German Supply Chains for Coffee: How Social Audits can Help to Uncover Violations

Global coffee supply chains face significant challenges in addressing human rights violations such as child labour, discrimination, or harassment. Such violations are often difficult to detect and require advanced skills on the part of auditors. Navigating complex power relations between workers and their employers, producers or supervisors requires specific techniques and extensive experience. While environmental violations can usually be detected through visual inspection of facilities, pesticide labels or documentary evidence, the identification of social violations and risks relies heavily on interviews as the main source of information.

One of the leading independent certification systems is 4C (Certification for Climate, Conservation, and Communities). It is committed to promoting responsible supply chains for coffee and cocoa worldwide. Producers, companies – such as exporters and importers, roasters and retailers – and stakeholders are brought together to bring about sustainable improvement for people, the environment and markets on the basis of credibility, cooperation and continuous development. The more robust the systems for detecting human rights violations are, the greater the credibility of seals and certifications, including for consumers.

Despite the robust framework provided by the 4C Code of Conduct, these complex social issues require more than standard auditing procedures to effectively identify their root causes. 4C has, therefore, teamed up with two partners to address these challenges. Meo Carbon Solutions (MCS) is an independent consulting firm specialising in carbon footprint optimisation, climate strategies, CO2 markets, sustainability certifications and due diligence in the supply chain. MCS manages short- and long-term projects for companies, ministries and institutions in Europe, Asia, Africa and America. ISCC (International Sustainability and Carbon Certification) is a leading global certification system that aims to promote traceable, sustainable, deforestation-free and climate-friendly supply chains for sustainable agricultural biomass, biogenic wastes and residues, non-biological renewable materials and recycled carbon-based materials.

The joint project“Fostering Social Auditing: Enhancing Issue Detection and Risk Identification through Responsive and Context-Specific Approaches” develops improved audit methods and tools that can be used to accurately assess, address and mitigate social risks in coffee production in order to ensure the well-being and rights of all persons involved.

During the project's baseline assessment, several challenges in social auditing were identified and mapped to best practices and future solutions. Based on these findings, an extensive training program for 4C Managing Entities (producer organisations) and Certification Bodies was developed and implemented. Producer organisations manage the farmers from whom they purchase coffee. These can be cooperatives but also export companies or national federations that manage a group of producers under one certificate. Certification bodies are based in the producing countries and usually audit on behalf of various standards.

Auditor’s knowledge and skills

Social auditing requires advanced social skills of an auditor. As traditionally, audits have focused heavily on environmental aspects such as the use of pesticides, agrochemicals, or fertilisers, many auditors are mainly trained and educated in technical fields. Verifying social criteria, however, requires social skills to establish trust between the auditor and the auditee, as many auditees feel intimidated. In these contexts, it is especially vital for auditors to set the scene before starting the actual interview. Best practices include approaching workers with a friendly, trustworthy attitude, using ice-breakers before asking questions, formulating open-ended questions, conducting group interviews before individual ones, and sharing the auditor's contact details.

“When I start an interview, the first thing I try to do is not come across as someone who is evaluating, because at the end of the day we don't evaluate the workers, we evaluate the organisation (…)”, an auditor from a Latin American Certification Body explained. “It is important to approach workers, instil confidence in them and make them feel that they are not being judged and that their statements cannot harm them. That is the first thing I do”.

Complex power dynamics among employers and workers, or with other people in positions of power, such as heads of families, make social audits difficult. An auditor in Vietnam reports that the auditors are “typically accompanied and assisted by a local representative of the producer organisation (Managing Entity) to meet the interviewees”. Although they ask them to leave the room before the interview, some interviewees may feel insecure or monitored. In such cases, it is important to weigh up the situation sensitively: encouraging people to share information must not turn into pressure that leads to false statements. A common strategy is to increase the sample size and interview more people if there are uncertainties or a risk is suspected.

An auditor in Colombia describes it this way: “If a worker does not want to be interviewed, we consider why. It could be nervousness – but if we suspect another reason, we expand the sample to understand whether it is simply shyness or a potential risk in the organisation.”

Furthermore, it is crucial to follow a human rights-specific approach in social auditing: auditors should be familiar with the local context, relevant laws, cultural norms and socio-economic environment of the production countries and regions. The gender and ethnicity of the respondents should also be taken into account when selecting the person to be audited – for example, by using female auditors for interviews with women.

It is equally important to be able to recognise red flags for detecting human rights violations. Being able to detect indicators of child labour, forced labour or harassment at an early stage requires special awareness and experience. “Many auditors are, traditionally, agronomists by training and well-trained on environmental aspects. However, social auditing skills usually require more time and training”, explains Katia Masias-Bröcker of Meo Carbon Solutions. The project has therefore developed and piloted a multi-stage training programme in Vietnam and Colombia to specifically strengthen these skills.

Audit design and techniques

In addition to establishing an environment of trust, language and terminology also play a vital role. Complex terminology, such as forced labour, can often be misunderstood by the interviewee, especially in regions with different local languages. “We have had auditors in the past who came to our farm and plainly asked the workers if they had forced labour (trabajo forzoso) here”, reports a farm manager from Colombia. “The workers didn’t know this term and simply understood it as work that involved a lot of physical force, responding: ‘Yes, sure, we work really hard here’”. To avoid misunderstandings, auditors should use simple language appropriate to the rural context, take local languages into account and employ well-skilled interpreters.

For the implementation of specific audit content, certification systems offer audit checklists that divide the system's requirements into criteria and checkpoints, such as ‘Children under the age of 15 (or below the local legal school age) are not part of the regular workforce.’ Such conventional checklists that lead to yes/no questions, such as ‘Do you employ children on this farm?’, rarely provide reliable results in sensitive interview situations. Many respondents know what answer is expected – or interpret terms differently. In addition, the line between permissible help from children in a family context (child work) and prohibited child labour is often difficult to discern. Is a child helping their parents with housework for a limited time after school, or are these activities depriving the child of their childhood and hindering their education?

Open-ended and context-related questions such as "I have heard that people in this region grow up with coffee farming. Would you say that's true?" Contextual questions about risk factors such as distance to the nearest school, (public) transport, regular school hours, breaks and holidays, or an on-site check (e.g., to determine whether migrant workers live with their families on the plantation) can be added. It is also advisable to cross-check with other sources of information such as school registers, statements from school staff, community leaders or NGOs.

The training provided as part of this project focused precisely on these skills. They provided participants with concrete tools to better identify social risks and implement social audits more effectively. This was repeatedly praised in positive feedback, and auditors from various Certification Bodies showed an encouraging openness to sharing their experiences and best practices. The project will continue to develop additional guidelines and practical tools for auditors and producer organisations.