C.A.F.E. PRACTICESRESULTSASSESSMENTFISCAL YEARS 2011-2012

Authors
MELISSA THOMASELIZABETH BAER
BAMBI SEMROCJOANNE SONENSHINE
Designer
STEPHANIE WOLF
Editor
ANDREA WOLFSONTABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary..................................................................... 4
Introduction................................................................................. 9
Methods...................................................................................... 10
Participation................................................................................ 11
Global Performance..................................................................... 17
Farms.................................................................................. 19
Social Responsibility..................................................... 19
Environmental Responsibility........................................ 21
Highlight: Climate Change............................................ 23
Highlight: Smallholder Farms........................................ 24
Producer Support Organizations.................................. 26
Processors.......................................................................... 27
Social Responsibility..................................................... 27
Environmental Responsibility........................................ 29
Conclusions................................................................................. 30

RESULTS ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2012 // 3

Executive Summary
Starbucks Ethical Coffee Sourcing and Farmer Support
Starbucks Coffee Company is committed

Starbucks is working on-the-ground withto buying and serving high quality,

farmers to help improve coffee quality,

responsibly grown, ethically traded coffee

ensure social and environmental best

to help create a better future for farmers

practices and invest in loan programs forand a more stable climate for the planet.

coffee-growing communities. By helping
to sustain coffee farmers and strengthen

Recognizing that its long-term success istheir communities, Starbucks is ensuring

linked to the success of the hundreds ofan abundant supply of high-quality coffee

thousands of farmers who grow its coffee,

for the future.

STARBUCKS GOAL
By 2015, all Starbucks coffee will be third-

a comprehensive set of social, economic,

party verified or certified, either throughenvironmental and quality guidelines

Coffee and Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.)

aimed at continuous improvement andPractices, Fairtrade or another externallydeveloped by Starbucks in collaboration

audited system.

with Conservation International (CI).

Starbucks approach to sourcing

In 2012 Starbucks bought 90 percent ofresponsibly grown and ethically traded

its total coffee through C.A.F.E. Practices –coffee is grounded in C.A.F.E. Practices,

491 million pounds worth.

Fig 1 // Percentage of Starbucks Coffee Verified By C.A.F.E. Practices

4 // EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

77%

81%

84%

86%

90%

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

THE STARBUCKS - CONSERVATIONINTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP
Starbucks and CI have been working

findings include: C.A.F.E. Practices farmers

together for more than 15 years,

had higher productivity on their farms,

developing and applying a comprehensive

resulting in higher overall income. Initial

set of environmental, social and economic

findings from surveys in Brazil include:

guidelines used to source ethical coffee.

C.A.F.E. Practices participants received a

These guidelines, known as Coffee andfive percent higher price on average, as

Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) Practices, help

well as a higher minimum sales price than

Starbucks evaluate and reward producers

non-participants.

of high-quality, socially responsible andsustainably grown coffee.

In addition to C.A.F.E. Practices, theStarbucks-CI partnership goes beyond theAs part of its commitment to continuous

coffee farm to protect rich, surrounding

improvement and the expansion of support

landscapes. By piloting innovative projects

for coffee-growing communities globally,

with coffee-growing communities,

Starbucks and CI have conducted results

Starbucks and CI are improving coffee

assessments of the C.A.F.E. Practices

production, conserving and restoring

program since 2008. These reports,

natural habitat, and facilitating farmer

along with field studies from Guatemala,access to forest carbon markets.

Colombia and Brazil, measure theadoption of best practices at a country

In Chiapas, Mexico, three nurseries haveand global level, identify areas for program

produced more than 200,000 seedlings

enhancement, and help Starbucks betterto restore the natural forest cover by

understand how C.A.F.E. Practices

employing shade-growing best practices,

contributes to improved farmer well-being

and more than 23,000 tons of carbon

and environmental health.

offsets have been sold. In North Sumatra
and Aceh Tengah, both in Indonesia, 14

In Guatemala, Colombia and Brazil,

communities have established conservation

CI developed and implemented field

coffee agreements and farmers receive

surveys among coffee farmers to assess

training on composting, pruning and otherand evaluate the results of the C.A.F.E.

extension services. Each project employs

Practices program for farmers, workers

different approaches to addressing theand conservation. Significant findings fromclimate challenges facing coffee producers

Guatemala include: a strong relationshipwhile exploring the potential of carbon

between participation in C.A.F.E. Practices

markets to benefit both livelihoods andand greater stability of natural habitat onconservation efforts.

farms, as well as a decrease in the useof herbicides, pesticides and chemical

Learn more about C.A.F.E. Practices andfertilizers at rates significantly higher than

Starbucks partnership with CI by visiting:those not participating in the program,

http://www.starbucks.com/responsibility

which is good for the health of the workers

http://www.conservation.org/starbucks

and of the soil. In Colombia, the survey

RESULTS ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2012 // 5

PeopleSocialPlanetProduct

Ensure that all coffee is grown and processed ina manner that minimizes environmental impacts.
Many of the coffee-growing regions overlap withareas rich in biodiversity—called Key Biodiversity Areas. By encouraging sustainable farming,
Starbucks helps to alleviate pressures on thesevaluable habitats.

Ensure that all coffee sold to Starbucks meets
its high quality standards. Starbucks strives tocreate a program that is financially accessible forsmall farmers and rewards all suppliers for ongoing improvement of social and environmental
practices.

Environmental

Economic

PurposeEnsure fair and non-discriminatory hiring andemployment policies. Protect employees fromworkplace hazards. Conform to national laws
as well as to international conventions related tooccupational health, safety and living conditions.
Strive to improve the quality of life for coffee farmers and workers.

Criteria Verified

Pre-Requisite

Wages

Benefits

Soil

Waste

Equitable
Payments

Green
CoffeePreparation

Education

MedicalCare

Water
Use andConservation

Shade
CanopyReceipts/
Invoices

Cup
Quality

LivingConditions

Human
RightsEnergyAgroChemical
Use

LongTerm
Viability

Farm
Traceability

Wildlife

Results
Participating farms provided more than 3.9
million workers with full-time, part-time or temporary employment from 2008 to 2012.

Coffee farms are making valuable contributions to habitat conservation in these globally
important areas for biodiversity.

