Make Bananas Fair – Supermarket Scorecard
Make Bananas Fair – Supermarket Scorecard
Objectives of the research
The Supermarket Scorecard was developed to assess where the UK’s leading nine supermarkets
stand in their efforts to make their banana supply chains fairer and more sustainable. Using publicly
available information and questionnaire feedback from the supermarkets, it assesses their
performance against sustainability criteria (social, economic and environmental) as well as indicators
on transparency.
In the context of the Make Bananas Fair campaign, the objective of this research, commissioned by
the Fairtrade Foundation, is to offer consumers information and choices about the bananas they
buy. This research was conducted by the Ethical Consumer Research Association in December 2013
and January 2014.
How the companies were selected
80% of bananas in the UK are bought from supermarkets. The companies selected for this scorecard
are the nine leading supermarkets in the UK, ranked below in order of their share of the grocery
market in November 2013 (Aldi and Lidl’s joint market share is provided):
Retailer expenditure share
Grocery
Tesco
27.3
Asda
14.8
Sainsbury’s
15.1
Morrisons
11.3
The Co-operative
5.6
Waitrose
4.2
Marks & Spencer
3.0
Aldi and Lidl
4.8
All others
13.9
(Source: Kantar World Panel 52 w/e 10 November 2013)
Bananas
29.1
14.7
15.8
12.6
5.1
5.8
2.1
8.5
6.3
The areas covered by the scorecard
Defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development,
1987), sustainable development seeks to achieve, in a balanced manner, economic development,
social development and environmental protection. These “three pillars” of sustainability are closely
related to the “triple bottom line” which businesses are increasingly accountable for.
In order to develop the criteria and ranking methodology for the scorecard, ECRA, in consultation
with the Fairtrade Foundation, we referred to certifier standards, previous ECRA research and other
company rankings such as Oxfam’s Behind the Brands. The emphasis was on sustainability and
transparency. A business’s claims that it conducts sustainable practices must be demonstrable and
verifiable. Best practice includes clear public communication of what a business is doing and
independent proof that these practices are being applied. Without independent verification, the
public must take the supermarket’s word.
The four areas covered by the scorecard (Transparency; Social; Economic; and Environment) are
made up from 22 more detailed criteria. These criteria are explained more thoroughly in the ranking
methodology.
• Social criteria included: health and safety, freedom of association, workers’ rights, long term
community benefits, support to women workers and small producers and employment
contracts for workers
•
•
•
Economic criteria included: payment of sustainable production costs, contract arrangements
with producers, provision of pre-finance, payment of living wages, ethical buying practices
and impact of pricing on producers
Environmental criteria included: sustainability and biodiversity, pesticide use, sustainable
water and soil management and minimising greenhouse gases
Transparency criteria included: certification, auditing, partnerships with Non-Governmental
Organisations or other initiatives, participation in the Ethical Trade Initiative (ETI) and the
World Banana Forum (WBF).
What was not included in the scorecard
This research covered existing initiatives only – retailers’ future plans were not included in the
scoring. Moreover, while we are aware that some retailers lead the price wars on bananas, with
others following, we found it difficult to represent this within the methodology. Finally, we did not
score against the actual retail price/kg charged for loose bananas – the issue at stake was not the
final retail price, but the extent to which costs are covered in the supply chain and whether bananas
are sold as a loss leader.
The research process
In December 2013, ECRA conducted a review of publicly available information and compiled a
literature review on banana retailers’ sourcing practices. A ranking methodology and questionnaire
were developed and the questionnaire was sent to the nine largest UK supermarkets. An initial
analysis of the questionnaires against the ranking methodology was completed and supermarkets
were then sent their own scores, the ranking methodology and had the opportunity to provide any
additional information in the questionnaires. The final scores were then compiled and supermarkets
received their individual scorecards as well as the scores for all retailers.
How scores were calculated
The ranking methodology was developed by ECRA, based on the above criteria for a fair banana.
The scoring was divided into four areas: transparency, social, economic and environmental. Scores
for each area were weighted equally to derive the overall score.
The individual criteria under each area were weighted as high, medium and low within each
category, according to their relevance to achieving a fair banana. For example, membership of the
Ethical Trade Initiative received a lower weighting, due to the fact it did not have direct input into
banana supply chains.
Retailers received scores of Best/ Reasonable/ Rudimentary / Worst against each criterion. To
achieve a “Best” score in many criteria, the supermarket needed to demonstrate independent
verification of their good practices.
The full scoring spreadsheet is available on the ECRA website at: www.ethicalconsumer.org
Trends in the data
Ethical Consumer found certain key trends in the data based on the analysis of the scorecards.
Aldi
ASDA
The Co-operative
Food
Lidl
Marks & Spencer
Morrisons
Sainsbury's
Tesco
Waitrose
SECTOR AVERAGE
Transparency Social
20
68
80
43
66
20
80
80
78
59
Average
Economic
Environment SCORE
15
6
33
53
27
50
100
11
91
20
100
76
96
62
78
0
42
15
72
45
66
39
100
25
75
41
100
58
100
65
19
49
90
20
69
24
88
65
85
56
71-100%
36-70%
0-35%
Three distinct groups
The nine supermarkets reviewed can be broken down into three more-or-less distinct groups.
• Supermarket with policies to sell only Fairtrade-certified bananas (Sainsbury’s, Waitrose and
The Co-operative) all score well because the certification requires independently audited
verification across a wide range of social and environmental issues.
• In the middle ASDA, Tesco and Marks & Spencer are involved in some interesting projects,
although they have been slower in adopting a systematic approach to improving social,
economic and environmental aspects of their banana supply chains.
• At the bottom, Morrisons, Aldi and Lidl demonstrate a much less sophisticated approach to
managing ethical issues.
Poorer performance on economic issues
This area of the scorecard looks at issues such as paying farms the real cost of production, a living
wage for workers, retail pricing and ethical buying. By looking at the average score in each section it
is clear that the economic section is where the average retailer performance is lowest. Even with
certification systems in place, it appears that banana price wars are inhibiting sector-wide
investments. And while Fairtrade has paved the way for improvements in workers' rights and
environmental issues, within banana supply chains, it still falls short of the ultimate fair banana, for
example, payment of a living wage remains a difficult issue in this - and many other - sectors.
Collective initiatives
Behind the table in detailed scorecards for each company are a fairly impressive range of collective
and individual initiatives; trying to unpick some of the most knotty ethical issues in banana supply
chains. These range from the Co-operative Food's commitment to buy from smallholder producers
to complex multi-stakeholder initiatives like the Ethical Trading Initiative and the World Banana
Forum.
There is evidence of good practice in the industry and of wide-ranging plans for the years ahead.
Indeed, we anticipate that if this research were repeated in a year’s time, there would be greater
transparency and more systematic good practice.
Ranking Methodology
1.Transparency
1.1 Certification - weighted High
Best = All bananas certified by independent ISO 65 certifier
Reasonable = Over 50% of bananas certified by independent ISO 65 certifier
Rudimentary = 1-50% of bananas certified by independent ISO 65 certifier
Worst = No bananas certified
1.2 Audits – weighted High
Best = Audits are conducted by independent ISO 65 certifier
Reasonable = Company cites independent auditing or three of the following: a staged audit
schedule; a whole supply chain commitment; disclosure and a remediation strategy.
Rudimentary = Company shows one or two of the above criteria
Worst = Company has poor or no audit strategy
1.3 Partnerships with Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) / Not For Profits (NFPs) / Trade
Unions (TUs) / Other initiatives – weighted Low
There is third party involvement, which includes systematic input from NGOs, NFP and / or TU in the
country of supply, into the verification of practices in banana supply chains
Best = third party involvement in verification of standards
Reasonable = active partnerships / projects with NGO / NFP / Trade Unions
Rudimentary = some involvement with NGO / NFP / Trade Unions
Worst = no involvement from NGO / NFP / Trade Unions
1.4 Ethical Trade Initiative (ETI) – weighted Low
Best = Active member of ETI, participating in meetings and funding commitments
Reasonable = Active member of ETI and participating in meetings
Rudimentary = ETI membership
Worst = No participation
1.5 World Banana Forum (WBF) – weighted High
Best = Active member of WBF, participating in meetings and funding commitments
Reasonable = Active member of WBF and participates in meetings
Rudimentary = Participates through ETI membership (member of ETI can then be represented on
WBF)
Worst = No participation
2. Social
2.1 Health and Safety – weighted Medium
Best = Health and safety requirements audited by independent ISO65 accredited auditors
Reasonable = Company has a clear health and safety policy for workers within its banana supply
chain / or had details of clear initiatives to improve the health and safety of workers within its
banana supply chain.
Rudimentary = Health and Safety provision provided in supplier code of conduct.
Worst = No mention of health and safety.
2.2 Freedom of Association (FoA) – weighted High
Best = Independent auditors verify compliance with ILO conventions in supply chains.
Reasonable = Convening with multi-stakeholder initiatives to improve FOA.
Rudimentary = Provision in supplier code of conduct for FOA to be achieved in countries where trade
unions may be restricted.
Worst = No mention of alternative to FOA if restricted.
2.3 Workers' rights issues – weighted High
Companies need to demonstrate that they have considered and formed a policy to address the
following workers' rights issues within their banana supply chains: forced labour; excessive working
hours; child labour; non-payment of overtime; migrant labour forces and discrimination.
Best = Independent verification of workers' rights issues.
Reasonable = Disclosure and / or evidence of a policy for three or more workers' rights issues.
Rudimentary = Disclosure and / or evidence of a policy for one or more workers' rights issues.
Worst = No awareness / recognition or no policy
2.4 Long term benefits to the wider community – weighted High
Best = Systematic investment in 100% of supply chain e.g. Fairtrade premium or independently
verified alternative.
Reasonable = Systematic investment in 100% of supply chain e.g. Fairtrade premium or alternative
(not independently verified)
Rudimentary = Credible non-FT Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) schemes providing investment
in the community.
Worst = No projects.
2.5 Small producer organisations – weighted Low
Best = Target for small producer organisation volumes in sourcing mix.
Reasonable = Commitment to sourcing a mix of Small Producer Organisations and Hired Labour.
Rudimentary = Currently sourcing from a mix of Small Producer Organisations and Hired Labour.
Worst = No awareness / recognition.
2.6 Women workers – weighted Low
Best = Independent verification of benefits for women e.g. maternity benefits / child care
arrangements.
Reasonable = Audits conducted against specific requirements to ensure that women are treated
fairly within the banana supply chain including maternity benefits / child care arrangements.
Rudimentary = Female specific clauses included in supplier code of conduct.
Worst = No mention of discrimination or female specific workers’ rights in code of conduct.
2.7 Employment Contracts – weighted Medium
Best = independent verification that all permanent workers on plantations must have a legally
binding written contract of employment with a job description, signed by worker and employer.
Reasonable = all permanent workers on plantations must have a legally binding written contract of
employment with a job description, signed by worker and employer.
Rudimentary = information provided by suppliers regarding the number of workers employed on
permanent contracts.
Worst = no information provided
3. Economic
3.1 Cost of Sustainable Production (COSP) – weighted High
Best = independent verification of COSP paid to producers for 100% of bananas.
Reasonable = Retailer pays above Fairtrade Minimum Price (FTMP) at origin at present (independent
verification for over 50% of supply chain).
Rudimentary = Retailer asserts that they pay above FTMP at origin at present (no independent
verification).
Worst = No sustainable cost of production analysis has been carried out.
3.2 Contract arrangements with producer organisation – weighted High
Best = Contracts with farms longer than 3 years.
Reasonable = Contracts with farms between 1-3 years with commitment to increase them (target
date must be provided).
Rudimentary = Contracts with farms between 1-3 years.
Worst = Contracts with farms less than a year.
3.3 Pre-finance – weighted High
Best = Producers can request pre-finance from buyers, and auditors verify contracts.
Reasonable = Policy on pre-finance for banana suppliers (over 50% independently verified).
Rudimentary = Policy on pre-finance for banana suppliers (not independently verified).
Worst = No policy.
3.4 Living wage – weighted High
Best = All workers at origin receive a living wage.
Reasonable = Independent verification of commitment by employers to moving towards living wage.
Rudimentary = Participation in projects / multi-stakeholder initiative dialogues on living wage.
Worst = No projects or dialogue.
3.5 Ethical buying practices – weighted Medium
Best = Clearly demonstrated commitment to long term contracts by having committed to 3+ years
contracts and scheduled training for buyers.
Reasonable = Demonstrated commitment to long term contracts by having committed to 3+ years
contracts and scheduled training for buyers and / or certification.
Rudimentary = Clearly demonstrated commitment to long term contracts by having committed to
3+ years contracts OR scheduled training for buyers.
Worst = No commitment.
3.6 Banana retail price and impact on producers – weighted High
Best = Independent guarantee that Fairtrade minimum price is paid to producers in 100% of supply
chain and that bananas are not sold as a loss leader.
Reasonable = Independent guarantee that Fairtrade minimum price is paid to producers in 100% of
supply chain.
Rudimentary = Retailer asserts that they pay over FTMP (not independently verified) or there is an
independent guarantee that Fairtrade minimum price is paid to 50% of the supply chain.
Worst = No information.
4. Environment
4.1 Sustainability – weighted High
Best = Independent verification that buffer zones are maintained and impacts on protected areas are
not negative in banana supply chains.
Reasonable = Requirement that buffer zones are maintained and that impacts on protected areas do
not have a negative effect on banana supply chains.
Rudimentary = Some measures in place to promote biodiversity in banana supply chains.
Worst = no measures in place in banana supply chains.
4.2 Pesticide use – weighted High
Best = Independent verification that pesticide use is restricted to protect workers and consumers
(prohibiting World Health Organisation and Pesticide Action Network banned pesticides) in banana
supply chains.
Reasonable = Requirement that pesticide use is restricted to protect workers and consumers
(includes banned pesticides lists) in banana supply chains.
Rudimentary = Has a policy on pesticides for banana supply chains.
Worst = No measures in place.
4.3 Sustainable water and soil – weighted High
Best = Independent verification on fertiliser storage, use of untreated sewage, treatment of waste,
water mapping etc. in banana supply chains.
Reasonable = Requirements on fertiliser storage, use of untreated sewage, treatment of waste,
water mapping etc. in banana supply chains.
Rudimentary = Measures in place to maintain water and soil sustainably in banana supply chains or
has carried out soil assessment in banana supply chains or has soil assessments carried out as part of
GLOBAL GAP standards in banana supply chains.
Worst = No measures in place in banana supply chains.
4.5 Minimising Greenhouse gases (GHG) – weighted High
Best = Independent verification of efforts to reduce GHG and monitor energy consumption in
banana supply chains.
Reasonable = Requirements on efforts to reduce GHG and monitor energy consumption in banana
supply chains.
Rudimentary = Measures in place to reduce GHG and monitor energy consumption in banana supply
chains.
Worst = No measures in place in banana supply chains.
List of acronyms
Acronym Stands for
BRC
British Retail Consortium
BSCI
Business Social Compliance
Initiative
CoC
Code of Conduct
COSP
Cost of Sustainable
Production
CSR
Corporate Social
Responsibility
Ergon
Ergon
ETI
Ethical Trade Initiative
FLO-Cert
FOA
Freedom of Association
FTMP
Fairtrade Minimum Price
GHG
Greenhouse gas
HL
Hired Labour
ICTI
International Council of
Toy Industries
The International Labour
Organisation
ILO
Explanation
A trade association in the UK, which represents all forms of
retailers; from small independently-owned stores to big
chains.
Established by the Foreign Trade Association (FTA) in order
to create consistency and harmonisation for companies
wanting to improve their social compliance in the global
supply chain.
A code of conduct is a set of rules outlining the
responsibilities of or proper practices for an individual,
party or organisation.
Cost of Sustainable Production (COSP) data is one of the
key sources of information for the development of
Fairtrade Minimum Prices (FT MP), which intends to
cover, on average, the production costs of producers within
the system. COSP data refers to production costs related to
local or domestic marketing and costs exacted by
international marketing.
Corporate Social Responsibility is how companies manage
their business processes to produce a positive impact on
society.
Ergon is a consultancy working on labour and human rights,
employment, gender and development.
An alliance of companies, trade unions and voluntary
organisations, working in partnership to improve the lives
of poor and vulnerable workers across the globe who make
or grow consumer goods.
FLO-CERT is the inspection and certification body for
labelled Fairtrade. It is one of the two organisations which
resulted from the January 2004 split of Fairtrade Labelling
Organizations International.
Freedom of association is a right proclaimed in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). The right to
organise and form employers' and workers' organisations is
the prerequisite for sound collective bargaining and social
dialogue.
The minimum price that a buyer of Fairtrade products has
to pay to a producer organisation for their product.
Gas which contributes to the warming of the Earth’s
atmosphere by reflecting radiation from the Earth’s
surface.
Fairtrade standards which cover hired labour and address
products which are mainly grown on bigger farms that
employ workers.
The industry association of the worldwide toy industry.
The main aims of the ILO are to promote rights at work,
encourage decent employment opportunities, enhance
social protection and strengthen dialogue on work-related
Acronym Stands for
ISEAL
ISO 65
IUF
NFP
NGO
International Social and
Environmental
Accreditation and Labelling
Alliance
International Standards
Organisation
The International Union of
Food, Agricultural, Hotel,
Restaurant, Catering,
Tobacco and Allied
Workers' Associations (IUF)
Not-for-Profit
Non-Government
Organisation
OECD
The Organisation for
Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD
PAN
Pesticide Action Network
SA 8000
The SA8000 standard
SEDEX
Supplier Ethical Data
Exchange
SPO
T&Cs
Small Producer
Organisations
Terms and Conditions
TU
Trade Union
UNDP
United Nations
Development Programme
Explanation
issues.
The ISEAL Alliance is the global membership association for
sustainability standards
ISO Guide 65 (or EN45011 as it is known in its European
version) is the International Standards Organisation
guideline ‘General requirements for bodies operating
product certification systems’. It is a general guide for
certification and has been referenced or used as a base for
most organic norms and regulations (Europe, Canada,
Japan etc.).
The IUF is an international federation of trade unions
representing workers employed in agriculture and
plantations; the preparation and manufacture of food and
beverages; hotels, restaurants and catering services; all
stages of tobacco processing.
(See NGO)
A non-governmental organisation (NGO, also often referred
to as "civil society organisation" or CSO) is a not-for-profit
group, principally independent from government, which is
organised on a local, national or international level to
address issues in support of the public good.
The mission of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) is to promote policies which will
improve the economic and social well-being of people
around the world.
PAN is a network of over 600 organisations working to
replace the use of hazardous pesticides with ecologically
sound and socially just alternatives.
The SA8000 standard is the central document of work at
Social Accountability International (SAI). It is one of the
world’s first auditable social certification standards for
decent workplaces, across all industrial sectors.
A not for profit membership organisation working to drive
improvements in responsible and ethical business practices
in global supply chains.
Fairtrade defines small farmer organisations as Small
Producer Organisations.
General and special arrangements, provisions,
requirements, rules, specifications, and standards which
form an integral part of an agreement or contract.
An association of employees formed to improve their
incomes and working conditions through collective
bargaining.
Partners with people at all levels of society to help build
nations which can withstand crisis, and drive and sustain
the kind of growth that improves quality of life.
Acronym Stands for
WBF
The World Banana Forum
Explanation
The World Banana Forum is an assembly for participants
representing the global banana supply-chain to promote
open dialogue on challenges facing the banana industry.
The Trade and Markets Division of the Unite Nations’ Food
and Agriculture Organisation hosts the Secretariat of the
WBF.
Aldi Company Scorecard
Overview
Scored criteria
1. Transparency
1.1 Labour Standards Certification - Rudimentary
Aldi sold 11.5% of its bananas certified by Fairtrade while 10% were certified by the Soil Association.
Aldi stated that all its bananas supplied were independently certified by one of the following
certification bodies;
Fairtrade Foundation
Control Union (Organic)
Global Gap
Soil association
BRC Grade A* for UK processing and logistics
While it was good that Aldi had all of its supply chain audited through one standard or another, this
rating was specifically looking for labour standards certification and ISO 65 auditing, which applied to
less than 50% of their supply chains.
1.2 Labour Standards Auditing – Rudimentary
Aldi stated "as part of our Social Monitoring Programme, we require all production sites of high risk
commodity groups to have had an ethical audit that is valid during the time of production and on the
sale day. All suppliers of high risk commodity groups must be either SEDEX or BSCI members or have
100% of sites certified to SA8000 or ICTI".
Additional information was provided by Aldi which stated that its audits were undertaken by its
supplier. Banana suppliers were also audited on food safety and BRC accreditation.
With regards to remediation, Aldi stated "Where we find non-compliance with our code of conduct
or other problems in our supply chain, Aldi will work together with the supplier to ensure that the
agreed corrective action is implemented within the agreed time scales. None of our banana
producer organisations have been non-compliant in the last year, nor have any been in a
remediation programme due to non-compliance in the last year."
Due to the fact that Aldi could only confirm labour auditing for high risk commodity groups and not a
commitment to audit its whole supply chain, it was considered to have a rudimentary approach to
auditing.
1.3 Non-governmental Organisations / Not-for-profit partnerships / Other initiatives – Worst
Aldi stated that with its Fairtrade and organic bananas its supplier worked with the Fairtrade
Labelling Organisation for the labour standards in its supply chain. Its supplier also worked with the
trade union Sintrainagro for the bananas it is supplied from Colombia. However, Aldi was not
involved with NGOs, NFPs or other initiatives, which were involved in the verification of practices
within its banana supply chain. In light of this, it received a worst rating in this category.
1.4 Member of ETI – Worst
Aldi stated "All of Aldi’s bananas are sourced from a supplier who has been a member of ETI since
2002. The supplier’s active membership enables them to keep us updated on all developments
within the ETI. The supplier is also an active member of the Tripartite Working Group on working
hours for the base code, sits on the medium sized business group, and is a food caucus member and
sits on the food and farming group."
While it was acknowledged that its banana supplier was a member of ETI, Aldi itself was not a
member and therefore received a worst rating in this category.
1.5 Member of WBF - Worst
Aldi stated "Aldi is not a member of the WBF, however, our banana supplier is a member and sits on
the executive board. The supplier keeps Aldi updated on any current issues and resolutions which
may have arisen. Our banana supplier supported the WBF by providing 10% of the costs relating to
the working group on labour rights held in the Dominican Republic in 2013. They also currently
provide funding to Fundauniban (Fundacion de Bananeros Uniban) to help support projects in
education (both elementary and secondary), environment (both conservation and biodiversity) and
social and economic development, including housing. This is done through our commitment with our
banana supplier, and this is achieved through a levy on every box sold."
While it was acknowledged that its banana supplier was a member of WBF, Aldi itself was not a
member and therefore received a worst rating in this category.
2. Social
2.1 Health and safety - Rudimentary
Aldi provided a copy of its supplier’s health and safety policy from its banana Code of Practice. Due
to the fact that Aldi provided its suppliers code of conduct it received a rudimentary rating in this
category.
2.2 Freedom of Association - Worst
Aldi stated that its "banana supplier is a member of the ETI and therefore the supplier is bound by
the ETI base code which embodies these principles. It does not source any bananas from countries
where freedom of association is restricted. Our commitment to working conditions is implicit in our
Fairtrade certified bananas. Those bananas from Colombia are provided by fully unionised farms."
Aldi failed to provide a copy of its own supplier code of conduct and therefore it could not be
verified whether this included a provision for freedom of association in countries where it is
restricted. While its supplier was a member of the ETI and its supply chain covered under ETI base
code, this was considered inadequate as the criteria looked at the supermarkets’ own supplier code
of conduct. In light of this, Aldi received a worst rating in this category.
2.3 Rights issues - Rudimentary
Aldi stated "Under our Supplier Standards, which form part of Aldi's standard terms and conditions,
our suppliers must comply with applicable national laws, industry standards and the ILO and United
Nations Conventions regarding working hours and child labour, whichever is more stringent. These
Standards also require that suppliers do not engage in any form of forced labour and related
practices."
The supermarket also stated that its supplier had been supporting the Fairtrade campaign for Haitian
labour to be given legal status in the Dominican Republic. Aldi failed to supply its supplier code of
conduct to Ethical Consumer to ensure that clauses relating to child labour and excessive working
hours went further than applicable national laws, which are often below ILO convention standards.
Aldi did however state it had a clause on forced labour and was working to support a Fairtrade
campaign on Haitian labour, thus meaning it received a rudimentary rating in this category.
2.4 Long term benefits to the community – Worst
Aldi stated "There is a premium paid on all our Fairtrade bananas, which is then invested into social
programmes. There is also a levy paid on all our Colombian bananas to Fundacion de Bananeros
Uniban to fund social programmes." While 11.2% of its bananas were certified by Fairtrade, this was
considered insufficient to meet the criteria in this category and thus Aldi received a worst rating in
this category.
2.5 Small producer organisation – Rudimentary
Aldi stated that it was sourcing from a mixture of small producer organisations and hired labour
plantations for bananas. In light of this, it received a rudimentary rating in this category.
2.6 Women’s rights – Rudimentary
Aldi stated that its "banana supplier is bound by the ETI base code which ensures women’s rights are
upheld and that adequate provisions are made for pregnant women and children." Aldi received a
rudimentary rating in this category due to the fact it did not have independent verification of
women’s rights.
2.7 Employment contracts – Worst
Aldi stated "all our bananas are sourced from farms that comply to the ETI base code which requires
a contractual agreement for all workers." Aldi received a worse rating for employment contracts as
there was no independent verification that workers within its banana supply chain were provided
with written contracts.
3. Economic
3.1 Cost of sustainable production (COSP) – Worst
Aldi stated "For our Fairtrade bananas we pay at least the FLO minimum declared price for each
source country. We are guided by the price movements declared by the Fairtrade Labelling
Organisation." While 11.2% of its bananas were certified by Fairtrade, this was considered
insufficient to meet the criteria in this category, and as such Aldi received a worst rating in this
category.
3.2 Contract arrangements with producer organisation – Rudimentary
Aldi stated that the average length contracts suppliers were on was between 1-3 years. In response
to a question on plans to extend its length of contracts it said, "We are always reviewing the length
of our contracts and will act accordingly." Aldi was considered not to have made a commitment to
increasing contract length and therefore it received a rudimentary rating.
3.3 Pre-finance - Worst
Aldi stated "As agreed by the Fairtrade Labelling Organisation, our banana producers have access to
pre-finance." While 11.2% of its bananas were certified by Fairtrade, this was considered insufficient
to meet the criteria in this category, and therefore Aldi received a worst rating in this category.
3.4 Living wage – Worst
Aldi stated that all its suppliers must adhere to its supplier standards, which were contained in its
Terms and Conditions. It said its standards were based on the UN Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, ILO Conventions, and OECD guidelines. A search of its corporate website only found links to
each of these documents. Aldi failed to provide its suppliers code of conduct when requested. Aldi
did not have any commitments to paying a living wage and was not involved in any projects around
payment of living wages in the banana sector. As such, it received a worst rating in this category.
3.5 Ethical buying practice - Worst
Aldi stated "Our buying teams interact closely with our ethical team on a daily basis. Our ethical
policies are integrated into the buying process as part of a gated procedure." Aldi did not
demonstrate that it provided schedule training to its buyers on its ethical policies and thus received
a worst rating in this category.
3.6 Banana Price - Worst
Aldi did not assert that it paid over the FTMP or present an independent guarantee that FTMP was
paid for over 50% of its banana supply chain. It therefore received a worst rating in this category.
4. Environment
4.1 Sustainability - Worst
Aldi stated "Our Banana supplier is committed to the practice of Integrated Pest Management." This
was not considered to be a policy which promoted biodiversity within its banana supply chain, and
thus Aldi received a worst rating for sustainability.
4.2 Pesticide use - Best
"Each of Aldi’s produce suppliers receives a copy of our Pesticides and Produce Guidelines. This
makes suppliers aware of relevant legislation and states that all reasonable precautions and due
diligence is taken to ensure that they comply."
Aldi provided further information which stated that its "criteria addressing pesticide use is addressed
by Global Gap certification and independent monitoring by our third party independent technical
service providers. Our banana supplier practices Integrated Crop Management which dictates
application." Aldi received a best rating in this category due to the fact it had independent
verification.
4.3 Sustainable water and soil - Worst
No information provided.
4.4 Minimising green house gas emissions - Rudimentary
Aldi stated its "banana supplier has been certified by The Carbon Trust as reducing their carbon
emissions for the past 4 years and have a target to reduce emissions by 20% from 2010 to 2020."
Due to the fact its banana supplier was monitoring its carbon emissions Aldi was considered to have
a rudimentary rating in this category.
Asda company scorecard
Overview
Asda Supermarket is a subsidiary of US company Wal-Mart. International Procurement & Logistics
Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Asda.
Asda stated that its current proportion of total banana sales in the UK certified under Fairtrade was
3.5% and Organic represented 2.5% of sales. However, 20% of its banana sales were certified under
Rainforest Alliance. It stated that currently "consumers can access information through product
labels such as Fair-trade logo or via the Asda Isle Spy Blog Page and individual suppliers’ websites.”
IPL Ethical governance sits within the company's Group Directorship, which reports to the Group
managing Director. Within its supply base governance it sits as a combination of direct reports into
CEO's or Head Office functions.
Ethical Policies were detailed in its T&Cs for suppliers and it operates a programme of Vendor review
with performance metric based across commercial, sustainable, technical, and ethical compliance.
Asda actively participates in forums such as the WBF, which it has commercial and technical
representation.
To the question regarding pricing of bananas, Asda/IPL stated that it used internal investment and
UK cost savings to subsidise the case of loose bananas for its customers. It explained that there was
no direct relationship between retail price & price paid to producers. It had an open dialog with its
suppliers to support this.
Scored criteria
1. Transparency
1.1 Labour Standards Certification – Rudimentary
Asda stated that its current proportion of total banana sales in the UK certified under Fairtrade was
3.5% and Organic represented 2.5% of sales. 20% of its banana sales were certified under Rainforest
Alliance. Asda stated that it required GlobalGap as a base line standard for its producers, although
this was considered inadequate as a form of labour standards certification due to the fact that
GlobalGAP "All Farm Base, Crops Base, Fruit and Vegetables" standards did not cover all the
International Labour Organisations core conventions. Asda was considered to have a rudimentary
rating for labour standards certification.
1.2 Labour Standard Audits – Reasonable
IPL stated that all suppliers were asked to comply with the ETI Base Code and the Wal-Mart
Standard for suppliers and that compliance was audited via 3 rd party certification bodies. There were
also audits conducted through certification bodies such as Fairtrade, Soil Association, and Rainforest
Alliance.
It stated that 100% of its bananas were certified by Global GAP, which also included audits.
However, the Global GAP standards related more to food quality and safety as opposed to workers'
rights.
The frequency of the Wal-Mart Ethical Standards Audit was determined by the results of previous
audits, which could be on an annual or bi-annual frequency. This was combined with visits by IPLs in
country teams which determined supplier risk, possibly including unannounced audits. It stated "The
Walmart Audit process has an initial planned audit which is announced, this is followed up by
unannounced audits thereafter. We strongly believe that this unannounced audit gives us an
increased level of visibility to workers’ regular conditions on sites. In addition to this process we have
a higher level of visibility at an increased frequency through our in country teams. From an ethical
compliance perspective this system is one of the most robust systems in operation."
With regards to remediation IPL stated that the Walmart programme provided "Violation Correction
Training which is free of charge to support suppliers; we also work with our growers to provide in
country support from our colleagues. Similarly, our suppliers will also use their in country resources
to support growers to meet compliance.”
In response to a question regarding banana producer organisations which were found to be noncompliant in the previous year, "there have been no significant non-conformances to [Wal-Mart]
Ethical Standards; however there have been a few minor non-conformances which have been site
specific.” No further information was provided. It stated that no banana producer organisations had
been found to be non-compliant or had their contracts terminated in the last year.
While Asda clearly demonstrated that it had a staged auditing approach, a whole supply chain
commitment, disclosure and a remediation strategy, it did not have an independent auditor which
audited its labour standards. GlobalGAP audits did not include workers' rights covered in all the
International Labour Organisation’s core conventions, and as such Asda / IPL received a reasonable
rating in this category.
1.3 Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs) / Not-for-profit partnerships (NFPs) / other initiatives
– Reasonable
Asda / IPL stated that its suppliers had direct relationships with trade unions and international
organisations. For example, Fyffes in Colombia had direct partnerships with trade unions and
Chiquita had signed an international framework with IUF and COLSIBA. IPL stated that it was
involved with the Global Social Compliance Programme (GSCP) which was a business led initiative
working towards the improvement of working and environmental conditions in global supply chains.
IPL was also working in collaboration with Chiquita and Migros on the Nogal biodiversity and
community project in Costa Rica. In 2013 IPL partnered with Oxfam to publish a report on IPL Oxfam
Poverty Footprint, with a focus on beans and flowers. It also included a number of recommendations
for IPL across supply (including bananas) for all developing countries.
Following the publication of the Poverty Footprint, IPL continued to work in partnership with the
NGO Oxfam.
In addition, it had also helped facilitate the individual work of the World Banana Forum, such as its
recent input into Bananalink’s and Fair Trade International’s mission to West Africa to promote the
WBF.
Asda was awarded a reasonable rating in this category due to the fact it had ongoing partnerships
and projects with NGOs and NFPs.
1.4 Member of ETI – Best
Asda / IPL was a member of the ETI. With regard to additional initiatives, it stated that "due to the
World Banana Forum there are no direct ETI initiatives on Bananas at present, outside of
bananas, we are in a number of multi stakeholder initiatives hosted by the ETI.” IPL stated
that it had funded the ETI activities, such as the ETI’s attendance in the Better Berry
working group activities in Morocco. Asda/IPL received a best rating in this category due to
the fact it was a member of the ETI and had participated in meetings and funded projects.
1.5 Member of WBF - Best
Asda / IPL was a fee-paying member of the WBF and sat on the WBF steering committee along with
some of its suppliers. These suppliers were active members within the working groups, which it
feeds into through participation in meetings. It had interests in all three working groups through
active participation in conference meeting; it had also been active in group specific activities such as
the recent WG02 meeting on the distribution of value in the Dominican Republic. In further
information provided by IPL, it stated that it had contributed "$8000 per annum to the World
Banana Forum, in addition to this are the in kind benefits we provide in colleagues time contribution
to the workings of the world banana forum at the Steering committee and working groups."
Asda/IPL was considered to have a best rating given its membership to the WBF.
2. Social
2.1 Health and safety - Best
Asda / IPL stated that in its "Wal-Mart Standards for Suppliers" it had 48 specific health and safety
compliance points. These included suppliers having to provide workers with a safe and healthy work
environment and suppliers having to take proactive measures to prevent workplace hazards. In
addition, Health and Safety on farms was also covered in the Global GAP standards which was 3 rd
party verified. Due to the fact that Global GAP policy covered the health and safety of workers,
Asda / IPL received a best rating in this category.
2.2 Freedom of Association– Rudimentary
Asda stated that it did not source from countries where FOA was restricted, although it had
previously stated that it was working with suppliers who sourced from Costa Rica, a country where
FOA had been restricted especially within the banana sector. Wal-Mart Standards for Suppliers
stated "Where the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining is restricted under law,
the supplier should not hinder the development of lawful parallel means for independent free
association and bargaining. Therefore, the company received a rudimentary rating in this category.
2.3 Rights issues – Reasonable
The Ethical Sourcing Manual for Wal-Mart Stores dated January 2012 contained adequate provisions
on forced, and child labour. There did not appear to be a policy to address the issue of non-payment
of overtime or the use of migrant labour forces.
With regards to discrimination the Wal-Mart Manual stated that "Employment practices of suppliers
should be based on equal opportunity for all workers." However, one practice which can
discriminate women from employment is pregnancy testing. Wal-Mart stated "Unless prescribed by
law, mandatory pregnancy testing of female applicants, contract workers or employees is
prohibited. Suppliers should not ask female applicants about their pregnancy status." Wal-Mart's
discrimination clause was considered to be inadequate due to the fact that they were based on local
laws and regulations.
With regards to excessive working hours, Wal-Mart's manual stated that "Suppliers must comply
with legal regulations on overtime hours. If regulations regarding the number of maximum overtime
requirements do not exist, then the working hours should not exceed 60 hours per week consisting
of a maximum of 48 regular hours and 12 hours of overtime." However, it noted that "in the absence
of regulations, workers must have a minimum of one day off in seven; workers may work on their
rest day but should not do so more than once in every two weeks. Suppliers should ensure that
workers do not consistently work on their rest day by monitoring and limiting this practice." This was
considered an inadequate policy addressing the issue of excessive overtime. Indeed, it was left to
the suppliers’ discretion, which could be exploited.
Asda/IPL was considered to have a reasonable rating for workers’ rights issues.
2.4 Long term benefits to the community – Rudimentary
IPL stated that it was involved in the Nogal Nature and Community Project, a joint project with
Chiquita, Migros, and Rainforest Alliance with a focus on protecting some of the endangered
biodiversity in Costa Rica. Asda's suppliers were also involved in community projects, for example
Fyffes was involved in a housing project for banana workers in Belize. IPL also stated that "All our
supply partners are investing in community projects; this is not different to how the Fair trade
premium works. However, these projects are funded as part of sustainable production and in some
cases are self-funded.
Across the supply base initiative such as San San, El Tigra Forest and Nogal are all used as education
centres and engage local communities on a number of initiatives ranging from skills training for
women in popular trade occupations to recycling to educating skills for local schools." IPL/Asda was
considered to be involved in credible schemes which were providing investment in communities.
2.5 Source bananas from small producer organisation – Reasonable
Asda stated that all its Fairtrade bananas came from small producer organisations, although this only
represented 3.5% of total banana sales. Indeed, according to Asda, the majority of its bananas came
from medium to large-scale farms. Further information was provided which stated "it is a strategic
decision that all the Fairtrade bananas sold through our stores are produced by smallholder farmers.
We do not use hired labour fruit in order to protect small holders and have a point of difference."
Asda was considered to have a reasonable rating in this category due to the fact it had made some
commitment towards sourcing from small producer organisations.
2.6 Women’s rights – Reasonable
IPL responded by stating that this was embedded within Section 4 of the Wal-Mart Standard for
Suppliers and audited as part of the compliance audit. It stated, "Specifically, suppliers must comply
with any work environment regulations protecting the health and safety of all workers including,
pregnant, post-partum and lactating women” and that "women returning from maternity leave
should be given an equivalent position and equal pay as required by law.”
In addition to the Wal Mart standards, as detailed in the Poverty Footprint Study, IPL had a specific
women’s employment agenda and is commencing a number of pilot projects with suppliers. IPL
stated "Our banana suppliers also operate a number of initiates such as women’s skills training on
Delmonte Farms and Chiquita’s collaboration with IUF and Colsiba, The main goal of the ChiquitaIUF-Colsiba women’s committee is to promote and reinforce a safe workplace, free of harassment,
exclusion or inequality, and to improve the opportunities available to women by supporting their
personal and professional development." Asda was considered to have a reasonable rating for
women’s rights due to the fact that its suppliers were working on a number of initiatives to improve
women’s rights and working conditions within their supply chains.
2.7 Employment contracts – Rudimentary
IPL stated that permanent workers’ contracts ranged "across the suppliers ... from 70% to 90%.”
IPL/Asda received a rudimentary rating in this category due the fact it had provided information
about the number of workers employed on permanent contracts.
3. Economic
3.1 Cost of sustainable production – Rudimentary
IPL stated, "We closely monitor the country exit prices and the country specific fair-trade minimum
prices. We maintain an open and honest dialogue with suppliers to ensure we understand the nature
of cost increases, for example oil / currency / consumables to ensure a fair price.”
IPL stated "The gap between the FTMP and the price IPL pays for bananas per origin will therefore
vary depending on factors such as currency, oil and consumables. By taking the oil / currency /
consumables costs into the sustainable price equation we are able to flex price with these costs. The
FTMP does not cater for these changing costs for farmers and producer organisations.
Costs of sustainable production are paid to our producers and workers will receive payments
matching at least those used in the Fairtrade minimum price calculation, often more in some cases.
We are happy for this to be independently verified."
Asda/IPL therefore received a rudimentary rating as it stated that it paid over the FTMP but did not
have any independent verification.
3.2 Contract arrangements with producer organisation – Rudimentary
IPL stated that 100% of its banana producers were in fixed price contracts and fixed term contracts.
It stated that its producers on fixed term contracts were on average contracts between 1-3 years. It
stated it had plans to increase the length of the contracts but had not yet set a target. IPL stated
that it did not hold direct contracts with farmers as it dealt with trans-nationals, two of which owned
their own farms. With regard to 3rd tier suppliers, IPL stated that "their contract terms with farms
ranged from an annual to a seven year basis." IPL/Asda received a rudimentary rating in this
category as it did not have a policy that suppliers should increase contracts with producers.
3.3 Pre-finance - Worst
IPL stated that it was not applicable because pre-finance was not applicable to its retail relationship
as it dealt with transnational companies and not directly with farmers. IPL/Asda received a worst
rating in this category due to the fact it did not have a policy that suppliers should provide prefinance to producers.
3.4 Living wage - Rudimentary
IPL stated that its suppliers were audited against the ETI base code. It stated that "based on the
wage information we have had visibility of, our suppliers are 100% compliant. The Ergon studies
published by the WBF have been used on this basis. As part of the Poverty footprint report we are
working to create a more robust methodology to measure and ensure a wage is paid to ensure a
decent standard of living for workers.”
IPL / Asda were considered to have a rudimentary approach to the payment of living wages due to
the fact it had participated in projects on living wages as well as publishing commitments to
improving the standards of living for workers.
3.5 Ethical buying practice - Rudimentary
IPL stated that Wal-Mart's Ethical Standards compliance was part of the Vendor Review process and
Terms and Conditions. It also stated that it had a long-standing relationship with its suppliers and
that "100% of its banana suppliers are on fixed term contracts, these contracts are between 1 to 3
years." It continued by stating that the "IPL buying teams receive training in Ethics, Bribery and
Corruption and GSCOP to ensure ethical buying practices are adhered to." Due to the fact IPL/Asda
had a training schedule it received a rudimentary rating.
3.6 Banana Price – Rudimentary
A search on Asda’s website, www.asda.com, on 16th January 2014 revealed that it sells loose
bananas for 68p per kilo.
Asda/IPL stated "Costs of sustainable production are paid to our producers and workers will receive
payments matching at least those used in the Fairtrade minimum price calculation often more if
some cases. We are happy for this to be independently verified. There is no direct link between
prices paid to the producers and our retail position, again happy for this to be independently
verified." Due to the fact that Asda / IPL stated that it paid over the Fairtrade Minimum Price but had
no independent verification, it received a rudimentary rating in this category.
4. Environment
4.1 Sustainability - Rudimentary
The company said that it promoted Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) in its supply chain but did not
explain how this was related to increasing biodiversity. It said it was involved in the promotion of
biodiversity through several projects with its suppliers, Chiquita and Del Monte and that it was
investing in sustainable methods for growing bananas such as growing different varieties, intercropping etc. GAP standards were not considered adequate verification that sustainable practices
were being carried out. This was due to the fact that the standards only included recommendations
and "minor must" regarding biodiversity, and thus suppliers would not lose GAP certification if
sustainability measures were not in place. Due to the fact that Asda/IPL did not have any specific
requirements for suppliers to promote biodiversity, it received a rudimentary rating.
4.2 Pesticide use - Best
IPL / Asda stated that pesticide undertaking was part of its suppliers T&Cs and certification to
GlobalGAP.
