Scientific evidence shows sustainability standards help improve livelihoods, promote decent work, protect human rights and reduce deforestation. Their continued uptake in sectors like agriculture, forestry and mining highlights their value in advancing sustainability practice. We also know that a standard’s credibility is material to driving long-term change.

However, research shows that standards alone cannot solve deep-rooted structural problems. Driving real progress requires collaboration and a smart mix of mandatory and voluntary tools.

Sustainability standards: do they make a difference?

At ISEAL, we are often asked whether sustainability standards make a difference. It’s a critical question on the effectiveness of these tools and their accountability for those who use, adopt and support them.

For over 15 years, ISEAL has supported transparency and learning – helping schemes to develop and invest in monitoring and evaluation through the ISEAL Impacts Code (now part of the ISEAL Code), fostering peer learning, partnering with researchers, and launching Evidensia to improve access to credible evidence.

The evidence on the impacts of standards has grown alongside their market uptake. In fact, more research exists on standards than on any other market-based sustainability tool, or even regulation. But the evidence does not offer simple yes or no answers.

When people ask, “Do standards make a difference?” the answer depends on whether you rely on opinion or evidence. It’s like asking if air travel is safe – many people fear it, especially after a crash, but the data consistently shows it’s the safest mode of transport. Similarly, the evidence shows standards make a meaningful difference.

How do sustainability standards drive change?

Before exploring the evidence, it’s helpful to recap how sustainability standards work to drive change. These market-based tools define good practices or set benchmarks for businesses or supply chain actors to adopt.

Standards can be mandatory (set by governments) or voluntary (developed by NGOs or multistakeholder groups). Most aim to tackle pressing social and environmental challenges, with the most credible standards focused on impact.

Sustainability system strategies

By defining responsible practices, assessing their implementation and measuring change over time, sustainability standards are used worldwide by businesses and governments to drive social and environmental improvements.

Today, we increasingly refer to them as ‘systems’ because they employ diverse strategies to drive sustainability in markets and supply chains. They set standards, support continuous improvement, build capacity, foster consensus on what good looks like or shift practice across a sector, and work with business and governments to create the conditions for sustainability to thrive.

Understanding this systemic role is crucial. When asking whether standards make a difference, we must look for evidence across the full range of what these systems aim to achieve.

What’s the link between credibility, impact and evidence?

It is easy to quickly create real-world impacts, but through measures that are not credible or sustainable in the long-term.

For instance, cash transfers may improve farmer incomes short-term, but this approach is proven to lack lasting impact. Banning palm oil cultivation might curb deforestation locally but shift demand to less efficient, less sustainable oils for home and industrial use.

That’s why evidence matters. Not just to verify whether sustainability standards work, but to ensure the outcomes are credible and desirable. 

ISEAL’s thought leadership explores this critical connection in depth, showing how credible systems build trust and drive change – from improving farmer livelihoods through equitable assurance mechanisms, to influencing EU greenwashing regulations, to driving climate action via robust, transparent methodologies.

Is there evidence? What does it say?

Yes. A strong, high-quality body of scientific evidence exists on the impacts of sustainability standards. More than for any other market or non-market sustainability approach.

The Evidensia Knowledge Matrix confirms this, hosting significantly more research on sustainability standards than on tools such as landscape or jurisdictional approaches, company programmes, trade mechanisms or government regulation. 

Every major systematic review echoes this: sustainability standards are the most studied and evidenced market-based tool for driving sustainability.

The impacts of sustainability standards: Progress on long-term sustainability issues takes time, but the evidence clearly shows that adopting sustainability standards drives positive change.

Sustainability standards have been shown to help smallholders earn higher prices for certified crops, and modestly increase their incomes (Oya et al. 2018). Standards linked to better farming practices can also boost productivity, further supporting income growth (Garrett et al. 2021; Vanderhaegen et al. 2018).

Sustainability standards can also strengthen resilience. By securing higher prices or premiums, certified producers can earn more income and are better able to invest, adapt, and manage risks. For example, during COVID-19, Cambodian rice farmers selling organic-certified rice continued receiving premium prices, helping them to stay resilient to financial and commercial disruptions (International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD, 2023)).

