Lindsey Moore's posts on Justmeans

Can you quantify the value of CSR initiatives?

Lindsey Moore — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:27:58 GMT

Constant debate surrounds the real marketing and monetary benefits of CSR initiatives. Over nachos in Noe Valley (San Francisco) last night I mused with the U.S. operations director at AlterEco, Jeanne Cloutier, about the plethora of ethical certifications crowding the labels of the products we buy. Like many others at the crossroads of sustainability and marketing, we wondered how much this "Christmas tree" of ornamental labels really makes a difference to the consumer.Luckily, there is one measure that can put a numeric value on the otherwise intangible benefits of CSR. The price-to- earnings ratio (p/e ratio) is a measure of a company's current share price compared to its per-share earnings. A high multiple of stock compared to earnings means that investors believe more in the stock (signified by the fact that it's valued above its earning potential). The magic behind this ratio is that the unknown factor or 'belief' in stock offers a numerical expression of a company's feel good effect - or a reflection of its successful CSR strategy.Costco is a perfect example of this effect. With an average p/e ratio of 24, Costco's ratio is nearly 50% higher than competitors such as Walmart (with an average of about 16). In this way, the p/e ratio proves that social responsibility and treating your employees right is a long term strategy which facilitates consumer confidence and can improve the value of a company.When Walmart came out with its sustainability Index in 2008 it was hyped to mythical proportions and purported to be "audacious beyond words" and to "shake the world." Two years later, Walmart has little to show for this initiative apart from increasing consumer skepticism and a relatively low p/e ratio.In contrast, Costco has reliably, and more humbly, incorporated CSR into its core operations though initiatives such as ethically sourced coffee (Kirkland brand Fair Trade) and jewelry (compliant with the No Dirty Gold campaign). Impressively, Costco has also managed to maintain an unusually sustainable poultry sourcing method. While providing over 200 million pounds of chicken to customers, Costco upholds a long-term relationship with Foster Farms (a farm with above-market animal care standards and lowest employee turnover rate (10%) in the industry). These are just a few examples on a laundry list of initiatives that have provided Costco with a high p/e ratio and a strong relationship with consumers.In the end, another label on your bottle declaring 'bird friendly' or 'carbon lite' is neither likely to improve your company's relationship with consumers nor add to its value. However, a consistent ethos of social responsibility as demonstrated by companies like Costco and AlterEco will ultimately be rewarding.For more information about this topic join the illuminati of the ethical sourcing and certification movements at the first international conference on ethical certification,Certification, Consumption and Change on September 29, 2010. Grab your tickets at www.theinsource.com

Gap Inc. unveils China expansion plans - what does this mean for its CSR policy?

Lindsey Moore — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:02:40 GMT

Last week, Gap unveiled plans to enter China with four Gap brand stores in full swing by the end of the year. The San Francisco-based company, parent to the Gap, Banana Republic and Old Navy brands, said the move marks the start of a "long-term, multi-channel" strategy to cater to the rapidly growing consumer market in China.Gap has set itself up for the huge challenge of enforcing its sustainability and social justice guarantees while operating in a country known to violate many of these same values.In many ways, Gap's entry into China will be a force of good. If one subscribes to Adam Smith, than Gap's move exemplifies a wave of economic globalization that will release productive forces on a global scale and facilitate the optimum allocation of world resources- thereby increasing the wealth of the world as a whole.However, the difficulty occurs when the respect for social equality that has become the legal foundation of western capitalism clashes with a country's right to sovereignty over internal affairs. Resentment when the economic might of western corporations subverts cultural values has already created backlash in the form of terrorism and other anti-western movements in many countries.Gap will have to negotiate the values of freedom and equality that are integrated into the operations of its 3,100 western stores with the conflicting value that freedom, in an absolute sense, ignores people's survival and negates a country's flexibility to develop on the same path as many western countries. Critics of enforcing strict CSR codes profess that these codes deny the equal rights of developing countries to participate in the world economic system. In the sense of the "practical freedom" of Amartya Sen, to deprive developing countries of equal rights to development is to deprive the people of their practical freedom as well as their future economic success."After spending a lot of time listening to Chinese consumers and learning more about their shopping preferences, we're excited at the prospect of meeting their fashion needs," Gap Inc. Chief Executive Glenn Murphy said in a statement. Yet, it's going to be a lot more than fashion needs that Gap is going to have to meet.____Join leading corporations in the field of CSR and ethical certification at Certification, Consumption and Change to discuss these and other crucial issues regarding the future of sustainability (London, September 29). For more information visit www.theinsource.comPhoto Credit: Flickr

