As a mother of two, I now know that all my years of schooling did not prepare me nearly as well for working life as being a mother. As all mothers know, mothers are the ultimate project managers and multi-taskers, juggling many tasks at once, carrying out strategies but always being nimble to change course on a dime in the face of a temper tantrum, dirty diaper, or sick child. But for mothers in the developing world there are even bigger and more dire challenges, like where the next meal will come from, how to get medicine for a sick child, or finding potable drinking water. And yet, mothers in the developing world learn to cope with these challenges daily. That’s why so many are now realizing that investing in women is the key to feeding the planet and to economic growth.

According to a recent Gates Foundation report, “When women don’t control resources and income, their households may suffer from malnutrition. Men are less likely than women to reinvest their income in the health of the family.”  In a report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, women are deemed to be the key to food security indicating that “if women had equal access to agricultural resources and services, food security would be greatly improved and societies would grow richer, and not only in economic terms.”

But it isn’t just NGO’s and UN bodies claiming a good return on investment when providing resources and opportunities to women, Goldman Sachs, the large investment firm also conducted research with the World Bank and concluded that “investments in women—particularly in education and labor force participation—lead to read GDP growth, as women take their earnings and invest them back in their families and communities.” And just last week the billionaire and investment guru, Warren Buffett also expressed his bullish take on women in an essay published in Fortune magazine where he declares his optimism for America’s future lies with American women, untapped resource!

So to all those mothers and multi-taskers, here is a list of 10 (thought there are undoubtedly more) tasks that women in the developing world take on each day:

1. Child rearing

This mother and child fled their villages and had just arrived at the El Salaam camp in North Darfur. Photo: Eva-Lotta Jansson / Oxfam America

2. Cooking

Cooking “arroz chaufa” (stir fried rice) in the communal pot, village of San Jacinto, Peru. Photo: Evan Abramson /Oxfam America

3. Growing commodity crops for sale

Etchi Avla on her cocoa farm in Botende, Ivory Coast. Photo: Peter DiCampo / Oxfam America

4. Selling at the market 

Since she received an Oxfam cash grant, this market vendor in Darfur is able to support her children, brothers and sisters. Photo: Elizabeth Stevens/Oxfam America

5. Fetching water

Jainaba Bojang carries a tub of water home from a bore hole and water pump in the village of Oupat, Gambia. Photo: Rebecca Blackwell:Oxfam America

6. Chopping and gathering firewood

Howa Abdullha comes back to Kebkabiye, North Darfur, carrying firewood she has gathered outside town. Photo: Eva-Lotta Jansson / Oxfam America

7. Laundry

Hencia Josena does laundry at work in a Haitian hospital. Photo: Liz Lucas/Oxfam America

8. Maintaining the house

Members of Ratnaweera family stand outside their new house in Sri Lanka.  Photo: Atul Loke/Panos for Oxfam America

9. Growing crops for food

This Cambodian farmer used system of rice intensification (SRI) practices to cultivate rice. Photo: Patrick Brown/ Oxfam America

10. Caring for elders

These three elders at the Internally Displaced Persons Magunga Camp noted that they had family looking after them. Photo: Liz Lucas/ Oxfam America

Barry Shelley is Oxfam America’s global agriculture and climate change advisor. 

A recent story by Dan Charles on mysteries related to the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) highlights some critical issues in current SRI debates. First, intensified labor demands can be an obstacle to initial SRI adoption in some locales. Second, since development work must be contextual, we must be cautious in broadly applying research findings from one context. Third, the analysis of agriculture innovation must extend beyond agronomic techniques and productivity measures to impacts on households and communities and the incentives or disincentives they generate.  Unfortunately, on this last point, Charles’ story did not discuss the fact that monetary incentives are not the sole reason why farmers adopt SRI. Non-monetary benefits also play a role.