Small farms of less than 12 hectares makeup at least 96 percent of the farms verified
through C.A.F.E. Practices in each year from2008 to 2012.

Each year on average, more than
440,000 workers employed onparticipating farms earned higher
than the minimum wage.

At least 99 percent of participating farms had not converted any
natural forest habitat to coffee
production areas since 2004.

At least 94 percent of Producer
Support Organizations, which
support networks of small farms,
had tracking systems from pointof purchase to point of export ineach of the analysis years.

At least 89 percent of full-timeworkers employed by mills
received paid sick leave in each of
the analysis years.

At least 81 percent of farms usedorganic matter or cover crops toimprove or maintain soil fertility ineach of the analysis years.

At least 87 percent of Producer
Support Organizations ensured
small farms received a receipt for
their coffee harvest in each of theanalysis years.

100 percent of small farms that
had school age children livingon the farm ensured that thesechildren attended school in eachof the analysis years.

Participating farms have averaged 121,000 hectares (almost
300,000 acres) designated forconservation areas each year.

One time incentives are offeredto suppliers who achieve thehighest performance level and to
those that demonstrate significant
improvement over time with theaim of encouraging continuous
improvement in the program.

At least 94% of workers on small
farms had access to potable water in each of the analysis years.

At least 90 percent of standalone mills processed waste ina way as to not contaminate thelocal environment in each of theanalysis years.

At least 99% of medium andlarge farms paid wages directly
to workers in each of the analysis
years.

6 // EXECUTIVE SUMMARYUSING SCALE FOR GOOD
The geographic reach of C.A.F.E. Practices

Starbucks offers technical support tois vast and includes coffee producers in

coffee producers through farmer support

22 countries across four continents. These

centers. These centers allow Starbucks

countries significantly overlap with eight ofagronomists and quality experts tothe world’s most biologically rich but mostcollaborate directly with farms tothreatened regions. All of the countries

encourage responsible growing practices

supplying coffee via the C.A.F.E. Practices

and improve the quality and size of theirprogram are developing countries, withharvests. Starbucks has farmer support

over 20 percent falling in the low income

centers in Costa Rica and Guatemala

category. By ensuring fair wages andthat serve coffee communities throughout

promoting access to health care andCentral America. In East Africa, farmer

education, Starbucks is working to improve

support centers are located in Rwanda andthe well-being of coffee communities

in Tanzania. In 2012, Starbucks opened

worldwide.

its first Asia farmer support center in the
Yunnan province of China and the first
South America farmer support center in
Manizales, Colombia.

Fig 2 // Countries with C.A.F.E. Practices Verified Producers

MexicoEl Salvador

Costa Rica

China

Honduras

GuatemalaVietnamNicaragua
PanamaColombia
BurundiPeru

RwandaBrazilBoliviaPapua
New Guinea

Ethiopia

ZambiaKenya

Indonesia

Tanzania
East Timor

Farmer Support CenterFig 3 // Hectares Verified Through C.A.F.E. Practices*
2008

17.59%

2009

22.86%

201023.15%

20112012

31.31%

Used for Coffee
Set Aside for Conservation

22.47%* Figures represent only those applications verified through C.A.F.E. Practices in a given fiscal year.

RESULTS ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2012 // 7

2011-2012 REPORT HIGHLIGHTSThe C.A.F.E. Practices program tracks 249 indicators to assess the social and environmental performance of coffee
farms, mills and organizations that support smallholder producers (producer support organizations, or PSOs). This
report focuses primarily on supplier performance against these objectives during the 2011 and 2012 fiscal years,
while referring to trends dating back to 2008 where relevant.
•In both 2011 and 2012, over 95 percent of participating farmers were smallholders with fewer than 12
hectares of land. In 2011, these smallholders worked just under half of all the productive land within the
program, and in 2012, they worked nearly two-thirds of productive land.

•

In 2011, farms employed over 32,000 full-time workers – more than any other year since 2008. In 2012,
farms employed fewer workers overall, but more permanent workers on average per farm than in any
other year and a higher number of temporary workers per farm than in 2011.

•

One of the aims of the C.A.F.E. Practices program is to improve the productivity of coffee farmers. Whenlooking at yield in relation to approval status, applicants who achieved the second highest designation (or“preferred” status) had the highest average yield. Applicants with instances of non-compliance againstzero-tolerance indictors had by far the lowest yield, on average.

•

Regionally, Africa, Asia and North & Central America each achieved their highest levels of performancein terms of average total score in 2012. Despite a slight increase from 2011 levels, South America’s total
score in 2012 remained below that achieved in 2009 and 2010.

•

After a decline in performance in 2011, farms achieved the highest subject area scores for Social
Responsibility and Environmental Responsibility in 2012 (81 percent and 77 percent, respectively).

•

Of the farms re-verified in 2011 and 2012, 49 percent saw improved performance scores and 24 percent
achieved an improved approval status.

•

This report marks the first time CI has examined specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for climatechange. While there were no clear patterns in performance for these indicators, farms demonstrated
noticeable improvements for shade management plans and plant diversity from 2011 to 2012.

•

Small farms (less than 12 hectares) outperformed medium and large farms in three of four Environmental
Responsibility KPIs, but lagged slightly behind in four of six Social Responsibility KPIs.

This assessment continues to serve as an important tool for Starbucks as they seek to better understand theeffectiveness of the C.A.F.E. Practices program and its impacts on coffee farmers, communities and landscapes.

8 // EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction
Over the last 15 years, Conservation

includes coffee sourced through C.A.F.E.

International (CI) and Starbucks have

Practices as well as through other third-

worked together to build a moreparty certification programs. Starbucks has

sustainable coffee industry. Throughout themade steady progress toward this goalcourse of this work together, Starbucks

over each year from 2008-2012, with 90

has invested over $70 million – including

percent of the coffee they purchased in$25 million to CI – to promote sound2012 verified through C.A.F.E. Practices.

environmental coffee production practices
that support growers, their communities

This report is the third in a series of global

and healthy coffee landscapes around theassessments that examines the results ofworld.

the C.A.F.E. Practices program based on

1

the analysis of verification reports. While
In 2008, CI began assessing the impacts

this report and the two previous resultsof Starbucks investment in the Coffee

assessment reports examine supplierand Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) Practices

compliance with C.A.F.E. Practices criteria,

program, Starbucks internal coffee

CI has also carried out field surveys tosupplier verification program developed

better understand the on-the-groundin partnership with CI and SCS Global

impacts of the program in three key

Services, the third-party responsible forsourcing countries – Guatemala, Colombia

training, approval and oversight of theand Brazil.2

independent verification organizations for
the C.A.F.E. Practices program.

