Reframing Sustainability Learning Through Certification: A Practice-Perspective on Supply Chain Management

Abstract

The sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) literature increasingly promotes certifications as effective tools for diffusing sustainability practices across global production networks. However, this instrumental view underestimates the complex, contested, and often politicized nature of learning in supply chains. Drawing on Bourdieu’s theory of practice and Deetz’s classification of research discourses, this paper contrasts the dominant normative view of certifications with a critical sociological approach. We argue that certifications are not merely technical tools but are embedded in power-laden fields that structure which forms of knowledge are valued, transmitted, and resisted. Through a review of the existing literature and theoretical synthesis, this conceptual paper shows how dominant discourses obscure conflicts, exclude peripheral actors, and perpetuate symbolic domination. This paper calls for greater engagement with critical theory to enrich the understanding of sustainability learning and highlights the need to pluralize perspectives in SSCM research.

1. Introduction

In April 2013, the Rana Plaza disaster in Bangladesh claimed the lives of over 1100 garment workers and injured thousands more when a factory building collapsed due to structural negligence. Despite the presence of multiple sustainability certifications and codes of conduct, the tragedy exposed a stark reality: that private governance mechanisms often fail to ensure genuine accountability in global supply chains [1,2]. The increasing institutionalization of sustainability in global supply chains has led to the proliferation of standards and certifications, including ISO 14001, SA8000, and numerous sector-specific eco-labels. These certifications are often promoted as technical solutions to solve the sustainability challenges faced by global supply chains and as rational tools for transmitting best practices [3]. Within the literature on sustainable supply chain management (SSCM), certifications are predominantly framed as performance-enhancing mechanisms that drive transparency, reduce risk, and improve reputational standing [4,5,6,7]. While this body of research has advanced our understanding of the operational benefits of certifications, it is largely rooted in a normative discourse that treats learning as a linear and rational process of knowledge transfer [5,8]. Such an instrumental view tends to overlook the complex, contested, and context-dependent nature of sustainability learning in real-world supply chain settings [9,10,11]. Indeed, these certifications are not neutral as they embody this instrumental logic, akin to the logic of managerial rationality [12,13] identified in information systems studies. Thus, these performance-oriented frameworks often mask the underlying power relations, learning asymmetries, and epistemic exclusions at play in the governance of sustainability standards. The repeated failures of private governance schemes to prevent abuses—such as the Rana Plaza disaster [2]—have exposed the limitations of technocratic and symbolic approaches to sustainability. Scholars have long warned that codes of conduct and certifications may serve more as tools of legitimacy than as vehicles for real change [14,15].

In response, recent studies have advanced this rethinking by exploring the embodied and often contested nature of sustainability knowledge. For instance, Santos et al. [16] demonstrate how sub-suppliers in Brazilian poultry chains navigate certification requirements through both learning and unlearning, revealing tensions between formal expectations and local expertise. These contributions underscore a shared dissatisfaction with the prevailing normative discourse in SSCM that equates sustainability learning with compliance and performance gains, rather than a view that takes into account local institutions and embedded practices [17]. This study addresses this gap in non-normative studies on SSCM and, more precisely, the lack of critical research in the study of sustainable supply chains [18]. Indeed, despite the rising interest in practice theory in the SSCM literature [19,20,21], few studies critically examine how certifications shape learning processes, rather than just performance outcomes. The literature lacks a cohesive framework for understanding how power relations, institutionalized dispositions, and field structures mediate sustainability learning in certified supply chains. As Silva et al. [22] and Santos et al. [16] observe, current research often conflates compliance with learning, thereby neglecting the micro-political and socio-material conditions under which learning occurs. This study addresses this gap by reframing the role of certifications in sustainable supply chain management by shifting the analytical lens from outcome-driven metrics to learning processes. In doing so, we respond to recent calls for a “practice turn” in sustainability studies [16,19,22], which stresses the socio-material, emotional, and dispositional dimensions of learning. Instead of treating learning as a rational, cumulative, and top–down process, we approach it as an emergent phenomenon shaped by situated practices, embedded dispositions, and field-specific power structures [23].

Based on these reflections, our research question is, how do certifications shape sustainability learning processes in supply chains, and how can practice theory help reveal the power relations embedded in these learning mechanisms?

Through a theoretical synthesis and two illustrative cases—maritime and agri-food supply chains—this conceptual paper [24] shows how certifications structure learning asymmetrically, privileging dominant actors while marginalizing peripheral knowledge systems. In doing so, this study contributes to a literature in which the dominant perspective of certifications reflects a normative discourse that privileges managerial control and technological rationality. In contrast, this study adopts a critical discourse that exposes the exclusions and symbolic violence that shape who gets to define and enact sustainability [20]. Thus, this paper contributes to the emerging stream of critical practice-based research in SSCM by analyzing certifications not just as governance tools, but as vehicles of field structuration, habitus formation, and epistemic domination. Drawing on Bourdieu’s theory of practice [23,25], this paper reframes certifications not as neutral governance tools but as boundary objects embedded in power-laden fields.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: We begin with a review of the literature on certifications and learning in SSCM, followed by a discussion of Bourdieu’s theory of practice and its application to the certification field. We then apply this critical perspective on certification-based learning, using examples from maritime and agri-food supply chains. We conclude with a call for discourse pluralism and suggest future research directions to foster a more inclusive and reflexive understanding of sustainability learning.