Vietnamese farmer Hoang Thi Lien, 53 at her SRI (system of rice intensification) farm in Ha Tay province, Vietnam. Chau Doan/Oxfam America

After an impressive record of SRI adoption in Vietnam, Oxfam’s initiatives to support SRI in Haiti’s Artibonite Valley encountered varying challenges. One obstacle to adoption in Haiti has been the increased labor demands, similar to what the study by Takahashi and Barrett found in Indonesia.  In contrast, labor intensification did not pose a significant constraint in Vietnam, in part because it is minimized after farmers have become more efficient in SRI techniques. So, yes, increased labor demands can be a significant factor in SRI adoption and impact.  But how labor “acts” in these dynamics varies between locales. It will depend on many factors, including average parcel size, rural labor supply, alternative labor opportunities, and the point of comparison—i.e. the labor demands of the traditional growing practices under local conditions.  Every experience of SRI is not the same.

However, Takahashi and Barrett’s research (pdf) is very important, welcomed, and highly relevant.  They are correct that there has been little solid evidence on how SRI adoption affects household income and household welfare more broadly. In an effort to address this gap, Oxfam recently initiated a rigorous SRI impact evaluation study in Haiti in collaboration with researchers Michael Carter and Travis Lybbert of the University of California at Davis. They were selected, in part, because they had not been immersed previously in the SRI debate and could offer a measure of independence.

In the village of Quatorzieme, Oxfam is helping a small group of women experiment with innovative practices of growing rice known as System of Rice Intensification or SRI. Brett Eloff/Oxfam America

Unfortunately, Charles’ article leads toward a more simplistic conclusion than is warranted.  The story focuses on reported dis-adoption rates and on Takahashi and Barrett’s demonstration that SRI adoption does not lead to any significant increase in household income in their study area. However, in their research these authors go on to ask:  “If there is no observable economic gain, why have farmers shifted from the conventional rice cultivation practices to SRI in the first place and only 18 percent of those who had experimented with SRI had disadopted [sic] by the time of our survey?”  (page 32)  They suggest that additional incentives for SRI adoption include preferring on-farm over off-farm work, not needing to travel for employment, being closer to home for child care, cultural values of keeping women closer to home, and/or more leisure time. In other words, there must be net household welfare gains—gains significant enough to persuade farmers to adopt SRI for the long-term—even if there is no income increase. But their data does not allow further analysis of those non-monetary benefits. The picture is more complex and promising than the story implies.

Strong evidence supports claims that SRI offers multiple monetary and non-monetary benefits both to adopting farmers and to society at large: increased yields and land productivity that offer smallholder farmers the possible welfare gains suggested above, that stabilize rural communities and that provide increased food production; decreased green-house gas emissions; water savings; and decreased chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. So, while we do need to understand SRI adoption incentives and household impacts, we also hear an additional set of questions: How can we better mobilize knowledge and resources to create the conditions required for increased adoption of SRI and other agro-ecological methods? Why is there not more private and public investment in SRI? What policies and strategies do we need to advocate for SRI? How do we recognize the social benefits of SRI and generate incentives accordingly? How do we help farmers get past the initial increase in labor demands, instead of letting that be a game stopper?

SRI is too promising to leave its future to the whims of an ideological and narrow debate. Years ago my mentor Thomas McCollough, a social ethicist, taught me the importance of asking the right questions.  Let’s ask those right questions—all of them.

“Exports via food aid are a small drop in the market…Our concern is less about decreasing an important revenue stream for U.S. agriculture. It’s more about the loss of a sense of pride.” ~Veronica Nigh, an economist with the American Farm Bureau Federation in 5/1 Reuters article

A vegetable seller measures bitter eggplants grown in Touba Ngembe for a customer in the village market of Ndiaganiao, Senegal. Photo: Rebecca Blackwell / Oxfam America

Dear Ms. Nigh and the American Farm Bureau,

We’re glad you’re proud of supplying the US food aid program. But there are millions of people around the world facing hunger and crisis who might appreciate it if you’d step aside and let Congress and our leaders improve the program.

The program is vital to address hunger around the world, but is desperately in need of reform. It’s inefficient, slow, wastes money, and as a result, doesn’t help nearly as many people as it could.

