Certification has, over the years, played a significant role in the development and execution of ethical supply chain programs across industries, providing frameworks within which brands can analyze and make improvements to their practices and business models. It has also provided a means to communicate brand values and commitment to these values to the public. Though certification has evolved to become an essential component of the corporate landscape, it still faces a number of challenges.
Certification has, over the years, played a significant role in the development and execution of ethical supply chain programs across industries, providing frameworks within which brands can analyze and make improvements to their practices and business models. It has also provided a means to communicate brand values and commitment to these values to the public. Though certification has evolved to become an essential component of the corporate landscape, it still faces a number of challenges.
In a survey of 86 companies conducted last year, ISEAL Alliance found that businesses are largely convinced of the impacts of sustainability standards and certification but lack sufficient evidence to convince their decision makers that standards and certification are effective.
During a workshop on day two of New Metrics ’16, Etienne White (Possible) asked ISEAL’s Lara Koritzke, along with Brad Kahn (Forestry Stewardship Council), Brian Perkins (Marine Stewardship Council) and Nancy De Lemos (Sustainable Agriculture Network) to share their thoughts on best practices in measuring the social and environmental impacts of sustainable sourcing programs, and steps that can be taken to better demonstrate the effectiveness of the impacts in question.
Evaluation is largely executed by academics, which has resulted in a narrowing of focus. To fill in the gaps and provide brands with the most relevant information to their operations, there needs to be an ongoing dialogue between certification bodies and brands about what metrics are needed. Decision makers need to play a more involved role in the evaluation process and there needs to be more discussion surrounding the issues brands are attempting to tackle.
A New Era for Brand Integrity: Navigating the Greenhush-Greenwash Spectrum
Join us as leaders from Republik, NielsenIQ, Conspirators, Henoscene, be/co, The Guardian and Room & Board analyze what newly expanded notions of brand integrity mean for brands, and how to be smarter about picking language choices that avoid the dangerous extremes of greenhushing and greenwashing — Thurs, May 9, at Brand-Led Culture Change.
De Lemos also suggested that a more inclusive evaluation process would help address the issue of translating research (and the length of academic-style reports) into business-ready messages. Rainforest Alliance and Sustainable Agriculture Network have already begun taking steps in this direction, test-driving a variety of different reporting methods. ISEAL is also working to bridge the information gap with its launch this week of standardsimpacts.org, which provides evidence and information in the form of original research, monitoring and evaluation reports, etc on the impact of and business case for sustainability standards.
The panel appeared to have hit the nail on the head. At the end of the session, when the floor was opened up to audience questions and comments, attendees shared their own experiences with the certification process, many of which reiterated the need for better communication and collaboration.
Published Nov 18, 2016 2am EST / 11pm PST / 7am GMT / 8am CET