Guidelines: Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems

SAFA
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SYSTEMS
GUIDELINES
VERSION 3.0
EN
VIR
E
MANAG
O
R
CE
ATMOSPHE
HOLIST NT
RUL
NM
EME
N
EO
NA
ER
IC
PA
FL
EN
WAT
RT
AW
ER
IC
T
IP
AT
ND
ACC &
IO
GOV
LA
S
IAL
N
OUN
TAB
I ATER GY
LIT M ER
Y EN
TY
CORPORATE VERSI
E
ETHICS BIODI
CULTURAL AANIMAL WELFARE

DIVERSITY
TH & INVE
N H EAL FETY STME
NT
MA SA
HU
Y VU
UIT LN
ER
EQ AB
ILI
PR INFO
TY
S
&
OD RM
HT
RIG
UC AT
PRAC ADING
LOCA
EC
AL
TICES
LIVELIHOOD
DECENT
T Q IO
UR
UA N
I
L ECO
O
BO
TR
NO
LIT
C
LA
SO
FAIR
MY
NOM
Y
SAFA
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SYSTEMS
GUIDELINES
VERSION 3.0
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS - ROME 2014

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply
the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area
or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific
companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that
these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not
mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.
ISBN 978-92-5-108485-4 (print)

E-ISBN 978-92-5-108486-1 (PDF)
© FAO, 2014
FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except
where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research
and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate
acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of
users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way.
All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should
be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to copyright@fao.org. FAO information
products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through
publications-sales@fao.org.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
S AFA is an initiative led by Nadia El-Hage Scialabba, Natural Resources

Management and Environment Department; thanks go to Alexander Mueller
for his continuous support and to the Government of Switzerland for the kind
financial assistance.
The draft Sustainability Framework was first defined through a FAO cooperation with
the ISEAL Alliance and an expert meeting held in 2009; thanks go to Sasha Courville,
Elisabeth Guttenstein and Jonathan Loh for their collaboration during this phase.
The Test Version 1.0 of the SAFA Guidelines was released on the occasion of the
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in June 2012. It was shaped
by stakeholders’ surveys, an expert meeting held in 2011 and two electronic public
consultations held in 2011 and 2012; thanks go to Jan Grenz and his team for the write-up,
including Julia Jawtusch, Madeleine Kaufmann, Christian Schader, Susanne Stalder and
Christian Thalmann.
The Test Version 1.1 of the SAFA Guidelines was benchmarked against major
sustainability tools and piloted in 30 settings in 2012-13; thanks go Sally Lee and Noémi
Nemes for their backstopping and coordination of this process.
The Draft SAFA Guidelines (version 2.0) was prepared following a practitioners and
partners meeting held in 2013; thanks go to Elisabeth Henderson, Cristina Larrea, Sally Lee,
Noémi Nemes, Aimee Russillo, Michael Sligh and John Stansfield for their contributions.
The SAFA Guidelines (version 3.0) are produced following a peer-review and additional
provision of expertise; thanks go to Marta Bentancur, Giulia Bernini, Gabriella Bianchi,
Cécile Brugère, Doug Kneeland and Jon Manhire for their inputs.
Last but not least, thanks go to the several hundred individuals who provided
their knowledge and insights on the occasion of the different SAFA events, including
sustainability concerned par tners in academia, associations, food industr y,
multi-stakeholder organizations, as well as within the UN system and FAO.
SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0 iii

PREFACE
M ore than two decades have passed since the principle of sustainable
development received nearly universal agreement at the 1992 Earth Summit.
As of today, 106 countries have established national sustainable development
strategies and related sustainability reporting, as evidenced by national reports to the
Commission on Sustainable Development. Furthermore, over 120 voluntary sustainability
standards, eco-labels, codes of conduct and audit protocols are referenced on the Standards
Map of the International Trade Centre. World over, there is an increasing user demand for
practical tools to support decision-making processes regarding the use of sustainability
tools in business operations. However, there is no single framework that integrates all
aspects of sustainability and sadly, sustainability objectives are deteriorating in all spheres
of development, as witnessed by multiple environmental, social and economic crisis.
The hundreds different sustainability frameworks developed in the last decades by
universities, civil society, corporations and national and international institutions, range
from environmental and social standards to corporate social responsibility and codes of
good practices that apply to operational units or specific supply chains, with or without
labelling. This expansion of sustainability tools and various claims place a burden on
producers and traders and frustrate consumers in the market place. In addition, the
implementation of an integrated approach to analyzing all sustainability dimensions as
a coherent whole, and integrating them into business or development strategies, remains
a major challenge.
Global trade and the governance of inter-state externalities on public goods (e.g.
climate, biodiversity, food safety, financial stability), compounded by the proliferation
of sustainability schemes, call for a multi-party cooperation that must be supported by
“common rules” in order to reduce fragmentation, prevent conflicts, mitigate uncertainty
and build capacities for effective sustainability. More accurate data and sound guiding
principles to establish a common basis for assessing sustainability is needed. Tackling
these challenges requires, among other things, a common language for sustainability,
as well as a holistic approach to assessment and implementation that considers the
complexity and relationships of all dimensions of sustainability. While there is now a wide
awareness of the sustainability concept, there is also wide interpretation of the definitions
iv SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0

