According to the MSI-Integrity report, around 40 certifications worldwide have been analyzed.
The conclusion of the study is that they may actually be used to cover up abusive practices of large corporations against human rights and allow governments to do nothing
Many of the world’s best-known certification standards, such as Rainforest Alliance, UTZ and Fairtrade, among others, are failing in their mission to ensure the ethical conduct of large corporations, as well as serving to consolidate abusive business practices, according to the report of the Human Rights Institute, MSI-Integrity (www.msi-integrity.org), USA.
How was the MSI-Integrity study
This is the conclusion reached in the study led by the entity’s executive director, Amelia Evans, a lawyer who graduated from Harvard. Amelia’s conclusion is based on the 235-page Not-Fit-for-Purpose report (available on the institution’s website) produced after a decade of research, which involved more than 10,000 participating companies in 170 countries and covers various sectors such as cocoa, sugar, palm oil, tea, minerals, seafood, electronics, jewelry and children’s toys. “The risk is that these initiatives are legitimizing abusive behavior by large production chains by not detecting them,” she explains.
The certifications were created in the early 1990s to fill a gap, according to Evans. “Developed nations in the northern hemisphere were able to apply the law to abuses in the production chains of large corporations in their respective countries of origin. But they couldn’t do the same for the activities of these multinationals in developing or underdeveloped countries,” Evans says.
“These certifications began operating to meet these needs. At the time of their creation, it was a great experiment. But after 30 years, our study came to the conclusion that certifications failed to protect workers with respect to human rights,” she says.
Evans pointed out that this is because certifiers were captured by companies and corporations and no longer reflect the needs of workers. She says that third-party auditors are usually paid by the same companies for which they are hired to assess.
According to the lawyer, there are two particular problems: the first is that there is great confusion about different initiatives. But ¾ of certifiers use words like “responsible;” “fair”, “sustainable”. However, these words do not mean, for example, that workers have been provided with a decent minimum wage to survive.
“Of all the certifications, only Fairtrade requires the worker to receive a minimum payment,” she states. On the other hand, there is a mistaken perception on the part of the consumer when they buy a certified product. “The consumer is thinking that they are doing their job. Because they believe that words like “sustainable”, “fair” and “responsible” really mean that the producer is being treated in a dignified manner. This is quite out of line with what’s actually happening,” she adds.
Evans also says the North-South Hemisphere relationship remains unfair. “It seems that all the effort is still being made by producers in the southern hemisphere. When you look at the profit margin, you clearly see that the money stays in the corporations.
Setting prices below cost, requesting quick returns and other aggressive procurement practices by multinational buyers are also largely overlooked by certifiers.
The greatest pressure comes from big corporations for large plantations. What does that mean at a practical level? The most vulnerable are left aside and tend to get increasingly more vulnerable. The medium and large ones don’t get away either. They are under the pressure of the production chain, which requires them to have all the certifications. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that all their effort to get them will revert to better earnings for their product.
As for workers on these properties, for instance, they are afraid of reporting and losing their jobs, and end up tolerating violations of all kinds. For example, a woman who is sexually harassed has no way of complaining. “Where will she complain? Many certifiers keep their websites in English and workers are not fluent in the language or are unfamiliar with the Internet itself. They also don’t know how to use the tools to answer a questionnaire about what happened,” she says.
And let’s imagine that the woman in question, on a normal working day in the field, receives a visit from a third-party employee of the certifier. Obviously, he’ll always be with an employee of the property. When asked about her working conditions, she will naturally feel too intimidated to report and she’ll be scared of losing her job. “This monitoring model is extremely inefficient,” she affirms.
In the MSI-Integrity survey, it was proved that 2/3 of certifiers do not publish the complaints they receive in a transparent manner. “This is the time for changes to happen. Corporations need to change. They continue to break the law to pay more dividends to their investors,” Amelia warns.
Amelia stresses that this is the time to turn that relationship around. “We have the opportunity. The time to change is right now. There is a growing movement of change happening in the US and all over the world. I believe that big corporations are ready for these discussions. We need to rethink the role of big corporations in society. I’m only afraid of the kind of change that will be proposed. That it might be too weak, with NGOs and certifiers giving a voice to communities, but not giving enough strength to make the changes. As long as corporations don’t transfer power to the communities, there won’t be any transformation in society,” she concludes.
Read the official statement from Rainforest Alliance and UTZ:
Answers by Mariana Barbosa, Country Director, Brazil.
1. What is your position regarding the study by Amelia Evans, from MSI-Integrity? Do you agree when she says that the certifications are masking human rights abuse and that they end up justifying government inaction? Do you think you can be held responsible for these issues?
