Abstract
In recent years, new forms of transnational regulation have emerged, filling the void created by the failure of governments and international institutions to effectively regulate transnational corporations. Among the variety of initiatives addressing social and environmental problems, a growing number of certification systems have appeared in various sectors, particularly agrifood. Most initiatives rely on independent third-party certification to verify compliance with a standard, as it is seen as the most credible route for certification. The effects of third-party audits, however, still need to be empirically investigated. This article provides a critical assessment of the notion of ‘evidence’ which is at the heart of auditing practices. It focuses on the case of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and fieldwork carried out in Indonesia, the world’s largest producer of palm oil. In this country, some non-governmental organizations decided to participate in the RSPO in order to use this platform to tackle the issue of land conflicts. They managed to include important clauses regarding indigenous and land rights in the RSPO standard. In practice, however, auditors rarely recognize as valid evidence the forms of proof put forward by local communities. As a result, the whole process risks compounding local power imbalances.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This work has been translated into English as: On Justification: The Economies of Worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.
It should be noted however that "the issue in distinguishing several regimes is not to create ideal-types isolating 'pure' situations; it is, overall, to apprehend tensions arising from their conjunction in the 'living together' and to shed light on those pressures and oppressions which arise when one regime and its invested powers take hegemony over others regimes" (Thévenot 2011, p. 197).
The standard includes eight principles: (1) commitment to transparency, (2) compliance with applicable laws and regulations, (3) commitment to long-term economic and financial viability, (4) use of appropriate best practices by growers and millers, (5) environmental responsibility and conservation of natural resources and biodiversity, (6) responsible consideration of employees and of individuals and communities affected by growers and mills (which includes issues of land rights, wages and conditions of workers, bargaining power, freedom of association, child labor, and so on), (7) responsible development of new plantings, and (8) commitment to continuous improvement in key areas of activity (RSPO 2007b). For a detailed analysis of the RSPO Principles and Criteria, refer to Partzsch 2011.
RSPO uses a mechanism to approve certification bodies that is based on accreditation against ISO/IEC Guide 65:1996 and/or ISO/IEC Guide 66:1999. The generic accreditation is also supplemented by a set of specific RSPO certification process requirements. At the time of writing, however, the RSPO was in the process of transferring the task of accreditation to an external organization called Accreditation Services International (ASI). This accreditation service is already used by the Forest Stewardship Council and the Marine Stewardship Council and is now at its pilot implementation phase with RSPO.
One heated debate was related to the criterion 7.3 according to which new plantings, since November 2005, have not replaced primary forest or any area required to maintain or enhance one or more High Conservation Values (RSPO 2007b). The issue of Free Prior and Informed Consent is also particularly controversial.
As part of the seventh principle, the standard also states that no new plantings are established on local peoples’ land without their free, prior, and informed consent, dealt with through a documented system that enables indigenous peoples, local communities, and other stakeholders to express their views through their own representative institutions (Criterion 7.5). Criteria 6.4 and 7.6 address the issue of compensation for loss of legal or customary rights.
Abbreviations
- ASI:
-
Accreditation Services International
- GPS:
-
Global Positioning System
- HGU:
-
Hak guna usaha (business use permits)
- IEC:
-
International Electrotechnical commission
- ILO:
-
International Labour Organization
- ISO:
-
International Organization for Standardization
- NGO:
-
Non-governmental Organization
- RSPO:
-
Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil
- SKT:
-
Surat keterangan tanah (land notification letter)
References
Allaire, G. and R. Boyer. 1993. La grande transformation de l’agriculture. Régulation et conventions dans l’agriculture et l’agro-alimentaire. Paris, France: INRA-Economica.
Bain, C., and L. Busch. 2005. The limits of audits. In Hide or confide, ed. G.J. Hofstede, 141–145. Amsterdam: Reed Business Information.
Bain, C., B.J. Deaton, and L. Busch. 2005. Reshaping the agri-food system: The role of standards, standard makers and third party certifiers. In Agricultural governance: Globalization and the new politics of regulation, ed. V. Higgins, and G. Lawrence, 71–83. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bain, C., and M. Hatanaka. 2010. The practice of third-party certification: Enhancing environmental sustainability and social justice in the global south? In Calculating the social: Standards and the re-configuration of governing, ed. V. Higgins, and W. Larner, 56–74. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Barham, E. 2002. Towards a theory of values-based labeling. Agriculture and Human Values 19: 349–360.
Bartley, T. 2003. Certifying forests and factories: States, social movements, and the rise of private regulation in the apparel and forest products fields. Politics & Society 31: 433–464.
Bernstein, S., and B. Cashore. 2007. Can non-state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework. Regulation & Governance 1: 347–371.
Bingen, J., and L. Busch. 2006. Agricultural standards: The shape of the global food and fiber system. Dordrecht: Springer.
Boltanski, L. and L. Thévenot. 1991. De la justification: Les économies de la grandeur. Paris, France: Gallimard. (English translation 2006: On justification: The economies of worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Busch, L., and C. Bain. 2004. New! improved? The transformation of the global agrifood system. Rural Sociology 69: 321–346.
