Social impact study of juice
Social impact study of juice For the sustainability database of Questionmark
Amsterdam, June 2015 Version: 0.2 Author: Paul Middelkoop
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
1 Contents 1
Contents
2
2
Introduction
3
3
2.1
Background
3
2.2
This study
3
2.3
Input by stakeholders
3
Goal and scope definition
5
3.1
Goal
5
3.2
Scope
5
3.3
System boundaries
5
3.3.1
Exclusions
5
3.3.2
Functional unit
5
4
Data inventory
6
5
Results
7
6
Conclusions
12
Annex – country mixes
13
Annex – category scores
15
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
2
2 Introduction 2.1 Background Questionmark rates thousands of consumer products based on their impact on health, environment, human rights and animal welfare throughout the production chain. In order to measure these impacts, Questionmark uses robust methods that adhere to widely accepted scientific theories and can be applied at product level. To investigate the social impacts of products Questionmark uses a methodology based on Social-Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The new field of S-LCA follows the established field of Environmental Impact Assessment by analysing the complex interaction between a product and the social environment from cradle to grave.
2.2 This study This document describes the way in which S-LCA is applied to investigate the social impact of juice. The goal of this study is to produce a database of social impacts of these products, which will be used to compare the different products.
This report focusses on the cultivation phase of the juice production. It's methodology and data is based on Questionmarks’ previous research on potatoes, fruits and vegetables. Please see that report for more detailed information on the used methodology1. The reason for using the same approach is that cultivation of fruits intended for juice production is assumed to differ little in terms of implications for human rights than it is for the produce market.
2.3 Input by stakeholders Questionmark invites stakeholders to provide feedback on each study performed to obtain useful critique on methodological choices and 1
Questionmark (2015) Aardappelen, Groente en Fruit – Verantwoording Mensenrechten http://www.thequestionmark.org/methode/overig/verantwoording/ Questionmark thequestionmark.org
3
outcomes and thus to conduct studies in a robust and proficient manner. A panel of experts and stakeholders is consulted in the study about the cultivation of Potatoes, Vegetables and Fruiti. The stakeholders that have been consulted in that study are requested to provide feedback on this study again for their input. Stakeholders that are specific for the juice sector are requested to provide feedback as well.
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
4
3 Goal and scope definition 3.1 Goal The goal of the study is to develop a life cycle assessment ingredient database of juices. This database will be used as input to compare the social aspects of different juices and juice related products.
3.2 Scope The scope of this study comprises of all of the fruit juices, including their processing type, labels and countries, that are found in a selection of Dutch supermarkets2.
3.3 System boundaries 3.3.1 EXCLUSIONS While efforts were made to include all relevant aspects of the life cycles of the various products, not everything could be included. Processing, transport and distribution are not included in the scope of the project as it is assumed that these stages have not a significant high impact per kilo of the product and would therefore not influence the results much.
3.3.2 FUNCTIONAL UNIT The functional unit follows the definition of the functional unit as described in the general description of the environmental analysis. This document describes the functional unit as follows: the consumption of 1 kg juice as consumed by the consumer.
2
These are: Jumbo, Albert Heijn, Plus, Coop, Lidl, Aldi, Marqt en Ekoplaza. The first four are selected due to their significant share in the retail-sector and their offer of own-brand products. The second four are added to cover two ends of a spectrum, the discounters (Lidl, Aldi), and the supermarkets reputed to mainly sell ‘sustainable’ products (Ekoplaza, Marqt). Together these eight represent 80% of the Dutch retail-sector. Questionmark thequestionmark.org
5
4 Data inventory The data used for this study is taken from the Social Hotspots Database. In addition, desk research and stakeholder consultation has taken place to supplement the estimated risks. Additional sources include: 1. Reports by the International Labour Organization 2. U.S. Department of Labour – List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor 3. Peer reviewed academic journals 4. Reports by international and local unions and NGO’s 5. Regional or local journals and newspapers
Origin of the researched ingredients
The country of origin for the different types of juices are listed in the Annex. These are based on statistics from the European Fruit Juice Association (AIJN), FAO, and the Dutch Bureau for Statistics.