Further information was supplied by IPL / Asda which stated "It is IPL’s policy to ensure that any crop
supplied as fresh produce complies with all relevant national laws as well as UK and EC Legislation
relating to pesticides. It is our policy to ensure that all produce is grown using Good Agricultural
Practice, which embraces the use of Integrated Crop Management. Furthermore IPL is keen to
ensure the sustainability of all crops produced by promoting production techniques that have a
minimal impact on the environment. This involves minimising not only pesticide applications in
general but also more specifically the more toxic (persistent/broad spectrum) active ingredients. All
banana producers supplying IPL have a phase out plan agreed for any active ingredients that are
currently being applied that are listed in the EC Prohibition Directive, or achieving ingredients listed
in the Annexes of the Stockholm Convention. We work with its supplier and grower base to minimise
the number of residues found in its products and the impact of applications on the environment.
This is done through a residue reduction programme for specifically targeted crops of which bananas
are one.
“IPL have a comprehensive programme of independent residue analysis both in the UK and in the
country of origin to ensure that suppliers and growers are compliant to Good Agricultural Practice,
our banned lists, residue reduction programmes and legal requirements. The results of this residue
analysis are submitted annually into the Chemicals Regulation Directorate (CRD) for public reporting.
In the last reported year 2012 we submitted 2,982 residue results."
IPL / Asda was considered to have a best approach to pesticides use due to the fact that
independent verification had found that pesticide use was restricted to protect workers and
consumers in its banana supply chain.
4.3 Sustainable water and soil use - Rudimentary
Asda stated that it had partnered with a 3 rd party to help map its complete supply chain against
composite water stress (scarcity and quality). Its suppliers had also conducted their own
assessments, which varied from in house assessments to full Water Footprinting with WWF.
The company was currently not in a position to set targets, stating "at this stage a further detailed
catchment area studies need to be undertaken comparing like for like conditions – Costa Rica as an
example has 12 different climatic regions.” Asda /IPL explained that two of its suppliers had set
reduction targets on their own production and a third supplier was awaiting study results before
doing so.
With regards to sustainable soil use IPL stated that its suppliers were required to carry out an
assessment of soil under the Global Gap certification and Rainforest Alliance Certification. Its
suppliers had set their own targets but only one of them had published the results. Due to the fact
that Asda/IPL was in the process of carrying out assessments of soil and water usage in its banana
supply chains it received a rudimentary rating in this category.
4.4 Minimising green house gas emissions - Rudimentary
IPL stated that its suppliers had carried out GHG emission assessments and set targets, although only
one of these was published. Further information stated that GHG reduction was part of the Walmart
Sustainability Indices, although when looking online at http://corporate.walmart.com/global-
responsibility/environment-sustainability/greenhouse-gas-emissions it would appear the first target
relates specifically to Wal-Mart’s “stores, clubs and distribution centres” while the second
"Eliminating 20 million metric tons of GHG from our supply chain" does not specifically relate to its
banana supply chain. However, the company did show that it was monitoring GHG emissions and
therefore received a rudimentary rating in this category.
The Co-operative Food Company Scorecard
Overview
The Co-operative Food sold 100% Fairtrade bananas with around 2.5% also certified organic. The Cooperative Food explained that "such choice editing, we pioneered in other categories such as coffee,
chocolate bars and tea, to ensure that all of the farmers we work with are protected by the benefits
of the Fairtrade system. We have no plans to pro-actively increase sales of organic, but being
Fairtrade too, our customers have the option here to purchase organic or conventional.”
Customers of The Co-operative Food were provided with clear labelling of bananas’ Fairtrade status.
Indeed, it said, "We clearly label all of our bananas as Fairtrade and signpost to the varying degrees
within our stores. Occasionally (Fairtrade Fortnight) we increase the signage to promote the wider
Fairtrade offer. Our website has information about our Fairtrade position and we have pages
dedicated to our projects beyond Fairtrade. Annually we arrange for producers to come to the UK
and tour to allow customers to hear first hand of the sustainability and impact of Fairtrade. We
move between categories but have hosted banana farmers from Ghana and Panama in previous
years."As well as ‘promotion’ of consumer messages, our award winning sustainability report offers
a ‘warts and all’ summary of our entire sustainability programme including specific targets and
projects with the area of bananas.”
Within The Co-operative Food, its Ethical Trade department sat within the Technical Department.
This department has a reporting line to the Trading Director which ensures close integration into
commercial function. In addition to this there was a governance structure for all aspects of the Food
Ethical Policy, which Ethical Trade forms a key pillar. There is an established Policy Development
Forum consisting of experts across business and a board level Food Policy Group which is responsible
for ensuring delivery of Co-operative Food’s ethical commitments.
As part of The Co-operative Food’s activities to integrate ethical trade into core business activities
there is an ongoing training programme for key operational functions. In early 2013 it rolled out a
new buyer training programme which focussed on responsible buying practices. The training was
delivered by an external consultancy and interviews with Heads of Commercial, buying teams and
suppliers formed a key part of the content development process. It said that issues identified as part
of its audit programme but which had not been addressed by suppliers within the agreed time-frame
were escalated to buying teams. In addition, the ethical performance of suppliers was taken into
consideration as part of the supplier selection process.
Under the question regarding pricing of bananas, The Co-operative Food stated "no, we have
consciously avoided selling bananas below cost.”
Scored criteria
1. Transparency
1.1 Labour Standards Certification – Best
The Co-operative Food scored best as 100% of its bananas were certified Fairtrade and 2.5% were
certified organic.
1.2 Labour Standards Audits – Best
Independent audits were covered under Fairtrade certification, thus meaning that The Co-operative
Food received a best rating in this category.
1.3 Non-governmental Organisations / Not-for-profit partnerships / Other Initiatives – Best
The Co-operative Food worked with the Fairtrade Foundation to verify labour standards within its
banana supply chain, thus meaning that The Co-operative Food received a best rating in this
category.
1.4 Member of ETI – Best
The Co-operative Food was said to be a member of ETI at the time of writing. It was actively involved
in working collaboratively with ETI members to develop solutions to a range of complex issues,
which existed within supply chains. Focus areas included the use of migrant and temporary labour in
the UK and developing specific industry responses to improving working conditions in a range of key
sourcing countries/product areas including Thailand (Shrimps), Morocco (Strawberries), Peru
(Horticulture), and South Africa (Produce). There was no mention of its commitments to funding ETI
projects.
Further information was received from The Co-operative Food which stated that it had "financially
supported programme activities in areas relevant to its supply chain. Recent examples include the
Moroccan Strawberry Programme and a multi-stakeholder conference in Peru. In addition, we do
financially contribute to a wide range of collaborative initiatives with ETI members which fall outside
the scope of the ETI's programme of activities." The Co-operative received a best rating in this
category.
1.5 Member of WBF – Rudimentary
Whilst The Co-operative Food was not a direct member, its key banana suppliers were members of
the WBF. The Co-operative Food had co-funded work by Ergon on wage ladders in key banana
producing countries as part of the WBF working group on distribution of wealth. Because The Cooperative Food was a member of ETI it received a rudimentary rating.
2. Social
2.1 Health and safety – Best
Due to the fact that The Co-operative Food sold 100% Fairtrade bananas and its health and safety
requirements were audited by independent ISO 65 accredited auditors, it received a best rating in
this category.
2.2 Freedom of Association (FOA) – Best
Freedom of Association was covered under The Co-operative Food’s Fairtrade commitments, thus
meaning The Co-operative Food received a best rating in this category.
2.3 Rights Issues – Best
Child and forced labour, excessive working hours, non-payment of overtime, migrant labour, and
discrimination were covered under The Co-operative Food’s Fairtrade commitments, thus meaning
that The Co-operative Food received a best rating in this category.
2.4 Long term benefits to the community – Best
The Co-operative Food reported that it had a "dedicated ‘beyond Fairtrade’ investment programme
which seeks to deliver projects across all of our key Fairtrade categories. In 2013, we invested £550K
in such programmes. Within bananas specifically we supported Coobana Co-operative in Panama to
become FT certified (paying them a voluntary premium in advance) and have an ongoing
commitment to volume levels with them. Investment has provided social benefits such as clean
water and sanitation around worker communities. We have a project with Banelino in Dom Rep
which is providing co-operative development and technical support through the creation of banana
schools." Due to the fact that The Co-operative Food was systematically investing in banana
communities through its Fairtrade commitments and its own programmes, it received a best rating
in this category.
2.5 Source bananas from small producer organisation – Best
The Co-operative Food stated that "when we switched to 100% Fairtrade we wanted to maximise
impacts and so set targets that 50% of our fruit volume will always be from smallholders. This is an
aspiration target and does vary depending upon availability and quality, but we believe such a
‘banana split’ to be a unique ambition across UK supermarkets. Of the 1,000 or so Fairtrade farmers
that supply us approx 975 are small holders.”
The Co-operative Food received a best rating in this category due to the fact it had set itself a target
for small producer organisations within its supply mix.
2.6 Women’s rights – Best
The Co-operative Food stated that "generally female workers are estimated to represent 60% of
workforce, with the exception of Colombia where the figure is 20%." Women’s rights were covered
under the Fairtrade standards and were independently verified by FLO-Cert, thus meaning that The
Co-operative Food received a best rating in this category.
2.7 Workers' contracts – Best
The Co-operative Food stated that 100% of its workers in its banana supply chain who were not
contracted for specialist work were on permanent contracts. The contracts were independently
verified by FLO-Cert, meaning that The Co-operative Food received a best rating.
3. Economic
3.1 Cost of sustainable production (COSP) – Best
The Co-operative Food ensured that COSP were met through Fairtrade minimum price. The Fairtrade
minimum price was set at a level designed to cover the cost of sustainable production. As The Cooperative Food sold 100% Fairtrade bananas, it received a best rating in this category.
3.2 Contract arrangements with producer organisation – Rudimentary
The Co-operative Food stated that 100% of its producers were in fixed price contracts and the
average length was between 1-3 years. Due to the fact that The Co-operative Food had no plans to
increase the length of contracts it received a rudimentary rating in this category.
3.3 Pre-finance – Best
Due to the fact that 100% of The Co-operative Food’s banana supply chain was covered under
Fairtrade certification which included provisions for pre-finance to be provided to producers, The
Co-operative Food received a best rating in this category.
3.4 Living wage – Reasonable
The Co-operative Food stated that it depended on what model was used to define living wage. There
was no guarantee that all its workers at origin received a living wage, although it had independent
verification of a commitment to moving toward paying workers a living wage. As such, The Cooperative Food received a reasonable rating in this category.
3.5 Ethical buying practice – Reasonable
The Co-operative Food stated “As part of The Co-operative’s activities to integrate ethical trade into
core business activities there is an ongoing training programme for key operational functions. In
early 2013 it rolled out a new buyer training programme which focussed on responsible buying
practices. The training was delivered by an external consultancy and Heads of Commercial, buying
teams and supplier interviews formed a key part of the content development process.” Due to the
fact that it had scheduled training for buyers and was 100% Fairtrade certified The Co-operative
Food received a reasonable rating in this category.
3.6 Pricing of bananas - Best
Due to the fact that The Co-operative Food had an independent guarantee that it was selling the
Fairtrade minimum price to 100% of its supply chain and had consciously avoided selling bananas
below cost, it received a best rating in this category.
4. Environment
4.1 Sustainability - Best
The Co-operative Food stated that it followed the environmental policy as part of the Fairtrade
International standards but did not appear to be investing in research into alternative varieties of
bananas or inter-cropping. It received a best rating in this category because it had independent
verification that sustainability measures were maintained under its 100% Fairtrade certification.
4.2 Pesticide use - Best
The Co-operative Food had its own pesticide policy, which included a list of chemicals that were
assessed and prohibited or banned. It received a best rating in this category because it had
independent verification that pesticide use was restricted to protect workers under its 100%
Fairtrade certification.
4.3 Sustainable water and soil use – Best
The Co-operative Food stated that it had carried out a water assessment very recently and the
results were still being written up. No targets had been set due to the fact it was waiting for the
results of the report. The Co-operative stated that soil assessments were carried out by Global GAP.
It received a best rating in this category because it had independent verification that water and soil
use was managed sustainably under its 100% Fairtrade certification.
4.4 Minimising green house gas emissions - Best
The Co-operative Food stated that its main supplier, Fyffes, was Carbon Trust certified as reducing
their carbon emissions. They had a target to reduce emissions by 12% over 5 years. It received a
best rating in this category because it sold 100% Fairtrade bananas and greenhouse gas emissions
were covered under the certification.
Lidl Company Scorecard
Overview
Lidl stated that 12% of its bananas sold were certified Fairtrade and Organic. It was a member of ETI
and WBF. It stated that its ethical trading department sat within its Group Head Office as well as in
Head Offices in the UK and San Jose. All buyers were required to be trained on the ETI base code.
To the question regarding pricing of bananas Lidl responded "not by us". It explained that it
prevented low retail prices impacting on banana producers "by paying the agreed minimum price as
a minimum. We have no influence over retail prices."
Scored criteria
1. Transparency
1.1 Labour Standards Certification – Rudimentary
Lidl sold Fairtrade Organic bananas which represented 12% of their total sales.
1.2 Labour Standards Audits – Worst
Lidl said that it audited suppliers based on risk and customer requirements. Its audits were carried
out by staff stationed in source countries and selected farms would be audited annually. In response
to remediation Lidl stated that it worked with the grower to find mutually agreed sustainable
solutions. In the last year it said that some of its banana suppliers had been found to be non
compliant for minor offences.
Lidl received a worst rating in this category due to a lack of commitment to auditing its banana
supply chain.
1.3 Non-governmental Organisations / Not-for-profit partnerships / Other initiatives – Worst
No information provided therefore Lidl received a worst rating.
1.4 Member of ETI – Reasonable
Lidl was a member of ETI and had been for more than 10 years. It was a member of the working
hours group. Lidl did not provide information of any funding commitments within the ETI and thus
received a reasonable rating in this category.
1.5 Member of WBF - Best
Lidl stated that it was a member of WBF and that it was involved in the financial support for WG02.
Due to the fact that Lidl was an active member of the WBF who was providing financial support it
received a best rating in this category.
2 Social
2.1 Health and safety - Rudimentary
Due to the fact that health and safety provision was included in its code of conduct Lidl received a
rudimentary rating in this category.
2.2 Freedom of Association – Worst
No information supplied therefore Lidl received a worst rating.
2.3 Rights Issues – Worst
No information provided therefore Lidl received a worst rating.
2.4 Long term benefits to the community – Worst
No information provided therefore Lidl received a worst rating.
