Making deforestation risk visible. Discourses on bovine leather supply chain in Brazil

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Large-scale industrial agricultural production and commodity trade are increasingly linked to deforestation and forest degradation in the tropics.

“Large-scale industrial agricultural production and commodity trade are increasingly linked to deforestation and forest degradation in the tropics (Gibbs et al., 2010;Henders et al., 2015;Curtis et al., 2018).”

• cites Gibbs et al., 2010 sourcePartly supported

  The Conclusions link large-scale agro-industrial expansion and commodity markets to tropical deforestation, and the Results report that new agricultural land replaced both intact and disturbed forests. The paper does not establish that commodity trade or industrial agriculture causes forest degradation: it describes the disturbed forests as having been affected previously by logging, shifting cultivation, and other activities. (LLM, conf=0.82)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Henders et al., 2015 sourcePartly supported

  The Introduction says highly mechanized agribusinesses producing for international markets have gained importance in tropical deforestation, and the Conclusion says export production plays an increasing role in tropical land-use change. The paper does not establish the claim’s additional link to forest degradation; its analysis focuses on deforestation and land clearing. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Curtis et al., 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

For supply chains to be transparent requires mechanisms that incorporate both traceability of commodities across the chain and sustainability conditions of traders and suppliers.

“Recent studies argue that for supply chains to be transparent requires mechanisms that incorporate both traceability of commodities across the chain and sustainability conditions of traders and suppliers (Egels-Zandén et al., 2015;Gardner et al., 2018).”

• cites Egels-Zandén et al., 2015 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Gardner et al., 2018 sourceSupported

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Beef, soybeans, palm oil, and timber are considered the 'big four' of forest-risk commodities.

“Beef, soybeans, palm oil, and timber are considered the “big four” of forest-risk commodities (Walker et al., 2013;Pendrill et al., 2019).”

• cites Walker et al., 2013 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Pendrill et al., 2019 sourceSupported

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Transparency is associated with positive outcomes in terms of sustainability, legitimacy, and fairness.

“Respectively, transparency is associated with positive outcomes in terms of sustainability, legitimacy, and fairness.”

• cites Mol, 2010 sourceCould not verify

  The available indexed passages contain the paper’s title, keywords, and citation metadata, but no discussion of outcomes. Searches for sustainability, legitimacy, and fairness found no passage linking transparency to those outcomes, so the claim cannot be verified from our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Fung, 2013 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Mol, 2015 sourcePartly supported

  The Introduction (page unavailable) says value-chain transparency is required to trace and verify sustainability claims, and Section 5 links greater transparency to consumer trust and reputational concerns. The paper does not establish positive outcomes for legitimacy or fairness, so the three-part claim goes beyond its account. (LLM, conf=0.85)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

Transparency does not always lead to the desired positive outcomes and may lead to reverse impacts.

“Transparency does not always lead to the desired positive outcomes and may lead to reverse impacts (Mol, 2010;Garrett et al., 2016;Gardner et al., 2018;van der Ven et al., 2018).”

• cites Mol, 2010 sourceCould not verify

  The available passages contain bibliographic metadata and the title, but no discussion of transparency’s outcomes. Searches for unintended negative consequences and adverse effects returned no substantive passage, so our copy cannot verify the claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Garrett et al., 2016 sourcePartly supported

  The Introduction describes roundtables as transparent but says industry participation may reduce the stringency of their standards. The Limitations section also says certification may have reduced benefits through displacement effects. These passages support the caution that transparency does not guarantee positive outcomes, but they do not say transparency itself causes reverse impacts. (LLM, conf=0.76)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Gardner et al., 2018 sourceSupported

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Transparency has evolved as a key element of environmental governance over the last decades.

“Over the last decades, transparency has evolved as a key element of environmental governance (Fung et al., 2007;Mol, 2010).”

• cites Fung et al., 2007 sourcePartly supported

  The Book description (page not given) describes public disclosure as an approach to governance, supporting the general link between transparency and governance. The available passages do not establish that transparency became a key element of environmental governance over the last decades; searches for environmental governance and environmental disclosure found no such passage. (LLM, conf=0.76)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Mol, 2010 sourceCould not verify

  The available indexed passages contain the paper’s title, keywords and citation metadata, but no substantive discussion of transparency’s role in environmental governance. Searches for its claimed rise in importance over recent decades returned no passage that addresses that point. (LLM, conf=0.75)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

The causal relation between transparency and economic, environmental or social performance is still very difficult to estimate and contingent on where and what kind of undesirable behaviour is being scrutinized.

“The causal relation between transparency and economic, environmental or social performance is still very difficult to estimate (Auld and Gulbrandsen, 2010;Ponte and Gibbon, 2011;Gardner et al., 2018) and contingent on where and what kind of undesirable behaviour is being scrutinized.”

• cites Auld and Gulbrandsen, 2010 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Ponte and Gibbon, 2011Not checked — no full text of the source
• cites Gardner et al., 2018 sourcePartly supported

  In “Information, information transparency, and supply chain governance” (page unavailable), the paper says conceptual understanding of the link between transparency and supply-chain governance remains weak. Its “Impacts of supply chain transparency on environmental and social outcomes” section describes context-dependent trade-offs, but does not specifically say that the causal effect on economic, environmental, or social performance is very difficult to estimate. (LLM, conf=0.77)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

While the role of cattle in deforestation is subject to increased public scrutiny, the leather commodity chain has remained less visible until recently.

“While the role of cattle in deforestation is subject to increased public scrutiny (Nepstad et al., 2006;Godar et al., 2012;Gibbs et al., 2016), the leather commodity chain has remained less visible until recently.”

• cites Nepstad et al., 2006 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Godar et al., 2012 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Gibbs et al., 2016 sourceSupported

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Deforestation risk affects other commodities such as leather.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

For supply chains, the extent to which transparency leads to sustainability outcomes is particularly contested in cases of leakage, scope, and level of traceability.

“For supply chains, the extent to which transparency leads to sustainability outcomes is particularly contested in cases of leakage, scope, and level of traceability (Mason, 2008;Mol, 2010).”

• cites Mason, 2008 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Mol, 2010 sourceCould not verify

  Our indexed copy contains bibliographic metadata under the Abstract label, but no substantive passage about supply chains or sustainability outcomes. Searches for leakage, scope, and traceability found no passage that could verify the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

Supply chain transparency information is usually made public in a complex, abstract and vague manner, which can obscure the ability and willingness of individual users to interpret given information accurately and act accordingly.

“Second, supply chain transparency information is usually made public in a complex, abstract and vague manner.This can obscure the ability and willingness of individual users to interpret given information accurately and act accordingly (Dingwerth and Eichinger, 2010).”

• cites Dingwerth and Eichinger, 2010 sourcePartly supported

  The Conclusion (page not available in our copy) says automotive-sector GRI reports contain information that is often incomparable, largely incomprehensible, and of limited value to readers. That supports the concern about users interpreting and using disclosures, but the paper does not establish that supply-chain transparency information is usually presented in a complex, abstract, and vague manner or that it reduces individual users’ willingness to act. (LLM, conf=0.85)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

Civil society pressure to abandon unsustainable practices may lead buyers to change suppliers but not to address the core problem, creating leakage of unsustainable operations elsewhere.

“In the case of leakage, civil society pressure to abandon unsustainable practices may for example lead buyers to change suppliers but not to address the core problem.This creates the so-called effect of leakage of unsustainable operations to be carried on somewhere else (Henders and Ostwald, 2014;Garrett et al., 2016;Gibbs et al., 2016;Alix-Garcia and Gibbs, 2017).”