To Diet Constantly (and other proclamations in the world of fast ethical sourcing)

Lindsey Moore — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 07:19:24 GMT

In Martin Smith's open letter to Sir Richard Branson (CEO, Virgin Atlantic), he summed up a feeling of a generation in a Jimmy Dean Ham, Egg & Cheese sandwich. Why, he wondered, can Virgin Atlantic make such huge strides in sustainability while simultaneously missing the lynch pin in the entire concept? A cup of Fairtrade tea served next to a 'sandwich' that exemplifies the unsustainability of half a dozen industries (factory farming, pharmaceuticals, trucking, oil & gas) is just one of the daily hypocrisies in ethical consumption that can turn even the most willing CSR believer into a skeptic.Strangely enough, #4 on Virgin's sustainability plan is "To Diet Constantly." While Virgin's focus is to save energy by removing unnecessary weight from planes (something not helped by serving Jimmy Dean sandwiches), there may be a deeper meaning in #4- Consume Less.CSR programs and certifications such as organic and fair trade have gone a long way to improve the sustainability of our supply chain but they are not the silver bullet to a better world.Like Virgin Atlantic, McDonald's is another enigma in the world of sustainable consumption which can equally be summed up in a sandwich. Or more aptly, 30 days of nothing but McDonald's sandwiches as in the famous documentary Super-Size Me. The repercussions of the McDonald's mentality to eat more for less reeks havoc in the animal kingdom as chickens and cows are turned into Frankenstein species and hormones and run-off stream into our rivers and our bodies.Yet, at the same time that McDonald's is facilitating unsustainable consumption, it uses sustainable sourcing as a means of attracting new customers and gaining the support of farmers and suppliers in the 119 countries it operates. The company supports Fairtrade coffee and has even cozied up to the Forest Stewardship Council. McDonald's has also introduced a Sustainable Fisheries program in line with the principals set out by the Marine Stewardship Council.In the end, while certifications and CSR are an important step towards improving our health and the health of the world, the ultimate responsibility lies with the consumer. If the stewards/stewardesses found a plane full of untouched Jimmy Dean's sandwiches on every seat a clear message would be sent, but I'm willing to wager what they found were a whole lot of empty wrappers and one angry Mr. Smith. Virgin and McDonald's can only be faulted for providing us with mix messages when we ourselves gain the necessary conviction to facilitate real change.Join leading corporations in the field of CSR and ethical certification at Certification, Consumption and Change to discuss these and other crucial issues regarding the future of sustainability (London, September 29). For more information visit www.theinsource.comPhoto Credit: flickr

IKEA a Non-Profit . . . Really?!

Lindsey Moore — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:08:50 GMT

IKEA has been boycotted by thousands of Israelis due to "blood libel" in a Swedish tabloid, by Polish Catholics for featuring same-sex couples in advertisements and by stopikea.com for alleged dangerously breakable furniture. Yet, this rag-tag gang of complaints is remarkably benign for an organization with huge reach; IKEA is the third largest wood buyer in the world (after the Home Depot and Lowe's). How has IKEA managed to simultaneously make huge profits while keeping out of the fray?Remarkably, IKEA is a Non-Profit founded by Ingvar Kamprad at 17 years old. IKEA is owned by the world's biggest charity (Stichting INGKA Foundation) with a mission dubiously devoted to forwarding interior design. While less-known than the Gates Foundation, the Stichting INGKA Foundation is actually the world's richest charity. To the naked-eye, IKEA appears as a company but it is actually able to exploit the loopholes of different jurisdictions to gain the benefits of its non-profit status. The legal formulation of IKEA works to reduce disclosure and tax, generously reward the founding Kamprad family and exempt IKEA from the possibility of takeover.Once aware of IKEA's charity status, consumer's perception of the organization tends to shift from admiration of a benevolent company to outrage at a greedy charity. Given its mission of 'forwarding interior design', IKEA should be using its charity windfall to pioneer the cause of ethically-sourced materials rather than simply designing cheep swivel chairs and pencil holders.If not for its unsettling claim as a charity, one would most likely praise IKEA for its commitment to Forest Stewardship Council certified forest products and its work with WWF to ensure sustainability. IKEA also has the commendable goal of sourcing all of its wood from forests according to high standards that are to be co-operatively developed by environmentalist and verified by an independent third party.However, similar companies which are also sourcing wood but that do not have the financial flexibility of IKEA (such as Kimberly-Clark, the 4th largest wood buyer and B&Q/Kingfisher) are demonstrating equivalent commitment to ethically-sourced products. Therefore, if IKEA is to have any rightful claim on its charity status, it should innovate in sourcing and sustainability methods to create new supply chains and develop cheaper methods for companies in the field to emulate.The largest companies in the forest industry will be meeting under the watchful eye of the Forest Stewardship Council and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative at the first international conference on ethical certification (London, September 29th). I for one, expect IKEA to pony-up and demonstrate innovation and leadership in sustainable interior design and sourcing at the event. This remains to be seen . . .For more information about the first international conference on ethical certification, Certification, Consumption and Change visit www.theinsource.com. Early Bird registration ends this Wednesday on June 30th! Register HERE

