Benchmarking Tool Table Sustainable Food Laboratory

Benchmarking Tool Table

	(Draft) Audit protocol for RCI BenchmarkingTool -- Sustainable Food Laboratory	v2 May 28 2006
	www.sustainablefood.org
	Preamble
	There has been rapid growth in the range of environmental and social (E&S) certification schemes for agrifood chains in recent years. While this indicates a growing business need to address E&S issues, there are a range of constraints that currently limit the effectiveness of certification in the food/ drink sector. Including :
	• The difficulty that most schemes have in operating at scale and volume (partly because they evolved to service niche markets but are not cost effective when applied to traditional commodity markets);
	• The inability that most schemes have in demonstrating impact (because monitoring is often unfocussed or not well related to impact)
	• Confusion over the most appropriate scheme to select. Because there are so many schemes and because they cannot demonstrate impact, retailers, buyers and investors are required to track multiple individual commodity initiatives which is time consuming and costly.
	In an attempt to address these constraints, the Responsible Commodities Initiative of the Sustainable Food Laboratory (www.glifood.com) is developing a tool that will provide guidance and support in the development of new standards and also clarify the offerings of existing schemes. The benefits of the tool include:
	• Demonstration of impact - A commitment to focus on key impacts (4-5 ) per commodity which deliver greatest sustainability benefits
	• Robust evidence which can be used to report performance - A requirement to define key metrics that are measurable, can be aggregated over time, and which are linked to impacts;
	• Socially equitable standards - A commitment to inclusivity - which will allow the greatest number of producers to participate
	• Simplicity and cost effectiveness -A focus on enabling certification systems that are simple and cost effective (reducing complexity and duplication of effort for stakeholders)
	• Scale of application - Design that encourages the use of commodity standards at scale (in essence providing commodity specific certification rather than farm level assurance)
	Introducing greater clarity to certification in the food/beverage sector will bring benefits to a range of stakeholders, and the Responsible Commodities Initaive (RCI) is committed to addressing the issues around social equity and "developmental benefits" in particular. Improvement and benchmarking key impacts and the transformative nature of the tool envisioned (enabling / supporting the move from niche to mainstream commodity certification) have the potential to effect significant improvements in the environmental, social and economic impacts of commodity production via market mechanisms.


1	PROCESS
1.1	A commitment to multistakeholder processes: The standard has been developed via a transparent and broad multistakeholder process which fully reflects the views of interested and affected parties throughout the value chain and from all relevant geographies

1.1.1	Standard and standard setting procedures were subject to public consultation during their development and remain available to the public subsequently

	# Review of documents to assess availability over standard setting process
	# Review of public consultation materials and feedback, including documents that demonstrate the extent to which the views of participants were taken into account
	# Review of current availability (and extent to which there remains an active and evolving discussion on standards)
	# Scope and method of consultation agreed at outset by all parties ( in particular on level of agreement required for approval of content and process elements)	Should all key stakeholders be required to participate for legitimacy or will legitimacy be achieved if stakeholder suite invited (but some choose not to engage?) Will adapt based on conclusions of ISEAL Jan 06 standard setting document

1.1.2	Standard setting is demonstrably an inclusive and equitable process. Standards form the basis of a public consultation program Standards address the needs and expectations of all stakeholder groups

	# Evidence that the standard setting agency has proactively sought the views of representatives from all major stakeholder groups, including those through the entire value chain and in relevant geographic production areas.
	# Evidence that standard setting took account of relative scales and market leverage of stakeholders, and in particular that the views of small producers were sought and considered

1.1.3	Consultation with local stakeholders was undertaken as part of assessment activities and as regular part of review and development of standards

	# Evidence that standard setting took account of relative scales and market leverage of stakeholders, and in particular that the views of small producers were sought and considered
	# Evidence from agency files of regualr and organized consultation re standards
	# Evidence from field (and other) interviews that producers, employees and relevant third parties have been consulted in relation to the review and evolution of the standard

1.2	Clear and transaprent governance : There is a representative and transparent board for the agency. The articles of association (or simlilar documents) of the group that manages the standard are publicly available and conform to good practice in terms of content, scope and operations

1.2.1	Standards agency is contactable, there is an institutional home and evidence of work plan and consultation plan / process/ procedures.

	# Review of standards agency documentation and office operations(including workplans, budgets, consultation and other documents)

1.2.2	A Board (or equivalent) has been elected that represents the views of all those involved in the development and operation of the standard (including producers). The terms of the board have been publicly discussed, are publicly available and subject to review based on feedback from stakeholders

	# Mapping of board members against stakeholder groups
	# Examination of agency web site or similar public fora
	# Disclosure of minutes and other outputs from board meetings
	# Evidence of adjustments to board structure and operations over time

1.3	Conflict of Interest (CoI) and dispute resolution: Potential conflicts of interest have been analysed and disclosed, and there is an active and transparent process through which CoI's and disputes are resolved

1.3.1	Conflict of Interest's procedures have been developed and are in place and explicitly described. Grievance mechanism agreed and disclosed and operations and transparency of CoI issues are effective .

