Fairtrade doesn’t guarantee a living wage.
Rainforest Alliance doesn’t automatically decertify farms for child labour.
Organic certification ignores water use entirely.
You might not be aware of this when you choose your suppliers based on certifications or when you choose your own certification.
You might choose one that solves a problem you didn’t have. And ignore the one you do.
The Certification Paradox
A 2020 review of a decade of research into schemes like Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade concluded they are “not effective tools for holding corporations accountable for abuses, protecting rights holders, or providing access to remedy.”
(MSI Integrity, “Not Fit-for-Purpose,” July 2020)
That is a decade of research confirming certifications are not sufficient on their own.
They certainly set baseline standards, create entry points for supplier conversations, signal intent to customers and investors, and provide some third-party verification. However, they can not guarantee outcomes, reach deep into your supply chain, replace your own due diligence, or protect you when something goes wrong.
So what does this mean for you?
If you’re sourcing certified ingredients, certification is just the beginning. It tells you a supplier signed up to a standard, but it omits whether auditors spoke to workers, whether the audit was announced or surprise, whether issues were found and remediated (or found and ignored), and whether the supplier’s suppliers meet any standard at all.
That gap is yours to fill.
What you’re expected to do is map your actual exposure beyond Tier 1, ask suppliers what the certification doesn’t cover, build decision rules for that, and document your approach so it’s defensible.
A certification is a starting point someone else designed.
Your due diligence system is what you build around it, including decision rules, escalation paths, and documentation that explains why you trusted this supplier.
Pros, Cons and Hidden Costs of Each Certification
Fairtrade
Fair Trade sets minimum prices for commodities, requires a premium paid to farmer cooperatives, and is strongest of the three on worker organising rights.
But… It does not guarantee a living wage. Fairtrade’s own website states: “Fairtrade does not guarantee living wages – we enable concrete steps towards them.”
The wage gap on farms across geographies remains significant. Research shows tea workers in Assam (81% gap), Kenya (62% gap), and flower workers in Ethiopia (69% gap) still earn far below living wage benchmarks.
Fair Trade also doesn’t cover environmental criteria comprehensively. WWF’s cotton benchmark found Fairtrade has “room for improvement” on water and biodiversity.
The hidden cost:
When a customer asks “Do your suppliers pay living wages?”, Fairtrade certification doesn’t give you that answer. It sets a trajectory on which wages must increase toward a living wage. But the certification won’t tell you where on that trajectory your supplier actually is.
That’s your question to ask.
Rainforest Alliance
Rainforest Alliance merged with UTZ in 2018, expanding its coverage. The scheme focuses on environmental criteria, such as deforestation, biodiversity, agrochemical use, and includes traceability requirements.
However, it doesn’t guarantee minimum prices. Unlike Fairtrade, there’s no price floor (except for cocoa). Farmers remain exposed to market volatility. It also doesn’t automatically decertify for child labour. The “Assess-and-Address” framework means farms can remain certified while working on labour issues. As Rainforest Alliance states: “Sustainability is a journey, not an end in itself”.
Most certified supply chains still lack visibility past the first supplier, leaving deeper tiers unverified. A 2015 BBC investigation found workers on Rainforest Alliance-approved Indian tea estates living in poor housing with low wages, plus evidence of children working on plantations. Rainforest Alliance acknowledged its auditing process was imperfect.
The hidden cost:
Rainforest Alliance certifies against environmental and social criteria. But audits are often pre-announced, and it happened in the past that violations slipped through. The hidden cost is assuming a passing audit means ongoing compliance.
Organic Certifications (EU Organic, USDA NOP)
Organic Certifications provide detailed rules around farm input use, prohibiting synthetic pesticides and fertilisers. They require soil health practices and do not allow the use of GMOs.
However, they do not guarantee a lower water impact. Even though research on the topic is mixed, organic soils are believed to retain water better, but their often lower yields mean more water per unit of output might be needed in some contexts. The certification doesn’t measure or require water efficiency either way.
Organic certification doesn’t guarantee lower environmental impact per unit of product. A 2024 Nature review of 100 LCA studies found no significant difference in climate impact, eutrophication, or energy use per kg between organic and conventional. Organic performs better per hectare, but lower yields might mean similar or higher impacts per kg of output.
Lastly, certified Organic doesn’t cover labour conditions.
The hidden cost:
Organic certification tells you about inputs (no synthetic pesticides, no synthetic fertilisers). But it tells you nothing about outcomes, such as water stress, labour conditions, or whether your supplier’s environmental footprint per kg is better or worse than a conventional alternative.
The audit gap
Even when certification schemes’ standards look good on paper, enforcement is often the weak link. A study by Professor Genevieve LeBaron found that 95% of cocoa workers in Ghana didn’t know whether they worked on certified farms. If workers don’t know they’re certified, auditors aren’t talking to them.
And that’s because the audit model has structural problems:
- Conflict of interest: Producers pay auditors directly. The people being assessed pay for the assessment.
- Announced visits: Easy to hide child workers or show fake payroll records when you know auditors are coming.
- Scope limitations: One social auditing firm acknowledged that “social audits are not designed to capture sensitive labour and human rights violations such as forced labour and harassment.”
Questions to Ask before Certifying
Before choosing a certification, get specific:
1. What the standard assures?
Read the certification requirements yourself. Read beyond perceived reputation you might get if you certify. Don’t rely on the logo’s reputation. Rainforest Alliance’s “Assess-and-Address” approach sounds reasonable until you realise it means child labour doesn’t trigger automatic decertification.
2. Does this certification cover what regulators will ask about?
CSDDD requires human rights due diligence across your supply chain. EUDR requires deforestation-free sourcing with geolocation data. Neither accepts certification as sufficient proof of compliance.
If you’re relying on certification to meet upcoming regulation, check whether regulators recognise it.
3. Who absorbs the cost?
Certification fees typically run €2,000–15,000 annually per farm, plus documentation overhead and training.
If you’re requiring certification without adjusting your purchase prices, that cost comes out of supplier margins, which often means worker wages or farm investment.
Fairtrade at least has a premium structure. Rainforest Alliance’s new “Sustainability Differential” is meant to address this, but implementation varies.
4. What’s the audit checking?
Ask your certification body:
- Does it cover Tier 1 only, or deeper?
- Are audits announced or unannounced?
- Do auditors interview workers privately?
- Does it audit suppliers or just require self-reporting?
- What’s the decertification threshold for labour violations?
- What happens when a supplier doesn’t meet the requirements?
If they can’t answer clearly, the audit isn’t catching what you think it’s catching.
Conclusion
Certification can be part of a sourcing strategy.
It can’t be the strategy.
You can use certification as a baseline, but you should then include additional verification built on direct supplier relationships, worker voice mechanisms, and purchasing practices that fund the improvements certifications require.
You can use certification as a baseline, then build additional verification around it based on direct supplier relationships, worker voice mechanisms, and purchasing practices that fund the improvements certifications require.
That’s the system I help F&B companies design. If you’re navigating this, let’s talk.
P.S. What’s one thing you assumed a certification covered until you read the standard?
Leave a Reply