Table 1.

Matrix proposed to analyse global sustainability governance based on Cadman and ISEAL conceptions

Criterion	Indicator	Parameter	FT Organisation to be analysed
			FI	WFTO	FT USA
Interest representation [Score 0 for No and 1 for Yes]	Inclusiveness [“participatory practices in place, how stakeholders/interested parties may participate/influence the decision making” ([29], p. 47)]	(A) All stakeholders may participate of decision making?
		(B) How may stakeholders participate of decision making: agreement?
	Equality [“the number of actors affected and their active participation, the weight, and the extent to which influence is equally distributed” ([29], p. 48)]	(C) Participation of members by geographical location? Does it include the 5 continents?
		(D) How is the distribution by geographical location?
		(E) How participation of small producers, advocacy groups? How are board members are distributed? Equally?
		(F) A person = A vote?
	Resources [“provisions to enable (producers) participation, such as money and expertise to allow for training that increase participants skills and confidence” ([29], p. 50–51)]	(G) Funds provided to small producers?
		(H) Foreseeable conflict of interest on who provides the funds are reported?
		(I) Training for capacity building in place?
Organisational responsibility [Score 0 for No and 1 for Yes]	Accountability [“is a central aspect of the quality of governance” ([29], p. 50) “and is enabled by transparency” ([29], p. 51)]	(J) Information on how the system operates?
		(K) Information on how the system is governed?
		(L) Standards systems inform the development and content of the standard?
		(M) Information on who is evaluated and under what process?
		(N) Information on which ways stakeholders can engage? [53, p. 9]
	Transparency [“public access to information and decision making procedures” ([29], p. 51)]	(O) Information is easily available? [53]
		(P) How is information made available: free and online (this opposes information available only upon request) [53]?
		(Q) Are there mechanisms in place to “encourage stakeholders, peers and the scientific community to scrutinise results and findings” [53, p. 23]?
Decision making [Score 0 for No and 1 for Yes] The parameter R (aggregative) is the only one in this matrix that has scores inverted, given that in the theoretical approach adopted, the best solution is a deliberative one	Democracy [Score 0 for Yes and 1 for No]	(R) Aggregative?
	Agreement [Score 0 for No and 1 for Yes]	(S) Deliberative?
	Dispute settlement [Score 0 for No and 1 for Yes]	(T) Is there a mechanism in place when agreement is not reached?

Source: Cadman [17, 29] and ISEAL [53, 54] adapted with respective definitions and score attributes for assessment added