The Sustainable Supply Chain Summit 2012
Discover how to turn your company's social and environmental supply chain risk into new business opportunities. This 2 day Summit will bring together an expert line-up of speakers from Nike, Nestlé, Timberland, Akzonobel, B&Q and more to highlight how you can profit from new supply chain strategies
Certification: Time to change the record
To restore credibility and real power to certification schemes, we need to accept the realities about their past and current achievements, says Brendan May
These are tough times for certification and eco-labelling systems. Independent standards programmes find themselves under growing scrutiny. In many ways they are victims of their own success, an achievement that should not be overlooked.
The more certified products hit the market place the more polarised the debate on consumer assurance becomes. Certification has come of age and we are beginning to build up a historical record from which lessons can be learnt.
In January 2012 the Alaskan salmon fishing industry, an early adopter of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) scheme and one of its flagship fisheries, decided to withdraw from the MSC when its next re-assessment is due in October 2012. If this decision holds – it may not – it would mark the end of a decade of partnership with the MSC.
Among the many arguments made by the industry for its withdrawal the most significant is the belief that being MSC certified has lost its premium value as increasing numbers of fisheries pass through the system. Another stated reason is that the cost and complexity of being re-certified could best be spent on other things.
Barely a month after the Alaska decision, the Canadian longline swordfish fishery was deemed certifiable to the MSC standard despite major conservation concerns about turtle and shark by-catch.
These two episodes sum up the paradox facing MSC and other certification schemes: some good candidates see limited value in complying while some poor candidates are deemed eligible for an eco label that implies environmental excellence.
It is timely and right to consider honestly and rigorously what can be done to ensure the continued relevance and credibility of certification as a conservation tool. This means facing up to the fact that in more than 20 years of forestry certification and nearly 15 for fisheries the state of the world’s forests and oceans has become worse, not better.
There are several areas that should form the pillars for future debate.
Certification is a means not an end. It is a valuable management tool, but becomes less valuable when an eco label implying excellence is applied to a commodity whose exploitation is patently not excellent. Certification should not always come with the right to use a label. We should explore how that evolution might work in practice.
The third party accreditation model needs to be debated. Whenever a controversial fishery is MSC certified there is actually nothing the MSC can do about it. The fishery has paid a certifier to assess it against the MSC standard, and at no stage does the MSC have a final direct say in the outcome. It is stuck with allowing its brand to be tarnished when its own standard deems dead sharks and turtles to be acceptable. Very few organisations would allow themselves so little control over their brand image. Either the model is wrong or the standard is too weak.
The relationship between client and certifier must be reviewed. In the very early days of the MSC when I was in charge of communications, the first question people would always ask, sometimes in disbelief, was: “What do you mean the fishery chooses and pays its own auditor?” This perceivedconflict of interest has done more to undermine “independent” certification than anything. It is time to review the practice in which the pupil can choose its examiner.
Certification systems need to adapt to a rapidly evolving sustainability agenda. This means looking at whole product life cycles, broader policy issues such as natural capital and understanding that social fairness is inseparable from environmental responsibility. Certification can no longer afford to be a one-trick pony in a policy agenda focused on whole systems approaches to protecting the planet.
Bureaucracy should never be confused with multistakeholder. Too often the remedy in the face of controversy and division is to pile as many committees and processes as possible into a system in order to demonstrate accountability. The end result is often inertia and paralysis.
There are no easy answers to these dilemmas. And of course there are many success stories from across the world of certification and labelling initiatives. We now have the luxury of assessing the good, the bad and the ugly. It is a situation we should celebrate not bemoan.
But it does mean refreshing our thinking, ditching what is plainly not working, and making the case to businesses and governments that certification is still a force to be reckoned with. Without such a manifesto for change, it won’t be.
Brendan May is founder of the Robertsbridge Group, a former chief executive of the Marine Stewardship Council and a contributing editor to Ethical Corporation.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friendThe Sustainable Supply Chain Summit 2012
Discover how to turn your company's social and environmental supply chain risk into new business opportunities. This 2 day Summit will bring together an expert line-up of speakers from Nike, Nestlé, Timberland, Akzonobel, B&Q and more to highlight how you can profit from new supply chain strategies
Comments
Lack of transparency and engagement
The early promoters of certification lead us astray, suggesting that bureaucratic audits could replace transparent communication and active engagement of consumers and locals. While intending to promote integrated solutions, they invariably targeted only a few sectors. My chief criticisms have been aimed at 'sustainable' and 'eco' tourism in which an array of schemes multiplied, nevermind the lack of consumer demand or local interest.
A serious shortcoming is that most stakeholders have been left out of the process, including indigenous people, community representatives and owners of travel businesses. When invited to participate, many of these leaders opt out, reminding organizers they have other priorities. In fact, some leading tour operators believe certification and accreditation schemes are a scam that creates a cottage industry for consultants.
See http://www.planeta.com/ecotravel/tour/certification3.html
Drivers for Change
I work in the green coffee sector with specific focus on supply chain risk management and integrity in the countries of origin. Coffee growers experienced a period crisis from 1999 to 2005 brought about by historically low prices. Certifications offered an opportunity to secure a price premium or in the case of Fair Trade, a minimum price well above the world market price at the time. The entire commodities spectrum has entered period of price volatility that has taken coffee values to well above the cost of production. Price premium as a driver for change has been eroded.