2. Methodology

To develop a critical reflection on sustainability learning through certification in supply chain management, this article adopts a conceptual approach. Following Gilson and Goldberg’s [24] recommendation that conceptual papers should transcend summarizing existing literature and instead integrate distinct literatures, offer an integrated theoretical framework, add value, and clearly highlight avenues for future research, we draw on established guidelines for theory elaboration. Specifically, we employ Skilton’s [26] three-stage conceptualization process—clarification, differentiation, and illustration—to structure our theoretical reflection.

The first stage, clarification, involves critically reviewing and summarizing the extant literature to outline the dominant normative views and limitations of certifications within sustainable supply chain management (SSCM). In Section 3, we present how sustainability certifications are commonly conceptualized, demonstrating prevalent assumptions around rational knowledge transfer and compliance-oriented governance, which we then critically contrast with practice-theoretical perspectives. To guide the review, we conducted targeted searches in key academic databases, including Scopus and Web of Science, using combinations of keywords such as “sustainability certification”, “supply chain learning”, “practice theory”, “Bourdieu”, and “critical supply chain”. We prioritized peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2000 and 2024, focusing on those that are conceptually relevant to the perspectives outlined in the paper. In total, we reviewed approximately 60 core articles to identify theoretical tensions and research gaps, particularly around how certifications shape sustainability learning processes.

The second stage, differentiation, constitutes the main theoretical contribution of our conceptual approach. Here, we integrate Bourdieu’s theory of practice, emphasizing concepts such as field, habitus, capital, and nomos to reframe sustainability learning as socially embedded and power-laden rather than as merely rational or procedural. This differentiation is provided in Section 4, where we propose our integrated critical-practice theoretical framework, explicitly demonstrating how this differs from traditional normative models.

The third stage, illustration, is applied in Section 5, where empirical illustrations from maritime and agri-food supply chains demonstrate the value and applicability of our conceptual differentiation. The empirical illustrations presented below are literature-based case analyses aimed at demonstrating how certifications shape sustainability learning processes across different supply chain contexts. These cases [16,20] were purposively selected because they illustrate different industrial sectors, provide empirically detailed examples highlighting both commonalities and contrasts in certification impacts, and are based on a triangulation of empirical data. This approach does not claim comprehensive representativeness but instead serves to illustrate the theoretical arguments about power, practice, and learning dynamics underpinning certification regimes across diverse fields.

Consistent with conceptual methodologies, this paper does not follow the rigid selection protocols typical of systematic literature reviews. Instead, we deliberately integrate key references that best inform our theoretical development, articulate new conceptual relationships, and contribute directly to ongoing debates in SSCM scholarship [26]. By combining these three stages—clarification, differentiation, and illustration—we clearly articulate the unique theoretical contribution of this article, while also providing actionable directions for future research in Section 7.

3. Literature Review

3.1. Certifications in SSCM: Instrumental and Performance-Oriented Perspectives

Certifications such as ISO 14001 [27] and SA8000 [28] are widely adopted across global supply chains as a means of demonstrating compliance with sustainability standards [29,30]. Much of the literature emphasizes the benefits of certifications, including improved environmental performance [31], worker welfare [4], supply chain transparency [5], and enhanced reputation [6,7]. This view is aligned with the performance-based paradigm, which treats certifications as independent variables driving competitive advantage and improved efficiency [32].

However, such research often fails to interrogate the social dynamics and power asymmetries that mediate the implementation of these standards. For example, while certifications may be framed as neutral tools, they often impose disproportionate costs on small firms [9] and reinforce existing inequalities within multi-tiered supply chains [33,34]. Scholars such as Rasche [10] and Christmann and Taylor [11] have raised concerns about the symbolic versus substantive implementation of these standards. Indeed, certification schemes often operate as instruments of market differentiation and symbolic assurance [35,36]. As Müller et al. [29] argue, they contribute to governance legitimacy by providing third-party assurance of sustainability compliance. However, the distinction between eco-labelling and social labelling remains unclear [37], and firms strategically select schemes that best align with their branding objectives rather than their holistic sustainability goals [38].

3.2. Supply Chain Learning: From Operational Knowledge to Practice-Based

Supply chain learning is traditionally understood as the transfer and accumulation of knowledge to enhance operational or strategic capabilities [39,40]. This has been further conceptualized through the lens of resource orchestration [5], absorptive capacity [8], and learning [41]. Dynamic capabilities such as sustainability learning must be understood not only as strategic assets [42] but also as socially embedded and historically conditioned practices [43,44]. Thus, more recently, scholars have called for a practice-based perspective on learning, emphasizing embodied knowledge, situated practices, and socio-material entanglements [45,46]. In this view, learning is not merely the transmission of information, but the co-production of knowledge through lived experience and material engagement. Santos et al. [16] show how sub-suppliers learn sustainability through doing and unlearning, rather than via abstract codified knowledge. Similarly, Silva and Figueiredo [47] argue that sustainability is embedded in bundles of everyday practices rather than external benchmarks. Supply chain learning in this paper refers to the socially situated and power-laden processes through which supply chain actors develop, embody, and modify sustainability-related practices. Unlike traditional conceptions that frame learning as the efficient transfer and accumulation of codified knowledge across organizational boundaries, we conceptualize supply chain learning as an emergent outcome of actors’ dispositions (habitus), field positions, and interactions with institutionalized tools such as certifications. It is not merely an input to strategic capabilities, but a relational practice shaped by material conditions, symbolic authority, and socio-historical trajectories. Meanwhile, other authors insist that information systems in internal supply chains are not neutral tools but are the locus of power struggles among stakeholders [48,49].

3.3. Discursive Regimes: Normative and Critical Approaches

Following Deetz [50], SSCM research can be situated within four discursive regimes: normative, interpretive, critical, and dialogic. Much of the literature on certifications belongs to the normative discourse, which focuses on prescriptive solutions and performance optimization [18]. In contrast, the critical discourse interrogates the assumptions, power relations, and exclusions that underpin these “solutions” [51].

Silva et al. [52] note that while the term “practice” is widely used in the SSCM literature, it is often treated in a lato sensu manner, obscuring its theoretical roots in practice theory. They call for greater clarity in how researchers conceptualize and apply practice-based approaches to sustainability. Practice theories, particularly those inspired by Bourdieu, offer tools for exposing how sustainability learning is conditioned by field dynamics, endowment in capital, and habitus [21].

To clarify the analytical divergence between dominant and critical approaches to certification,

Table 1. Contrasting normative and critical perspectives on certification-based sustainability learning.

Dimension	Normative Perspective	Critical Perspective
Assumptions about Certification	Certifications are neutral, technical tools for improving performance.	Certifications are socially constructed, power-laden instruments embedded in institutional fields.
Learning Model	Learning is rational, top–down, and based on codified knowledge and best practices.	Learning is emergent, situated, and shaped by dispositions, capital endowments, and field dynamics.
Role of Standards	Standards transmit sustainability knowledge efficiently across supply chains.	Standards reflect dominant actors’ interests, excluding alternative forms of knowledge and marginal voices.
View of Actors	Supply chain actors are rational adopters seeking compliance and efficiency.	Actors are positioned differently within fields; learning opportunities are uneven and conditioned by habitus.
Governance Logic	Legitimacy derives from third-party verification and performance indicators.	Legitimacy is contested and influenced by symbolic capital, social legitimacy, and epistemic authority.
Focus of Analysis	Emphasizes outcomes, KPIs, and best practices.	Emphasizes practices, power relations, symbolic domination, and epistemic exclusions.
Main Research Questions	How do certifications improve sustainability performance?	How do certifications structure learning, exclude knowledge, and reproduce power relations?

contrasts the normative and critical perspectives on sustainability learning. The normative view, prevalent in much of the SSCM literature, treats certifications as objective mechanisms for knowledge transfer and performance enhancement. It assumes a rational model of learning where knowledge is codified, transmitted top–down, and evaluated through compliance and efficiency metrics. In contrast, the critical perspective emphasizes the social embeddedness of certifications. Drawing on practice theory and Bourdieu’s sociology, it reveals how certifications structure learning unevenly, reinforce symbolic domination, and marginalize local or experiential knowledge. This comparison underscores the need to move beyond prescriptive accounts and adopt more reflexive, power-sensitive approaches to understand how learning unfolds in certified supply chains.

In the next section, we elaborate on these theoretical tools to propose a critical-practice framework for understanding certification-based learning in supply chains.

4. Theoretical Framework: Practice Theory, Habitus, and Sustainability Certification

To analyze how certifications shape sustainability learning in supply chains, we draw on Bourdieu’s theory of practice, which centers on the interplay between habitus, capital, and field [23,25]. This sociological lens allows us to shift from viewing certifications as neutral tools to understanding them as boundary objects embedded in power-laden fields that structure learning and action [53].

4.1. Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice and Supply Chain Learning

Bourdieu’s theory offers a relational ontology wherein practices are neither wholly structured nor freely agentic, but the product of dispositions (i.e., habitus) enacted within fields of power and mediated by stakeholders’ endowment in capital (see

Table 2. Bourdieu’s key concepts and their application in sustainable supply chain management.

Concept	Definition	Example in SSCM
Field	A structured social space characterized by competition and conflicts of interest over limited resources, power, and legitimacy among actors.	The global maritime governance field where actors such as classification societies, shipowners, regulators, and NGOs compete over sustainability norms and standards [54].
Habitus	A durable system of socially conditioned dispositions that guides actors’ perceptions, interpretations, and actions, thus reproducing social order and practices within the field.	Dispositions toward procedural compliance in maritime safety certification, influencing how sustainability norms become internalized and enacted in everyday practices [20].
Capital	Resources possessed by actors conferring authority, power, and legitimacy within a specific field, constituting the stakes in the field’s competition and struggle. Forms include economic, cultural, social, informational, and symbolic capital.	Symbolic capital held by classification societies due to their recognized technical expertise and authoritative position, allowing them to shape maritime sustainability standards [20].
Nomos	The foundational, often implicit rules and principles that govern behavior and define what is acceptable, legitimate, and valued within a field.	Dominant, taken-for-granted principles governing how maritime safety and sustainability are regulated internationally, reflecting the interests and influence of dominant actors like classification societies and international regulators [21].