and components of sustainability based on different disciplines and political beliefs and
values. There is need to measure what matters; the dilemma is to measure what matters
to whom and how?
SAFA is a holistic global framework for the assessment of sustainability along food
and agriculture value chains. SAFA establishes an international reference for assessing
trade-offs and synergies between all dimensions of sustainability. It has been prepared
so that enterprises, whether companies or small-scale producers, involved with the
production, processing, distribution and marketing of goods have a clear understanding
of the constituent components of sustainability and how strength, weakness and progress
could be tackled. By providing a transparent and aggregated framework for assessing
sustainability, SAFA seeks to harmonize sustainability approaches within the food value
chain, as well as furthering good practices.
These Guidelines are the result of five years of participatory development, together
with practitioners from civil society and private sector. The Guidelines are the result
of an iterative process, built on the cross-comparisons of codes of practice, corporate
reporting, standards, indicators and other technical protocols currently used by private
sector, governments, not-for-profits and multi-stakeholder organizations that reference or
implement sustainability tools. SAFA builds on, and acknowledges, existing sustainability
tools, with the goal of integrating and relating current systems.
The Guidelines are produced in the same spirit of codes of practice, guidelines and other
recommended measures to assist in achieving sustainable and fair practices in food and
agriculture production and trade. Because existing schemes remain fragmented on what
constitutes a sustainable food and agriculture system, SAFA aims to fill the gap between
specific sustainability tools, while fostering partnerships for the long-term transformation
of food systems.
The target audience of a SAFA assessment is small, medium and large-scale companies,
organizations and other stakeholders that participate in crop, livestock, forestry, aquaculture
and fishery value chains. However, as a framework and harmonized global assessment
approach, SAFA is also relevant to governments’ strategies, policy and planning.
The guiding vision of SAFA is that food and agriculture systems worldwide are
characterized by four dimensions of sustainability: good governance, environmental
integrity, economic resilience and social well-being. For each of these four dimensions of
sustainability, SAFA outlines essential elements of sustainability based on international
reference documents and conventions. The 21 themes and 58 sub-themes were defined
SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0 v

through expert consultations. Default performance indicators for each sub-theme facilitate
measuring progress towards sustainability. SAFA assessment involves adaptation to
geographic, sector-specific and individual conditions of the assessed entity and the
comprehensive use of existing documentation, standards and tools.
The SAFA Guidelines consist of three sections: Section 1 describes the purpose, linkages,
principles and scope of SAFA; Section 2 outlines the procedure of SAFA implementation;
Section 3 contains the SAFA protocol for sustainability themes and sub-themes. Default
indicators sheets, providing guidance and references can be found in this publication
complement entitled SAFA Indicators; these will be subject to periodic reviews, as learning
is gained during the Guidelines’ implementation.
The SAFA Guidelines are provided by FAO. They are publicly available and no
license fees may be charged for their use. The correct application of the Guidelines is the
responsibility of the implementing enterprise. FAO is neither liable nor responsible for
consequences of using the SAFA Guidelines.
FAO is also making publicly available an electronic SAFA Tool, with a view to assist
users in implementation of the Guidelines. The Tool and other SAFA resources are freely
downloadable from: http://www.fao.org/nr/sustainability/sustainability-assessments-safa
vi SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................................................................iii
Preface ........................................................................................................................................................................iv
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................................vii
Abbreviations ..............................................................................................................................................................ix
SECTION ONE. FRAMEWORK............................................................................................................1

