Cadbury Schweppes takeover of Green & Blacks

I was dismayed to see that, at a stroke, Green & Black¹s has fallen from grace in your Ethiscore ratings, solely because of our being acquired by Cadbury Schweppes. This could impact directly on the incomes of several thousand small farmers who depend on us and our long term contracts for their cacao. They, by contrast, welcomed the news of the acquisition as it increased their sense of security that the partnership we developed with them will continue. They¹'ve met the people from Cadbury¹s, who have been instrumental in helping them to greatly expand their capacity. Shouldn¹t you wait to see whether Cadbury¹s erode the radicalism of its new acquisition¹ before condemning the brand and the producers who have supplied it for more than a decade? Nothing has changed at Green & Black’s except for the identities of its shareholders. In fact, since we won the Ethical Consumer Award in 1992 for our principled achievements, we have improved our practices even further, as your periodic reviews have indicated.

For what you claim is the most accurate ethical rating available in the UK this inability to acknowledge best practice in a brand makes the rating system appear a bit of a blunt instrument. Can I suggest your rating experts carefully read the article entitled Eco Worriers on page 22 of your June issue for an insight into a more balanced approach that takes into account the view of the producers in developing countries? The whole point of buying organic and fairly traded products is to enable people in the developed world to make an impact on the lives of people in the developing world. This is the founding principle of the ECRA. Yet your assessment of Green & Black¹s could have the opposite effect.

Green & Black’s is responsible for nearly 1/3 of all purchases of organic cacao on the planet. We have actively supported the planting of more than 500,000 new cacao trees in Belize that will be shaded by rain forest and will provide biodiverse habitat for wildlife including scarlet macaws. In the Dominican Republic we are underpinning the process whereby conventional cocoa growers are converting their plantations to the sustainable organic model and 1000s of hectares of non organic land are undergoing conversion. We are also extending the same beneficial terms of trade to growers in Mexico, Equador, Madagascar and other countries. The positive effects of this are outstanding.

By comparison conventional cacao (as used by Ritter and Lindt who you admire more than us) is grown using more pesticides than any other crop than cotton. The prices at which it is purchased reflect the fluctuations of the cacao market, which was rigged in the late 1980s by development aid that encouraged mass planting of cacao and thus the creation of overcapacity that acts as a drag on any attempt to realise a fair price for cacao.

To set aside these considerations that impinge directly on the sustainability and ethical value of the product in favour of the fact that one company uses a wood burning power unit or that another company wants to be seen as a company that cares for the environment (while they eschew

organic or fair trade raw materials) indicates, to me, the need for a root and branch review of the criteria by which you judge ethical products.

You must realise that the power of purchasing organic cacao at fair prices hugely outweighs the burning of wood or the expression of pious hopes.

Yes, after years of struggling against hard-headed companies like Lindt, who worked with Tesco to try to destroy our organic offering when they came out with 70% solids chocolate; of dealing with a bank who were constantly poised to take away my home and all my assets if I faltered in keeping up the interest payments on my borrowings; of the sleepless nights that plague all under capitalised innovative entrepreneurs, Jo and I sold shares in our company to a group of investors who refinanced it and gave it the capital base that enabled us to grow the business, provide extra security to our grower suppliers and eventually sell the business to Cadbury’s. Businessmen need to be able to sleep at night too and we worked damned hard in a hostile atmosphere to bring fair trade and ethical business practices from the margins to centre stage. I have seen one innovative product range after another ripped off, copied or blown out of the water by stronger competitors. With Green & Black’s we at last had a product that we managed to defend and build to a point where it could become a market leader.

You gave us the Ethical Consumer award in 1992 because you judged us by our deeds, not by who we were personally. Green & Black’s is doing even nobler deeds now than it was then and on a scale several hundred times larger, yet you have dropped us from your list in favour of non-organic companies because the ultimate owner of the business is a British multinational.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you at some stage. I was surprised that you used such narrow criteria for slashing our Ethiscore and sincerely believe that a review of your judging criteria is in order and that you should carefully consider the entire picture of the chocolate industry supply chain when you pass judgement. A lot of people have a lot of respect for your judgement and we have been subscribers and supporters of your work from the earliest days, but I do think perhaps it’s time for you to go a little deeper.

Craig Sams, Founder and President, Green & Black’s Ltd

Green & Blacks ratings

Green & Blacks ratings 31 March 2006 Reviewer: EC Letters Editor

The issue of Green and Blacks take over by Cadburys is one that has troubled me. As a former purchaser of their products I shall sorely miss their tasty treats. The issue of multi nationals taking over small companies, to buy into the ethical market, causes me some confusion as I cant decide if it is good or not. On the one hand it means that these companies are starting to realise that ethical and fair trade really is an issue they need to treat seriously and that ethical products can reach a bigger market, but on the other it means that the likelihood of other small ethical companies setting

up is reduced and I fear the usual uncaring capitalist attitudes will slowly permeate the once small company.

