Divergent perceptions of third-party certification have emerged as a prominent governance mechanism. Thirdparty certification is defended by supporters as a technical and objective governance mechanism, while detractors contend that it is characterized by power dynamics and politics. In terms of understandings of science and politics, as well as how TPC is understood, we reject this dichotomy. We make the case, based on research in science and technology, that third-party certification is both scientific and political, and that both science and politics involve social and technical practices. We investigate the creation and upholding of standards by employing an Indonesian organic shrimp project as a case study. Our investigation yields three significant conclusions. First, the extent to which all stakeholders' interests and realities are successfully translated and incorporated is partly dependent on the development and enforcement of standards in a third-party certified project. Second, contrasts between entertainers in an outsider ensured project are epistemological, yet additionally ontological. Therefore, reconciling interests and knowledge with material realities is necessary for overcoming TPC differences. Thirdly, TPC is per formative because enrolment and translation must be on-going procedures if the standards are to be adhered to. In closing, we contend that a science and innovation examination focuses to the need not exclusively to democratize TPC, yet additionally expand the epistemological premise of norms, and that endeavours to guarantee consistence need to go past reviews.
Share this article