Abstract
Sustainability standards are used to assure improved environmental performance in the aquaculture sector. But standard setters face limitations in including a broad range of producers with different capabilities, which in turn reduces their scope and impact. Drawing on Sen’s capability approach, we introduce a novel way to assess the extent to which sustainability standards can support the capability of farmers to make prescribed improvements to their production practices. In doing so, we compare four shrimp aquaculture standards (Aquaculture Stewardship Council, Global Aquaculture Alliance, Southeast Asian Shrimp Aquaculture Improvement Protocol and the Thai Agricultural Standard) based on an analysis of what we label the ‘prescribed capitals’ and ‘bundle of capitals’ that underpin the compliance capability of producers. The results show that standards narrowly prescribe standards requiring human capital, while there is potential for prescribing a wider bundle of social, financial and physical capitals that can allow more flexible standard compliance. The findings raise the prospect of redesigning sustainability standards to support a broader diversity of producer capabilities and, in turn, increase their overall impact.
Highlights
As in many food sectors, sustainability standards have emerged as a primary market-based assessment and assurance tool for ‘sustainable’ aquaculture production [1, 2]
Our analysis of the prescribed capitals shows that the four schemes assume a very limited range of relevant capitals for developing the capabilities needed for standard compliance
The variation between the standards shows that Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) and Southeast Asian Shrimp Aquaculture Improvement Protocol (SEASAIP) have the highest relative reliance on human capital and the Thai TAS 7401 the least
Summary
As in many food sectors, sustainability standards have emerged as a primary market-based assessment and assurance tool for ‘sustainable’ aquaculture production [1, 2]. There are currently more than 30 aquaculture standards available, ranging from certification schemes to recommendation lists, and representing a diverse set of claims related to food safety, quality, traceability, environmental and social impact [3]. What these standards hold in common is the prescription of principles, standards and criteria aimed at restructuring producer practices towards ‘improved’ forms of production [4]. The impact of sustainability standards depends to a large extent on the voluntary compliance of producers to their principles and indicators. Instead the so-called ‘theory of change’ of these standards is based on the assumption that preferential market access will provide incentive enough for producers to invest in these improvements [6]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
