In 2013-2016, 10 giant international food chains embraced ambitious commitments to improve their social and environmental policies. The companies made the move within the campaign, Behind the Brands, undertaken by Oxfam – an international organization working to eradicate poverty. Five years on, only very few of these commitments have been turned into action despite continuous support from Oxfam, according to a new assessment by the organization released on 17 March.
Back in 2013, Coca-Cola, Danone, General Mills, Kellogg, Mars, Mondelez, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Unilever, and Associated British Foods (ABF) accepted Oxfam’s challenge and committed to take action to combat climate change, contribute to women’s economic empowerment and fight land grabbing.
In cooperation with the participants of the supply chain, producers encourage them to live up to sustainability goals. Thus, by purchasing huge amounts of cocoa or palm oil, for instance, they impact the quality of the lives of female cocoa farmers in Ghana and Guatemala, who are raw material suppliers and who are known to be discriminated against.
Ana Maria Méndez, Director of Oxfam Guatemala, noted in this respect: “Buyers from the top 10 food companies have the power to push for change with their suppliers. In Guatemala, three major food companies have halted their palm oil business due to a lack of sustainability policies. This has made the company aware of the importance of labor rights, women’s equality, and transparency, even though there is still a long way to go for the palm oil sector.”
Similarly, food chains might also have something serious to say regarding communities that face the risk of being deprived of their land, as supply chains seek to expand their farmland to cultivate sugarcane, for instance in countries like Brazil and India. According to a study of the economic impact of land grabbing on rural livelihoods, local communities worldwide have incurred US$34 billion in losses because of large-scale land acquisitions, a number comparable to the US$35 billion tendered by the World Bank for development and aid in 2012. Moreover, the issue of land grabbing is quite often tightly related to deforestation, hence imposing tougher cooperation conditions in the matter of supply chains may have a positive impact on this climate change issue.
Yet, as the Oxfam assessment highlighted, despite the fact that the participating companies have worked out how to improve sustainability policies, have taken action to start implementing these, have enhanced transparency by publishing more information of public interest, and have sufficient levers strong enough to introduce change, so far none of this has gone beyond their headquarters. The companies have been facing trouble to implement anything on a large scale in their countries of operation such as Brazil, Ghana, Guatemala, India, and Malawi, Oxfam concluded.
Commenting on this state of affairs, Oxfam America’s Associate Director of Inclusive Value Chains and Private Sector, Helen Ripmeester, said: “Bold human and land rights commitments are the first step, but they are not reaching the very farmers and workers who are at once producing our food and struggling to stay afloat during a global pandemic and a climate in crisis. Greater supply chain transparency, stronger incentives for suppliers to comply with standards and better regulation and accountability, can bring us significantly closer to a more inclusive, equitable and sustainable food system.”
The last ranking compiled by Oxfam within the Behind the Brands campaign showed that none of the participating companies scored great on their commitments. Three of them did “fairly well”, fulfilling their commitments at a level of 57% to 74%. The others made “some progress”, meeting them at a level of 36% to 53%.