Market access and trade: Evidence shows that certification can boost trade, especially for specific products and markets. Gains often come from expanding certified production areas rather than increasing the number of certified producers (Fiankor et al. 2019).

Even a small increase in the share of certified production can significantly increase export value (Bemelmans et al. 2023), and countries adopting sustainability standards often see improved export performance (Dolabella, M. and Saeteros, M., 2024).

Climate change, climate resilience and nature: Evidence shows that certification supports climate and environmental goals. In Ghana, cocoa certification has strengthened climate-smart farming practices (Thompson et al. 2022). And certified coffee farmers are more likely to adopt climate-friendly, cost-saving practices, like using inputs more efficiently, especially when aligned with their economic interests (Grabs 2020b).

Recent research also highlights biodiversity benefits: FSC-certified forests have more mammals, including large and high-conservation-priority species, than non- FSC-certified forests (Zwerts et al.,2024).

Human rights and decent work: Evidence shows that sustainability standards have contributed to better wages and working conditions, particularly on large farms and in cooperatives (Krumbiegel et al. 2018; Meemken et al. 2019). Certification also tends to be more effective in promoting fair labour standards in larger, more organised farm settings (Krumbiegel et al. 2018; Meemken et al. 2019). A recent Evidensia systematic review on the effects of supply chain tools on decent work in agriculture, found positive impact on decent work outcomes, particularly on terms and conditions and voice and representation of workers in agriculture (Evidensia, 2024).

These findings reinforce a broader pattern seen across sectors: while sustainability standards can deliver meaningful improvements, their impact is often shaped by the context in which they are applied.

Are sustainability standards enough? Do they drive change at sufficient pace and scale?

Sustainability standards can be powerful drivers of change, delivering the greatest impact when applied in the right context – but used alone they cannot drive change in all settings, at all times. 

Enabling conditions such as market integration, policy support, and awareness of sustainability practices are crucial, while collaboration among stakeholders helps amplify impact. 

Evidence shows that external factors – like volatile food prices – can influence or even negate the gains made through certification. For instance, if prices rise sharply, any income boost from certified sales may be offset by increased food costs for farmers.

What are standards doing to improve their effectiveness?

Sustainability standards must continually strengthen their tools and systems to stay effective in a rapidly evolving context. They must adapt to remain relevant for supply chain actors within a changing environment of cost pressures and ESG pushback.

This is why many sustainability standards are looking beyond individual standards to strengthen the broader systems they operate within. A core strength of sustainability standards lies in their robust systems and tools designed to drive change. 

But gaps can still exist. For example, audits may fail to detect certain violations of the standard – such as unsafe working conditions. These challenges are difficult to uncover, even for labour inspectors in national governments. 

The persistence of forced labour in countries with strict laws, such as in the UK, shows that the limitations lie not in the existence of the rules, but in the tools used to enforce them: more needs to be done to improve and innovate the tools and methods we have to improve detection. 

This highlights a key point: sustainability standards alone cannot solve systemic problems such as poverty, child labour, forced labour or gender-based discrimination or violence. They play a meaningful role in addressing these challenges – but they are not the silver bullet.

Tackling these issues requires coordinated, multistakeholder action, and a range of approaches. Sustainability standards must continue to innovate – improving audit methodologies, strengthening traceability, and scaling strategies that deliver proven impact.

In conclusion

There is no doubt: sustainability standards drive positive, real-world change. They raise awareness and understanding of sustainability issues among supply chain actors, build capacity, and foster consensus around good practices that support continual improvement.

Standards play a vital role in shifting business behaviour towards more sustainable actions, contributing to progress on climate change, reducing deforestation, improving farmer and worker livelihoods, reducing harmful chemical use, conserving biodiversity and upholding and advancing human rights – backed by credible evidence. 

These impacts are strongest when enabling conditions are in place and when standards work alongside tools such as regulation. Supportive policies, consumer awareness, accessible finance, and on-the-ground capacity building are all part of the enabling environment. 

Visit Evidensia for reliable research on the impacts of sustainability standards.