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
6
5 Results In the figure below the average social impact score of several main types of juices are given. The results are interpreted in the paragraphs below with several illustrations.
Social'Impact'Score' 10$
9$
8$
7.6$ 7.1$
7.0$
7.0$
7$
6.2$
6.0$
6.0$
6$
6.0$
6.0$
5.6$ 4.9$
5$
3.8$
4$
pp sa
$ ap ss
Sin
aa
na
ts ru i ?f ul
An a
el sa p$
ap $
p$ el sa M
r$a p ec ta
tn
Ap p
pe l$
el $ pp as a
Fr ui
tn
ec ta
r$s i
na
eB n m in Fr ui
M
ul
?v ita
M ul
?f
ru i
tn
ec ta
ec ta
r$
r$
t$ $f r ui
pe l$
k$g em i xt
Fr i sd
ra n
ra n
k$a p
ap p as na
k$s i ra n Fr i sd
Fr i sd
Fr i sd
ra n
el $
k$
3$
Figure 1. Social Impact Score
Comparing Fruit Juices with other Drinks
In the supermarkets many other drinks are available which contain fruits and are shelved among these fruit juices. Below an overview is given how these drinks score comparatively.
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
7
10$
Social'Impact'Score'and'Share'of'Products'w/'Water'as'Main' Ingredient'
100%$
9$
90%$
8$
80%$ 6.9$
7$ 6$
5.9$
70%$ 60%$
5.3$
5$
50%$
4$
40%$
3$
30%$
2$
20%$
1$
10%$
0$
0%$ Sappen$
Nectars$ Social$Score$
Frisdrank$met$fruitsmaak$
Water$as$main$ingredient$
Figure 2. Average Risk Scores per Juice Category
Soda drinks with an added fruit flavour receive a relatively high score, meaning they have a low social impact. This is due to water from the Netherlands constituting a large part of their ingredient lists. Water from the Netherlands typically has a lower social impact score than that of fruit. As can be seen by looking at the blue line, there is a clear connection between the social impact score and the percentage of products with water as their main ingredient. For the best performing categories water is the main ingredient for close to all products. In contrast, fresh juices get a lower score, as they consist purely of high-risk ingredients.
Country of Origin
Country of origin of the ingredients is decisive in the outcome of these scores. In the figure below we zoom in on four fruit juice types.
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
8
Social'Impact'Scores'by'Fruit'Juice'Type' Ananas,Uit concentraat,Thailand,Fairtrade
7"
Ananas,Uit concentraat,Thailand,Geen Keurmerk
4"
Ananas,Concentraat,Herkomstland onbekend
4"
Sinaasappel,Uit concentraat,Brazilië,Fairtrade
7"
Sinaasappel,Puur,Spanje
6"
Sinaasappel,Puur,Herkomstland onbekend Sinaasappel,Puur,Brazilië
4" 3"
Appel,Concentraat,Herkomstland onbekend,Geen
4"
Appel,Uit concentraat,Zuid-Afrika,Fairtrade
7"
Appel,Puur,Nederland Appel,Uit concentraat,Zuid-Afrika,Geen keurmerk Druif,Concentraat,Herkomstland onbekend,Biologisch
7" 5"
6"
Druif,Puur,Frankrijk Druif,Puur,Herkomstland onbekend
7" 6"
Figure 3. Social Impact Scores by Fruit Juice Type
Grapes score relatively well because most come from Southern Europe. Labour conditions here are at risk, but risks are nevertheless lower than those in developing countries. Which risks exactly are at play in the supply chain is specified later in the report. Pineapples on the other hand are mainly grown in countries with high human right risks, such as Thailand and Costa Rica. This lack of variation differs from the variety found in apples and oranges. They can both come from within Europe (even Northern Europe for apples), and South America or Asia (in the case of Chinese apples) resulting in different scores. This degree of variation can also be seen in figure 4. on page 10.