). In sustainable supply chains, this theory helps reveal how certifications are not just rational choices but are influenced by social conditioning, institutional positioning, and historical trajectories [20]. The field of sustainable supply chain management can be seen as a structured space of positions and position takings where agents (e.g., firms, auditors, and standard-setting bodies) compete over symbolic and material resources. In such a field, capital (economic, cultural, social, and symbolic) endowment determines the capacity to influence the rules of the game, including which sustainability standards are deemed legitimate [23]. Habitus refers to the system of dispositions that agents acquire through their immersion in specific fields, shaping how they perceive, value, and enact sustainability. These dispositions condition not only whether agents pursue certifications but also how they learn from and relate to them [20].

Thus, the theory of practice provides a relational and field-sensitive framework for understanding how learning unfolds in supply chains. Rather than treating learning as a rational, cognitive process of knowledge transfer between firms, this perspective emphasizes that learning is shaped by actors’ positions in structured fields, their accumulated forms of capital, and their embodied dispositions [23]. In the SSCM literature, certifications are typically understood as tools for diffusing codified sustainability knowledge from focal firms to suppliers [5,29]. However, when viewed through Bourdieu’s lens, these learning processes are not neutral. Instead, they are conditioned by the field-specific dynamics of power, hierarchy, and legitimation. Actors in supply chains—whether certifiers, buyers, or suppliers—occupy unequal positions based on their economic, cultural, social, and symbolic capital. These asymmetries influence not only access to certification schemes but also the capacity to learn from, interpret, and act upon the knowledge embedded in them. Supply chain learning, in this sense, becomes a dispositional process—not merely the acquisition of new practices, but the internalization of field-specific norms, expectations, and routines that are continuously reinforced through certification regimes. For example, firms with greater symbolic capital (e.g., recognized auditors or global brand holders) are often in a position to define what “sustainability” means, while peripheral actors may be constrained to adopt, mimic, or adapt to those definitions without fully shaping them. This reconceptualization of learning aligns with practice-theoretical insights that view knowledge as embodied and situated, rather than codified and easily transferable [45,46]. Certifications function here as structuring devices: they both reflect and reproduce the dominant dispositions within the field. Over time, actors develop a habitus of compliance, whereby sustainability is enacted through routinized behaviors, formal documentation, and audit readiness rather than critical reflection or innovation [20].

4.2. Certifications as Boundary Objects and Instruments of Field Structuration

Drawing from Star and Griesemer [55], certifications function as boundary objects—artifacts that coordinate action across diverse social worlds while remaining interpretable within each. In supply chains, certifications bridge fields (e.g., production, governance, logistics) and enable learning not just through codified knowledge but through shared expectations, audit routines, and symbolic alignment [8].

However, these boundary objects are not neutral. They selectively validate certain pieces of knowledge and exclude others, privileging actors with higher capital and marginalizing peripheral agents [54]. This selective legitimization reinforces existing power asymmetries and conditions how learning unfolds.

A recent work by Lissillour [20] demonstrates how habitus developed in the field of maritime safety is transposed to the field of sustainability via certifications, leading to a form of learning grounded in procedural compliance rather than transformative engagement. The logic of safety certification—long institutionalized and culturally internalized—is reactivated and redirected toward sustainability, often without reflexive consideration of its limitations or exclusions.

Recent work in the clothing sector reveals a more nuanced understanding of why firms engage with certification schemes [56]. Beyond market positioning and customer information, certification is also used for risk management, knowledge acquisition, and inter-organizational networking. These motivations challenge the linear narrative of rational decision making and suggest that certification regimes act as both knowledge infrastructures and platforms for legitimation.

4.3. Dimensions of Habitus and Learning Dispositions

Building on Bourdieu’s theory, four dimensions through which habitus shapes sustainability learning in certified supply chains have been identified [20]. First, through tacit knowledge as agents share practical, non-codified understandings of sustainability derived from repeated certification interactions. Second, as dispositions, when habitus predisposes agents toward certain sustainable behaviors, often aligned with dominant norms embedded in certification regimes. Third, the understanding of the temporal aspect inherent in the creation of habitus. Indeed, these dispositions are historically sedimented, shaped by past engagements with regulatory and industrial fields. Fourth, the role of agents’ socialization in the creation of these social dispositions. Habitus develops through participation in shared practices and interactions with certifying bodies, auditors, and peers. These dimensions underscore that sustainability learning is not simply a cognitive process but a socially conditioned and relational practice. Certifications, as structured artifacts within fields, serve to reinforce particular dispositions and learning trajectories while obscuring others. In the following section, we apply this framework to empirical cases that illustrate how certification-based learning unfolds within different supply chain contexts.

Figure 1 summarizes the proposed theoretical framework. Drawing on Bourdieu’s theory of practice [23], it conceptualizes certification-based sustainability learning as a socially conditioned process shaped by the interplay between the structured field of sustainable supply chain management, the dispositions of supply chain actors, and the structuring effects of certification regimes. Certifications function as boundary objects that are used by all agents in the field and sustain habitus, enabling or constraining learning practices. The framework highlights how sustainability learning emerges not from abstract knowledge transfer alone but through embodied practices situated within asymmetric field positions.

