An innovative methodology developed by BASIC has been applied to analyze the impacts of 11 sustainability labels in 15 product categories on the French food market. Based on a comprehensive literature review, the study investigates the requirements defined in their standards, as well as the ancillary actions they conduct in order to develop sustainable value chains and consumption. It is also based on a series of interviews with each pilot of label (so as to understand their intentions) as well as a modelling of the links between the effects of each label and the sustainability issues related to food.
Varying results depending on the label/standard
This new study provides precise and verified information on the potential impact of the labels analyzed on a wide range of food-related environmental issues (climate change, biodiversity, etc.) and socio-economic issues (impact on human health, animal welfare, etc.), so as to enable citizens make better informed choices of consumption.
Three groups of labels were identified:
- The labels that share a continuous improvement approach – Agri Confiance, Zero Pesticide Residues and High Environmental Value (HVE) – have the weakest and least proven positive effects of all the labels analysed, even though they sometimes claim broad and ambitious intentions.
- The labels that share the organic farming approach – EU organic standards & logo, Bio Equitable in France, Nature & Progres, Demeter – have strong and proven socio-economic and environmental benefits.
- The sector-specific labels – Bleu-Blanc-Cœur, Label Rouge, PDO, C’est Qui le Patron – have very different benefits depending on the product category, which can create confusion for consumers.
In particular, the study shows that some food labels show a big gap between their socio-economic and environmental benefits and their stated intentions.
To access the full results of our evaluation, see the dedicated website developed by BASIC to navigate the results (in French).
A highly political subject
Finally, this study enables to feed the technical and political debates on food labels, the associated regulatory framework, and the forms of public support that can be granted to them. Based on the results, Greenpeace and WWF have made the following recommendations:
- Revise the list of standards which are eligible to public support, by integrating a minimum set of criteria regarding the environment (biodiversity and climate change) and socio-economic issues (producers’ income, human health and animal welfare).
- Make public support conditional on the concrete impacts of labels and not on their stated intentions. In particular, public support for High Environmental Value (HVE) certification should be suspended until its requirements have been revised, and the crietria used to identify ‘sustainable’ labels in the EGalim law should be significantly revised.
For further information:
- Read our research report (in French)
- Our methodological appendix (in French)
- The dedicated website we have developed to navigate results (in French)
In the French medias :
- Le Monde : “Dans le dédale des labels alimentaires, trop peu de garanties sur leurs bénéfices“
- France Inter : “AOP, Label Rouge, AB : des labels qui ne tiennent pas toujours leurs promesses, selon plusieurs ONG“
- 20 Minutes : “AB, Bleu-Blanc-Cœur, AOP, Label Rouge… Les labels alimentaires foisonnent mais ne se valent pas“
- Libération : “«Label rouge», «Zéro résidu de pesticides», «C’est qui le patron»… : les promesses non tenues des labels alimentaires“
- Le Figaro : “Labels alimentaires : deux nouvelles études révèlent les écarts entre promesses et réalité“
- Huffington Post : “Greenpeace, WWF et l’UFC-Que Choisir dénoncent ces labels alimentaires“
- L’Obs : “Label Rouge, AOP, HVE… Le label ne fait pas le moine“
- France 3 : “Label Rouge, AOP, bio… ce qui se cache derrière ces étiquettes“
- Ouest France : “Les labels alimentaires ? À revoir, selon plusieurs associations“
- La Dépêche : “Fromages, viandes, bio : l’UFC-Que Choisir dénonce la fiabilité des labels“
- Sud Ouest : “Label Rouge, AOP, HVE… La nébuleuse des labels alimentaires est à revoir, selon des associations“
- La Voix du Nord : “Label Rouge, AOP, HVE…: trop compliqués, une révision des labels alimentaires «s’impose»“
Based on the decarbonization pathway of the agricultural sector defined by the French government in its National Low-Carbon Strategy, IDDRI and Basic have developed two scenarios of food system transition, both aiming at the same decarbonization objectives, via two contrasting trajectories in terms of socio-political dynamics and economic strategies of private actors.
Comparing these two scenarios enables to assess their quantitative implications (in terms of employment and income) and to identify the socio-political conditions for a fair transition:
- A scenario centered on climate issues, without calling into question the logic of concentration/specialization of agrifood production would lead to significant negative socio-economic impacts: acceleration of the disappearance of farms and associated jobs (-9% in arable crops and milk sectors compared to ‘Business as Usual’ trends), loss of industrial jobs (-12% in the same sectors compared to 2015), without substantially improving the quality of food nor biodiversity.
