Digital Environmental Governance – Interview Series

Interview Transcript

Sustainability Assurance and the Programming of Environmental Governance: An Interview with Sake Kruk
Interviewer: Aidan Smith. Interviewee: Sake Kruk
Text has been edited lightly for concision and readability.

Kruk: When we're using digital technologies to look at environmental issues, or to address environmental issues, then we’re also programming the way we look at these issues, the way that we measure environmental issues, and the way we define the environmental problems or the sustainability problems more broadly.

[Musical intro]

Smith: Welcome, my name is Aidan Smith and I’m a research fellow at the Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment at the University of California, Berkeley. You’re listening to the third, and final, interview of a three-part interview series where we’ll be exploring the effects of digitalization on environmental governance. I use environmental governance as a lens for understanding the actors involved in environmental decision-making. This lens also brings focus to the ways that environmental problems are framed and acted upon and whose interests are prioritized, and whose are marginalized. Digital approaches have become more and more prevalent as a means of addressing the growing concerns of environmental degradation and climate change. I had the pleasure of speaking with three social scientists who are examining these new modes of digital environmental governance. Through these conversations, key themes emerge that can help guide the public and decision-makers as they think about the role of technology in their lives and in their work. So, with that, let’s conclude the series with our final interview.

[Musical interlude]

Smith: Welcome, I’m thrilled to be joined by Sake Kruk. Sake is a PhD researcher at the Environmental Policy Group at Wageningen University. His research examines how digital technologies are used to make food systems more sustainable. His work shows how digital technologies are becoming a new form of digital environmental governance within food systems.

Sake will be discussing his current research project, which looks at how digital technologies are being used for the purpose of sustainability assurance within aquaculture supply chains.
Sustainability assurance is a term that describes the monitoring and assessment of sustainability claims.

Sake has also done work that looks at digital sustainability initiatives and how smallholder farmers engage and participate in these kinds of initiatives. Additionally, he’s written about the ways that digitalization shapes environmental governance more broadly. I’m excited to talk to him today about all of these topics. Sake, welcome. And, thank you for speaking with us today.

Kruk: Yes, thank you. Thank you for having me.

Smith: I thought we could begin by having you provide an overview of your current research focus and project, and maybe you could say a little bit about why you think this is an important topic to study and what drew you to the work.

Kruk: The starting point of my research is the observation that, increasingly within food systems, there's all kinds of initiatives that are trying to improve the sustainability of food systems through the use of digital technologies — be it through satellite monitoring, through the use of mobile applications or through the use of sensors, for example, on fields or in aquaculture operations.

This new development and rapid development is seen by many organizations, ranging from companies to governments, NGOs, as an important contribution to the solution to sustainability challenges within food systems. And, also, importantly, it's seen as a way to engage smallholders within those sustainability solutions and transformations.

Smith: You focus on aquaculture specifically in this research project. What is it about aquaculture that poses such a challenge in terms of sustainability?

Kruk: We've been focusing on aquaculture because it's a very important sector for food production globally. It's an important contributor to diets within various regions, so it's an important source of protein.

But, also, there are many sustainability challenges — environmental challenges — around aquaculture, ranging from mangrove destructions to build shrimp ponds, for example, to water pollution through the use of antibiotics and chemicals within aquaculture operations. But it's also seen as a more sustainable alternative to wild capture fisheries. So there is a range of environmental challenges around aquaculture that, if these are addressed, then aquaculture could be a very sustainable source of protein, and an important source of protein, for a large part of the world population.

At the same time, aquaculture is also a very diverse sector with a lot of different species, different farming practices around the globe, which also makes it a very challenging sector to

achieve those sustainability objectives. So, I think that's why it's an interesting sector to look at. It’s an important case to learn about how digital technologies can contribute to making food systems more sustainable.

Smith: I gave a definition of sustainability assurance but maybe you have a more sophisticated definition of what that is because it's obviously such a key term in your research.