Purpose of SAFA ...........................................................................................................................................................2
SAFA Vision ....................................................................................................................................................................2
What is SAFA about? .....................................................................................................................................................3
Who are the Guidelines aimed at? ..................................................................................................................................5
The objectives of SAFA Guidelines ..................................................................................................................................6
Use of SAFA results ........................................................................................................................................................7
The SAFA framework ....................................................................................................................................................8
Landscape of sustainability initiatives ...........................................................................................................................8
SAFA linkages with other sustainability tools..................................................................................................................8
Background and rationale .........................................................................................................................................12
Sustainable development progress and challenges ......................................................................................................12
Need for a common language .......................................................................................................................................13
SAFA principles...........................................................................................................................................................14
Scope of a SAFA assessment .....................................................................................................................................16
Supply chain scope: setting the boundaries ................................................................................................................16
Temporal scope: defining the time frame ......................................................................................................................19
Thematic scope: defining the sustainability context .....................................................................................................19
The Guide: how to use it ...............................................................................................................................................21
SECTION TWO. PROCEDURES ........................................................................................................23

SAFA Overview ............................................................................................................................................................24
Step 1. Mapping
Setting goals and scope ...............................................................................................................................................25
Setting Goals ...............................................................................................................................................................25
Setting scope and boundaries .....................................................................................................................................26
Small-scale producers and SAFA ..................................................................................................................................34
Step 2. Contextualization .........................................................................................................................................38
Contextualizing sub-themes .........................................................................................................................................39
Contextualizing default indicators ................................................................................................................................40
Step 3. Selecting tools and indicators ......................................................................................................................45
Selecting appropriate tools and data collection ............................................................................................................45
Determining the Accuracy Score ...................................................................................................................................49
Selecting indicators and rating thresholds ...................................................................................................................55
Determinating thresholds ............................................................................................................................................59
Rating sub-themes in the environmental dimension .....................................................................................................61
Rating at the theme level .............................................................................................................................................66
SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0 vii

Step 4. Reporting .......................................................................................................................................................68
Visualization .................................................................................................................................................................68
The final report .............................................................................................................................................................70
Critical review ..............................................................................................................................................................70
Sharing of results .........................................................................................................................................................71
Use of results ...............................................................................................................................................................71
SECTION THREE. SUSTAINABILITY PROTOCOL ..............................................................................75

Overview of sustainability dimensions and constituent components ...................................................................76
Sustainability Theme protocols ...............................................................................................................................78
GOOD GOVERNANCE.....................................................................................................................................................79
Theme G1 – Corporate Ethics ......................................................................................................................................81
Theme G2 – Accountability ..........................................................................................................................................85
Theme G3 – Participation ............................................................................................................................................90
Theme G4 – Rule of Law ..............................................................................................................................................96
Theme G5 – Holistic Management .............................................................................................................................104
ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY .....................................................................................................................................108
Theme E1 – Atmosphere ............................................................................................................................................. 110
Theme E2 – Water ..................................................................................................................................................... 116
Theme E3 – Land .......................................................................................................................................................121
Theme E4 – Biodiversity .............................................................................................................................................126
Theme E5 – Materials and Energy ..............................................................................................................................135
Theme E6 – Animal Welfare ........................................................................................................................................142
ECONOMIC RESILIENCE..............................................................................................................................................146
Theme C1 – Investment .............................................................................................................................................148
Theme C2 – Vulnerability ..........................................................................................................................................155
Theme C3 – Product Quality and Information .............................................................................................................165
Theme C4 – Local Economy .......................................................................................................................................172
SOCIAL WELL-BEING................................................................................................................................................... 176
Theme S1 – Decent livelihood.....................................................................................................................................178
Theme S2 – Fair Trading Practices .............................................................................................................................184
Theme S3 – Labour Rights .........................................................................................................................................188
Theme S4 – Equity .....................................................................................................................................................194
Theme S5 – Human Safety and Health .......................................................................................................................199
Theme S6 – Cultural Diversity ....................................................................................................................................204
APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................................209
Appendix A: Selected Sustainability Tools ..............................................................................................................210
Appendix B: SAFA Performance Report Checklist .................................................................................................214
Appendix C: Glossary ...............................................................................................................................................216
Appendix D: References...........................................................................................................................................238
viii SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0

ABBREVIATIONS
4Cs Common Code for the Coffee Community
B2B Business to Business
B2C Business to Consumer
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CGD Center for Global Development
CMP Conservation Measures Partnership
COSA Committee on Sustainability Assessment
CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
EFQM European Foundation for Quality Management
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FLO Fairtrade Labelling Organization
FSC Forest Stewardship Council
GAP Good Agricultural Practices
GEA Greening the Economy with Agriculture
GHG Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GLOBALGAP Global Partnership for Good Agricultural Practices
GRI Global Reporting Initiative
GSCP Global Social Compliance Programme
HACCP Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points
IDEA Indicateurs de Durabilité des Exploitations Agricoles
IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development
ILO International Labor Organization
IFC International Finance Corporation
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISEAL Alliance International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LCA Life Cycle Analysis
MandE Monitoring and Evaluation
MSC Marine Stewardship Council
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
PCR Product category rules
RA Rainforest Alliance
RISE Response-Inducing Sustainability Evaluation
ROL Rule of Law
RSB Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels
SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0 ix

RSPO Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil
RTRS Roundtable on Responsible Soy
SAFA Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems
SAI Social Accountability International
SAI platform Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Platform
SAN Sustainable Agriculture Network
SFL Sustainable Food Lab
SME Small and Medium Enterprises
SSI State of Sustainability Initiative
SSTI Sustainable Standards Transparency Initiative
TSC The Sustainability Consortium
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
UNCSD United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNGC United Nations Global Compact
UNITC United Nations International Trade Centre
WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development
WCED World Commission on Environment and Development
WEF World Economic Forum
WHO World Health Organization
WTO World Trade Organization
x SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0

SECTION ONE
FRAMEWORK
1
SECTION ONE. FRAMEWORK
PURPOSE OF SAFA
SAFA Vision
The Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems (SAFA) Guidelines were
developed for assessing the impact of food and agriculture operations on the environment
and people. The guiding vision of SAFA is that food and agriculture systems worldwide are
characterized by all four dimensions of sustainability: good governance, environmental
integrity, economic resilience and social well-being.
Sustainable development has been defined by FAO as “the management and

conservation of the natural resource base, and the orientation of technological and
institutional change in such a manner as to ensure the attainment and continued
satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations. Such sustainable
development (in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors) conserves land, water,
plant and animal genetic resources, is environmentally non-degrading, technically
appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable”. (FAO Council, 1989).
SAFA offers a holistic framework that encompasses all aspects of sustainable cropping,
livestock husbandry, fisheries, aquaculture and forestry production, postharvest,
processing, distribution and marketing. It builds mainly on existing sustainability
schemes, creating opportunities for enterprises to use existing data and combining efforts
with other tools and sustainability initiatives. SAFA allows a fair playing field for all
by presenting a framework that is adaptable to all contexts and sizes of operations. In
SAFA, what matters is performance, leaving space for the diversity of implementation
means possible. SAFA encourages continuous improvement and builds capacity for
sustainability. It strives to establish an easy-to-use standardized system, which does
not require external experts. This vision can be realized through different pathways,
depending on local circumstances.
Based on aggregate global trends and outlooks for the future, sustainable development
efforts are not making enough positive difference. More accurate data and sound guiding
principles to establish a common basis for assessing sustainability is needed. Tackling
these challenges requires, among other things, a common language for sustainability, as
2 SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0

well as a holistic approach to assessment and implementation that considers the complexity
and relationships of all dimensions of sustainability. This is the inspiration for SAFA.
By providing a transparent and aggregated framework for assessing sustainability,
SAFA seeks to harmonize sustainability approaches within the food value chain, with the
long-term objective of sustainable transformation of food systems. Using SAFA, enterprises
and actors involved with the production, processing, distribution and marketing of food
and agricultural goods, have a clear understanding of the constituent components of
sustainability and how strength, weakness and progress could be assessed.
What is SAFA about?

SAFA is a holistic global reference framework for the assessment of sustainability along
agriculture, forestry and fisheries value chains. SAFA was developed as an international
reference document, a benchmark that defines the elements of sustainability and a framework
for assessing trade-offs and synergies between all dimensions of sustainability. There are
several levels of SAFA, which are nested to enhance coherence at all levels (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. SAFA Framework
S A FA F R A M E W O R K
THEMES (21)
Universal sustainability goals
SUB-THEMES (58)
Sustainability objectives specific to supply chains
INDICATORS (116)
For crops, livestock, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture enterprises
Different users with different purposes can enter at different levels of the SAFA Framework.
SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0 3