5. Empirical Illustration: Certification-Based Learning in Maritime and Agri-Food Supply Chains

To illustrate the theoretical framework outlined above, we examine two empirical cases published in the literature where certification plays a central role in structuring sustainability learning: the maritime industry [20] and the agri-food sector [16]. These cases demonstrate how certification regimes act as both enablers and constraints of learning, shaping dispositions, practices, and power relations across supply chain actors.

5.1. Maritime Safety and the Transposition of Certification Logic

The maritime industry offers a rich empirical case for understanding how certification operates as a vehicle for field structuration and habitus formation. The focal case study [20] shows that the governance of sustainability in shipping is deeply embedded in a historical and institutional framework originally designed for maritime safety. Central to this framework is the role of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and classification societies, which have institutionalized a complex regime of mandatory certifications. These certifications—originally created to ensure the safety of ships, cargo, and crew—have been progressively extended to cover sustainability-related concerns such as greenhouse gas emissions (through MARPOL Annex VI, MARPOL [57] is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships), ship recycling (through the Ship Recycling Regulation of the European Union), and the control of hazardous materials (through the Inventory of Hazardous Materials or IHM certification [58]).

This institutional apparatus has given rise to a powerful and enduring habitus among key maritime agents. Classification societies, in particular, hold significant cultural and symbolic capital due to their long-standing technical expertise and quasi-regulatory authority. They act as Recognized Organizations on behalf of states and issue both classification and statutory certificates. Because compliance with such certifications is a prerequisite for shipowners to operate vessels, secure insurance, and access international ports, the practice of certification has become deeply normalized and taken for granted in the industry. Consequently, practitioners consider that accreditors are an essential part of supply chain governance as they provide “data, information and advice so vital for adoption of various safety conventions” [59].

Certification learning in this context is procedural and routinized. It privileges adherence to standardized documentation and formal audit processes. This procedural orientation reflects a field-wide habitus shaped over decades by safety regulations, technical inspections, and formalized quality controls. Agents are socialized into this mode of operation through professional training, recurring interactions with auditors, and their integration into industry networks. As a result, sustainability is often approached not as a space for critical inquiry or innovation, but as a checklist of compliance requirements embedded within certification schemes. This is well illustrated by practitioners stressing the power that is held by the accreditation agencies: “you have to listen [to the certifier], otherwise you cannot pass the certification” [20].

Moreover, the circulation of classification certificates as boundary objects reinforces the coordination of sustainability practices across diverse stakeholders—shipyards, insurers, port authorities, flag states, and supranational bodies like the IMO. These documents are simultaneously tangible (physical or digital certificates), accessible (required by multiple agents), and constantly updated (through periodic audits). Their role as shared reference points enables collective action without requiring consensus on values or goals. However, it also centralizes epistemic authority within a narrow set of dominant actors—especially the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), whose members jointly shape unified interpretations of ambiguous regulations. Peripheral actors (such as small-scale ship operators, logistics service providers, and civil society groups) are generally excluded from this rule-making process due to their limited access to economic, social, or symbolic capital. They may be subject to certification requirements but have little ability to influence their design or interpretation. This dynamic perpetuates a form of epistemic closure, whereby dominant actors define what counts as legitimate sustainability knowledge and practice.

The result is a form of sustainability learning that is highly institutionalized but also constrained. It ensures global consistency, predictability, and risk mitigation, yet often at the expense of more reflexive, place-based, or participatory approaches to sustainable innovation. The long-standing alignment between the field of maritime safety and emerging sustainability goals thus reveals both the power and the limits of habitus-driven certification regimes. The result is a form of sustainability learning that privileges documentation, compliance, and adherence to predefined standards. While this ensures predictability and consistency, it also limits more transformative forms of learning that might emerge from local innovation or collaborative experimentation. Moreover, the symbolic capital of classification societies grants them authority over what counts as legitimate sustainability knowledge, further entrenching their epistemic dominance [34].

5.2. Agri-Food Chains and the Frictions of Local Learning

The agri-food sector—particularly in contexts such as Brazilian poultry production—illustrates how learning through certification is shaped by frictions between global standards and local realities. A study by Santos et al. [16] has shown that sub-suppliers in these chains often engage in negotiation with certification requirements, translating global norms into context-specific practices. This process involves not only learning but also unlearning—shedding existing routines that conflict with formal standards. For example, local farmers and processors must often abandon traditional practices that are incompatible with hygiene, animal welfare, or labor standards imposed by certifying bodies. The result is a complex process of adaptation, resistance, and improvisation in which local practices are reshaped under the pressure of field-level expectations. Here, certifications act as boundary objects that align diverse actors around shared sustainability goals. However, this alignment is partial and contingent: sub-suppliers frequently reinterpret or selectively adopt certification practices based on economic feasibility, institutional support, and perceived legitimacy. Santos et al. [16] emphasize that these dynamics are not captured by traditional SSCM models but become visible through ethnographic and practice-based inquiry.

