September 2, 2021 | Nature Food | Source |
Introduction: An international team led by the University of Copenhagen, with collaborators from the US and Germany, reviews the global spread and impacts of private sustainability standards in agrifood supply chains. Schemes such as Fairtrade, Organic, and Rainforest Alliance aim to tackle issues like deforestation, poor labor conditions, and pesticide misuse. Drawing mainly on evidence from coffee and cocoa, the study assesses effects on farmers, workers, consumers, and businesses, while highlighting five critical gaps: causality, exclusion of poorer farmers, compliance, oversupply of certified products, and shifting demand in emerging markets.
Key findings: Sustainability standards currently cover less than 2% of farmland (about 80 million hectares) and involve around 10 million farmers, mostly in coffee and cocoa. Economic benefits are modest and often rely on group certification or subsidies, while 30–70% of certified produce is sold without premiums. Social outcomes are more consistent, with safer agrochemical use and some gender benefits, though hired labor on small farms gains little. Certification encourages greener practices, yet evidence on biodiversity, carbon, or deforestation impacts remains limited. High compliance costs, partial monitoring, and opportunities for evasion reduce effectiveness, while retailers and processors capture much of the price premium. Persistent oversupply reflects subsidies and supply chain segmentation, even as demand remains concentrated in wealthy markets. Overall, standards provide targeted improvements but cannot transform food systems at scale without stronger regulation and inclusion of more marginalized producers.
Figure | Proliferation of sustainability standards. a–c are based on 2018 data and d on 2019 data. RA, Rainforest Alliance; BCI, Better Cotton Initiative; CmiA, Cotton Made in Africa; RSPO, Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil; RtRS, Round table on Responsible Soy. Exact figures (c) are difficult to estimate, given the large number of standards, the prevalence of certification under multiple standards and the lack of data on multiple-certified land or producers. Minimum values consider only the area certified under the single most important standard by area. Maximum values sum the areas certified under the most important standards but cannot account for multiple-certified farms. thus, maximum values probably overestimate and minimum values understate the true values.
