coffee asdefined in accordance with international coffee buyers´ need to source sustainable coffee in large quantities

Representational practices: images of biodiversity certification aseasy but crucialto become preferred supplier, gains in terms of market access

recruitment of certified farmers and group certification initiated by exporters and traders

Exchange practices:

. Economic incentives based on long-term supplier relationships uphold the exchange of certified coffee

A. Links affecting perceptions of what is biodiverse coffee – all coffee, grown as polyculture and monoculture as long as there is an average of 30% shade in plantation

B. Links affecting perceptions of what is traded – quantities of sustainable and biodiverse coffee are traded

C. Links affecting perceptions about market rules –a secure supply of biodiversecoffee is the main goal of the coffee mainstream market ; high-biodiversity farming is of secondaryimportance.

Fig. 5 Exchange,representational and normalizingpractices in the mainstreamcoffee market affected by RAand UTZ coffee certification,with outcomes for the marketingof high-biodiversity, shade-grown coffee. This figure is anadaptation of Fig. 2 in Kjellbergand Helgesson (2007)


(exchange practices in Fig. 5) as well as provide an image ofwhat it means for local farmers and exporters to be part ofthis market (representational practices in Fig. 5).

The theme “No remuneration for environmental protec-tion beyond standards” provides evidence that RA and UTZcertifications contribute to perceptions of biodiversity con-servation in coffee farming as an easily accessible dimen-sion of being part of the global supplier base providingsustainable coffee to the international mass market. Theease of being certified is accompanied by (perhaps logicallyso) low price premiums on certified coffee. The price pre-miums on certified coffee do not cover the cost of certifi-cation and are perceived as inadequate by Kodagu coffeefarmers. The economic gain of certifying one’s coffee farmis not related to price premiums. Rather coffee framersengage in exchange of certified coffee based on the per-ceived security of a long-term supplier relationship(exchange practices in Fig. 5), perceptions that sustain animage of certification as an easy but crucial undertaking(representational practices in Fig. 5).

The contribution of RA and UTZ certifications to theconfigurational fit between market practices in the main-stream coffee market, with outcomes for the marketing ofhigh-biodiversity, shade-grown coffee, is understood as thelinks in Fig. 5. Links between representational and nor-malizing practices (link A) in Fig. 5 enable us to see howmainstream market images of biodiverse coffee such as RAand UTZ certified coffee, are translated into normalized andtaken for granted market perceptions of how this marketworks in terms of biodiversity conservation and vice versa(how taken for granted perceptions of how this marketworks translate into representation of the market). Theselinks work to sustain a configurational fit between main-stream coffee market practices through mutual reinforce-ment (Storbacka and Nenonen 2011a). On the one hand, RAand UTZ biodiversity standards provide stability regardinghow biodiversity should be measured and attributed tocoffee farming, that is, as coffee grown in polyculture andmonoculture plantations with a minimum average of 30 %shade (link A direction representational to normalizingpractices). On the other hand, such standards, once accep-ted, established and used as a legitimate biodiversity indi-cator for coffee sustained by certification and labelingprocedures, biodiversity standards seem to reflect a con-sensus regarding what it means that coffee is produced in amanner that ensures biodiversity conservation (link Adirection normalizing to representational practices).

The biodiversity standards play an important role inestablishing a fit between normalizing and representationalpractices in the mainstream coffee market. Figure 1 (Latour1999) illustrates a process in which localized and particularbiodiversity in the real world of coffee farming is reduced toallow VSS criteria to define biodiversity in a standardized

and compatible manner across coffee farming in differentregions and using different management systems (this iscalled reduction in Fig. 1). When VSS biodiversity criteria(see Table 2) are applied to localized coffee farms, they areamplified in scope (this is called amplification in Fig. 1).Hence, every effort to describe reality, in this case biodi-versity in coffee farming, transforms our understanding ofthis reality, and biodiversity criteria in coffee VSS certifi-cation seem real when applied (Latour 1999). In practice,standard reduction in locality and parallel increasing com-patibility serve to sustain, as criteria are widely applied,perceptions of how biodiversity should be measured andattributed to coffee (normalizing practices). Hence, bothIndian high-biodiverse and high shade-grown coffee farm-ing and more sun-exposed coffee farms in Brazil andVietnam fulfill RA and UTZ biodiversity criteria and aresold under the same certification label (Rainforest Alliance2014; UTZ Certified 2015).