Kruk: Sustainability assurance in very general terms is a way, or it's a method, to address sustainability risk within, in this case, aquaculture value chains. So it's a way of dealing with risks often across different locations. It involves monitoring of sustainability parameters, verification of the data, and then also communication of whether certain standards have been met.

Smith: Can you describe what came before this digital transition to sustainability assurance? How was sustainability assurance done prior to this and why are so many actors now reaching for a digital solution to this problem?

Kruk: In the past decades, we've seen that the main approach towards assuring sustainability within aquaculture has been through private assurance initiatives and mostly eco-certifications. So, for example, the Aquaculture Stewardship Council or the Global Seafood Alliance, they have created standards for sustainable aquaculture production, which are monitored or verified by a third party, an auditor, who goes to an agriculture production location and then collects all the data to verify whether that production location complies with the assurance standards.

This has contributed, to some extent, to making the sector more sustainable for sure, but still only about 3% of global aquaculture production is certified today. And, I think that, for a large part, it has to do with this model of having onsite audits, which require a lot of time and are highly costly, which means that, specifically, smallholders cannot access those type of standards and assurance and cannot participate in sustainable production. And, then, a lot of organizations see digital technologies as a solution to that challenge.

Smith: That makes a lot of sense. You've done a good job laying out the sector being global in scope and very diverse. And so these analog means of sustainability assurance are not easily applied to that type of sector or industry.

So one of the key themes in your work around digitalized modes of sustainability assurance is this idea of the value chain, and specifically you draw on value chain theory. At a basic level, as I understand it — and I welcome you to correct me or or add to this definition — but value chains determine how the production and consumption of goods and services are organized.

And, so, I'd love for you to speak a little bit about what value chain theory is and the key aspects of a value chain that the theory highlights. In addition, I think in your research you look at digitalization and apply a kind of digital lens or perspective to an understanding of how value chains actually function. So there's this kind of “digital twist” you put on the theory itself. So, I

know that was a lot of questions, but maybe start by describing value chain theory and where it draws our focus, and then how you adapt it.

Kruk: I'm looking at value chain theory because it's a way of looking at the ways in which global production and consumption are organized. One of the key approaches or dominant approaches within value chain theory looks at basically three variables that tell how, or can be analyzed to see how, a value chain is organized. And this is an approach developed by Gary Gereffi and his colleagues. It starts with looking at the complexity of the product. So how complex is it to make this product? How complex are the requirements to make this product?
Then, secondly, it looks at codification. So codification is basically a way of dealing with the complexity of the product requirements through standardized, codified procedures, which make it in some way easier to deal with the complexity. And the level to which codification is possible differs per product. And, then, a third variable is capabilities. So that's about the capabilities of the suppliers to meet the requirements set by the dominant actors within the value chain. So when we're talking about food systems, those dominant lead actors are usually large, multinational companies and retailers at the end of the supply chain. And when we're applying this value chain theory to issues of sustainability, then you could say, well, it's those lead actors that set sustainability requirements, thereby adding a certain layer of complexity. They codify this through, for example, standards and certifications, and then there is a need for specific capabilities of producers to meet those requirements.

And I think when we're talking about digital technologies, this understanding of value chain governance or value chain coordination needs what you refer to as a “digital twist.” Because when we’re using digital technologies to set those sustainability standards or to assure the sustainability within value chains, we're adding this informational layer, or this informational process, to the coordination of sustainability within value chains. So that means that when we're talking about the complexity, we're not only talking about the complexity of those product requirements, but we're also talking about the complexity of collecting data to show that these product requirements have been met. We are talking about the complexity of the analysis of the data through, for example, algorithms. And we're talking about the complexity of the communication of that information or data, which now occurs through all kinds of applications involving a variety of actors that previously were not involved in these food systems.

And the same applies to codification and capabilities. So, it's also about how these informational processes are codified and how the capabilities to use data, to supply data, to analyze data, and act upon the data are also changing. So there's a need for digital skills from smallholder farmers, for example, if they want to participate in sustainable supply chains.

