Against a backdrop of increasing political, economic, and ecological volatility, participatory governance could provide a valuable mechanism to counteract democratic backsliding caused by unchecked power and regulatory capture. Food systems in particular are a site where many interests and sectors converge—including health, agriculture, land use, labor, environment, and climate change—and where there has been increasing interest and experimentation in forms of participatory governance. This research uses the example of the organic standards governance process to understand how governance structures can enable transitions to more sustainable and just systems (including but not limited to food systems), and what we can learn from existing participatory governance approaches about how to govern complex systems in a collaborative and inclusive way. We conducted 20 semi‐structured interviews with individuals who have participated in recent organic standards review processes and analyzed key documents to characterize the sources and arenas of power at play. We found that formal authority and discursive legitimacy are enabling some participants to maintain influence at a time when increasing professionalization and resource‐based power would otherwise dominate the process. In particular, the processes in place to ensure opportunities for public comment, diverse sector representation, and limited political influence all contribute to a collaborative, participatory process. At the same time, the organic sector is facing significant challenges due to the high costs of administering such a labor‐intensive process, a lack of consistent funding, and the imminent closure of the Canadian General Standards Board as an institutional structure to support the organic standards review process. Despite these challenges, the governance of the Canadian organic standards has been a robust and unique instance of participatory governance that merits continued support.
This article analyses the documentary institutional architecture of community social services in Spain through a comparative study of 15 autonomous communities, with particular attention to the formal conditions of institutional sustainability. Its aim is to examine how multilevel governance, digitalisation and institutional resilience are articulated in the regional configuration of the system. To this end, a documentary corpus was constructed from three official primary sources: regional social services laws, catalogues or portfolios of benefits and services, and current strategic plans or equivalent instruments. The findings suggest that, at the documentary level, territorial variation is not explained solely by the age of the framework law, but rather by the degree of institutional closure achieved among regulation, the specification of benefits and services, and strategic planning. Autonomous communities with a more complete law–catalogue–plan sequence display more consistent institutional architectures, whereas deficits in any of these links increase documentary and strategic fragmentation. Likewise, digitalisation appears uneven across territories, and its institutional usefulness depends on whether digital tools are integrated into shared information systems and accessible to both professionals and citizens. Institutional resilience is examined through documentary markers such as planning, evaluation, coordination, organisational learning and adaptation mechanisms. The article concludes that, from a documentary institutional perspective, community social services appear more robust when regulation, planning, digital tools and multilevel coordination are articulated in a coherent and stable way.