CRF Home > 14 Red Flags > ​​Audits > Red Flag 9

9. Certification Granted Despite Insufficient Sample Size

  • What this means 
  • Why investors should care
  • What to look for 
<
>
Most certification schemes audit conditions at only a small percentage of worksites, focus only on Tier 1 suppliers, or exclude upstream businesses, such as commodity growers.[1] A study conducted by researchers at The University of Sheffield, documenting widespread human rights abuses in the cocoa industry, reported that ethical certification schemes either rely on farmers self-reporting to cooperatives that they meet the certification standards, or audit only a small sample—sometimes as little as 5%—of the farms within a cooperative.[2] In other instances, whole segments of the supply chain may be left out. In the garment industry, for example, a factory may be audited but the cotton growers and textile workers may fall outside of the certification scheme. As a result, a company may claim participation in a certification scheme, or its products may bear a certification label, despite a large portion of its operations not being audited.
 
Yet sampling is necessary, particularly in an agricultural smallholder context, where it is impractical to audit all workers at all worksites. Thus, a representative sample must suffice. The question of correct sample size is not an easy one. Particularly given that vulnerable workers or community members are often reluctant to speak up, a larger sample size logically improves the chances that an auditor will find some people who are willing to speak. According to Nick Weatheril, Executive Director of the International Cocoa Initiative, commenting on the usual coverage of audits for child labor of cocoa farms to take place once per year on select farms:
If you’re trying to use that light and occasional coverage to check for the occurrence of something that happens from one day to the next… you’re not really going to be picking up on the issue.[3]
​If an auditor is knowledgeable about the issues facing a worksite and can identify difficult problems (see Red Flag 7 in Audits), it is appropriate to over-sample. In any case, it is critical that the scheme lays out a methodology for how it will sample different types of problems.
[1] Genevieve LeBaron et al., Forced Labour Evidence Brief: Social Auditing and Ethical Certification, (Re:Structure Lab, July 2022), 13, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6055c0601c885456ba8c962a/t/62d746146f5dc5205a17621c/1658275349325/ReStructureLab_SocialAuditingandEthicalCertification_July2022.pdf.
[2] Genevieve LeBaron, The Global Business of Forced Labor: Report of Findings, (University of Sheffield, 2018), 44-45, 
https://respect.international/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/The-Global-Business-of-Forced-Labour-Report-of-Findings-University-of-Sheffield-2018.pdf.
[3] Cited in Oliver Nieburg, “Fair Game: How Effective is Cocoa Certification,” Confectionary News, December 20, 2017,  https://www.confectionerynews.com/Article/2017/12/20/Fair-trade-How-effective-is-cocoa-certification.
When certifications allow for only a small portion of a company’s operations to be audited at infrequent intervals, they can leave gaps in due diligence. As a result, risks such as child labor may remain hidden and when discovered by reporters or NGOs could subject the brand using on-product labels to allegations of deceptive marketing.
 
This gap can give rise to legal liability. A lawsuit filed by Corporate Accountability Lab (CAL) in 2021 against the Hershey Company and Rainforest Alliance for deceptive marketing alleges that Rainforest Alliance only requires third-party inspections on “about 10 percent of the cocoa farms that companies such as Hershey source from,” asserting that this is one of the reasons the Rainforest Alliance’s certification system is “inherently inadequate.”[1] The year before the lawsuit, Rainforest Alliance introduced risk maps and began to require certified farms in medium- to high-risk areas to conduct in-depth risk assessments and collaborate with stakeholders (see “What to Look for”).
 
→ Demonstrates: Reputational risk, legal risk
[1] Corporate Accountability Lab v. The Hershey Company: Complaint Demand for Jury Trial, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, (2021), 14-15, 
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5810dda3e3df28ce37b58357/t/618167d28dd7f307c90da0e4/1635870679248/CAL+v.+Hersheys+and+RA_Stamped+Complaint.pdf.
Since it is typically impractical to audit all worksites in a complex supply chain, schemes should take a human rights risk-based approach and provide guidance to companies on how to sample multisite entities. In addition, investors can ask companies and schemes what they are doing to improve their sample as well as coverage of the certification. For example,
  • Does the scheme require member companies to audit all of their direct suppliers and most salient supply chain risks? (See Red Flag 1 in Alignment with International Standards.)
  • Does the scheme provide a way for companies to determine the percentage of their direct sourcing that the certification represents, and does it require the company to publicly disclose this information?
  • Does the scheme provide clear guidance on the sampling methodology, such as the percentage and categories of affected stakeholders that are interviewed at each site and a guarantee that all ethnic groups be covered? (See Red Flag 4 in Scope.)
  • Does the scheme require companies to provide a rationale for the sampling methodology?
  • Considering the rapid advances in social tracing technology, does the scheme use or encourage companies to use tracing technology?[1]
  • Does the scheme require member companies to procure an increasingly larger percentage from the certified entity over time?
 
The following certification schemes provide a clearly stated sampling methodology that companies should follow:
➔    The Aluminum Stewardship Initiative (ASI) takes a risk-based approach to assurance. Its Assurance Manual states:
[I]deally all Facilities in a Certification Scope should be visited and this should be the aim over a reasonable time period. However, where an Entity’s activities within the Certification Scope are carried out in a similar manner at different Facilities, and that all are managed and controlled by the Entity’s systems and procedures, a representative sample of sites can be selected.[2]
ASI only allows for representative samples when all sites conduct similar activities, use comparable equipment, or are managed under the same head office.

➔    The Rainforest Alliance 2020 Sustainable Agriculture Certification Program requires that for an ingredient to be certified, all actors along the supply chain must meet the certification requirements, which are published online. Audit sampling is risk-based, meaning that “risk analyses are carried out at the farm and supply chain level and data is submitted via the Rainforest Alliance Certification Platform at several different stages of the certification process. This data is used to identify the relevant requirements for each farmer or company.”[3]

➔    Fairtrade International has a Trader Standard that applies to the entire supply chain. Specifically, the standard specifies that it
applies to all who trade (buy, sell or process) Fairtrade certified products, up to the point where the product is in its final packaging. In other words this means that within this scope all operators who take legal ownership of Fairtrade certified products must be audited and certified against these standards.[4]
​Additionally, the standard requires all traders be audited to ensure compliance with the standard, applicable environmental and labor law, and the ILO Core Convention.[5]
[1] See for example, “STREAMS,” Verité, accessed July 9, 2024, https://verite.org/streams/.
[2] Aluminium Stewardship Initiative, ASI Assurance Manual version 2, (May 2022), https://aluminium-stewardship.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/ASI-Assurance-Manual-V2-May2022-3.pdf.
[3] Rainforest Alliance, What's in our 2020 Certification Program? Risk-Based Assurance and Contextualization, (June 2020), 
​https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/whats-in-our-2020-certification-program-risk-based-assurance.pdf.
[4] Fairtrade International, Explanatory Document for the Fairtrade Trader Standard, (August 2015), 4,  https://files.fairtrade.net/standards/2015-09-04_Explan_Doc_GTS_EN.pdf.
[5] Flocert, Trader Certification Compliance Criteria, 66, June 28, 2024. https://www.flocert.net/fairtrade-compliance-criteria/.
This project is a collaboration among the following organizations:
 This site is maintained by Rights CoLab. 
Copyright © 2024