by Sarah Walkley | May 1, 2024 | Blog
Consumers want to hear how brands are transforming both their products and operations. In fact, 90% of consumers indicate it is important for brands to talk about their sustainability programmes. But the EU has found that over half of current communications are vague, misleading or unfounded, leading to a suite of regulatory changes designed to tackle greenwashing and promote clear communication.
The Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (nicknamed the greenwashing directive) updates existing directives on consumer rights, tightening the rules on unfair and misleading claims. It also obliges manufacturers trading in the EU to provide clearer information on how long a product is expected to last, including whether the company only plans to support the software used for a defined period. It should also be clear whether the product is repairable. Approved in February 2024, the directive came into force a month later and will be implemented across the EU over the next two years.
The greenwashing directive will be followed by a second directive — the Green Claims Directive — which is currently making its way through the European Parliament. The directive will further tighten the rules on what companies can and cannot say about the green credentials of their products and how to verify those claims. There are also hefty penalties for companies falsely marketing their products — the regulation allows for fines of at least 4% of company turnover in the EU Member State where infringement occurs.
Here are Context’s top tips for avoiding greenwashing in your product communications and updating your strategy.
1. Be specific
Generic and vague statements are out, and highly specific claims are in. The greenwashing directive includes a raft of phrases to avoid, including ‘green’, ‘ecofriendly’, ‘kinder on the environment’ and ‘more environmentally friendly’.
It also prohibits claims relating to the entire product or company. Your company needs to be specific about how you have improved your products and services, e.g. made from organic cotton on an item of clothing.
Terms such as ‘energy efficient’ or ‘biodegradable’ should not be used without clarification, e.g. that a product is certified to be more energy efficient than the previous version or packaging is biodegradable in a home compost bin.
Any claim needs to be clearly evidenced. Specific, but inaccurate or unsubstantiated claims will fall foul of the Green Claims Directive. It focuses on the accuracy of explicit claims, e.g. that a product is made from 30% recycled plastic or cotton.
2. Be clear on lifecycles
Consumers need to know how long a product should last. That means providing clear information on whether the product is repairable and how long your company plans to support the current generation of software, e.g. the operating system used in a mobile phone.
The greenwashing directive has also set its sights on false claims around durability. For example, you cannot claim a washing machine will last for 50,000 washing cycles if it is only achievable in precise laboratory conditions.
3. Move beyond offsetting
The greenwashing directive specifically calls out claims such as ‘carbon neutral’ or ‘reduced climate impact’, which are based on offsetting alone. You must demonstrate that you have reduced the emissions related to the product and the extent of the reduction.
Offsetting can still be used as part of a wider carbon reduction strategy, e.g. to balance unavoidable emissions as part of a net-zero strategy. It cannot be the default solution, compensating for a lack of action.
4. Go above and beyond
Companies should avoid taking credit for actions that are required by law.
For example, manufacturers of coffee or chocolate cannot claim that their products are ‘deforestation free’ — they have to be. Under the Deforestation Regulation, there has been a ban on selling core commodities produced on recently deforested land since June 2023. This applies to cattle, wood, cocoa, soy, palm oil, coffee and rubber and their derivative products.
In this regard, the greenwashing directive reinforces provisions under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation. Rolling out in waves from 2024, the regulations establish design principles relating to the durability, reparability and reusability of products, initially electrical goods such as washing machines and mobile phones.
The regulations also pave the way for the EU to introduce mandatory requirements on the amount of recycled material in a product. If it became a requirement to include 30% recycled material in a product, you could no longer advertise a product as containing 30% recycled plastic. You could only make a claim by exceeding this figure.
5. Say ‘goodbye’ to voluntary labels
The EU has identified over 200 sustainability labels and another 100 green energy labels in use across the region — some backed by very stringent standards and others requiring very little verification. The greenwashing directive heralds a clean-up of product labelling, limiting on-pack logos to accredited schemes backed by approved third parties and public bodies. Companies cannot create or maintain their own labelling schemes.
6. Collate evidence
Claims must be based on sound science or the latest technical knowledge and independently reviewed.
In most cases, you will need primary information collected from direct tests on the product. Data cannot be more than five years old. Secondary information is only acceptable in rare instances where direct data are unavailable.
There should also be clear evidence that the product performs significantly better than both what is required by law and what is common practice in the market. Improvements in one area should not lead to greater negative impacts in another, e.g. a shift to recyclable packaging resulting in far higher production or transportation emissions.
