Sustainability Certifications: Drivers of Accountability or Barriers to Development?

Agri-food certifications, rooted in Western standards of quality, production, and labour, are driven by consumer demands for sustainability in global trade. Integrated into complex networks of regulations and market expectations, these certifications often clash with the cultural values and practical realities of producer communities. This misalignment prompts varied responses: some producers adopt self-surveillance to comply when benefits outweigh costs, while others resist, viewing the standards as burdensome or inadequate. Resistance can lead to circumvention or corrupt practices. While the literature highlights examples of both compliance and resistance, empirical analyses testing these outcomes remain limited. A deeper understanding of these dynamics could help design more effective, culturally aligned standards. This article explores how certification standards are interpreted and implemented by producers, emphasising the potential for both resistance and enhanced control at production sites. Drawing on a case study of Ecuadorian cocoa production in the Amazon, it is informed by qualitative interviews with farmers working on cocoa farms in the Napo province. Renowned for its exceptional quality and distinctive flavour, Ecuadorian cocoa is a highly sought-after commodity in global markets, necessitating robust certification systems to validate these attributes and secure Western market access. In the Ecuadorian Amazon, certifications like Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance, and Organic play a critical role, imposing stringent standards upheld through third-party inspections. However, their standards often clash with the values and environmental perspectives of indigenous populations, leading to diverse application outcomes. Using surveillance studies and criminology theories, the article critically examines the dynamics of certification adoption, adaptation, or resistance. It investigates the practical application of these standards and explores how they can lead to either increased control and surveillance or a rise in corrupt practices at production sites. The findings reveal that while sustainability certifications generally promote a culture of compliance and oversight, they are susceptible to corruption when imposed standards conflict with local conditions. This highlights significant vulnerabilities in certification processes, particularly their susceptibility to inefficiency and corruption, which undermine their developmental and sustainability goals. Adopting a decolonial approach, the study highlights the importance of understanding the social and operational dynamics of local communities to ensure certifications lead to meaningful and equitable outcomes. It advocates for a deeper awareness of the cultural and economic realities faced by producer communities, emphasising that such sensitivity is essential for enhancing the legitimacy of certifications and fostering more sustainable and fair practices. Further empirical analysis is required to test these ideas.