Smith: It's interesting how you look at the product itself as not just the physical product, but everything around the product — all the informational processes that go into the product to make sure it is sustainable. In how you laid out value chain theory at the beginning, it seemed like a lot of what determined the value chain was the complexity of the product. Does codification become a more important aspect of the product?

Kruk: Yeah, so, the original value chain theory starts with the complexity of the product and the product characteristics and basically all the other variables follow from that. And I think actually when we're talking about value chains that are subject to digital sustainability assurance, because of the use of digital technologies to assure the sustainability, there is this inherent need for codification. So the sustainability requirements need to be codified. The way to collect the data needs to be codified according to the specifications of the technology being used. And so there is a drive toward metric-based assurance that is digitally computable and analyzable. And basically the complexity of the value chain transaction is to a large part a consequence of this drive towards increased codification. And, also, the type of capabilities that are required from suppliers revolve a lot around dealing with these codified informational processes. So, rather than starting with the complexity, we start with the codification as the main variable to analyze how value chain transactions are shaped.

Smith: A lot more flows from the the codification piece of the puzzle than maybe it did before when these sustainability standards and assurance standards were not as big a role in the product. And I think it's really key that sustainability metrics and standards need to be legible to the computers. The data literally has to be computable and readable by the machines in order to work.

So, I want to run with the theme of how digital tools, used in environmental governance, demand this high degree of codification, datafication and standardization. And, in one of your published articles, you explore and analyze a diverse set of ten digital sustainability initiatives and you draw conclusions about how digital technologies alter and structure our understanding of what needs to be governed. You also look at how they structure how sustainability targets are established and how actors intervene and act to achieve sustainability goals and objectives. So, again, we're looking at how digital tools — through this idea of codification — shape and structure the way we think about these environmental questions and issues. These all drive at how sustainability thinking is actually engrained in, and codified within, the digital tools and algorithms themselves. And so I wanted to start with your first point there. Could you explain to us how the use of digital tools changes the ways that environmental issues are identified, framed, and ultimately interpreted?

Kruk: One of our main observations or starting points is to say that when we're using digital technologies to look at environmental issues, or to address environmental issues, then we’re also programming the way we look at these issues, the way that we measure environmental issues, and the way we define the environmental problems or the sustainability problems more broadly. This means that the use of digital technologies determines what kind of data is collected and thereby defines sustainability issues according to the type of data that can be collected using digital tools, which is often computable data. It's numerical data. It's
metrics-based. And it's dependent on, for example, what a sensor can measure. And, therefore, it's very often also environmental, biophysical data.

And we've been looking at that for specifically projects that are addressing or that are aiming to incorporate smallholders within their sustainability projects. And, in that case, we've basically

seen three ways in which they have defined, or in which the digital technologies define, the problems that these projects are aiming to address. And for a large group of projects that's this environmental representation of the issues at stake. So, it's really about measurable, environmental indicators.

Then there is a second group of initiatives that perhaps looks a bit more broadly and also include data about the actions and decisions of smallholder farmers. So that may affect the sustainability outcome of their farming practices. It's not only about the direct environmental impact, but it's looking at what's behind that. So it's a more behavioral understanding of the issue at stake.

Then there's also a last group of approaches that creates a digital identity for smallholders. So the smallholders themselves can supply data to this digital platform, for example, or they have some kind of leverage about how they are being represented. These are three ways in which the use of digital technologies creates a certain lens to understanding sustainability issues around smallholder food production.

Smith: Thank you for that. We've established now how digital tools shape how we think about and frame environmental issues. You also talk about, in your paper, the different ways that sustainability initiatives have used digital technologies and algorithms to reshape the process by which they set, implement, and monitor sustainability objectives. So how do digital tools affect or inform the ways that we set our sustainably goals and objectives?

Kruk: When you're using a digital application you're defining the problem in a certain way. But then based on the data that you're collecting about that problem you're also defining a norm or a goal or an ambition to work towards. So you're defining basically what sustainability is in that digital application. And what we have seen is three main approaches.

So the first one is defining sustainability as a certain threshold or a certain standard. So, if you're collecting those metrics or metric-based data, you can couple that with a certain threshold. If a certain oxygen level within the shrimp pond is reached, for example, then this is defined as sustainable.