The links between representational/normalizing practicesand exchange practices (links B and C in Fig. 5) furtherstrengthen the configurational fit between mainstream cof-fee market practices. Exchange of biodiverse coffee on themainstream market builds on large supplies of certifiedcoffee across countries and management systems, whichrequire acceptance of VSS certification as a legitimatebiodiversity indicator. Hence in Kodagu recruitment andgroup certification of coffee farms as well as preferredsupplier schemes rest on VSS standards that do not dis-criminate between of high and low biodiversity in coffeefarming (link B direction representational to exchangepractices and link C direction normalizing to exchangepractices). Exchange practices are translated into repre-sentational and normalizing practices (link B directionexchange to representational practices and link C directionexchange to normalizing practices). By demanding certifi-cation, creating a long-term supplier base with certifiedcoffee farmers, and communicating the distinct sustain-ability qualities of VSS labeled coffee, large internationalmarket actors sustain images and perceptions of VSS as aguarantee for biodiversity conservation in coffee farming.VSS biodiversity standards and criteria simultaneouslyframe and perform mainstream coffee market exchange.

The Configurational Fit between Mainstream CoffeeMarket Practices and Outcomes for the Market Value ofHigh-Biodiversity Coffee

The reinforcing capacity of translations between exchange,representational and normalizing mainstream coffee marketpractices attributed to RA and UTZ certification producespecific outcomes for the marketing of high-biodiversecoffee. These links have a reinforcing capacity, affectingone another. The configurational fit between mainstream


coffee market practices suggests that outcomes for themarketing potential of high-biodiversity, shade-grown cof-fee might be severe. Our results clearly indicate that the sizeof financial remuneration, in terms of very small pricepremiums for mass market-certified coffee, potentiallycould jeopardize the marketing value of Indian shade-grownhigh-biodiversity coffee. The pressure to increase coffeeincome through short-term productivity gains by opening ofshade and replacing native trees with commercial ones,affects biodiversity in terms of species diversity and rich-ness. In Kodagu high-biodiverse setting, it is possible forcoffee farmers to increase coffee yields by decreasing shade(and thus biodiversity) and at the same time fulfill RA andUTZ biodiversity standards. However, the opening of shadeaffects the inherent and unique flavor of high-biodiversity,shade-grown coffee that is the main benefit on which themarketing of high-biodiversity coffee can capitalize(Upendranadh and Subbaiah 2012; Vaast et al. 2006).Hence due to pressures to increase coffee income on themarket for mainstream coffee, the very basis for marketinghigh-biodiversity, shade-grown coffee is threatened. Theunique value of high-biodiversity, shade-grown coffee isseemingly incompatible with a mainstream coffee marketwith a focus on quantity of sustainable coffee. Mainstreamcoffee market VSS certification schemes as the RA andUTZ serve as focal actors safeguarding a focus on quantity,not quality, of biodiverse coffee exchange. Thus, the con-tribution of mainstream coffee market VSS certifications tothe configurational fit of this market is very strong. Eventhough approximately half of the certified Kodagu coffee issold as non-certified at farm gates, which suggests that thereexist a considerable overflow in relation to the framingqualities assigned to certification, certification affects themarketing value (associated with taste) of this coffee.

Conclusions

By adopting a performative perspective, this article illus-trates how VSS biodiversity criteria take part in mainstreamcoffee market configuration. Outcomes of VSS biodiversitycriteria for diversification of high-biodiversity, shade-growncoffee are found on two levels. First, these criteria producecoffee farming in alignment with criteria specifications.Second, alignment with biodiversity criteria will affect theunique flavor of this coffee. Thus, our analysis clearlyshows that high-biodiversity and shade-grown coffee can-not make it on the mainstream coffee market. Mutuallyreinforcing market perceptions as well as financial remu-neration and supply schemes in the mainstream coffeemarket are incompatible with high-biodiversity coffee-farming practices, which provide the core benefit of thiscoffee, namely, its unique flavor. Hence, there is little

potential for marketing efforts to diversify coffee based onbiodiversity conservation in coffee farming within thismarket.