7. Be mindful of comparisons
When improving on a previous product or going above and beyond competitors, it is natural to want to make comparisons. Again, the Green Claims Directive sets out what is a fair comparison.
You cannot claim a product has a lower carbon footprint than a competitor or previous version if the two assessments are based on different methodologies or one analysis covers production emissions and the other takes the full supply chain into account.
8. Seek accreditation
Only recognised providers will be able to provide accreditation. When looking for accreditation seek out established, independent and well-respected organisations. They should also have an international reach. The EU Ecolabel is considered the official standard for products. The Eco-Management and Audit Scheme, or EMAS, is the bar for measuring company sustainability initiatives.
The Green Claims Directive seeks to further whittle down the sustainability labels in use in the EU by establishing rules on approved verification and labelling schemes, including how they assess qualification for an award, minimum requirements for transparency and the process for submitting complaints.
It also limits creation of new national or regional schemes, with the view to making EU-wide programmes the standard. To be approved, new schemes will have to offer something extra to the plethora of independent assessments currently available.
The Green Claims Directive focuses specifically on product communications. It does not cover corporate sustainability reporting, but reinforces the need for fair and accurate sustainability communication at all levels, in line with the EU Accounting Directive or the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive.
Context supports companies to assess develop, communicate and implement effective sustainability strategies at the company and product level. If you’d like to chat about your organisation’s needs, please get in touch via www.contextsustainability.com or helen.fisher@contexteurope.com (Context Europe) / lisa.nelson@contextamerica.com(Context America).
by Sarah Walkley | Apr 27, 2024 | Blog
Research shows consumers have little understanding of important sustainability terms and are looking to brands to help them get to grips with environmental issues. But consumer trust is quickly destroyed by the use of vague and imprecise words like ‘green’ and ‘eco conscious’.
Most people (90%) want brands to talk about their sustainability initiatives, according to research by Trajectory and Fleet Street. Consumers want to make sustainable choices, with 68% saying they are more likely to buy from a brand with a clear environmental strategy that they talk about in a no-nonsense way.
Just 4% of respondents indicated they completely understood what is meant by the ‘circular economy’. At Context, we define it as ‘a waste-free way to produce and consume’. Though still very much in development, ‘this state of nirvana eliminates waste and pollution and recirculates products and material while regenerating nature’.
Other terms which confuse people are ‘traceability’ (just 10% completely understand), carbon offsetting (11%) and biodiversity (12%). We also have handy definitions for these too in our Little Book.
Meanwhile, consumers feel more confident about terms like ‘recyclable’ (58% completely understand), ‘reducing single-use plastic’ (47%) and ‘locally sourced/grown’ (40%). They also prefer these terms, giving them higher scores when asked how positively they view the word or phrase.
Why?
According to Trajectory, consumers want brands to talk about what they are doing in ways that are ‘practical, specific and instructional’. Labelling something as ‘recyclable’ tells people what they should do with the used packaging. ‘Locally sourced’ or ‘reducing single-use plastic’ are equally descriptive and make it clear what the brand has done to improve its products.
Trajectory suggests brands flip how they talk about things. Instead of describing a product as ‘biodegradable’, say that it is ‘recyclable at home’ if it will break down in a home compost bin. We agree.
Also be wary of vague terms. Just over one-third of respondents (35%) felt they knew what was meant by ‘environmentally friendly’, while 26% were confident about ‘eco friendly’, 24% understood ‘green’ and 10% understood ‘eco conscious’. People tended to view these words less favourably.
It is perhaps unsurprising that consumers are confused by these terms. They are generic and have been heavily misused, which is why they have been specifically singled out by the EU in its greenwashing directive, currently being rolled out across Europe. They also fall foul of the US Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides and the Green Claims Codein the UK. They are definitely terms to avoid.
Many brands are taking action to address the climate and nature crises, supported by consumers. Almost half of respondents felt brands have a responsibility to act on climate change (47%) and are sincere in their efforts to make a difference (48%). But there is a clear language barrier standing in the way – one that is made worse by the use of words that are vague or poorly understood.