I believe that masking is a very strong term. Nor do I believe that the challenges in terms of certification programs exist to exempt the government from any of its responsibilities. In Brazil, we have a robust labor law with a bias to protect workers, despite the recent dismantling of this legislation. However, we know that the reality of the countryside often does not include what the law says, partly due to bad faith and partly due to structural issues of poverty, lack of capacity and lack of knowledge of it. The Government has more efficient mechanisms than the certification itself to inspect and guarantee compliance with the laws, although we can also observe a recent dismantling of the structures. Yet, certifications have not been designed to be substitutes for the role of the government or a mere enforcement of laws. There are complementary requirements between the law and certification and both have the most potential to cause transformations, if they work together.
2. She also accuses certifiers of collusion with large corporations in large production chains and of impoverishing discussions about the human rights of rural workers. It is a blunt criticism. In the 21st century, we are still discussing neocolonialism, rural poverty, slave and child labor. Isn’t it time to issue a mea culpa?
Undoubtedly, these issues are critical and everyone involved in the activities of food production, marketing and even consumption must issue this mea culpa. Large companies, certifiers, other NGOs, governments of countries in the global South, governments of countries in the global North, producers, rural employers etc. The list goes on, as these issues persist not only in Brazil, but in several countries around the world. However, we have no interest in impoverishing human rights discussions. In recent years, we have hired more specialists in the subject of human rights to deal with the issue globally, we have internalized the practice of “Advocacy” (often translated as influence) in our action strategy built in 2018, we participate in global and local forums on human rights in production chains (in Brazil, we highlight our participation in Inpacto – National Pact for the Eradication of Slave Labor) and we are making efforts in terms of channel investments from large companies in studies and projects that can bring qualified data and information and interventions that improve the rural worker’s life. It should be noted that such a situation is a complex issue and, as we know, complex issues do not have a single trivial solution. Thus, we make choices of paths and actions that we believe are more consistent with our internal expertise and track record, but we also hope that other actors will play their part in this complicated journey. This position of shared responsibility for acting in the face of complex issues has long been publicly defended by the Rainforest Alliance.
3. Were you aware of the study before the Guardian story was published?
We received a copy of the study 24 hours prior to its publication, through the ISEAL Alliance, of which we are full members.
4. According to Evans, certifications are no longer tools to contain the progress of large corporations in protecting human rights. Is it possible for everyone to discuss methods to improve what has already been implemented? How do you think the work of certifiers might advance? What was created back there to assure consumers that coffee, tea and cocoa produced according to strict criteria should not be reviewed and improved?
Of course, we can and must move forward. In recent years, after the merger with UTZ in 2018, we have been striving to build a new certification program more suited to the reality of the new times. We have made changes not only in our standard, but also in our insurance system, with the aim of making it more robust and also more realistic and transparent. We have progressed from one logic of compliance with requirements or the other to the observation of continuous improvement. We started from a more open logic to address human rights issues, such as Assess and Address. The current Assess and Address proposal requires that certified rural properties establish mechanisms of commitment, communication, monitoring and remediation for issues of discrimination, forced labor, child labor and harassment and violence in the workplace.
5. Do you believe that MSI-Integrity’s work might, in some way, contribute to the improvement of processes?
Without a doubt, given that the MSI-Integrity analysis is valid and useful, to a large extent, although we do not share the final conclusion. We agree, for example, that there should be a greater regulation and enforcement by governments. Certifications have arisen precisely to fill this void, and we are aware that certain abuses of human rights require a firm inspection and sanction that we cannot supply as a voluntary certification. The most severe sanction we can apply is to suspend or cancel the certification of a company, which, as a result, will lose access to the certified market. The effectiveness of certifications depends, to a large extent, on good faith in their implementation.
The MSI-Integrity report unfortunately does not propose solutions within the parameters of the certifications, because it questions them. One of the valid criticisms, for example, is that certifications lack effective mechanisms for victims of human rights violations to file grievance mechanisms. The complaint mechanisms implemented so far are managed by the certified companies themselves. In the case of labor complaints, problems with discrimination, sexual abuse, facts that may have their origin in the behavior of the company itself, the victims may not be using this mechanism for fear of reprisals. Our monitoring reveals that the number of complaints is low, even though we know that the complaint mechanisms formally exist. As a result, in the recently launched new Code of Conduct, for example, we have instituted that the certified company must establish a grievance committee composed of a company representative and an elected representative of the workers, to receive, analyze and, if necessary, remedy/reimburse (or forward to the relevant authorities) complaints that are substantiated. The committee also monitors and submits an annual report on the handling of complaints, including remedial and preventive measures. This is already an improvement in the processes that should result in a greater number of cases of human rights violations being registered and effectively remedied. Such improvements, nevertheless, require years of continued effort to be implemented and will not make headlines tomorrow.