Colchester, M., N. Jiwan, Andiko, M. Sirait, A.Y. Firdaus, A. Surambo, and H. Pane. 2006. Promised land: Palm oil and land acquisition in Indonesia—Implications for local communities and indigenous peoples. Report by Forest Peoples Programme and Sawit Watch.
Friedmann, H., and P. McMichael. 1989. Agriculture and the state system: The rise and decline of national agricultures, 1870 to the present. Sociologia Ruralis 29: 93–117.
Fuchs, D., A. Kalfagianni, and T. Havinga. 2011. Actors in private food governance: The legitimacy of retail standards and multistakeholder initiatives with civil society participation. Agriculture and Human Values 28: 353–367.
Gereffi, G., R. Garcia-Johnson, and E. Sasser. 2001. The NGO-industrial complex. Foreign Policy 125: 56–65.
Hatanaka, M., C. Bain, and L. Busch. 2005. Third-party certification in the global agrifood system. Food Policy 30: 354–369.
Lucas, A., and C. Warren. 2003. The state, the people, and their mediators: The struggle over agrarian law reform in post-new order Indonesia. Indonesia 76: 87–126.
Marti, S. 2008. Losing Ground: The Human Rights Impacts of Oil Palm Plantation Expansion in Indonesia. Report by Friend of the Earth, LifeMosaic and Sawit Watch, February.
Murdoch, J., T. Marsden, and J. Banks. 2000. Quality, nature, and embeddedness: Some theoretical considerations in the context of the food sector. Economic Geography 76: 107–125.
Partzsch, L. 2011. The legitimacy of biofuel certification. Agriculture and Human Values 28: 413–425.
Pattberg, P. 2005. The forest stewardship council: Risk and potential of private forest governance. Journal of Environment & Development 14: 356–374.
Pentland, B.T. 2000. Will auditors take over the world? Program, technique and the verification of everything. Accounting, Organizations and Society 25: 307–312.
Power, M. 1997. The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Raynolds, L. 2002. Consumer/producer links in fair trade coffee networks. Sociologia Ruralis 42: 404–424.
Raynolds, L., D. Murray, and A. Heller. 2007. Regulating sustainability in the coffee sector: A comparative analysis of third-party environmental and social certification initiatives. Agriculture and Human Values 24: 147–163.
RSPO. 2007a. Certification Systems. Final document approved by RSPO Executive Board: June.
RSPO. 2007b. RSPO Principles and criteria for sustainable palm oil production. Including Indicators and Guidance: October.
Silvius, M. and A. Kaat. 2006. Peatland degradation fuels climate change. Report from the Peat-CO2 study of Delft Hydraulics, Wetlands International and Alterra for the 12th UN-FCCC summit of Nairobi.
Tanner, B. 2000. Independent assessment by third-party certification bodies. Food Control 11: 415–417.
Thévenot, L. 1993. Des marchés aux normes. In La grande transformation de l’agriculture: Régulation et conventions dans l’agriculture et l’agro-alimentaire, ed. G. Allaire, and R. Boyer, 33–51. Paris: INRA-Economica.
Thévenot, L. 1997. Un gouvernement par les normes: Pratiques et politiques des formats d’information. Cognition et information en société 8: 205–241.
Thévenot, L. 2001a. L’environnement en chose publique: Une comparaison franco-américaine. In Cadre de vie, environnement et dynamiques associatives, ed. J.P. Blais, C. Gillio, and J. Ion, 203–219. Paris: PUCA.
Thévenot, L. 2001b. Pragmatic regimes governing the engagement with the world. In The practice turn in contemporary theory, ed. K. Knorr-Cetina, T. Schatzki, and E. Savigny, 56–73. London: Routledge.
Thévenot, L. 2006. L’action au pluriel: Sociologie des régimes d’engagement. Paris: La Découverte.
Thévenot, L. 2007. Reconnaissances: Avec Paul Ricoeur et Axel Honneth. In La quête de reconnaissance: Regards sociologiques, ed. A. Caillé, 269–283. Paris: La Découverte.
Thévenot, L. 2011. Conventions for measuring and questioning policies. The case of 50 years of policy evaluations through a statistical survey. Historical Social Research 36(4): 192–217.
Wakker, E. 2005. Greasy Palms: The Social and Ecological Impacts of Large-scale Palm Plantation Development in Southeast Asia. Report by Friends of the Earth, January.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank An Ansoms, Tim Bartley, Julien Charles, Emmanuelle Cheyns, Priscilla Claeys, Cornelia Flora, Raymond Jussaume, Richard Lee, Olga Malets, Marc Mormont, Geoffrey Wood, Isabel Yepez del Castillo, and the anonymous reviewers and editor for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. The author also thanks the Fond National de la Recherche Scientifique (FNRS) for funding the research on which the paper is based and last but not least the villagers, NGO members, and auditors who agreed to participate in the research. The views presented here are the responsibility of the author and should not be attributed to these individuals or organizations.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Silva-Castañeda, L. A forest of evidence: third-party certification and multiple forms of proof—a case study of oil palm plantations in Indonesia. Agric Hum Values 29, 361–370 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-012-9358-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-012-9358-x