We know it’s tough to know your bioplastics from your blockchain. Context’s Little Book: (Nearly) everything you always wanted to know about corporate sustainability covers off these and over 300 other sustainability terms and definitions. Why not take a look next time you are telling customers about your sustainability strategy, or talk to us how we can support your company’s sustainability strategy, reporting and communications?
by Pippa Greenwood | Apr 18, 2024 | Blog
Pensions, which are designed to secure our future, may be putting it at risk. These powerful funds — worth more than US$55.7 trillion in global assets and accounting for 69% of GDP across 22 major markets — are quietly funding the climate crisis through major investments into fossil fuels (as Oblivia Colemine chillingly informed us) and deforestation. Ironically, these investments are jeopardising the future we are saving for. But it doesn’t have to be this way.
Pensions fund fossil fuels. £3 trillion is currently invested into UK pension funds. More than £88 billion is invested in fossil fuel companies, the biggest contributor to climate change and accounting for more than 75% of global emissions. In 2021 and 2022, Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) funds had invested £16 billion in the fossil fuel industry, according to research by Platform and Friends of the Earth. This money not only funds existing oil and gas projects, but supports expansion. More than half of LGPS funds in the financial year 2021-2022 went into new oil and gas projects. Pension fund bond investments also drive the funding of fossil fuels. Bonds are fixed-term loans that investors provide to governments or companies that underpin the financing. 50% of fossil fuel financing comes from corporate bonds, and bonds account for the largest source of financing for coal in China and India, according to the Toxic Bonds Initiative.
Pensions may drive deforestation. In the UK, more than £300 billion of pension fund investments go into companies with a high risk of driving deforestation. These include companies involved in palm oil, soybeans, beef and timber. For every £10 put into a pension, £2 could be linked to companies causing deforestation. Deforestation poses a major threat to the natural world, contributes significantly to climate change and can be linked to serious human rights abuses. More than a quarter (27%) of deforestation results from agricultural products. These agricultural commodities are also exposed to physical climate risks such as extreme weather events, droughts and rising mean temperatures, potentially making them risky investments.
Pensions can be part of the solution. People eat less meat, switch energy providers and travel less to cut their carbon footprint, but they don’t typically think about their pensions. Instead of funding companies that are damaging the environment, pensions could be part of the solution. ‘Green pension funds’ aim to generate returns for people by investing in companies that have a positive impact on the environment. If UK consumers were to collectively participate only in green funds, up to 386 million tonnesof greenhouse gas emissions could be eliminated each year, according to the Scottish Widows 2023 Green Pensions report — the equivalent of 11 return flights from London to New York per person. Pensions represent a substantial investment pool for already available climate solutions, such as technology-based carbon removals and innovative renewable energy projects. These solutions are in desperate need of funding to scale up quickly. They have the power to significantly reduce and drawdown (when emissions stop rising and start to decline) global emissions. By moving their money, people and pension providers can play a pivotal role in addressing the causes of climate change whilst driving the transition to a low carbon economy. UK pensions alone have the potential to invest £1 trillion in climate solutions, like renewable energy, by 2035. Organisations like Make My Money Matter are on a mission to encourage people to ask pension providers to go green by moving investments away from companies funding fossil fuels and driving deforestation.
Some pension funds are already making a difference. Some funds are moving away from investing in fossil fuel and high emitting companies. Netherlands-based PFZW, one of the largest pension funds in Europe, announced that it has exited investments in over 300 fossil fuel companies, including Shell, BP and TotalEnergies, over a lack of convincing decarbonisation plans. The Church of England Pensions Board, which manages roughly £3.2 billion, said it will exit the oil and gas sector, along with some of the highest emitting industries such as airlines, utilities and steel companies.
Despite some changes, progress is slow. It will take a global effort from multiple parties to change the pension industry. Governments can tighten legislation on pension providers. Funds can be more transparent about their investments and diversify away from industries fuelling the climate crisis. People can speak to their pension provider (directly or via their employer) to find out where their money is going. Once they know the full story, they can decide whether their current pension plan matches their values and understand the other investment options available to them, along with any associated risks.
The purpose of a pension is to invest in our own future. But the pension itself could be damaging that future. The choices we make over where we put our money gives us more influence than we realise. We can use our savings to support a greener, cleaner and healthier future for all.
by Helen Fisher | Apr 15, 2024 | Blog
Meet the newest member of the board: Pongo pygmaeus.
Around a year ago, Eco-Business reported a Malaysian palm oil producer had become the world’s first company to appoint a non-human animal to its board of directors in the form of Aman the orangutan. It was an April Fools’ joke that had LinkedIn giggling. But although hosting an orangutan in the boardroom is clearly impractical, is the idea of giving nature a seat at the table really all that laughable?