I think that Craig Sams is good to write into Ethical Consumer but I still cannot get over the fact that a company that appeared to have an approach to its business that was ethical, in the end, sold out and once again money talked.

After reading Sams letter I did half an hours internet research and came across information such as the sale created for the five executive directors of Green & Black's, a £5m windfall! That the Green Party were in contact with the OFT about the purchase and its effect on the chocolate market and

An article published in the Guardian Weekend stated "The UK taxpayer supports Green & Black's venture in Toledo via a £225,000 grant from the Department for International Development, intended to help the expansion of cocoa growing in the area. Yet when you consider that EU tariffs ensure the greater part of cocoa profits accrue to Europe, and calculate that VAT raises 28p from every bar of Maya Gold, against 6p for the growers, the net benefit is balanced heavily in favour of the British

and European exchequers. At every turn, Europe profits, while the developing world is milked dry. Whatever the logo on the product, international trade will never be fair, and there's no western government that wants it to become fair."

Really Mr Sams should not have let Cadburys buy out G&B; it was bad enough that they had a 5% share. But I guess selling on Whole Earth Foods gave Mr Sams a taste for the high life and he was ready for the next challenge. Perhaps we will see Mr Sams setting up a new Organic, ethical shoe

Company that he sells on to Nike; after all its only business, right?

Good on you Ethical Consumer, I agree with the downgrade on the ethiscore and if Mr Sams is concerned I hope he starts applying pressure to his now parent company so that is adopts more of G&B's way of doing things. I applaud much of the past work G&B has done with its organic and Fair

Trade purchases, however remaining ethical is not easy, and the bigger you grow,the harder it gets.

Sean Atkinson, Grimsby, Consumer of Divine Chocolate

Nestle boycott

I was recently in conversation with an American ex navy surgeon and forensic scientist now studying theology at Bristol, who feels quite angry about the Nestle boycott. He has, he says, worked 'out there' and seen for himself the way their baby milk is marketed or given to mothers and can find no

fault. I have been an active campaigner against Nestle for a number of years and have influenced many people to join the boycott, so I now feel a little uneasy.

Is it possible that the campaign has become so much a part of people's lives that they are unable to let go, or has my friend been hoodwinked?

I know you carry regular updates but I would very much value some informed and impartial advice on this issue (not least because I miss being able to buy Nestle products!)

Mrs. C. A. Chaplin, by email

Co-Op and Divine

Another product worth a mention on here would be the Co-Op who do a range of fair trade chocolate bars which are actually made by the Day Trading Company, the makers of Divine.

ethical chocolate?

As an organic shopkeeper I follow closely the ratings made by EC. Within 3 months of opening G&B was sold to Cadburys and we made a decision to delist it (along with Toms of Maine sometime later). We'd prefer to stock brands like Organica, whose ENTIRE range in organic and fairtrade and does not feel the need to supply the supermarkets.

It has long bugged me that only the Maya Gold bar was certified Fairtrade, despite being the first G&B product. If Fairtrade is such a worthy cause, why has no other product in the range being similarly certified? Was this just to get some media attention?

We also stock Plamil, Montezumas and Booja Boooja (all British made and not in supermarkets) plus a few Traidcraft, Divine, Biona and Vivani brands. G&B has always been an aspirational brand rather like Haagen Dazs - but isn't that exactly the image we want to get away from with 'ethical' food? Surely we don't have to market such products as luxury or indulgent in order to justify the price?

So yes, I think G&B has sold out. It's everywhere, with slick marketing that looks scarcely any different to adverts for Milk Tray or After Eights. And one thing that is now conspicuously absent in these ads is any mention of the principles upon which the brand was founded. Now it's all "go on, you're worth it". Such sentiments have now place in a future where we all will have to adjust to buying, having and owning far less than we have been used to

Tim

Re: Ethical buyer's guide to bars of chocolate.

Surely Tim, the fact that Green and Blacks don't mention their ethical credentials as much via their communications any more is not strictly a bad thing. Sure they were built on ethical commitments like you say but a shift in consumer demand for premium and high quality chocolate is what has led to a clever 5 year marketing campaign that has ultimately increased sales for G & B.

This can only be a good thing as on the back of this whether intentionally or not, a lot of fair-trade and organic chocolate has been sold.