Industry gives favorable self-score on social responsibility, but point to barriers

This article is part of The Packer's new content series People First: A Spotlight on Social Responsibility. Presented by The Packer and Equitable Food Initiative (EFI), People First will include several weeks of focused content published and promoted across all The Packer platforms. Headlining the program will be a free four-part webinar series that will feature interviews with leaders in the field and cover topics including social compliance, worker voice, recruitment, and The Ethical Charter for Responsible Labor Practices.

When it comes to giving attention to social responsibility issues, produce industry operators think there is room for improvement. 

At the same time, 40 industry operators who took a survey on social responsibility generally believe their own companies place a high importance on social responsibility.

When asked, “On a scale of 1 to 10 — 10 being most important — how important is social responsibility to your brand or business?” respondents gave answers ranging from 1 to 10. 

The average score for that question, though, was a strong 8.55.

The favorable self-evaluations do not necessarily mean that industry leaders saw no barriers to adopting changes that lead to greater sustainability or social responsibility.

When asked “What are some of the biggest impediments to making any changes toward being more sustainable or socially responsible?” respondents cited cost, allocation of internal resources, leadership, management time and skill needed to execute and making the economic case for action. 

Here are excerpts from respondent answers:

• There are a few: cost; the intense management/professionalism needed to execute; for the program to be sustainable the program itself needs to be balanced in both items offering and time frame.
• Upper management/executive buy-in and understanding the ROI of corporate social responsibility programs.
• Cost is usually borne by the producer only, and not shared along the supply chain; buying criteria and distribution systems are primarily focused on cost and efficiency and are not set up to support the long-term commitment needed for true social responsibility.
• The time commitment to explore new avenues of sustainability and social responsibility. Implementation of any change can have cost associated in it. Changing just one item, such as a bag supplier, can add cost — up and down the supply. 
• One of the biggest impediments towards sustainability is cost and how to account for this. Growers and farmers are often tasked with balancing numerous budgetary requirements that at times can take precedence over other considerations, which might not yet be critical from their perspective. So being able to substantiate an estimated ROI for sustainability programs is key to overcoming this challenge. 
• Limiting the role of a business to maximizing profit versus wellbeing.
• Cost of implementation and clarity on what to do (so many different directions).
• Internally, cost and time taken to implement the changes. Outside factors include a lack of government programs and facilities that allow consumers to be more sustainable and socially responsible in their everyday lives. This includes recycle programs, composting programs, etc.  
• Consumer awareness and adaptation can also be a challenge. Organizations like EFI are not only important at the grower and retail level, but it is also vital in ensuring consumers are made aware of best practices in the industry and push for this standardization across all industries.
• Creating business plans to ensure workers receive fair compensation, ensuring above par working conditions, monitoring sustainability practices.
• The marketer or retailer not embracing it.
• Some states, including California, already have significant regulations in place to protect workers and the environment, leaving employers feeling as though they have done their part. Legal compliance, however, is not the same as having a true sustainability or social responsibility program that looks at how the business can have a positive impact, not just a neutral (non-negative) one. The perspective that employers have “done enough” is a significant impediment to doing more.
• Cost is another significant factor — becoming more socially responsible can have financial costs, but the ROI for the employer is often unclear and/or difficult to translate into a dollar figure.
• The costs of certification, likewise, are covered by suppliers, not buyers, even when the buyers demand specific certifications. Some third-party social responsibility certifications require the crop be sold at a premium but that additional cost is passed through to workers, not the employer, eroding the incentive for suppliers to achieve certification.
• Consumers’ desire for a cheap price. Until food is equated as a health investment ...
• Financial benefit does not trickle down to the grower.
• Dollars and lack of visibility throughout the supply chain — i.e. the need for transparency.
• Busyness. People in the industry are already stretched so thin, and the responsibility often falls on the farmer for implementation. If we don’t put a financial incentive behind it we cannot expect it to ever become a priority.
• Embedding sustainability/social responsibility into everyday business decisions.
• Lack of understanding — there are many solutions and many cost-effective solutions, but it requires work to implement and many haven’t prioritized enacting those solutions so they assume they’re too expensive or too difficult.
• Too much focus on wage rate.
• Courage to do long-term things that might risk your business in the short term.
• Cost/consumer education: Consumers need to be educated on the value of such programs so that prices for produce can be supportive of higher wages for farmworkers, and retailers need to assist in that mission by providing a platform to progressive farms/companies.
• The greatest challenge is changing buying mindsets, both at retail and consumers in store. The key is education and information: our experience is that customers are looking for more sustainable produce and will follow once a program is established.
• Cost, regional variation in programs like recycling, composting.
• The  biggest impediments are economic. When looking at sustainability, options in packaging are generally more expensive and while retailers encourage and want to see more sustainable packaging there is a sense these initiatives should be cost neutral, which is not realistic. For social responsibility, it is a lack of confidence or understanding that the costs to set up and administer a program will be returned through increased productivity, employee retention, and industry leadership.
• Unwillingness to change. Fear of disruption.
• The costs and enforcement agencies with little or no understanding of what it takes to succeed.
• Lack of understanding and visibility as to the social and environmental impacts the company makes.
• The difficulty in passing on additional costs.
• Changing from the way we’re used to doing things, and learning about new technologies/approaches to achieve the same or better result.
•  It’s said 90% of all problems in business are people problems. This make social responsibility as a whole difficult to manage to the right level. It’s a thin line between not enough and too much. So difficult, many may stop short one way or the other.