Note that not-from-concentrate juices (‘puur’) can have different countries of origin than their concentrated counterparts. Orange juice is often produced from frozen concentrate (FC) originating from Brazil. The same goes for certain juices with social labels (i.e. Fairtrade), of which the country of origin are deemed to be from the global south, whereas regular juices can also come from European countries (e.g. apples and oranges). This results in different scores on an ingredient level.
Mitigating effect of Social Labels
Figure 3. also illustrates what social labels can do in minimizing risks. The example of oranges from Brazil, and those of pineapples from Thailand
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
9
clearly show that social labels have a significant expected effect in mitigating the risks of human rights violations. In both cases the risks significantly decreaseii.
Variation in scoring across types of drinks
In figure 5. below the average is given per category along with the minimum and maximum scores of a product. The figure shows that for many types of drinks there is significant variation in the social impact. For apples this stems from the different sourcing countries (whether it is from Northern Europe or the global South), or whether it has a social label. For orange juice the impact of Fairtrade in mitigating risks results in the higher score for the best performing products. See Annex 2 for more results. Social'Impact'Score'by'Type'of'Beverage' 7.6$ 7.1$
7.0$ 6.1$
6.0$
6.0$
6.0$
6.0$
5.5$
p$
$ pp sa aa Sin
ul
8f
ru i
ts
el sa
ap
p$ el sa M
ec ta Fr ui
tn
Ap p
pe l$ r$a p
ap as na
e> n Fr ui
m in 8v ita ul
tn ec ta r$s i
tn ru i M
pe l$
r$ ec ta
r$ ec ta
ei $ 8f
M ul
ra nk $ aa rd b
Fr i sd
Fr i sd
ra n
k$s i
na
Fr i sd
as a
pp
ra n
k$
el $
4.9$
Minimum$
Maximum$
Average$
Figure 4. Human Right Risk Scores per Fruit Juice Category
What issues are particularly at play?
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
10
10.0$
Social'Impacts'by'Theme' 9.0$
8.0$
7.5$
7.7$ 7.4$
7.4$
7.6$
7.3$ 7.0$
7.0$
7.0$ 6.6$
6.1$
6.0$ 5.9$
5.7$
5.9$
5.9$
5.3$
6.0$
5.0$ 4.6$ 4.0$
4.5$
4.2$ 3.5$
3.0$
2.0$
1.0$ Freedom$of$ Associa9on$
Forced$Labor$
Child$Labor$
Discrimina9on$
Living$Wage$ Health$and$Safety$
100%$Juice$Products$
Migrants$
Working$Hours$ Access$to$Water$ Access$to$Land$
All$types$of$juices$and$drinks$with$fruit$as$an$ingredient$
Figure 5. Saliency of Human Rights Risks
From the figure above it becomes apparent that the fruit supply chain is home to several human rights risks. Here the products with 100% fruit in them are scored by theme and represented in dark green. The most salient risks are Living Wage, Fair Treatment of Migrants, Working Hours, and Health and Safety. The other six themes included in the study follow closely, with only the themes discrimination, access to water and access to land scoring higher than a six. For a description of how these risks take form, see the document for the Potatoes, Fruits and Vegetables research.
The scores in light green are the social impact scores of all drinks which contain a type of fruit. Typically this is only a small portion of the ingredient list, with other low risks ingredients such as water or beet sugar (both usually sourced from the Netherlands, or otherwise Germany) constituting a significant portion of the product. Consequently, the social impact of these drinks are lower.