2.5 Source bananas from small producer organisation – Rudimentary
Lidl stated that out of 1300 farmers which supplied it, 1000 were small producers. Due to the fact
that Lidl had provided some information about the number of small producer organisations within
its banana supply chain, it received a rudimentary rating.
2.6 Women's rights – Worst
Lidl stated that the provision for women’s rights was included in their code of conduct, although a
search of Lidl's code of conduct on their website did not find a provision for non-discrimination and
as such it received a worst rating in this category.
2.7 Workers' contracts – Rudimentary
Lidl stated that "100% who are not contracted for specialist work, although the work is part-time."
Due to the fact that Lidl did not state that all workers must have a legally binding contract, it
received a rudimentary rating in this category.
3. Economic
3.1 Cost of sustainable production (COSP) – Worst
Lidl stated that this was through Fairtrade, although Fairtrade only represented 12% of its banana
sales. While 12% of its banana were certified by Fairtrade this was considered insufficient to meet
the criteria in this category, and thus Aldi received a worst rating in this category.
3.2 Contract arrangements with producer organisation – Worst
Lidl’s average length of contract was less than a year, and thus it received a worst rating in this
category.
3.3 Pre-finance - Worst
No information provided therefore it received a worst rating in this category.
3.4 Living wage – Worst
Lidl stated that it was waiting for a universally accepted model against which to measure itself. Due
to the fact it was not active in projects or dialogues addressing the issue of paying a living wage
within banana supply chains Lidl received a worst rating.
3.5 Ethical buying practice - Worst
Lidl stated that all office staff and their suppliers are required to have training on ETI. Lidl received a
worst rating in this category due to the fact it was unclear as to whether it had a scheduled training
programme for its office staff, including its buying team, on responsible buying practices.
3.6 Price of bananas - Worst
Lidl stated that it did not sell its bananas as a "loss leader" and stated that it paid the agreed
minimum price. It was unclear as to which minimum price Lidl was referring and there was no
independent verification that the price was being paid. Lidl therefore received a worst rating in this
category.
4 Environment
4.1 Sustainability - Worst
Whilst Lidl stated that it had an environmental policy which was part of its code of practice (CoP), it
failed to mention whether this included initiatives to promote biodiversity. It also answered yes to
sustainable initiatives around growing bananas but did not provide any further details and thus
received a worst rating in this category.
4.1 Pesticide use - Rudimentary
Lidi stated that its pesticide usage was contained within its CoP and therefore it received a
rudimentary rating in this category.
4.2 Sustainable water and soil use - Rudimentary
Lidl stated that it had carried out an assessment but the results were being written up. It also stated
that soil sustainability was a requirement of GlobalGAP audits, and thus it received a rudimentary
rating in this category.
4.4 Minimising green house gas emissions - Rudimentary
Lidl is Carbon Trust certified as reducing their carbon emissions. The target is to reduce emissions by
15% over 5 years. Lidl received a rudimentary rating in this category due to the fact that it was
certified by the Carbon Trust, and was therefore measuring its GHG usage
Marks & Spencer Company Scorecard
Overview
M&S stated that the proportion of banana sales which were certified Fairtrade was 45%, Rainforest
Alliance 8%, and Soil Association 12%. It was also a member of the Ethical Trade Initiative.
It stated that customers could access information regarding the sustainability of its bananas through
the labelling at point of sale. It also had additional details in its eco and ethical programme Plan A
and annual report. It supported Fairtrade fortnight and 2014 will be the 10th year of this support. It
also had several other initiatives which involved all its supply chains including bananas.
Its ethical trading team report to the Director of Food Technology, who reports to the Executive
Director for Food (board director).
To support ethical trade governance, it held quarterly ethical trade governance meetings and it was
independently audited annually by Ernst & Young.
Plan A, its wider approach to sustainability, was governed by an operating committee (chaired by the
Director of Plan A), an Executive Committee (chaired by the CEO) and a Plan A Advisory board
(chaired by the CEO). M&S stated "we take ethical sourcing extremely seriously and it is how we do
business, whether that is the buying teams, marketing department or the ethical trading team.
Additionally –
• Every Executive Director has a Plan A specific objective on which part of their bonus is
dependent;
• Every person working in the M&S food department has ethical trade targets within their
own personal objectives;
• Every person working in the M&S food team receives induction training which includes a
section on ethical trade;
• It had a commitment to build a Plan A attribute into every product we sell by 2020."
To the question regarding pricing of bananas, M&S responded "we’re committed to long-term
supplier relationships and paying a fair price for all our products, including bananas. The price we
pay our suppliers is higher than the Fairtrade minimum price and both Fairtrade and non-Fairtrade
suppliers confirm that our price meets the cost of sustainable production. It is well known that
bananas are a low margin product, this is the case throughout the supermarket industry. We pay our
suppliers a premium over the Fairtrade minimum price and are confident that it is a fair price that
enables our suppliers the stability to invest in its workforce, the environment and the future."
Scored criteria
1. Transparency
1.1 Labour Standards Certification – Reasonable
M&S stated that Fairtrade certification accounted for 45%, Rainforest Alliance 8% and Soil
Association 12% of total banana sales.
1.2 Labour Standards Audits – Best
M&S stated that all of its suppliers, as a condition of doing business with M&S, must adhere to its
strict ethical sourcing standards. It enforced these principles among its contracted suppliers and
expected the same principles within their supply chains. Suppliers were regularly audited against the
ETI base code. For bananas, Fairtrade carried out third party audits for Fairtrade products (45% of its
supply) while the remainder were audited to SA8000 standards by third party, independent auditors.
These audits were carried out bi-annually on all supplier farms.
With regards to non-Fairtrade suppliers, when M&S found non-compliances it agreed a corrective
action plan with the supplier, set a timeframe and re-audited the supplier once that had passed. For
Fairtrade suppliers this was managed by Fairtrade (FLO Cert) and M&S had a close working
relationship with them and were made aware if there were issues they should be supporting
producers with.
Due to the fact M&S audits were carried out by an independent ISO 65 certifier it received a best
rating in this category.
1.3 Non-governmental Organisations / Not-for-profit partnerships / Other initiatives –
Rudimentary
M&S stated that its suppliers worked with a wide range of trade unions, local and global NGOs and
industry bodies, including Comic Relief, Banana Link and Fairtrade.
M&S stated that it had two initiatives to improve ethics within its supply chains.
a) STEPS – a commitment to train ½ million people in our supply chain by 2015.
b) Emerging Leaders – a global training programme launched in 2013 designed to inspire people in
the M&S supply chain to become ‘leaders’ in their work, personal and community lives. It aims to
train over 250,000 workers (including those in the banana supply chain) across the world over the
next three years, giving them the skills and confidence to build better life prospects for themselves.
While M&S showed it had other initiatives working to improve labour standards it was unclear if
they were in partnership with other NFPs or NGOs. Due to the fact that M&S had some involvement
with NGOs and NFPs it received a rudimentary rating in this category.
1.4 Member of ETI – Best
M&S was a founding member of ETI, had been involved in every single ETI food and farming
programme and had part funded the ETI representing members at the WBF. Due to M&S's active
role within the ETI it received a best rating in this category.
1.5 Member of WBF – Rudimentary
M&S stated that it was not a member of WBF, although it had part funded the ETI representing
members at the WBF and supported research into the living wages in the banana sector (conducted
by ERGON). As such, it received a rudimentary rating in this category.
2. Social
2.1 Health and safety – Best
M&S stated that all its suppliers must adhere to its health and safety policy, which formed part of its
code of practice and global sourcing principles. It had also taken the decision to ban the use of
Tridamorph used to spray bananas in order to protect the health of its workers. M&S confirmed that
its banana suppliers were audited by independent ISO 65 accredited auditors and thus it received a
best rating in this category.
2.2 Freedom of Association (FOA) – Best
This was included in global sourcing principles which stated "Where the right to freedom of
association and collective bargaining is restricted under law, the employer facilitates, and does not
hinder, the development of parallel means for independent and free association and bargaining."
M&S stated that all its banana suppliers were audited by independent, ISO 65 accredited auditors
who verify compliance with ILO conventions on Freedom of Association. It therefore received a best
rating in this category.
2.3 Rights Issues – Best
M&S stated that it "works to the ETI base code and we have a clear policy to address worker rights
issues, including forced labour, child labour, excessive working hours, non-payment of overtime,
migrant labour forces and discrimination. At all bananas sites, independent auditors verify
compliance with these rights issues and are accredited to ISO 65. Every non-Fairtrade audit is
thoroughly reviewed and the site receives a detailed grading letter identifying the areas for further
action. This is followed up as part of our standard governance procedure to help all sites supplying
M&S address non compliant issues." Due to the fact that M&S was addressing all six workers' rights
it received a best rating in this category.
2.4 Long term benefits to the community – Reasonable
M&S stated that "non-Fairtrade suppliers have programmes in place that include building local
medical clinics, education scholarships, environmental stewardship programmes and funding sport,
social and cultural programmes." Whilst M&S appeared to have programmes which benefited 100%
of its supply chain, it received a reasonable rating in this category as investment in the supply chain
was only independently verified for 45% of its banana supply chain (by means of Fairtrade
certification).
2.5 Source bananas from small producer organisation – Reasonable
M&S stated that around 15% of its bananas were sourced from small producer organisations and
that it actively targeted small producers as part of its sourcing mix. It was therefore considered to
have a reasonable rating.
2.6 Women’s rights – Best
M&S stated that all its partners "as a condition of doing business with us, must adhere to our strict
ethical sourcing standards. These are designed to ensure that women’s rights are upheld throughout
our supply chain and this is monitored through the audit programme. As specified in our health and
safety requirements a thorough risk assessment is carried out for every worker. As a result our
suppliers give pregnant women lighter duties and more regular breaks. Our suppliers also offer a
number benefits including maternity leave and child care." M&S stated that women’s rights was
verified through independent assessment, and thus it received a best rating in this category.
2.7 Employment contracts – Best
Around 80% of its banana supplier’s employees were on permanent contracts. M&S also stated that
every audit included independent verification by ISO 65 accredited auditors that all permanent
workers have a legally binding contract of employment with a job description signed by worker and
employer. As such, M&S received a best rating for employment contracts.
3. Economic
3.1 Cost of sustainable production (COSP) – Rudimentary
M&S stated that COSP were being met through paying higher than Fairtrade Minimum Price for
bananas from both non-fairtrade and Fairtrade suppliers. Due to the fact that it only had
independent verification for 45% of its banana supply chain it received a rudimentary rating.
3.2 Contract arrangements with producer organisation – Rudimentary
M&S stated that all of its suppliers were on fixed price contracts and the average length was
between 1-3 years. It did not state whether it had plans to increase the lengths of its contracts due
to commercial sensitivity and therefore received a rudimentary rating in this category.
3.3 Pre-finance – Rudimentary
M&S said that it was not involved in pre-finance. However, because 45% of its banana supply chain
was certified under Fairtrade certification it received a rudimentary rating in this category.
3.4 Living wage – Reasonable
M&S stated "Our banana suppliers are audited either to SA 8000 or Fairtrade. Those that are audited
by SA 8000 are able to demonstrate that workers are paid a Living Wage according to SA 8000
criteria, which provides assurance that workers are paid wages sufficient to meet basic needs (such
as food and housing) and also provide a discretionary income. Due to the nature of Fairtrade audits,
we do not have access to wage details for suppliers that are audited to Fairtrade standards.
We have also funded Living Wage research in both the banana and the tea sector, to increase both
our own understanding, and the understanding of the multi-stakeholder initiatives which we are
involved with. These multi-stakeholder initiatives include the World Banana Forum, the Ethical Tea
Partnership, and the Ethical Trading Initiative." M&S received a reasonable rating for living wages
due to the fact it had demonstrated verification for 100% of its supply chain.
3.5 Ethical buying practice - Reasonable
M&S stated that it prided itself on its long-term supplier relationships in its banana supply chain. Its
banana suppliers were part of its balanced scorecard (how M&S measure supplier performance)
which gives equal rating to ethical performance and commercial performance. It also had systemic
training for buyers (see overview above). Due to the fact M&S had scheduled buyers training and
had more than 50% of its banana supply chain certified it received a reasonable rating in this
category.
3.6 Price of bananas - Rudimentary
M&S stated that it was committed to long-term supplier relationships and paying a fair price for all
its products, including bananas. The price it pays its suppliers was higher than the Fairtrade
Minimum Price and both Fairtrade and non-Fairtrade confirm that its price meets the cost of
sustainable production. M&S received a rudimentary rating in this category due to the fact this was
only independently guaranteed for 45% of its banana supply chain.
4. Environment
4.1 Sustainability - Reasonable
M&S stated that in its Plan A commitments that it had set a goal of “ensuring at least 10% of our
banana producer’s land is set aside for natural cover and initiatives that promote biodiversity”. It
also stated that "All our banana suppliers have GlobalG.A.P. certification as well as having been
audited to our own environmental standards. As part of Global Gap and our own audits there are
requirements on buffer zones and protected areas." M&S was considered to have a reasonable
approach to sustainability due to the fact it had its own set of requirements to ensure biodiversity
was promoted in its banana supplier chain. GlobalG.A.P certification was considered inadequate due
to the fact that the standards only required producers as a recommendation or a "minor must."
4.2 Pesticide use - Best
M&S stated that "We have a Plan A commitment to work towards M&S fruit, vegetables and salads
being 75% pesticide residue-free by 2015 and 100% pesticide residue-free by 2020. This is over and
above our minimum standards. Non Organic growers are governed by Fairtrade , Marks & Spencer
policy and EU and national pesticide legislation and usage. We specify that all our bananas are
Tridamorph free. We took this decision to protect workers and the environment.
All our banana suppliers are independently audited to GlobalG.A.P. and our own environmental
standards to ensure that pesticide use is restricted to protect workers. We also work very closely
with PAN to develop our restricted lists and were ranked joint top in the latest PAN UK Supermarket
League table. We test all our products using a third party independent lab to ensure our pesticide
standards are being adhered to, and publish a summary of the results of these tests in our
independently assured annual sustainability report."
M&S received a best rating for pesticide use due to the fact that it had independent verification for
100% of its banana supply chain.
4.3 Sustainable water and soil use - Best
M&S stated that it required all farms to monitor water use and put measures in place to use water
more efficiently. "We’ve done some groundbreaking work on water stewardship and have also
recognised one of our banana suppliers for their leading approach to water standards." M&S stated
that it encouraged farmers to set targets for sustainable soil use. M&S stated "Sustainable water and
soil use forms part of the GlobalG.A.P. independent audits as well as our own M&S standards. Both
standards specifically look at fertiliser storage, use of untreated sewage, treatment of waste, and a
range of criteria regarding the use of water." M&S received a best rating for sustainable water and
soil use due to the fact it had independent verification.
