Rotulagem do café e certificações de sustentabilidade Significado e importância para a sociedade

2021 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 26761
Author(s):  
Joana F. Silva ◽  
M. Beatriz P. P. Oliveira ◽  
Rita C. Alves

O planeta está a sofrer alterações cada vez mais rápidas, com consequências devastadoras para a agricultura e as comunidades que a utilizam como principal meio de subsistência. O café é um dos produtos agrícolas mais transacionados e a matéria-prima de uma das bebidas mais consumidas e apreciadas. Porém, o seu cultivo feito em países maioritariamente subdesenvolvidos, e os cafeicultores dependem quase exclusivamente de seu cultivo. Pelo referido, surgiram as Voluntary Sustainability Standards (VSS), certificações que visam garantir melhor qualidade de vida dos trabalhadores e, simultaneamente, que o café seja produzido de forma mais sustentável. Nesta revisão, são abordadas questões sobre as diversas certificações do café e os domínios da sustentabilidade em que atuam (ambiental, econômico e social). Um dos principais objetivos é dar a conhecer estes tópicos, uma vez que ainda são bastante desconhecidos/desvalorizados pelos consumidores. Como complemento, apresentam-se outras informações que constam dos rótulos das embalagens de café vendido em Portugal, que certamente serão mais úteis se forem do conhecimento do consumidor. Adquirir café certificado é certamente uma forma de colaborar com os objetivos deste tipo de certificações e um meio de conhecer um pouco da história do produto consumido.

2010 ◽  
pp. 82-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter W. Rein

The production of bioethanol and biodiesel and the prospect of its importation into the EU have lead to various initiatives to ensure that only biofuels which are produced in a sustainable way are acceptable. Standards which are set to define the important sustainability issues are in various stages of development. The processes involved are of interest to the sugar industry, as both sugarcane and sugarbeet have enormous potential as feedstocks for bioethanol. The Better Sugarcane Initiative is underway to define standards for the sustainable production of both sugar and bioethanol from sugarcane. This paper attempts to discuss the major issues surrounding sustainable production of sugar and ethanol, outlining the processes involved in setting and maintaining sustainability standards. This is discussed in particular with respect to the development of the Better Sugarcane Initiative and looks forward to the implications for all stakeholders.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. eabc8259
Author(s):  
Izabela Delabre ◽  
Lily O. Rodriguez ◽  
Joanna Miller Smallwood ◽  
Jörn P. W. Scharlemann ◽  
Joseph Alcamo ◽  
...  

Current food production and consumption trends are inconsistent with the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2050 vision of living in harmony with nature. Here, we examine how, and under what conditions, the post-2020 biodiversity framework can support transformative change in food systems. Our analysis of actions proposed in four science-policy fora reveals that subsidy reform, valuation, food waste reduction, sustainability standards, life cycle assessments, sustainable diets, mainstreaming biodiversity, and strengthening governance can support more sustainable food production and consumption. By considering barriers and opportunities of implementing these actions in Peru and the United Kingdom, we derive potential targets and indicators for the post-2020 biodiversity framework. For targets to support transformation, genuine political commitment, accountability and compliance, and wider enabling conditions and actions by diverse agents are needed to shift food systems onto a sustainable path.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 5041
Author(s):  
Ayyagari Ramani ◽  
Borja García de Soto

Multiple sustainability standards and rating systems have been developed to draw attention to constructing sustainable buildings. The Pearl Rating System (PRS) is a mandate for all new construction projects in Abu Dhabi. Hence, it is important to understand the main components, advantages, and limitations of the PRS. The feasibility and the practical relevance of the PRS are still being studied. This paper addresses this gap and critically evaluates the PRS against some of the well-established rating systems like LEED and BREEAM. The analysis suggests that the PRS considers the cultural aspect of sustainability, in addition to the environmental, societal, and economic aspects. It was also found that most rating systems, including the PRS, have a very superficial inclusion of life cycle assessment (LCA). The paper finally concludes with other observations and outlook for a more robust implementation of the PRS.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Vogelpohl