This report focuses primarily on supplierperformance during the 2011 and 2012

The C.A.F.E. Practices program isfiscal years, while referring to trends dating

designed to improve coffee producer

back to 2008 where relevant. It examines

and community livelihoods and protect

a set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

the natural ecosystems upon whichthat serve as a dashboard for successthese communities depend by driving thewithin each of the primary subject areas

adoption of recognized best practices for

related to social and environmental

management, labor (hiring practices andresponsibility. A set of country-levelworking conditions), coffee growing anddashboards is also included to examine thecoffee processing. Starbucks has set a

KPIs at a more granular level to identify andgoal to ensure that 100 percent of theirhighlight regional trends in performance.

coffee is ethically sourced by 2015, which1

For more information on the partnership between Starbucks and CI, visit: www.conservation.org/starbucks.

These reports, which provide further analysis of how the practices promoted by the C.A.F.E. Practices program are affecting producer and community livelihoods and the environmental landscape, can be found onlineat www.conservation.org/starbucks, under the Ethical Coffee Sourcing Practices.

2

RESULTS ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2012 // 9

Methods
The C.A.F.E. Practices program tracks

representative volume is subtracted from

249 indicators to assess the social andthe approved C.A.F.E. Practices volume.

environmental performance of coffee
production and processing. Each applicant

This report looks primarily at theto the program, or “application”, represents

performance of farms, PSOs and mills

a supply chain consisting of a farm, groupagainst these zero-tolerance indicators,of farms, mills, and – where smallholders

along with several other important

are included in the applicant group –indicators that have been identified byorganizations that support small farmers

Starbucks and CI as KPIs. These KPIs

(Producer Support Organizations or PSOs).

have been selected based on their ability

All indicators are evaluated through field

to provide important information for

visits by approved third-party verification

management of the program. Starbucks

organizations3 according to standard

and CI have also identified a subset ofsampling methods for participating farms,

issue-specific KPIs that seek to monitor

mills and PSOs on a 1- to 3-year cycle,

farm performance in areas of strategic

based on performance. Small farms

importance to Starbucks, such as on-farmand producer support organizations

activities related to climate change andare evaluated against a smaller subset

the performance of smallholder farms (lessof the 249 criteria, with small farms

than 12 hectares) in the program. While

verified against 88 applicable social andthese KPIs only represent a small portion

environmental indicators and PSOs verifiedof all C.A.F.E. Practices indicators, theyagainst 38.

offer significant insight into the overall
effectiveness of the program.

Seven of these indicators are considered“zero-tolerance,” which set the minimumThis report provides an analysis ofbar for participation in the C.A.F.E.

verifications completed during Starbucks

Practices program. Applications consisting

2011 and 2012 fiscal years4. Verificationof a single medium or large farm thatorganizations generated reports for

fail to meet the required zero-tolerance

applicants that were either new to therequirements receive a non-compliant

program or underwent re-verification

status. For applications consisting ofduring these years. Therefore, the analysis

multiple farms, at least 50 percent of thein this report is limited to only those newverified farms must meet the zero-tolerance

or continuing participants and does

indicators to achieve an approved status in

not include the full pool of Starbucks

the program. Any farms failing to meet the

suppliers with an active status. For thesezero-tolerance requirements are removed

reasons, performance trends may befrom the application approval and thehighly influenced by the composition of

SCS Global Services trains and approves qualified third-party organizations to verify suppliers participating in
the C.A.F.E. Practices program.

3

Starbucks fiscal year runs from October through September. Verifications included in the 2011 analysis wereconducted between October 2010 and September 2011. Verifications in the 2012 analysis were conducted
between October 2011 and September 2012.

4

10 // METHODS

applications verified in a given year. One

3.0 represents a significant update andkey factor affecting the composition of

refocusing of the program, eliminating

applications is multi-year validity, which issome indicators deemed less critical astied to performance and used as a tool tomeasures of good management andencourage farms to improve performance

introducing new indicators to assess

and allow time for supply chains toemerging issues such as vulnerability to

implement changes.

climate change. To establish a baseline
moving forward, all indicators that will

While there have been no significant

become part of the zero-tolerance (orchanges to the C.A.F.E. Practices programminimum) requirements in version 3.0 ofsince fiscal year 2009, Starbucks has

the program have been included in thisrecently released version 3.0 of the C.A.F.E.

report as KPIs.

Practices program guidelines. Version

Participation
The C.A.F.E. Practices program assesses

companies, mills or NGOs. Some coffee

adoption of best practices at multiple levels

farmers have on-site, small-scale wet mills,of the Starbucks supply chain. Participants

where the coffee cherry is removed before

include coffee farmers, coffee processors

the bean is dried. Others send coffee

or mills, and organizations that provide

cherries directly to larger-scale, stand-support services to smallholder farmers

alone mills that process them through wet(PSOs). Coffee farms are categorized as

and then dry methods. After processing,small (less than 12 hectares), medium

Starbucks buys “green coffee” beans and(12-49.9 hectares), or large (50 hectares

roasts them in their own facilities before

and larger). The structure and organization

packaging and selling beans in stores orof PSOs can vary – examples include

brewed drinks.

associations, cooperatives, export

RESULTS ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2012 // 11

Fig 4 // Starbucks Coffee Supply Chain

2011

2012

460,406 productive
hectares on 115,235 farms

265,634 productive
hectares on 70,000 farms

76 total PSOs

197 total PSOs

25,467 total mills

59,125 total mills

367

million lbs.

Coffee production
hectares by farm size

Coffee Farm

SMALL
MEDIUMLARGE

PSO count by type**

Application*

ASSOCIATION

Producer Support
Organization

COOPERATIVEEXPORTERMILLNGOMill count by type

Processor/MillStarbucks***

Roaster

RetailSMALLHOLDER
STAND-ALONE

Volume of C.A.F.E. practices
coffee purchased

million lbs.

491

17,003 18,066
retail locations

retail locations* Application figures – those shown for Coffee Farms, Producer Support Organizations and Processors/Mills – represent only those C.A.F.E. Practices applicants verified
in 2011 and 2012.
** Total PSO counts include all verified PSOs, while graphs represent only those having data on type of entity. This represents 51 percent in 2011 and 93 percent in
2012.
*** Starbucks figures – those shown for C.A.F.E. certified coffee purchases and retail locations – represent all Starbucks roasting and retail operations.

12 // PARTICIPATION

// FINDINGS ON PARTICIPATIONWith just 70,000 farms undergoing

temporary workers than any other year

verification in the program, 2012 hadand the fewest temporary workers on

the lowest farm count of any year since

average per farm in any year. In that year,

program analysis began in 2008. It also

the vast majority of permanent workers

included the fewest total productive

were employed on farms in South America.

and conservation hectares added to the

In 2012, farms employed fewer workers

program. In contrast, 2011 saw muchoverall, but more permanent workers onhigher enrollment and the second-highest

average per farm than in any other year

number of productive hectares included inand a higher number of temporary workers

the program. 2011 also saw the highest

per farm than in 2011.

number of conservation hectares added tothe program – over 209 thousand hectares,

Each year, verifications include both newnearly double any other year – with a higher

participants—or those farms, processors

than usual proportion of these conservation

and PSOs being verified through thehectares coming from large farms and from

C.A.F.E. Practices program for the first

farms in South America.

time—and continuing participants, or thoseundergoing re-verification to maintainIn both 2011 and 2012, over 95 percent

their active C.A.F.E. Practices status asof participating farmers were smallholders

Starbucks suppliers.

with fewer than 12 hectares of land. In
2011, those smallholders worked justWhen an application undergoes re-under half of all the productive land withinverification, all large farms, stand-alone

the program, and in 2012, they worked

mills and PSOs must be re-verified. For

nearly two-thirds of the productive land.

sampled small and medium-sized farms

Cooperatives represented nearly three-and on-farm mills, 15 percent of thequarters of all PSOs in 2011, with thepreviously sampled farms must be re-next largest constituency coming fromverified, while the remaining 85 percent

export companies. In 2012, exporters andof the required sample is made up of

associations together made up three-previously unsampled farms. In 2011, thequarters of PSOs, with cooperatives

split between new participants and thosemaking up another significant share ofbeing re-verified was fairly even at 48 andPSOs.

52 percent, respectively. In 2012, newparticipants made up 35 percent of all

In 2011, farms employed more full-timeverifications, while re-verifications made up

workers than in any other year, but fewer

65 percent.

RESULTS ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2012 // 13

SOUTH AMERICA

2,027

6,310

12,524NORTH +CENTRAL AMERICA

2011

South America represented
the vast majority of hectares
set aside for conservation
areas, which reached an
all-time high in 2011.

North + Central America
had the fewest veriﬁed
hectares under production.

Fig 5 // Participation + Scale of Impact** Figures represent data only from applications verified through C.A.F.E. Practices in a given fiscal year.

14 // PARTICIPATION
837

2,461

AFRICA

Asia had the largest
number of veriﬁed farms,
nearly 100% of whichwere smallholder farms.

= 4,000 farms= 10,000 temporary
workers= 2,000 full-timeworkers= 20,000 hectares set
aside for conservation= 20,000 hectares forcoffee production

9

548

ASIA

SOUTH AMERICANORTH +CENTRAL AMERICASouth America had themost hectares set aside
for conservation.

2012

Africa employed morepermanent workers than any
other region, despite having
the fewest farms veriﬁed.

6

2,154

233

7,867

AFRICA= 4,000 farms= 10,000 temporary
workers= 2,000 full-timeworkers= 20,000 hectares set
aside for conservation= 20,000 hectares forcoffee production

Nearly 100% of all farms in
Asia were smallholder farms.

181

371

ASIA

// YIELD
Fig 6 // Yield by Region*

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

LBS/HA

4,000

GLOBAL

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

GLOBAL RANGE
Average Yield: 2,630 lbs/ha

AFRICA

AFRICA RANGE

Average Yield: 887 lbs/ha

ASIA

ASIA RANGE

Average Yield: 2,439 lbs/ha

NORTH +CENTRALAMERICANORTH + CENTRAL AMERICA RANGE

Average Yield: 2,611 lbs/ha

SOUTH
AMERICA

SOUTH AMERICA RANGE

Average Yield: 2,906 lbs/ha

One of the aims of the C.A.F.E. Practices

regions. Participants in African countries

program is to improve the productivity

had the lowest average yield as well as theof coffee farmers, while reducing thelowest yield range, while South American

cost of production. The yield of a coffee

participants had the highest averagefarm is typically measured as pounds ofyield. When comparing yield to approvalgreen coffee (processed and dried, but

status within the program, applicants withunroasted) produced per hectare planted,

instances of non-compliance against zero-or lbs/ha. Coffee yields vary widely acrosstolerance indictors had by far the lowest

farms based on growing conditions (e.g.

yield, on average. Applicants who achieved

soil quality), environmental conditionsa “preferred” status had the highest(e.g. temperature and rainfall patterns,

average yield.

pests and diseases), management styles(e.g. how densely a hectare is planted,

As Starbucks continues to refine andpruning practices), the species of coffee

advance its assessment and monitoring

tree planted and unpredictable events likeof the C.A.F.E. Practices program, closer

hurricanes or floods.

analysis of the correlation between
performance and yield could lead toFarm productivity varied widely across thethe addition of specific KPIs related toprogram, with some consistency within

productivity improvements.

* Yield figures represent a three-year average from the 2010-2012 verification reports.

16 // PARTICIPATION // YIELDGlobal Performance
For each application verified under C.A.F.E.

drop-off in 2011, the average total score

Practices, Starbucks assigns an approval

for all subject areas reached 80 percent instatus of strategic, preferred, verified or2012 - the highest level to date. Economic

non-compliant based on their scoring

accountability remains the subject area

within each subject area. The combinedwith the highest global score, followed

percentage of strategic and preferredby dry processing, social responsibility,

applications hit an all-time low in 2011, but

wet processing and environmental

rebounded in 2012 hitting an all-time highresponsibility, a trend that has played out

with almost 60 percent of all applications

each year since 2009.

achieving strategic or preferred status.
Regionally, Africa, Asia and North & Central
Each application verified under C.A.F.E.