- A scenario that embraces the multiple challenges of our current food system (climate, biodiversity, health, employment) could generate multiple benefits: protection of agricultural employment (+ 10% in arable crops and milk sectors compared to ‘Business as Usual’ trends) without loss of income; increase in industrial employment (+ 8% in the same sectors compared to 2015); positive contribution to the restoration of agrobiodiversity and to the achievement of public nutritional recommendations.
In political terms, the economic viability of the second scenario relies on a simultaneous evolution of supply, demand and the regulation of markets, involving significant changes:
- a proactive approach to demand at the national level, going against the current political reluctance to act, mobilizing a wide range of tools to enable consumers to make the healthiest and most sustainable choices;
- a convergence of visions between Member States of the European Union, so that the national strategic plans – within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy – set comparable objectives and requirements to all European farmers;
- an ambitious approach to regulate international trade so as to promote and support the adoption of ambitious production standards.
To consolidate these initial results, it is necessary to complement the current analysis conducted on arable crops and milk sectors and extend it to all agricultural sectors and countries of the European Union. A task that Iddri and Basic have started to tackle with other partners (Solagro, I4CE), with the aim of publishing new results in 2022.
To know more :
- Read the full report published by Iddri and Basic (in French)
- Watch the video of the webinar presenting the results of the study (in French)
The database developed by BASIC on the agricultural projects funded by the French State in countries eligible to Official Development Assistance enables to query on 1,500 keywords and variants. It has required the consolidation and cleansing of data from 7 public databases and several institutional websites, bringing together 9,571 project lines corresponding to 5.8 billion euros public financing between 2009 and 2018.
Thanks to this tool, the 3 NGOs (CCFD-Terre Solidaire, Oxfam France and Action Contre la Faim) were able to sift through the information on projects funded by the French government and to publish the main outputs of their analyses in their report “Une pincée d´agroécologie pour une louche d’agro-industrie”.
The results are enlightening: only 13.3% of total French public financing contributed to “transformative” agroecology, acting both on agricultural practices and on food systems (modification of land rights, protection of natural resources, etc.). In addition, 9.3% of the financing supported projects related to “greening” of agricultural practices, but without systemic ambition.
In contrast, 23.6% of the total public funding supported “non-agroecological” projects (which focused on increasing yields regardless of the agricultural model implemented, on the development of industrial agriculture, etc.), frequently in partnership with large French private groups having business ambitions in the countries concerned.
As a result, the marking of funding in favour of the ecological and social transition of agriculture appears still largely insufficient in comparison with the commitments of the French government, and the contradictions between its various public policies remain to be resolved.
To go further (documents in French):
- The study made by CCFD-Terre Solidaire, Oxfam France and d’Action Contre la Faim : Une pincée d’agroécologie pour une louche d’agroindustrie
- The Methodological Appendix
In the French medias:
- Le Monde – Ecologie : la France finance aussi des projets agro-industriels dans le monde
- Le Monde (tribune) – Aide au développement : « La France investit presque deux fois plus dans des projets agro-industriels que dans des projets d’agroécologie »
- La Croix – Aide au développement, trois ONG dénoncent le « double discours » français
- L’Info durable – Aides agricoles aux pays du Sud: la France accusée de privilégier l’agro-industrie à l’agro-écologie
- Info Nature – En Afrique, la France promeut l’agro-écologie… et finance l’agro-industrie !
- Terre-net – La France accusée de privilégier l’agro-industrie à l’agro-écologie
With a billion meals served each year in France, school catering has major repercussions not only on children’s eating habits but also on the agricultural world which produces the food products and, by extension, on all of the population and the environment.
Based on data from the PARCEL tool it has developed, BASIC has analysed the effects of the introduction of vegetarian menus on climate change, water pollution and abstraction, and the risks of deforestation. Assuming that the EGAlim law is fully applied1 and that a mandatory weekly vegetarian menu is served to all pupils from kindergarten to high school, the impacts would already be significant:
- 14% to 19% reduction in greenhouse gases emitted to produce the food served in canteens;
- 16% to 18% reduction in water pollution hidden costs linked to agricultural activities that supply the canteens;
- 8% to 11% reduction in water consumption linked to agricultural production of the food in canteens;
- 22% to 27% reduction in imports of feed for farm animals in France (and therefore a reduction in the associated risks of imported deforestation).
In addition, the introduction of 2 vegetarian menus per week would also enable:
- 28% to 38% reduction in greenhouse gas emitted to produce food in canteens;
- 41% to 51% reduction in imports of feed for farm animals (and therefore a reduction in the associated risk of imported deforestation).
To read the full results of the study, click on the folllowing link: Menus végétariens dans les cantines : quels impacts pour la planète ?
