Long-Term Goals and Shifting Power Structures: A Convention-Based View

  • Francois DuhamelEmail author
  • Sergio Picazo-Vela
  • Isis Gutiérrez-Martínez
  • Luis F. Luna-Reyes
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 26)


Sharing information in supply chains may prompt conflicts of interest among stakeholders, presenting a challenge for achieving the long-term goals associated with platforms such as I-Choose. In this chapter, we analyze such potential conflicts and possible ways to overcome them, on the basis of convention theory and as a result of case studies. Through semistructured interviews with stakeholders of the coffee supply chain in the NAFTA region, we found the presence of four worlds, or “orders of worth”: the domestic, civic, market, and industrial worlds, according to the terminology of convention theory. Our empirical work shows that in practice, supply chain participants can be characterized by a combination of at least two of such views. We also specify the conditions that make different supply chain configurations and set of values more or less amenable to the changes implied in the disclosure of private information that the I-Choose platform requires. In the conclusion of this chapter, we draw policy implications to design the right incentives to the private sector to enhance public value.


Certification Coffee supply chain Convention theory Controversies NAFTA 


  1. Biggart, N. W., & Beamish, T. D. (2003). The economic sociology of conventions: Habit, custom, practice, and routine in market order. Annual Review of Sociology, 29(1), 443–464. Scholar
  2. Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. (Catherine Porter, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Darby, M. R., & Karni, E. (1973). Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. Journal of Law and Economics, 16(1), 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eymard-Duvernay, F. (1989). Conventions de qualité et formes de coordination. Revue Économique, 40(2), 329–359.Google Scholar
  5. Fridell, G. (2007). Fair trade coffee: The prospects and pitfalls of market-driven social justice (Repr.). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  6. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), 78–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gond, J. P., & Leca, B. (2012). Theorizing change in a pluralistic institutional context: What can economies of worth and new-institutionalism learn from each other? Lille Economie & Management-LEM, Working Paper no. 15, 53 p.Google Scholar
  9. Greenwood, R., Díaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. (2010). The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21(2), 521–539. Scholar
  10. Hatanaka, M., Bain, C., & Busch, L. (2005). Third-party certification in the global agrifood system. Food Policy, 30(3), 354–369. Scholar
  11. Kim, G.-S., Lee, G. Y., & Park, K. (2010). A cross-national investigation on how ethical consumers build loyalty toward fair trade brands. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(4), 589–611. Scholar
  12. Macdonald, K. (2007). Globalising justice within coffee supply chains? Fair trade, Starbucks and the transformation of supply chain governance. Third World Quarterly, 28(4), 793–812. Scholar
  13. Marquis, C., & Lounsbury, M. (2007). Vive La Résistance: Competing logics and the consolidation of U.S. community banking. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 799–820. Scholar
  14. Muradian, R., & Pelupessy, W. (2005). Governing the coffee chain: The role of voluntary regulatory systems. World Development, 33(12), 2029–2044. Scholar
  15. Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 78(2), 311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Patriotta, G., Gond, J.-P., & Schultz, F. (2011). Maintaining legitimacy: Controversies, orders of worth, and public justifications: Maintaining legitimacy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1804–1836. Scholar
  17. Ponte, S., & Gibbon, P. (2005). Quality standards, conventions and the governance of global value chains. Economy and Society, 34(1), 1–31. Scholar
  18. Reardon, T., Codron, J. M., Busch, L., Bingen, J., & Harris, C. (2000). Global change in agrifood grades and standards: Agribusiness strategic responses in developing countries. The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 2(3), 421–435.Google Scholar
  19. Renard, M.-C. (2003). Fair trade: Quality, market and conventions. Journal of Rural Studies, 19(1), 87–96. Scholar
  20. Thévenot, L. (2006, July). Institutions and agency: Differentiating regimes of engagement. Presented at the Conference on Economy and Society, Italy.Google Scholar
  21. Thévenot, L. (2007). The plurality of cognitive formats and engagements moving between the familiar and the public. European Journal of Social Theory, 10(3), 409–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843. Scholar
  23. Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–129). Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Weber, K., Patel, H., & Heinze, K. L. (2013). From cultural repertoires to institutional logics: A content-analytic method. In M. Lounsbury & E. Boxenbaum (Eds.), Institutional logics in action, part B (Vol. 39, pp. 351–382). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francois Duhamel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sergio Picazo-Vela
    • 2
  • Isis Gutiérrez-Martínez
    • 2
  • Luis F. Luna-Reyes
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Business and Economics, Department of International BusinessUniversidad de las Americas PueblaPueblaMexico
  2. 2.School of Business and Economics, Department of Business AdministrationUniversidad de las Américas PueblaPueblaMexico
  3. 3.Department of InformaticsUniversity at AlbanyAlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations