Certification: A Breakdown in Communications

by

Features

Third-party certifications heralded as progressive solutions are souring for producers as the priority of marketing engagement trumps poverty relief.

By John Snell

Producers are focused on increasing crop yields and prices for this product. Not satisfying this basic commercial need softens their focus on other social and environmental issues. This need requires fundamental improvements to market access for (the many) producers for whom the tenets of an acceptable supply chain remain as hurdles, including:

  • Quality/Quality Control
  • Finance
  • Lot sizes
  • Traceability
  • Export proficiency
  • Transparency

Few to none of these shape point-of-sale discussions or other consumer-facing scripts as they represent the mundane, unsexy lexicon of commerce rather than the exotic, albeit unlikely imagery of happy smallholders; almost an oxymoron to those that work within the trade.

Even within the organized plantation sector, when the question is asked of certifications, they are simply a pre-requisite for selling to certain markets. Producers, across both tea and coffee, are happy to carry the bureaucratic burden of membership in the understanding that this satisfies market demands. But, ask the same producers whether they are the intrinsic drivers of sustainability and they will answer “no”, this is the requirement of running a successful agricultural business. The issue is, therefore, one of whether adoption of certification for access to certain market access, brings with it risk.

As branded companies can attest to, it takes huge investment and time to build brand health and so, to leave that of tea in the hands of third-party brand equity is frankly irresponsible as we have found out, courtesy of the BBC and KSV exposes on the trade in India. Despite their bias, these reports make irrefutable points with respect a trade that (apparently) has papered over the cracks with marks rather than dealing with the root causes of the issues. In these instances, the role of certification as a method of engaging customers, to satisfy the emotive desire of the consumer (for sustainably produced goods) has created a perceived declaration of sustainability which invited scrutiny.

Furthermore, if we need more reasons to engage in a more measured dialogue with the consumer, consider that most origins sell the majority of their teas into markets for whom certification holds no relevance which begs the question with respect to engagement vs true endeavor towards a sustainable industry. When there exist instances where companies that, dependent on the target market, change their engagement in sustainable programming, we have a moral dilemma that demands addressing.

The concerns expressed above lay bare certification as a business-to-consumer (B2C) vehicle whose capabilities are misunderstood by those producers facing the critical needs of commercial viability and perceive membership as delivering a solution. There is no question of impropriety here, merely an illumination of a communication need. By the most superficial metric, we can see a disconnect in certified production vs certified sales (below).

In fact, there is more than three times the certified volume available than sold and this, at best, suggests some inefficiency in market conversion.

The fact is that certifications stand for a promise that is frightfully oversold (or misunderstood) and under-delivered on, for those producers that are convinced of significant economic return.

On the ground, there is further granularity to the danger of our purport of a sustainable product, or at least of the even-handedness of the tools that we employ; in example:

To pass the majority of certifications a producer must be able to prove the correct storage, use, lifecycle management, and application of all agrochemicals in conjunction with the wearing of personal protective equipment (PPE); this last point negates the inclusion of most smallholder farmers for whom the $30 for PPE is unconscionable let alone the access to approved agrochemicals, the funds to build external storage or the literacy and management skills to execute the desires of our less-than-practical desires of our less-than-practical expectations.

Ironic really, the romanticism of smallholder farmers stands at the core of many brands that are heavy users of certifications yet, practically speaking, these are the least effective Farm units. Further and a major point of both media commentary on Assam, it is easier to prepare for an audit but another thing entirely to uphold the tenets of that standard throughout intervening periods.

At right is a picture of workers bedecked in required PPE (coincidentally walking through the gates of a certified estate as the writer visited) but in this neck of the woods where temperatures soar to the high 30’s centigrade and the humidity is often above 90%, wearing of this heavy, non-breathing gear is not going to happen consistently.

The reality is clear from the aforementioned documentaries (airing on BBC, ZDF among others). Should producers bear the blame entirely? No, they live in the here and now, having to cope with incessant pest outbreaks (some areas more than others) with the armory available to them, including the use of agrochemicals applied by diminishing pools of labor, and often in delicate atmospheres, fired by tribalism, unions, and more dangerous elements.

Being less than authoritarian can sometimes be the only course of action, on the ground. So, how to help? As suggested, rather than audit for a pre-concept on agrochemical application, likely to fail, buyers should face the issue head-on and consider what systemic changes can be made to combat this issue.

  • Production without chemicals
  • Lighter weight, breathable PPE
  • Automated (drone) application

These require long-term commitment of resources which will only ever be practically achieved when all supply chain players collaborate and commit to long-term programming and share the heavy lifting.

This is where communication is key; the industry cannot claim improvements without first contextualizing the scale of the problems it faces. One without the other opens all to scrutiny and risk, as expectations are that buyers should be able to source ethically (that grand “Catch all” which defies complete definition) and now!

What the tea industry should be demanding, of itself, is a less consumer-driven model and expand work on more holistic designs. We need to stop seeing the vagaries of tea production as an inconvenience to smooth commerce and understand that the reality is of a complicated, labor intensive, naturally challenged industry as the best story of all. Through true collaborative and vertically integrated modeling we can actually sustain the industry, it’s environment and communities more effectively and storyboard something attractive to consumers and build a potent weapon against industry attacks.

Consider the context from those that live and breathe the gap between their reality and that imposed by the industry through standards every day.

Further excerpts from origin

“Currently there is not sufficient information relating to housing and sanitation coming from certification... Having said this, in Sri Lanka as the management of housing and sanitation is with a third-party body named the PHDT. (Plantation Housing Development Trust, a tripartite organization of the state, trade unions and the management companies) RPC’s stay exempt from being audited on housing and sanitation….”

And also from Sri Lanka (low-grown estate commentary)

“...Audit teams have no idea of the local knowledge available. The language barrier is a big problem.

If you look at a big estate (low grown Sri Lanka) factory has all facilities, washrooms, safety stations etc. BUT labor comes in and goes out 24-48 hours later, so they fail on the audit scoring system.

(The context) 8 hours does not pay them enough SLRs800 ($5.2 daily average), given that they need to be bused in and out (4 hours there and back) so they would prefer to sleep at the factory (where social spaces are provided with this reality in mind) and earn SLRs2000-3000 for each trip away from home.Driving a three-wheel tuk-tuk bestows higher social standing than a factory.”

A parting comment from the weeds

“The certifications want us to not use the chemicals and selectively weed bad weeds and leave the healthy weeds but these take up the fertilizer meant for bushes,” explains a field worker in Sri Lanka.

“We do not want to go into the field unless weedicides are sprayed because (deadly) snakes are in the grass…”

The tea industry need only listen more!  

From Assam:

“…So the only thing which has been sustainable is the image to sell the consumer the product.  If ground realities have not changed, you must highlight this as a complete failure of certification.

If you look at the hypocrisy of the “cert’s name” (omitted) on the multinational pack, the tea in it is completely different from a subsidiary of this company working in India which sources mainly from bought leaf factories.

How can you have two diametrically opposite standards existing for the same source?

How can plantations absorb higher input costs when realized prices are suppressed?”

From India:

“…As I see it, these certificates are (a) way out to deflect press criticism which would otherwise brand the tea industry a “Sweat Shop”.

But the fact of the matter is an ordinary women pluckers plight has not improved over the last 100 years, (they are still underweight and suffer from anemia) and they may be better off making an Addias World Cup Foot Ball, rather than spend time out in the field for a pittance….”

From Sri Lanka:

“…Most producers embark on certification as a marketing tool and not really as a tea sustainability exercise. Hence the commitment is diluted.

The tea industry starts from the principle that, given the spectrum of estates and producers, estate-level verification is an essential part of risk management. However, it is not sufficient on its own, and if badly implemented or ‘mis-sold’ can generate its own risks, as highlighted in various media reports.

John Snell is a consultant to the tea industry and has lead sustainability programs in both tea and coffee sectors. He describes himself as an unabashed supporter of pre-competitive collaborative trade initiatives. He praises certification programs “for catalyzing consumer demand for sustainable products.” But he is also vocal about “the difficulties of top-down mechanisms to meaningfully address sustainability for producers, rather than a market agnostic, bottom-up approach, where audits are merely tools for the identification and prioritization of issues so that corrective action and resource deployment can be managed effectively.”