Certification should also be an incentive. A number of my roasters clients used to require audits to standards such as Ethical Trade Initiative and would work with farmers and farming communities to over come their major non compliances. During this process of change, often over years, the roaster would continue to purchase coffee from the farmers as a way of supplying revenue to fund the required changes. Today, mny of these same roasters have fallen back on industry recognised certification brands such a Rainforest Alliance. To sell coffee to them, the coffee must already be certified, moving their status from pro-active to reactive. The process of change needs to carry rewards along the way as ultimately it is the hidden premium in the commercial transaction that needs to be revealed to fund change and ensure its sustainability.
Great article Brendan. Your
Great article Brendan. Your points resonate with me quite strongly having worked at Fairtrade USA and Fairtrade International overseeing “growth with integrity” for the largest Fairtrade commodities.
You are correct that certification is a means not an end. The organizations behind the certifications are using certification and labeling as a mechanism for change and continuous improvement, although these certifications by their very nature imply meeting absolutes in terms of gold standard sustainability benchmarks. Unfortunately brands, retailers and consumers aren’t interested in an “on the journey towards greater sustainability” product. It is going to take greater understanding, education and patience of all parties--producers, brands, retailers, consumers and other stakeholders--to strengthen market-based incentives that drive sustainability efforts.
I also agree that the business model need to change. There also needs to be a greater effort to internalize the cost of investment in sustainability. It is not enough to pay certification and/or licensing fees: producer and management capacity building, training, monitoring and evaluation, and capital investments all need to be a part of the package. New business and investment cases needs to be considered to deliver meaningful change.
The early leaders of the sustainability certification and labeling movement have been some of the greatest drivers of change in terms of impact on the ground, changing brand and retailer practices, and educating consumers. The sustainability movement needs to support them in their next iteration of growth and impact--they are the knowledge centers, leaders and builders of sustainable supply chains and a better future. Growth with integrity within social movements is a big challenge, but one that can easily be overcome when stakeholders cooperate.
Is more competition the answer?
Dear Ethical Corporation,
My experience with forest certification agrees with much of this article. There seems to be growing disenchantment with the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC) scheme from both industry and civil society, because it has not reacted quickly enough to issues such as tackling illegal logging, weak supply chain management, reducing costs for small forest owners, or increasing the % of certified tropical forest.
To me FSC seems to have become complacent and its governance structures do not seem able to respond and act decisively, and so the brand is weakening as key supporters from civil society withdraw.
Conversely a competitor scheme, PEFC (Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification) seems to be getting its act together and is addressing weaknesses in the standard. Although an "industry-led" scheme it is losing this tag-line and winning over some of the sceptics and so developing a stronger brand that is getting better recognition in the market.
Although businesses always moan about too many standards and audits, perhaps this is a case where some competition between schemes is a good thing!
However, I don't see timber certification per se going into decline - rather the reverse - certified timber is standard business practice now in European forestry and timber trade. With business drivers such as a new EU illegal logging law, government and corporate purchasing policies and green building codes there is a pretty compelling case to get your company certified and to trade only in certified or verified legal timber. Competition from competing building materials like concrete and steel for the sustainability mantle helps make the business case and so last year the UK Timber Trade Federation reported that over 90% of UK timber imports are now certified as sustainable under either PEFC or FSC....
But the proportions are shifting in favour of PEFC. Hopefully the FSC will respond and reform - it certainly needs to do something and in my view such competition is healthy and welcome!
Andy Roby
Indonesia
A good post - I have been
A good post - I have been suggesting the same thing for commodities certifications, coffee in particular. Standards have done a good job of getting sustainable themes onto supermarket shelves, but it's not clear how much they are costing and if they are really value for money. Many big issues are not addressed - including climate change, water shortages, disease spread, climate change and so on. And scale issues are vital.
Time for a reappraisal, a joint conference would be good, but standards setters are very reluctant to discuss their problems in public, or even semi-private.
Certification
I am a qualified lead auditor and am responsible for maintaining the ISO14001 certificate for my company. I am in complete agreement that the certification process needs to be re-evaluated for its effectiveness. I think the current system where the entity with the certification pays the auditor is bound to lead to less than rigerous upholding of the standard despite what you learn in auditor training. Standards are only as good as the ethics and principles held by those enacting them. ISO itself has recognised there are short-comings and is conducting a major review of both ISO14001 and ISO9001 with discussions around integrating maturity matrices and integrating several compatible standards.
Certification challenges
Purchasers of the services provided by those certified (or not) will always drive the demand for certification.
Not-for-profit certification-based systems have greater challenges than for-profit certification systems, for a variety of reasons. Yet, government-sponsored 'certification' disguised as licensing requirements can work. The difficulty is getting agreement and movement from these entities prior to those of in the private sector with a passion for such reaching a state of exasperation.
New certification with a whole systems approach
A very interesting article and some very valid points about certification losing its value. I would suggest that is happening all too often with ISOs too - it has become a tick box exercise. Not always, and implemented properly the systems are great, but often the paperwork just collects dust until the next (expensive) audit.
As you mentioned a whole systems approach, I thought you might be interested in The Responsible Business Standard which does just that. Granted, this is designed for SMEs and is not sector specific, but in terms of providing appropriate whole system certification I hope you'll agree that this absolutely hits the button! http://www.ResponsibleBusinessStandard.org.uk.
Do have a look. I'll be happy to tell you more!
curbing consumption
your article is a very welcome contribution. But there is another dimension you need to consider in the mix. how certification and all its associated processes (and the debates you bring up above) can sit alongside the need to reduce consumption of some products? what are the implications for producers, intermediaries, of measures to curb resource use which must inevitably increase if we are to start to tackle ES boundaries being broken? how can measures to curb levels of consumption which are unsustainable sit in this debate. Do we keep them side by side in the policy mix for governments and busiensses or start to engage the two as a part of a joint strategy that we (esp businesses must) engage with
.?