Then there is another group of initiatives or digital approaches that defines their sustainability norms in a more location-specific way. So it's gathering data about a single farm, for example, and then defining what should be done at that single farm. So there's not one overall general definition or threshold for sustainability, but it's, for example, optimizing the use of inputs to get as high an output as possible. So very often this type of approach is about optimization, resource efficiency, on a specific location. Again, that's something — optimization — that’s computable for digital technologies.

And then we have seen a third group of approaches that don’t really define sustainability and they’ve taken a more open, normative approach. So, for example, it's platforms on which smallholders can exchange information on how to farm. Or they exchange information to

prevent the spread of diseases. But there is no clear definition of sustainability programmed into the digital application.

Smith: In the last case, does the definition of what sustainability is emerge through this interaction between different actors and different smallholders? Is that the idea?

Kruk: Yeah, so it's indeed more up to the users what comes out as sustainable. And, in one way, you could say that's very positive. So it leaves more options to determine yourself how to approach or change your farming practice — to become more sustainable. But, on the other hand, it's less clear what the environmental outcomes and benefits of such an approach are.

Smith: This exchange of information, is it primarily between smallholders or is it between all actors within the supply chain to then define what sustainability is?

Kruk: That depends on the cases that you’re looking at. So we're talking in very abstract terms, right? But I could give an example of a fishery application called ABALOBI, where fishermen exchange data about, or they collect data about, the fish that they catch. And then they can use that data to also sell their fish. So, they can show where they caught it, when, et cetera. But it doesn't necessarily define whether it's sustainable or not. And then there is an information exchange between a fisher and somebody who is buying the fish. But, the environmental benefit of this is less clear, I would say. It could be there because there is information about the fish. But the actual decision or the judgment about whether this is sustainable or not is up to the users of the digital application.

Smith: And, that information that’s presented to the buyer, it's not necessarily driving towards a sustainability objective. It's just however the producer wants to describe their product. The digital tool allows them to provide that information to the potential buyer? The first two instances sound like there are clear objectives and, if I understand you correctly, in the first instance, with thresholds and standards, that feels a little bit more externally defined, whereas the second case, where you mentioned it's more location-based, more farm-specific, that’s maybe more internally defined. But in both instances, you do see this kind of drive towards some end goal, right? Whereas in the third case, you don't see that as much?

Kruk: Yeah, but I would say that both the first and the second are, to a large extent, externally defined because the goals of the program, or the application I should say, are programmed into that application. So, if a farm management application has been programmed to optimize the efficiency of inputs and outputs, then this is an externally defined objective that also can serve the needs of other actors within value chains that want to increase the productivity of their suppliers — to be able to sell more or to buy more and also sell more.

I think that's the key message: that these goals are already pre-programmed into the applications, except for a few cases where there is not such a clear objective. And then this is indeed much more defined by the actual users of the application.

Smith: Thank you for that clarification. I think that's an important note. So the the last argument you, in your paper, is that sustainability initiatives that use digital technologies also use those technologies to inform the strategies and actions taken to reach these often predefined goals and objectives. So my question is: how do digital technologies introduce new strategies and ways to act toward environmental and sustainability goals and objectives?

Kruk: Based on the data that these digital applications gather and analyze, and the norms that they set, they also set out the course of action to implement sustainability action within food systems. And, it follows from those other two aspects what that entails. So what we've been seeing is that if you collect data and also use algorithms to analyze that you can also preempt the sustainability risks that may exist or may be there in the future. So, what we see is more of an anticipatory approach towards addressing sustainability challenges based on risk analysis. Where with previous forms of, or current analog forms of, sustainability assurance, you would verify whether a farm meets a certain standard. What we're now increasingly seeing is that all kinds of organizations are starting to predict whether a farm could or would be a risk to sustainability issues. So it's taking this more anticipatory approach. That's a general observation.