In the French medias:
- Radio show RMC Matin : “Un rapport de Greenpeace détaille l’impact positif sur la planète des menus végétariens“
- BFM Television : “Les effets impressionnants des menus végétariens imposés à la cantine sur les émissions de gaz à effet de serre“
- Cnews television : “Voici l’impact réel des menus végétariens à la cantine sur les émissions de CO2“
- Le Monde : “Menus végétariens dans les cantines : des retombées positives pour l’environnement“
- Le Figaro Etudiant : “Cantines : Greenpeace exige de passer à deux menus végétariens par semaine“
- Ouest France : “Cantines scolaires. Il faut passer à deux menus végétariens par semaine, estime Greenpeace“
- Les Dernières Nouvelles d’Alsace : “Cantines : Greenpeace réclame deux menus végétariens par semaine“
- Le Courrier Picard : “Greenpeace réclame deux menus végétariens par semaine dans les cantines scolaires“
- ConsoGlobe : “Alimentation : les menus végétariens à la cantine font du bien à la planète“
- L’Info Durable : “Cantines scolaires : Greenpeace demande deux menus végétariens par semaine“
1 Under the EGAlim law, since November 2019, all French school canteens must offer their students at least one vegetarian meal per week. For the study, it was considered that 100% of canteens apply the law.
What is the true cost of Fast Fashion?Given that Zara does not publish any data on supplier wages or the purchase prices it pays, we produced our own detailed calculation of the breakdown of the price of the hoody “RESPECT” which was sold in its stores during the summer 2019.
According to our calculations, Inditex makes 4.20 euros per hoody, which is more than twice as much as all the people involved its production earn (2.08 euros) – from the cotton fields in India, to the spinning mill in Kayseri in central Turkey, to the factories in Izmir.
The field research conducted by our partner Public Eye highlighted the pressure that Inditex exerts on its suppliers to drive down prices: the factory tasked with producing the 20,000 hoodies was only paid nine Turkish lira per item (1.53 euros) and the firm that printed the slogan on the hoody was paid only 9 cents per print. To make ends meet, factory owners are forced to pay their staff less than they should, or to make them work more.
According to our information, workers would earn 2,000-2,500 Turkish lira per month (310-390 euros), namely a third of what the Clean Clothes Campaign estimates would be needed for a living wage (6,130 lira).
There is an alternative to paying meagre wages: only 3.62 euros more per article would need to go to the workers to guarantee a living wage for all the people involved in production. Even if it took on its profits to cover this amount, Inditex would still be making profits on every sweatshirt sold – even more than all its subcontractors in the chain…
Based on these results, our partners – Public Eye, the Collective Ethique sur l’Etiquette and Schone Kleren Campaign – started a campaign to challenge Inditex, which made a record net profit of EUR 3.44 billion in 2018, and engage the company to change its practices and concretely implement a living wage for all those working in its supply chains.
To know more :
- The investigation published by par Public Eye
- Our joint report with the Collectif Etique sur l’Etiquette (in French)
In the medias,
- In the UK:
- Yahoo Finance – Zara’s sustainable sweatshirt raises troubling fashion ethics issues
- Business and Human Rights – Turkey: Investigation tracks production of ‘sustainable’ Zara hoody, revealing garment worker exploitation & low wages
- Ecotextile News – Investigation into Inditex raises worker concerns
- Just-Style – Human rights groups call on Inditex to ‘respect” living wages
- Quartzy – Zara’s sustainable sweatshirt raises troubling fashion ethics issues
- In Switzerland:
- Le Courrier – Le «respect» selon Zara en question
- Le Temps – L’industrie de la mode rattrapée par ses démons
- Bon à Savoir : Le pull aux œufs d’or
- In France:
- In Germany:
- Der Spiegel – Respekt – aber für wen?
- 20 Minuten – An diesem Hoodie sollen Näher 1.27 Fr. verdienen
- Luzerner Zeitung – Kein Respekt vor Näherinnen? Modehändler Zara am Pranger
- In Italy:
- La Repubblica – Lavoro e salari dignitosi, la Campagna “Abiti Puliti”: “Ecco quanto costa davvero un maglione da 39,67 euro”
- Avvenire – «La felpa simbolo della sostenibilità prodotta sfruttando i lavoratori»
- Vita – Zara, il greenwashing di un’azienda che parla di sostenibilità sfruttando i lavoratori
Two years after entry into force, the new EU Directive will protect suppliers with an annual turnover up to EUR 350 million from unfair trading practices in food supply chains, covering both EU and non-EU suppliers, for example: late payments for perishable products, last minute order cancellations, unilateral or retroactive changes to supply agreements, the misuse of confidential information, and the retaliation or threat of retaliation against the supplier…
The Member States their enforcement authorities will have the power to initiative investigations (ex-officio) and will enable NGOs to introduce complaints when suppliers don´t dare to do it (key features of agreement are accessible here).