Eco Ego-Labeling

Lindsey Moore — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 07:26:50 GMT

Eco Ego-LabelingCurrently, about 600 labels exist worldwide to certify qualities of environmental stewardship in products. Whether you're worried about a product's carbon output in China, its effect on Orangutans in Indonesia, or the "pot to plate" management of Southern Rocklobsters in Australia, you will find a certification for all of your environmental concerns - as well as those you didn't even know you had.However, as labeling is a self-regulating industry, the credibility of these eco-claims varies widely. In carbon alone, there are hundreds of labels from the Carbon Trust to the Climatop. While the best certifications such as Forest Stewardship Council, Marine Stewardship Council and Rainforest Alliance have increased accountability in their respective markets, others have led to consumer confusion and enabled corporations to hide under a green cloak.Researchers have found that more than 98% of 2,200 certified products in North America lack proof to justify their claims. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed charges against multiple labels for false charges. For example, the FTC prosecuted clothing manufactures for advertising their products as made of sustainable bamboo fiber when in fact they were made of rayon. These companies (Sami Designs, Jonano, CSE Inc, Mad Mod and Pure Bamboo) were also charged for falsely claiming that their products were made using environmentally friendly processes retaining the natural antimicrobial properties of the bamboo plant, and that they are biodegradable.Amongst the confusion of eco-labeling, the only thing that is clear is that labels need to collaborate and consolidate to fulfill their greater mandate. In September, the most respected eco-labeling brands will meet with thought-leaders of the most influential companies and certifications involved in sustainability to discuss concerns and make plans for the future of this valuable field (see The First International Conference on Ethical Certification).Perhaps they should make a label to label the best eco-labels?# # #See www.theinsoruce.com for more information on this first international conference on ethical certification.Photo Credit: flickr

Unilever; Jamaican Me Crazy

Lindsey Moore — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 06:36:53 GMT

Unilever balances on a precarious divide in the world of ethical consumption. With dozens of brands, Unilever's empire spans the spectrum of resource use ranging from sustainable to rapacious. Simultaneously accused of pillaging rainforests through negligent palm oil practices while lauded for rainforest protection under Rainforest Alliance certification, Unilever is a conundrum.Ben & Jerry's is Unilever's sustainability poster-child. The brand has committed to convert all ingredients to Fairtrade by the end of 2013. Globally, this involves adapting up to 121 different types of chunk and swirl to Fairtrade including cocoa, banana, vanilla, fruits and nuts. This also means involving Fairtrade co-operatives with a combined membership of over 27,000 farmers.Yet, Ben & Jerry's represents only a fraction of Unilever's total sales under its Heartbrand Ice Creambrand which includes others labels such as Carte d'Or and Breyers. These remaining ice cream brands, as well as multiple other brands in its food, personal and home care lines are widely criticized for a lack of labor and environmental standards. Now that Unilever has demonstrated its ability to source sustainable ingredients from its most complicated brand, any excuse for using unsustainable ingredients in the remaining brands sounds Half Baked.If Unilever is not convinced to engage in ethical sourcing by goodwill alone, the company should be convinced purely by risk-management strategy. Unilever employees are still jarred by the palm-oil protesters swinging from the front steps of Unilever's central London headquarters dressed as orangutans (pictured). Similarly, it is not a stretch of the memory for Unilever to recall protests outside their annual general meeting due to the poor labor conditions in tea plantations which supply Brooke Bond and PG Tips.Whether you believe that Unilever is a visionary company with regressive twinges or a regressive company with rare strokes of vision, it is clear that Unilever needs to put more emphasis on its first syllable and work to unify the CSR strategy of its many brands.For Unilever to truly demonstrate commitment to the well being of people and the planet, the company must incorporate the social responsibility strategies demonstrated by Ben & Jerry's into its core business practices. Hopefully, Unilever will take its cue from previous work with Fairtrade and Rainforest Alliance to better Imagine Whirled Peace across the supply chain.To learn more about this topic from the leading brands and certification labels in sustainability join the first international conference on ethical certification held in London on September 29, 2010. See www.theinsource.com for more information.

