'Fair Mile' Considerations for Corporate Social Responsibility Officers & Ethical Consumers

Much debate has transpired in academia, the NGO world and Corporate Social Responsibility circles worldwide about the sustainability soundness of  'food miles.' In simplified terms, the conventional wisdom viewpoint was that by purchasing food that traveled the fewest miles from farm to forks, it would make a significant dent in the battle to shrink carbon footprints. While much emphasis has been given to the negative impact of food transportation in the context of carbon emissions especially, it turns out that it only accounts for a small percentage, around 10%, of agriculture's carbon emissions.

In addition, the 'food miles' lens doesn't incorporate important ethical considerations that are intricately tied to human and economic implications, not just environmental ones, when discussing food systems. "The underlying discourse is about the tension between environmental concerns and social justice concerns, with the sometimes difficult but crucial observation that ignoring social justice ultimately makes environmental sustainability unlikely. I refer to this as 'carbon tyranny'," says Douglas Murray, co-director of the Center for Fair and Alternative Trade (CFAT) at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, CO. "It's a simplistic default to carbon issues without recognizing the arguably more important social dimensions to things like deforestation," Murray adds.

Fortunately, the debate is evolving to a concept that more accurately represents a broader spectrum of variables that amount to a review of the entire life cycle of the food supply chain. The concept of 'fair miles' was introduced by the IIED (International Institute for Environment and Development) in a 2009 guidebook joint project with Oxfam. This provides consumers and Corporate Social Responsibility officers the opportunity to consider a host of inherent processes that need to be factored in--from seed to fertilizers to pesticide use, as well as the methods used for cultivating, manufacturing, packaging, distributing, storing, consuming and disposing. Add to this equation the human impact component to farmers in that supply chain: the livelihoods of produce growers in places such as sub-Saharan Africa or Central America who are supported by the purchases we make in our grocery stores.

Does this mean that buying local food should be discarded or replaced with foreign food sources? Absolutely not. Farmers in the US have also been severely impacted by the global economic crisis we've been riding, and few would disagree with the benefits to farmers, communities and local economies when buying local. But neither can we ignore the very real implications to poor farmers in developing countries and that their agricultural inputs are often less chemically and equipment intensive. "Corporate Social Responsibility officers need to recognize that social responsibility is becoming increasingly subject to scrutiny and criticism because it glosses over the negative impacts of profit-seeking behavior, and often encourages the simplistic default thinking that if it's green, it's sustainable," says Murray. "'Fair miles' puts the question of whether it creates more sustainable realities all along the commodity chain, particularly at the point of production. There's considerable evidence that a subset of consumers is becoming ever more sophisticated in their thinking about these issues. And a business doesn't want to get caught in the trap of making claims that are shown to be misleading. If a company is doing business both locally and globally, they need to demonstrate that the values they're embracing are universal, not just for end consumers locally. Universal, by the way, does not mean uniform."

I asked Professor Murray if in the context of Corporate Social Responsibility, the framework of 'fair miles' could be extended to other types of eco and socially-minded businesses that are not in the exclusive domain of food products. While he wasn't sure how fair miles would flesh out in such companies, he thought a case should be made for it. "Fair trade, artisan and organic production systems have significantly smaller carbon footprints as a result of their less chemical intensive and less industrial production processes," says Murray. "Supporting a 'fair miles' approach recognizes poverty alleviation and empowerment has both a significant impact on social justice, and also on the environment, by reducing environmentally destructive practices through supporting these alternative systems."