Maybe you could be gratified by doing the right thing, that is, making sure that food aid supports small farmers and local economies and is delivered more efficiently and effectively.

Doing so might actually help feed an additional 4 million people worldwide, which is truly something of which Americans could be proud.

Sincerely, Oxfam America

The President is moving towards putting more aid resources directly into the hands of local citizens around the world in his 2014 budget, particularly with regards to food aid reform.

Why does this matter? Changes to foreign assistance could mean more for farmers like Emiliana Aligaesha.

Photo: Brett Eloff / Oxfam America

Emiliana Aligaesha (pictured) formed a successful private company selling coffee and beans with her fellow community members in the Karagwe District of northwest Tanzania in 2007. They have become so successful that the World Food Programme is now a customer of the group, which is known as Kaderes Peasants Development Ltd. USAID, through the Karagwe Development and Relief Services, has been helping to guarantee better prices for Aligaesha and her fellow farmers.

Since 2008, Kaderes Peasant Development Ltd. (KPD) has sold 1600 tons of beans to the World Food Programme, ensuring that farmers benefit from more competitive prices. As part of their success, in 2012 the World Food Programme upgraded KPD’s status from a small supplier to a large supplier of food in the region.

Partnerships with local farmers offered through companies like Kaderes Peasants Development Ltd. saves the money and time it might take to bring the same food aid from the US or Europe, and, more importantly, ensures a market for hardworking and innovative farmers like Aligaesha. These purchases also have a multiplier effect as KPD uses profits to support other farmers with training, access to farming implements, and information on markets.

Despite these common-sense reforms to US food aid and US foreign assistance broadly, they have come under fire from vested interests in Washington and globally. The food aid reform fight is the latest in a series of reforms, led by the administration, to make foreign assistance much more effective.  The US government is identifying local partners where US foreign assistance can be used effectively, allowing the US to look in places they haven’t looked before. This is not just good policy; it’s the right thing to do with people like Aligaesha, whose company is exactly the type of supplier that the US government can support through steps towards local and regional procurement of food aid.

Emiliana Aligaesha and her fellow farmers in Karagwe, Tanzania formed a successful private company selling coffee and beans. The World Food Programme has been a customer and USAID has been helping to guarantee better prices. Photo: MaishaPlus2012 / Oxfam

Emiliana Aligaesha taught herself to farm when she became a widow and her teacher’s salary did not make ends meet. When Aligaesha found herself facing a lack of reliable markets, changing weather patterns, and a shortage of farming equipment, she joined forces with fellow farmers in her community to make sure they got the best prices for their produce. For example, in 2012 Kaderes Peasants Development Ltd. bought coffee from local farmers at 1500 Tanzanian Shillings per one kilogram (equivalent to 1 USD), while other buyers paid 900 Tanzanian Shillings.

As well as leading Kaderes Peasants Development Ltd. and growing coffee, bananas, beans and maize herself, Aligaesha owns six cows, operates her own irrigation systems, and also supplies quality seedlings to other villagers. Even though she has had little formal agricultural training, Aligaesha has become a kind of researcher in the village, testing out new agricultural techniques for others to follow, and encouraging women to be more involved in agriculture and business.

At Oxfam, we’re excited that the US government is finally recognizing that supporting people like Aligaesha and her fellow farmers at Kaderes Peasants Development Ltd. can be a sound investment of our food aid dollars.

As a former teacher, most important to Aligaesha is that her eight children have all been put through university as a result of her hard work.

“Si a la vida, no a la mina” (Yes to life, no to the mine) is a rallying cry heard across many parts of rural Latin America these days. Mining, as well as oil and gas extraction, has exploded across the region in the last decade, driven by high prices for gold and industrial metals like copper that are needed primarily to feed the Chinese economy. This boom has also been experienced in Africa and Asia, where governments have sought to exploit their resource endowments to drive development. Fragile states like Sudan, Burma and Afghanistan have also begun to develop their mining sectors. The expanding mining sector has contributed to strong economic growth in some countries but has also generated social conflicts in rural areas that must be urgently addressed.