And what we've been seeing in terms of actual interventions on a farm level is that, again, there are three main approaches that we've identified. And the first one is that based on the data that has been collected and analyzed, we see that there’s various approaches to inform smallholders on how to produce more sustainably. So, it's farm management applications, for example. And then the assumption is that digital technologies can contribute to a better understanding of sustainable farming practices and can therefore inform producers to produce more sustainably.

There's also another group of approaches that uses rewards and sanctions. So then the idea is that the main barrier to producing more sustainably is the willingness of the producers to produce more sustainably. So there needs to be an incentive or there needs to be a sanction if a producer does not comply with certain standards. And then there is a third approach, which is, again, a bit more loosely defined, which is about creating a conducive environment for producers — so giving them the tools they need to produce more sustainably, for example. Also through a platform on which information can be exchanged or by ensuring that they get an adequate price for their products. So we've seen examples of that as well. But this is a bit more of an open approach.

Smith: Your first comment about the shift to a more anticipatory, pre-emptive form of environmental governance is really fascinating and is a theme that I would love to explore more with you. So with that idea, are you describing basically these digital tools allow the initiatives to intervene at an earlier point in time, and to what effect? How does that actually impact the farmers to have this more pre-emptive model or anticipatory model of environmental governance? What does that mean for the farmers?

Kruk: What we’re seeing is that based on the data that's being collected through sensors, satellites and mobile applications, et cetera, organizations and projects are creating risk scores

of individual farms. And based on those risk scores determine, for example, where to source products. Or it can also make a difference for which farmers can get a premium price for their products. It can also have implications for their access to finance. So sustainability risks are also included in financial risk analysis. On the other hand, you could say that most of the smallholder farmers, previously could not access any kind of finance. And now that there is data through digital applications, they can, because they can prove that they have a certain expected yield, for example. So it can also help to get access to finance. It can also be positive. But it can also mean that if your farm is in an area where there are many environmental risks, that you can no longer get a loan from the bank.

Smith: I want to talk a little bit about participation, because I know that's a big focus of your work. Participation and engagement is a key dimension of environmental governance and really governance of any kind. And so in your work you discuss different modes of participation that digital sustainability initiatives foster through the use of digital technologies. Can you describe for us the different modes of participation that you see digital technologies enable and discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of those different modes of participation?

Kruk: We've been developing archetypes of different ways in which smallholders can participate within digital sustainability initiatives. And, those three archetypes are — we label them according to digital interface names — the tutorial, the dashboard, and the platform archetype of participation. And what we mean by that is, for the tutorial it's a kind of approach that is about informing producers to produce more sustainably, collect all kinds of mostly environmental data that's location-specific and use that data to optimize the performance of the farm. I think that approach can have several benefits for farmers in terms of more efficient production, higher incomes and increased knowledge about their farming or their farming practices. But I think there's also a risk in using this kind of approach, which is that by putting the focus on the individual farmer and on the environmental parameters of that individual farm, you also risk putting the spotlight on the individual farmer as the person responsible for making food production more sustainable. And doing that by looking just at these biophysical environmental parameters. Whereas many of those challenges that exist around food systems are much broader and bigger than that and they have to do with wider dynamics within the global value chains. There's definitely potential in this type of approach, but there is also some downsides to it.

Then the second approach that we have identified, we labeled it the dashboard. So that's a kind of approach where you're creating an overview of, or collecting information about, what's happening on specific farming locations for food production locations for other actors to monitor what's happening there. So, for example, sustainability assurance initiatives can look at the dashboard and see whether farmers comply with a certain standard or meet a certain threshold. Or retailers that are interested in their supply chains want to know whether the suppliers meet these standards. Or banks, for example, if they want to give a loan. This kind of approach, again, puts the spotlight mostly on individual farmers. But there is also potential to have dashboards that monitor more than the individual farm level, so that there’s also scrutiny towards other parts of the value chain. What's more is that using these kinds of dashboards,

and using metrics to verify compliance with standards, means that there is a danger that these standards are becoming an end in themselves. An example would be a sustainability score that is being developed for tea production in Malawi by Unilever, where they've created a sustainability score for smallholder tea farmers based on a number of indicators. This kind of metric is becoming an end goal in and of itself — so, the data that feeds into the sustainability score. Whereas this is a score that is developed by Unilever itself and it does not necessarily reflect all the environmental and sustainability concerns that exist.