• cites Henders and Ostwald, 2014 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Garrett et al., 2016 sourcePartly supported

  Section 6.1 (page unavailable) says environmental groups pressure oilseed traders to eliminate deforestation from supply chains and that soy traders can reduce reputational risk by sourcing more soy from temperate regions. It does not say that unsustainable production consequently continues elsewhere or identify this supplier shift as leakage. (LLM, conf=0.83)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Gibbs et al., 2016 sourceSupported

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Three important dimensions of legitimacy are legality, justification, and consent.

“Three important dimensions of legitimacy are legality, justification, and consent (Behagel and Turnhout, 2011;Schouten andGlasbergen, 2011, Beetham, 1991).”

• cites Behagel and Turnhout, 2011 sourceCould not verify

  The available indexed passages contain the paper’s title and bibliographic information, but do not discuss dimensions of legitimacy. Searches for “legality justification consent” and related legitimacy terms found no passage establishing the claimed three dimensions. (LLM, conf=0.76)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Schouten andGlasbergen, 2011Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Beetham, 1991 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

In addition to a livelihood, cattle ranching has become an activity involved in land grabbing (grilagem) and land speculation.

“Thus, in addition to a livelihood, cattle ranching has become an activity involved in land grabbing (grilagem) and land speculation (Bowman et al., 2012;Pereira et al., 2016).”

• cites Bowman et al., 2012 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Pereira et al., 2016 sourcePartly supported

  Section 1.1, “Cattle and Agrarian Reform,” links cattle ranching to violent appropriation of smallholders’ land by largeholders. The Conclusions also describe a possible form of land grab through exploitative cattle-production contracts. The paper supports the livelihood and land-grabbing aspects, but the passages do not establish land speculation or specifically identify the practice as grilagem. (LLM, conf=0.85)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The political legitimacy of zero gross deforestation is undermined by claims that it goes against international standards of sovereignty that countries have over their own territories.

“The political legitimacy of zero gross deforestation is further undermined by claims that it serves the agenda of foreign countries and private funds averse to Brazil developing as an economic power and that it goes against international standards of sovereignty that countries have over their own territories (MacDonald, 2003).”

• cites MacDonald, 2003Could not verify

  The Institutional Legitimacy and protected-areas sections discuss the legitimacy of conservation efforts in local communities, not zero gross deforestation or Brazil. Searches for zero gross deforestation, Brazil, foreign funding, and international sovereignty standards found no passage addressing the attributed claim. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The political legitimacy of zero gross deforestation is undermined by claims that it serves the agenda of foreign countries and private funds averse to Brazil developing as an economic power.

“The political legitimacy of zero gross deforestation is further undermined by claims that it serves the agenda of foreign countries and private funds averse to Brazil developing as an economic power and that it goes against international standards of sovereignty that countries have over their own territories (MacDonald, 2003).”

• cites MacDonald, 2003Could not verify

  The 'Defining Conservation' section discusses international NGOs and struggles over sovereignty, but does not address zero gross deforestation in Brazil or claims that foreign countries and private funds oppose Brazil’s economic development. Searches for those specific terms and the alleged agenda found no passage supporting the attributed claim; no page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The importance of including local livelihoods in the articulation of international forest policy has been taken up in public debates about policy instruments such as REDD+.

“While the importance of including local livelihoods in the articulation of international forest policy has been taken up in public debates about policy instruments such as REDD+ (Agrawal and Angelsen, 2009;den Besten et al., 2019), such debates are less visible for supply chain governance.”

• cites Agrawal and Angelsen, 2009Not checked — no full text of the source
• cites den Besten et al., 2019 sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

The role and voice of frontier settlers is important, and their storylines inform a political discourse on livelihoods.

“Moreover, the results emphasise the importance of the role and voice of frontier settlers, by presenting how their storylines inform a political discourse on livelihoods.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: A systematic and comparative review of actors, coalitions and their discourses in the leather supply chain is mostly absent in academic literature.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The identified discourses are still relevant and enduring till today despite changes in official rhetoric and strategies of the new government.

May combine two claims.

The results show how political discourses on deforestation risk and transparency affect decisions over what is made visible in the supply chain and how sustainability, legitimacy, and fairness are actually achieved or not.

“The results show how political discourses on deforestation risk and transparency affect decisions over what is made visible in the supply chain and how sustainability, legitimacy, and fairness are actually achieved or not.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: A systematic and comparative review of actors, coalitions and their discourses in the leather supply chain is mostly absent in academic literature.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The identified discourses are still relevant and enduring till today despite changes in official rhetoric and strategies of the new government.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The Zero deforestation discourse includes three storylines: the possibility of a tipping point of the Amazon biome, robust measures for forest protection, and the danger of reverse incentives.

“It includes the storylines of a) the possibility of a 'tipping point' of the Amazon biome, b) robust measures for forest protection, and c) the danger of reverse incentives.”

May combine two claims.

The three discourses all include references to sustainability, legitimacy, and fairness, but highlight different dimensions of these concepts.

“The three discourses discussed above all include references to sustainability, legitimacy, and fairness, of which they highlight different dimensions.”

May combine two claims.

The Livelihoods discourse includes three storylines: socio-economic factors cause deforestation, land tenure is at the core of deforestation issues, and a preference for finding local solutions.

“While they do not necessarily share deep social and environmental values, their interpretations of certain events and realities come together in storylines a) how socio-economic-factors cause deforestation, b) that land tenure is at the core of the deforestation issues, and c) that express a preference for finding local solutions.”

May combine two claims.

The Order and Progress discourse focuses on the need to recognize Brazil as an important producer of agriculture products and seeks recognition for efforts to achieve good environmental governance.

“While the Order and Progress discourse focuses on the need to recognize Brazil as an important producer of agriculture products, it also seeks recognition for the efforts made to achieve good environmental governance.”

May combine two claims.

The Order and Progress discourse includes three storylines: Brazil as a green producer, sustainability as legality, and common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR).

“By representing a dominant discourse in public debates around development of the Amazon, it has historically developed to include the storylines of a) Brazil as a green producer, b) sustainability as legality, c) common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR).”

May combine two claims.

The Order and Progress discourse is institutionalized in many policies and policy instruments, and its supporters include major government agencies, producer associations, roundtables, and the private sector.

“This discourse is institutionalized in many policies and policy instruments.The coalition of its supporters consists of major government agencies, producer associations, roundtables, and the private sector in general.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The Order and Progress discourse's sustainability-as-legality storyline argues that sustainability equals legality and that Brazil has one of the most robust environmental legislations in the world.

“The idea behind the storyline that sustainability equals legality is that Brazil has one of the most robust environmental legislations in the world.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The Zero Deforestation discourse's second storyline argues for robust and beyond-current-legality measures to protect the forests.

“The second storyline of the Zero Deforestation discourse argues for robust and beyond-current-legality measures to protect the forests.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The Order and Progress discourse's green production storyline argues that Brazil should be applauded for securing its position as an important producer and exporter of agriculture products while allocating 30% of its territory for conservation and indigenous territories.

“The storyline of green production argues that Brazil should be applauded for managing to secure its position as an important producer and exporter of agriculture products while allocating 30% of its territory for conservation and indigenous territories.”

May combine two claims.

The Zero Deforestation discourse frames sustainability with emphasis on environmental aspects and frames sustainable supply chains as deforestation and land-conversion free.

“Finally, the framing of sustainability by the Zero Deforestation discourse puts a lot of emphasis on environmental aspects and sustainable supply chains are framed as deforestation and landconversion free.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The Livelihoods discourse's central storyline is that historical and structural socio-economic factors lead to deforestation.

“The central storyline of the discourse is that historical and structural socio-economic factors lead to deforestation.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The Livelihoods discourse's second storyline frames land tenure as at the core of deforestation.

“The second storyline of the Livelihoods discourse frames land tenure as at the core of the deforestation.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The Order and Progress discourse's CBDR storyline argues that developed countries have exploited their rights to deforest and develop while the same rights are being denied to Brazil.

“The third storyline of Order and Progress discourse focuses on common but differentiated responsibilities.It argues that developed countries have exploited their rights to deforest and develop, while the same rights are being denied to Brazil.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The Zero Deforestation discourse's first storyline concerns a tipping point of Amazonian deforestation.

“The first storyline is about the concern around a tipping point of Amazonian deforestation.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The Order and Progress discourse holds that third-party actors have no legitimate power to require zero legal deforestation from farmers.

“This type of legitimacy is however challenged by the Order and Progress discourse based on an understanding legitimacy as legality -zero legal deforestation is not a requirement by law and third-party actors have no legitimate power to require that from farmers.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

In the Zero Deforestation discourse, more transparency and traceability are considered an appropriate tool for deforestation-free commodity supply chains.

“More transparency and traceability are therefore considered as an appropriate tool for deforestation free commodity supply chains.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The Order and Progress discourse challenges the legitimacy of zero deforestation based on an understanding of legitimacy as legality.

“This type of legitimacy is however challenged by the Order and Progress discourse based on an understanding legitimacy as legality -zero legal deforestation is not a requirement by law and third-party actors have no legitimate power to require that from farmers.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The Zero Deforestation discourse's third storyline is framed around the danger of reverse incentives through compensation, premium prices, and intensification of production.

“The third storyline of this discourse is framed around the danger of reverse incentives through compensation, premium prices and intensification of the production.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

In the Zero Deforestation discourse, legitimacy means effectively conserving the Amazon.

“Legitimacy, for the Zero Deforestation discourse, means to effectively conserve the Amazon.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Within cattle supply chains, tracing indirect suppliers (second or third tier calf suppliers) or making GTAs publicly available could achieve more transparency and traceability.

“Within cattle supply chains this could be achieved through tracing indirect suppliers (second or third tier calf suppliers) or by making GTAs publicly available.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In the Livelihoods discourse, consent to give away the right to deforest 20% can only be reached upon agreement and compensation.

“It is farmers' right to deforest 20% of the forest within their private properties (in the Amazon biome) and consenting to give away that right can only be reached upon agreement and compensation.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In the Livelihoods discourse, farmers have the right to deforest 20% of the forest within their private properties in the Amazon biome.

“It is farmers' right to deforest 20% of the forest within their private properties (in the Amazon biome) and consenting to give away that right can only be reached upon agreement and compensation.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

A fairer distribution of benefits and responsibilities is considered the purpose of transparency in all discourses.

“A fairer distribution of benefits and responsibilities is considered the purpose of transparency in all discourses.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The discourse coalition invokes fictional storylines of global conspiracies against the economic development of Brazil.

“This is especially valid when compared to the discourse coalition that invokes fictional storylines of global conspiracies against the economic development of Brazil.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Sustainable supply chain management is a response of commodity markets to societal pressure by NGOs and civil society to reduce socio-environmental impacts of business operations.

“Specifically, sustainable supply chain management is a response of commodity markets to societal pressure by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society to reduce socio-environmental impacts of business operations (Gereffi et al., 2005).”

• cites Gereffi et al., 2005 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Which actors have access to information and how they can use that information to give or withhold consent for certain activities affects legitimacy.

“Finally, which actors have access to information and how they can use that information to give or withhold consent for certain activities also affects legitimacy.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Transparency is relevant to each of the three dimensions of legitimacy.

“Transparency is relevant to each of the three dimensions of legitimacy.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

This power imbalance impacts fair benefit sharing, as price margins are usually higher towards the end of the supply chain.

“This power imbalance impacts fair benefit sharing as well, as price margins are usually higher towards the end of the supply chain.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The data collection was conducted before the change in federal government in Brazil in 2018 and the presented results reflect the context of pre-election period.

“The data collection was conducted before the change in federal government in Brazil in 2018 and the presented results reflect the context of pre-election period.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The collected qualitative data entail thirty-nine semi-structured, recorded, and transcribed interviews, in the form of face-to-face (thirty-one) and videocall (eight) interviews.

