Sustainable Social and Ecosystem Stewardship
International Conference of the Greening of Industry Network
June 15-17, 2007 Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
„„„
The Dilemma of ‘Flower’ Miles
Diane Holt
&
Anna Watson
Dr Diane Holt
Lecturer in Management and Sustainability,
Queen’s University Belfast,
School of Management and Economics,
25 University Square, Belfast,
Northern Ireland,
United Kingdom
BT9 1NN
Email: d.holt@qub.ac.uk
Dr Anna Watson
Lecturer in Retailing,
University of Surrey,
School of Management,
University of Surrey Guildford,
Surrey
United Kingdom
GU2 7HX
Email: anna.watson@surrey.ac.uk
Abstract
In an increasingly global retail environment there are consequences resulting
from the drive towards a reduction in ‘food miles’ or indeed flower miles.
Suppliers in less developed countries or those in economies with few export
products may suffer significantly from the loss of even just one supermarket
contract. This paper examines the debate surrounding the local versus
international sourcing of retail products, particularly food and flowers. It begins
by examining the cut flowers industry and the voluntary certification schemes
available. The paper then examines the debate surrounding Fairtrade and Food
Miles before concluding with a discussion of the trade off between local sourcing,
the benefits of fair-trade products and the potential impact of removing trade
from international suppliers.
2
The Dilemma of ‘Flower’ Miles
Introduction
Undoubtedly corporate social responsibility (CSR) is increasingly seen as being of
strategic importance. Whilst it has been argued for many years that companies
cannot ignore their wider responsibilities to society in recent years CSR appears
to be high on boardroom agendas. It has been suggested that the key areas of
CSR can be grouped into three areas: economy, the environment and society
(Jones et al. 2005). The economy refers to the economic impact that
corporations make, and includes issues such as wealth and job creation. Society
refers to the social impacts of the firm, and includes employee issues, such as
training and development, health and safety and inclusivity issues. However, it is
naïve to assume that these three areas are necessarily mutually reinforcing.
Indeed, it is argued here, using the case of the cut flower market that the focus
of attention on one area may come at the expense of another.
For Valentine’s Day this year UK supermarket Asda (owned by Wal-Mart)
massively undercut other supermarkets chains to offer 12 Kenyan red roses at the
bargain price of £2 (approximately $4). This decision was lambasted by critics
who accused them of exploiting Kenyan workers and undervaluing their use of
environmental resources (Poulter 2007). Whilst there are concerns as to the
3
environmental impact of sourcing cut flowers from countries such as Kenya, it
has been argued that it is in fact lower than sourcing more locally from Europe
(Riungu 2007; Seager 2007; Williams 2007).
There are clear independencies between consumption in the North and everyday
life in the South (Shanahan and Carlsson-Kanyama 2005), with those in the North
increasingly disconnected from their local resource base relying more on the
goods traded in the global marketplace. These goods are often produced in
shadow areas (after Borgström 1972) which are areas of the poorest parts of the
world appropriated by rich consumers for the production of their consumptive
goods. Driven by potential economic benefits these areas experience a flow of
environmental goods to the North with no consideration of the associated
negative environmental or social costs.
The cut flower industry is a major foreign exchange earner for many developing
countries and the principal employer for many local workers. Some estimates
suggest the Kenyan flower industry employs 500,000 Kenyans directly, a million
indirectly (Seager 2007) and brings more than $250million into the economy per
year (KFC 2007i).
Thus, producing and consuming ethically represents potentially complex and
difficult choices to businesses and consumers alike, and is likely to result in
4
trade-offs between different dimensions. Thus, the drive to reduce food mile (or
in this case flower miles) may be at the expense of the economic development of
poorer nations. It is these issues that this paper seeks to explore. It begins with a
description of the cut flower market, and then considers the economic and social
impact of global sourcing versus the desire to reduce the carbon footprint of
consumption.
The Cut Flower Market
The worldwide market for cut flowers is estimated at $40 billion, with an
average consumption of 10 million cut flowers per day in the United States alone
(Stewart 2007a,b). Whilst Valentine’s Day represents a peak in consumption,
with over 175 million roses sold on Valentine’s Day alone (Stewart 2007a,b) the
market is far from dominated by gift purchases with 60% of the annual £2.2
billion spent in the UK representing people purchasing flowers and plants for
themselves. As the flower industry states ‘fresh flowers are a disposable item to
be enjoyed and then discarded’ii.
Social and Economic Issues associated with Cut Flowers
The cut flower industry represents a potential source of substantial economic
benefits. In the 1980s Non-Traditional Agricultural Exports (NATEs) such as
5
flowers were seen as a way for countries such as Columbia to develop
alternatives to cocaine production. Specific economic incentives were used to
facilitate this process with over 95% of Columbia and Ecuador’s flowers entering
the US duty free under the Andean Trade Preferences Act (US/Leap and ILRF
2007). This is arguably to the detriment of US growers especially in California
(Castellanos 1998). Yet other sectors of the US economy have also benefited
from the increased growth in Columbian trade especially Miami-based rose
importers.
Also notable is the substantial increase in foreign capital that results from trade
in NATEs with indirect investment also occurring in infrastructure (Castellanos
1998) and a multiplier effect with increased employment opportunities in
indirect industries such as packaging and transport (Thrupp 1995). The indirect
employment multiplier varies from country to country but is substantial, with
estimates of 8:3 in Ecuador and ranging from 6:5 (US/LEAP and ILRF 2007) to 8:5
in Columbia (Thrupp 1995).
Flower farms offer smallholders in rural areas, especially women, an opportunity
to grow a cash crop. Ferrer (1997) suggests that four out of five households that
depend on the flower industry are headed by women (cited in Castellanos, 1998).
Over 5500 women’s groups are active in the Nyeri region in Kenya with their own
micro-finance fund and training programmes on aspects of production such as
6
safe pesticide use (FAO 2002). One of these smallholders said ‘The export crops
have changed our lives. We have new roofs, better homes and our children can
go to school’. Nurturing embryonic socially responsible businesses, developing
partnerships and targeted support are all identified in Kenya and Uganda as
important aspects to support the development of smallholders (Kivuitu et al.
2005). However access to the supermarkets is difficult, they often have exacting
specifications on packaging and production quality and many smaller
organisations in the developing world lack market knowledge (International
Trade Centre 2001). Indeed, arguably pressure by supermarkets on growers’
production costs has left them without the resources to improve working
conditions.
Exposés of the poverty and working conditions at flower farms have been
produced by a number of NGOs including War on Want’s examination of workers
in Columbia and Kenya (War on Want 2007), the US/Labor Education in the
Americas Project and the International Labor Rights Fund study of Ecuador and
Columbia (US/Leap and ILRF 2007), and a range of reports from the ILRP’s
Fairness in Flowers campaigniii. Issues associated with the flower industry
include:
− Sexual harassment;
− Forced pregnancy testing/ sterilization as condition of employment;
7
− Severe occupational health and safety deficiencies, including long working
hours, lack of training on safe chemical use, forced overtime, and lack of
appropriate safety equipment;
− Use of toxic pesticides and fungicides causing health problems including
skin rashes, respiratory problems, eye problems, and miscarriagesUS/Leap and ILRF (2007) found that 66% of Columbian and Ecuadorian
workers suffer from health related problems;
− Use of Child labour - with the ILO estimating that 20% of the 60,000
Ecuadorian flower workers are children (cited by Fairness in Flowers); and
− Lack of recognition of labour rights
As noted earlier, this industry has significant opportunities for employment for
women, but this can also lead to significant abuse. For instance a study based in
Ecuador found 55% of flower workers had suffered some kind of sexual
harassment, 71% amongst 20-24 year olds, over 18% had been forced to have sex
with a coworker or superior, 10% had been sexually attacked, women workers
reported only 5% of sexual harassment incidents to superiors and when reported
only 14% of cases resulted in sanctions (ILRP 2005).