4.4 Minimising green house gas emissions - Rudimentary
M&S stated that it had not carried out a GHG emissions assessment within its banana supply chains,
although its banana suppliers were audited against its own standards which included criteria on
energy efficiency and the monitoring and recording of energy use. It stated that GlobalG.A.P
standards also audited suppliers on energy efficiency, although this was only a recommended
criteria in the All Farm Base, Crops Base, Fruit and Vegetables criteria and did not specifically relate
to green house gas emissions. M&S was considered to have measures in place to monitor and record
energy consumption in its banana supply chain and therefore received a rudimentary rating in this
category.
Morrisons Company Scorecard
Overview
Morrisons stated that its current proportion of total banana sales in the UK certified under Fairtrade
was 3% and Organic represented 1% of sales. It stated that currently there was no "mechanism for
communicating the sustainability of its bananas” to its customers but in the future it may look at
communicating more information to stakeholders on its "direct sourcing approach.”
Its ethical trading department reports to the Group Corporate Services director and is embedded
within the Technical Services function. This enables the integration of supplier requirements into
commercial and technical performance management and decision making processes. Supplier
requirements for ethical trading were included in its Supplier Standard Terms and Conditions of
Purchase. Its own brands were monitored and assessed via the SEDEX framework.
The company was not, at the time, a member of the Ethical Trade Initiative or World Banana Forums
and provided no additional information that it was involved in other initiatives within its banana
supply chain.
To the question regarding pricing of bananas, Morrisons stated that it had sold loose bananas as a
loss leader in the last year. It explained that in order to prevent low retail prices impacting on
banana producers, "we take the loss, and we try to relieve pressure on cost price for our customers'
benefit. The largest country we buy from has a legal minimum box fee set annually to ensure a
sustainable grower return. We use this to benchmark other countries in similar regions of the world,
taking account for currency and specific conditions.”
Scored criteria
1. Transparency
1.2 Labour Standards Certification – Rudimentary
Morrisons stated that its current proportion of total banana sales in the UK certified under Fairtrade
was 3% whilst Organic represented 1% of sales.
1.3 Labour Standard Audits – Rudimentary
Morrisons audits were carried out through SEDEX. It said that it was a member of SEDEX
and also "that it expected all inherent high risk suppliers to regularly share valid ethical audits from
accredited independent audit providers." Specifically for bananas it required all growers to be
registered on SEDEX and to have at least completed a self-assessment questionnaire understanding
the requirements of Morrisons and providing the opportunity to raise any issues of non-compliance.
It said that "in addition independent audit results were monitored" but it was unclear how this was
carried out. Compliance was arranged via the SEDEX risk management system.
With regards to remediation Morrisons stated that "whenever issues are found, corrective action
and a practicable time-scale is agreed". It continued by stating that "where we are alerted to or find
breaches of our Ethical Trading Code we take proportionate action. Our preferred approach is to
work with suppliers to resolve ethical trading issues and improve working conditions across the
supply chain. If suppliers are unable or unwilling to address critical issues associated with our Ethical
Trading Code we will carefully consider whether terminating the relationship is the appropriate
course of action."
The company stated in the questionnaire that none of its banana suppliers had been found to be
non-compliant / been in a remediation programme or had their contact terminated in the last year.
Further information provided by Morrisons stated "We are in the process of arranging independent
ethical audits of a selection of growers in each of the three countries we source from." Future
commitments were not included in the rankings.
Due to the fact that all banana suppliers had to be registered with SEDEX, it had disclosed that none
of its banana suppliers had been found non-compliant and it had a remediation strategy. As such,
Morrisons was considered to have a rudimentary approach to audits.
1.4 Non-governmental Organisations / Not-for-profit partnerships / Other initiatives – Worst
Morrisons stated "In Costa Rica all plantations have direct agreements with Permanent Committees
from the work force, which are checked and approved by the Ministry of Labour. In Ecuador, we
have found no requirement for partnerships with NGOs on worker welfare issues due to the
effectiveness of Government legislation." Morrisons itself did not appear to be involved with
NGOs/NFP or trade unions working to improve labour standards within its banana supply chain. It
therefore received a worst rating in this category.
1.5 Member of ETI - Worst
Morrisons was not, at the time, a member of the ETI and therefore received a worst rating in this
category.
1.6 Member of WBF - Worst
Morrisons was not, at the time, a member of the WBF and therefore received a worst rating in this
category.
2. Social
2.1 Health and safety - Rudimentary
Morrisons stated "All suppliers (including banana suppliers) must comply to our Ethical Code which
details standards for safe and hygienic working conditions. We are in the process of translating and
issuing a standard health and safety procedure for banana growers which will be communicated to
each grower via our on-the-ground team." Morrisons received a rudimentary rating for health and
safety.
2.2 Freedom of Association (FOA) - Worst
Morrisons stated that an FOA clause could be located in its Ethical Code. The Code stated "Workers
should be allowed to join or form trade unions, or similar groups, in order to negotiate collectively
with management on employment matters. Trade union or other workers' representatives should be
treated fairly, without discrimination, and be allowed to represent workers effectively." There was
no provision for FOA to be achieved in countries where trade unions may be restricted, and thus
Morrisons received a worst rating in this category.
2.3 Workers' rights issues – Rudimentary
Morrisons stated "Morrisons and our partners Global Pacific have a dedicated team on the ground in
all sourcing countries who are present in pack houses during harvest (throughout the entire supply
chain) and packing and are very familiar with each site and their ways of working. Any issues with
worker welfare are observed by this team and taken up with the management. The Global Pacific
General Manager visits every farm on a regular basis and observes all ways of working.
With regards to rights issues, Morrisons stated it had not experienced forced labour, non-payment
of overtime or discrimination within its supply chain. It had inadequate clauses relating to excessive
working hours (all controlled by over time agreements/ rates by national or union agreement) and
child labour restrictions (all countries have legal minimum working age and ID card systems). With
regards to migrant labour forces it stated that this was relevant for one of the countries it sourced
from, Costa Rica, although no issues had been identified.
Due to the fact that forced labour and discrimination was covered in Morrisons supplier code of
conduct it received a rudimentary rating for workers' rights issues.
2.4 Long term benefits to the community - Worst
Morrisons stated that "We are currently in discussion with our supplier to create a social foundation
that will potentially invest in education, health, IT and social amenities." Due to the fact that future
commitments were not included in this rating, Morrisons received a worst rating in this category.
2.5 Source bananas from small producer organisation - Rudimentary
Morrisons stated "The plantations tend to be 100ha or more in size which largely reflects the state
of development of the industry in the three countries. These are the top three banana exporting
countries in the world with well-developed banana industries. Being of medium size, none of the
plantations are linked to multinational companies and all are run by successful individuals who are
creating wealth and employment in their localities. Morrisons believes that such businesses are the
‘engine-room’ for development of emerging economies and is proud to give them business.
In Ecuador, the farms are mostly 150-200ha, but one farm, Francisco Garcia, is 40ha and the whole
crop is sold to Morrisons." Due to the fact Morrisons was sourcing from a mixture of hired labour
farms and small producer farms it received a rudimentary rating.
2.6 Women’s rights – Rudimentary
Morrisons ensured women’s rights were upheld through strong government legislation and union
agreements but had no specific provisions provided for women who are pregnant, breastfeeding or
have children. Morrisons’ Ethical Trading Code included a provision for non-discrimination and thus
it received a rudimentary rating in this category.
2.7 Employment contracts – Rudimentary
Morrisons stated that "the majority of workers are on permanent contracts - there is little need for
seasonal labour. In Ecuador, every worker must have a contract that is registered with the Ministry
of Labour. With stability of production and volumes throughout the year, the majority of workers
have year-round employment." Morrisons received a rudimentary rating for employment contracts
as it was not clear that all workers within its banana supply chain had a written contract of
employment.
3. Economic
3.1 Cost of sustainable cost of production – Rudimentary
Morrisons stated that it had relieved the pressure of supply costs through a number of initiatives
including palletisation; packaging printed at source; shipping incentives to reduce cost and its own
ripening centre. It said it was involved in making assessment annually and that it had identified /
implemented a number of initiatives to ensure that it paid growers a fair price. Further information
provided by Morrisons stated that "The three countries we source from have set minimum prices for
bananas which Morrisons, through a 3rd party supplier, adhere to and DO pay above the market
rate."
While Morrisons asserted that it paid over the FTMP for its bananas there was no independent
verification of their claim and thus it received a rudimentary rating in this category.
3.2 Contract arrangements with producer organisation – Rudimentary
It stated that it producers on fixed term contracts were on average contracts between 1-3 years. It
stated it had plans to increase the length of the contracts. However no target date was provided and
Morrisons received a rudimentary rating in this category.
3.3 Pre-finance - Worst
Morrisons stated that its banana production ensured a steady income and "we find it is seasonal
crop growers that need this support." Due to the fact that Morrisons did not expicitly explain that it
had a programme to provide pre-finance to its banana producers it received a worst rating in this
category.
3.4 Living wage – Worst
There was no commitment to pay a living wage to workers within Morrisons’ banana supply chain. It
stated that "workers within our banana supply chain receive the National Minimum Wage. We only
source from countries which have a National Minimum Wage. Our growers often pay above this
National Minimum Wage and we monitor considerations that affect the living wage compared to
National Minimum Wage. In Ecuador, the vast majority of workers are paid the Government-defined
‘living’ wage by our growers. One grower, Christian Sanchez, had an unusually high retention rate for
workers due to an enlightened approach to pay and conditions. In Costa Rica, the minimum wage is
set every six months by a tripartite committee of Government, trade union and owner
representatives. Most of our growers in Costa Rica pay at least 15% more than the minimum wage."
While some of its suppliers may be paying a living wage to their employees there was no evidence of
participation in projects, dialogues or a commitment by employers to move towards living wage.
Therefore, Morrisons received a worst rating in this category.
3.5 Ethical buying practice - Rudimentary
Morrisons stated that "all buyers have scheduled training on our Terms and Conditions of Purchase
which includes our Ethical Code". Morrisons was considered to have a rudimentary approach to
ethical buying practices.
3.6 Banana Price - Worst
Morrisons did not state that it paid over the Fairtrade Minimum Price for its bananas, and thus it
received a worst rating in this category..
4. Environment
4.1 Sustainability – Rudimentary
Morrisons stated that its growers had numerous programmes to promote biodiversity, which it
"encourages when it visits. An example is use of bio-fertilisers in Costa Rica which are applied to soil
and foliage to encourage diversity of micro-flora." Morrisons received a rudimentary rating in this
category due to the fact it had some measures in place to increase biodiversity in its banana supply
chains.
4.2 Pesticide use - Reasonable
Morrisons stated "Pesticide usage on all fresh produce supplied to Wm Morrison supermarkets is
controlled through the Morrison Pesticide Control List (MPCL) system, which ensures risk-based
controls for all pesticides used. These controls include legislative compliance as well as protection of
the consumer, the environment and workers. Risk assessment is objective, consistent and pragmatic.
This system is managed by the independent pesticide consultancy Audax." Due to the fact that
Morrisons had a policy which restricted pesticide use to protect workers and consumers it received a
reasonable rating in this category – it was not clear whether Audax were providing independent
verification.
4.3 Sustainable water and soil use - Rudimentary
Morrisons stated that measures were covered under GlobalGAP standards and therefore it received
a rudimentary rating.
4.4Minimising green house gas emissions - Rudimentary
Morrisons stated that measures were covered under GlobalGAP standards and therefore it received
a rudimentary rating.
Sainsbury's Company Scorecard
Overview
Sainsbury's stated that it sold 100% Fairtrade bananas and some organic bananas. It was a fully
committed member of the Ethical Trade Initiative (ETI) but was currently not a member of the World
Banana (WBF) forum. However, the company also stated that it had previously been involved. It was
currently not involved in other initiatives, specifically within its banana supply chain.
It said that customers gained information about the sustainability of its bananas through labelling, its
website, at point of sale and in its corporate social responsibility report. Its ethical trading
department sat within its Group Commercial Division. It said that it integrated its ethical policies
through its policies & brand standards; supplier code of conduct; ethical targets as part of technical
team individual targets and group commercial brand governance.
Sainsbury’s did not respond to any of the questions about pricing of bananas. Contained within its
“Sourcing With Integrity” factsheet Sainsbury’s stated that "where we offer only a Fairtrade option,
we absorb the higher costs rather than increasing the price, so our customers don't pay extra."
Scored criteria
1. Transparency
1.1 Labour Standards Certification – Best
Sainsbury's stated that it sold 100% Fairtrade bananas and some organic bananas.
1.2 Labour Standards Audits – Best
Independent audits were covered under Fairtrade certification, and thus Sainsbury's received a best
rating in this category.
1.3 Non-governmental Organisations / Not-for-profit partnerships / Other initiatives – Best
Sainsbury's worked with the Fairtrade Foundation to verify labour standards within its banana
supply chain and thus the company received a best rating in this category.
1.4 Member of ETI – Best
Sainsbury’s stated that it was a founding member of ETI. It said that it had a strong requirement for
its suppliers to adhere to ETI base code standards. It had worked on founding support for "Stronger
Together" which focussed on addressing hidden migrant labour issues. Sainsbury's received a best
rating in this category due to the fact it was an active member of the ETI.
1.5 Member of WBF – Rudimentary
Was not currently an active member of WBF although it was a member of the ETI and thus received
a rudimentary rating in this category.
2. Social
2.1 Health and safety - Best
Due to the fact that Sainsbury's sold 100% Fairtrade bananas and its health and safety requirements
were audited by independent ISO 65 accredited auditors, it received a best rating in this category.
2.2 Freedom of Association (FOA) – Best
Freedom of Association was covered under Sainsbury's Fairtrade commitments, and thus Sainsbury's
received a best rating in this category.
2.3 Rights issues – Best
Child and forced labour, excessive working hours, non-payment of overtime, migrant labour, and
discrimination were covered under Sainsbury's Fairtrade commitments and thus Sainsbury’s
received a best rating in this category.
2.4 Long term benefits to the community - Best
Due to the fact that Sainsbury's was systematically investing in banana communities through its
Fairtrade commitments and its own programmes it received a best rating in this category.
2.5 Source bananas from small producer organisation – Best
Sainsbury's stated that it had an internal target of sourcing from small producer organisations and
that it was currently exceeding its target as it sourced 45% of its volume from SPOs.
2.6 Women’s rights – Best
Due to the fact that Sainsbury's had independent verification of women’s rights for 100% of its
banana supply chain through its Fairtrade certification it received a best rating in this category.
