Enacting third-party certification: A case study of science and politics in organic shrimp certification Jason Konefal * , Maki Hatanaka 1 Department of Sociology, Sam Houston State University, Box 2446, Huntsville, TX 77341, United States Keywords: Agrifood Third-party certification Organic Shrimp aquaculture Science Indonesia abstract As third-party certification has become a prominent governance mechanism, conflicting under- standings of it have emerged. Proponents advance third-party certification as a technical and objective governance mechanism, while critics argue that politics and relations of power characterize it. We reject this dichotomization both in terms of how TPC is understood, as well as understandings of science and politics. Drawing on science and technology studies, we argue that third-party certifi- cation is simultaneously science-based and political, and that both science and politics entail social and technical practices. Using a case study of an organic shrimp project in Indonesia, we examine the development and enforcement of standards. Three important findings emerge from our analysis. First, the development and enforcement of standards in a third-party certified project is partially dependent on the extent to which the interests and realities of all stakeholders are successfully translated and enrolled. Second, differences between actors in a third-party certified project are not just epistemo- logical, but also ontological. Thus, overcoming differences in TPC entails reconciling not only interests and knowledge, but also material realities. Third, TPC is performative in that if the standards are to be adhered to, enrollment and translation have to be continuous practices. In concluding, we argue that a science and technology analysis points to the need not only to democratize TPC, but also diversify the epistemological basis of standards, and that efforts to ensure compliance need to go beyond audits. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction During the last decade, third-party certification (TPC) has become a prominent mechanism for addressing social and envi- ronmental problems (Béné, 2005; Bernstein and Cashore, 2007; Gunningham et al., 1999; Hatanaka, 2010a). Social movement organizations (SMOs), industry, developmental institutions (e.g., World Bank), and other non-governmental organizations e both collaboratively and independently e have developed standards and TPC mechanisms for an array of social and environmental issues (e.g., farm and sweatshop labor and agricultural, forestry and fishery sustainability). The outcome is that TPC is becoming “the norm in many global industries” (Gereffi et al., 2001). A key driving force behind the increasing use of TPC is its perceived technical and objective character. 2 Specifically, the stan- dard-development process is considered to be democratic, inclusive, and science-based, while audits and certification are understood as objective and transparent. The outcome is scientifically supported and agreed-upon standards that represent best practices, and an unbiased and effective compliance mechanism. However, paral- leling this conventional view of TPC has been more critical under- standings that conceptualize TPC not as a science-based governance mechanism, but as a political and power-laden process (Blowfield and Dolan, 2008; Brown and Getz, 2008; Guthman, 2004; Mutersbaugh, 2005; Ponte, 2007). Put differently, critics argue that understandings of TPC as a science-based governance mechanism obscure the ways that the practices and procedures of TPC privilege some actors and forms of knowledge while marginalizing others. * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 936 294 4542; fax: þ1 936 294 3573. E-mail addresses: jason.konefal@shsu.edu (J. Konefal), maki.hatanaka@shsu.edu (M. Hatanaka). 1 Tel.: þ1 936 294 4542; fax: þ1936 294 3573. 2 While the perceived objectivity of TPC is a key factor behind its widespread and rapid adoption, other factors have also been important. First, it is cost effective for downstream actors, as costs tend to be the responsibility of those who are to be certified. Second, it fits with current neoliberal ideas and practices of hands-off and flexible regulation. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Rural Studies journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud 0743-0167/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.12.001 Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 125e133