	# CoIs have been discussed and potential risks identified
	# CoI policy and procedures have been agreed and are publicy available
	# Board discusses CoI issues and reports annulaly on conclusions and recommendations
	# Specific accountability for CoI and disputes allocated to a named individual.

1.4	Chain of Custody (CoC) evident : An analysis of the CoC needs for the commodity has been undertaken (which has included the views and needs of all stakeholder groups) and the specific requirements (physical, logistical, etc) of the commodity have been recognized in the evolution of CoC structure and operation

1.4.1	COC analysis has adddressed the logistical and other challenges that face producers and traders in the development of commodity assurance and chain of custody requirements. Particular reference has been made to bulk commodity movement

	# Evidence of interviews and discussions during standard development
	# Discussion on challenges and constraints that may be evident in securing CoC with producers during field visits
	# Assess capacity and technology issues around chain of custody and segregation

2	CONTENT

2.1	Environmental Performance: The selection of appropriate environmental indicators (KPIs) that underpin the standard is based on prioritised environmental impacts derived via a multi-stakeholder process, and such impacts are based on robust scientific evidence

2.1.2	Identification of environmental indicators has included an opportunity for interested parties to comment on indicator development

	# Review of agency files and documents. Discussion with producers during farm visit
	# Standards are based on open and transparent discussion between interested parties

2.1.3	Indicators focus on key impacts of production and have been prioritized to reflect significance of impact.

	# Are the KPIs relevant to the commodity and production system in question
	# Is there evidence that environmental impacts have been ranked/ prioritized based on severity of impact?

2.1.4	Indicators define clear performance requirements based on quantitative information that is replicable.

	# Are indicators consistently replicable
	# Are indicators clearly defined and understandable. Field check to guage use and consistency of application
	# Are indicators quantifiable, if so are data collected in a quantified manner

2.1.5	Do KPIs link performance to impact

	# Is there a direct and causal link between the KPI and the desired out come ( eg if water use has been identified as a key environmental impact for the commodity in question, does the KPI measure reduction in water use and the impact this is having ?)

2.2	Social Performance: Standard identification and setting has identified and prioritised social impacts via a multi-stakeholder process, and such impacts are based on robust scientific evidence

2.2.1	Identification of social indicators has included an opportunity for interested parties to comment on indicator development

	# Review of agency files and documents. Discussion with producers during farm visit
	# Standards are based on open and transparent discussion between interested parties

2.2.2	Indicators focus on key social impacts of production (such as occupational health and safety, working hours, employment practices and wages) and have been prioritized to reflect significance of impact.

	# Are the KPIs relevant to the commodity and production system in question
	# Is there evidence that social impacts have been ranked/ prioritized based on severity of impact?

2.2.3	Indicators define clear performance requirements based on quantitative information that is replicable.

	# Are indicators consistently repiclicable
	# Are indicators clearly defined and understandable. Field check to gauge use and consistency of application
	# Are indicators quantifiable, if so are data collected in a quantified manner

2.2.4	Do KPIs link performance to impact

	# Is there a direct and causal link between the KPI and the desired out come ( eg if labor proactices have been identified as a key impact for the commodity in question, does the KPI measure the appropriate factors, and link these to performance?)

2.3	Economic Performance: Standard identification and setting has identified and prioritised economic impacts via a multi-stakeholder process, and such impacts are based on robust scientific evidence

2.3.1	Identification of economic indicators has included an opportunity for interested parties to comment on indicator development

	# Review of agency files and documents. Discussion with producers during farm visit
	# Standards are based on open and transparent discussion between interested parties

2.3.2	Indicators focus on key impacts of production and have been prioritized to reflect significance of impact.

	# Are the KPIs relevant to the commodity and production system in question
	# Is there evidence that economic impacts have been ranked/ prioritized based on severity of impact?

2.3.3	Indicators define clear performance requirements based on quantitative information that is replicable.

	# Are indicators consistently repiclicable
	# Are indicators clearly defined and understandable. Field check to guage use and consistency of application
	# Are indicators quantifiable, if so are data collected in a quantified manner

2.3.4	KPIs link performance to impact

	# Is there a direct and causal link between the KPI and the desired outcome ( eg if livelihood has been identified as a key economic impact for the commodity in question, does the KPI measure family income indicator in a way that can be linked to farm production/ market issues ?)

2.4	Final agreement on the selection of KPIs includes a balanced and transparent discussion and prioritization of environmental, social and economic KPIs

2.4.1	Each stakeholder group has had the opportunity to indicate their KPIs of choice

	# Is there evidence that stakeholders have done so?
	# Is there evidence that a process of selection of KPIs has taken place, e.g. in the form of a meeting, workshop, web based process?

2.5	Monitoring of key impacts: Monitoring addresses key environmental, social and economic issues, is scalable, cost effective, and focuses on the measurement of factors that are clearly linked to key impacts

2.5.1	KPIs cover economic, environmental and social factors

	# Does the standard provide a list of KPIs which cover all three areas?
	# Does the standard provide a list of definitions of KPIs?
	# Does the standard provide (references to) descriptions of how to sample and what analytical methods to use, if applicable?
	# Does the standard provide guidance on frequence and intensity of monitoring of KPIs, linked to costs?