Smith: Do we put too much weight and power in these scores or is it more like these scores are helpful, they illuminate some things, but need to be taken with some caution because they also leave out important aspects?

Kruk: They are, by definition, I would say, limited in what they can monitor and see. And also they're often remotely monitored — so through the use of satellite imagery, through sensors. And what we often see is that when we go check on what's actually happening on the ground, a very different picture emerges. So there's various studies that have done this and looked at, for example, the use of satellite data or precision farming technologies. And then when you go and see how farmers are actually using the technology, there’s a totally different picture. So using just those remotely sensed indicators to see what's happening on a farming location is not enough. But it can help. It can be, of course, a part of the puzzle. But it's very tempting to use those very hard and clear indicators and that's also the danger of them.

Smith: You said the last archetype was the platform. Is that correct? Can you describe that and its potential advantages and disadvantages?

Kruk: Platforms are a more open approach that often provide this digital identity to producers to participate or represent their own farming practice in the digital realm. They have this open, normative approach, so they don't necessarily define the end goals or the sustainability goals that need to be achieved. And they intervene a bit more broadly in the wider food system. So they're not necessarily focused on the farm level. And being platforms, I think the core idea is that they facilitate information exchange. The benefit of this kind of approach is that it leaves much of the agency with producers themselves to act according to what they deem is relevant and also to use the capabilities that they have to achieve sustainability objectives.
But the downside is that the environmental improvement and the environmental effectiveness of this kind of approach is much more unclear, because there is no predefined indicators and standards and thresholds that need to be met. So, for all three approaches there’s upsides and downsides and the challenge is to find good combination of those.

Smith: I think you point this out in your paper that initiatives might employ all three of them or use them in different combinations. So it's not so much that one is clearly better than the others. Would you say that they have their place in time or do you gravitate more towards one form of engaging smallholders?

And, I also want to just make a point. Even as you mentioned that the platform is a more open, flexible use of digital technologies, I would be curious to know if the platforms are structured themselves in some way, right? I think we have this idea of a platform as being a clean slate. And so often the platforms are also designed in a certain way that allows certain types of information. So it's more flexible but has constraints as well.

Kruk: Yeah, of course. The platform is also designed. And that's the starting idea — that all these digital initiatives are designed in a certain way. So they define sustainability goals.
Although some of them are more open in that. But, still, there are decisions about what kind of information is being shared on these platforms, for example. Or what options there are in a selection menu, in a drop-down box. All these programming decisions in the end matter for the way in which you can engage with sustainability initiatives.

I wouldn't want to pick a favorite kind of archetype from those three. I think all have their merits. And although it might seem that this platform, for example, comes out a bit more positive in the way that I talk about it, I think there's also definitely downsides to not having a clear environmental benefit attached to it. And when we're talking about environmental improvement, there is also a place for metrics that define environmental outcomes and objectives. I think what we've been trying to do in this paper is warn for the dangers that could arise if those metrics become the only thing that we look at, or if they start to take such a prominent role that we forget about wider food system dynamics. So, I think these are all ingredients that are part of a wider sustainability puzzle.

Smith: That's a great point. So I want to get to one of the key questions, or one of the key points in this idea of environmental governance, which are power dynamics. We've been talking about the ways in which these tools, these digital tools, reshape how we think about environmental issues, how we define environmental goals and sustainability goals, how we act on sustainability objectives to realize them. And so, I feel like this all congeals around a question which is, who are the actors pushing for increased digitalization in sustainability assurance — whether that's within aquaculture or just generally in environmental governance — and what are the dependencies, new relationships, pressures that are produced as a result of everything we've been talking about around the use of these digital technologies? How does it invert power dynamics in different ways?