This is the result of a joint advocacy work conducted by multiple civil society organizations and platforms throughout Europe since 2013, in particular our partners Fair Trade Advocacy Office, the Make Fruit Fair campaign, Banana Link and Commerce Equitable France.
BASIC has contributed to their joint efforts through the publication of 2 studies that supported their campaign:
- in November 2014, we issued a report called “Who’s Got the Power” and a related video on the social and environmental consequences of the growing concentration of power in agrifood chains. The main results were presented in the European Parliament and supported by Olivier de Schutter, former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.
- in November 2015, we published another study on “Banana value chains in Europe and the consequences of Unfair Trading Practices” which was also presented in the European Parliament (see picture above).
Beyond Transparency: Investigating the New Extractive Industry Disclosures
The reporting of payments to governments by mining, oil & gas companies is a significant step forward in terms of transparency in a notoriously opaque sector. Nevertheless, while the stated objective of these measures is to facilitate public understanding and monitoring of the activities of companies exploiting natural resources, this report reveals various limitations, such as access to the new data, which remains complicated, particularly for non-specialists.
Lack of contextual data surrounding the disclosure of payments makes understanding the data even more difficult. Furthermore, loopholes in the Directives and their transposition into French law also limit possibilities of studying and comparing the different payments. However, the disclosure of payments to governments shows that the governance of the sector is improving.
This report demonstrates how the disclosure of this new information helped inform analysis of the activities of the French oil company Total in Angola and the French uranium giant Areva in Niger.
- Read the full report “Beyond Transparency: Investigating the New Extractive Industries Disclosures“
- Database
- Right to response from Total (19th May 2017) and BASIC, ONE, Oxfam and Sherpa (22nd May 2017).
Press articles:
- Le Monde Économie : Obligations de transparence : Total et Areva rappelés à l’ordre par des ONG
- Le Monde Afrique : Total en Angola, Areva au Niger : plus de 100 millions de dollars évaporés
- Les Échos : Extraction de matières premières : des ONG taclent Total et Areva
- Alternatives Économiques : Les comptes peu transparents de Total et d’Areva
- L’Humanité : Fiscalité. Que verse Total à l’Angola… et Areva au Niger ?
- La Croix : Les ONG épinglent les pratiques de Total et Areva
- France 24 : Contrats miniers : Areva épinglé pour ses pratiques financières au Niger
- Le Figaro : Total et Areva taclés par des ONG
- Novethic : Transparence des entreprises extractives : les entreprises françaises peuvent mieux faire
- L’Usine Nouvelle : Total, Areva et les autres ont-ils vraiment rusé avec l’obligation de transparence ?
- Euractiv : Des ONG critiquent la faible transparence de Total et Areva en Afrique
- Le Parisien : Transparence : Total, EDF et Areva épinglés
- BfmTV : Total et Areva pointés du doigt par des ONG
- 20minutes : Transparence : les deux grands groupes français Total et Areva taclés par des ONG
Radio shows:
- Chronique des matières premières on RFI : Industries extractives en Angola et au Niger : encore trop flou selon les ONG
- Le Billet économique on France Culture : Transparence des industries extractives : peut mieux faire
- Le Grand Débat on Africa n°1 : L’exploitation de l’uranium au Niger, pour le meilleur ou pour le pire ?
This is the result of our new study « Tranformation and impacts of the French publishing sector ». This study investigates the social and environmental impacts of the paper and book production industries in the backstage of our libraries.
A business logic that creates ever-increasing waste
Beyond the invaluable cultural value it conveys, the book has become an object of mass consumption.
Over the last 20 years , the financialization of the French publishing sector has accelerated business concentration: in 2014, 3 groups (Hachette Livre, Editis and Madrigall) made up 50% of the total turnover of the sector.
The imperatives of short-term profitability now in force have created a sales model that encourages waste: each year, 1 in 4 books is destroyed (“pounded”) without having been read.
The paper industry, third sector most affected by the destruction of employment, after textiles and extractives
At the same time, the French printing and especially paper industries have collapsed over the last 10 years, benefiting foreign companies in Europe and in developing countries. 1 job out of 3 has disappeared since 2000 in the paper industry, the third sector most affected in France by the destruction of jobs after textiles and mining.
Nowadays, book manufacturers are mainly supplied by a global paper industry whose environmental and social impacts are little known to professionals and to the general public.