Area near Tintaya Copper Mine (Espinar), Cusco, Peru. Photo: Chris Hufstader / Oxfam America

The heart of the issue is that mining activity has come into direct competition with another predominant means of economic development in rural areas: small-scale agriculture. Tensions over control of land and, most importantly, water have led to community protests and violent conflict. Reconciling these two important development drivers has become a critical governance issue, particularly in the most fragile states where the conflicts between the two can often be seen most starkly.

In theory, both mining and agriculture can provide pathways out of poverty. The World Bank and development-focused academic researchers have emphasized the critical role of agriculture in promoting rural development. (Three-quarters of the world’s poor live in rural areas.) Agriculture provides direct benefits to those who engage in it. Farmers receive payments for crops they produce, which they can then use to invest in future production and to pay for their families’ basic needs. Mining can also play a role in promoting development, although more indirectly, by generating revenues for governments. Governments can use taxes and royalties paid by mining companies for infrastructure investments and other productive purposes. Mining companies also pay for community development programs, build schools and roads, and make other investments.

Unfortunately, the compatibility of these two development paths, which tend to take place in the same rural areas, is at best questionable. Mining generates significant “externalities,” e.g. water pollution, that can have a direct impact on agricultural production. These negative impacts can be permanent and render previously fertile agricultural land unusable. Mining also requires large amounts of land that could otherwise be used for agricultural production. This sets up a direct competition with small-scale agriculture for control and use of land. In some countries such as Ghana, farmers displaced by mining projects turn to small-scale mining as a replacement livelihood. This can perpetuate a cycle of poverty and conflict in which these farmers-turned-miners are forcibly evicted and beaten by police for coming onto land claimed by large-scale mining projects.

Mining companies argue that mining and agriculture are not necessarily incompatible. But there are few examples of where this has been the case, particularly in developing countries, where oversight of the mining industry is often very weak. Finding ways to reconcile these two economic activities is urgently needed to reduce conflicts and ensure that mining’s benefits contribute to long-term sustainable development in rural economies.

Communities relocated to make way for gold mines in Ghana struggle with loss of agricultural land, unemployment, and environmental damage. Photo: Neil Brander / Oxfam America

Governments and companies should take specific steps now to address this situation. First, the environmental impact assessment process for mining projects needs to be significantly strengthened and made more independent. At present, governments rely on information provided by companies, which is most often not reviewed by an independent third-party. Companies thus have an incentive to downplay potential impacts of their operations on land and water in agricultural areas. In countries such as Peru, local agricultural communities’ lack of confidence in these environmental reviews contributes to anxieties about the impacts of mining, which in turn contributes to conflict. Additionally, mining is increasingly done in “clusters,” meaning several mines operate in the same geographic area in order to take advantage of shared infrastructure and processing facilities. The cumulative impacts on land and water of several mines operating in the same area have not been thoroughly examined. The use of what are known as “strategic” environmental impact assessments, which take into account these cumulative impacts, would be an important step to increasing communities’ confidence.

Improved planning on how land will be used is another crucial step that governments should take. Mining concessions are often awarded without consideration for impacts on agricultural production. Later this year Oxfam America will publish research that shows graphically how mining and oil concessions have expanded dramatically in recent years in agriculturally productive areas of Peru and Ghana. Zoning land for particular uses, e.g. mining or agriculture, would help reduce conflict by establishing clear rules for how land will be used. Greater dialogue between the mining and agricultural sectors would be helpful. In Peru recently, the mining and agriculture ministries have signed a cooperation agreement. This is potentially a positive, although overdue, step.

Reconciling mining with agriculture in developing countries, particularly in the most fragile states, won’t be easy. It may ultimately require the admission that the two simply are incompatible over the long-term in particular areas. What is clear is that these discussions are urgently needed now so that conflict and violence produced by the juxtaposition of these two sectors diminishes and that countries can benefit from both their above-and below-the-ground resources.

This post originally appeared on the blog of the US Institute of Peace’s International Network for Economics and Conflict.

We’re still looking over the details, but the first look at President Obama’s proposal to overhaul the international food aid program looks very good. Oxfam has been working this issue for more than a decade and we observe that the changes would:

(1) Cut funding of the primary food aid program (PL 480), which in FY13 was funded at $1.36 billion.

(2) Shift $1.1 billion to a different disaster response budget account under USAID for emergency food assistance. This would allow using more flexible food assistance tools like local purchase of food, or using vouchers instead of food distribution;

(3) Shift $250 million to a development budget account at USAID to support longer-term food assistance programs with food aid resources. This is an addition to the $80 million in funding within this account that is already available for this purposes, bringing total DA funding for non-emergency food aid to $330m;

(4) Create a new highly flexible $75 million emergency contingency fund; and

(5) Shift $25 million to the US Maritime Administration to ensure that US military readiness of the US shipping industry is maintained, since less food aid is likely to get shipped overseas.

A child in Dire Dawa, Ethiopia stands near a wall made of USAID food aid containers in the flood-destroyed area of Bahere Tsege in 2006. Photo: Liz Lucas/Oxfam America

The proposal would end the practice of “monetization” which provides cash to NGOs doing food security programs in developing countries but is highly inefficient and wastes a lot of money.  The proposal would require that 55% of the emergency food aid be procured from the US.  We hope that there is a continuing effort going forward to reduce the requirement that US food aid is tied to domestic sourcing. We recognize that US commodities still have a role to play in addressing hunger, but USAID should not have its hands tied in making the decision about how best to reach those in need.

Already today, two Republican Senators have expressed openness to looking at the proposal and making reforms.  Looks like this could have legs!

USAID Administrator Raj Shah will make a speech on the proposal later today.

A sample of beans from numerous sacks of cocoa to make sure they are the appropriate size and volume at the Cooperative Entente de Le Bia in Sankro, Ivory Coast in January. Photo: Peter DiCampo / Oxfam America

There is some good news in the Behind the Brands Scorecard. Some of the highest scores were in the area of workers’ rights.  However, the bad news is that those scores still aren’t in the green zone of “good.” Frankly, there is no real reason why this should be the case.  After all, unlike some of the other themes in the Scorecard, worker’s issues have been with these companies for a very long time.  Recall Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, which shown a spotlight on the plight of meatpacking workers in the early 1900’s.  And yet, companies are not doing as well as they should be.

From a methodological standpoint, the indicators for workers’ rights were much easier to develop than some of the other themes in Behind the Brands, since the indicators are based on International Labour Organization Conventions and basic norms of human rights, which have been accepted for quite some time.

While companies with the highest score of 6 (Coca-Cola, Nestle, and Unilever) might be doing better for their own employees, they have not extended many of these standards throughout their supply chain.  That is critical, because labor is often the most valuable asset that small producers and landless people possess.

Agricultural workers are amongst the poorest people in rural areas. Their jobs are often temporary, wages are low, and working conditions can be very hazardous.  More women than men are engaged in waged agricultural jobs, but despite their numbers, they are generally “invisible” to companies, governments, and international institutions. Their organizations can be weak and their access to social security and other benefits is minimal.

With 75% of the world’s poorest living in rural areas, food and beverage companies can have a tremendous impact on raising the standard of living for workers throughout their supply chain. They can do this by ensuring that living wages are paid and precarious work is minimized. Most importantly, by respecting worker representation, collective bargaining, and accessible and confidential grievance mechanisms, food and beverage companies will ensure that everyone contributing to their bottom line has a voice in their livelihoods and thus their future.

***

This post on workers’ rights is the last of a Behind the Brands blog series on Politics of Poverty that examines the seven issues relating to poverty and big food companies’ supply chains. Read previous posts on land, women, farmers, transparency, water, and climate change!

David Waskow is Oxfam America’s climate change program director.

When I read headlines like this one last week, “Vietnam Coffee Harvest May Drop 30% on Drought,” I’m left with the feeling that the tablecloth is being pulled out from under the dishes on the table.

Dry, cracked earth seen at Dire Dime, Ethiopia. Photo: Eva-Lotta Jansson/Oxfam America

And it’s climate change that is doing the pulling.

Food production is already being pummeled globally by increasingly-severe climate events and other climate impacts, with more on the way. Small-scale farmers in developing countries are bearing the brunt of the damage – all too often, the crops they depend on for their lives and livelihoods are directly in harm’s way.

So when Oxfam began work on our new Behind the Brands initiative and a Scorecard assessing the policies of the ten largest food and beverage companies on a range of issues that are vital for small-scale farmers, climate change was right in the mix.

We examined company policies on climate change in two ways, looking at how they’re dealing with both the causes and the consequences of global warming.  First, we wanted to know whether these major companies are working to address climate change risks in their supply chains and if they are working to support the resilience of small-scale farmers in the face of impacts such as water scarcity and storms.  Second, we wanted to know whether the companies are working to cut emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change, especially from agricultural sources.   (Much of our scoring is based on company reporting based on the CDP (formerly Carbon Disclosure Project) reporting format.)

What we discovered surprised us.  Just because a company did well in one area – building climate resilience or reducing emissions –didn’t mean it did well in the other.  Unilever, which scored 74% on the scorecard elements about emissions, scored only 30% in terms of its policies about climate risks and building the resilience of small-scale farmers.  The company needs to bring its focus on resilience up to its focus on emissions, which itself can still improve.  Unilever’s failure to address  resilience represents the overall dismal state of affairs when it comes to the ten companies’ engagement on climate risks and the impacts that small-scale farmers face. The average company score on this was 25%.

One company, Nestle, did quite well with its policies on climate resilience.  Nestle scored 83% on the resilience elements of the scorecard, largely because the company’s CDP reports and other policies highlight the importance of addressing climate impacts such as water shortages and volatile weather patterns.  Sadly, however, the company didn’t do so well when it comes to emissions.  Nestle has only average policies on emissions, with a score of 44%, and a below-average score at 23% for its policies specifically on agricultural sources of emissions.

But, frankly, what surprised and disappointed us the most was that some companies had weak policies on climate change across the board.  Associated British Foods, General Mills, and Kellogg’s each scored 3%, 9%, and 12%, respectively, on climate resilience.  And the same three companies scored 15%, 0%, and 8%, respectively, when it comes to those companies’ policies on emissions from agricultural sources.  These companies are the real laggards on addressing the causes and consequences of climate change in their supply chains.

They need to realize that the table cloth is being swiftly pulled out from under them and that our food and drinks—and the lives of the poorest around the world—will surely come crashing down as a result.

***

This post by David Waskow is part of a Behind the Brands blog series on Politics of Poverty that examines the seven issues relating to poverty and big food companies’ supply chains. Read other posts on land, women, farmers, transparency, water, and workers!

Suzanne Zweben is a Senior Advisor in the Private Sector Department of Oxfam America. 

Lake Izabal in Guatemala is an area of great biodiversity and natural resource wealth. Photo: Edgar Orellana / Oxfam America

Companies included in the Behind the Brands scorecard have for the most part made progress on managing water resources.  Largely they recognize that access to water will be one of the greatest challenges of our time.  It’s projected that by 2025, just 12 years away, that 1.8 billion people will be living in countries or regions with absolute water scarcity.  Two-thirds of the world’s population is expected to have limited access to clean water.

This is one sustainability issue food and beverage companies grasp as core to their business; it will impact their ability to make products and touch the lives of their employees, consumers and the communities where they operate and from which they source.  Approximately 70 percent of the world’s freshwater is used for irrigation compared to 22 percent for other industrial use and only 8 percent for domestic use.  In developing countries, 70 percent of industrial wastes are dumped untreated into waters where they pollute the usable water supply, with the food sector estimated as responsible for 54 percent of organic water pollutants.

Oxfam’s Scorecard assessed three main aspects related to water:

(1) Human Right to Water: Has the company recognized the human right to water as defined by the UN?  Has the company committed to consult communities on plans to develop water resources, i.e. before a project has started?  Have grievance mechanisms been established in cases where water rights have been violated?  (A recent report by The Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, On the Right Track, addresses good practices in implementing the human right to water.  See Chapter 3 especially.)

(2) Transparency: Does the company disclose information on water withdrawals, discharges (i.e. the quality of water released into lakes and rivers), water-stressed regions where the company has operations, regions where the company operates that are at risk for water stress, and raw materials that come from regions subject to water-related risk?  (Seven of the ten companies companies assessed through the Behind the Brands scorecard disclose information through the Water Program of the Carbon Disclosure Project.)

(3) Supply Chain Management:  Does the company require its suppliers to report on their water use, risks and management?  Are requirements on water rights and use specified in a company’s supplier code?  Has the company set a specific target to reduce its water use along its whole value chain?

Food and beverage companies have played a central role in the CEO Water Mandate, which was launched by the UN Secretary-General to assist companies in the development, implementation, and disclosure of water sustainability policies and practices.  Yet no one company has taken significant steps on both the human right to water and supply chain management.  PepsiCo and The Coca-Cola Company have developed policies that take into account the effect of their activities on local communities’ access to water.  Nestle and Unilever have supplier codes or guidelines with specific requirements on water management.

Yet there is still a long way to go.  Because some progress has been made, many companies consider themselves leaders in the realm of sustainable water management, even if they are only addressing one or two of the three aspects of this challenge. But I’m waiting to see who the real leader is going to be—this company will leverage their influence across their supply chain to take on all three of the key fundamental issues of the human right to water, transparency, AND supply chain management.

***

This post by Suzanne Zweben is part of a Behind the Brands blog series on Politics of Poverty that examines the seven issues relating to poverty and big food companies’ supply chains. Read more on land, women, farmers, transparency, workers, and climate change!

Frank Mechielsen is the Private Sector Lobbyist at Oxfam Novib.

Do the Top 10 companies featured in the Behind the Brands Scorecard have transparent policies? Do they share their practices with the public?

It is not easy to look beyond the tip of food system’s iceberg, to see how the farmers and workers produce our favourite brands. Who has produced the NESCAFÉ which I drink? Where do the coffee workers live who harvested the coffee beans? Which trader sold them to Nestlé? To whom did the cocoa farmers produce and sell their cocoa beans? What price did they get?

But Oxfam found in the Behind the Brands scorecard process that some companies are more transparent about their sourcing than others.

I was positively surprised that Mars, a private company, is relatively open about its sourcing volumes and buying agents. As a family corporation, Mars does not have shareholders peeking over its shoulders. Only Unilever is more open about the volumes of tea, palm oil, tomatoes, and other commodities it buys. And Nestlé is more transparent about the sourcing countries.

I was also impressed by Danone, which gets its highest thematic score of 6 on transparency. It is number two of the Big 10. The policies of Danone related to women, farmers, and land are weak, but at least the company is becoming more transparent about their sourcing because of their recently published forest footprint policy.

On the other end, it gets murky. We find General Mills with a score of 2 and Associated British Foods with a score of 3 on transparency. General Mills provides information about the volumes of palm oil only and disclosure about buying agents is limited to one cane sugar supplier. Associated British Foods does inform the public about the volumes of palm oil and sugar it buys, but no further information about the sourcing volumes of other commodities.

Oxfam also looked for evidence of food companies’ transparency in their lobbying activities. The European Transparency Register is a voluntary initiative for companies to provide some information about their political activities.  Neither General Mills nor Associated British Food report in Europe on their lobby activities and, according to the Global Reporting Initiative, are less transparent about their corporate reporting than most of the Big 10.

It’s what can’t be seen under the water that is dangerous. Food companies, more clarity required.

***

This post by Frank Mechielsen is part of a Behind the Brands blog series on Politics of Poverty that examines the seven issues relating to poverty and big food companies’ supply chains. Read more on land, women, farmers, water, workers, and climate change!