Diffusion of Global Sustainability Standards: The Institutional Fit of the Asc-Shrimp Standard in Indonesia

Abstract

The past two decades saw a rapid proliferation of sustainability standards created by multi-stakeholder partnerships of multinationals and international NGOs. This paper argues that the transformative capacity of these global partnerships to bring about sustainable change largely depends on how well the institutional features of global sustainability standards fit local organizational fields. This paper therefore aims to unravel the dynamics of global-local interactions. To this end, the concept of institutional fit is operationalized to assess whether and how the technical, cultural and political characteristics intrinsic to global sustainability standards are able to connect to local projects, strategies and practices. The introduction of the Aquaculture Stewardship Council's standard into the Indonesian shrimp sector is used as a case to investigate these interactions. This paper shows that a process of fitting occurs when provisional institutions generated within a global partnership can be modified. We argue that global sustainability standards can benefit from steering more explicitly on dovetailing regulative and normative structures of global and local organizational fields. Local NGOs can play important mediating roles in this regard, which can potentially increase the transformative capacity of global standards in terms of generating and accelerating sustainable change. KEYWORDS | Certification, sustainability standards, institutional change, shrimp, Indonesia. RESUMO As duas últimas décadas assistiram a uma rápida proliferação de padrões RAE-Revista de Administração de Empresas | FGV/EAESP

Lost in Translation? Multiple Discursive Strategies and the Interpretation of Sustainability in the Norwegian Salmon Farming Industry

“…Keep in mind the soft governance of sustainability; firms will enact only the elements of sustainability that suit their reality. This approach is built on interpretation (epistemology) and construction (ontology) (Bryman, 2016), hence the study is (Schouten et al, 2016). The initial investment required to meet the standards is high, and hence only an option for a few actors.…”

TRANSNATIONAL GOVERNANCE REGIMES IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH: MULTINATIONALS, STATES AND NGOs AS POLITICAL ACTORS

“…Transnational NGOs also offer limited accountability; their most important donors are often kept secret and policy is decided by officials that are often appointed rather than elected. Fontoura, Bharucha, and Bohm (2016) The interaction between global standards emerging from multi-stakeholder partnerships in the North and local practices in the South is the focus of a paper by Schounten et al (2016).…”

“…One of these involves competing labelling and regulatory brands, some established by firms to offer a more lenient regulatory regime than would otherwise be unacceptable if a transnational social movement were involved (Bartley, Koos, Samel, Setrini, & Summer, 2015). Another problem concerns monitoring and the considerable variations found in local contexts and practices that challenge the rather generic standards usually negotiated in global partnerships, such as in the case of aquaculture in Indonesia (Schounten, Vellema, & Wijk, 2016). The interaction between transnational social movements and national states is also problematic.…”

Critical remarks on the governance of sustainability: On the institutional framework of standards

“…Ponte and Cheyns () remark that the involvement of expert knowledge in sustainability networks plays to the disadvantage of developing countries. Schouten, Vellema, and van Wijk () question the coherence of global standards and local rules. Furthermore, Unerman and Zappettini () accuse companies of “[abusing] sustainability reporting processes [.…”

“…Ponte and Cheyns (2013) remark that the involvement of expert knowledge in sustainability networks plays to the disadvantage of developing countries. Schouten, Vellema, and van Wijk (2016) This paper attempts to depict the institutional framework of sustainability standards; Section 2 is devoted to this. Section 3 goes on to use the case of 30 sustainability assessment tools and standards covering social sustainability to show the diversity of the existing tools.…”