Consumer Goods Forum

The Consumer Goods Forum (CGF) is a global, parity-based industry network, driven by its members as private sector multistakeholder governance. It brings together the CEOs and senior management of over 400 retailers, manufacturers, service providers and other stakeholders across 70 countries and reflects the diversity of the industry in geography, size, product category and format. Forum member companies have combined sales of EUR 2.5 trillion. Their retailer and manufacturer members directly employ nearly 10 million people with a further 90 million related jobs estimated along the value chain.[1] It is the only association in the consumer goods industry that is truly global, while embracing both retailers and manufacturers.

The Consumer Goods Forum is governed by its board of directors, which includes 50 manufacturer and retailer CEOs and Chairpersons.[1]

The Forum’s vision is: “Better lives through better business”. To fulfil this, its members have given the Forum a mandate to develop common positions on key strategic and operational issues affecting the consumer goods business, with a strong focus on non-competitively sensitive process improvement. The Forum’s success is driven by the active participation of the key players in the sector, who together develop and lead the implementation of best practices along the value chain.[1]

With its headquarters in Paris and its regional offices in Washington DC, and Tokyo, the CGF serves its members throughout the world.[1]

Overview

The CGF was formed in 2009.[2] It is headquartered in Paris, and has regional offices in Washington, D.C. and Tokyo.[1]

The Forum provides a unique global platform for knowledge exchange and initiatives around four strategic pillars – sustainability, product safety, health and wellness and end-to-end value chain and standards – which are central to the advancement of today’s consumer goods industry.[1] The CGF's fifth focus area is Knowledge and Best Practice Sharing. Knowledge collectively created under the CGF umbrella is actively shared with CGF members, strategic alliances and other key stakeholders. This inspires further collaborative actions and participation in industry multi-stakeholder platforms. The CGF is therefore acknowledged as the focal point for both gathering and expressing the considered view of the consumer goods industry, and as the source of transparent and reasonable response to public concerns as they arise.

The CGF has produced a number of Board approved public resolutions and commitments within its four key pillars. These include commitments on Forced Labour, Deforestation, Refrigeration, Food Waste, Access & Availability of Products and Services, Product Information & Responsible Marketing, Communication & Education About Healthier Diets and Lifestyles, Food Safety and Consumer Engagement Principles.

The CGF hosts the Global Food Safety Initiative and the Sustainable Supply Chain Initiative within its strategic focus.

Criticism

The CGF created GFSI to recognize private standards and disregard established international standards, concerns were raised in a paper published by ISO[3] which explains while private standards for food safety may benefit from a high level of expert industry input, they do not necessarily adhere to the same principles as a formal international standards organization i.e. WTO Technical barriers to trade (TBT) principles.[4] BSI Group explain the multiplicity of standards and assurance schemes has created a fragmented and inefficient supply chain structure imposing unnecessary costs on businesses that have no choice but to pass on to consumers.[5]

Various NGOs have expressed concerns around private sector, corporation led, multistakeholder governance in the absence of government regulation.[6] CGF established the Global Food Safety Initiative(GFSI) in May 2000, which has governance designed and structured for controlling interest over benchmarking requirements that scheme owners using private standards must meet to achieve GFSI recognition. Controlling interest means exclusive (non-consensus) decision making and allows CGF to exert considerable influence on global food and agricultural supply chains without taking on additional legal and economic liability.[7]

Public and private sector contradiction

The contradiction being the private sector prefer private standards because the standards are non-consensus, enabling control of requirements. Whereas the public sector, including Codex Alimentarius,[8]prefer international standards because the standards are "consensus driven" and inclusive, preventing private corporations from controlling requirements and exerting influence out of self-interest or self-preservation.

Examples of numerous papers from IGOs discussing concerns regarding the impact of private standards on the food supply chain, including impacts to regulators and developing countries, have been published by FAO,[9][10][11][12] UNIDO,[13] WTO[14] and OECD.[15]The WHO food safety strategy explains governments should use international standards and guidelines to the greatest extent.[16]

Efficacy of benchmarking

Since 2000, the CGF have only published results of one efficacy study.[17] This was not an independent study and did not include quantitative data to demonstrate performance improvement related to certification to a GFSI recognized scheme. In 2018, the CGF created a new programme to benchmark and recognize private sustainability standards. The objective of the Sustainable Supply Chain Initiative (SSCI) is to replicate the GFSI approach[18] despite a lack of empirical evidence to demonstrate whether or not the CGF benchmarking model has "beneficial or detrimental" effects.[19]

The CGF created benchmarking model for two reasons; to use private standards to reduce legal liability exposure of their members against public food laws,[20] and to help improve food safety in their supply chains. By connecting compliance with legal liability, the dual purpose of the model is conflicting with itself. If a credible efficacy study concluded the CGF benchmarking model has detrimental effects, this would be a threat for its members. If private standards do not avoid non-compliance, enforcement authorities could prosecute food business operators (FBOs) who rely on the standards to demonstrate compliance under public food laws.[21] The CGF dilemma is the lack of an independent and impartial efficacy study is regarded as a positive in respect to liability, but no evidence to determine effectiveness of their benchmarking model is a negative with respect to demonstrating improvement.