The Lake Naivasha region has the highest rate of child assaults or rapes than any
other town in Kenya, which some believe is linked to women working very long
hours at the flower plantations leaving their children in the care of others
8
(Ogodo and Vidal 2007). The role of women in this industry is recognized by the
Women Working Worldwide campaigniv whose Flower campaign was a factor in
the recent establishment of the Kenyan Horticultural Ethical Business Initiative
(Ethical Consumer 2005). Their current campaign focuses on the flower industry
in Uganda where consumers can download a letter to send to their supermarkets
to protest these working conditions.
Whilst the flower miles associated with the transportation of flowers from the
southern hemisphere represents a global environmental concern, the damage to
local (to their production) ecosystems is also a significant issue. Environmental
groups in Kenya have identified pesticides used at the 50+ flower farms in the
Lake Naivasha region a threat to the water quality and resident hippo
populations in this freshwater lake (FAO 2002). Conservationists suggest that
Lake Naivasha may be lost within 10-15 years through excessive water
abstraction (Ogodo and Vidal 2007). Encroachment of plantations into forests as
land is cleared for production leads to a reduction in bio-diversity through the
proliferation of the flower monocultures (Castellanos 1998).
Pressure on these environmental resources is further enhanced by the associated
increase in population. It is estimated that every job in the flower farms in
Naivasha attracts nearly seven other people to the area (Ogodo and Vidal 2007).
Correspondingly the demands upon the local infrastructure reflect this. The huge
9
increase in population from 27,000 in 1969 to over 300,000 in the Lake Naivasha
region has also placed demands not only on water consumption but all the social
amenities such as rubbish collection, sanitation, schools, electricity, hospitals,
roads, electricity and local forests felled to provide 750,000 bags of charcoal per
year.
Flower farms have also been known to cause relocation and displacement of
indigenous peoples. In 1994 the Okiek people in the Rift Valley Kenya forced out
of the Tinet Forest of Olenguruone to make way for a flower farm (HargreavesAllen 2003).
Currently there is little structured, empirical research on the full costs and
benefits of the flower industry in Kenya or elsewhere in the world. Whilst
specific issue based studies have taken place on aspects such as labour conditions
the remainder of the literature on this industry is dominated by newspaper
editorials.
The well documented abuses within the flower industry have led to a number of
specific campaigns such as the Fairness in Flowers campaign by the International
Labour Rights Fund. Both NGOs and the flower industry have responded to
criticism of their environmental and social impacts by developing a range of
certification schemes, standards and labelling initiatives. Such initiatives hope to
10
reassure consumers and their intermediaries of the social, environmental and
economic legitimacy of the product.
Legitimacy theory is arguably the pre-eminent explanatory theory used to explain
environmental and social disclosures. Whereby, an assumption of a social
contract between an organisation and society results in an agreement to operate
within certain bounds imposed by society to enjoy continued access to product
and resource markets (Campbell et al. 2003:559). Voluntary disclosures maybe
used to build up legitimacy or repair it after public criticism. Dowling and Pfeffer
(1975) argue that organisations exist within a ‘superordinate social system’
within which they achieve legitimacy as long as their activities are within the
acceptably boundaries of this system (Campbell et al. 2003).
We therefore suggest that certification to a voluntary standard or label is an
expression of legitimacy. Organisations use this to bridge a perceived legitimacy
gap or to maintain and assure stakeholders of their legitimacy within these
limits. However the ‘acceptable limits’ of this superordinate social system are
not necessarily static. In the same manner that corporation’s environmental
policies may demonstrate punctuated equilibrium (after Romanelli and Tushman
1994) the same might be of true public opinion on environmental issues (after
Baumgartner and Jones 1993). The ‘beyond compliance’ age of environmentalism
(after Frankel 1998) is characterised by a society that is being constantly
11
‘educated’ through formal and informal mediums facilitated by technology.
These acceptable limits may morph in response to external factors that influence
consumer behaviour.
Harrison et al. (2005) propose seven external factors that influence the growth of
ethical consumer behaviours.
− The globalisation of markets and the weakening of national governments
− The rise of transnational corporations and brands
− The rise of campaigning pressure groups
− The social and environmental effects of technology advance
− A shift in market power towards consumers
− The effectiveness of market campaigning
− The growth of a wider corporate responsibility movement
It is also characterised by consumption patterns that may consider higher order
aspects such as Fairtrade or the wider concepts of ethical consumerism, as
discussed in Harrison et al. 2005. Amongst the arguments they pose are that
consumerism becomes a site of political debate as a result of increasing humancentric risk, that perhaps as our basic needs are met we turn to concerns of self
image, the need to know and self actualisation and reflect these by our
consumptive behaviour.
12
However Barnett et al. (2005) expand on the moral debate between the ethics of
consumption or ethical consumption. Whereby, the first concerns judgements of
the morality of the whole system of capitalist commodity production and can be
linked to movements such as voluntary simplicity and the slow food movement
with an objective to reduce total consumption. Whereas, in the latter
consumption is the medium for moral evaluation and choice and the focus is not
necessarily on reducing consumption but on alternative consumption choices,
reflected through consumer boycotts, ethical audits, responding to corporate
social responsibility initiatives and Fairtrade.
As a luxury item, purchasing cut flowers demonstrates a moral choice – to
consume. The next decision on which particular product is selected is the one
that the voluntary certification schemes hope to influence. The decision criteria
that shape your purchase choice are influenced by your individual circumstances,
product knowledge and your moral views. All lobbying campaigns such as Fairness
in Flowers seek to either inform or shape your moral views and hence affect
choice. However these judgements are rarely simplistic and isolated. Indeed, the
plethora of certification programmes can only further complicate the decision
process. The substance and veracity of social environmental standards is by no
means uniform, but rather represent a spectre of different approaches. Of these,
perhaps the Fairtrade programme is the most far reaching in terms of its social
13
and economic ambitions. However, before discussing the Fairtrade movement,
other certification programmes relevant to the sector will be examined.
Certification programmes for flowers
There are a number of legal requirements surrounding the importation of cut
flowers and other agricultural products which tend to be applied at a country
level and mostly relate to the importation of harmful organisms. Organisations
may chose to follow some form of voluntary standard and it is these forms of
certification we examine in this next section.
Feedback related to an individual’s specific behaviour is identified as an
important motivating trigger in changing everyday habits into more sustainable
ones (Shanahan et al. 2003). One form of feedback that consumers can look for is
some form of eco-label. The assumption by many consumers is that a ‘label’
assures the purchasers that the product has been produced in a way that is
‘better’ than it’s peer group. Certain labels are associated with very positive
consumer choices such as the EU eco-label, fair-trade or organic label. In
recognition of the power of a label to influence purchasers many companies have
joined voluntary certification schemes.
