Certification Standard is not explicitly aligned with international human rights and labor standards
Justification
Certification schemes should include standards that are equal to or stronger than international human rights standards. Standards that do not align with international standards can signal a weakness of the certification, as demonstrated by past exposure of the certification body itself to complaints, both judicial and non-judicial.
The MSI Report “Not Fit for Purpose” and SOMO Report “A Piece, Not a Proxy”, identified that many certification schemes have “weak substantive standards they adopt and against which member companies they are judged…While purporting to address human rights, they often do not adopt the same level of protection as that required by relevant international human rights law and standards. This can create an appearance of compliance and respect for human rights when member companies are actually abusing or contributing to abuse of human rights.” (SOMO Report, p. 18) The Not Fit for Purpose Report adds “Another means by which MSIs sometimes create the impression that they are addressing an issue that they are, in actuality, not, is if they set standards for companies or governments that are too weak to ensure the underlying issue is actually being addressed. In other words, a company might be technically complying with an initiative’s standards, but that compliance may be insufficient to address the specific abuse at which the standard is targeted. Thus, harms could persist despite a member being deemed compliant.” (Not Fit for Purpose, p. 100).
Case Examples
Hershey and Rainforest Alliance, re: consumer protection claim for deceptive marketing representations relating to labor rights in cocoa supply chains (CAL v. Hershey and Rainforest Alliance): In a lawsuit brought by Corporate Accountability Lab (CAL) against the Hershey Company and Rainforest Alliance, CAL argued, citing MSI Integrity’s Not Fit-for-Purpose report, that, “…Rainforest Alliance provide(s) their own standards for assessing working conditions and do(es) not ‘explicitly require compliance with international human rights or international labor standards….’”
Claim filed on behalf of the victims of Brumadinho dam collapse before the District Court Munich against German certification company TÜV SÜD (
Class Action v. TÜV SÜD
). The plaintiffs argued that [ADD ID for TÜV SÜD] TÜV SÜD “applied safety verification standards that did not match international standards. They used safety standards that were described as ‘market adjustments’, meaning that, compared to international standards, lower safety standards were applied.”
P
ogust Foodhead: Three years on from Brumadinho dam disaster
”
In 2018, Friends of the Earth Europe commissioned Profundo Research and Advice, to prepare a report on the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) certification schemes (Profundo Report). In its analysis of the protection of customary rights, Profundo relies on a Forests Peoples Programme report, which states that “... ISPO provides the weakest protection for customary rights'' by failing to require the international customary standard of Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), when developing palm oil plantation projects. The Profundo Report adds “Despite Indonesian laws and regulations on human rights, ISPO makes no explicit reference to respecting these rights. Furthermore, the report states that ISPO also does not require open and transparent methods of communication and consultation between affected parties or other interested parties.” (Profundo Report, External Concerns on the RSPO and ISPO Certification Schemes)
In 2014, after an exposé on slavery in the seafood industry that garnered international attention, the Marine Stewardship Council announced its intention to expand its standard to cover forced and child labor, but not other social and employment conditions. The decision by MSC to selectively focus on forced labor and child labor was
criticized by a global coalition of nearly 60 environmental, human rights, and labor organizations
as “unacceptable.” Not Fit for Purpose, 98.
The Kimberley Process offers a general assurance that certified diamonds are “ethical.”However, the initiative focuses on only whether diamond sales were “used by rebel
movements or their allies to finance conflict aimed at undermining legitimate governments” and does not examine if diamonds have been sold to fund conflicts
perpetrated by governments, or if they were produced by forced labor, child labor, or under other human
rights violations. This has led to accusations that the initiative is whitewashing by certifying diamonds on a narrow basis despite the prevalence of child labor and other abuses in the industry. Not Fit for Purpose, 97.
The Global Coffee Platform includes collective bargaining, and eradicating child labor as aspirational standards, but allows collective bargaining agreements to be “partially applied”and for child labor to be “happening” as long as farmers are being encouraged to send children to school and those children are not part of the regular workforce. Not Fit for Purpose, 100.
Few certification MSIs monitor for labor or rights abuses beyond the initial point of production or harvest of a good,
which means abuses may be occurring at other points in a company’s supply chain without being detected. Not Fit for Purpose, 101-102