America each achieved their highest levels

Practices receives an overall score, asof performance in terms of average total

well as subject area scores for socialscore in 2012. However, despite a slight

responsibility, coffee growing, wet coffee

increase from 2011 levels, South America’s

processing, dry coffee processing andtotal score in 2012 remained below that

economic accountability. Following aachieved in 2009 and 2010.

Fig 7 // Approval Status
100%
90%
80%
70%

Non-compliant

60%
50%

Veriﬁed40%

Preferred

30%

Strategic

20%
10%
0%

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

RESULTS ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2012 // 17

In 2011, new participants slightly

each year showed a fairly even distribution

outperformed those undergoing re-

between applications with improved

verification both in average total score

performance and applications with(67 to 64 percent, respectively) anddeclining performance.

applications receiving the two highest
approval statuses (13 to 12 percent,Looking at total application score,respectively). In 2012, new participants and49 percent of applications showed

re-verified participants performed about

performance improvements over their

the same, both receiving a score of 80

previous verifications, and 50 percent

percent. The percentage of applications

showed a decline in performance.

receiving strategic or preferred status

Only two applications, or one percent,

was approximately the same as well – 57

showed no change in score. Looking at

percent.

change in approval status, the majorityof applications, or 53 percent, showed

Further analysis was conducted on

no change in status. Performance

participants that underwent re-verification

improvements of at least one status levelin 2011 or 2012 to compare eachwere seen in 24 percent of applications,re-verified application with its previous

and performance declines were seen in 23

performance verification from 2008-2011.

percent. For applications with changes ofThis analysis used change in approval

more than one status level, eight percent

status and change in overall application

significantly improved and five percent

score as measures of performance

significantly declined.

improvement. Results of both analyses for

18 // GLOBAL PERFORMANCEFARMS
The C.A.F.E. Practices program assesses

in the figures below, aggregates farmcoffee farmers against indicators in three

performance against all criteria within asubject areas: Economic Accountability,

given subject area, providing a high-level

Social Responsibility, and Environmental

snapshot of global farm performance.

Responsibility. In this report, performance

The individual KPIs track zero-tolerance

is analyzed in the Social Responsibility andindicators, such as minimum wage, forced

Environmental Responsibility categories bylabor and child labor standards that set thelooking at the overall subject area score as

minimum performance standards of thewell as performance against selected KPIs

program, as well as other key indicators

in each subject area.

critical to social and environmental
responsibility, such as worker safety,

The subject area score, highlighted by ahealthcare and forest and water resource

gray dashed bar marked Global Averagemanagement.

// SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Zero-Tolerance Indicator

2011 SCORES

SR-HP1.1
SR-HP1.3
SR-HP4.1
SR-WC2.6

SR-HP1.13
SR-WC4.7

0%SR-WC3.6

PERFORMANCE

Global Average

100%

SR-HP4.1
SR-WC2.6

2012 SCORES

SR-HP1.1
SR-HP1.3
SR-WC4.7

0%SR-WC3.6

PERFORMANCE

SR-HP1.13

Global Average

100%

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
SR-HP1.1

Full-time workers paid nationally or regionally established minimum wage

SR-HP1.3

Temporary/seasonal workers paid nationally or regionally established minimum wage

SR-HP1.13

Temporary/seasonal workers paid more than nationally or regionally established minimum wage

SR-HP4.1

Farm does not employ children under the age of 14

SR-WC2.6

Children of legal age attend school (where available) and do not work during school hours

SR-WC3.6

Employer offsets the cost of health care for all workers

SR-WC4.7

Workers use protective equipment when handling agrochemicals and operating machinery

RESULTS ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2012 // 19

Overall, farms scored 70 percent within thenear 100 percent in 2011 and above

Social Responsibility subject area in 201195 percent in 2012, consistent with– the lowest overall performance since

performance since 2008. Performance2009 – and 81 percent in 2012 – a return

against two other KPIs in the Social

to the highest score over the four-year

Responsibility section declined from 2011

period. After Economic Accountability, farmto 2012. The indicator related to workers’

performance in the Social Responsibility

use of protective equipment (SR-WC4.7)

subject area has been the most consistentdeclined steadily from a high of 61 percent

and highest performing, averaging 77

in 2010 to 36 percent in 2012. The

percent within an 11 percent range ofindicator for employers offsetting healthcare

performance since 2009.

costs (SR-WC3.6) also declined from 2011
to 2012, with 2012 being an all-time low

Performance against all of the zero-rate of compliance at just 55 percent.

tolerance KPIs (indicated in orange) was

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS
Beyond the KPIs, farms performed

in 2011, but returned to above 90 percent

very well against the criteria set related

in 2012, consistent with performance into child labor, non-discrimination andprevious years.

forced labor (SR-HP4), with the highest
levels of performance within the Social

In addition, providing access to primary

Responsibility section in that category inschool instruction and materials where

both 2011 and 2012.

not otherwise available (SR-WC2.1) wasapplicable for a high percentage of farms

20 // GLOBAL PERFORMANCE // FARMS

The indicators that will be considered zero-and performance was near 100 percent.

tolerance beginning with version 3.0 also

At the same time, performance related

saw strong performance in both 2011 andto prohibiting school-aged children from2012, with the exception of the indicator

working during school hours (SR-HP2.9)

related to legal compliance for authorized

was at nearly 100 percent across all

working minors (SR-HP4.5). This KPI

years, but applicability of this measure has

dipped to a low of just above 75 percent

declined over time.

// ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
2011 SCORES
CG-WR2.3
CG-SR1.6

CG-EM2.1

0%

CG-CB3.1

CG-WR1.2

CG-EM1.1
CG-CB3.10

PERFORMANCE

Global Average

100%

2012 SCORES

CG-EM2.1

0%

CG-CB3.10

CG-WR2.3

CG-SR1.6

PERFORMANCECG-WR1.2

Global Average

CG-CB3.1
CG-EM1.1

100%

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORSCG-WR1.2

Buffer zones maintained for at least 50 percent of permanent water bodies

CG-WR2.3

Fertilizer use minimized

CG-SR1.6

Productive areas with slopes of 10-20 percent covered by shade trees or vegetation

CG-CB3.1

Natural forest not converted to agricultural production (since 2004)

CG-CB3.10

At least 5 percent of total farm area set aside for conservation

CG-EM1.1

Farms do not use the most harmful pesticides (WHO Type 1A and 1B)

CG-EM2.1

Farm managers implement monitoring program to track C.A.F.E. Practices activities and improvements

RESULTS ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2012 // 21Farms scored an overall average of 622011 to 2012, with the indicator related topercent in the Environmental Responsibility

minimization of fertilizer use (CG-WR2.3)

subject area in 2011 and 77 percent inshowing an overall downward trend since2012. Similar to the Social Responsibility

2009. Other KPIs oscillated from dips toscores, 2011 was the lowest scoring year

peaks over the period from 2008 to 2012,

and 2012 was the highest over the four-

without a clear pattern, indicating thatyear period since 2009.

sustained focus on these measures may
be necessary to ensure more consistent

Environmental Responsibility KPIs provided

performance.

a mixed picture without much consistency
over the years assessed. Performance

The lowest performance levels wereagainst the two KPIs that will becomearound the implementation of monitoringzero-tolerance indicators in version 3.0 ofplans for C.A.F.E. Practices activities and

C.A.F.E. practices (CG-EM1.1, related to

improvements (CG-EM2.1). Looking at

non-use of the harshest agrichemicals,

farms assessed against this indicator, there

and CG-CB3.1, related to non-clearance

appears to be a correlation with overallof forest since 2004) remained highenvironmental performance. In 2011 andthroughout the period from 2008 to 2012,2012, farms with a monitoring plan in placewith compliance rates above 95 percent in

had average Environmental Responsibility

all years. Two KPIs (CG-WR2.3 and CG-scores that were 18 and 22 percent higher,

CB3.10) showed downward trends fromrespectively, than those which did not.

ADDITIONAL FINDINGSThe indicator related to keeping productive

the lowest levels of performance in theareas on shallow slopes under shade crops

program. Very few – 11 percent or less –(CG-SR1.6) showed very high performance

had Wildlife Management Plans in placein both 2011 and 2012. Mapping areas(CG-CB2.5) or implemented (CG-CB2.6)

like these that are at risk for erosion (CG-in either 2011 or 2012. Very few had

SR1.3) has improved steadily over time,

undertaken assessments for areas ofwith a high level of performance at 76

ecological value in partnership with experts

percent in 2012.

(CG-CB3.4) and very few kept records
of toxic load (CG-EM1.7). Additionally,

22 // GLOBAL PERFORMANCE // FARMS

The indicators that require farmers to

the entire criteria set related to Farm

work closely with experts to undertake

Management and Monitoring (CG-EM2)

assessments and and to conduct regularsaw very low performance levels, nearly all

monitoring were among those withof which were below 50 percent.

HIGHLIGHT // CLIMATE CHANGE
Recognizing the potential impacts ofaddress a variety of climate-smart farming

Additionally, a climate change criteria set

climate change on coffee production,practices including reduced emissions fromhas been added to version 3.0 of C.A.F.E.

Starbucks worked with CI to identify a set

fertilizer use, improved carbon storage

Practices. These indicators will track andof climate-specific KPIs within the existing

through shade and conservation areas, andmonitor on-farm activities to mitigate

C.A.F.E. Practices criteria. This reportproactive management of climate-related

climate change and strengthen resilience tomarks the first time CI has examined theserisks from pests and disease.

climate impacts.

climate change KPIs. These indicators

CG-CB1.2

2011 SCORESCG-CB3.12

CG-CB3.8

0%CG-WR2.4

CG-EM1.4

PERFORMANCE

100%

2012 SCORESCG-CB3.8

CG-WR2.4

0%

CG-CB1.2

CG-CB3.12

CG-EM1.4

PERFORMANCE100%

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORSCG-WR2.4

Synthetic fertilizers are not used or the farm is certified organic

CG-CB1.2

Farm has shade management plan

CG-CB3.8

Areas of high ecological value are protected

CG-CB3.12

Diverse plant species established on farm

CG-EM1.4

Farm has insect and disease monitoring plan

Since 2009, farms have performed

performance has declined sharply,

While there are no clear patterns instrongest against criteria for insect andfalling from 54 percent in 2010 to a low

performance for these indicators,

disease monitoring plans (CG-EM1.4).

of 21 percent in 2012. Other indicators,

these and other KPIs continue toFollowing a steady increase in thesuch as shade management plans (CG-be monitored in future reports asconservation of areas of high ecologicalCB1.2) and plant diversity (CG-CB3.12),

Starbucks increases its emphasis

value from 2008 through 2010,

vary greatly between reporting years.

on this issue with suppliers.

RESULTS ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2012 // 23

HIGHLIGHT // SMALLHOLDER FARMS
Smallholder farms – those less than 12
hectares – continue to make up the vast
majority of farms in the C.A.F.E. Practices

program, accounting for over 95 percent of
the farms verified each year. Smallholders
are also represented in every country

participating in the program, with the
exception of Papua New Guinea.

// SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
2011 SCORES

Zero-Tolerance Indicator

SR-WC4.7

SR-WC2.6
SR-HP1.1
SR-HP4.1
SR-HP1.13

SR-HP1.3

Smallholder Farms
Medium and Large Farms
PERFORMANCE

0%

SR-HP1.13

100%

SR-HP1.1
SR-HP1.3
SR-HP4.1

SR-WC4.7

2012 SCORES

SR-WC2.6
SR-HP4.1
SR-HP1.13
SR-HP1.1
SR-HP1.3

SR-WC4.7
Smallholder Farms
Medium and Large Farms
PERFORMANCE

0%

100%

SR-WC4.7

SR-HP1.13

SR-HP1.1
SR-HP1.3
SR-HP4.1

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
SR-HP1.1

Full-time workers paid nationally or regionally established minimum wage

SR-HP1.3

Temporary/seasonal workers paid nationally or regionally established minimum wage

SR-HP1.13

Temporary/seasonal workers paid more than nationally or regionally established minimum wage

SR-HP4.1

Farm does not employ children under the age of 14

SR-WC2.6

Children of legal age attend school (where available) and do not work during school hours (smallholders only)

SR-WC4.7

Workers use protective equipment when handling agrochemicals and operating machinery

The overall performance of smallholder
farms in the Social Responsibility subject
area remained relatively steady between
2011 and 2012.
Out of the KPIs reviewed, small farms
performed just slightly below medium
and large farms in four indicators, threeof which are zero-tolerance indicators.
Despite the lag in smallholder farms paying
minimum wage to full-time employees(SR-HP1.1), smallholders have improved
their performance in this area since 2009
and 2010, almost closing the gap withlarger farms in 2011 and 2012. Small farms
exceed the performance of medium and24 // GLOBAL PERFORMANCE // FARMS // SMALLHOLDER FARMS

large farms in temporary workers receiving
more than minimum wage (SR-HP1.13).
The largest gap between smallholders
and larger farms is in the use of protective
equipment when applying agrochemicals(SR-WC4.7), which has declined steadily insmall farms after a significant improvement
to 61 percent in 2010.

HIGHLIGHT // SMALLHOLDER FARMS (CONT.)// ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
2011 SCORESCG-CB3.1
CG-SR1.6

CG-WR1.2

CG-EM1.1

Smallholder Farms
Medium and Large Farms
PERFORMANCE

0%

CG-SR1.6

100%

CG-EM1.1

CG-WR1.2

CG-CB3.1

2012 SCORES

CG-SR1.6

CG-WR1.2

CG-CB3.1
CB-EM1.1

Smallholder Farms
Medium and Large Farms
PERFORMANCE

0%

CG-SR1.6

100%

CG-WR1.2

CG-CB3.1
CB-EM1.1

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORSCG-WR1.2

Buffer zones maintained for at least 50 percent of permanent water bodies

CG-SR1.6

Productive areas with slopes of 10-20 percent covered by shade trees or vegetation

CG-CB3.1

Natural forest not converted to agricultural production (since 2004)

CG-EM1.1

Farms do not use the most harmful pesticides (WHO Type 1A and 1B)

In 2011 and 2012, overall environmental

When looking at the performance of(CG-CB3.1), and refraining from use of

performance remained relatively evensmallholders compared to other farms,

the most harmful pesticide (CG-EM1.1).

among smallholders, with performancethe small farms outperformed their larger

Medium and large farms maintained

improving slightly or remaining the same forcounterparts in three KPIs: maintaining

stronger performance in establishing buffer

all five KPIs.

shade cover on slopes (CG-SR1.6),

zones around 50 percent of permanent

preventing the conversion of natural forest

water bodies (CG-WR1.2).

RESULTS ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2012 // 25

PRODUCER SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS (PSOs)
Zero-Tolerance Indicator

2011 SCORESPS-MT1.1

PS-EM1.1
Global Average0%

PS-EM2.5

PS-MT1.3
PS-MT1.2

PERFORMANCE

100%

2012 SCORESPS-MT1.1
PS-MT1.2
PS-MT1.3

PS-EM2.5

0%

PERFORMANCE

PS-EM1.1

Global Average

100%

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
PS-MT1.1

Supply chain has system for tracking product from purchase to export

PS-MT1.2

PSO maintains a list of producers participating in C.A.F.E. Practices program

PS-MT1.3

Each farm receives a receipt for coffee

PS-EM1.1

PSOs do not purchase, distribute or apply the most harmful pesticides (WHO Type 1A and 1B)

PS-EM2.5

PSO develops written management plan addressing productivity, training, soil management and resource sharing

Producer support organizations (PSOs)

One of the KPIs identified for this

support smallholder coffee growers

report was the development of written

participating in C.A.F.E. Practices by aiding

management plans by the PSO.

in farm management processes, providing

Performance in this KPI has beentechnical assistance and working together

increasing steadily – from 57 percent inwith growers to advance best practices.

2008 to almost 80 percent in 2012.

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS

26 // GLOBAL PERFORMANCE // FARMS // PSOs

When five PSO indicators were comparederosion management plans in place (PS-with related indicators for smallholder

SR1.1), small farms tended to have themfarms, one indicator showed a strong

as well (CG-SR1.3). This and other linkages

correlation between PSO and smallholder

could be interesting to explore in future

performance. In areas where the PSO had

iterations of this analysis.

PROCESSORSThe C.A.F.E. Practices program assesses

scale, stand-alone mill. For Environmental

coffee processors against indicators in two

Responsibility, the criteria assessed are

subject areas: Social Responsibility andbased on the type of processing – wet

Environmental Responsibility. For Social

milling, dry milling, and those using a

Responsibility, the criteria assessed may

combination of wet and dry milling.

vary based on the size of the mill, whether

Performance in this report is analyzed

it is a small-scale on-farm mill or a larger-

against selected KPIs in each subject area.

// SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Zero-Tolerance Indicator

2011 SCORES

SR-HP4.1
SR-HP1.1

SR-WC4.7
SR-HP1.130%SR-HP3.3

SR-HP1.3

PERFORMANCE

100%

2012 SCORES

SR-HP3.3
SR-WC4.7
SR-HP1.13

0%

PERFORMANCE

SR-HP1.1
SR-HP1.3
SR-HP4.1

100%

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
SR-HP1.1

Full-time workers paid nationally or regionally established minimum wage

SR-HP1.3

Temporary/seasonal workers paid nationally or regionally established minimum wage

SR-HP1.13

Temporary/seasonal workers paid more than nationally or regionally established minimum wage

SR-HP3.3

Workers do not work more total hours than allowable under law

SR-HP4.1

Processor does not employ children under the age of 14

SR-WC4.7

Workers use protective equipment when handling agrochemicals and operating machinery

RESULTS ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2012 // 27

Overall, processor performance against

declined in 2011 – minimum wage paid toSocial Responsibility KPIs was fairly strong,

temporary employees (SR-HP1.3).

particularly in 2012 when mills achieved
nearly 100 percent compliance with all

In both years, performance for the threeminimum labor standards. Of almost 6500

non-zero-tolerance KPIs – specificallydata points, there were only eight instancesindicators related to maximum working

of non-compliance with zero-tolerance

hours (SR-HP3.3), workers using protective

criteria in 2012.

equipment (SC-WC4.7) and temporary
workers receiving more than minimum

While performance was not quite as strong

wage (SR-HP1.13) – lagged behindin 2011, performance exceeded 94 percent

performance for zero-tolerance KPIs,

and only one zero-tolerance indicatorparticularly in 2011.

