Given the increasing global demand for sustainable agricultural practices, there is a growing need to evaluate the effectiveness of governance mechanisms. This paper presents a case study analysis of voluntary sustainability standards (VSS) and their impact on maintaining soil health in the context of soybean production, specifically in the Brazilian Savannah (Cerrado biome). The sustainability of soybean production certified by VSS ProTerra and Roundtable on Responsible Soy was evaluated on 35 farms, considering factors such as land use, deforestation, cultivation methods, pesticide usage, and their effects on soil health. The assessment of these factors was conducted through a comprehensive methodology that included field visits, soil sampling and laboratory analysis, remote sensing techniques using satellite imagery, and structured interviews with farm managers. VSS are private governance mechanisms that establish quality standards to be followed in various areas. The study shows that the standards are generally respected on certified farms and, in particular, excluding deforestation. The VSS promote incremental improvements within the overall context of large-scale, business-as-usual agriculture by promoting practices that enhance soil fertility, reduce erosion, and optimise input use. These actions can contribute to stronger soil health, boosting resilience, and productivity. The urgency of reconciling food production with climate change mitigation and adaptation will increase interest in and demand for sustainable agriculture certification in the coming decades. Therefore, the monitoring and verification of the effectiveness of those standards, as shown in our study, are fundamental to provide true benefits, transparency, and confidence to the market.

The Supreme Court’s decision 2024 in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo to overturn the Chevron doctrine, which required Federal Courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous laws, along with other decisions challenging the decisions of regulatory agencies, marks a significant shift in healthcare regulatory oversight and compliance. This article takes this shift as an opportunity to examine the evolution of healthcare compliance education in U.S. law schools and consider how it should evolve to meet new demands. Through analysis of existing J.D. programs, master’s degrees, and certificate programs in healthcare compliance, the article explores how law schools are already adapting to meet industry demands while distinguishing between programs designed for licensed attorneys and those for non-lawyer compliance professionals. The article highlights the role of external accreditation by the Compliance Certification Board (CCB) and clarifies the distinction between “certification” awarded through examination and “educational certificates” awarded by institutions. In light of the ironically almost total lack of regulatory attention to these programs from the Council on Legal Education that sets standards for law school J.D. programs, the article advocates for greater transparency in program outcomes and improved data collection regarding graduate career trajectories. It also addresses an often forgotten population, lawyers interested in changing practice areas at different stages of their careers. It concludes with recommendations for law schools to enhance their role in preparing both lawyers and compliance professionals for a post-Chevron regulatory environment, emphasizing the need for better tracking of program effectiveness and graduate outcomes to inform curriculum development and career pathways in healthcare compliance.

The proposal for a European Health Data Space aims at creating a common space where individuals may control their health data in a trusted and secure way. The objective is not only improving healthcare delivery, but also enhancing the opportunities to use health data for research and innovation. To achieve these results, the proposal implements a mandatory self-certification scheme for European health records systems as well as for wellness devices and applications, setting up essential requirements related to interoperability and security. Although this is the first intervention that sets a horizontal framework that is mandatory for all Member States, the security requirements that are included in the legislative proposal are not sufficiently detailed and comprehensive. Given that cyberthreats are increasing and security incidents affecting health data may potentially have an impact on the lives of patients, it is important that cybersecurity measures are adopted and implemented in the most effective way. The paper will analyse the European Health Data Space proposal pointing to the open issues and doubts that may be emerging and it will compare them with the proposed Cyber Resilience Act, identifying the issues that may be solved thanks to this horizontal regulation and the ones that instead remain open.

This article systematically evaluates whether, how, and to what extent twelve prominent forestry and fisheries certification schemes address human rights in their standards. In line with the broader cross-fertilization of the fields of international human rights and environmental law and policy, our results demonstrate that human rights norms and considerations – primarily Indigenous, labour, and procedural rights – are increasingly reflected in the rulemaking of these schemes. At the same time, our analysis also demonstrates the mixed and underwhelming performance of certification standards in protecting human rights norms, including those relating to women, children, racialized and ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, workers, 2SLGBTQIA+ communities, and peasants and rural peoples. Through descriptive statistics, we also show that levels of human rights adherence vary significantly across schemes and that standards developed in the forestry sector tend to outperform those for fisheries. Our methodology and results add a new dimension to efforts to assess the stringency, equity, and legitimacy of private authority in the environmental field.

Animal welfare assessment at group level is a scientific discipline that is rapidly developing. The interest in welfare assessment systems is based on an ethical concern for the welfare of farm animals. The scientific community plays an important role in delivering an appropriate repeatable, valid and feasible framework for these assessments. Consideration of the potential applications of these techniques is important for deciding upon the requirements of specific assessment systems. This paper provides a brief overview of the different types of applications, which can be categorised broadly into research, legislative requirements (non-voluntary), certification systems (voluntary) and advisory/management tools. These applications may have various goals: quantification of welfare, provision of welfare assurance or welfare management. Assessment systems vary in many characteristics, such as whether they are animal- or resource-based, and whether they are based on single or integrated scores. Different applications will require different elements of these features.

Much development work has already been done by the industry and the competent authorities in countries exporting meat to the EU, and these countries are well on their way to satisfying the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009. The major problem for animal welfare was that the electrical parameters used for water-bath stunning of poultry were not set at levels which ensured that birds were effectively stunned. In addition, there are meat quality issues when higher currents are used. Other areas to be further developed include clarification and formalisation of the tasks of the Animal Welfare Officer; certifying competence of the relevant staff; adapting and improving or completing the existing standard operating procedures. Several countries need to make changes to their transport/delivery practices or to the arrangements for accommodating animals, so that they respect the requirement to feed and bed animals if not slaughtered within 12 hours of their arrival at the slaughterhouse.

Regarding broilers, Brazil is the third largest producer and the leading chicken meat exporter in the world. Independent certifications are required by some importers in the European Union (EU) to guarantee compliance with minimum welfare requirements. Our objective was to compare broiler chicken welfare in GLOBALGAP® certified (C) and non-certified (N) intensive farms in the State of Paraná, Brazil, using the Welfare Quality® protocol. Ten farms in each group were evaluated and data were transformed using scores that ranged from 0 to 100, where 100 is the best condition. Results suggested that farms adhered to minimum welfare standards, regardless of certification and that the adoption of standards based on overseas rules may have limitations for the improvement of animal welfare. In order to further improve broiler welfare in Brazil, more rigorous standards should be developed.

Animal welfare is multidimensional; its assessment relies on complementary measures covering all dimensions. Welfare Quality® constructed a multicriteria evaluation model for its assessment at unit level (farms, slaughterhouses). Four welfare principles are distinguished (‘Good feeding’, ‘Good housing’, ‘Good health’, and ‘Appropriate behaviour’). An animal unit receives four principle scores (expressed on a 0-100 value scale). These scores are aggregated together to form the overall assessment by sorting animal units into predefined welfare categories boundaried by reference profiles. A unit is assigned to the welfare category above the profile it is considered at least as good as. Several assignment procedures were tested on a set of 69 dairy farms and compared with observers’ general impressions. The welfare categories, reference profiles and assignment procedure were defined in consultation with social scientists, animal scientists and stakeholders. Four welfare categories were defined: ‘Excellent’, ‘Enhanced’, ‘Acceptable’, and ‘Not classified’. The reference profiles were set at 80, 55 and 20, corresponding to aspiration values for Excellent, Enhanced and Acceptable. The assignment procedure resulted from a compromise between theoretical opinion on what should be considered excellent, enhanced or acceptable, and what can realistically be achieved in practice: to be assigned to a given category, a unit must reach its aspiration value on 2 or 3 of the 4 principles, and not score below the aspiration value for the next lowest category on the other principle(s). The model can be used for several purposes, including identifying welfare problems on a farm to advise farmers, or checking compliance with certification schemes.