In contrast with conventional supply chain learning models that emphasize top–down knowledge transmission, the study by Santos et al. [16] offers a grounded view of sustainability learning in a vertically integrated agri-food chain. Their ethnographic inquiry into the Brazilian poultry industry highlights how sub-suppliers—often family-run farms operating with limited institutional support—engage with sustainability certifications such as Global GAP [60] (Good Agricultural Practices) not through direct compliance, but through a situated, negotiated, and materially embedded process of learning. Learning in this context is not primarily driven by formal training or codified procedures but emerges from embodied knowing, relational dynamics with veterinarians, and the improvisation of material practices. For instance, composting practices required by certification bodies are not simply adopted; they are debated, adapted, or even resisted based on farmers’ tacit knowledge and long-term familiarity with local conditions. One sub-supplier, when advised by a veterinarian to adjust compost intervals to align with standard hygiene protocols, responded based on decades of intuitive practice, asserting, “I simply know it from many years of doing this!” [16]. This example illustrates a form of practical legitimacy that challenges technocratic authority. Moreover, the role of veterinarians—tasked with interpreting and translating certification standards to sub-suppliers—emerged as crucial even though their position as an intermediary is contested. The study documents how veterinarians often struggle to assert authority, particularly when they lack hands-on credibility. In several instances, younger veterinarians were viewed with suspicion by sub-suppliers, who perceived them as lacking practical insight and referred to them pejoratively as “bookmen” [16]. This disconnect reveals the fragility of learning loops across tiers, especially when expert legitimacy does not resonate with locally situated knowledge.

Sustainability learning was also materially mediated. Technologies such as waste dehydrators or remote climate-monitoring systems were not imposed from above but adopted experimentally, sometimes even before the certifying authorities promoted them. In one notable vignette, a veterinarian learns from a sub-supplier’s son how to operate a digital monitoring app—reversing the traditional expert–novice dynamic. Here, knowledge circulates laterally and even upstream, blurring the boundaries between formal and informal, expert and lay, certified and non-certified. Importantly, the study foregrounds unlearning as a central mechanism through which sustainability practices are enacted. Sub-suppliers often abandon entrenched routines not due to external mandates but following a process of experimentation, peer learning, and reflexive comparison of results (e.g., animal weight gain under different ventilation setups). These findings suggest that unlearning is not merely about rejecting old habits but involves a contingent, experience-based re-evaluation of what practices “work”, given both certification demands and production realities.

Taken together, these two cases highlight the dual nature of certification-based learning. On one hand, certifications provide a common grammar for sustainability, enabling coordination across complex supply networks. On the other hand, they reproduce asymmetries in power and learning capacity, favoring actors with institutional legitimacy and marginalizing alternative voices and practices. In the next section, we return to our theoretical framework to reflect on the broader implications of these empirical insights for sustainability learning and SSCM research. To synthesize the contrasting dynamics of certification-based learning across the maritime and agri-food supply chains,

Table 3. Comparison of certification-based learning in maritime vs. agri-food supply chains.

Dimension	Maritime Supply Chain	Agri-Food Supply Chain
Historical Habitus	Rooted in safety regulation; highly procedural and compliance-driven	Mixed; influenced by traditional farming and adaptive routines
Learning Process	Formalized, codified, and audit-based; emphasizes documentation and standardization	Situated, experiential, and negotiated; involves (un)learning through practice
Capital Distribution	Symbolic and technical capital concentrated in classification societies and IMO bodies	Social and practical capital held by sub-suppliers, often lacking symbolic legitimacy
Role of Boundary Objects	Certification documents (e.g., IHM, MARPOL) mediate field-wide coordination	Certification standards interpreted and translated by intermediaries (e.g., veterinarians)
Power Relations	Centralized; dominant actors (e.g., IACS) define sustainability norms	Fragmented; local actors adapt or contest standards with limited formal authority
Learning Outcomes	Predictability, global alignment, but limited reflexivity and innovation	Contextual adaptation, occasional resistance, and innovation from below

compares key dimensions such as historical habitus, learning processes, capital distribution, and power relations. This comparative view illustrates how certifications function differently across fields, reflecting the structuring effects of institutional context, actor positioning, and boundary object mediation.

6. Discussion: Rethinking Learning, Power, and Pluralism in SSCM

The empirical insights from maritime and agri-food supply chains affirm the central proposition of this paper: that certifications are not neutral instruments of sustainability learning, but structured artifacts embedded within fields of power. Using Bourdieu’s practice theory, we have shown how sustainability learning is conditioned by habitus, shaped through capital endowment, and constrained by the hierarchical structures of SSCM fields.

6.1. From Compliance to Dispositional Learning

Traditional views of sustainability learning in SSCM treat learning as a rational, top–down process of knowledge transfer from focal firms or standard bodies to suppliers [5,40]. However, our findings suggest that this model overlooks the dispositional and tacit dimensions of learning emphasized in practice theory [45,46].