ADDITIONAL FINDINGSIn 2011 and 2012, a higher percentage ofmarked improvement across the criteria

workers had access to potable water (SR-set.

WC1.2) than in any previous year, reaching

28 // GLOBAL PERFORMANCE // PROCESSORS

95 percent and 97 percent, respectively.

On average, 76 percent of full-time

Additionally, indicators related to freedom

employees received more than minimumof association and collective bargaining

wage in 2011 and 2012, holding steady(SR-HP2) either remained high or showedwith 2008-2010 rates.

// ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
2011 SCORES

CP-EC1.4,2.4
CP-WM1.2

CP-WC2.1

CP-WC2.4

0%

PERFORMANCE

2012 SCORES

100%

CP-WM1.2

CP-EC1.4,2.4

CP-WC2.1

CP-WC2.4

0%

PERFORMANCE100%

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORSCP-WC2.1*

Wastewater from pulping and washing is managed

CP-WC2.4

Local water bodies show no evidence of contamination

CP-EC1.4, 2.4

Wood used for drying coffee is responsibly harvested and managed

CP-WM1.2*

Organic coffee waste (skin, pulp, unacceptable cherries) is composted* Includes small farms with on-farm mill.

While mill performance against Social

The most notable decline in KPI

Responsibility KPIs dropped off in 2011

performance was related to the responsible

before rebounding to all-time highs in 2012,

harvesting of wood for wet and dry milling

Environmental Responsibility performance(CP-EC1.4 and CP-EC2.4, respectively).

followed an opposite trajectory, peaking

After steady performance at almost 100

across many of the KPIs in 2011 before

percent from 2008 through 2011, mills fell

declining slightly in 2012. In 2011,

to 94 percent in 2012.

performance against each of the four KPIs
exceeded 90 percent. KPI performanceremained strong in 2012.

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS
Since 2008, mill performance related

minimizing water consumption remained

to waste management (CP-WM1) has

low overall, averaging just 41 percent

shown relatively consistent improvement.

across the criteria set since 2008.

However, compliance rates for tracking and

RESULTS ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2012 // 29

Conclusions
This assessment marks the fifth year

– verified in fiscal years 2011 and 2012

and third report monitoring the results

and analyzes their performance againstof Starbucks investment in the Coffee

KPIs selected from 249 criteria guiding

and Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) Practices

management, labor, coffee growing andprogram, a program designed to drive

coffee processing practices.

the adoption of economic, social andenvironmental best practices among

The two fiscal years assessed in thiscoffee growers and processors. The

report varied significantly in participation

scope of this report looks at Starbucks

and performance.

suppliers – the farms, mills and PSOs

2011

2012

Farms

115,235

70,000 ⇓Mills

25,467

59,125

Applications

65 ⇓

329

Countries

16

Employees

Full-time

32,714

Temporary359,750 ⇓537,494

Areas

Coffee hectares

460,406

265,634 ⇓Conservation hectares

209,000 ⇑76,999 ⇓Global Performance

Average farm score

66 percent ⇓80 percent ⇑Applications achieving two highest status levels

13 percent ⇓58 percent ⇑Participation

⇑

14
⇑

20,458 ⇓– indicates highest level of any analysis year

⇓ – indicates lowest level of any analysis year

FARMS
Overall, farms achieved the lowest subject

Despite the overall lower scores in 2011,

area scores for both Social Responsibility

performance on zero-tolerance KPIs wasand Environmental Responsibility in 2011

generally higher in 2011 than 2012. Farms(70 percent and 62 percent, respectively)

also performed well on indicators related toand the highest subject area scoreschild labor, non-discrimination, forced laborin 2012 (81 percent and 77 percent,and access to primary school.

respectively) since analysis began in 2008.

30 // CONCLUSIONSSMALLHOLDER FARMS & PRODUCER
SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS (PSOS)
Smallholder farms continue to represent

PSO performance in four zero-tolerance

the vast majority of participants in C.A.F.E.

KPIs was 95 percent and above for all

Practices, making up more than 95 percent

indicators, with the exception of the use ofof the total farms verified every year sinceharmful pesticides in 2011, which fell to an

2008. In relation to medium and large

all-time low of 75 percent. PSOs continue

farms, small farms outperformed in three ofto improve performance related to written

four Environmental Responsibility KPIs, but

management plans, which has climbed

lagged slightly behind in four of six Social

steadily since 2008, reaching an all-time

Responsibility KPIs.

high of 79 percent in 2012.

MILLS
Overall, mill performance in Social

board. Performance against Environmental

Responsibility was strong, especially

Responsibility KPIs was actually higher for

related to performance against zero-

mills in 2011 than 2012 – the only casetolerance KPIs in 2012, when millsin this report of a downward trend at theachieved almost 100 percent across the

subject area level from 2011 to 2012.

* * *This assessment serves as an important

to show interesting patterns between

tool for Starbucks as they seek to better

C.A.F.E. Practices performance andunderstand the effectiveness of the

productivity, with the lowest yields coming

C.A.F.E. Practices programs and its

from applications with non-compliant

impacts on coffee farmers, communities

status and the highest yields coming fromand landscapes. While performance

those with preferred status.

against zero-tolerance indicators and
KPIs was strong in 2011 and 2012, theThe launch of C.A.F.E. Practices

continued ability of the program to detectversion 3.0 demonstrates Starbucks

non-compliance with minimum wage, childongoing commitment to the program.

labor, and other minimum labor standards

Through continued diligence in thehighlights the strength of the verification

strength of the standards and support

process.

in its implementation, Starbucks has
the opportunity to continue to drive theThis report also provides an opportunity toadoption of better practices with theidentify potential areas for intervention andgrowers and processors in its supply chain.

targeted support. The analysis also begins

RESULTS ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2012 // 31