2.7 Employment contracts – Best
Due to the fact that Sainsbury's had independent verification of workers’ contracts for 100% of its
banana supply chain through its Fairtrade certification it received a best rating in this category.
3. Economic
3.1 Cost of sustainable production (COSP) – Best
Sainsbury's ensured COSP were met through Fairtrade Minimum Price, and thus received a best
rating in this category.
3.2 Contract arrangements with producer organisation – Rudimentary
Sainsbury's stated "As a business we are committed to long term stable relationships with our
suppliers flowing right down through the supply chain. 94 of our top 100 suppliers have been
working with us for >10 years. With this foundation of trust & stability we will still typically only have
1 year rolling contracts." Sainsbury's did not state that it had plans to increase its length of contracts
and thus received a rudimentary rating in this category.
3.3 Pre-finance – Best
Due to the fact that 100% of Sainsbury's banana supply chain was covered under Fairtrade
certification, including provisions for pre-finance to be provided to producers, Sainsbury's received a
best rating in this category.
3.4 Living wage – Reasonable
Whilst there was no guarantee that all its workers at origin received a living wage, it did have
independent verification of a commitment to moving toward paying workers a living wage.
Sainsbury's therefore received a reasonable rating in this category.
3.5 Ethical buying practice - Reasonable
This information was found in Sainsbury’s Sourcing with Integrity Factsheet.
"We also run a day-long Supplier Ethical Trade Technical Management Academy which our key
suppliers attend in order to understand our ethical trade requirements and develop their own
ethical trade strategy for their suppliers, growers and labour providers. We also ran supplier
workshops on ethical trade for suppliers in Kenya, South Africa, China, Hong Kong, Pakistan and
Bangladesh with over 450 suppliers attending."
Internally Sainsbury’s Own Brand technical team colleagues undertake mandatory ethical trade
training courses ranging from basic through to advanced level including specific Agency and Migrant
Worker courses. There was evidence of a preference for long-term contracts with suppliers, and thus
Sainsbury’s received a reasonable rating in this category.
3.6 Banana Price – Reasonable
Sainsbury’s website was checked by Ethical Consumer on 16th January 2014 which found that it sold
loose Fairtrade bananas at 79p per kilo. Due to the fact that Sainsbury’s had an independent
guarantee that the minimum price to producers was paid it received a reasonable rating.
4 Environment
4.1 Sustainability - Best
Sainsbury’s provided a link to their recent 2020 Corporate Responsibility Commitments document. A
search of the document found no information regarding measures it was taking as a company to
promote biodiversity in the plantations from which it sources. There was no information about
Sainsbury’s being involved in researching or funding sustainable initiatives around its banana supply
chain. However, it received a best rating because it sold 100% Fairtrade bananas and biodiversity
was covered in the Fairtrade Standards.
4.2 Pesticide use - Best
Sainsbury's provided no information, although still received a best rating because it sold 100%
Fairtrade bananas and pesticide usage was covered in the Fairtrade Standards.
4.3 Sustainable water and soil use - Best
Sainsbury’s provided a link to its 2020 CSR report which had set targets for a reduction of water use
throughout its activities. There was no information on whether it had carried out a water usage
assessment of its banana suppliers, or targets set for its suppliers. However, it received a best rating
because it sold 100% Fairtrade bananas whilst water usage and management was covered in the
Fairtrade Standards.
4.4 Minimising green house gas emissions - Best
Sainsbury’s stated that it had not carried out any assessments. It had group wide targets for reducing
GHG but had no specific targets relating to its banana supply chain. Fairtrade Small Producer
standards require companies to report on greenhouse gas emissions. Sainsbury's therefore received
a best rating because its GHG emissions were independently audited under its Fairtrade
commitments.
Tesco Company Scorecard
Overview
Tesco stated that its current proportion of total banana sales in the UK certified under Fairtrade was
3.5% and organic was 3.5%. It stated that 93% were certified under its own label Tesco Nurture.
Tesco's stated that it was planning to extend its Rainforest Alliance certification across all nonFairtrade lines as a replacement for Nurture.
Tesco also stated that its ethical trade sat within the Group Commercial function, which reported to
the Group Technical Director. The Ethical Trade Programme was therefore governed by the Group
Commercial committee, a formal sub-committee of the PLC board. Ethical trade was also a standing
item at Corporate Responsibility and Compliance Committees.
In response to questions about pricing of bananas, Tesco stated "yes as in past years, a proportion of
our banana range – the conventional loose, c. 45% of our volume – has traded at a loss since midApril 2013. This is owing to three main reasons: the high basket penetration of bananas (i.e. the % of
customers who have bananas in their basket); the importance of bananas (more than any other
product in the store) in signalling overall quality and value to customers; and deep discounting led by
competitors in this product area." It said that impacts on banana producers were prevented by
"decoupling retail pricing and cost prices. There is no fixed margin agreement in bananas, meaning
retail prices are set independently of cost prices. Cost prices are determined based on the cost of
sustainable production."
Scored criteria
1. Social
1.1 Labour Standards Certification – Rudimentary
Tesco currently sells bananas which are certified Fairtrade 3.5% and 3.5% organic. It stated that 0%
of its bananas were sold under the Rainforest Alliance certification, although approximately 20% of
its volumes were from certified farms and a further 25% had historic Rainforest Alliance certification.
It stated that its own Tesco Nurture covered around 93% of its bananas.
Tesco stated that it was planning to re-introduce its Fairtrade conventional line to its UK stores in
2014. This would effectively double its sales participation. Due to the fact that less than 50% of the
bananas currently sold by Tesco are certified, it received a rudimentary rating.
1.2 Labour Standards Audits – Best
Tesco was committed to auditing its suppliers approximately once every year. It stated "the timing
varies by producer depending on the nature of the issues identified last time and intensity of followup that has been required in the interim." It stated that "all of its banana supplying sites were
audited by independent audit bodies which were also ISO 65 certified".
In instances of non-compliance Tesco stated that it:
• Ensure we have understood the issues properly, including root causes.
• Understand the wider context of the problem, including barriers to resolution (finance,
culture, infrastructure, politics, etc.).
• Make plans that are specific (detailed and written down), measurable, accountable, realistic
and time-bound.
• Ensure senior management sign off the plans, and be clear – if necessary – on the
consequences of failure to improve.
•
•
•
Discuss and agree what support is needed to improve, including resources or expertise Tesco
can bring from elsewhere it its network.
Agree and implement regular interim reviews, including visits on site by our local experts.
Carry out a formal review through the independent auditors at an appropriate time,
normally 6 or 12 months later.
It also disclosed that in the last year only one banana producer received a clean bill of health. The
remaining audited producers all experienced some degree of non-compliance, some minor, others
major, none critical. It also disclosed that two smaller producers which accounted for up to 8% of its
conventional volumes had been de-listed going into 2013. Tesco stated that one was on purely
ethical grounds while the other was a combination of ethical, technical and commercial issues.
Due to the fact Tesco's audits were carried out by an independent ISO 65 certifier it received a best
rating in this category.
1.3 Non-governmental Organisations / Not-for-profit partnerships / Trade Unions – Best
Tesco stated that it had been working closely with Banana Link for the last five years across Central
America, South America and West Africa. It stated that through Banana Link it had ongoing dialogue
with trade unions across all of its sources. The dialogue was not formalised and it had no formal joint
management programmes for labour standards. However, it maintained open lines of
communication between them just in case of any local difficulties or disputes. Tesco had also been
involved in a series of round tables, workshops and high-level engagements (including with the Costa
Rican Vice President and the British and Norwegian Embassies) on freedom of association in banana
and pineapple production in Costa Rica.
Tesco had also shown support for and participation in the UNDP Green Commodity Facility’s
National Pineapple Platform, also in Costa Rica: whilst this not directly related to bananas, the two
products are grown by the same producers in neighbouring farms and share many of the same
challenges. Due to the fact that Tesco had third party involvement in reviewing its practices in its
banana supply chain it received a best rating in this category.
1.4 Member of ETI – Best
Tesco was a founding member of the ETI and was actively participating in a wide range of ETI
activities. Further information provided stated that Tesco's financial contribution was significant.
Tesco stated "on top of this, the time and funding allocated to individual projects and programmes
of work." Tesco received a best rating in this category.
1.5 Member of WBF - Best
Tesco was a founding member of the WBF and has also been on the Steering Committee since its
inception in 2009.
Tesco had also been involved in many initiatives with WBF
• Funding contribution for the important wages study of the WBF’s second working group
(Distribution of Value) in 2010, assessing living wage and other benchmarks for the first time
across the 14 key banana export sources.
• Funding for the six-monthly repeat of this wages study to ensure benchmarks are updated
regularly.
• Funding contribution for the coordination of Working Group 2 (Value).
• Funding contribution for the coordination of Working Group 3 (Labour).
• Regular staff time (again both ethical and commercial) to participate in Working Group 2
(Value).
• New funds pledged for important pesticide research project with Working Group 1
(Environment) for 2014.
• Regular staff time to participate in the Steering Committee of the Forum (until 2014
•
effectively the board of the WBF).
Staff time to participate in both of the WBF’s biennial conference’s to date, including senior
commercial representation.
Due to Tesco's financial commitments and active involvement in the WBF it received a best rating in
this category.
2. Social
2.1 Health and safety – Best
Tesco said that it based its health and safety policy on the ETI base code and did not have any
policies relating specifically to banana producers. With this said however, Tesco stated that all its
banana supplying sites were audited by independent audit bodies which were also ISO 65 certified,
including the health and safety of workers. In addition, all of its banana supply sites as part of Tesco's
ethical trade programme were or are in the process of being audited in accordance with the ETI Base
Code, which includes H&S requirements by an independent audit body. Tesco received a best rating
for health and safety.
2.2 Freedom of Association– Best
Tesco stated that in Costa Rica, a country with long-running tensions between labour and producers
and an important source for Tesco, it had taken action by engaging in a series of multi-stakeholder
round-tables and producer-only workshops, with a particular focus on freedom of association. The
latter provided producers with a safe space to work through some of the challenges in detail, and to
review and shape some practical guidance for managing labour relations in the sector. During the
past 12 months it had also reviewed and tightened its independent auditor group in Latin America
which they hoped would give greater insight into FOA issues in Costa Rica, and more momentum to
producers’ efforts to address the same. Tesco also stated that in Costa Rica, it had lobbied at Vice
President level for the inclusion of labour representatives in multi-stakeholder initiatives in the
sector, including with the British and Norwegian embassies.
In addition, all of its banana supply sites, as part of Tesco's ethical trade programme, were or are in
the process of being audited in accordance with the ETI Base Code which includes FOA requirements
by an independent audit body. Tesco received a best rating for in this category.
2.3 Rights Issues – Best
With regards to the difficult issues Tesco’s stated:
• Forced labour: Tesco had no known cases of forced labour within its banana supply chain.
This clause was included in its supplier code of conduct.
• Excessive long hours; long working hours were reported on some ethical audits. It was
working with suppliers in order to re-organise production and thus effectively manage
working hours.
• Child labour; Tesco stated it had no known cases of child labour within its supply chain,
although it was included within its supply code of conduct.
• Non-payment of overtime; Tesco stated that this had been identified in audits from time to
time. In those cases it had worked with suppliers to ensure back-payment of unpaid wages,
and adjustment of payroll systems to prevent repeat instances.
• Migrant labour forces; Tesco said that migrant labour was a feature in some of its countries
where it sourced bananas, although it was not aware of any major migrant labour issues at
its banana farms.
• Discrimination; Tesco stated that its growers in Costa Rica had received allegations of
discrimination against union members.
In addition to this, all of its banana supply sites as part of Tesco's ethical trade programme were or
are in the process of being audited in accordance with the ETI Base Code by an independent audit
body. Tesco stated "Any non-compliance identified during these audits was required to have robust
improvement plan in place with agreed timescales for remediation. In addition, it had in-country
expertise to support supplier’s facing complex challenges." Tesco received a best rating for this
category.
2.4 Long term benefits to the community – Worst
Tesco talked about paying the cost of sustainable production as being a starting point. However, it
did not provide any examples of projects it was involved in, and as such received a worst rating in
this category.
2.5 Source bananas from small producer organisation – Rudimentary
Tesco stated “50% of farms supplying the UK, and 3.5% of our UK volumes. We work with around
200 small producers for our Fairtrade Organic line.”
Due to the fact that Tesco sourced bananas from both hired labour farms and small producer farms
it received a rudimentary rating in this category.
2.6 Women’s rights – Best
Tesco stated that provision 7 of the ETI base code covered discrimination while provision 9 covered
harsh and inhumane treatment, including sexual harassment. As with all provisions of the base code,
these two also both fall within the scope of its independent ethical audits of banana suppliers.
Tesco went on to explain that audits were not always effective at picking up issues in these two
areas. It therefore encouraged its growers on good management practice for supervisors and
managers.
As an example it stated in "West Africa we are also exploring a possible women’s leadership
programme. This follows the launch of a successful initiative in South Africa where cohorts of
women managers are given intensive training on a year-long management course, with many going
on to higher positions at their employers afterwards."
It said that it had encountered a few cases of pregnancy tests during selection processes – which had
stopped following ethical audits by Tesco and that childcare provision varied by farm. Some provide
crèches and nurseries on the farm, while others rely on the community, depending on local
provision.
In addition, all of its banana supply sites as part of Tesco's ethical trade programme, have or are in
the process of being audited in accordance with the ETI Base Code which includes provisions on
discrimination and harsh treatment by an independent audit body. Tesco received a best rating in
this category.
2.7 Employment contracts – Best
Tesco stated that 72% of its banana workers were on permanent contracts. It continued by stating
"all workers are required to have a written contract signed by both employer and workers. This is
independently verified through our independent ethical audit programme, and checked periodically
by members of the Group Ethical Trade Team during site visits. An important focus and success for
our team in 2012 and 2013 was with our Ecuadorian growers on workers' contracts. While the
majority of contracts in Ecuador are permanent, historically across the sector these were not issued
or signed by the parties. Working with our growers through our regular ethical audit programme,
contracts have now been issued and signed across the workforce.
In addition, all of its banana supply sites as part of Tesco's ethical trade programme have or are in
the process of being audited in accordance with the ETI Base Code by an independent audit body.
Under the ETI Base Code employers are required to provide employee contracts to all workers.
Tesco received a best rating in this category.
3. Economic
3.1 Cost of sustainable production (COSP) – Rudimentary
It was noted that Tesco had been doing a lot of work in this area and it explained that in 2013 its
average cost price for bananas was around 6% above the Fairtrade minimum price. It expected this
lead to reduce slightly in 2014 but "still expect to pay on average 2-3% above the Fairtrade minimum
price across our conventional sources.”