Brazil: symbol of the globalization of paper
In Brazil, where most of the paper pulp required for our novels comes from, world-class conglomerates exploit huge cloned eucalyptus plantations to the detriment of biodiversity, local farmers and water resources
Advocacy for a sustainable book model
Certified wood plantations, recycled fiber or e-readers, our study shows that no single alternative can put an end to societal impacts.
It concludes on the urgent need to set up, in collaboration with all stakeholders, a sustainable publishing sector in France which would address its current critical challenges, among others: a questioning of the systemic overproduction of books, a public support to the paper recycling sector, and a re-location of the manufacturing and printing stages of the value chain.
Links to the report (in French)
- Full report: Un livre français : évolutions et impacts de l’édition française
- Bibliography: Bibliographie du rapport Un livre français
- Press release: BASIC-CP_Etude Un livre français_Septembre 2017
- Methodological note on societal costs: Evaluer les coûts sociétaux pour choisir les modèles économiques de demain
In the French press
- ActuaLitté : Surproduction, mondialisation, recyclage : pour un livre durable, L’édition française coûte 52 millions d’euros par an à la société, L’édition déraisonnable : “Aujourd’hui, on édite des livres pour les détruire” et Soutenir le droit d’auteur, oui ; moraliser l’édition, moins
- BFMTV : Le secteur du livre, mauvais élève du développement durable
- Grazia : Chaque année dans l’édition, 1 livre sur 4 part au pilon
- Konbini : Le secteur du livre doit se mettre à la page sur le développement durable
- Le Figaro Économie : L’environnement, chapitre oublié des éditeurs
- Libération : Rentrée littéraire : est-ce que je pollue en lisant ?
- Livres Hebdo : Un coût social et environnemental trop élevé pour l’édition française
- L’Obs : Edition : un livre sur quatre part au pilon, soit 142 millions de livres par an
- L’Observatoire des multinationales et BastaMag! : Invendus, pollutions, délocalisations : les coûts cachés de la rentrée littéraire
- Mon Quotidien : Vrai ou faux ? En France, 1 livre neuf sur 4 est détruit chaque année
- Novethic : Rentrée littéraire : le coût des livres
- Sud Ouest : Développement durable : en France, le livre “vert” est à inventer
- Télérama : L’édition, mauvaise élève du développement durable ?
- TV5Monde : “Une filière durable du livre” est à inventer
- Live-tweet sur ActuaLitté
On the French radio
- France Inter : CO2 Mon Amour
- RFI – Chronique des matières premières : Quel papier pour les livres de la rentrée littéraire ?
- RFI – C’est pas du vent : L’impact méconnu de l’édition française
- RMC – Bourdin Direct / Dupin Quotidien : Imprime-t-on trop de livres en France ?
- RTL – C’est notre Planète : Un livre sur 4 doit être détruit en France
On Tuesday, November 18th, Fair Trade Advocacy, Traidcraft, Fairtrade Deutschland and the French Fairtrade Platform launched their new campaign on the concentration of power in agricultural value chains, based on a research conducted by BASIC.
The event took place in the European Parliament, in the presence of Mairead Mc Guiness, Vice President of the European Parliament, Catherine Stilher, Vice President of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO), Claire Bury, Director of Services (DG Market and Services) and Olivier de Schutter, former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.
This event gave us the opportunity to present the conclusions of our report “Who’s got the power”, which provides evidence on the growing concentration of power in agricultural chains, and on the negative impacts it generates on the living conditions of farmers & workers, on the environment and ultimately on consumers’ interest. Our study also demonstrates that unfair trade practices stemming from this growing concentration of power are systemic (and not accidental as has often claimed).
A special thank to Olivier de Schutter who accepted to write the preface of our report!
For more information, follow this link
Bananas, continuedOn September 24th 2013, Oxfam Germany published its new report “Billige bananen wer Zahlt den preis? (Bananas at low cost, who pays the price?) based on a research conducted by BASIC (available here) as a follow-up of the study made for Fairtrade Foundation last February.
Based on an extensive literature review, international trade statistics and interviews with experts of the banana industry, our research provides evidence that German retailers generate high pressure on suppliers’ prices and contribute to the breach of the legal minimum price established by the Ecuadorian government, with dramatic consequences on small producers and agricultural workers in Ecuador. It also shows that in Colombia, where there is no legal minimum price, this pressure is fueling the deterioration of working conditions.
Following the press conference of Oxfam in Berlin, during which BASIC intervened, the report was taken up by a dozen German media, including the Deutschlandfunk (German public radio), echoing the conclusions of the study on the abuse of power by supermarkets published on the same day by the German competition authority.