Enervated?

>>On that the score the sustainability that has probably most enervated Unilever is the sustainability of its profits.<<

Not sure that's the right word.

If, as I suspect, the sentence was intended as a sneer, it is only fair to point out that every single business, from the mom-and-pop corner store to Coca Cola, measures sustainability in terms of profitability.

>>most customers know nothing about different certification standards<<

It would also be true that where certifications are concerned, you get what you pay for.

How else would McDonalds get Heart Foundation approval?

What's with the obsession with coffee? It is probably only about 0.1% of Australia's imports, and in terms of adverse social, economic and environmental, its impact would be negligible on the world stage. What about all the flat-screen TV's, clothes, furniture, electronic devices, phones, ipods and just about everything else that we import, largely from countries with poor labour, OH&S and environmental standards? It seems every few months we get news of people dying due to toxins from such factories – and that’s only the ones you hear about. Just today, we get news of a Cadmium leak in a factory in China killing 2 people and sickening another 500. And guess what most Cadmium is used for? Rechargeable batteries for computers and electronic devices!

And look at China's carbon emissions – these, and the rate of their increase, has now sky-rocketed over the US's or Europe's, because of their drive to export cheap consumer goods. These goods are so cheap because they have scant regard for workers’ rights, pay, conditions and poor environmental standards/management. And you are worried about……….coffee? Get real, see things in perspective and drop the double standard. But perhaps you are more concerned with gaining publicity by attacking a US based company like Unilever than addressing the problem? The old 1970’s narrative, that Western multinationals and the US are evil imperialists is way behind the real world state. We all know who the real world imperialist is these days, it’s just that few on the left will say it, because of common ideological roots.

"But perhaps you are more concerned with gaining publicity by attacking a US based company like Unilever than addressing the problem?"

Unilever is a British-Dutch company.

Should you ever care to check my website you will be happy to find articles and videos critical not only of China's environmental performance but also comments by me critical of its human rights record.

Coffee, by the way, is the world's second most valuable legal commodity after oil – though you may have noticed the article to which you were responding was actually discussing tea.

Tim,

I’m Lipton’s Global Brand Manager, I’m responsible for Lipton’s partnership with the Rainforest Alliance and I would like to respond to some of the issues you raise. I will do this in two separate posts, as you raise a number of issues and they are relatively complex.

First I’d like to respond to your comments about Lipton’s partnership with the Rainforest Alliance.

You’re right in saying that it will take some time before all Lipton tea comes from Rainforest Alliance Certified farms. Our commitment is that by 2015 all Lipton tea bags globally will be fully Rainforest Alliance certified. Why does it take so long? Because Lipton buys and sells a lot of tea. We source tea from about half a million farms, including more than 400.000 smallholder farms.

Certification takes time. All these farms need to be visited, audited, and in many cases improvements and changes need to be made before they can be certified. Unilever buys about 300.000 tonnes of tea globally- for comparison, the amount of fairtrade certified tea traded globally is about 11.000 tonnes. Lipton and Unilever simply have to take a step-by-step approach. Right now 50% of the tea in Lipton Quality Black is RA certified, and we have a clear plan to get to full certification. In Western Europe, Lipton Yellow label and Unilever’s UK brand PG Tips started with 50% Rainforest Alliance tea in 2008- by 2010 they will both be fully certified.

(continued)

As far as Rainforest Alliance being a ‘Fairtrade lite’- Unilever works with a number of certification schemes, including Fairtrade, Marine Stewardship Council, Round table for Sustainable Palmoil, and Rainforest Alliance. In my view, both Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade are credible and sound schemes working towards a sustainable future.

But different problems require different solutions. Fairtrade and Rainforest Alliance have different objectives. Both schemes have their strengths and weaknesses. They’re complimentary, and both further sustainable development, but in different ways. To say one is better than the other is like saying apples are better than oranges.

For tea, Lipton decided the Rainforest Alliance’s approach was the most appropriate one to address the issues we face in the tea industry, and to stimulate change and sustainability on a large scale. That decision was driven by numerous factors, and not, as you suggest, simply ‘because Rainforest Alliance is cheaper’.

To be specific, because the Rainforest Alliance’s approach is focused on how farms are managed, it was a good fit with the experience that we have gained over the past 10 years with our own sustainable agriculture programme. Fairtrade was founded as an alternative marketing system designed to give disadvantaged, small-scale farmers a guaranteed price for their products. Rainforest Alliance engages with all the types of farms we source from - from small cooperatives and family farms to large estates owned by large corporations – as a means of promoting change at many levels and of ensuring that all agricultural workers are well-treated.

Unfortunately some people see certification schemes as a zero-sum game- if Rainforest Alliance wins then Fairtrade loses. This is doing a disservice to both schemes. The reality is that we shouldn’t focus on the difference between Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade. We should focus on the difference between certified and non-certified goods. Both RA and FT are members of ISEAL, http://www.isealalliance.org/ the de facto gold standard for certification schemes. They are both credible and sound schemes working towards a sustainable future.

(continued)

I would also like to address your comments about workers’ rights at Unilever factories in Pakistan.

In March 2009 the IUF lodged a complaint with the OECD alleging that Unilever's employment practices at the factory in Khanewal undermine the rights of workers to fair or decent pay as well as freedom of association.

A similar case had been filed earlier by the IUF about another Unilever factory at Rahim Yar Khan.

It's fair to say that local market practices have evolved to the point where the ratio of permanent to outsourced workers is commonly skewed in favour of outsourced workers.

Unilever acknowledges that this is an issue for workers and their union representatives and recognises the need to address it. Unilever has offered to increase the numbers on permanent contracts and will do so using fair and transparent selection criteria.

Unilever Pakistan has been in dialogue with IUF representatives locally and at international level to seek resolution to both cases.

In June 2009 Unilever Pakistan reached agreement with the IUF about Rahim Yar Khan as part of the conciliation process of the OECD UK National Contact Point . Through this agreement Unilever has established an additional 120 permanent posts at Rahim Yar Khan.

Unilever Pakistan is now committed to seeking a positive outcome through the OECD process for the Khanewal factory as well and discussions with IUF representatives are ongoing.

Sorry for the long (triple) post but I wanted to do your post justice by providing you with a detailed response.

Kind regards,

Michiel Leijnse
Global Brand Manager Lipton