This article provides an understanding for how marketinginitiatives (including VSS certification) shape the market forhigh-biodiversity and shade-grown coffee. Whereas earlierstudies have investigated what economic benefits to farmersand what biodiversity criteria connected to coffee certifi-cation schemes that affect high-biodiversity coffee farming(Gobbi 2000; Mas and Dietsch 2004; Perfecto et al. 2005;Philpott et al. 2007), we show that coffee marketing andbranding tools are performative and produce different bio-diversity outcomes. Our results expand the understanding ofhow markets are shaped by VSS certification. We showhow VSS as a marketing device shape the mainstreamcoffee market through mutual reinforcing market practicesas large-scale supply of low-priced sustainable coffee andlow standards for biodiversity conservation in coffeefarming. For coffee, a product for which the environmentalproperties of production are intimately connected torecognizable properties such as flavor, diversification mar-keting strategies are dependent on the support of dominantcoffee roasters through incentives for biodiversity con-servation in coffee farming.

Managerial Implications

The contribution of RA and UTZ certifications to the con-figurational fit between market practices in the mainstreammarket has implications for a discussion about alternativeapproaches to marketing high-biodiversity, shade-growncoffee in this market. The literature on coffee farming andbiodiversity conservation primarily discusses two initiativesthat have the potential to provide economic incentives forbiodiversity conservation through coffee diversification:shade coffee certification and geographical indications (GIs)of origin (Perfecto et al. 2005; Teuber 2010; Upendranadhand Subbaiah 2012).

The probability that shade coffee certification as a focalactor can script the mainstream coffee market throughinfluencing coffee market actors’ perceptions of biodiversityin coffee farming, and subsequently their business models,depends on the relative power of such certification in termsof access to resources, of information and relationships, andof skills (Fligstein 2001; Storbacka and Nenonen 2011b;Zaheer and Bell 2005). The success of such programsdepends on the willingness of coffee consumers and coffeeroasters to pay price premiums for high-biodiversity coffee(Giovannucci and Koekoek 2003; Perfecto et al. 2005). Itseems that the current dominant business models in themainstream coffee market, with its heavy reliance on high-quantity, anonymous, and not premium-priced biodiversity


coffee as an integral part of sustainable coffee branding, willnot be easily changed based on higher prices.

Another stream of coffee marketing literature discussesGIs of origin as a means of coffee diversification that hasthe potential to provide economic benefits for high-biodiversity coffee. GIs are defined as “indications, whichidentify a good as originating in the territory of a Member(of the WTO, author remark), or a region or locally in thatterritory, in which a given quality, reputation or othercharacteristics of the good [is] essentially attributable to itsgeographical origin” by The Agreement on Trade-RelatedAspects of Intellectual Property Rights (WTO 1994). Themarketing potential of single-origin coffees compares withthe diversification and value creation of fine wines (Davironand Ponte 2005; Teuber 2010). GI protection is undertakenat the country level or at a regional level (see Teuber 2010for a detailed account). The EU distinguishes between twocertifications for GIs: protected designations of origin(PDOs), which require all stages of coffee production tooccur in the geographical area in question, and protectedgeographical indications (PGIs), which require that aminimum of one stage of coffee production is located in thespecific area (Teuber 2010). Coffee will become PGIs ratherthan PDOs because roasting in most cases occurs outsidethe area or country of origin. Café de Columbia is the mostwell-known coffee PGI to date. Trademarks are anothermeans of protecting GIs. “A trademark is a word, phrase,symbol, and/or design that identifies and distinguishes thesource of the goods of one party from those of others”(USPTO 2015). The government of Ethiopia considers thisthe better option for protecting coffee GIs, and Harrar,Sidamo, and Yirgacheffe are registered trademarks in theEU and in the United States (Teuber 2010). However,coffee trademarks differ from coffee PGI certification onone important measure, that is, trademarks do not assureany links to quality comparable to how PGIs establish aconnection between certain characteristics and origin(Teuber 2010).