14
The universal standard SA8000 is an auditable, independent, international social
standard based on the principles of thirteen international human rights
conventions that aims to improve working conditions. Auditors visit every facility
seeking certification and assess corporate practice on a wide range of social
issues.v
Many of the cut flower producers and importers that have chosen to certify to a
standard or label have chosen one of the industry specific programmes detailed
in Table 2 rather than SA8000. However there are strong similarities between
SA8000 and the International Code of Conduct for Cut Flowers (ICC), the Ethical
Trading Initiative base code and the Dutch Milieu Programma Sierteelt (MPS)
standards. The major difference between SA8000 and ICC is the requirement to
integrate the standard into their management systems and practices in the
former and the inclusion of environmental criteria in the latter. The ICC code is
detailed in Table 1.
[Take in Table 1]
The ILO conventions are the basis for the ICC code and ICC is the basis for some
of the other industry standards (such as FFP and FLP). The key facets of most of
these are the participation of unions, NGOs and workers; independent monitoring
15
and the voluntary nature of the agreements. The voluntary programmes for the
cut flower industry are detailed in Table 2.
[Take in Table 2]
However, War on Want (2007) recently stated that these voluntary standards are
failing to protect workers in the cut flower industry. They cite the absence of
unions pressurising companies to adhere to the standards, lack of independent
auditing and confusion over which standards to adhere to as the primary causes.
This raises concerns over the nature of some of these programmes and their
perceived and actual legitimacy.
Fairtrade
‘The aim of Fairtrade is to offer the most disadvantaged producers in developing
countries the opportunity to move out of extreme poverty through creating
market access (typically to Northern consumers) under beneficial rather than
exploitive terms’ (Nicholls and Opal 2005:6)
This buyer-supplier relationship focuses on developing an equitable partnership
that empowers the producer. Nicholls and Opal defined Fairtrade’s key practices
as:
16
− Agreed minimum prices usually set ahead of the market minimum;
− Focus on development and technical assistance via the payment to
suppliers of an agreed social premium (usually 10%+ and distributed
through a co-operative);
− Direct purchasing from producers;
− Transparent and long term trading partnerships;
− Co-operative not competitive dealings;
− Provision of credit when requested;
− Provision of market information to producers;
− Farmers and workers are organised democratically;
− Sustainable production is practiced; and
− No labour abuses occurred during the production process.
There are strong similarities between these key practices and the ICC code
(Table 1) and many of the other voluntary certification programmes detailed in
Table 2.
The roots of Fairtrade lie in the contribution of charities such as Oxfam to the
economic reconstruction of post-war Eastern Europe and the Mennonite Central
Committee in the USA who focused on supporting the Puerto Rican embroidery
smallholders by developing a self help trade craft organisation, now known as
Ten Thousand Villages (Nicholls and Opal, 2005).
17
From this early start Fairtrade state that there are now 548 certified producer
organisations, representing almost 650 traders, and over 800,000 families of
farmers and workers (who support approximately 5 million people), from over 58
countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. There are over 2000 Fairtrade
products for sale in the UK with estimated sales figures of over £195 million in
2005vi.
The market has failed many small scale producers in the developing world.
Without access to finance, market intelligence or alternative buyers and in a
weak legislative environment with lack of enforcement many farmers have had
no choice but to sell to a monopolistic buyer at below market prices. This is
where the influence of the Fairtrade system can be so positive. By offering
access to markets and paying a fair market price.
Kofi Annan (2001) stated ‘trade rather than aid’ is the best route out of long
term patterns of poverty. The impact of Fairtrade goes well beyond commercial
aspects. Producers raise their standards as international traders, it preserves
their dignity of their labour, and it generates significant social capital (Putman
2000) and addresses significant structural changes in trade markets (Nicholls and
Opal 2005).
18
Growth in Fairtrade products has been substantial, demonstrating ‘double digit’
annual growth rates for more than five years (cited in Nicholls and Opal 2005)
and has moved from a retail activity in small specialist stores to clearly
designated sections in national supermarkets chains. These products are more
abundant in stores located in affluent, middle class regions but there are
examples in most food retail chains in the UK, USA and other developed nations.
Nicholls and Opal (2005:57) believe that there is a ‘growing sense connectivity’
between consumers in the North and producers in the South as the human effects
of global trade are better understood, with 69% of British consumers agreeing
that poverty in the developing world is a moral issue for them and 46% believing
that buying Fairtrade would assist in alleviating poverty (DFID 2002 cited in
Nicholls and Opal 2005). This perhaps reflects the disconnection from the local
resource base noted by Shanahan and Carlsson-Kanyama (2005) but is probably
also a result of the process of globalisation generally. The marketing strategy of
Fairtrade is intrinsically linked to reducing the perceived distance between
producers and consumers regardless of the actual physical distance.
Yet whilst consumers express positive purchase choices through Fairtrade, these
alternatives account for less than 1% of most of their individual product markets
(Cowe and Williams 2000). Factors that account for this discrepancy include:
− Difficulties in communicating sustainability to the consumer;
− Obstacles in getting Fairtrade products into retail outlets;
19
− Perceptions of lower quality related to the early history of ‘green’
products;
− Lack of consumer commitment to Fairtrade purchasing; and
− The influence of other purchase decision factors (Strong 1997; Nicholls
2002, 2004).
The larger UK supermarkets have realised the consumer value in stocking
Fairtrade products with Sainsbury’s recently announcing that all of their bananas
would be Fairtrade. All of Marks and Spenser tea and coffee are now also
Fairtrade but with no change in price - “we’ll never increase our margins on a
product where we do not offer a choice….. we’ll take a hit on the margin but
expect there will be an increase in sales” (Benjamin 2006). This adoption by the
mainstream retail markets also carries dangers of devaluing the Fairtrade
concept and confusing consumers. Supermarkets in particular have been heavily
criticised for their contribution to the negative aspects of the global retail trade
(Blythman 2005; Lawrence 2004).
Cotton has seen a threefold increase in Fairtrade sales since its launch in 2005
with more than 560 items now carrying the label. Fashion ranges carrying the
Fairtrade cotton logo are carried by large UK retailers such as Topshop,
Sainsburys, Monsoon, and Marks and Spenser. However this standard refers to the
production of cotton not it’s subsequent manufacture and cannot guarantee
20
working conditions during this stage. These high street items are also not priced
at a higher premium and this reflect the cross subsidisation from uncertified
product ranges. However Safia Minney founder of the ethical clothing company
People Tree believes this mark has affected the clothing industry and there is
evidence of some form of trickledown effect where factories are being asked by
buyers about social compliance standards (Martin 2006).
Nicholls and Opal (2005) classify ethical products into four types as illustrated in
Figure 2. They note that some retailers are positioning their marketing of fashion
items to move them up this classification into the Fairtrade category. Arguably
the same is true of the market for cut flowers. As previously discussed flowers
are a lifestyle choice and most are bought for personal consumption rather than
for gifts although there are seasonal peaks where proportionally this ratio
changes, such as Valentine’s Day.
