Benchmarking self-declared social sustainability initiatives in cocoa sourcing

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the self-declared sustainability initiatives of the world’s four largest chocolate manufacturers (Ferrero, Mars, Mondelez and Nestlé) and the measures they take to tackle social problems within the context of establishing sustainable sourcing of cocoa in Ghana and the Ivory Coast. Global cocoa supply chains are under continuous media and public scrutiny. Recent incidents of malpractice in supply chain management have left global chocolatiers vulnerable in terms of how they deal with social issues across their global supply chain networks. Critics have argued that there is a lack of consistency and transparency between what companies say and do in upholding sustainable practices across their supply chains. Design/methodology/approach The authors draw from the sustainable supply chain literature to develop our theoretical parameters and undertake a case-based analysis of the existing sustainability practices of these chocolatiers. Using the insights from this analysis, the authors propose a conceptual framework for a rigorous comparative assessment of self-declared sustainable sourcing initiatives of global agricultural supply chains. The methodology is qualitative and the research method is a secondary-data case study. Findings Four main parameters were identified and used to compare self-declared initiatives, namely: social sustainability certification from respectable bodies; code of conduct for suppliers; partnerships with the primary supply chain stakeholders; and supplier collaboration programme and improvement initiatives. The case companies chosen have implemented several initiatives, but the most prominent seem to indicate the reliance on third-party certification. Not all companies adopted a supplier code of conduct. The partnerships and collaboration programmes with different associations are presented as efficient for companies as well as farmers. Improvements in the conditions of farmers are advocated as a key result. Research limitations/implications This paper is based on self-declared secondary data. Subsequently, it is possible that the case companies did not document some practices; or that companies do not do what they claim. Practical implications This paper provides a comprehensive framework for agricultural businesses to compare their sustainability efforts and improve the performance of their supply chains, particularly those who belong to the cocoa supply chains. The proposed framework allows an assessment of initiatives at policy, strategic, tactical and operational levels to improve social sustainability of supply chains. Social implications This paper may help companies to think more clearly about greater transparency and provide the impetus for dealing more effectively with serious social issues in agricultural supply chains such as: child labour, child trafficking, modern slavery, etc. It may also instruct consumers to better understand what companies do as part of their sustainability agenda, alongside the communication of other features of their products, such as quality. Originality/value The framework adds value by providing a novel way to systematically compile and analyse data around self-declared sustainable initiatives. Actors within agricultural supply chains can use the framework to assess and drive their sustainability efforts and practices, leading to ways to improve the social performance of their global supply chains.

Organic Cocoa Value Chain Sustainability: The Perception of São Tomé and Príncipe’s Stakeholders

“…Moreover, equity in governance and power dynamics within the organic cocoa value chain would be necessary to ensure the widespread improvement of the sustainability dimensions, which would be translated into positive sustainability outcomes. Additionally, a study by Lalwani et al [44] highlighted the importance of reducing social differences and asymmetries of power within the cocoa value chain.…”

Can COVID-19 Melt the Craft Chocolate Industry?

“…As industrial chocolate manufacturers move into this space, there is an ethical imperative to support specialty cacao producers responsible for the labor-intensive production at origin, who have a prominent influence on the quality of the final product, while bearing significant financial and environmental risks, with little bargaining power in the global system. Industrial chocolate producers are particularly influential on a global scale, due to their resources and market audience, and must take more responsibility to advance social, economic, and environmental welfare throughout these essential regions from which they benefit from greatly (Lalwani et al 2018). Without these improvements, the craft chocolate industry runs the risk of becoming a high-revenue market driven by empty promises and opaque messages of consumer influence.…”

Supply chain environmental and social sustainability practice diffusion: Bibliometrics, content analysis and conceptual framework

“…By 1999, only three papers were found. All of them covered only environmental practices diffused through supplier development initiatives, including reverse logistics (Roy & Whelan, 1992), hazard substance use reduction (Walton et al, 1998) and cleaner production (Lippmann, 1999) Interestingly, between 2015 and 2020 a significant interest in social sustainability practices was found (e.g., Bubicz et al, 2019;da Silva et al, 2020;Lalwani et al, 2018;Yawar & Seuring, 2018). Overall, the majority of the papers focused on environmental between 1992 and 2020 (66% of the sample).…”

“…Even with only one occurrence a diversity of keywords related to social issues or practices was shown, for instance, 'socially responsible supply chains', 'socially responsible supplier development', 'socially responsible practices', 'slavery', 'human rights' and 'labour rights'. Most of the papers reviewed were based on empirical data (76%), including survey (32 papers; e.g., Rogers et al, 2019;Tong et al, 2012), case studies (27 papers; e.g., Karp, 2005;Yawar & Seuring, 2018), secondary data (public reports or databases; 3 papers; e.g., Lalwani et al, 2018;Tate et al, 2012) and a mix of methodologies (e.g., survey and cases study and modelling and case study; 9 papers; e.g., Bai & Satir, 2020;Zhu et al, 2007; Table 4). Eighteen papers were based on literature reviews (19%).…”