Cargill’s Truvia sustainability programme is a welcome development

Too many companies are still blasé about the urgent need to put their business onto a strong sustainability footing. That means continuously improving environmental, financial and social standards, under a good governance regime.

So, when a giant multinational publicly promises to conduct its business with high levels of integrity, reduce its environmental impact, treat people with dignity and respect, and invest in the communities where it operates, one has to say: “Well done. Good first step. Now show me the evidence.”

And, to my surprise, that’s what Cargill is doing, as it builds from scratch a new sustainable supply chain for its natural sweetener, Truvia.

When I and others went to an advisory meeting with Cargill staff a couple of months ago to hear about its Truvia sustainability plans, I was expecting the familiar corporate-speak of fine-sounding eco-principles, green slogans and opaque project aims blanketing an attempt to lure our endorsement. I mean, come on – it’s Cargill, the global behemoth of agri-commodities and bête noire of campaigners the world over. But, I was mistaken.

OK, it’s still early days, and there’s a way to go (see below). But, the Truvia sustainability chain should turn out to be a model for others to copy. The environmental commitments on carbon and waste reduction, water depletion and biodiversity are impressive.

But it wasn’t the targets that convinced me (targets can always be made stronger) so much as the rigorous field analysis that preceded them. That is the measure of a company that wants to build a sustainable business that supports farmers, protects nature and delivers a decent product.

For example, Cargill’s life-cycle analysis included working out the product footprint from planting to the final ingredient formulation; assessing the impact on growing and first stage processing communities to ensure they gained a fair income, fair working conditions and a protected environment; measuring the “embedded energy” in the supply chain; assessing the waste outputs, water usage and impact of packaging; and enhancing the social integrity of the farming and processing communities in China and Argentina where the host plant stevia is grown.

These are good first moves. But they can be improved. The global supply chain obviously has significant energy and carbon costs in transportation – the company should be moving to clean and green fuels in all modes. Cargill should be reducing and if possible eliminating pesticides, herbicides and artificial fertilisers – not just ensuring their safe storage and use.

Improvements to make

There seems to be a lack of data on soil quality and the effect of these synthetics – this should be rectified. If stevia production is elevated to a whole-farm, closed-cycle system, involving co-cropping and other diversifications, then there should be opportunities to further cut fossil energy and resource waste, and minimise/replace expensive synthetic chemicals with natural alternatives.

More needs to be done on developing a rigorous species and habitat conservation and re-establishment programme. Deciding not to chop down primary forest is a start. Restoring degraded land is the next step. Again, there seem to be greater possibilities to reduce packaging along the supply chain – pallets, supersacks, bags, boxes, tarps and plastic containers – and boost recycled products. Here, Cargill could learn a thing or two from other best practice companies.

Finally, the water data and planning we’ve seen are still in an early phase. Given the proposed scale of production, a broader watershed management plan should be drawn up and implemented (something likely to be a necessity in a climate changed world).

Since there is no ready-made certification programme that can endorse this whole life-cycle approach, I would encourage the Truvia business to establish a sustainability advisory board of independent experts, drawn from non-governmental organisations, academia and business. This can be a critical friend and report annually on measurement, systems and progress. The reports should be made public, and neither Truvia nor Cargill should have any input over their findings. This will complement and build on the brand’s existing commitments to implementing Supplier Ethical Data Exchange (Sedex) audits throughout the supply chain, as well as applying sustainable agricultural standards at farm level.

Cargill’s Truvia business has made a good start to get things right – environmentally, socially and financially – all along the supply chain. The company has set up rigorous improvement programmes and gone public on ambitious aims. There are plenty of campaigning NGOs, community groups and journalists who will ensure there is no back-sliding.

This is a product development programme of which Cargill can be proud and from which others can learn.

Charles Secrett is a founder of the Robertsbridge Group and was executive director of Friends of the Earth (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) for 10 years.

This story is part of a special corporate focus written and produced by Ethical Corporation and supported by Cargill. For more information about Ethical Corporation’s occasional corporate focus series or other publishing opportunities please contact andrew.bold@ethicalcorp.com
.



Related Reads

comments powered by Disqus