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
11
6 Conclusions The following observations are made: • Living Wage, Working Hours, Health and Safety, and the Fair Treatment of Migrant Workers are the most salient risks in the Fruit Juice Supply Chain. • Companies have a real choice in minimizing their social footprint by either sourcing from countries with sound labour standards and respect for human rights, or by sourcing fruits that are produced under certification schemes such as that of Fairtrade. • Consumers have a similar degree of choice when purchasing their juice, or drinks with fruits in them. Among fresh fruit juices, pear juice products have on average the least amount of social impact overall (this is due to most pears being sourced from within Europe). However, looking at specific products consumers can also purchase products apples with low social impacts from North-Western Europe or Fairtrade oranges. Along with pears from North-Western Europe, these have the lowest social impacts on a product level. • When comparing Fruit Juices with other drinks it has a relatively high social impact as many other drinks are mainly based on water. The latter has a lower social impact score (when it is produced in the Netherlands).
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
12
Annex – country mixes Orange juice
OFJC
NFC
Brazil
94% Brazil
70%
USA
6% Spain
30%
OFJC: Orange juice frozen concentrate NFC: Not from concentrate The figures of OFJC are from the AIJN 2012 report and the NFC figures are from the AIJN 2014 report.
Apple juice
AJC
ANFC
China
37% Germany
66%
Poland
46% Poland
34%
Turkije
17%
AJC: Apple Juice concentrate ANFC: Apple Juice not from concentrate The figures from both the AJC and ANFC are from the AIJN 2012 report.
Grape juice
GJC
France
48%
Spain
28%
Italy
25%
GJC: Grape juice concentrate The figures from the GJC are from the CBS 2012 and 2013. This is based on the following CBS categories: 20096110, 20096190, 20096911, 20096919, 20096951, 20096959, 20096971, 20096979, 20096990. Pineapple juice
PJC
Thailand
46%
Costa Rica
54%
PJC: Pineapple juice concentrate The figures from PJC are from the AIJN 2012 report.
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
13
Sources
CBS - Statistics Netherlands (2015) International Trade Data European Fruit Juice Association (2012): Market Report European Fruit Juice Association (2014): Market Report
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
14
Annex – category scores
i
Questionmark (2015), Potatoes vegetables and fruit, An social impact study, april 2015 version 1.0 ii For an overview of Questionmark’s method for determining the effect of labels on social impacts, please see www.thequestionmark.org/methode
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
15
Amsterdam, June 2015 Version: 0.2 Author: Paul Middelkoop
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
1 Contents 1
Contents
2
2
Introduction
3
3
2.1
Background
3
2.2
This study
3
2.3
Input by stakeholders
3
Goal and scope definition
5
3.1
Goal
5
3.2
Scope
5
3.3
System boundaries
5
3.3.1
Exclusions
5
3.3.2
Functional unit
5
4
Data inventory
6
5
Results
7
6
Conclusions
12
Annex – country mixes
13
Annex – category scores
15
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
2
2 Introduction 2.1 Background Questionmark rates thousands of consumer products based on their impact on health, environment, human rights and animal welfare throughout the production chain. In order to measure these impacts, Questionmark uses robust methods that adhere to widely accepted scientific theories and can be applied at product level. To investigate the social impacts of products Questionmark uses a methodology based on Social-Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The new field of S-LCA follows the established field of Environmental Impact Assessment by analysing the complex interaction between a product and the social environment from cradle to grave.
2.2 This study This document describes the way in which S-LCA is applied to investigate the social impact of juice. The goal of this study is to produce a database of social impacts of these products, which will be used to compare the different products.
This report focusses on the cultivation phase of the juice production. It's methodology and data is based on Questionmarks’ previous research on potatoes, fruits and vegetables. Please see that report for more detailed information on the used methodology1. The reason for using the same approach is that cultivation of fruits intended for juice production is assumed to differ little in terms of implications for human rights than it is for the produce market.
2.3 Input by stakeholders Questionmark invites stakeholders to provide feedback on each study performed to obtain useful critique on methodological choices and 1
Questionmark (2015) Aardappelen, Groente en Fruit – Verantwoording Mensenrechten http://www.thequestionmark.org/methode/overig/verantwoording/ Questionmark thequestionmark.org
3
outcomes and thus to conduct studies in a robust and proficient manner. A panel of experts and stakeholders is consulted in the study about the cultivation of Potatoes, Vegetables and Fruiti. The stakeholders that have been consulted in that study are requested to provide feedback on this study again for their input. Stakeholders that are specific for the juice sector are requested to provide feedback as well.