The SAFA Framework begins with the high level, overarching dimensions of
sustainability: good governance, environmental integrity, economic resilience and social
well-being. It is recognized that these dimensions are broad and encompass many aspects.
These are translated into a universally agreed definition of sustainability, through themes
and sub-themes for each of the sustainability pillars. Goals are established for the themes
while objectives are defined for the subthemes. These are measurable and verifiable through
indicators applicable to food and agriculture supply chains, with example indicators provided.
SAFA Guidelines provide the guidance for the application (calculation) of these indicators.
Themes: these are refined in a set of 21 core sustainability issues, or universal “Themes”,
with associated sustainability goals. These can be implemented at any level, national,
supply chain or operational unit and thus, provide a common understanding of what
“sustainability” means in a practical context. These themes are thus considered universal.
At the Theme level, policy-makers and national governments can work towards alignment
and harmonization of a holistic scope of sustainability goals without defining the specific
pathways. The use of the SAFA framework and Themes for national assessments and
policy-making will require the development of appropriate sub-themes and indicators.
Sub-themes: each of the 21 sustainability themes is detailed into sub-themes, or individual

issues within SAFA themes, with associated explicit sustainability objectives. This level,
composed of 58 sub-themes, is relevant for supply chain actors doing an analysis which
identifies risk (or hot spot areas), as well as gaps in existing sustainability efforts. Other
sustainability metric initiatives, standards and benchmarking schemes can identify issues
and gaps not covered by their systems and tools for convergence and alignment at the
sub-theme level.
Indicators: SAFA has defined default indicators within each sub-theme which identify the
measurable criteria for sustainable performance for the sub-theme. These default indicators
are examples that can be used if no other more appropriate indicators are available and are
applicable at the macro level – meaning to all enterprise sizes and types, and in all contexts.
Default indicators serve the purpose of providing standardized metrics to guide future
assessments on sustainability. The default indicators’ set is provided for a general level

of reporting, as SAFA users do not necessarily have the knowledge to develop indicators
themselves, without the risk of lowering the bar of the assessment. Default indicators
provide ratings for the highest performance and unacceptable conditions. Customized
indicators can also be developed by the assessor for determining performance between
best and unacceptable performance, depending on context.
Who are the Guidelines aimed at?

SAFA can be used at multiple levels for multiple purposes and by different actors using
a harmonized taxonomy under one framework ensuring consistency, applicability and
transparency. Regardless of size, geography or role, all stakeholders have a clear and
common language for assessing sustainability. SAFA serves as an effective means for:
» Food and agriculture enterprises (individual or associations in the crop, livestock,
fisheries, aquaculture and forestry sub-sectors):
»
self-assessment for evaluating sustainability of operations and identifying hot-spots
for performance improvement;
»
gap analysis with existing sustainability schemes for improvement of the thematic
coverage;
»
managing or benchmarking suppliers to improve sustainable procurement.
» NGOs and sustainability standards and tools community:
»
monitoring outcomes of impacts of projects;
»
sharing of, and global learning on, best practices and thresholds;
»
gap analysis with existing checklists on all aspects of sustainability.
» Governments, investors and policy-makers:
»
informing the establishment of Sustainable Development Goals;
»
implementation of regional planning, local procurement, investment or the
development of legislation;
»
providing a global guidance on sustainable requisites for global supply chains to
governments.

The objectives of SAFA Guidelines

The SAFA Guidelines are intended to provide an accessible operational resource to put the
SAFA framework into practice at all levels for different purposes. The SAFA Guidelines
provide a holistic interpretation of the major themes of sustainability (Framework), of
alignment with existing tools and initiatives (Sub-themes) and is a template for agriculture
and food sustainability assessment (Sub-themes and default indicators). Key performance
(default) indicators for each sub-theme are proposed in order to facilitate measuring
progress towards sustainability in a harmonized reporting format.
Acknowledging that there are many definitions of sustainability, depending on values,
power relationships, time and space considered, SAFA offers a common framework for
measuring performance according to core sustainability themes. SAFA provides an
international reference tool for assessing the sustainability performance of food and
agriculture enterprises. The purpose of a SAFA is to support the implementation of
effective sustainability management and communication in the food and agriculture
sector, worldwide. Through voluntary assessments, the goal is to holistically assess an
enterprise performance along the four dimensions of sustainability. Using harmonized
approaches contributes to making sustainable food chains more transparent, measurable
and verifiable.
The Guidelines do not replace existing systems but put them into the perspective
of an overarching common sustainability language for the food and agriculture sector.
SAFA builds on existing sustainability tools, with the goal of integrating and relating
current systems through the common framework. An underlying principle of SAFA is to
avoid duplication and not to add complexity to a market already full of regulations and
standards serving different purposes. SAFA serves this principle by providing a common
understanding of the elements of sustainability and partnering with other initiatives for
shared resources, such as methodologies, information and indicators (see the Linkages
section below).

