traceability to our supply chain, leveraging digital solutions like barcoding and mobile banking. As a result of these and other efforts, 100% of cocoa in our direct supply chain is traceable up to the first point of purchase, 72% of the farms in our direct supply chain have been mapped and about half of all cocoa that we source is certified as sustainably produced either by third-party certifiers such as the Rainforest Alliance or by the Cargill Promise Verified Scheme.”
While ethical claims can be hard to
verify, Cargill argues that one important step is to partner with a trusted ingredient supplier who is able to offer sustainable, responsibly sourced ingredients and transparent, traceable supply chains. “Looking for ingredients backed by third- party certifications or company sustainability programs can help guarantee their integrity,” advises Kate. “These programs should establish standards and requirements for compliance and should be audited on a regular basis by independent third-parties.”
Collaboration is key The original goal of Slave free chocolate (SFC) when it was created in 2007 was simply to bring awareness to a concern about a reliance on child labour in cocoa farming. Over the years the organisation has grown to be a thought leader on this subject by conducting campaigns, speaking engagements and aiding other groups in creating and executing their own campaigns. Bright Adjei Debrah of SFC pointed out
that, currently, there are more than 50 active separate sustainability initiatives or programs in action across Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire alone. A lot of these initiatives are focused on the same groups of farmers but with little to no cohesive approach between the programs. It would appear is that chocolate giants are
competing with each other and protecting their sustainability initiatives and they are doing it for just a very small fraction of the supply chain. Collaboration should be the way forward to avoid duplicating efforts, argues SFC. It says that chocolate brands need to collaborate on living income. “Chocolate brands can and should collaborate on paying a price to farmers that enables a living income. It is not fair for one chocolate brand to carry that financial burden for all other chocolate brands. It is also not a good idea for a farmer or farmer groups to sell their entire harvest to just one buyer or buying company. That is not resilient, that is risky
KennedysConfection.com
Today most of the multinational chocolate companies have their own sustainability schemes but, according to
EC, these schemes tend to cover just a proportion of the company’s cocoa suppliers, as opposed to 100%, meaning some farmers get the benefits but others get none”
business. It is not a good idea. But if you are only selling a fraction of your harvest at a living income price, the price that enables living income, then you are never going to get out of poverty,” explains Bright. There needs to be a level playing field amongst consumer brands to lift farmers out of poverty to create wealth. When that happens, farmers can make the investment in their farms, that chocolate companies say they need to do. “Farmers would invest in their families, farms, and children’s education but without resources, they cannot do that. Chocolate brands and stakeholders that realise this connection, this empathy, and this responsibility can achieve that opportunity to amplify their positive impact on the ground through collaboration. If they are transparent about it, then consumers would know which chocolate brands to award with their chocolate buying sense, says Bright.
“Chocolate companies should compete fiercely on chocolate, but they should not compete on cocoa. There should be no competition for child labour, deforestation on poverty, community development, additional livelihood programs, etc. Consumers should award the chocolate brands that make farmers and forest protection their priority, and not a unique selling point, but something that is an absolute baseline. It is not a race we should be competing with each other, but it’s something that we should be doing together, so that we can get to where we are going faster.” While many chocolate confectionery brands are doing something to ensure more ethical practices, it would appear that there are still very few doing enough, and profit remains a priority for many. We urge more brands to follow the lead of the few who are getting the balance right today.
Kennedy’s Confection December/January 2023/24 47
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