AbstractThe bioeconomy is nowadays widely proclaimed by governments and corporations around the world as a new paradigm for a sustainable economy. Essentially, it broadly denotes the promotion, development and establishment of the use of biogenic resources in diverse kinds of industrial technologies, production processes and products. Yet, in order for the bioeconomy to be sustainable, it has to be assured that these biogenic resources are sourced sustainably. In the last 30 years, transnational sustainability certification (TSC) has established itself as a popular instrument in this context, for example in the case of European biofuels sustainability regulation. In the last decade or so, however, TSC initiatives in several biomass production sectors like palm oil, soy, fruits, aquaculture or fisheries—mostly initiated by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and corporations from the Global North—are increasingly met with resistance from actors from the resource-producing countries, mostly located in the Global South. Issues brought up in this context concern their lack of legitimacy and respect for national regulatory sovereignty and conflicting priorities in terms of sustainable development. Consequently, governmental and corporate actors from the resource-producing countries have developed sustainability standards that now at least partly compete with TSC. Against this background, this contribution investigates this apparent dilemma of biomass certification by taking stock of existing TSC initiatives and territorial responses to them in several sectors of the bioeconomy in order to discover general patterns and dynamics of transnational biomass sustainability certification. This analysis is based on a review of existing empirical studies on these issues as well as on conceptual literature on discourse coalitions and transnational hybrid governance for the classification of the different aspects and developments in the individual sectors. Results show that TSC is indeed challenged in all sectors around story lines of sovereignty and sustainability, employed by closely associated state and industry actors in the specific context of the prevalent state-industry relations and the practices and institutions of the respective international political economies. Beyond this general pattern, these alternative systems take on different shapes and complex relations between transnational and territorial sustainability governance emerge that are not always antagonistic, but also exist in parallel or even complementarily and involve various hybrid configurations of public and private actors. Overall, this casts some doubt on the potential of TSC as an instrument to safeguard the sustainability of the bioeconomy and shows one of its potential pitfalls, which is reflected upon in the conclusion.


Author(s):  
Markus Beckmann ◽  
Stefan Schaltegger

Sustainable development is about meeting the needs of current and future generations while operating in the safe ecological space of planetary boundaries. Against this background, companies can contribute to sustainability in both positive and negative ways. In a world of scarce resources, the positive contribution of businesses is to create value for diverse stakeholders (i.e., goods in the actual sense of good services and things with value) without social shortfalls or ecological overshooting with regard to planetary boundaries. Yet, when value-creation processes cause negative social or ecological externalities, companies create disvalue for current or future stakeholders, thus undermining sustainable development. Sustainability in business therefore aims at the integrative management of value creation and disvalue mitigation. Various institutions, such as sustainability laws as well as quasi-regulatory and voluntary sustainability standards, aim at providing an enabling environment in this regard yet are often insufficient. Corporate sustainability therefore calls for proactive management. Neither value nor disvalue fall from heaven but are rather co-created or caused through the interaction with stakeholders. Transforming from unsustainability to sustainability thus requires transforming the underlying relational arrangements. Here, market and non-market stakeholder relations need to be distinguished. In markets, companies transact with customers, employees, suppliers, and financiers who typically have voluntary exchange relationships with the firm. As a result, stakeholders can use the exit option when the relationship causes them harm. Companies therefore need to know and respect their value-creation partners, their potential contributions, and above all their needs. Sustainability can influence these market relationships in two ways. First, as sustainability addresses environmental, social, and ethical issues that are otherwise often overlooked, sustainability can relate to specific goals and motivations that stakeholders pursue when they care about these matters. Second, sustainability can be linked to transaction-specific particularities. This can be the case when sustainability features lead to information asymmetries, higher transaction costs, or resource dependencies. Non-market relationships, however, can differ in that stakeholders are involuntarily affected by the firm. In many cases, such as environmental pollution, stakeholders like local communities experience disvalue but cannot simply walk away. From a sustainability perspective, giving voice to non-market stakeholders through dialogue and participation is therefore crucial to identify early-on potential issues where companies cause disvalue. Such a proactive dialogue does not necessarily present a constraint that limits value creation in the market. Giving a voice to non-market stakeholders can also help create innovations and mobilize valuable resources such as knowledge, legitimacy, and partnership. The key idea is to find solutions that create value not only for market stakeholders but also for a larger circle, including non-market stakeholders as well. Such stakeholder business cases for sustainability aim at the synergistic integration of value creation and disvalue mitigation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document