SAFA Approach
SAFA is focused on supply chains and the evaluation of enterprise(s) in those supply
chains. Other sustainability assessment programmes have a product focus and often
use a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) approach which has an emphasis on the evaluation
of the environmental impacts of a product through its lifecycle. SAFA covers many
of the same elements of a product based LCA, such as an analysis of the inputs,
outputs and environmental impacts; however the focus on an enterprise rather than a
product enables a more comprehensive consideration of good governance and social
well-being components of sustainability.
Use of SAFA results

With a SAFA, the performance of an enterprise (be it a farm or a company), branch of
a company or production site, is assessed in terms of economic, environmental, social
and governance sustainability. A SAFA is not a rating of product-specific sustainability,
nor does it cover the use and end-of-life phases of products (e.g. at the consumer level).
Science-based and generic in nature, SAFA can be implemented at any level, national,
supply chain or operational unit.
SAFA results can be used for internal management, as well as for learning and
communication purposes. To ensure credibility, it is essential that the SAFA procedures
and results have a high degree of transparency. Two levels of critical review of a SAFA
assessment are available. Level 1 is for use where a SAFA has a less formal application such
as for internal use and self-improvement, while level 2 - which requires an external audit of
the assessment - is used where SAFA results have a more formal application, such as when
a SAFA is used to provide business-to-business sustainability assurances. The completion
of a SAFA assessment does not allow the entity to use the logo of SAFA or FAO in any way
that implies endorsement or certification, as no one is verifying the claim.
SAFA is not intended for business-to-consumer communication, as public assurance
requires that certain characteristics or attributes of the product (or its production method),
as laid down in specifications, be observed. SAFA does not assess products or processes –
but enterprises. However, reference can be made to “consistency with the SAFA procedures
and principles” provided that the assessment is made fully transparent in all its choices and
customization (e.g. with regards to boundaries, data sources, indicator selection, rating).

THE SAFA FRAMEWORK

Landscape of sustainability initiatives
Many tools , metrics and standards exist, covering different components of
sustainability, and were developed for different purposes and different users. These
tools have different purposes, methodologies, approaches, scope and scoring.
Figure 2 provides an overview of the landscape of different sustainability initiatives.
Further details on the different tools for different purposes and scopes are found in
Appendix A. Many of these tools are distinguished by different end-use and users, with
different coverage, based on the different purposes and scope. For example:
» reporting guidelines for sustainability and CSR reporting by organizations;
» benchmarking frameworks for benchmarking other standards and codes;
» standards that distinguish products based on production and processing processes,
and chiefly for business-to-consumer purposes;
» assessment methodologies at the level of the production unit (e.g. farm, boat) or supply
chains, or product-based LCAs.
SAFA linkages with other sustainability tools

The goal of a SAFA assessment is improved accuracy of analysis of sustainability for
all users. The use of existing rules, norms and standards expedite assessment for users,
while avoiding duplication by integrating existing data. Benchmarking sustainability
tools, while not useful for equivalency, is useful in mapping best practices, thresholds and
sector-specific indicators. SAFA catalyzes improvements for sustainability, in a neutral and
participatory mode, through FAO’s leadership role in agriculture, forestry and fisheries.
SAFA recognizes that there is equivalence in different approaches and collaboration is
driven by the recognition that problems and solutions have to be shared. There is a strong
interest in aligning with a global reference framework, and collaborating to build trust in
global supply chains with coordinated efforts to build convergence.