The Carnivore's Responsibility

Lindsey Moore — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 05:49:26 GMT

Horror stories leaking out of America's largest factory farms from Cargill to Tyson are enough to turn the stomach of even the most voracious carnivore. Regardless of your eating ethos, you are likely to agree with the majority of the population who would like to think the meat on their plate was not skinned alive, laced with hormones and antibiotics or subjected to unnecessary suffering.Unfortunately, over 99% of meat in the US is produced in large factory farms where NGOs have unearthed brutal footage of factory farm workers reduced to sadism to deal with their daily reality of killing. Workers administering daily beatings, bludgeoning pregnant sows with a wrench and ramming an iron pole a foot deep into a mother pig's rectums and vaginas are just a few examples on a list of what is wrong with our meat-producing industry.The USDA, the federal agency charged with enforcing human as well as sanitary slaughter, has been toothless in protecting carnivorous consumers from both unhealthy meat as well as complicity in creating unnecessary suffering on a mass scale. Strong-armed by industrial farming lobbies, USDA inspectors have lacked the capacity, transparency and will to provide a real countercheck to large corporations.According to industry experts, the free-range label should provide no more peace of mind than "all-natural," "fresh," or "magical." The USDA does not have a definition of free-range for laying hens but rather accepts producer testimony alone.(Foer, 2009) Similarly, one of the USDA's criteria for organic requires that animals "have access to the outdoors." Yet, a screened window has been accepted as fulfilling this requirement thereby rendering it meaningless. The USDA's inability to fulfill its mandate to ensure humane slaughter castes serious doubts on its ability to fulfill its second mandate to protect consumers from unsanitary or infected meat.A tinny glimmer of hope came with this month's announcement that the USDA has finalized regulations that will give consumers increased confidence that milk and meat bearing the "Certified Organic" label have been produced in ways that actually benefit people, animals and the environment. For example, the new rules set to take effect this month, require that livestock must have year round access to the outdoors and be on pasture a minimum of 120 days.While these new rules only influence a small sector of the meat industry, they demonstrate that the demands of informed consumers (in this case 14,000 letter-writers) can create rapid change. Those of us who choose to eat meat must therefore accept the responsibility that meat-eating brings by demanding better regulation, knowing where our meat is produced, and being willing to pay the real price of meat production (yes, that means no more $1.99 burgers).To participate in the discussion on how to improve ethical labeling attended the first international conference on ethical certification (www.theinsource.com).For more information refer to Temple Grandin's industry wide audit of the meat industry or Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer.

