Summary
The article presents an in-depth analysis of various sustainability standards applicable to the dairy industry, and the growing pressure from consumers and politicians to improve the sector’s sustainability.
The most frequently used standards focus on environmental themes to the detriment of social and economic themes. The authors point out that the dairy industry is currently facing challenges in sustainability, such as greenhouse effects and animal welfare, which are contributing to political and consumer pressure for sustainability in the dairy industry. This social pressure is reflected in market policies, such as the production and sustainability standards addressed in this article.
The article delves into the specifics of current sustainability standards. It introduces the “devil’s triangle” framework as a tool for evaluating these standards, taking into account criteria related to credibility, accessibility, and continuous improvement. Notably, the “Devil’s Triangle” analysis reveals that a majority of certifications emphasize credibility and accessibility, with less emphasis on continuous improvement.
The article highlights the importance of improving dairy production sustainability and capability of the variety of existing standards to help farmers and other dairy industry sectors use more sustainable practices in dairy production. It covers the sustainability standards using United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems (SAFA) guidelines.
The article concludes that the extensive variety of standards allows farms to choose the ones better suited to the development of their product or their own convictions, resulting in consumer mistrust of the available standards. The article highlights the importance of aligning the standards with public sustainability goals, a more inclusive approach, and capacity development for continuous improvement in sustainable agriculture.
Despite the increasing use of private certification standards to meet the demand for sustainable dairy production, research into these standards is lacking. In this paper, we characterised sustainability certification standards currently used in dairy production. A literature search for dairy sustainability initiatives revealed one hundred-and-sixteen possible standards. In total, 19 of these were determined to qualify as ‘sustainability certification standards’ based on our selection criteria and were available in English or Dutch language. The standards were analysed using publicly available documents of the most recent version. The analysis included three key components: (i) general characteristics of the standard (such as the geographic origin, year founded, most recent updates), (ii) a thematic coverage analysis of the sustainability themes covered in each standard and (iii) evaluation of the inherent trade-offs within each standard utilising the opposing aspects of credibility, accessibility, and continuous improvement (the ‘devil’s triangle’). The comparison of general characteristics of the 19 standards revealed a wide variation in the characteristics of standards such as organisation type (i.e. nongovernmental organisations, individual dairy processor or other dairy sector actors), the number of indicators included, but also in the sustainability themes they cover, and how they balance the credibility, accessibility, and continuous improvement. The environmental pillar is most frequently and comprehensively addressed, whereas the economic pillar is least frequently and least comprehensively addressed. The ‘devil’s triangle’ trade-off analysis revealed that credibility and accessibility, from the standard’s perspective, are often transparently described and assured within the documents of standards. In contrast, continuous improvement is infrequently focused upon by standards. Overall, the variability in standards may allow farmers to choose a standard that aligns with his/her conviction or stage of development but might also create consumer or farmer mistrust in standards.