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
4
3 Goal and scope definition 3.1 Goal The goal of the study is to develop a life cycle assessment ingredient database of juices. This database will be used as input to compare the social aspects of different juices and juice related products.
3.2 Scope The scope of this study comprises of all of the fruit juices, including their processing type, labels and countries, that are found in a selection of Dutch supermarkets2.
3.3 System boundaries 3.3.1 EXCLUSIONS While efforts were made to include all relevant aspects of the life cycles of the various products, not everything could be included. Processing, transport and distribution are not included in the scope of the project as it is assumed that these stages have not a significant high impact per kilo of the product and would therefore not influence the results much.
3.3.2 FUNCTIONAL UNIT The functional unit follows the definition of the functional unit as described in the general description of the environmental analysis. This document describes the functional unit as follows: the consumption of 1 kg juice as consumed by the consumer.
2
These are: Jumbo, Albert Heijn, Plus, Coop, Lidl, Aldi, Marqt en Ekoplaza. The first four are selected due to their significant share in the retail-sector and their offer of own-brand products. The second four are added to cover two ends of a spectrum, the discounters (Lidl, Aldi), and the supermarkets reputed to mainly sell ‘sustainable’ products (Ekoplaza, Marqt). Together these eight represent 80% of the Dutch retail-sector. Questionmark thequestionmark.org
5
4 Data inventory The data used for this study is taken from the Social Hotspots Database. In addition, desk research and stakeholder consultation has taken place to supplement the estimated risks. Additional sources include: 1. Reports by the International Labour Organization 2. U.S. Department of Labour – List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor 3. Peer reviewed academic journals 4. Reports by international and local unions and NGO’s 5. Regional or local journals and newspapers
Origin of the researched ingredients
The country of origin for the different types of juices are listed in the Annex. These are based on statistics from the European Fruit Juice Association (AIJN), FAO, and the Dutch Bureau for Statistics.
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
6
5 Results In the figure below the average social impact score of several main types of juices are given. The results are interpreted in the paragraphs below with several illustrations.
Social'Impact'Score' 10$
9$
8$
7.6$ 7.1$
7.0$
7.0$
7$
6.2$
6.0$
6.0$
6$
6.0$
6.0$
5.6$ 4.9$
5$
3.8$
4$
pp sa
$ ap ss
Sin
aa
na
ts ru i ?f ul
An a
el sa p$
ap $
p$ el sa M
r$a p ec ta
tn
Ap p
pe l$
el $ pp as a
Fr ui
tn
ec ta
r$s i
na
eB n m in Fr ui
M
ul
?v ita
M ul
?f
ru i
tn
ec ta
ec ta
r$
r$
t$ $f r ui
pe l$
k$g em i xt
Fr i sd
ra n
ra n
k$a p
ap p as na
k$s i ra n Fr i sd
Fr i sd
Fr i sd
ra n
el $
k$
3$
Figure 1. Social Impact Score
Comparing Fruit Juices with other Drinks
In the supermarkets many other drinks are available which contain fruits and are shelved among these fruit juices. Below an overview is given how these drinks score comparatively.
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
7
10$
Social'Impact'Score'and'Share'of'Products'w/'Water'as'Main' Ingredient'
100%$
9$
90%$
8$
80%$ 6.9$
7$ 6$
5.9$
70%$ 60%$
5.3$
5$
50%$
4$
40%$
3$
30%$
2$
20%$
1$
10%$
0$
0%$ Sappen$
Nectars$ Social$Score$
Frisdrank$met$fruitsmaak$
Water$as$main$ingredient$
Figure 2. Average Risk Scores per Juice Category
Soda drinks with an added fruit flavour receive a relatively high score, meaning they have a low social impact. This is due to water from the Netherlands constituting a large part of their ingredient lists. Water from the Netherlands typically has a lower social impact score than that of fruit. As can be seen by looking at the blue line, there is a clear connection between the social impact score and the percentage of products with water as their main ingredient. For the best performing categories water is the main ingredient for close to all products. In contrast, fresh juices get a lower score, as they consist purely of high-risk ingredients.