Giving nature a voice
In fact, someone else had got there first. In 2022, UK-based Faith in Nature was the first company to appoint a Nature Guardian — a non-executive director with the sole responsibility of representing the natural world, non-humans and environmental interests — giving nature a voice and a vote on how the company is run. House of Hackney and the Better Business Network have since followed, while Patagonia has made nature its sole shareholder.
And back in 2008, an entire country changed its constitution to give nature protected rights, with the people of Ecuador voting overwhelmingly in favour of the move. Recent court cases have tested the country’s Rights of Nature laws, seeing the Constitutional Court ruling in favour of Ecuador’s cloud forests to prevent large-scale mining operations. Other countries have implemented similar mechanisms, including Bolivia, Colombia and Mexico. A constitutional amendment, currently in draft, would add Aruba to the list of countries starting to formally recognise nature’s legal rights.
Some countries have gone a step further by granting “personhood” to specific natural entities, such as the Muteshekau-shipu or Magpie river in Canada and the Whanganui River in New Zealand. More recently, whales were recognised as legal persons in a treatysigned by Indigenous leaders of the Cook Islands, Tahiti and New Zealand.
Is all this really necessary?
From early environmental movements to present day organisations such as ClientEarth, many don’t see the idea of sticking up for nature as radical, but as essential to the long-term wellbeing of people and the planet. The very idea of having to formally represent nature and its rights might seem odd to those communities and cultures for whom it simply makes sense to respect and protect the natural world which provides us with essential resources and services.
Yet it’s the systematic over-exploitation of these resources that has started to make such representation seem necessary. And regardless of whether you believe it’s the right thing to do or a vital response to our global overshooting of planetary boundaries, failure to account for nature is starting to hit the bottom line. Pressure on corporate boards to demonstrate they are capable of understanding and overseeing sustainability issues has come on the heels of increased shareholder activism.
The recent experiences of companies such as Exxon may be a sign of things to come for others. In 2021, shareholders voted to replace three members of the energy company’s board after Hedge fund Engine No.1, which held just 0.02% of Exxon Mobil’s stock, convinced fellow shareholders that the company’s lacklustre climate strategy would leave it financially unprepared for the transition to renewable energy. A similar, more recent move by Ajruna Capital has been less successful.
Lawsuits being brought against companies in relation to sustainability matters such as climate change are also on the rise. With cases being led by human representatives including states, individuals, and third parties, nature is shouting louder to be heard. And perhaps it was always going to need the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss to be felt by a significant enough proportion of the global population for such representation to hit the mainstream.
Coordinated efforts to account for and restore nature are starting to come to fruition through initiatives such as the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures and Science Based Targets Network, following adoption of a global biodiversity framework and goals at COP15. Legislation is starting to wake up too, with the introduction of the UK Biodiversity Net Gain planning regulations, and relevant reporting requirements through the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. And could longstanding academic efforts to assign economic value to ecosystems services start to find application with “nature pricing” following in carbon’s footprint?
Too little too late?
With increasing worldwide coordination, incoming guidance to support target setting, and pressure from multiple sides for companies to pay attention to their interconnectivity with and dependence on the natural world, the tide is shifting.
Perhaps the need to appoint a board-level representative of nature has been bypassed by external events. Or perhaps such an appointment can play a crucial role in implementation and ongoing accountability once nature-based targets are in place. Either way, this handy guide from Faith in Nature offers some pointers for those wishing to consider it, although worth also contemplating the practical challenges.
Robyn Eckersley concludes in her chapter on representing nature from The Future of Representative Democracy: “Whenever we represent nature, we, unwittingly or otherwise, also represent ourselves and the sort of world we wish to inhabit.” The collective impact and financial return of today’s efforts to represent, protect and restore nature may not be seen or understood for some time. Paying attention to the type of world we want to live in is perhaps our best call to action at this point.
And who knows, maybe it won’t be long before we’re talking about other kinds of board-level representation. Future generations perhaps, or maybe even AI…
by Helen Fisher | Mar 27, 2024 | Blog
Double materiality sits at the core of the new European sustainability reporting standards. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) affects more than 50,000 companies, requiring them to disclose the impacts, risks and opportunities associated with environmental, social and governance issues, as well as what the company is doing to address those issues. For almost three-quarters of these companies, it is the first time they face mandatory reporting in the EU.
