RED FLAG # 19

The business’s commercial success substantially depends upon trading or sourcing agricultural commodities that are priced independently of production costs, such that farmers are unlikely to be able to sustain a living income.

For Example

Food and beverage (manufacturers, distributors and retailers), pharmaceutical and cosmetics companies sourcing, and traders trading:

  • Price-volatile agricultural commodities supplied by small-holder farmers (cocoa, coffee, palm oil, tea, milk)
  • Price-volatile labor-intensive commodities (bananas, cotton)
  • Capital-intensive commodities for which the price does not reflect the cost of production and that require large agricultural land areas (soy, wheat, corn, biofuel feedstocks)
Higher-Risk Sectors
  • Food and beverage companies (manufacturers and retailers) sourcing from developing/ emerging markets
  • Agricultural trading companies
  • Pharmaceutical and cosmetics
  • Textile and apparel companies
  • Energy and transportation companies (e.g., those using biofuels)
Questions for Leaders
  • How does the company understand the relationship between the price of the commodity and living incomes/wages for farmers and agricultural workers in source countries?
  • To what extent does the company’s value proposition rely on the price of an agricultural commodity being depressed below levels deemed sufficient to sustain living incomes/ wages? Does the business model rely on substantial market power to drive down pricing?
  • Does the company’s business model help or hinder long-term sourcing commitments to farmers?
  • How does the company factor changing climatic conditions and related potential worker impacts into its commodity sourcing strategies?

How to use this resource. Group 33 Created with Sketch. ( Click on the “+” sign to expand each section. You can use the side menu to return to the full list of red flags, download this Red Flag as a PDF or share this resource. )

Understanding Risks and Opportunities

Risks to People
Risks to The Business
  • Legal, Financial, Regulatory, Operational and Reputational Risks:

    • Undue price pressure on supply chains in certain geographies can lead to civil society campaigns, resulting in damage to reputation, brand and customer loyalty. For example:

      • Amnesty International’s “Big Palm Oil Scandal” campaign, named several large brands (e.g., Nestle, Colgate-Palmolive, Wilmar) highlighting poor labor practices at the plantations supplying their palm oil.

      • The 2023 Corporate Accountability Lab report on the cocoa supply chain names several multinational cocoa and chocolate companies (e.g., Mars, Nestle, Cargill and Ferrero) and highlights the incongruities between seemingly extravagant corporate capital expenditures with the comparative costs of paying agricultural suppliers a living income.

    • Extreme price pressure on farmers can undermine availability of product and stability of supply in the near term; over time it can contribute to an exodus from farming. For example, in Australia, two major Australian supermarkets (Woolworths and Coles) were accused of aggressive negotiating tactics by farmers’ representatives, who claimed that farmers were being “held to ransom by a large corporate duopoly”, which is in turn “contributing to the wide-scale bulldozing of orchards and an industry exodus.” The allegations resulted in significant media scrutiny, public demands to “break up” the large super market chains, a senate inquiry, as well as a government-imposed mandatory Food & Grocery Code of Conduct for retailers and wholesalers with over AUD 5 billion in annual grocery revenue. As of 1 April 2025, breaches of the code face financial penalties (greater of: AUD 10M, 3 times the value of the contravening conduct, or 10% of turnover for the preceding 12 months).

  • Business Opportunity:

What the UN guiding principles say

The UNGPs note that companies should “strive for coherence between their responsibility to respect human rights and policies and procedures that govern their wider business activities and relationships [including] …. procurement practices” (Principle 16, Commentary).

  • Companies sourcing commodities through their supply chain from farmers who receive less than a living income may be directly linked to impacts on the adequacy of the farmers’ standard of living.

  • If a company’s purchasing practices push costs upstream in the supply chain – whether alone or as part of an industry-wide behavior – in ways that prevent farmers from achieving a living income, they contribute to the impacts experienced by farmers.