The scripting propensity of coffee GIs in the mainstreamcoffee market is most likely stronger than that of the above-discussed shade-coffee certifications. Coffee PGIs andcoffee trademarks will indirectly contribute to high-biodi-versity, shade-grown coffee farming if they are successful inestablishing a connection between coffee taste valued/indemand by coffee consumers and coffee origin, and if thevalue of this coffee is transferred to a coffee farmer(s).However, such scripting strength is dependent on marketingresources and outreach on the global coffee market (Stor-backa and Nenonen 2011a, b; Zaheer and Bell 2005), onwhich roasters buy coffee with detailed information aboutquality but release very little of this information to coffeeconsumers (Ponte and Gibbon 2005). Without a financialincentive, current business models, with their heavy reliance

on high-quantity and anonymous coffee as an integral partof sustainable coffee branding, will not be easily changed.Coffee trademarks can be licensed to international roastersand thus act as leverage for single-origin coffee in massmarket brand building. Additionally, PGIs can be part ofgovernment support of estate branding and schemes toboost domestic coffee demand in coffee-producing coun-tries (Upendranadh and Subbaiah 2012).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict ofinterests.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the?Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricteduse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you giveappropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a linkto the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

References

Abraham R, Purushothaman S, Devy S (2013) Conservation andcoffee production: creating synergies in Kodagu, Karnataka. In:Purushothaman S, Abraham R (eds) Livelihood strategies inSouthern India. Springer, New Delhi, India, pp 89–107

Andersen P, Kragh H (2011) Beyond the inductive myth: newapproaches to the role of existing theory in case research. In:Piekkari R, Welch C (eds) Rethinking the case study in interna-tional business. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK,pp 146–171

Araujo L (2007) Markets, market-making and marketing. MarketTheory 7(3):211–226

Araujo L, Kjellberg H, Spencer R (2008) Market practices and forms:Introduction to the special issue. Marketing theory 8(1):5–14

Bal P, Nath CN, Nanaya KM, Kushalappa CG, Garcia C (2011)Elephants also like coffee: trends and drivers of human–elephantconflicts in coffee agroforestry landscapes of Kodagu, WesternGhats, India. Environ Manag 47:789–801

Barham BL, Weber JG (2012) The economic sustainability of certifiedcoffee: recent evidence from Mexico and Peru. World Dev 40(6):1269–1279

Bartley T (2007) Institutional emergence in an era of globalization: therise of transnational private regulation of labor and environmentalconditions. Am J Sociology 113(2):297–351

Blackman A, Naranjo MA (2012) Does eco-certification have environ-mental benefits? Organic coffee in Costa Rica. Ecol Econ 83:58–66

Blackmore E, Keeley J, Pyburn R, Mangus E, Chen L, Yuhui Q (2012)Pro-poor certification: assessing the benefits of sustainabilitycertification for small-scale farmers in Asia, Natural ResourceIssues No. 25. IIED, London

Boons F, Mendoza A (2010) Constructing sustainable palm oil: howactors define sustainability. J Clean Prod 18(16):1686–1695

Brooks GR (1995) Defining market boundaries. Strategic Manag J 16(7):535–549

Callon M (1998) An essay on framing and overflowing: economicexternalities revisited by sociology. Sociol Rev 46(S1):244–269

Callon M, Méadel C, Rabeharisoa V (2002) The economy of qualities.Econ Soc 31(2):194–217


http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

CAFNET (Coffee Argo-Foresty Network) (2011). CAFNET Final Report(January 2007 to September 2011). http://www.ifpindia.org/Coffee-and-Environmental-Services-in-the-Western-Ghats.html. Accessed18 Feb 2014

Chengappa PG, Rich K, Muniyappa A, Yadava CG, Ganashruthi MK,Pradeepa B, Shubha YC, & Rich M (2014) Sustainability coffeecertifications in India: perceptions and practices. NorwegianInstitute of International Affairs: Oslo, Norway

Chethana AN, Nagaraj N, Chengappa PG, Gracy CP (2010) Geo-graphical indications for Kodagu coffee—a socio-economic fea-sibility analysis. Agric Econ Res Rev 35:97–103

Chiputwa B, Spielman DJ, Qaim M (2015) Food standards, certifi-cation, and poverty among coffee farmers in Uganda. World Dev66:400–412

D’Antone S, Spencer R (2014) Concerns and marketization: the case ofsustainable palm oil. In: Geinger S, Harrison D, Kjellberg H,Mallard A (eds) Concerned markets: economic ordering for mul-tiple values. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham UK, pp 72–101