Kruk: I think that's one of the key things that we're looking for and trying to understand. And, so, by showing the ways in which digital technologies already program a certain ways of understanding environmental issues and goals and intervening in those issues, I think we're also trying to show that the actors that are doing this gain a more prominent role within environmental governance. And the same applies to the story about value chains. So the shifting control or shifting power within value chains from the traditional lead firms that coordinate the production process to those kind of digital assurance tools that coordinate through the use of informational processes. And so what we are actually saying is that we're seeing a shift from lead firms within value chains to lead digital actors.

And so who are these lead digital actors that are starting to gain an increasingly prominent role within food systems? It's really a diverse bunch. There is also NGOs doing this. There are private companies doing this. There are sustainability standards doing this. But what we also see is that the knowledge about digital technologies is mostly captured by private companies. And, so we also see that Big Tech is gaining a way more important role within environmental governance. So, for example, we see Microsoft also developing farming applications for smallholders in India and the U.S. — developing low cost sensors and algorithms to improve the yield and farming practices. So the private sector is in a way a gatekeeper to the digital realm, and in that way it's gaining a very prominent position within environmental governance of food systems.

Smith: And can you describe who the traditional actors would have been in the past? And you mentioned this shift towards private Big Tech. Is that in contrast to more public initiatives previously? Or, could you talk about the shift, if there is one, from public to private, and also speak to who the lead actors would've been prior to this more digital transition.

Kruk: In general, within value chains, when we're talking about lead firms, we're talking about multinational companies. So the Unilevers of this world and maybe big retailers that also coordinate the value chain of the products that they sell. And I wouldn't say that their power has entirely disappeared, far from it. But I'm seeing that there is a new site or new locus of power emerging, which is in the digital realm. And we see different actors taking a prominent position in that digital realm. But I think the traditional lead firms are starting to realize that. So we see, for example, Bayer-Monsanto also developing farm management applications, which is like a traditional lead firm within the agriculture. So I think there is a power struggle also going on to gain control over these informational processes.

Smith: But, whether it was private retailers or now private tech companies, sustainably assurance has always been a thing of private industry?

Kruk: Within global value chains, because they're so globally organized, sustainability assurance has been mostly a private governance affair through certification schemes. And, of course, there is also trade regulations by public government. But when it comes to more advanced sustainability assurance within value chains, it has been mostly private.

Smith: Can you also speak to data privacy, data control, data ownership? How is that playing out as an issue, or what have you found around those types of questions? Whenever you have Big Tech or any kind of technology company, a lot of data is being collected. Is this a concern or how do you think about those questions?

Kruk: Yeah, it's a very good question. I think this is now becoming the site where these power struggles play out. It's control over information and informational processes. So questions of data access and ownership are becoming very important. And that's also what we are seeing within those sustainability initiatives — very different ways of dealing with that. So some of them actually ensure that producers remain the owners of their own data, but others do not do that.

And there is a kind of competition to be the main platform on which all that data is being collected — to be the one that has control over all that data. So we've heard some organizations say they want to be the “Google of Aquaculture,” for example, or the Google of this or that. So, they all have the ambition to be the main platform for data collection.

Smith: One of the questions I would have around this increased role of technology companies in sustainably assurance is, what are they ultimately pushing as the vision for sustainability?
And so I'm curious if you have any reflections or meditations on how these different actors are reshaping or maybe reinforcing existing practices and approaches to farming.

Kruk: This is a bit speculative, but, in general, I think a lot of those organizations are pushing towards increased optimization of resource use to increase yields, increase productivity with minimum use of inputs. So it's the precision farming approach, which optimizes the production process to get as much out of it as possible. And that's a very particular understanding of sustainability within food systems, which is not necessarily shared by everyone. It does not really look at broader environmental concerns that are not directly impacting farm level productivity. So, for example, wider habitat or biodiversity concerns.

Smith: I'm aware that you are currently in the midst of your research on aquaculture assurance and that you may have not developed fully formed conclusions, but I wanted to ask, how effective do you believe this digitalized approach to sustainability assurance within aquaculture is, or will be, and what factors should guide our thinking in determining “effectiveness”?