Tesco stated that an assessment to verify its claims on paying above the cost of sustainable
production is in its plans for 2014. It continued by stating that it was considering expanding its work
on cost of sustainable production further, by working with the World Banana Forum and other
experts to establish tailored costs for each of its sources.
Tesco stated "Establishing recommended cost of production is a complex and controversial process.
Our approach is to work with the right experts and with stakeholders representing the community of
interests involved. We have however shared our costing model with Banana Link and have given
them full disclosure on our pricing and sourcing. Whilst this is not independently verification we
believe that such transparency to such a respected NGO demonstrates the veracity of our claims and
they are highly supportive of Tesco's approach to COSP."
Due to the fact that there was no independent verification that COSP was being paid to 100% of its
supply chain Tesco received a rudimentary rating in this category.
3.2 Contract arrangements with producer organisation – Rudimentary
Tesco stated that its typical contracts with banana producers were 1-3 years I duration, although it
had publicly committed to offering 2 year contracts to all producers. Tesco received a rudimentary
rating due to the fact it had not committed to further increasing the length of contracts.
3.3 Pre-finance - Best
Tesco said "we offer pre-finance. The availability of pre-finance is laid down within our supplier
arrangements and contracts. Failure to deliver upon this would not be compliant with Groceries
Supply Code of Practice (GSCOP). Tesco has a robust internal audit department and is audited on a
regular basis by our auditors PWC to ensure our continuing compliance to GSCOP." Tesco received a
best rating in this category due to the fact that producers could request pre-finance services.
3.4 Living wage – Rudimentary
On this subject, Tesco responded "our plans for 2014 include conducting detailed wages studies
across all our key banana suppliers. There are no independently set and agreed benchmarks for
living wage. Therefore, there is no option to independently verify this. All our banana supplying sites
are part of Tesco's ethical trade programme and have or are in the process of being audited to the
ETI Base Code by an independent audit company which is ISO65 certified. Part of the audits is an
assessment against living wage. In the absence of an agreed definition, the default is to assess if
minimum wages are being paid. We are however very supportive of the ISEAL work that Richard
Anker is undertaking and are committed to using the resulting benchmarks as a mechanism against
which to set our expectations for wages."
Tesco stated that it had played a central role in designing, funding and conducting the breakthrough
"wage ladder" work conducted by WBF and it was now co-funding the re-issuing of the work on a
six-monthly basis.
While Tesco was applauded for its work on paying a living wage to producers, this rating did not take
into consideration future commitments, and thus Tesco received a rudimentary rating for its
participation in multi-stakeholder projects on the living wage.
3.5 Ethical buying practice - Rudimentary
Tesco stated "it was compulsory for all commercial colleagues to attend a full day of training on
Ethical Trade and its impact for supply chain management." Staff were required to refresh this
course every three years. Due to the fact that Tesco had scheduled training for staff, it received a
rudimentary rating in this category.
3.6 Price of bananas - Rudimentary
A search was conducted of Tesco’s website in January 2014, with the results showing that it was
selling loose bananas at 68p per kilo. Tesco was considered to be paying over the Fairtrade Minimum
Price, although it did not have any independent guarantee and thus received a rudimentary rating in
this category.
4 Environment
4.1 Sustainability - Rudimentary
Tesco stated "The two priorities for our growers in promoting and maintaining biodiversity are i)
striking the right balance of inputs (water, fertiliser, insecticides, etc), and ii) ensuring a proportion
of the plantation is not cultivated. Inputs are managed carefully so as to avoid over-application:
insects useful to healthy pest management would otherwise be eliminated in plantations. Areas set
aside next to banana plantations help offset the wider effect of monoculture necessary for largescale banana production. Some of our growers also manage melina forests adjoining their banana
plantations. These forests are harvested sustainably for timber for pallets used in the transportation
of bananas.
Each farm will have a Nurture Policy Statement covering Wildlife and Landscape Conservation and
Enhancement. This will be reviewed and updated every 12 months. This will include an integrated
management plan designed and implemented to protect and encourage diversity of flora and fauna.
Progress on the plan is reviewed every year and success in meeting targets will be assessed as part
of the independent NSF Nurture audit."
Tesco is considered to have a rudimentary rating for sustainability as it had measures to help
promote biodiversity but did not appear to have specific requirements for each of its banana
suppliers.
4.2 Pesticide use - Best
The Tesco Nurture standard mandates a Pest Protection Programme List. This is reviewed annually
and enforced through audits carried out by independent auditors. Tesco stated that conformance
with pesticide requirements was checked through ongoing monitoring of minimum residual levels
(MRLs), which take place in the UK and are conducted by independent testing bodies. Tesco makes
use of the PAN International List of Highly Hazardous Pesticides as part of the risk assessment
process. It stated that no pesticides which came under the PAN indicator for a known carcinogen
were included in Tesco PPPLs (Plant Protection Product Lists). Probable or possible carcinogens,
according to PAN indicators, were dealt with on a case by case basis. There were no PAN indicators
for known Endocrine Disrupting Pesticides. PAN indicators refer to suspected or potential Endocrine
Disruptors. Accordingly, these are also dealt with on a case by case basis. Due to the fact that Tesco
had independent verification that pesticide use was restricted to protect workers and consumers, it
received a best rating.
4.3 Sustainable water and soil use - Reasonable
Tesco stated "Each farm will have a Tesco Nurture Policy Statement covering optimisation of water
usage and other natural resources with clear and viable targets for their own situation. Complete
water usage records for each farm are required. Individual water assessments covering irrigation
pumps, extraction and minimisation of leakage and waste are obligatory. These areas are reviewed
every year and success in meeting targets will be assessed as part of the independent NSF Nurture
audit. Each farm will have a Tesco Nurture Policy Statement which will include a target to maximise
the soil organic content as well as a crop nutrition and soil fertility management plan. This will be
reviewed annually and a nutrient balance plan that includes soil analysis should be available at the
time of the independent NSF Nurture audit." Due to the fact Tesco had specific requirements for
water and soil use for each farmer, it received a reasonable rating.
4.4 Minimising green house gas emissions - Rudimentary
Tesco stated "our commitment to reduce the emissions of the products in our supply chain by 30%
by 2020 compared to 2008 applies to bananas." Whilst Tesco does have some measures in place,
they are not independently verified, and thus they received a rudimentary rating.
Waitrose Company Scorecard
Overview
Waitrose sold 100% Fairtrade bananas of which 10% were also certified organic. It was a member of
the Ethical Trade Initiative and its suppliers were members of the World Banana Forum. It was not
involved in any other banana initiatives within its banana supply chain. Customers could access
information about the sustainability of the bananas at Waitrose through labelling and information
on their website.
Its ethical trading department sat within its Commercial Directorate as part of its technical
department. It stated that it trained "all buyers on Responsible Sourcing. All buyers were trained in
2012 through workshops, which our Responsible Sourcing team ran. Since the workshops, all new
Partners in the Buying and Quality & Technical teams receive an induction on Responsible Sourcing.
We are currently developing Responsible Sourcing online training modules, which will be launched in
2014 and will build on existing knowledge. In addition, we will run purchasing practices training for
all buyers in 2014 which will focus on our Responsible Sourcing Code of Practice."
It was not involved in any community projects in banana sourcing countries.
To the question about pricing of bananas, the company responded "all Waitrose bananas are
Fairtrade accredited - this has been the case since 2007. This means the growers we work with
benefit from an additional social premium to help projects in their own communities.
"Bananas are competitively priced across supermarkets, and if other shops cut the price of bananas
we make sure our customers don't lose out. But we absorb this cost, so none of the retail price
decrease is passed on to our growers, who consistently receive the Fairtrade minimum price to
support their long term sustainable development. It is because of the competitiveness of the
category that we think it even more important that our bananas are Fairtrade accredited - so our
customers can have confidence at a glance (logo) that none of the price reduction they see is being
passed on to growers. We think this is an important commitment, because we want to help our
growers build secure and viable businesses for the future. And we further support this by working
directly with growers to improve their quality and returns - our team of agronomists spends time
supporting farms in areas such as farm management systems, communication and reduction of
pesticide use. Our pricing is competitive within the UK market, despite us paying the Fairtrade
minimum price."
Scored criteria
1. Transparency
1.1 Labour Standards Certification – Best
Waitrose sold 100% Fairtrade bananas with 10% also certified Organic.
1.2 Labour Standards Audits – Best
Waitrose stated that it also had a team of technologists who visited banana plantations and carried
out audits and assessments, which included worker welfare aspects. The frequency of audits and
assessments was determined by the relevant scheme and visits on average were bi-annually. Under
the Fairtrade and Organic certification the producers paid for the audits, although within the
Waitrose Farm Assessment system there was no cost for the assessment. Waitrose had adopted a
continuous improvement approach, which involved working collaboratively with suppliers to drive
improvements in labour standards. No banana producers were found to be non-compliant in the last
year. Due to the fact that independent audits were covered under Fairtrade certification Waitrose's
received a best rating in this category.
1.3 Non-governmental Organisations / Not-for-profit partnerships /Other initiatives – Best
Waitrose worked with the Fairtrade Foundation to verify labour standards within its banana supply
chain and thus Waitrose received a best rating in this category.
1.4 Member of ETI – Reasonable Waitrose was a member of the Ethical Trade Initiative and was
actively involved in several ETI working groups which aim to improve working conditions in following
supply chains; Thai Shrimp, Moroccan strawberries and Peruvian produce. Due to the fact that
Waitrose was not funding any ETI projects it received a reasonable rating.
1.5 Member of WBF - Rudimentary
Waitrose banana suppliers were members of the WBF and Waitrose participated in WBF dialogue
and meetings, as appropriate. Due to the fact Waitrose was a member of the ETI it received a
rudimentary rating in this category.
2. Social
2.1 Health and safety - Best
Due to the fact Waitrose sold 100% Fairtrade bananas and its health and safety requirements were
audited by independent ISO 65 accredited auditors, it received a best rating in this category.
2.2 Freedom of Association (FOA) – Best
Freedom of Association was covered under Waitrose's Fairtrade commitments, thus meaning it
received a best rating in this category.
2.3 Rights issues – Best
Child and forced labour, excessive working hours, non-payment of overtime, migrant labour, and
discrimination were covered under Waitrose's Fairtrade commitments and thus Waitrose received a
best rating in this category.
2.4 Long term benefits to the community – Best
Due to the fact that Waitrose was systematically investing in banana communities through its
Fairtrade commitments it received a best rating in this category.
2.5 Source bananas from small producer organisation – Rudimentary
Waitrose stated that while all its banana producers were certified Fairtrade, less than 10% were
small producer organisations. Due to the fact it had no target for sourcing from small producer
organisations it received a rudimentary rating this category.
2.6 Women’s rights – Best
Due to the fact that Waitrose had independent verification of women’s rights for 100% of its banana
supply chain through its Fairtrade certification it received a best rating in this category.
2.7 Employment contracts – Best
Due to the fact Waitrose had independent verification of workers’ contracts for 100% of its banana
supply chain through its Fairtrade certification it received a best rating in this category.
3. Economic
3.1 Cost of sustainable production (COSP) – Best
Waitrose's ensured COSP were met through Fairtrade minimum price, and thus it received a best
rating in this category.
3.2 Contract arrangements with producer organisation – Worst
Waitrose stated that it worked with reputable UK importers with whom it had a long standing
relationship at the level of both UK importers and the farms which support them. It said its approach
was to develop and maintain long standing relationships with suppliers. Waitrose did not state how
long their average contract was. Further information provided by Waitrose added "Many of our
relationships with banana suppliers go back a number of years. In the case of small producers in the
Windward islands, we have worked with the farmers for over 40 years." Waitrose received a worst
rating in this category due to the fact that no information on the length of contracts was provided.
3.3 Pre-finance - Best
Due to the fact that 100% of Waitrose's banana supply chain was covered under Fairtrade
certification which included provisions for pre-finance to be provided to producers, Waitrose
received a best rating in this category.
3.4 Living wage – Reasonable
Waitrose stated that it was addressing living wages as part of the Fairtrade development
requirements for the farms involved. There was no guarantee that all its workers at origin received a
living wage, although it did have independent verification of a commitment to moving toward paying
workers a living wage. As such, Waitrose received a reasonable rating in this category.
3.5 Ethical buying practice - Reasonable
Waitrose stated that it had long-term relationships with suppliers and that it trained all buyers on
Responsible Sourcing. It continued by stating "All new Partners in Buying receive an induction to
Responsible Sourcing. We have developed Responsible Sourcing online training modules, which will
be launched in 2014 and will help buyers build on their existing knowledge. In addition, we will run
purchasing practices training for all buyers in February 2014, which will focus on our Responsible
Sourcing Code of Practice. The training will help Buyers ensure that their purchasing practices are
appropriate and allow suppliers to be able to comply with our Responsible Sourcing Code." Due to
the fact that Waitrose had a scheduled buyers training and had 100% of its bananas certified by
Fairtrade it received a reasonable rating in this category.
3.6 Price of bananas - Reasonable
Ethical Consumer viewed the Waitrose website in January 2014 and found that it sold its loose
bananas at 79p per kilo. Due to the fact Waitrose had an independent guarantee that the minimum
price to producers was paid it received a reasonable rating.
4. Environment
4.1 Sustainability - Best
Waitrose stated that it carried out Waitrose Farm Assessments and that its Agronomy group
promoted biodiversity and helped to monitor biodiversity at all the farms from which it sourced. It
also said that it was investing in sustainable initiatives within its banana supply chain, although it did
not provide any details and thus received a middle rating for sustainability. Due to the fact Waitrose
had independent verification of sustainability measures through its Fairtrade certification it received
a best rating in this category.
4.2 Pesticide use - Best
Waitrose stated that its specifications and farm assessment had criteria addressing pesticide use but
did not state whether it had any commitments or strategies to reduce its pesticide usage within its
banana supply chains.
Due to the fact Waitrose had independent verification of pesticide use through its Fairtrade
certification it received a best rating in this category.
4.3 Sustainable water and soil use - Best
Waitrose stated that it had completed farm assessments which addressed water usage and there
were continuous improvement programmes on water management on all farms. Waitrose stated
that its farm assessment and Global gap standards addressed soil management on all farms and that
it had continuous improvement programmes on water management on all farms. Due to the fact
Waitrose had independent verification of sustainable water and soil use through its Fairtrade
certification, it received a best rating in this category.
4.4 Minimising green house gas emissions - Best
Waitrose stated that it had completed a life cycle analysis for bananas from different countries of
origin and that energy usage and carbon footprint were included in its farm assessment. It stated
that targets were set for individual growers or groups, where applicable.
Due to the fact that Waitrose had independent verification of reducing its GHG emissions through its
Fairtrade certification it received a best rating in this category.