In 1988, the first Fairtrade label, Max Havelaar, was applied to packs of Mexican coffee sold in Dutch supermarkets. At the time, using a product label to say something about standards in a supply chain was revolutionary, but today it is routine. The Ecolabel Index currently lists 463 certifications in 199 countries.
On the face of it, certifications on everything from fish to timber can be seen as progress, promising higher standards and transparency in the pursuit of sustainability. But what purpose are the certification labels actually serving? Can we assume that they are beneficial to producers? Do consumers understand what’s behind a certification label, and does it even matter if they do? These were some of the questions asked at a recent roundtable discussion hosted by the Guardian and supported by Mondelēz International.
When Fairtrade first emerged, it was about product differentiation, giving consumers a vehicle for choosing a more equitable, sustainable supply chain over the standard one. As more companies have accepted the need to make their supply chains fairer, that role has changed.
“Certification now plays an additional verification role alongside a whole set of other interventions. It’s about shoring up the sustainability of supply chains, because companies are more aware of risks and challenges,” said Barbara Crowther, director of policy and public affairs at the Fairtrade Foundation.
Companies going alone
The pressure on businesses to do the right thing all the time has led many to start their own projects. While in-house approaches to certification give a business greater oversight and brand differentiation, critics argue it may reduce transparency.
“If your goal is to be a sustainable company, certification will play a role, but so might working with partners on the ground, and working with regulators,” said Will Stephens, head of sustainable sourcing at The Body Shop.
The Body Shop has a history of setting up its own direct, fair trade relationships with suppliers, and only some of its products actually carry the Fairtrade logo. Stephens gave the example of a scrubbing mitt made from cactus fibres, which is sourced directly from a specific community in Mexico. “I don’t think certification would be meaningful for that, and you would need a certification body specialised in cactus. But we have a long tail of other raw materials where certification does play a role.”
Recent programmes launched by global confectionery companies with cocoa-producing communities show how certification is just one part of what is happening on the ground today. About 20 years ago, third-party certification of cocoa was a step forward for an industry that had previously not been able to trace its beans much further back than the export dockyard. Today, the industry is more aware that certification alone isn’t addressing problems of low productivity, poor infrastructure and child labour, which continue to destabilise the supply chain. Programmes such as Mondelēz’s Cocoa Life and the Nestlé Cocoa Plan are using partnerships with civil society organisations to address those issues, alongside certification.
“Certification can tell you that more sustainable practices are being followed, and that’s a good thing, but we’re trying to say what the actual measured impact is on productivity, income or other dimensions,” said Jonathan Horrell, global sustainability director at Mondelēz International.
Certification no solution to poverty
Mondelez recently announced that 21% of its cocoa is now “sustainably sourced”, meaning it has come either through Cocoa Life or certification. This figure – and the very need for a programme like Cocoa Life – might surprise consumers who thought that years of certifications under Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance, UTZ and others had done more to create sustainable producer communities.
“Consumers expect certification to be building capacity at farm level, but it’s not a development tool. Certification alone doesn’t address the problem that consumers think it addresses,” said Nicolas Mounard, chief executive of Farm Africa.
This is one of the tensions that businesses face when it comes to certification, particularly in food and drink: consumers expect high standards and constant improvement on the ground, but supply chains are complex. Certification on its own can’t perform miracles, and the shorthand of the label can’t convey the complexity of what it does and doesn’t do.
“Consumers are demanding them, but when you look at how many certifications there are, it’s hard to understand the labels and what it all means,” said Mikkel Andersen, global strategic services director at Sustainia.
What next for fairer supply chains?
If there is to be greater clarity on certification and what it can do, industries may need to confront price as well. Referring to the tea sector, Stuart Singleton-White, director of external communications at Rainforest Alliance, said the signals from producers are that positive change costs money. “All the producers are saying the big problem is that if you want a living wage and decent housing, the price you’re paying for your tea is not enough to support that development on the ground.”
In non-food sectors such as textiles, there’s also room for more informed debate about the role, if any, of certifications. The 2013 Rana Plaza disaster in Bangladesh drew attention to serious problems in textile supply chains, but certification has a low profile there. Will that change?
“Fairtrade has been working on a textile standard for the past decade and that’s now coming into fruition,” said Clare Lissaman, director of product and impact at Mysource. “But I think labour activists on the Clean Clothes Campaign and Labour Behind the Label will say we cannot expect consumers or indeed companies to drive this. This is where governments and workers organising and standing up for their own rights has to be the way forward. As brilliant as Fairtrade has been in galvanising a huge consumer movement, we’re not going to get change in the garment industry like that.”
Certification standards have done a lot to make supply chains fairer and more transparent over the past couple of decades, and with the launch of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015 – particularly SDG12, on sustainable production and consumption – we may be moving towards a more nuanced dialogue about certification and its role in supply chains. In the words of the SDG itself, achieving the goal is something that must involve “business, consumers, policymakers, researchers, scientists, retailers, media, and development cooperation agencies”.
At the table: certification debate
- Tom Levitt (Chair) Guardian Sustainable Business
- Jonathan Horrell global sustainability director, Mondelēz International
- Amanda Berlan senior lecturer, ethical business, Coventry University
- Mikkel Andersen global strategic services director, Sustainia
- Rob Harrison director, Ethical Consumer
- Will Stephens head of sustainable sourcing, The Body Shop
- Tallulah Chapman head of communications, FSC UK
- Clare Lissaman director of product and impact, Mysource
- Connor McVeigh UK supply chain director, McDonald’s
- Barbara Crowther director of policy and public affairs, Fairtrade Foundation
- Stuart H Singleton-White director, external communications (Europe and Asia), Rainforest Alliance
- Nicolas Mounard CEO, Farm Africa
Comments (…)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion