Fairtrade vs. Rainforest Alliance. Sara Lee vs. Organics. It’s one big green fight.
In
the middle of Fairtrade Fortnight
(Feb 22nd – March 7th) a debate has started over
the uses of the two ethical badges, Fairtrade and Rainforest Alliance. My
recent experience is that consumers now see them as much the same, even though
one focuses more on the environment and the other on people (though few people
know that the Fairtrade Foundation has strong rules on environmentalism as well
as people).
A recent trip to McDonalds was interesting.
McDonald’s sell Rainforest Alliance coffee, but I was told it was Fairtrade.
When I told the assistant it was in fact Rainforest Alliance his reply was,
“same thing isn’t it”. Maybe that’s just down to the kind of staff
you get in Archway.
The Fairtade Foundation now has a big job to do
if it wants differentiation the two badges in the market place. However, it is
doing well with sales growing year on year – currently over £800m and new
brands like KIt Kat and Ben & Jerry’s going Fairtrade. If consumers think
Rainforest Alliance is the same as Fairtade this means brands will take the easy road and longer term the
valuable benefit Fairtade brings to third world farmers could be under threat.
When
we did the Ethical Shopping Survey, Fairtrade came out as the number one
ethical badge. In a Grocer survey it also came out as the most recognised
label. Our survey revealed that even Organic was not as strong, probably
because it’s a bad logo and it doesn’t mean environmentally ethical to many
shoppers but better tasting and better quality. Only the minority saw it as
environmental.
While
some big brands like Cadbury’s, Nestle and Unilver are adopting Fairtrade,
other brands like PG Tips, Typhoo,
Kenco, Liptons and McDonalds have adopted the Rainforest Alliance logo and have
invested millions in consumer campaigns. So it’s no wonder the consumer thinks
there mean the same.
Sainsbury’s
now claims to sell more Fairtrade than anyone, including the Co-op, M&S and
Waitrose, with sales over £218m. Impressive, even if the majority of punters
will name the Co-op as the most ethical of supermarkets.
Interestingly,
the biggest supplier of Faitrade instant coffee is Fine Foods International who
use to supply all Café Direct’s coffee and supply’s most supermarkets with own
brand Fairtrade coffee. When they launched their own instant coffee, Fair
Instant, it became one of the fastest selling coffees. People love Fairtrade.
So
what’s the difference? The Fairtade Foundation lays down tough rules for anything
to be badged Fairtrade, which is probably why big brands have gone to Rainforest
Alliance that only requires 30%
certified product. In the middle the Ethical Tea Council seems to have sunk
without trace. Of course one big issue often overlooked is supply, there simply
isn’t enough Fairtrade tea and coffee about to supply all the brands.
Of course theses aren’t the only two ethical
badges, there are many, but here’s a top line guide to a few.
RAINFOREST ALLIANCE: the mission is to protect
ecosystems and the people and wildlife that depend on them by transforming
land-use practices, business practices and consumer behavior.
FAIR TRADE CERTIFIED: products guarantee a fair
price to farmers so that they can care for their families and farms. They
support co-operatives and help establish businesses. Safe working conditions
and environmental management are required.
MARINE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL: has
an environmental standard for well-managed, sustainable fisheries that do
not contribute to the environmental problem of over-fishing.
ORGANIC (Soil Association): is good for the
planet, is kind to animals and wildlife. It avoids pesticides and all
controversial additives and encourages good farming practices. It also avoids
GM crops. Many shoppers believe it is better quality and tastes better, though
a recent DEFRA report deputes this. However, the animal husbandry element is
very attractive when buying meat.
There
are 100 eco-labeling schemes in the EU, so it’s no wonder the
eco-ethical consumer is confused. Many are good but there are also those that
are very deceiving. Some claiming
they don’t contain things that were either banned years ago or aren’t relevant.
Organic mineral water? Tinned products that contains no GM. Sugar free products
that never had sugar. Or how about a hair product that claims be ‘CFC neutral’
- chlorofluorocarbons were banned in 1993. One badge suggests recycled
packaging but in fact the badge means the brand has paid a fee to some
recycling scheme just to get a logo.
Then we have food miles, carbon
labels and soon to come – a label to show you a product’s water footprint. In
our survey for the book (Ethical marketing & The New Consumer) we found few
consumers understood carbon footprint. One even thought your carbon footprint was
the ashes they put into your urn after you’ve been cremated. It’s actually not
such a stupid thought. So why Terry Leahy wants to stick a carbon footprint
value on all 70,000 of Tesco’s lines seems a waste of time (and energy).
Walkers may well have taken the plunge and stuck one on their packs, but does
the average shopper care? If you are an eco-ethical shopper you probably
wouldn’t buy crisps anyway but organic snacks, and if you did you’d buy from a
more ethical looking brand.
As consumers get more brain fried
trying to get from one end of the supermarket to the other they are looking for
quick and easy ways to identify products that match their rational and
emotional needs and values with the products they buy. On one level labels are
good as they aid a quick choice, but on another level consumer don’t, as Stuart
Rose once preached, ‘look behind the label’. Too many labels and the consumer
just turns off.
The problem is, the desire to
eco-label isn’t really driven by consumer pressure but by the need for brands
to put on a good green PR face and to keep government regulators happy. I
really doubt Walkers was inundated by fat teenagers writing in demanding to
know what the carbon footprint was of a packet of Cheese & Onion (75g of
carbon actually – any the wiser?).
Eco-ethical claims, once simple
are now getting more complicated and diverse. Consumers are having to choose,
Fairtrade vs food miles? Is a washing powder that has less chemicals in better
than one that washes at a lower temperature? There are many dilemmas. The media
just adds to the mess and even some of those charities who tout green messages
can’t be trusted not to spin. What we are seeing is the birth of eco-ethical
politics that is being played out in the supermarket. And when a consumer has
to chose they usually default back to the one that makes a choice easy, avoid
the lot.
Labels can also have an opposite
effect to the desired outcome. One supermarket put little planes on their salad
to warn customers it was flown in. Sales went up. Why? Because customers saw it
as fresher, and fresher was more important than ethical when it comes to salad.
Of course the other big issue is
that consumers are becoming less trusting of claims and labels. In a recent
piece of research we carried out for a FMCG client there was a general distrust
of green claims. A survey in the US shows that green advertising is less
trusted than normal ads (and US consumers don’t trust ads much anyway).
So
back to the debate. While Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade both have strong
ethical agendas, maybe the big issue isn’t which is better but why so many
other products sold in our supermarkets have no ethical credentials at all?
Sara
Lee vs. Organics.
In
the latest claims of greenwashing, Sara Lee has had its claims about EcoGrain,
used in their Earthgrains bread brand, slammed by environmentalist in the US
for claiming it was better than Organic. “It’s a
crass example of a corporation trying to capitalize on the valuable market
cachet of organic, while intentionally misleading consumers — without making
any meaningful commitment to protect the environment or produce safer and more
nutritious food.” Was the very passionate comment by Charlotte Vallaeys, a
Food and Farm Policy Analyst on the Natural News website. Organic supporters
have asked Sara Lee to withdraw (in their opinion) all misleading and unethical
packaging and advertising. This just highlights the danger of big brands trying
jump on the eco-ethical bandwagon and demonstrates that consumers just don’t
trust many brands to be green. Even though I preach the triple bottom line,
People, Planet & Profit, some companies see the first two as just another
way to further increase the latter only to find the consumer isn’t as dumb or
as silent as they think.
And finally, check out a great new
trendy culture magazine for men & women that’s just launched – Recognise.
Ok you’ll have to forgive them for the first ad in the mag, for a big 4×4, but
the rest is excellent, check out the article on Shakira. Style with green rather
than beads and the latest sandals.
Links:
Normal
0
0
1
78
447
3
1
548
11.1280
0
0
0
http://www.rainforest-alliance.org
http://www.soilassociation.org/
http://www.naturalnews.com/028224_Sara_Lee_EcoGrain.html