Damodaran A (2002) Conflict of trade-facilitating environmentalregulations with biodiversity concerns: the case of coffee-farmingunits in India. World Dev 30(7):1123–1135

Daviron B, Ponte S (2005) The coffee paradox: global markets,commodity trade and the elusive promise of development. ZedBooks, London and New York

Eriksson P, Kovalainen A (2008) Qualitative methods in businessresearch. SAGE Research Methods, London

Fligstein N (2001) The architecture of markets: an economic sociologyof twenty-first-century capitalist society. Princeton UniversityPress, Princeton, NJ

Garcia CA, Bhagwat SA, Ghazoul J, Nath CD, Nanaya KM, Kush-alappa CG et al (2010) Biodiversity conservation in agriculturallandscapes: challenges and opportunities of coffee agroforests inthe Western Ghats, India. Conservation Biology 24(2):479–488

Gereffi G, Garcia-Johnson P, Sasser E (2001) The NGO-industrialcomplex. Foreign Policy 125:56–65

Gilbert DU, Rasche A, Waddock S (2011) Accountability in a globaleconomy: the emergence of international accountability stan-dards. Bus Ethics Q 21(01):23–44

Giovannucci D, Koekoek F J (2003) The state of sustainable coffee: Astudy of twelve major markets. IISD, UNCTAD, ICO

Giovannucci D, Ponte S (2005) Standards as a new form of socialcontract? Sustainability initiatives in the coffee industry. FoodPolicy 30:284–301

Gobbi JA (2000) Is biodiversity-friendly coffee financially viable? Ananalysis of five different coffee production systems in western ElSalvador. Ecol Econ 33(2):267–281

Hess D (2008) The three pillars of corporate social reporting as newgovernance regulation: disclosure, dialogue, and development.Bus Ethics Q 18(4):447–482

Ingenbleek P, Binnekamp M, Goddijn S (2007) Setting standards forCSR: a comprehensive case study on criteria-formulating orga-nizations. J Bus Res 60:539–548

International Coffee Organization (ICO) (2014) Exporting countries:total production. http://www.ico.org/prices/po.htm. Accessed 16Feb 2014

Karnataka Planters’ Association (2015). Personal communicationKjellberg H, Helgesson CF (2007) On the nature of markets and their

practices. Market Theory 7(2):137–162Kleemann L, Abdulai A, Buss M (2014) Certification and access to

export markets: adoption and return on investment of organic-certified pineapple farming in Ghana. World Dev 64:79–92

Kolk A (2013) Mainstreaming sustainable coffee. Sustainable Dev 21(5):324–337

Konefal J, Hatanaka M (2011) Enacting third-party certification: a casestudy of science and politics in organic shrimp certification. JRural Stud 27(2):125–133

Latour B (1999) Pandora's hope: essays on the reality of science stu-dies. Harvard University Press

Levy D, Reinecke J, Manning S (2016) The political dynamics ofsustainable coffee: contested value regimes and the transforma-tion of sustainability. Journal of Management Studies 53(3):364–401

Mas AH, Dietsch TV (2004) Linking shade coffee certification tobiodiversity conservation: butterflies and birds in Chiapas,Mexico. Ecol Appl 14(3):642–654

Mason K, Spring M (2011) The sites and practices of business models.Ind Market Manag 40(6):1032–1041

Mason K, Kjellberg H, Hagberg J (2015) Exploring the performativityof marketing: theories, practices and devices. J Market Manag 31(1-2):1–15

Muradian R, Pelupessy W (2005) Governing the coffee chain: the roleof voluntary regulatory systems. World Dev 33(12):2029–2044

Muniesa F, Millo Y, Callon M (2007) An introduction to marketdevices. Sociol Rev 55(s2):1–12

Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca G, Kent J(2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature403:853–858

Neilson J (2008a) Environmental governance in the coffee forests ofKodagu, South India. Transform Cult eJournal 3(1):185–195

Neilson J (2008b) Global private regulation and value-chain restruc-turing in Indonesian smallholder coffee systems. World Dev 36(9):1607–1622

Neilson J, Pritchard B (2007) Green coffee? The contradictions ofglobal sustainability initiatives from an Indian perspective. DevPolicy Rev 25(3):311–331

