Abstract
Participatory guarantee systems (PGSs) have emerged as a response to exclusion and intermediation processes involving third-party certification, which is currently the only guarantee system recognised by the European Union for organic food. Despite their unofficial recognition, PGSs are developing and generating shared frameworks of action. In this research, through three certification bodies (two public and one private) and eight PGSs in Spain, we investigate the similarities and differences between the procedures and tasks that both systems develop in order to generate trust in the decision-making structures involved and the responsibilities on which they are based. While the overall organisation of the systems is very similar, there are profound differences in their decision-making: their procedures and who participates in them. The differences we highlight lead us to argue that PGSs effectively solve the exclusion problems that third-party certification generates. Specifically, they offer lower costs and more accessible bureaucracy. They also generate and strengthen, through trust-building, the links and processes of local self-management and empowerment. However, developing PGSs demands much time and dedication, and their official regulation is complex, so it is difficult to predict that they will be widely adopted.
Highlights
In recent years, participatory guarantee systems (PGSs) have been the subject of a growing, still emerging, scientific output
Numerous advantages are recognised relative to third-party certification, their lower costs, their simpler administration procedures—which make the mechanisms better adapted to small-scale production—
By identifying the case studies and the variables they incorporate, our results begin to highlight mechanisms shared by all the PGSs analysed, and other mechanisms implemented only by some of the PGS
Summary
Participatory guarantee systems (PGSs) have been the subject of a growing, still emerging, scientific output. Various articles have been published analysing them from the perspective of their operating mechanisms [1–4], their strengths and benefits [4–9], and their weaknesses and challenges [1,2,10–13]. Among the operating mechanisms identified are key factors such as peer review visits and collective decision-making by stakeholders for the endorsement of membership of new entrants to the system. The aspects of their procedures that generate articulation, empower small producers and strengthen the local social fabric. Two of the weaknesses identified are the complexity of their collective procedures and their diversity and heterogeneity. Another is the difficulty of making members participate in the manner required, as is the case in other collective initiatives related to alternative agri-food systems [14]. The literature often highlights problems such as the reliability of these mechanisms and their lack of profile in many countries
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