In the maritime case, certifications do not teach sustainability per se; they reinforce pre-existing dispositions toward procedural compliance formed through decades of safety regulation [20]. In the agri-food case, learning takes the form of negotiated adaptation and localized reinterpretation of global norms [16]. These examples support a dispositional view of learning, wherein what is learned, how, and by whom is deeply mediated by actors’ positions in the field. The empirical findings of Oelze et al. [56] suggest that firms engage in certification not only for outward signaling but also to access tacit knowledge and manage uncertainty—strategic actions aligned with accumulating cultural and symbolic capital in Bourdieu’s terms. Knowledge access, risk mitigation, and participation in certification networks can be interpreted as strategic positioning within the SSCM field. This reinforces the idea that certifications reinforce field-specific habitus and condition dispositional learning through structured routines and peer alignment [20].

6.2. Certifications as Mechanisms of Symbolic Domination

The inability of focal firms to effectively manage sub-suppliers has been a major gap in SSCM research [61,62]. Multi-tier supply chains present challenges not only of visibility but also of accountability, as upstream actors often bear the costs of compliance without voice in standard setting [63]. Our analysis also underscores the critical insight that certifications often reproduce field-level inequalities. Symbolic domination occurs when dominant actors impose their definitions of sustainability, legitimize certain forms of knowledge, and marginalize others [23]. In SSCM, this can mean the valorization of technical audits over local know-how, or the privileging of Western standards over indigenous practices [51]. A parallel can be drawn with the clothing industry, where Oelze et al. [56] found that firms implementing the bluesign^® certification scheme [64]—a voluntary standard focusing on chemical safety, resource efficiency, and environmental responsibility in textile production—were motivated not only by reputational gains but also by internal strategic needs such as knowledge access and inter-firm networking. These certification regimes served as infrastructures for risk management and symbolic positioning, especially in global supply chains. This supports our argument that certifications are entangled in field dynamics and act as mediators of both dispositional learning and field structuration, shaping which sustainability practices become normalized or marginalized.

This perspective aligns with the critique of certification regimes as mechanisms of soft power, wherein multinational corporations, non-governmental organizations, and certifiers extend governance authority without democratic accountability [9,10]. It also resonates with calls for a deeper scrutiny of who sets the rules, who benefits, and who bears the burden of certification [11].

6.3. Limitations and Unintended Consequences of Certification Regimes

Although certification regimes are widely promoted as solutions to sustainability challenges in global supply chains, empirical research across various sectors highlights numerous limitations and unintended consequences. Certification schemes frequently reinforce existing power asymmetries, marginalize peripheral actors, and yield symbolic rather than substantive sustainability outcomes [10,11,65].

In the maritime industry, classification societies play a critical role in certifying ships’ safety and environmental standards, yet their effectiveness has been repeatedly questioned due to conflicts of interest arising from their dual roles as regulators and commercial service providers [54]. The infamous Amoco Cadiz and Prestige disasters—ships previously certified at high standards—underscore severe gaps in accountability and the limitations of relying solely on certification regimes to ensure safety and sustainability [66].

Similarly, in the apparel and textile sector, voluntary certification schemes such as bluesign^® and SA8000, although widely adopted, have often been critiqued for their superficial impact. Research consistently shows that these certifications primarily serve branding and reputational purposes rather than driving deep structural change [56,67]. Locke [68], through extensive empirical investigation, finds that private certification initiatives frequently fail to produce long-lasting improvements in labor practices due to their overemphasis on audit-based compliance, overlooking the root causes of unsustainable practices embedded in broader economic pressures.

In the agri-food industry, certification schemes like Global GAP have been praised for enhancing market access but simultaneously criticized for unintended socio-economic consequences. Farmers in developing economies often experience certifications as burdensome, culturally disconnected, and exclusionary, leading to superficial compliance rather than genuine improvements in sustainability practices [16,22]. Tallontire et al. [69] highlight that certification can exacerbate inequalities by favoring resource-rich actors, disadvantaging smallholders who lack the financial, informational, or technical capacity to effectively adopt prescribed standards.

Moreover, across sectors, certifications tend to privilege codified and standardized knowledge over situated, experiential, and indigenous practices, creating barriers to genuine learning and innovation. Empirical studies underscore that compliance-based certification regimes frequently ignore the tacit, context-specific knowledge critical to effective and meaningful sustainability outcomes [47,70]. In sum, these empirical insights collectively reveal key limitations of certification regimes: perpetuating structural inequalities, privileging symbolic compliance over transformative action, marginalizing peripheral actors, and promoting superficial rather than substantial learning processes. Thus, critical scholars increasingly advocate for moving beyond traditional certification models toward governance approaches that incorporate inclusive, context-sensitive, and reflexive forms of sustainability learning [51,71].

7. Conclusions

This paper has sought to reframe the role of certifications in sustainable supply chain management by applying a critical-practice perspective grounded in Bourdieu’s theory of habitus, capital, and field. In contrast with the mainstream SSCM literature that conceptualizes certifications as rational tools for transferring codified sustainability knowledge [5,29,30], we have argued that these instruments are deeply embedded in power structures that shape who learns, what is learned, and under what conditions. The findings of Oelze et al. [56] highlight the multifaceted role of certification schemes as strategic infrastructures that connect marketing, risk management, and knowledge acquisition. These schemes not only standardize sustainability practices but also provide cognitive maps and partner networks that enable firms to align with dominant norms and manage uncertainty. From a practice-theoretical lens, such functions reinforce the formation of habitus and reproduce power-laden field structures, underscoring the need to critically examine who benefits from certification-induced learning and under what conditions [20]. Through empirical illustrations in the maritime and agri-food sectors, we demonstrated how certification-based learning is conditioned by social positioning, capital endowment, and dispositions [16,20]. In doing so, we contributed to a growing stream of SSCM research that adopts a practice-based [45,46] and critical [21,51] approach to understanding sustainability governance.

