We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) has evolved into a leading private rule-maker in the field of global food safety. To showcase the evolution of GFSI, we discuss the transitions in its governance structure, its activities and its framing as perceived through the lens of legitimacy. Building and maintaining legitimacy is of vital importance to GFSI. As a transnational private rule-maker, it cannot do without cooperation with other parties. GFSI’s evolution, we argue, has unfolded via processes of pluralisation of its constituents, increased transparency, ratcheting up of food standards’ quality, and globalisation of its benchmarking activities. Despite its growth and the inclusion of other participants in its governance, GFSI has not changed its roots: it remains an industry-led organisation relying on the participation of food safety experts of large food corporations. We will show that many of the changes the organisation has gone through can be interpreted as a response to crises, defined as fundamental objections and doubts voiced by external actors against GFSI or the practice of food certification more generally.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.