6. How do you see yourself working towards improving your work in the field together with producers and really making sure that there are no abuses like child labor or slavery-like abuses on both coffee, cocoa and tea farms?
In Brazil, we have established a Social Risk Mitigation Policy for audits of the Rainforest Alliance and UTZ Standard, where certifying entities must make specific investigations before, during and after the audits to ensure that the audited producers are not listed on breach lists involving human, labor and environmental rights. Moreover, when applying for certification, producers must declare all legal proceedings in progress that are within the scope of certification to be audited – as we understand that this is an important input for auditors to check the reality of rural properties.
Our rule is clear when it establishes that this type of violation, or the insertion of the producer’s name in these types of listed ones represents the immediate suspension, investigation and, possibly, the cancellation of the certificate.
7. Como atender os pequenos produtores a obter sua certificação com um preço compatível e que eles possam arcar? Países europeus exigem as certificações para que o pequeno produtor possa vender seus produtos nesses lugares. O consumidor europeu também exige produtos certificados. Porém, o custo é altíssimo para o pequeno produtor que, raríssimas vezes, pode arcar com mais essa despesa. No caso do café, por exemplo, os preços praticados não cobrem seus custos.
Temos um código especial para pequenos produtores e a possibilidade de certificação em grupo, que reduz os custos. Também estamos implementando uma série de melhorias no monitoramento do prêmio, ou diferencial de sustentabilidade, o valor extra que é pago aos produtores para compensar os investimentos em uma produção mais sustentável. Queremos garantir que este valor chegue na ponta. Na nova norma da Rainforest Alliance, será obrigatório o pagamento do prêmio em espécie, e parte do mesmo deverá ser investido em benefício aos trabalhadores, em itens como salários, condições de trabalho, saúde e segurança, moradia e outros. Além disso, há empresas e exportadoras que arcam com os custos da certificação junto aos produtores. Estamos, também, trabalhando internamente para criar materiais de treinamento de mais fácil acesso aos produtores, para que os mesmos possam compreender melhor o passo-a-passo de se certificar, sem depender da contratação de consultores. Cabe apenas ressaltar que a Rainforest Alliance não cobra nenhum valor dos produtores para que os mesmos se certifiquem. Eles pagam apenas a auditoria, diretamente à empresa prestadora do serviço.
8. Besides, certifications are not a guarantee to consumers that coffee, tea and cocoa are free from child and slave labor, among other issues. One must simply notice what took place in Guatemala recently, with Nespresso coffee supply farms, which disrespected ethical and sustainable production practices and were certified by the Rainforest Alliance.
Yes, it has been a while since we openly commented that the certification has not been developed for this and that, therefore, it does not provide this type of guarantee. What we do is observe if there are a series of institutionalized procedures that shrink the likelihood that these violations take place, if good practices are adopted at farms, if workers are registered and do the training and are housed with dignity. In the audits, the labor documentation of farm employees and housing conditions are checked, but we cannot guarantee that, at the end of this process, violations will not happen. To improve assurance, we are using a risk-based approach. Identified regions and farms with the greatest potential to present slave labor may receive extra surprise audits to check conditions. We also act reactively when we receive complaints from workers, unions or other actors in the region. In these cases, we open an internal investigation with the auditing company, carry out new audits, if necessary, and if irregularities are found, we will suspend or cancel the certification. We have had several cases of certificates canceled recently and we have greatly improved our process aimed to reviewing the information collected in the audit, which gives us more ability to deny licenses from farms that are not complying with the rules.
9. In Brazil, specifically, we currently have a totally inept government. One farmer alone, owner of the Cristo Rei farm in Mato Grosso, deforested the equivalent of 24 million hectares of forest for his cattle. This same farmer supplies meat to the largest slaughterhouses in the world, such as JBS, selling to the main consumer markets, often with the seal of certifiers. How to deal with this inefficiency?
Livestock production is a relevant cause of deforestation and the challenges in this production chain are varied. We believe that approaches at the landscape and community level – strategies that we have employed with documented success for decades – are particularly suited to addressing the challenges associated with raising livestock, which go beyond the scope of a single farm. Moreover, we collaborate with partner NGOs specialized in the issue of deforestation and livestock production, strengthening the scientific and field work carried out by them.