Unlike other sustainability reporting initiatives, which look at social and environmental impacts or the influence of sustainability issues on financial performance, companies falling within the scope of CSRD must combine both lenses, looking simultaneously inwards and outwards:
- Impact materiality looks from the inside out to assess the impact of the company’s business activities on stakeholders, society and the environment; and
- Financial materiality looks from the outside in to understand how external sustainability impacts could affect the company’s financial risks, opportunities and future profitability.
An effective and systematic process for assessing sustainability materiality is fundamental to align a company’s impact on society and the environment with strategic choices and financial performance. It ensures CSRD compliance, but also builds resilience, reputation and trust.
1. Understand context and define stakeholder engagement strategy
CSRD requires companies to look at the full value chain from raw material production to product use. The process starts with mapping all activities — upstream and downstream. This helps to define the internal and external stakeholders affected at each stage, as well as identify the groups who may have an impact on the organisation.
The perspectives of all these groups should inform the materiality assessment. However, you need to plan where and how to engage and involve them, and how to bring different groups of stakeholders together to build a holistic picture. For example, some people may be well-placed to identify the issues they think are important, but not to assess their financial impact on the company. Companies will also need to consult a broad group of stakeholders after assessing impacts, risks and opportunities (stage 4) to validate the final list of the most material topics.
2. Identify initial list of material sustainability matters
The next step is to compile a list of issues that are potentially relevant to the company. The European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) stipulates 10 cross-cutting environmental, social and governance topics that all companies must consider, including climate change, biodiversity loss and workers in the value chain. These include a series of sub-topics, e.g. working conditions, and sub-sub-topics, e.g. health and safety. You also need to take sector- and company-specific issues into account, which may include matters not directly covered by ESRS.
The list will be quite long at this stage. Subsequent steps help to identify those sustainability matters that are material to the organisation. Your company will only have to report on the material issues and not this longer list of issues.
3. Define impacts, risks and opportunities
Next, you need to define each sustainability matter in greater detail and assess it against a range of parameters.
What impact does the sustainability matter have on society or the environment? Is it a positive or negative impact? Over what timescale? Will the impact occur in the next year, next few years or over the longer term? Where does the impact occur, e.g. in the company’s supply chain, its operations or with customers? Is it already an issue (actual), or is it something that could happen if conditions change (potential)? For example, business expansion, such as construction of a new facility or increased raw material use following a new product launch, could lead to biodiversity loss if the move is not considered carefully from the outset.
Similarly, it is important to consider how the sustainability matter will affect your company, including whether it presents a risk or an opportunity, and whether it relates to the company’s direct operations or the wider value chain.
4. Assess impacts, risks and opportunities
Once you have a full understanding of the sustainability matters, impacts, risks and opportunities, you can start to assess their materiality.
Assessing impact materiality includes answering questions such as how many people are affected by an issue, whether the damage can be restored and at what cost. This helps to determine the scale, scope and irremediability of an issue. At this stage, research and industry reports can add supporting evidence. The information gathered could also help to shape future targets, demonstrating how the company is addressing key topics.
You will then need to understand how each issue is likely to affect company financial performance and to what extent (magnitude). Will it increase costs slightly or add significantly to the company’s cost-base, e.g. because key raw materials are less available, or the company will have to find new suppliers? Similarly, opportunities may cause a slight uptick in company fortunes or generate significant new revenues.
When assessing both impact and financial materiality, it is important to consider the likelihood of an issue arising and whether this might change based on future events. For example, could a change in regulation alter the risk profile, making a sustainability matter more important for your company.
5. Produce ranked list of sustainability matters
Now is the time to rank the sustainability matters based on the assessment of the impacts, risks and opportunities and to narrow down the issues that are material to the organisation. Up to now you have assessed each issue’s impacts, risks and opportunities on a range of different parameters. These now need to be combined to create a single view of an issue’s importance. A sustainability matter meets the criteria of double materiality if it is significant in terms of impact materiality, financial materiality, or a combination of both.
You will also need to determine the materiality threshold or cut-off point to split the list into material issues and those that are not material for the company.
It can be helpful at this stage to bring all stakeholders back together to review the list and ensure that issues have come out in the right order. Does it make sense that biodiversity loss sits above climate?
6. Produce materiality matrix and overview
Companies need to report on the prioritised list of material issues. There are no requirements on format within the CSRD; the list can be presented in a traditional materiality matrix or table. That said, it can be helpful to plot the assessment on a materiality matrix, especially to present and explain the material issues to stakeholders.