Kruk: I think that's a really good question and one that I'm also still wondering about. And maybe the question is not so much whether the use of digital technologies for sustainability assurance is effective or not, but it's about asking the right questions about the use of digital technologies. In the end, what we are saying is, the use of digital technologies is a form of governance. So it's a way of achieving sustainability objectives. And the way that's being done, there’s a wide variation that we’re trying to map out. And by doing that, we've come up with a set of questions that we should be asking to any kind of digital sustainability assurance tool.

So these are questions about, who's doing this? So who's introducing the digital technology? Who has access and control over the data? In what way is this environmental problem being defined through the use of digital technology? And what is not being included in that definition? Who made that definition in the first place? Who programed the digital application? And who is winning and who is losing out from the use of this digital technology and who benefits from the knowledge and the interventions that are generated by and through these digital technologies? And then, also, how are they applied in practice? So, who decides on the priorities and what are the effects in practice? And, we cannot draw general conclusions on all digital technologies and all kinds of approaches that are being introduced into supply chains or into food systems, but I think we should ask these critical questions to find solutions that work.

Smith: It's such a diverse and global sector that to say there's one path forward maybe is naive, but I think you've laid out a number of really important questions that policy-makers,

decision-makers, someone who's implementing a program or building out a sustainability initiative, should be asking themselves — that will guide their work in a way.

I did want to ask you, are there sustainability initiatives that are currently using digital tools and algorithms that you would hold up as an exemplar? Or, are there places that are doing sustainably assurance well in your mind?

Kruk: I wouldn't necessarily want to mention one particular example that is doing everything alright or everything in a good way. But I think I can give some examples of approaches that are being taken that seem promising. So some of the projects that we've been looking at, they combine looking at these environmental issues in food systems through digital technologies with also analog means — so groundtruthing the digital data by still visiting a farm or having some kind of conversation. And that can be more efficient than doing that for every single farm, but at least combining digital and analog ways of looking at environmental issues. So that's, I think, a good practice — to keep in that human factor in understanding and also judging the environmental issues in food systems.

Also, some approaches that I would like to mention enable the data sharing among farmers. I think that's also very promising. So, for example, we've seen this in Thailand where shrimp farmers pre-competitively share data to basically prevent the spread of disease in shrimp ponds, which usually is difficult to do because it's sensitive, competitive information. But through the use of a digital application, this has been enabled and it helps in preventing the spread of diseases. So I think that's an excellent example of information sharing between farmers that benefits also the farmers.

Smith: Would you describe where you're at in this research on sustainably assurance in aquaculture? And, as we wrap up, maybe discuss any other projects you're currently working on or have planned for the future?

Kruk: We are still rounding off our work on sustainability assurance, but we hope to get this published very soon. And we're currently also developing further research into how these digital applications and forms of sustainability assurance that we've been looking at, basically a bit from a distance, how they work out on the ground — so in specific local settings. Our plan is to look at particular digital applications for farm management in aquaculture and to see how the issues that we've been talking about around problem definitions, ways of participation and interventions work out in practice with actual farmers on the ground. So that's definitely a key next step in our research.

We're also doing some work for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, where we are mapping out the global landscape of, or data around, aquaculture or digital data around aquaculture. And to see where there are still gaps within that global data ecosystem and what is needed and how the Gates Foundation can support better decision-making based on data within aquaculture. So that's also a very exciting project for us to work on in the future.

Smith: That's fascinating. Well, it's been a pleasure talking to you and I want to thank you for taking the time to talk to us about your research today. And I'm excited to see how the fieldwork unfolds and the insights you're able to draw from it around sustainability assurance in aquaculture.

And I think you do such a great job of framing your research in ways that speak to the broader questions of digitalization and environmental governance, not just within food systems, but I think there's a lot of lessons that can be drawn from your work around digitalization and environmental governance more broadly. So I can't wait to come across another one of your papers on the topic. They're really a joy to read. Thank you again for joining us.

Kruk: Yes, thank you very much.

[Musical outro]