Our theoretical contribution lies in integrating Bourdieu’s theory of practice into the SSCM field, a perspective that enables a deeper understanding of learning asymmetries, field-level domination, and the structuring role of certifications. We extend previous calls to move beyond normative assumptions by illustrating how certifications act as boundary objects that often privilege dominant actors and marginalize local actors [53]. In line with Deetz’s framework [50], our findings demonstrate the limitations of the dominant normative discourse in SSCM, which prioritizes performance metrics, control, and technical efficiency. We argue that advancing the field requires greater engagement with critical and dialogic discourses that foreground conflict, ambiguity, and reflexivity. Calls for methodological pluralism in SSCM are increasingly echoed by reviews in fashion, logistics, and sustainability research [72,73,74]. McDonagh and Prothero [75] highlight the need to integrate critical marketing perspectives into sustainability studies, while Rodriguez-Escobar [76] urges greater inclusion of indigenous and experiential knowledge systems. Recent contributions emphasize the need to incorporate non-managerial voices and ethnographic methods to reveal overlooked practices and meanings [16,22]. For instance, sustainability learning cannot be fully captured through audit results or survey metrics but must be examined through lived experiences, emotional investments, and embodied practices. Furthermore, the growing call for a “practice turn” in SSCM research invites scholars to revisit the epistemological foundations of the field. If positivist studies in SSCM have their limits [56], understanding sustainability requires examining how practices are produced, maintained, and contested in everyday interactions [47]. As critical researchers, our own epistemic positioning shapes how we interpret certification regimes [18]. SSCM scholarship must reflect on its methodological assumptions and power implications, especially when engaging with “soft” governance tools framed as neutral.

Adopting a critical-practice perspective has important practical implications for managers, auditors, and policymakers involved in sustainability governance of supply chains. Managers should move beyond compliance-focused approaches and actively engage with local actors and contexts, cultivating environments that value diverse, experiential, and situated forms of knowledge. Auditors, traditionally oriented toward standardized verification processes, should incorporate more reflexive audit practices that recognize and document the complexities of power dynamics and local adaptations within certified supply chains. Policymakers, for their part, need to reconsider certification design, ensuring greater participation of marginalized stakeholders in standard-setting processes to enhance legitimacy and sustainability outcomes. Echoing prior critiques of technocratic governance [9,10], we recommend certification schemes embrace co-learning methodologies and actively integrate local communities to promote a real change toward more sustainability in supply chains [16,47,76].

Future research should pursue three main directions. First, comparative fieldwork across supply chains and certification regimes can help map the diversity of habitus and learning dispositions shaping sustainability engagement. Second, longitudinal studies could explore how learning trajectories evolve over time as actors accumulate or lose economic, social, cultural, or symbolic capital. Third, cross-disciplinary collaboration bridging sociology, logistics, and organizational studies could enrich conceptual and methodological approaches to sustainability learning. Critical and practice-based perspectives can help SCM scholars generate a better understanding of the social and political dimensions of learning and help build more just, inclusive, and reflexive sustainability futures. Moreover, future research could benefit significantly from employing dialogic approaches—as defined by Deetz [50]—which focus on recovering suppressed conflicts and bringing marginalized voices into sustainability debates. Unlike normative research, which emphasizes consensus and efficiency-driven outcomes, or purely critical research, which tends to expose power asymmetries and structural domination, dialogic approaches emphasize ongoing transformation through inclusive discourse and the recognition of multiple, often contradictory, stakeholder perspectives. Some prior studies [77,78] provide concrete illustrations of how dialogic approaches can operationalize the bridging of normative and critical perspectives. For instance, Carbone et al. [77] utilize dialogic methodologies to reveal how supply chain actors negotiate conflicting interpretations of sustainability standards, opening spaces where normative consensus-oriented perspectives and critical views on exclusion and domination can interact constructively. Similarly, Clancy and Narayanaswamy [78] show how participatory dialogue within certification frameworks can surface marginalized insights, fostering richer, more reflexive decision-making processes that transcend traditional compliance-focused audits. Adopting such dialogic methods could also encourage stakeholders—managers, auditors, and policymakers—to engage actively with competing narratives around sustainability, thus facilitating a more robust and democratic governance of certification regimes. Dialogic research acknowledges the fluidity and contingency of sustainability practices, challenging actors to continuously re-examine underlying assumptions, integrate diverse knowledge forms, and adapt governance frameworks in ways that normative or critical approaches alone might overlook. Therefore, future studies should explore dialogic engagements within certification processes, examining how sustained interactions among stakeholders holding divergent perspectives might foster inclusive, reflexive learning environments. Such research would not only extend theoretical understandings of supply chain governance but also provide practical guidance for creating certification systems capable of achieving genuine sustainability transformations.