Country of Origin
Country of origin of the ingredients is decisive in the outcome of these scores. In the figure below we zoom in on four fruit juice types.
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
8
Social'Impact'Scores'by'Fruit'Juice'Type' Ananas,Uit concentraat,Thailand,Fairtrade
7"
Ananas,Uit concentraat,Thailand,Geen Keurmerk
4"
Ananas,Concentraat,Herkomstland onbekend
4"
Sinaasappel,Uit concentraat,Brazilië,Fairtrade
7"
Sinaasappel,Puur,Spanje
6"
Sinaasappel,Puur,Herkomstland onbekend Sinaasappel,Puur,Brazilië
4" 3"
Appel,Concentraat,Herkomstland onbekend,Geen
4"
Appel,Uit concentraat,Zuid-Afrika,Fairtrade
7"
Appel,Puur,Nederland Appel,Uit concentraat,Zuid-Afrika,Geen keurmerk Druif,Concentraat,Herkomstland onbekend,Biologisch
7" 5"
6"
Druif,Puur,Frankrijk Druif,Puur,Herkomstland onbekend
7" 6"
Figure 3. Social Impact Scores by Fruit Juice Type
Grapes score relatively well because most come from Southern Europe. Labour conditions here are at risk, but risks are nevertheless lower than those in developing countries. Which risks exactly are at play in the supply chain is specified later in the report. Pineapples on the other hand are mainly grown in countries with high human right risks, such as Thailand and Costa Rica. This lack of variation differs from the variety found in apples and oranges. They can both come from within Europe (even Northern Europe for apples), and South America or Asia (in the case of Chinese apples) resulting in different scores. This degree of variation can also be seen in figure 4. on page 10.
Note that not-from-concentrate juices (‘puur’) can have different countries of origin than their concentrated counterparts. Orange juice is often produced from frozen concentrate (FC) originating from Brazil. The same goes for certain juices with social labels (i.e. Fairtrade), of which the country of origin are deemed to be from the global south, whereas regular juices can also come from European countries (e.g. apples and oranges). This results in different scores on an ingredient level.
Mitigating effect of Social Labels
Figure 3. also illustrates what social labels can do in minimizing risks. The example of oranges from Brazil, and those of pineapples from Thailand
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
9
clearly show that social labels have a significant expected effect in mitigating the risks of human rights violations. In both cases the risks significantly decreaseii.
Variation in scoring across types of drinks
In figure 5. below the average is given per category along with the minimum and maximum scores of a product. The figure shows that for many types of drinks there is significant variation in the social impact. For apples this stems from the different sourcing countries (whether it is from Northern Europe or the global South), or whether it has a social label. For orange juice the impact of Fairtrade in mitigating risks results in the higher score for the best performing products. See Annex 2 for more results. Social'Impact'Score'by'Type'of'Beverage' 7.6$ 7.1$
7.0$ 6.1$
6.0$
6.0$
6.0$
6.0$
5.5$
p$
$ pp sa aa Sin
ul
8f
ru i
ts
el sa
ap
p$ el sa M
ec ta Fr ui
tn
Ap p
pe l$ r$a p
ap as na
e> n Fr ui
m in 8v ita ul
tn ec ta r$s i
tn ru i M
pe l$
r$ ec ta
r$ ec ta
ei $ 8f
M ul
ra nk $ aa rd b
Fr i sd
Fr i sd
ra n
k$s i
na
Fr i sd
as a
pp
ra n
k$
el $
4.9$
Minimum$
Maximum$
Average$
Figure 4. Human Right Risk Scores per Fruit Juice Category
What issues are particularly at play?