Opening The Dialogue

Lindsey Moore — Tue, 25 May 2010 05:08:44 GMT

How many shades of grey should be tolerated?As the upcoming conference on ethical certification (Certification, Consumption and Change) approaches, some onlookers call into question the ethics of companies involved in certification. Such skepticism raises the issue of whether a company can be lauded for positive work and simultaneously appropriately condemned for corporate skull-duggery.De Beers represents a perfect example of a company that blurs the line between green-washing and true corporate responsibility. A list of De Beers' infamous history of malfeasance reads like the CSR handbook of what-not-to-do. Featured chapters include exploitation of labor and the apartheid system in South Africa, forcible relocation of the Bushman in Botswana and price-fixing.Yet, surprising to many, De Beers could also be a featured chapter in the hand-guide to innovative and forward thinking corporate responsibility practices. Today, De Beers is veering from its historical status as a pariah in the CSR community and leading the charge to implement better standards. De Beers' annual Report to Stakeholders is a paradigm of transparent reporting and it's creation of the Madison Dialogue in conjunction with the Diamond Dialogues is an unprecedented example of stakeholder engagement. Similarly, De Beers is pioneering an innovative drive to create processes for Fair Trade diamonds that has the potential to transform working conditions for thousands of minors.Cadbury, another case study at the conference, can shed light on the very controversial, yet commonplace, occurrence when a company committed to ethical standards is taken over by another company (Kraft) with more questionable motives (Ben and Jerry's and Bert's Bees are other infamous examples of this phenomenon).While it is easy to be cynical of such corporate speakers, providing a platform (this particular platform will be moderated by the UN's International Labour Organization) that fairly questions and challenges these companies can only contribute to the dialogue on corporate responsibility and challenge companies to move a step further. After all, it is the companies that have made the greatest mistakes that have the greatest lessons to offer.Many certifications attempt to bridge this gap between positive and negative practices by creating a staged process whereby companies are rewarded for their positive aspects and rated on their ability to improve their negative practices year by year. Such a strategy requires an honest appraisal of all facets of a company's social and environmental portfolio. Therefore, while naysayers bring important facts to light, it's crucial that the dialogue not be derailed by movable obstacles ... in every shade of grey.For more information please visit www.theinsource.com or email sdonalds@theinsource.comPhoto Credit: Flickr

Reversal of Fortunes; A bigger picture of the oil spill and your role in saving the oceans

Lindsey Moore — Thu, 06 May 2010 05:46:59 GMT

Dedicated to my mother and ocean-stewardess on her birthdayBBC world news reports that as up to 5,000 barrels of oil a day spill into the gulf coast, local fishermen should go out and try to recover as much as they can before the slick approaches.While the oil, visible on the ocean's surface and threatening the livelihoods of fisherman and the lives of birds on the shore has caused international outrage and vast media coverage, there is a greater, less public, threat lurking beneath the surface of oceans.Damaged caused by overfishing is said to be 100,000 times higher than that of oil or gas exploration. Overfishing threatens to disturb the delicate balance of ecosystems in the world's oceans leaving future generations without an understanding of the joy and mystery that lies beneath the waves.Humans have been particularly slow to pick up on the threat of overfishing as compared to other environmental disasters due to the invisibility of the problem beneath the surface as well as a historically antagonistic relationship with the ocean and cold-blood fish.Historically, it was the fisherman who had worse odds of survival than the fish. As a child playing on the shores of an old fishing town and site of storms later immortalized in books and films (such as The Perfect Storm), I was told stories of fisherman who lost their lives in search of fish. This is a familiar story in fishing villages around the world; in Britain, on average over ten years, a British fishing vessel has been lost at sea every 12.5 days.However, technological developments in the past decade have dramatically shifted the odds. Equipped with radar and satellites fisherman no longer rely on charts to navigate tricky shorelines or a sixth sense to pick up shifting weather patterns or find schools of fish. Today, fish can be detected on radar as beeping masses beneath the hull.The result is untold destruction to marine habitats. Figures of the total amount of fish taken from the ocean are hard to come by but in 2004 around 120 million tons of seafood was estimated to be hauled from the sea. Adding to that the number of organisms that are killed or damaged during the process or thrown overboard as unwanted or 'bi-catch' (including dolphins, turtles and porpoises) as well as the industrial fishing industry, it is possible that the amount of sea life we eat is only 10 per cent of the amount of marine animals destroyed annually in the fishing process.With many feeling helpless and depressed about the destruction of the oil spill, perhaps the best action we can take is to improve the overall responsibility of our seafood consumption habits. Look for certifications on the seafood you eat (such as Marine Stewardship Council certification), and know which fish, such as blue fin tuna, are threatened.For more information on sustainable seafood consumption visit: http://jm.ly/FKqGSR or http://jm.ly/FGvw3Q. To discuss how consumption can be made more sustainable through certifications attend the upcoming conference on ethical certification see: www.theinsource.com. For an amazing video see:

Stakeholders and the Turning Tide; the need for a paradigm shift in the certification movement

Lindsey Moore — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:30:23 GMT

The definition of stakeholder engagement within the ethical certification movement seems to limit the flow of power from the global 'North' to the global 'South,' could this tide be turning?Stakeholder engagement is a hot topic in the field of ethical certification. Fair Trade's definition of stakeholder engagement revolves around companies working with marginalized producers and workers to help them move from a position of vulnerability to security and economic self-sufficiency.Sounds fair enough, but does power need to be 'given' to stakeholders to ensure greater equity in international trade, or are they taking it for themselves?The traditional definition of stakeholder engagement in the certification movement demonstrates an antiquated understanding of the main stakeholders. In this view, the producer is an isolated, uniformed and impoverished individual and the certified company is an organization with an underlying belief in justice and solidarity, backed by ethically-motivate consumers.This may have been true when companies such as Equal Exchange pioneered the movement by connecting with small producers in the field. However, today the picture is very different.Today, the 'benevolent' companies are the Tescos and Walmarts of the world with controlling market power due to the large volume of certified products that they are able to purchase. It is the demand of these large vendors that is driving, and some say corrupting, the certification movement. For example, plantations were previously excluded from certification because the hierarchical structure was seen to limit control over one's own livelihood. However, today's mainstream demand for certified goods has allowed for validation of the plantation structure.The impoverished and isolated producer smiling at us from the corners of ethically certified product packaging is similarly changed. Today, the producer is likely to live in thriving entrepreneurial societies in India, China and Ghana. Armed with vast resource and internet and mobile technology these producers are innovating new market structures and empowering their own livelihoods.This blogger sees a turning tide. Consumers of certified goods will no longer be concentrated in the global North but will increasingly be found in Southern countries. These rising middle classes will bring new values and demands to certification and will have the power to ensure their voices are heard. Producers will continue to form increasingly powerful bodies and will regulate certification from within their own countries rather than receiving standard requirements from across oceans.Some certifying bodies are already innovating along these shifting lines while others are mired in antiquated notions of stakeholder engagement. How will these trends develop and which certification bodies and brands will be leaders in innovating new models? Join in the discussion at www.theinsource.com.

Ethical Certifications into the Next Decade; Change-Making or Cluttering?

Lindsey Moore — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:44:59 GMT

In a world with ever-increasing claims of corporate social responsibility, it is difficult to separate actual commitment from marketing. I have counted seventy four ethical certification labels alone from Rainforest Alliance to One Voice to Ethical Tea Partnership or even Freedom Food and am certain that there are dozens more which have escaped my ten minute google session.Confused compatriots have approached me in pubs or supermarket alleys to inquire why their soil needs to be certified by the soil association or what the differences are between fair-fish, farmed-fish, line caught, dolphin friendly and Marine Stewardship Council certifications.Yet at the same time that the proliferation of certifications is causing confusion and doubts, consumers around the world continue to purchase an increasing amount of ethically certified products. Consumers spent an estimated 4 billion dollars on fairtrade certified products alone in 2008 despite the global recession (sales of fairtrade tea increasing most notably by 112%).In fact, certification labels are becoming so valuable that they are experiencing copy right infringement from knockoffs coming out of China next to fake Gucci bags.As the first decade of mass ethical certification comes to a close, it also comes to a head. Mounting confusion about the proliferation of certifying brands and skepticism of green-washing creates a potentially fatal cocktail when combined with increasing popularity and profitability of certifying brands.An important question amongst this whirlwind is what does all this mean for the producer? In many ways the mainstreaming of certification has diluted the goals of the original thinkers on certification and their producer-partners.Compromises must be made to ensure supply and quality in line with the demands of some of the biggest purchasers of certified goods such as Tesco and Walmart who now represent some of the most important decision makers in the field. The voice of the producer is often lost in the din of certifying bodies and brands clamoring to represent their interests in the name of international development.How can certifications continue to incorporate more stakeholders and enter mainstream channels in the next decade without compromising the value that has been painstakingly created by the original thought-leaders in the field? Such important questions will be explored in the first ever summit of stakeholders in the ethical certification landscape - Certification Consumption and Change, London, September 29th. For more details visit www.theinsource.com or contact info@theinsorce.comPhoto Credit: Flickr