Here are grower/shipper comments from the survey, identified by the individual’s role in the supply chain. To the question: “What role should buyers play in determining what social responsibility programs a supplier might choose?”
It should be a conversation between the buyers and suppliers to find a program that works for both.
Buyers are both a gateway and a bottleneck in this area — the choice of appropriate programs needs to be largely guided by the wisdom of the producer/supplier, the buyer needs to have their own social responsibility goals tied to purchasing incentives, and better systems need to be in place to communicate social responsibility initiatives by supplier to the end user/eater. Too often that knowledge stops at the order desk and never goes further.
Buyers should help suppliers understand their company’s expectations for social responsibility from suppliers, and offer information and resources to help them along in choosing one. There are so many paths a company could go on in regards to social responsibility, and it’s important to find balance between what will drive your business’ future and what is driving the future of retail partners’ business.
It’s helpful for buyers to share with suppliers what programs are most important to their organization and how buyers and suppliers can work together to meet the same objectives.
We’re seeing more and more retailers take an increasingly proactive approach to the sustainability and social responsibility footprint of growers. Many retailers incorporate social responsibility in their audits, which evens the playing field so all growers are following the same practices, and by doing so fulfill their role in guiding the industry as a whole toward a more sustainable future, weighing consumer perceptions and demands against technical and operational realities. This occurs over a longer time frame and typically begins with increased reporting requirements with the ultimate goal of creating a more sustainable produce industry.
Communication on what their retailer or businesses’ goals are and discuss how they could enable mutual progress forward.
Being specific in terms of what they want. For example, if they want to push sustainability, what kind of packaging is acceptable?
Buyers should financially incentivize supplier participation in programs that meet or exceed qualifications and support certification bodies such as EFI that work on a multi-stakeholder approach.
Buyers should seriously consider what, if anything, designing their own program contributes over an existing third-party program. Often, there is significant overlap but, because it is a different program, another audit or disclosure is required.
While we all have a responsibility to listen to the end-consumer and what they feel is important, buyers can see the trends and hear what is most important to consumers at the retail level.
Buyers should work hand in hand with everyone in the supply chain for social responsibility programs to be successful. If buyers set a standard that is unachievable due to cost, etc., then it has failed. Buyers most importantly must work with the shipper and marketer to lay out a base line standard that will help build a program that checks the needed requirements and allows for potential improvement.
It depends: if there is already a trusted relationship, then I think retailers have tremendous power in nudging suppliers towards a particular social responsibility program. If the buyer is starting “fresh,” though, I think it’s best to seek out suppliers who already have some social responsibility credibility through a track record of delivered responsible produce. They have probably thought long and hard about the approach they have taken and built their business on.
Consistency. If a buyer is to require certain social responsibility standards of their supplier, it should be required of every one, without exception.
Utilize social responsibility audit processes to ensure standards are met