Revenue model

The CGF has structured GFSI and SSCI to generate its revenue from scheme owners, by collecting a percentage of scheme fees that food organizations pay for certification activities. This has been regarded as controversial as many of these food organizations are growers and food producers in developing countries. The consequence is the CGF, and big food corporations from high income countries (HIC), are funding their own private programmes using revenue from low and middle income countries (LMIC). Promoting international standards would result in a loss of revenue for CGF because international standards do not have scheme ownership or scheme fees.

Deforestation

In 2010, The Consumer Goods Forum (CGF) made a public commitment to achieve zero net deforestation by 2020 in key commodity sectors (soy, palm oil, paper & pulp/timber and beef).[22] In October 2019, the CGF issued a position statement after protests by Robin Wood,[23] SumOfUs,[24] Mighty Earth[25] and Greenpeace[26] in relation to not meeting their deforestation target, explaining cleaning up individual supply chains will not drive the transformation needed to end deforestation.[27]

References
  1. Official website, Who We Are
  2. Amy Larkin, Almost a Home Run for the Climate, GreenPeace.org, November 29, 2010
  3. International standards and private standards. International Organization for Standardization. 2010. ISBN 978-92-67-10518-5.
  4. "Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations". wto.org. WTO.
  5. Horlock, David. "Collaborate, innovate and accelerate; how standards build consensus and facilitate trade". bsigroup.com. BSI.
  6. Not Fit-for-Purpose The Grand Experiment of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives in Corporate Accountability, Human Rights and Global Governance. San Francisco: Institute for Multi-Stakeholder Initiative Integrity: MSI Integrity. July 2020.
  7. Rao, Madhura; Bast, Aalt; de Boer, Alie (26 January 2021). "European private food safety standards in global agri-food supply chains: a systematic review". International Food and Agribusiness Management Review. 24 (5): 739–754. doi:10.22434/IFAMR2020.0146.
  8. "CCNFSDU42 / Codex central role in health protection and removal of trade barriers". fao.org. Codex Alimentarius.
  9. Dankers, Cora (2007). Private Standards in the United States and European Union Markets for Fruit and Vegetables: Implications for Developing Countries. Rome: FAO. ISBN 978-92-5-105779-7.
  10. Henson, Spencer; Humphrey, John (2009). The Impacts of Private Food Safety Standards on the Food Chain and on Public Standard-Setting Processes (PDF). FAO. ISBN 978-92-5-106430-6.
  11. Private Food Safety Standards: Their Role in Food Safety Regulation and their Impact. Food and Agriculture Organization. 2010.
  12. Washington, Sally (2011). Private standards and certification in fisheries and aquaculture. FAO. ISBN 978-92-5-106730-7.
  13. "Private standards". Unido.org. United Nations Industrial Development Organization.
  14. "Private standards are a mixed blessing, committee hears". wto.org. WTO.
  15. Smith, G (2009). ""Interaction of Public and Private Standards in the Food Chain". OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers (15). doi:10.1787/221282527214.
  16. "Draft WHO Global Strategy for Food Safety 2022-2030". who.int. World Health Organization.
  17. "Study Shows Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) Results". mygfsi.com. Consumer Goods Forum.
  18. "CGF programme to benchmark sustainability standards". foodnavigator.com. Food Navigator.
  19. Rao, Madhura; Bast, Aalt; de Boer, Alie (26 January 2021). "European private food safety standards in global agri-food supply chains: a systematic review". International Food and Agribusiness Management Review. 24 (5): 739–754. doi:10.22434/IFAMR2020.0146.
  20. van der Meulen, Bernd (2011). Private food law Governing food chains through contract law, self-regulation, private standards, audits and certification schemes (PDF). Wageningen Academic. p. 97. ISBN 978-90-8686-176-7.
  21. "Commission Communication — EU best practice guidelines for voluntary certification schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs". Official Journal of the European Union: 5–11. 2010.
  22. "Implementing and Scaling up the Zero Net CGF Deforestation Commitment". theconsumergoodsforum.com. CGF.
  23. "Regnskogfondet" (PDF). robinwood.de. Robin Wood.
  24. "Nestlé, Unilever, P&G: Stop fueling the fires!". sumofus.org. Sum of Us.
  25. "To Address Deforestation in Brazil, Mighty Earth Convenes Meeting Between Indigenous Leaders and Consumer Goods Forum". mightyearth.org. Mighty Earth.
  26. "Protest at Consumer Goods Forum (CGF) Global Summit in Berlin". greenpeace.org. Greenpeace.
  27. "CGF Response to Deforestation Protests in Berlin". theconsumergoodsforum.com. CGF.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.