[Take in Figure 2]
The Fairtrade logo is the most visible mechanism to prove this ethical status
however the certification schemes in Table 2 are all designed to act as a
legitimising label.
21
Fairtrade flowers first went on sale in February 2004 and 2005 saw sales of over
18 millions Fairtrade stems with a retail value of over £4m in the UK alone
(Fairtrade 2007). Currently Kenya appears to be the only location sourcing
Fairtrade flowers (Table 3). There are seven Fairtrade farms listed but a total of
52 farms mentioned as members of the Kenyan Flower Council. Currently 95% of
all Kenyan flowers are exported, with 15% going to the UK (Fairtrade 2006).
[Take in Table 3]
Specific concerns have been aired over purchasing Kenyan Fairtrade roses
suggesting that the Fairtrade ethos of supporting small rural farmers is not
applicable in Kenya (Lawrence 2005). Criticism focuses on the fact that these
‘Fairtrade’ farms are very large and may be constrained by the market demands
of the supermarkets which may mean seasonal excessive overtime especially
around Valentine’s Day. The Fairtrade response made the point that the
maximum working hours for Fairtrade certification are actually more favourable
than the local Kenyan laws (Fairtrade 2005) and that both farms mentioned by
Lawrence have made improvements to address working conditions. These are the
same farms mentioned by Ethical Consumer (2005) as the subject of part of the
Women Working Worldwide campaign. Fairtrade also make the point that whilst
their most well known priority work is with smallholders their mission is to
22
improve the position of all disadvantaged people in developing countries
(Fairtrade 2005).
Another Kenyan initiative is the Horticultural Ethical Business Initiative (HEBI) set
up in response to concerns that social ethical business practices were not being
followed in the flower industry despite there being voluntary systems of selfregulation in placevii. This initiative was in part as response to the Flower
Campaign by Women Working Worldwide who presented a report to the ETI on
violations in the base code some of the farms were supposedly certified to.
Ethical consumer (2005) states that representatives of the supermarkets visited
Kenya and that employers on farms supplying Tesco, Sainsbury, Morrisons, Asda,
the Co-op and Marks and Spencer have set about addressing at least some of the
workers’ complaints, with massive investment in both staff training and
facilities. However they also raised questions about the contribution these farms
make to the long term development of Kenya. This is an area that future
research should examine as part of a systematic evaluation of a cost benefit
analysis of this industry.
It is clear that approximately one fifth of Kenyan farms may have certified to
Fairtrade and that some of the total 50+ farms may be using alternative
voluntary initiatives. World Flowers states that all their farms have a minimum
standard of the ETI base code and once they reach this are then audited against
23
the MPS standards. Finally once these standards are met then they may be
audited for Fairtrade status. This suggests that some of the principle
requirements of Fairtrade may be met on the other farms and that some element
of ‘working up’ through various certification levels is apparent. This is another
area of enquiry that is deserving of future research.
The environmental impact of the global shipment of consumables and associated
carbon footprint is receiving increasing attention. It might be argued that global
warming is an issue that will force a punctuated shift in equilibrium, and has
already done so in the policy arena. Thus consumers may need to make a moral
choice between a product that has a lower carbon footprint to address a global
environmental problem, or a product that helps to alleviate a global social
problem – that of lack of economic self sufficiency of communities in the less
industrialised world. This is where the dilemma of the trade off between ‘food’
miles and Fairtrade becomes morally problematic and this is compounded when
we are discussing an item that is a ‘luxury’ choice.
Food Miles / Flower Miles
‘Food Miles’ was a term first coined by the SAFE Alliance, now Sustain, in 1994
and represents the distance travelled from where an item was grown to the
24
consumer. Although arguably this phrase has now become synonymous in a wider
sense to the impact of the global shipment of retail products.
Food Miles (FM) =∑ Distance travelled in Km x weight in tonnes per
product
The UK Government’s report on Food Miles notes the dramatic changes in food
production and its supply chain associated with:
− Globalisation, increase in food trade and wider sourcing both in the UK
and overseas;
− Concentration of food supply base into fewer, larger suppliers especially
to meet year long supply of uniform produce;
− Major changes in delivery pattern, routing through delivery centres using
Heavy Goods Vehicles (HVGs);
− Intensification of agriculture and increase in processing and packaging of
food; and
− Centralisation and concentration of food shopping into weekly shops at
supermarkets (AEA Technology 2005).
A study by Farmers Weekly (Gairdner 2006) as part of the ‘Local Food is Miles
Betterviii’ campaign found that 52% of their 1000+ respondents would buy less
imported food if they knew the distance it had travelled, but 46% said they
would not. At present one third buy locally produced food less than once a
25
month, never or did not know and 61% thought local food was more expensive.
Purchase rates might be improved through labelling as 82% stated that they
would buy more local food if it was more cleared labelled. There was a clear lack
of understanding about where food comes from and when it is produced.
Especially marked was the difference between generational groups suggesting
disconnection and/or disinterest amongst the younger groups.
The findings from this report suggest that some consumers would be unaware of
the locations and conditions that some products might need for growth, perhaps
not realising the need for greenhouse environments for some products if grown in
the UK, or when a particular product is in season. This perhaps casts doubts on
consumers’ abilities to make judgemental choices between different products if
a misleading or simplistic label is used. For instance if an airplane symbol
indicates that the tomatoes a customer is buying in December were flown in from
South Africa and next to them were tomatoes from Europe grown in greenhouses
the study by Gairdner (2006) suggests that some groups may be oblivious to the
differences between these.
The Defra special report ‘Sausages and Mash’ examines initiatives to improve
public sector meals (Purvis 2005: 9) and suggests that local sourcing of fresh,
unprocessed, preferably organic food is key. Lang and Pretty (cited by BBC 2005)
have suggested that if all farms in the UK were to turn organic £1.1bn of
26
environmental costs would be saved. There are reports of increased use of
farmers markets and farm shops and examples of small scale producers thriving
in local markets (Davey 2007). However the majority of consumers still use the
supermarkets for the bulk of their shopping.
It is not just as simplistic as how far food, or flowers, travels to reach the retail
outlets and promoting the use of local markets. The environmental impact of
food miles can be described as:
Environmental Impact = ∑ Food Miles / transportation type x factor
representing each mode of transportation
It is the impact of transportation mode that has received the most attention of
late, specifically with the recent upsurge of focus on carbon emissions.
Some reports have suggested that whilst choosing to buy organic has value, the
hidden ‘costs’ of shopping increase substantial when road miles are factored in –
perhaps even more so than air miles. If all food in the UK was sourced from
within 20km of where it was consumed environmental and congestion costs would
fall from £2.3bn to £230m (BBC 2005). The New Economies Foundation has
calculated that every £10 spent on local food generates £25 for the local
economy (cited in Purvis 2005).
27
A further £100m of environmental costs might be further saved by selecting
public transport or walking/cycling to the shops (BBC 2005). Sustain (2001)
calculated that a 5 mile journey by car to collect food emits the same amount of
CO2 as shifting the same food 23 miles by air, or 600 miles by truck (cited in
Murray 2007). The use of centralised supply depots means that an item produced
‘locally’ may be shipped out by road to a central site and then returned to within
miles of its original location (Lawrence 2005, Murray 2007). Asda has recently
trialled a scheme whereby growers deliver straight to the local stores in their
country rather than a central depot (Anon 2006). Flowers imported to a
wholesaler in the Netherlands from Kenya are considered to have come from
Europe for subsequent labelling purposes (Hickman 2006) and if transported by
road from the warehouse to the UK have both the carbon footprint of air freight
and road transport but appear on the packaging to have come from a more
‘local’ source. Thus making a choice between those labelled air freighted and
those considered ‘local’ more problematic.
Another consideration is the carbon footprint of production, rather than just
transportation. Food grown in European greenhouses may produce less carbon
during transit but when the total life cycle is taken into account the option that
has the lowest total carbon generation maybe the product shipped in from
overseas. This total life cycle approach was taken in a recent report by Williams
(2007) who compared production and delivery of roses from Kenya and Holland.
28
Relative carbon emissions were 5.8 times larger in the Dutch operation,
reflecting the carbon cost of the highly energy demanding greenhouse
environments in which the roses were grown. These findings led to a flurry of
publicity both in the UK and Kenya (Foster 2007; Riungu 2007; Seager 2007) and
crystallize the debate around the trade off between sourcing from a country
where natural conditions are more conducive to production than more locally
based sources.
This contradiction is not just restricted to flowers – most tomatoes sold in the UK
are from Europe specifically Spain where they are grown under plastic
polytunnels requiring huge amounts of water. An alternative might be tomatoes
grown in the temperate climate of South Africa (Hardie 2007).
“Food miles are a complex issue that must be considered in the context of a
host of other indicators of sustainability… when all activities in a food chain are
considered there are often differences that involve trade-offs between various
environmental, social and economic effects… it is not clear whether a decrease
in food transport would necessarily lead to an increase in sustainability” (AEA
technology 2005:3)”
The key findings from the DEFRA report on ‘Food Miles as an Indictor for
Sustainability’ stress that a single indicator based on total food kilometres
29
travelled would not be valid as it would not represent the complexity of trade
offs between different factors. They advocate a suite of indicators that reflect
the key adverse impacts of food transport such as congestion, accidents and
pollution: urban food km; HGV km; Air food km; and total CO2 emissions (AEA
Technology 2007). However wider economic and social issues are not addressed
by this indicator set and in essence it becomes a carbon footprint that whilst
useful fails to incorporate any trade off’s with development goals.
MacGregor and Vorley (2006) believe that decisions of consumers, policy makers
and businesses needs to be based on good information. If environmental impact
is to be traded against development benefits then:
− The degree of harm must be quantified and put into context of other
choices;
− Put into context against total ecological space/emissions per capita in
Africa; and
− The degree of development gain quantified.
Plans by Tesco and Marks and Spenser to place airplane symbols on air-freighted
items worry the Kenyan growers, especially in light of the comparative carbon
study of Dutch and Kenyan roses (Riungu 2007). The International Institute for
Environment and Development notes that the livelihoods of more than one
million Africans are supported by the British consumption of fresh fruits and
30
vegetables and this accounts for less that 0.1 % of the UK’s total carbon
emissions (MacGregor and Vorley 2007; Murray 2007).
MacGregor and Vorley (2006) suggest that we should be looking at the ecological
space that each individual has, translated into per capita right to emit carbon
dioxid. Figure 3 illustrates the suggested individual equitable ecological space of
1.8 based on the Kyoto protocol and the current African per capita emissions of
1.0. It is clear that disproportionate use is made of this ecological space by the
North yet it is the South, especially sub-Saharan Africa whose trade will suffer
from decreased air freight of export produce. Others have suggested that
reducing carbon emissions would be better served by the West turning off TVs at
night and using energy efficiency light bulbs than any initiatives to reduce
African air-freight (Seager 2007).
[Take in Figure 3]
Tesco recently announced plans to go even further and place carbon labels on all
it’s products in the same way it does fat and salt content. They stated that they
would not place a ban on flying in goods from all suppliers due to the impact on
the poorest but would reduce the total amount from the current 3% to 1% (Finch
and Vidal 2007).
31
Post publication of their Food Mile report (AEA Technology 2005) plans for a
carbon footprint label based on the ‘traffic light’ system have also been unveiled
by UK government. This label will be devised by DEFRA in association with the BSI
British Standards authority and it has been suggested that this label scheme
might find that carnations from Africa grown in the winter months might have a
lower footprint than those grown in Britain in a heated greenhouse (Waugh
2007). The footprint label may mark down certain products such as electrical
products with only standby mode and this suggests that there is some scope to
add in ‘marking’ criteria that might assess the social impact of the product
through supporting local farmers or through Fairtrade criteria. If this was
factored in then two products (one local and one Fairtrade) would be assessed
purely on carbon impact rather than distance travelled as the local produce and
that sourced ethically would have equal ‘bonus’ points.
However this raises the issues of what is classed as local. How far can a product
travel and still be classed as local? Another facet is where people live and their
access to retail outlets. For instance Tesco has outlets all over the UK but little
suggests that every product range will have a customised label based on the
specific UK postcode location.
There are options to purchase carbon offsets and this might be an option for
flower producers in places like Kenya. However this may further disadvantage
32
suppliers in these regions. One aspect that has not been discussed in the previous
literature is the seasonality of flowers. Some organic box schemes stock imported
produce, but only when local alternatives are not available (Allen 2005). A
similar approach could be used for flowers whereby only those that were in
season and not grown in artificial conditions would be traded off against the
imports of Fairtrade flowers. There may be some capacity to build in a form of
targeted selection through ‘ecological triage’ (after Holt and Viney 2001), where
season and species played a key role.
In Kenya and Zambia there are few incentives in the domestic market to adopt
‘pro-development’ practices without a clear business case and even pressures
from export markets are described as patchy (Kivuitu et al. 2006). Thus external
requirements, such as those promoted by a labelling system are likely to push
some organisations into responding. There proliferation of current flower
certification schemes reflects this. However none of these are currently fit for
purpose if the criteria in use are to include carbon footprinting although some
have some basic environmental criteria. Future research should examine these
codes in more detail and identify opportunities to incorporate criteria that
address this emerging agenda of ‘miles’ and carbon footprint.
In light of the lack of current guidance for flower producers the industry
themselves are trying to respond. Foster (2007) notes that flower companies are
33
drawing up eco-friendly guidelines to address mounting consumer concern over
flower miles and Interflora are consulting with organisations such as the Carbon
Neutral Company. Little information as yet exists on the make up of any of these
future schemes and given that there are already multiple flower certification
schemes in place this suggests developing a uniform consensus may be
problematic.
It remains to be seen how the trade off between promotion of Fairtrade
principles and a more protectionist approach to sourcing locally will be fought
out on the supermarket shelves. A study by Cowe and Williams (2000) of 2000
people in the UK identified five consumer segments, with three offering potential
markets to Fairtrade products. Their evidence suggests up to 30% of the sample
was particularly motivated to buy ethical goods but this accounted for 1-3% of
individual markets which they named the 30:3 syndrome. How this is affected by
the overlapping concerns of the ‘environmental’ movement and whether this will
cause sub-segmentation remains an area for future enquiry. Their ‘Global
Watchdogs’ segment (5% of the total) who were ethical hardliners, affluent
professionals, typically 33-55 years old, well-educated, metropolitan and mainly
based in the South East are also arguably one of the key target market for most
initiatives to reduce ‘food miles’ purchasing. The largest segment (49%) named
‘Do what I can’ had a weak ethical motivation but it was still present and were
typically older, home owners and based outside London. The question for the
34
food miles campaigners is can they engage this segment effectively when the
Fairtrade movement has been unable to make large scale advances here.
Few studies have examined the symbiosis or divergence between ethical
consumers and those that consider environmental criteria, with the exception of
Codron et al. (2006). Their study poses three key questions:
− Do consumers who buy products of organic or integrated agriculture share
common values with those consumers who buy products having an
ethical/fair-trade dimension?
− Is the relation between the concerns/values and the purchasing behavior
of consumers similar between the environmental and ethical/fair-trade
domains?
− Do consumers buying environmentally friendly goods perceive the problem
that such an action addresses with the same sense of immediacy and
urgency as do those buying ethical/fair-trade products?
Their work focuses on an initial exploration of these questions as part of an
agenda for future research. However their classification of ‘environmental’ is
focused on organic products and those that consider integrated agriculture
(rational chemical use, sustainable technologies and integrated pest
management) rather than any measure of carbon impact. The questions they
pose are extremely valid to subject of this paper and are crucial in the debate
35
surrounding the tradeoffs that are likely to occur in the market place when
consumers consider a decision between food/flower miles and Fairtrade.
There is a danger that much of the focus on food miles is a knee jerk reaction to
concerns over global warming that may cause more harm to some of the most
vulnerable parts of the world. Through expediency supermarkets may choose
simplistic labelling standards, such as the picture of an airplane, without the
consumer understanding the relative carbon impact. Even if carbon alone is the
only measure taken, then one that fully quantified the carbon footprint including
the whole life cycle may address some of the imbalances. However if carbon
offsetting is used then businesses in the developed world have more capacity to
afford to purchase these than those in the South.
This paper has raised a number of avenues of future enquiry.
− It is clear that fully understanding the impact of the flower industry on
development is necessary. This requires a systematic evaluation of the
costs and benefits of this industry in a range of case study regions.
− The current certification schemes need to be reviewed in light of the new
imperative on carbon impact. An analysis of the overlap between these
codes of conduct, their uptake and how they can be adapted is necessary
− There is some evidence of using different certification standards as a
‘ladder’ of progress - an examination of farms level of certification and
36
whether there are patterns and implications to this would be a fruitful
research area.
− Alternatives to reduce the 91% of emissions from air transport of Kenya
flowers should be examined.
− Alternative product options (such as dried flowers) could be explored
alongside an analysis of other markets within the region.
− It is crucial that we explore the relationship, and trade offs, between the
consumer’s ethical values and environmental motivations.
In some ways examining ‘flower’ miles is an example of the kind of issues that
will need resolution when the food miles debate extends beyond basic
consumables into luxury, non-essential items like flowers. However, we may
already be at this point as arguably the choice to enjoy asparagus or green beans
is also a ‘luxury’ choice rather than one of physical necessity.
Ironically it is not just the developed world that has raised concerns about local
sourcing. In Zambia the South African supermarket chain Shoprite has been under
increasing pressure to source more of its horticultural produce locally from
Zambian smallholders rather than directly from South Africa and has entered into
partnerships with a number to do so (Kivuitu et al. 2006).
37
It is clear that the drive to reduce the impact of the global transportation of food
may have the potential to significantly impact some of the most vulnerable parts
of the world. Consumers, businesses and governments are faced with competing
priorities within the social responsibility agenda and this may lead to
prioritisation of one more so than another. This is the dilemma that lies at the
heart of the flower miles debate.
38
References
AEA Technology 2005. The validity of food miles as an indicator of sustainable
development. Final report produced for DEFRA Issue 7 July. Department of
Food and Rural Affairs: London.
Annan K. 2001. A route out of poverty. The Financial Times 5 March pp. 12
Anon. 2006. Asda trials supplier delivery scheme to reduce food miles. Marketing
Week 17 August p. 4.
Barnett C, Cafaro P, Newholm T. 2005. Philosophy and Ethical Consumption. In
The Ethical Consumer, Harrison R, Newholm T, Shaw D (eds.). Sage: London.
pp. 11-24.
Baumgartner FR, Jones BD. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics.
University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.
BBC. 2005. Local food greener than organic. BBC News 2 March
Benjamin A. 2006. Potential banana skin? Guardian Newspaper Fairtrade
supplement
Blythman J. 2005. Shopped: The Shocking Power of British Supermarkets. Harper
Perennial: London
Borgström G. 1972. The Hungry Planet: The Modern World at the Edge of
Famine. Collier Books: New York.
39
Campbell D, Craven B, Shrives P. 2003. Voluntary social reporting in three FTSE
sectors: a comment on perception and legitimacy. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal 16:4: pp. 558-581.
Castellanos J. 1998. Roses, Colombia, Exports, Trade Disputes and Drugs. TED
Case Studies 8(1) Case 431 Online journal at
http://www.american.edu/ted/class/all.htm
Codron JM, Siriex L, Reardon T. 2006. Social and environmental attributes of
food products in an emerging mass market: Challenges of signalling and
consumer perception, with European illustrations. Agriculture and Human
Values 23(3): pp 283-297.
Cowe R, Williams S. 2000. Who are the ethical consumers? Co-operative
Bank/MORI: Manchester
Davey J. 2007. Food fear boosts farm shops. The Sunday Times 28 January p. 11.
DFID. 2002. British Attitudes Consumer Survey. Department for International
Development
Dowling J, Pfeffer J. 1975. Organisational legitimacy: social values and
organizational behaviour. Pacific Sociological Review 18(2) pp. 122-36.
Ethical Consumer. 2005. Good news for Kenyan flower workers. Ethical Consumer
Magazine July/August
40
Fairtrade. 2005. Fairtrade supports Kenyan flower workers
http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/downloads/pdf/guardian_response.pdf [20
May 2007]
Fairtrade. 2006. Fairtrade Roses Q & A
http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/downloads/pdf/Fairtrade_roses_q_and_a.pdf
[10 June 2007]
Fairtrade. 2007. http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/products_roses.htm [10 June
2007]
FAO. 2002. A thorn on every rose for Kenya's flower industry. Food and
Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations Newsroom 18 April 2002
online at http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/news/2002/3789-en.html.
Ferrer Y. 1997. Women and Agriculture: Colombia's Roses Proves a Thorny Issue.
International Press Service Bogota Columbia 24 August.
Finch J, Vidal J. 2007. You’ve checked the price and the calorie count now
here’s the carbon cost. Guardian Newspaper 19 January
Foster P. 2007. Why roses from Kenya are greener than the flowers from
Amsterdam. Times Newspaper 10 February
Frankel C. 1998. In Earth’s Company. New Society: Canada.
Gairdner J. 2006. Local food is miles better. Farmers Weekly
41
Hardie A. 2007. When buying local to cut food miles can do more harm than
good. The Scotsman 16 January
Hargreaves-Allen V. 2003. Say it without flowers. The Ecologist 1st October.
Harrison R, Newholm T, Shaw, D. (eds.). 2005. The Ethical Consumer. Sage:
London.
Hickman L. 2006. Is it OK to buy cut flowers? The Guardian 14th February.
Holt D, Viney H. 2001. Targeting Environmental Improvements through Ecological
Triage. Eco-Management and Auditing 8(3): pp.154-164
International Trade Centre. 2001. Product Profile: Cut Flowers and Foliage
Discussion Document Third United Nations Conference on The Least
Developed Countries Business Sector Round Table Brussels 16 May 2001.
Jones P, Comfort D, Hillier D. 2005. Corporate social responsibility and the UK's
top ten retailers. International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management 33(12): pp. 882-892
Kivuitu M, Yambayamba K, Fox T. 2005. How can Corporate Social Responsibility
deliver in Africa? Insights from Kenya and Zambia. Perspectives on
Corporate Social Responsibility and the Environment 3: July. International
Institute for Environment and Development, London
Lawrence F. 2004. Not on the Label: What Really Goes into the Food on Your
Plate. Penguin Books: London
42
Lawrence F. 2005. Why I won’t be giving my mother Fairtrade flowers. Guardian
Newspaper 5 March
MacGregor J, Vorley B. 2006. Fair miles? The concept of "food miles" through a
sustainable development lens. Sustainable Development Opinion Papers
International Institute for Environment and Development: London.
Martin W. 2006. High street begins to cotton on. Guardian Newspaper Fairtrade
supplement
McKie R. 2007. Ban considered on organic food brought in by air. The Observer
27th May.
Mena N, Proaño S. 2005. Sexual Harassment in the workplace: the cut flower
industry case study Northern Sierra of Ecuador. International Labor Rights
Fund April.
Morser A, McRae S. 2007. Growing pains the human cost of cut flowers. War on
Want: London.
Murray S. 2007. Moveable feats the incredible journey of the things we eat.
Aurum: London.
Nicholls A, Opal C. 2005. Fairtrade Market- Driven Ethical Consumption. Sage:
London.
Nicholls A. (2004) New Product Development in Fairtrade retailing. Service
Industries Journal 24(2): 102-117.
43
Nicholls A. 2002. Strategic options in Fairtrade retailing. International Journal of
Retail and Distribution Management 30(1): pp. 6-17
Ogodo O, Vidal J. 2007. Drained of Life. Guardian Newspaper, 14th February.
Petitjean MF. 2006. Taking Responsibility. Floraculture International
September/October.
Poulter S. 2007. Supermarkets under fire over roses at £2 for 12. Daily Mail 14th
February p.11.
Purvis A. 2005. Sausage, mash and sustainability. Green Futures Supplement in
association with DEFRA, Compass Group and MLC November/December.
Putman R. 2000. Bowling Alone. Simon and Schuster: New York
Riungu C. 2007. Flower exports flourish despite odds. The East African 1st May.
Romanelli E, Tushman ML. 1994. Organisational transformation as punctuated
equilibrium: an empirical test. Academy of Management Journal 37(5): pp.
1141-1161.
Schlosser E. 2001. Fast Food Nation the Dark Side of the All-American Meal.
Penguin Press: London
Seager A. 2007. Air-freight flowers greener than Dutch hothouses, say Kenyans.
Guardian Newspaper 14th February.
44
Shanahan H, Carlsson-Kanyama A, Ekstrom P. 2003. Exploring opportunities for
eco-sound food habits households and researchers in partnership. Kappa
Omicron FORUM 14: pp. 1-15.
Shanahan H, Carlsson-Kanyama A. 2005. Interdependence between consumption
in the North and sustainable communities in the South. International
Journal of Consumer Studies 29(4): pp. 298-307.
Stewart A. 2007a. Flower Confidential: The Good, the Bad, and the Beautiful in
the Business of Flowers. Algonquin Books: Chapel Hill.
Stewart A. 2007b. In flowers, too, green is the new red. San Francisco Chronicle
Special to The Chronicle Special 7th February.
Strong C. 1997. The problems of translating Fairtrade principles into consumer
purchase behaviour. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 15(1): pp. 32-37.
Tasker G. 2007. Flower business no bed of roses. Miami Herald 4th February
Thrupp LA. 1995. Bittersweet harvests for global supermarkets: challenges in
Latin America's agricultural export boom. World Resources Institute.
US/LEAP and ILRF. 2007. A Valentine’s Day Report: Worker justice and basic
rights on flower plantations in Columbia and Ecuador. The U.S./Labor in
the Americas project and The International Labor Rights Fund 13 February.
War on Want. 2007. Growing pains the human cost of cut flowers in British
supermarkets. War on Want: London.
45
Waugh P. 2007. Green labels for shoppers. Evening Standard 30th May pp. 1-2.
Williams A. 2007. Comparative study of cut roses for the British market
produced in Kenya and the Netherlands. Precis Report for World Flowers
12th February 2007. National Resources Institute: Cranfield Universityix.
46
Figure 1: Women Working Worldwide Flower Campaign Ugandan workers
online at http://www.poptel.org.uk/women-ww/
47
High
Worthy Products
poor quality
indifferent design
part of a ‘token’ ethical gesture
e.g. charity shops
Fair Trade Products
Genuine ethical credentials
Unique as quality purchases
Certification mark or Fair Trade
aligned brand name
Product values: exoticness,
exclusivity and premium quality
e.g. bananas, tea, coffee, local
crafts
Commodity Products
Low involvement commodity
products e.g. household goods or
fast moving commodity goods
Fashion Products
Goods that engage emotions and
connect with lifestyle choices
Ethical
Value
Low
Consumer Satisfaction
High
Figure 2: Ethical classification of products (adapted from Nicholls and Opal
2005)
48
tonnes carbon emissions
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Africa
Kyoto
Global
UK
Figure 3: A comparison of per capita carbon dioxide emissions (adapted from
MacGregor and Vorley 2006)
49
Table 1: Extracts from the International Code of Conduct for the production
of cut flowers
x xi
Freedom of association and collective bargaining – the rights of workers to form
an join unions
Equality of Treatment – access to jobs and training on equal terms irrespective
of gender, age, ethnic origin, colour, marital status, sexual orientation,
political opinion, religion or social origin.
Living wages – wages meet at least the legal and industry minimum standards
and are sufficient to meet basic need of workers and families and still provide
some discretionary income.
Working hours – applicable to law and industry standards and not required to
work more than 48 hours per week on a regular basis. Overtime is voluntary,
paid at a premium rate and no more than 12 hours per week
Health and Safety – companies provide free appropriate safety clothing. Regular
monitoring, training provided and comply with international health and safety
standards.
Pesticides and Chemicals - company assesses risk of chemicals and apply
measures to protect workers. No banned, highly toxic or carcinogenic pesticide
and chemical to be use. Pesticides and chemicals managed by trained staff with
specialized equipment
50
Security of Employment – work that is not seasonal or temporary is done by
staff on permanent contracts. Non permanent staff treated no less favourable
than permanent and all staff have a copy of their contract
Protection of the Environment - companies make every effort to protect the
environment, avoid pollution and implement sustainable practice
Child labour not used – no workers under 15 years or the school leaving age
(whichever is highest) with no child under 18 working in hazardous conditions.
No forced labour – includes bonded or involuntary prison labour. No worker
required to handover deposits or identify papers with the employer
51
Table 2: Certification programmes available for the cut flower and potted
plants industry
Demeter Biodynamic based in the USA certifies that flowers are grown according
to biodynamic principles, which include organic growing techniques, wildlife
diversity, crop rotation, treating the farm as a complete ecosystem and finding
farm-based solutions to pest, disease and fertility problems.
http://www.demeter-usa.org/
EuepGAP is a private sector body that sets voluntary standards for the
certification of agricultural products around the globe. It started in 1997 as an
initiative by British retailers in conjunction with supermarkets in continental
Europe to respond to consumers concerns with product safety, environmental
and labour standards and management of the supply chain. It is a partnership of
agricultural producers and retailers which want to establish common
certification standards and procedures for Good Agricultural Practices. The
standards are pre-farm-gate, which means the certificate covers the process of
the certified product from before the seed is planted until it leaves the farm.
Therefore it is a business-to-business label and is not directly visible to
consumers. It uses a set of normative documents which include a protocol for
flower and ornamentals. http://www.eurepgap.org
Fair Flowers Fair Plants (FFP) is a new initiative funded by the European
Community and the Horticultural Commodity Board. The focus is to stimulate the
52
production and sales of flowers and plants cultivated in a sustainable manner. The
certification is based on the International Code of Conduct (ICC) for the
Production of Cut Flower proposed by the International Union of Food and
Agricultural Workers. http://www.fairflowersfairplants.com/
Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (FLO)., FLO (established in 1997)
uses 20 Labelling Initiatives to promote and market the Fairtrade Certification
Mark in different countries http://www.fairtrade.net/home.html
Fairtrade (USA) Flowers are certified in the USA through the non-profit
organization TransFair USA. Emphasis is placed upon labour protections and
economic development programmes directly controlled by and benefiting workers.
Farming methods should be environmentally sensitive, though not necessarily
organic. www.transfairusa.org.
Fairtrade is the UK based arm of the FLO and certifies Kenyan roses and other
varieties for UK retailers such as: Asda, Sainsburys, Somerfield, Wm Morrison,
John Lewis, Waitrose and Tesco. http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/
Florverde. Certification programme set up by the Association of Columbian
Flower Exporters (Asocoflores). The stated aim of the certification is to ensure all
flowers grown and harvested in Colombia meet specific social and environmental
standards. Their website states that independent verification has been provided
by the SGS Group. However a recent report by War on Want (2007) has suggested
that many of the elements of the standard were routinely not met.
53
http://www.florverde.org/
Flower Label Program (FLP). Based in Germany with offices in Ecuador the
Flower Label Program (FLP) certification is based on the International Code of
Conduct (ICC) for the Production of Cut Flowers. FLP-certified farms have to fulfil
the following criteria: living wages ; freedom of association; non-discrimination; a
ban on child labour and forced labour health care; a ban on toxic pesticides; and
responsible handling of natural resources http://www.fairflowers.de/
International Flower Campaign and the International Code of Conduct for the
production of cut flowers (ICC). A Dutch co-operation between two NGOs and a
trade union who are signatories to and co-owners of the ICC. Their main
objective is to improve labour conditions for workers in the cut flower industry
and to promote more sustainable production of cut flowers worldwide. Many
international certification schemes have used the ICC as a basis for their
certification. www.flowercampaign.org
Kenya Flower Council (KFC) was established in 1996 to bring together
independent growers and exporters under one roof to ensure implementation of
acceptable local and international standards. Their stated objectives are: To
foster responsible and safe production of cut flowers and related products with
due regard to the interest of the community and of the environment; To
promote safe working environment for all farm staff; To ensure that business is
carried out in accordance with the laws of Kenya; and to operate to the highest
54
level of accountability and transparency. They are working closely with Milieu
Programma Sierteelt (MPS) to seek mutual recognition of the KFC code with
other international flower labels. www.kenyaflowers.co.ke
Milieu Programma Sierteelt (MPS). This is an international certification
organisation from Holland, which owns and develops certificates for the
horticulture sector (floriculture, bulb, nursery stock and vegetables sector). They
certify the following schemes: MPS-Florimark is a certificate that is awarded upon
certification for the following modules: MPS-A (environmental certification); MPSGAP (certification for compliance with demands made by the retail sector);MPSQuality or MPS-QualiTree (quality care certificate); and MPS-SQ (Socially
Qualified: certificate for social aspects, such as safety, health and working
conditions); and ISO 9001:2000. http://www.my-mps.com/
The Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) is a worldwide alliance of companies, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and trade union organisations. They exist to
promote and improve the implementation of corporate codes of practice which
cover supply chain working conditions, with an ultimate goal of ensuring that the
working conditions of workers producing for the UK market meet or exceed
international labour standards. When they join ETI corporate members commit to
implementing the ETI Base Code in their supply chains and reporting annually on
their progress in doing so. www.ethicaltrade.org
USDA National Organic Program (USA) A USDA-approved certifier must visit the
55
farm to ensure that flowers are grown according to a set of organic farming
standards. www.ams.usda.gov/NOP
Veriflora is a sustainability certification program for fresh cut flowers and potted
plants based in the USA. Veriflora certified flowers must be grown in accordance
with a set of sustainable agricultural, environmental and labour standards, as
verified the independent auditors SCS. Farms that are not already organic must
develop plans to transfer to organic farming over time The Veriflora certification
standard has been incorporated into the Draft American National Standard for
Trial Use for Sustainable Agriculture (SCS-001). www.veriflora.com
56
Table 3: Supplier, Buyers and Growers of Kenyan Fairtrade Flowers (Fairtrade
2007)
Suppliers World Flowers, Sunking Flowers Ltd and Intergreen BV, Moyses
Stevens and Flower Direct
Retailers
Asda, Sainsburys, Wm Morrison, John Lewis, Waitrose, Tescos
Farms
More than 10 including: Finlay Flowers, (Kericho), Oserian
Development Company Naivasha), Liki River Farm, Longonot
Horticulture (Naivasha) Shalimar Flowers (Naivasha), Eldama Ravine,
Panda Flowers (Naivasha)
57
Endnotes
i
Kenyan Flower Council http://www.kenyaflowers.co.ke/industryinfo/flori.php
ii
Flowers and Plants Association http://www.flowers.org.uk/industry/uk-market.htm [
29 May 2007]
iii
International Labor Rights Fund
http://www.laborrights.org/projects/flowers_index.htm [10 June 2007]
iv
Women Working Worldwide http://www.poptel.org.uk/women-ww/ [12 June 2007]
v
Social Accountability International http://www.sa-intl.org
vi
Fairtrade http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/about_sales.htm [10 June 2007]
vii
Horticultural Ethical Business Initiative http://www.hebi.or.ke/hebi-profile.htm [10
June 2007]
viii
Farmers Weekly http://www.fwi.co.uk/gr/foodmiles/index.html
ix
World Flowers
http://www.worldflowers.co.uk/12news/Comparative%20Study%20of%20Cut%20Roses%2
0Final%20Report%20Precis%2012%20Febv4.pdf
x
International Code of Conduct for the Production of Cut Flowers
http://www.bothends.org/strategic/ICC-eng.pdf [25 May 2007]
xi
International Labour Organisation http://www.ilo.org/dyn/basi/docs/F273/GUIDEE.DOC [25 May 2007]
58