Neyland D, Simakova E (2010) Trading bads and goods: marketpractices in fair trade. Reconnecting marketing to markets. In:Araujo L, Finch JH, Kjellberg H (eds) Oxford University Press,Oxford, pp 204–223

Noblet CL, Teisl MF (2015) 19. Eco-labelling as sustainable con-sumption policy. In: Reisch LA, Thorgersen J (eds) Handbook ofresearch on sustainable consumption. Edward Elgar Publishing,Cheltenham, UK, p 300

Normann R (1977) Management for growth. John Wiley & Sons,New York

Normann R (2001) Reframing business: when the map changes thelandscape. Wiley, Chichester, UK

Onyas WI, Ryan A (2015a) Agencing markets: actualizing ongoingmarket innovation. Ind Market Manag 44:13–21

Onyas WI, Ryan A (2015b) Exploring the brand’s world-as-assem-blage: the brand as a market shaping device. J Market Manag 31(1-2):141–166

Osmundsvåg I (2010) Fairtrade Max Havelaar Norway: the Norwegianlabelling organisation for fair trade. In: Tischner U, Stø E,Kjærnes U, Tukker A (eds) System innovation for sustainability3. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, UK, pp 176–191

Philpott SM, Bichier P, Rice R, Greenberg R (2007) Field‐testingecological and economic benefits of coffee certification programs.Conserv Biol 21(4):975–985

Perfecto I, Vandermeer J, Mas A, Pinto LS (2005) Biodiversity, yield,and shade coffee certification. Ecol Econ 54(4):435–446

Ponte S (2002) Brewing a bitter cup? Deregulation, quality and the re-organization of coffee marketing in East Africa. J Agrar Change 2(2):248–272

Ponte S, Gibbon P (2005) Quality standards, conventions and thegovernance of global value chains. Econ Soc 34(1):1–31

Ponte S, Riisgaard L (2011) Competition, “best practices” and exclu-sion in the market for social and environmental standards. In:Ponte S, Gibbon P, Vestergaard J (eds) Govering through stan-dards: orgins, drivers and limitations. Palgrave Macmillan,Hampshire, UK, pp 236–265


http://www.ifpindia.org/Coffeend-nvironmental-ervicesn-he-estern-hats.html

http://www.ifpindia.org/Coffeend-nvironmental-ervicesn-he-estern-hats.html

http://www.ico.org/prices/po.htm

Ponte S, Cheyns E (2013) Voluntary standards, expert knowledge and thegovernance of sustainability networks. Global Netw 13:459–477

Ponte S (2012) The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and themaking of a market for “sustainable fish”. J Agrar Change 12(2–3):300–315

Potts J, Lynch M, Wilkings A, Huppe G, Cunningham M, Voora V(2014) The state of sustainability initiatives review 2014. Interna-tional Institute for Sustainable Development; International Institutefor Environment and Development, Winnipeg, Canada; London

Rainforest Alliance (RA) (2014) Overview coffee and its role in theAmericas. http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/education/documents/conservation-coffee.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2014

Rao V (2011) Impact of Grevillea Robusta composition on birddiversity in coffee plantations in cauvery watershed area of Coorgdistrict. http://www.ifpindia.org/ecrire/upload/eco_projects/Rao%202011.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2014

Rasche A (2015) 22. Voluntary standards as enablers and impedimentsto sustainable consumption. Handbook of Research on Sustain-able Consumption 343

Raynolds L, Murray D, Heller A (2007) Regulating sustainability in thecoffee sector: a comparative analysis of third-party environmentaland social certification initiatives. Agr Hum Values 24:147–163

Reinecke J, Manning S, Von Hagen O (2012) The emergence of astandards market: multiplicity of sustainability standards in theglobal coffee industry. Organ Stud 33(5-6):791–814

Renard M-C (2005) Quality certification, regulation and power in fairtrade. J Rural Stud 21:419–431

Riisgaard L (2009) Global value chains, labor organization and privatesocial standards: Lessons from East African cut flower industries.World Development 37(2):326–340

Ruben R, Zuniga G (2011) How standards compete: comparativeimpact of coffee certification schemes in Northern Nicaragua.Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16(2):98–109

SCAA (2013) Specialty coffee facts & figures, http://www.scaa.org/PDF/resources/facts-and-figures.pdf

Solér C, Baeza J, Svärd C (2015) Construction of silence on issues ofsustainability through branding in the fashion market. Journal ofMarketing Management 31(1–2):219–246

Storbacka K, Nenonen S (2011a) Markets as configurations. Eur JMarket 45(1/2):241–258

Storbacka K, Nenonen S (2011b) Scripting markets: from value pro-positions to market propositions. Ind Market Manag 40(2):255–266

Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN) (2010) Sustainable agriculturestandard. http://sanstandards.org/sitio/subsections/display/9.Accessed 23 Apr 2014

The Coffee Board of India. (2014) About the coffee board. http://www.indiacoffee.org/about-us.html. Accessed 10 May 2014

The Coffee Board of India. (2016) Statistics. http://www.indiacoffee.org/coffee-statistics.html. Accessed 5 Jul 2016

Teuber R (2010) Geographical indications of origin as a tool of pro-duct differentiation: the case of coffee. J Int Food Agribus Market22(3–4):277–298

Tischner U, Kjærnes U (2010) Sustainable consumption and produc-tion in the agriculture and food domain. In: Tischner U, Stø E,Kjærnes U, Tukker A (eds) System innovation for sustainability3. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, UK, pp 6–44

Tovar LG, Martin L, Cruz MAG, Mutersbaugh T (2005) Certifiedorganic agriculture in Mexico: market connections and certificationpractices in large and small producers. J Rural Stud 21:461–474

USPTO (2015) Trademark, patent or copyright, http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics/trademark-patent-or-copyright

UTZ Certified (2015) Code of conduct coffee. https://utzcertified.org/attachments/article/26584874/EN%20-%20Coffee%20Module%20v1.1.pdf. Accessed 27 Aug 2015

Upendranadh C, Subbaiah CA (2012) Small growers and coffeemarketing—issues and perspectives from the field. DiscussionPaper No. 15, Centre for Development Studies, Thir-uvananthapuram, India

Vaast P, Bertrand B, Perriot JJ, Guyot B, Genard M (2006) Fruitthinning and shade improve bean characteristics and beveragequality of coffee (Coffea arabica L.) under optimal conditions. JSci Food Agric 86(2):197–204

Varangis P, Siegel P, Giovannucci D, Lewin B. (2003) Dealing withthe coffee crisis in CentralAmerica: impacts and strategies. WorldBank Policy Research Working Paper 2993

Vellema S, Jansen D, Boselie D (2003) From price to value: newoptions in the global coffee trade. In: Vellema S, Boselie D (eds)Cooperation and competencein global food chains: perspectiveson food quality and safety. Shaker Publishing, Maastricht, TheNetherlands

WTO (1994) Agreement on trade-related aspects ofintellectual prop-erty rights, Annex C, https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04b_e.htm, Downloaded 17 Sep 2015

Yin R (2009) Case study research: design and methods (4th ed.).SAGE Research Methods, London

Zaheer A, Bell GG (2005) Benefiting from network position: firmcapabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic ManageJ 26(9):809–825


http://www.rainforestlliance.org/education/documents/conservationoffee.pdf

http://www.rainforestlliance.org/education/documents/conservationoffee.pdf

http://www.ifpindia.org/ecrire/upload/eco_projects/Rao%202011.pdf

http://www.ifpindia.org/ecrire/upload/eco_projects/Rao%202011.pdf

http://www.scaa.org/PDF/resources/factsndigures.pdf

http://www.scaa.org/PDF/resources/factsndigures.pdf

http://sanstandards.org/sitio/subsections/display/9

http://www.indiacoffee.org/about-s.html

http://www.indiacoffee.org/about-s.html

http://www.indiacoffee.org/coffee-tatistics.html

http://www.indiacoffee.org/coffee-tatistics.html

http://www.uspto.gov/trademarksetting-tarted/trademarkasics/trademark-tentropyright



https://utzcertified.org/attachments/article/26584874/EN%20-20Coffee%20Module%20v1.1.pdf



https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-rips_04b_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-rips_04b_e.htm

how can high-biodiversity coffee make it to the mainstream ... · biodiversity marketing...

Documents