“The collected qualitative data entail thirty-nine semi-structured, recorded, and transcribed interviews, in the form of face-to-face (thirty-one) and videocall (eight) interviews.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Deforestation associated with cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon has developed as a result of a historical trajectory of socioeconomic and political processes within the country.

“Deforestation associated with cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon has developed as a result of a historical trajectory of socioeconomic and political processes within the country.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

A nonprobability sampling approach was used to cover those with important information power.

“Given the vast territory of Brazil, as well as the diversity and extensive number of stakeholders involved, we aimed to use a nonprobability sampling approach that allow covering those with important information power (Malterud et al., 2016).”

• cites Malterud et al., 2016 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The quotes from the interviews are kept anonymous to protect economically, socially, and/or politically vulnerable respondents.

“The quotes from the interviews are kept anonymous to protect economically, socially, and/or politically vulnerable respondents.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

All interviewees gave informed, prior and written consent to be recorded for the purpose of this research.

“All interviewees gave informed, prior and written consent to be recorded for the purpose of this research.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Actors can be part of a discourse coalition without necessarily sharing deep values or core beliefs.

“Indeed, discourse analysis demonstrates that actors can be part of a discourse coalition without necessarily sharing deep values or core beliefs (Hajer et al., 2006).”

• cites Hajer et al., 2006Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Discourse coalitions do not possess rigid boundaries and coalition members might travel from one discourse to another across storylines, even though antagonistic relations often prevent this.

“An important general point of reflection that the results did not show very clearly is that discourse coalitions do not possess rigid boundaries and that coalition members might travel from one discourse to another across storylines, even though antagonistic relations between different discourses often prevent this from occurring.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

The sustainable supply chain is not just an economic or managerial term, but also a political one.

“The sustainable supply chain is not just an economic or managerial term, but also a political one.”

May combine two claims.

Farmers may be responsible for deforestation, but they make certain reasonable claims to legitimacy and fairness when they emphasize land ownership and historical injustice.

“While farmers may be responsible for deforestation, they do make certain reasonable claims to legitimacy and fairness, when they emphasize land ownership and historical injustice.”

May combine two claims.

Zero deforestation requirements and boycotts in Para have resulted in a lack of trust and ownership around zero deforestation commitments by local farmers, who consider themselves sandwiched between discourses of government, agricultural lobby, global food markets, and environmental NGOs.

“This has resulted in a lack of trust and ownership around zero deforestation commitments by local farmers as they consider themselves”

May combine two claims.

Greater traceability at the upstream of the leather supply chain may have negative implications for the fairness of policy interventions and result in ineffective policies that shift the problem to vulnerable actors rather than solve it.

“Our analysis however showed that this may have negative implications for the fairness of policy interventions and result in ineffective policies that shift the problem to vulnerable actors rather than solve it.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Discounting current efforts could add justification to claims that an environmentalist agenda is being used to slow down Brazil's development by 'kicking away the ladder'.

“Moreover, discounting current efforts could add justification to claims that an environmentalist agenda is being used to slow down Brazil's development by 'kicking away the ladder' (Chang, 2003).”

• cites Chang, 2003 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Transparency is a pre-requisite for sustainability.

“Even so, our analysis also leads us to believe that transparency is a pre-requisite for sustainability.”

May combine two claims.

Visibility without further engagement and investment causes actors to become economically or politically vulnerable and erodes trust in the system, thus jeopardizing the success of zero deforestation commitments.

“Visibility without further engagement and investment causes actors to become economically or politically vulnerable and erodes trust in the system, thus jeopardizing the success of zero deforestation commitments.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

The possible success of zero deforestation strategies for the Brazilian leather supply chain will largely depend on the ability to consider the arguments of all three discourses.

“We argue that the possible success of zero deforestation strategies for the Brazilian leather supply chain will largely depend on the ability to consider the arguments of all three discourses.”