Possible Contributions to the SDGs

Addressing impacts on people associated with this red flag indicator can contribute to, among other things:

  • SDG 1: Eradication of poverty in all its forms

  • SDG 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries

  • SDG 13: Take Urgent Action to Combat Climate Change and its Impacts, in particular target 13.1 Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries

Oxfam has noted that, “perpetually low income levels are one of the key reasons why farmers remain stuck in poverty…For many small-scale farmers, significant gaps exist between their actual income and income levels sufficient to ensure a decent standard of living…”. Oxfam cites structural barriers, including at the level of individual supply chains, which reinforce the “significant imbalance between the risks of agriculture shouldered by farmers and their power to shape their own market participation.”

By addressing the impacts on living income from corporate sourcing practices and price influencing, companies can contribute to lifting the poorest people in agriculture into more sustainable livelihoods, and in turn help them to escape poverty and realize their rights, from better health to nutrition to education.

Taking Action

Due Diligence Lines of Inquiry
  • Are our purchasing practices designed to drive down pricing, or do they have the effect of doing so? How do we know?

  • Is the duration of our supply chain commitments/contracts helping or hindering our ability to use our leverage to secure better prices for farmers?

  • Have we explored increasing dialogue with, or forming partnerships with, farmers or cooperatives in our supply chain? Have we sought to understand the real costs associated with production of the commodity, based on their experience?

  • Are we engaging in multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) aimed at addressing human rights impacts with respect to the commodity on which we rely? Where a relevant MSI doesn’t exist, can we learn from such initiatives for other commodities and explore opportunities to create one?

  • Have we explored how to engage and educate our customers if they must absorb some price increase to protect farmer living standards?

  • Are we prepared to experiment – and learn from failures or missteps – in tackling the difficult challenge of livelihoods in supply chains? Can we explore opportunities to promote and facilitate the growth of new forms of business in our supply chain that can channel more resources to farmers (e.g. cooperatives, women-owned enterprises, social enterprises)?

  • Do we understand the ways in which climate variability is impacting our suppliers and the steps we can take to address potential impacts for farmer incomes? What measures are we taking to address climate-related impacts on our suppliers?

Mitigation Examples

* Mitigation examples are current or historical examples for reference, but do not offer insight into their relative maturity or effectiveness.

  • The Farmer Income Lab, launched by Mars, with Dalberg Advisors, Wageningen University and Oxfam USA, is a collaborative effort to identify ways to increase smallholder farmers’ incomes – beginning with Mars’ supply chains in developing countries – and to understand how to create positive outcomes for farmers at scale.

  • Companies participating in the voluntary Sustainable Vanilla Initiative commit to pre-competitive projects to improve quality, product traceability, good market governance and the livelihoods of smallholder farmers who form the foundation of the global vanilla bean trade.

Alternative Models
  • Oxfam has highlighted several examples of alternative models, including:

    • UK company Sainsbury’s Dairy Development Group: farmers have full membership within the group and equal votes in decision making on milk price.

    • Private company Apicultura Lilian, in Honduras: the company has a sourcing strategy focused on establishing a direct link with honey producers; it distributes 10% of its profits to supplier network and provides technical support and inputs to increase yields

  • In India, the Regenerative Production Landscape Collaborative, initiated by the Laudes Foundation, IDH, and WWF India, offers a model of regenerative agriculture that addresses both livelihood and environmental challenges, such as pesticide pollution and persistent drought. This collaborative works to shift smallholder farmers across Madhya Pradesh from monsoon‑dependent monoculture cotton to regenerative intercropping and vegetable diversification. It brings together government, civil society, farmers, brands (e.g., H&M, Inditex, IKEA, PepsiCo) to drive regenerative practices, improve ecosystem health, and secure supply accountability. Early results report significant improvement in soil health, crop yields and farmer incomes through diversified crops and reduced input costs.

  • Some initiatives appear to aim at “de-commoditization”: An impact investing fund created by Danone, Firmenich, Mars and Veolia with respect to vanilla, offers a 10-year commitment, cooperative and a minimum price, through an “innovative model where farmers and industry players share both the benefits and risks.” The project estimates that 60% of cured vanilla’s value will go back to farmers (compared to initially observed shares of 5% to 20%).

Other tools and Resources

Cocoa

Coffee

  • Global Coffee Platform is a multistakeholder membership association focused on collective action on local priorities and critical issues for coffee farmers.

Tea

Multiple commodities

Citation of research papers and other resources does not constitute an endorsement by Shift of their conclusions.