7. Disclose measures to manage environmental and societal impacts
Under CSRD, your company will be required to report on the outcomes of your double materiality assessment and the process used to create it.
You will also need to explain how you are addressing each of the issues identified. This includes detailing the measures and targets you have put in place to reduce impacts, mitigate risks and capitalise on opportunities, as well as the underlying policies and processes needed to achieve your goals.
Following these clear and logical steps will put you in a good position to report and comply with the requirements.
Context supports companies to assess materiality and develop, communicate and implement effective sustainability strategies. If you’d like to chat about your organisation’s needs, please get in touch via www.contextsustainability.com or helen.fisher@contexteurope.com.
Read our earlier blog on double materiality here.
by Context | Mar 20, 2024 | Blog
Two-fifths of the world’s plant species are at risk of extinction, much of which we rely on to feed us. Varieties of foods we eat every day — like bananas, corn, and coffee — could be wiped out due to the limited genetic diversity of foods. Changing consumer habits, population growth, agricultural practices like monoculture farming, and climate change are largely responsible.
Traditional diets were simpler but more biodiverse. People ate what could be grown and sourced locally. Today, many societies have shifted away from this and access foods grown all over the world. As the global population has quadrupled over the last century, food production has surged. But while consumers increasingly demand variety, in reality we have whittled down the genetic diversity of our foods into monocultures to meet global demand and keep food production profitable. Take maize as an example. The crop has deliberately been inbred from thousands of locally adapted, heirloom varieties to just a handful of types that produce taller, larger kernels that are genetically identical. Having only a few types of maize means these varieties can be more profitably mass produced and shipped around the world.
Reduced food diversity is exacerbated by climate change. As temperatures increase and we experience more extreme weather patterns, growing food becomes more challenging. Some crops have adapted to changing climates and conditions like increased rainfall and hotter temperatures, but others are less resilient. Arabica coffee beans, which represent two-thirds of global coffee bean production, are a prime example of a crop seriously at risk from climate change. 131 known species of coffee bean have been reduced to just a few. Today Arabica and Robusta account for 98% of all coffee grown. By 2050, 50% of Arabica growing regions are predicted to be unsuitable because of the hotter temperatures, erratic rainfall, and more aggressive pathogens resulting from climate change. Reliance on two beans globally has left coffee drinkers at risk of short supply, and the millions of people reliant on the industry vulnerable.
To make matters worse, diseases such as fungal pathogens and bacteria are wiping out entire food crops. Globally, this is a significant risk as we increasingly rely on monoculture foods. There used to be hundreds of banana varieties. Today, people almost exclusively eat the Cavendish variety – bred to be sweet, creamy, flavourful, seedless, and easy to transport with its thick skin. Since the 1950s, Cavendish bananas have made up half of bananas produced globally. It is one of the most consumed foods in the world and is a significant source of nutrients for millions of people. But a deadly pathogen — Panama 4 — could wipe out the Cavendish and destroy the banana industry completely. Relying on a single variety risks an entire food group when disease strikes.
Threats to food supplies are nothing new. The Irish famine in the mid-1800s saw the country’s most significant source of food, a single type of potato crop, wiped out by a water mold, resulting in the deaths of nearly one million people.
But today this can all be avoided. There’s a growing movement to reverse our reliance on monocultures. Some growers are adopting agroecology practices by reverting to traditional agriculture methods, embracing natural systems and using local knowledge to promote biodiversity — in some cases by planting multiple crop species together. Others are turning to regenerative agriculture to restore nature by using crop rotation and diversification to reduce disease and maintain soil health. Permaculture farming, which works with nature by grouping species that complement one another together to create a self-sustaining system, is also regaining popularity.
It’s not just growers’ responsibility to change the food system. Industries responsible for dictating what is grown, and consumers, have an impact on what ends up on food shelves. We need to shift our expectations to embrace variability in the foods we eat, and for the supermarkets, retailers and buyers who cater to our demands to supply wider varieties.
Ultimately, it is possible to live in a world with an abundance of diverse foods. Thousands of seed varieties are stored in protected seed banks around the world, ready to burst into life in farmers’ fields. There are roughly 1,700 seed banks around the world containing billions of seeds and thousands of plant species. The hope is to restore what has been lost and safeguard food for the future, all while increasing biodiversity, and protecting livelihoods and the climate.
