When you buy a bar of chocolate, do you look out for the Fairtrade or Rainforest Alliance logos to make sure you're getting quality but at a fair price where the farmers are paid a fair amount for their cocoa?
Sticker/logo Shocker: The Mass Balance Loophole in Ethical SourcingWelcome to the brown murky waters of mass balance; the supply chain equivalent of saying, “It’s the thought that counts.” Under this system, companies can mix (dilute) Fairtrade certified ingredients with non-certified ones, as long as the volumes sort of balance out over time. In practice, that can mean as little as 20% Fairtrade cocoa in your bar of chocolate, yet the whole thing gets stamped as a "Fairtrade" virtue laden masterpiece.
This isn't anything new, way back in 2012, Food Manufacture magazine reported that Fairtrade chocolate was “conning consumers into feeling better” by creating the illusion that their purchase directly supported ethical farming when in reality it was more about clever accounting than cocoa ethics (Food Manufacture, 2012). The system allows brands to legally stretch ethical claims, relying on mass balance rather than full traceability. Technically allowed. Ethically... debatable.
Here's how the dilution process works: A manufacturer might purchase 100 tonnes of Fairtrade-certified cocoa but mix it with another 400 tonnes of conventional cocoa during processing. The Fairtrade beans lose their identity in the blend; they’re processed, ground, and pooled with non-certified beans. There’s no physical trace left to follow. However, the manufacturer is still permitted to label 100 tonnes of their finished chocolate as Fairtrade.
Rainforest Alliance: Different Badge, Similar Sleight-of-Hand?
Before I pin all the disappointment on Fairtrade; a peek behind the leafy green curtain of Rainforest Alliance. Unlike Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance doesn’t pretend your whole product is certified, however it too uses mass balance but with a slightly different flavour of accountability. Companies can use the frog logo even if only a portion of an ingredient (like cocoa or tea) is certified, provided they commit to increasing that percentage over time.
Called "shared responsibility", it's nothing less than creative ethics. While Rainforest Alliance does require continuous improvement plans, including farmer training and climate resilience, the logo alone doesn’t mean 100% certified content unless it explicitly says so (Rainforest Alliance Standards).
So whether it’s frogs or Fairtrade, mass balance often means less substance, more sticker and it’s up to us, the consumers and industry folk alike to ask whether these schemes are changing the world, or just changing the packaging.
Greenwashing: When Good Intentions Get a PR Team
In an era where sustainability sells, mass balance systems have become the cheat code for brands wanting the ethical halo without the heavy lifting. This is where greenwashing comes in; the corporate art of looking virtuous while doing the bare minimum. That 2012 article from Food Manufacture was ahead of its time, calling out how Fairtrade branding could mislead well-meaning buyers, simply by making assumption do the marketing.
And the problem hasn’t gone away. According to recent analysis, many consumers still believe certification logos mean 100% traceability, when in fact they often don’t (Which?, 2023). It’s a bit like calling a pint of shandy a craft ale; technically, there’s beer in there, but it’s not what you think you're buying.
If ethical labelling wants to regain credibility, it needs more than good branding, it needs radical transparency. Because trust, once lost, isn’t just hard to win back, it’s composting in the corner with yesterday’s broken promises.
In the end, ethical labels should be a promise, not a puzzle. If a certification needs a footnote, a flowchart, and a PR team to explain what it really means, then maybe it’s not doing its job. Mass balance might keep supply chains moving, but it also keeps consumers in the dark - nodding along to feel-good labels while unknowingly funding the status quo.
The challenge now isn’t just to clean up how we farm, source, and trade, it’s to clean up the story we’re telling about it. Because if sustainability is built on trust, and that trust is built on spin, then what we’ve really created isn’t a movement — it’s marketing.
Ethics can’t be measured in percentages, and they definitely shouldn’t come with an asterisk. Mass balancing explained - palm oil - link - mass balancing - Rainforest Alliance - link - more like this (chocolate) - link - more like this (palm oil) - link
Rainforest Alliance: Different Badge, Similar Sleight-of-Hand?
Before I pin all the disappointment on Fairtrade; a peek behind the leafy green curtain of Rainforest Alliance. Unlike Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance doesn’t pretend your whole product is certified, however it too uses mass balance but with a slightly different flavour of accountability. Companies can use the frog logo even if only a portion of an ingredient (like cocoa or tea) is certified, provided they commit to increasing that percentage over time.
Called "shared responsibility", it's nothing less than creative ethics. While Rainforest Alliance does require continuous improvement plans, including farmer training and climate resilience, the logo alone doesn’t mean 100% certified content unless it explicitly says so (Rainforest Alliance Standards).
So whether it’s frogs or Fairtrade, mass balance often means less substance, more sticker and it’s up to us, the consumers and industry folk alike to ask whether these schemes are changing the world, or just changing the packaging.
Greenwashing: When Good Intentions Get a PR Team
In an era where sustainability sells, mass balance systems have become the cheat code for brands wanting the ethical halo without the heavy lifting. This is where greenwashing comes in; the corporate art of looking virtuous while doing the bare minimum. That 2012 article from Food Manufacture was ahead of its time, calling out how Fairtrade branding could mislead well-meaning buyers, simply by making assumption do the marketing.
And the problem hasn’t gone away. According to recent analysis, many consumers still believe certification logos mean 100% traceability, when in fact they often don’t (Which?, 2023). It’s a bit like calling a pint of shandy a craft ale; technically, there’s beer in there, but it’s not what you think you're buying.
If ethical labelling wants to regain credibility, it needs more than good branding, it needs radical transparency. Because trust, once lost, isn’t just hard to win back, it’s composting in the corner with yesterday’s broken promises.
In the end, ethical labels should be a promise, not a puzzle. If a certification needs a footnote, a flowchart, and a PR team to explain what it really means, then maybe it’s not doing its job. Mass balance might keep supply chains moving, but it also keeps consumers in the dark - nodding along to feel-good labels while unknowingly funding the status quo.
The challenge now isn’t just to clean up how we farm, source, and trade, it’s to clean up the story we’re telling about it. Because if sustainability is built on trust, and that trust is built on spin, then what we’ve really created isn’t a movement — it’s marketing.
Ethics can’t be measured in percentages, and they definitely shouldn’t come with an asterisk. Mass balancing explained - palm oil - link - mass balancing - Rainforest Alliance - link - more like this (chocolate) - link - more like this (palm oil) - link
No comments:
Post a Comment