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
10
10.0$
Social'Impacts'by'Theme' 9.0$
8.0$
7.5$
7.7$ 7.4$
7.4$
7.6$
7.3$ 7.0$
7.0$
7.0$ 6.6$
6.1$
6.0$ 5.9$
5.7$
5.9$
5.9$
5.3$
6.0$
5.0$ 4.6$ 4.0$
4.5$
4.2$ 3.5$
3.0$
2.0$
1.0$ Freedom$of$ Associa9on$
Forced$Labor$
Child$Labor$
Discrimina9on$
Living$Wage$ Health$and$Safety$
100%$Juice$Products$
Migrants$
Working$Hours$ Access$to$Water$ Access$to$Land$
All$types$of$juices$and$drinks$with$fruit$as$an$ingredient$
Figure 5. Saliency of Human Rights Risks
From the figure above it becomes apparent that the fruit supply chain is home to several human rights risks. Here the products with 100% fruit in them are scored by theme and represented in dark green. The most salient risks are Living Wage, Fair Treatment of Migrants, Working Hours, and Health and Safety. The other six themes included in the study follow closely, with only the themes discrimination, access to water and access to land scoring higher than a six. For a description of how these risks take form, see the document for the Potatoes, Fruits and Vegetables research.
The scores in light green are the social impact scores of all drinks which contain a type of fruit. Typically this is only a small portion of the ingredient list, with other low risks ingredients such as water or beet sugar (both usually sourced from the Netherlands, or otherwise Germany) constituting a significant portion of the product. Consequently, the social impact of these drinks are lower.
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
11
6 Conclusions The following observations are made: • Living Wage, Working Hours, Health and Safety, and the Fair Treatment of Migrant Workers are the most salient risks in the Fruit Juice Supply Chain. • Companies have a real choice in minimizing their social footprint by either sourcing from countries with sound labour standards and respect for human rights, or by sourcing fruits that are produced under certification schemes such as that of Fairtrade. • Consumers have a similar degree of choice when purchasing their juice, or drinks with fruits in them. Among fresh fruit juices, pear juice products have on average the least amount of social impact overall (this is due to most pears being sourced from within Europe). However, looking at specific products consumers can also purchase products apples with low social impacts from North-Western Europe or Fairtrade oranges. Along with pears from North-Western Europe, these have the lowest social impacts on a product level. • When comparing Fruit Juices with other drinks it has a relatively high social impact as many other drinks are mainly based on water. The latter has a lower social impact score (when it is produced in the Netherlands).
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
12
Annex – country mixes Orange juice
OFJC
NFC
Brazil
94% Brazil
70%
USA
6% Spain
30%
OFJC: Orange juice frozen concentrate NFC: Not from concentrate The figures of OFJC are from the AIJN 2012 report and the NFC figures are from the AIJN 2014 report.
Apple juice
AJC
ANFC
China
37% Germany
66%
Poland
46% Poland
34%
Turkije
17%
AJC: Apple Juice concentrate ANFC: Apple Juice not from concentrate The figures from both the AJC and ANFC are from the AIJN 2012 report.
Grape juice
GJC
France
48%
Spain
28%
Italy
25%
GJC: Grape juice concentrate The figures from the GJC are from the CBS 2012 and 2013. This is based on the following CBS categories: 20096110, 20096190, 20096911, 20096919, 20096951, 20096959, 20096971, 20096979, 20096990. Pineapple juice
PJC
Thailand
46%
Costa Rica
54%
PJC: Pineapple juice concentrate The figures from PJC are from the AIJN 2012 report.
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
13
Sources
CBS - Statistics Netherlands (2015) International Trade Data European Fruit Juice Association (2012): Market Report European Fruit Juice Association (2014): Market Report
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
14
Annex – category scores
i
Questionmark (2015), Potatoes vegetables and fruit, An social impact study, april 2015 version 1.0 ii For an overview of Questionmark’s method for determining the effect of labels on social impacts, please see www.thequestionmark.org/methode
Questionmark thequestionmark.org
15