2.5.2	KPIs cover different scales (e.g. field, farm, region, catchment, ecoregion)

	# Do KPIs provided cover different scales?

2.5.3	KPIs have been chosen on the basis of cost effectiveness

	# Does the standard contain information on the cost of measuring KPIs?

2.5.4	Monitoring results and outcomes provide information on how implementation of practices influence key impacts

	# Do the definitions of KPIs (see 2.5.1) indicate how they relate to key impacts?

2.6	Commitment to continuous improvement: The standard includes provision for continuous improvement in performance (including the refocusing of impacts as appropriate) based on the aggregation and analysis of monitoring data . Such evolution of performance to be disclosed publicly

2.6.1	The standard includes a commitment to continuous improvement of performance, as measured through the agreed KPIs.

	# Is there such commitment in the standard?
	# Is checking on continuous improvement of performance part of the audit protocol?
	# Is achieving continuous improvement or meeting a pre-set performance level one of the requirements of the standard?
	# Is having a long term farm management plan a requirement?

2.6.2	The standard setting process provides for a regular (as defined in the standard) refocusing of impact

	# Does the standard provide clear guidance as to through which mechanism such refocusing should take place?
	# Does the review process guarantee balanced stakeholder representation?

2.6.3	The standard provides appropriate benchmarks related to key impacts for different types of operation.

	# Does the standard include such benchmarks?

2.7	Reporting on aggregated impacts: The transformational potential of the standard is leveraged through the aggregation of individual monitoring efforts. Such information is collated and managed by standard setting agency	Should this be part of process, rather than standard?

2.7.1	The standard setting agency has committed itself to collating, analysing and publishing aggregated data.

	# Does the standard include information on how individual farm/field data will be aggregated?
	# Does the standard indicate how information will be published?
	# Does the standard indicate how ofter published information will be updated?

2.8	Complying with relevant laws: The standard requires material compliance with relevant laws and regulations (incl international laws and regulations)

2.8.1	The standard requires the operator to have access to up-to-date information about relevant and applicable laws and regulations.

	# Is there such requirement in the standard?

2.8.2	The standard requires the operator to be able to prove compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

	# Is there such requirement in the standard?
	# Does the standard provide clear guidance about how compliance needs to be shown or proven (e.g. self assessment, register of correspondence with authorities, etc.).

2.9	Capacity building : The standard setting agency has analysed the capacity building needs of producers and has developed (or identified) appropriate materials and resources (incl financial) to ensure that the producers can achieve compliance (at all scales of production)

2.9.1	The standard setting agency has done field work or collected information from workers in the field to assess the type and level of support required by different types of producers.

	# Is information on this assessment publicly available?
	# Have public fora been organised to make producers familiar with the requirements of the standard?

2.9.2	Support and training materials are available in local languages.

	# Are such materials available, in sufficient quantities?

2.9.3	Training sessions (e.g. farmer field schools, demonstration farms) are being organised.

	# Do producers have access to training sessions and training materials?

3	VERIFICATION

3.1	Accreditation: In situations where the group intends a role as an accreditation body, the requirements of relevant ISO standards have been met, and all potential and actual conflict of interests have been disclosed and addressed to the satisfaction of stakeholder groups

3.1.1	The group makes information available as to which ISO or other standards have been followed.

	# Is such information available, and are all relevant ISO standards referred?

3.1.2	Information on conflicts of interest that have arisen is publicly available. Statements of stakeholders involved in the resolution of these conflicts are available.

	# Is such information available?

3.1.3	Accreditation procedures are clearly described, including information on fees, rights and obligations of Conformity Assessment Bodies, etc.

	# Is such information available?

3.2	Training and Resources: The accreditation body has in place a system for assessing the quality of Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs) and appropriate materials to train CABs so as to ensure their competence in undertaking audits

3.2.1	(Training) Requirements for auditors are clear and publicly available.

	# Is such information available?

	The accreditation body regularly assesses the quality and suitability of Conformity Assessment Bodies.

	# Is information on this procedure available?
	# Is a list of accredited bodiespublicly available?

3.3	Governance, claims and logo's, reporting and audits : The structure and organisation of the accreditation body conforms with the general requirements defined by ISO (in ISO 17011:2004 (E))

3.3.1	The governance structure of the accreditation body is clear and in line with relevant ISO requirements.

	# Is the governance structure in line with ISO 17011:2004 (E)?

3.3.2	Rules about use of claims and logos are clear.

	# Are clear rules for use of claims and logos publicly available?

3.3.3	Rules about reporting and disclosure of audit findings are clear.

	# Are rules about reporting and disclosure of audit findings clear and publicly available?
	# Is basic information about audit outcomes available close to audited sites?

3.3.4	Requirements for audit report structure and content are clear and publicly available.

	# Are requirements for audit report structure and content clear and publicly available?