Figure 2. Landscape of sustainability initiatives
S A FA F R A M E W O R K
TOOLS SCOPE
Policy
NATIONAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES Planning
Organizations
SSI S TATE OF S USTAINABILITY
I N I T I A T I V E S
Reporting
Directories
Standards
Benchmarks
Products
“Standards”
Perfomance
Assessments
Inputs/Extraction Production Processing Manufacturing Packaging Distribution Retail Consumption End of life

There is some merging and overlap of tool purposes found in Table 1. This list is not
exhaustive, but outlines some of the main distinctions of what is commonly referred to as
“sustainability assessments” and the potential interaction with SAFA.
As an umbrella framework, SAFA acts as a convener, or harmonizing agent of all
sustainability tools to coordinate efforts in order to build convergence. Collaboration is
driven by the recognition that problems and solutions have to be shared. There is a strong
interest in aligning with a global reference framework and collaborating to build trust in
global supply chains. SAFA recognizes that there is equivalence in different approaches
to measuring sustainability. SAFA also recognizes existing sustainability schemes (e.g.
environmental and social certification) and efforts (e.g. life-cycle assessment tools) as
key resources for conducting a SAFA. The use of existing rules, norms and standards
expedites assessment for users, while avoiding duplication by integrating existing data.
This is discussed in Section 2, Step 3.
Table 1. Overview of different tool purposes and SAFA
TOOLS DESCRIPTION MAIN SCOPE MAIN USE EXAMPLES SAFA INTERACTION

National Build-upon and National Government sVaries by sHarmonized and
sustainable harmonize the various policy country, and comprehensive
development economic, social and called for by sustainability
strategies environmental policies Agenda 21, framework and
and plans that are World Summit themes
operating in the country for Sustainable sHarmonized
Development sustainability terms
and the and definitions
Commission
on Sustainable
Development
sDEFRA
Guidelines GHG
Reporting Comprehensive Organizations’ B2B sGlobal Reporting sHarmonized
frameworks guidelines for sustainability Initiative (GRI)framework of
harmonized reporting performance s IISD State of themes and sub-
on sustainability Sustainability themes including
and organization Initiative (SSI)gap analysis
performance sHarmonized
sustainability terms
and definitions
Directories Online databases of Standards, SMEs, sEcolabel Index sHarmonized
(meta-level) standards and codes codes and buyers, s Standards Map sustainability terms
frameworks Government (ITC) and definitions
sInternal
benchmarking

TOOLS DESCRIPTION MAIN SCOPE MAIN USE EXAMPLES SAFA INTERACTION

Benchmarks Equivalency and Standards, B2B sGSCP sHarmonized
and ratings comparison assessments codes and sISEAL/GIZ/ITC sustainability terms
across standards and frameworks Sustainable and definitions
codes Standards sInternal
Transparency benchmarking
Initiative (SSTI)
Voluntary Any non-obligatory set of Production B2C, sOrganic sHarmonized
Sustainable requirements explicitly and some some B2B. s FairTrade sustainability terms
Standards designed to promote the processing sForest and definitions
(VSS) objectives of sustainable and retail Stewardship sGap analysis
development, relating to Council of missing
environmental, social, sMarine sustainability
ethical and food safety Stewardship themes and
issues in the production Council subthemes
and processing phases. sAquaculture sPerformance
Often third party- Stewardship indicators resource
assessed through Council sSource of data for
certification sSEDEX-SMETA SAFA assessments
Assessments: Technique to assess Product, B2B sEcoInvent sHarmonized
Life Cycle impacts associated from inputs, sGABI sustainability terms
Tools with all the stages of a production, sSocial-LCA and definitions
product’s life processing, (UNEP-SETAC)
manufacture, sThe
distribution, Sustainability
retail, Consortium
consumption (TSC)
and disposal
or recycling
Self- Production Reporting sPeople 4 Earth sHarmonized
assessments and some and data sSAI Platform framework of
and data processing sharing sSoil and More themes and sub-
sharing and retail Sustainability themes including
platforms Flower gap analysis
sKeystone Field to sHarmonized
Market sustainability terms
sLEAF and definitions
Assessments Globally harmonized and Production sRISE sHarmonized

and impact scientifically rigorous sCOSA framework of
tools methodology themes and sub-
themes including
gap analysis
sHarmonized
sustainability terms
and definitions
B2B: Business to Business, including for government procurement decisions.
B2C: Business to Consumer communications.

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

Sustainable development progress and challenges
The number of chronically undernourished people was estimated to be 870 million in FAO’s
latest assessment. This figure has increased by 60 million people since 1990-92. Although
hunger today represent 16 percent of total population (versus 20 percent in 1990-92 period),
there has been no progress at all towards the halving target set by the world leaders for
the millennium development goals (FAO, 2012).
Increasing human demands are faced with decreasing resources. The Stockholm
Resilience Centre estimates that humanity has transgressed three of the environmental
planetary boundaries within which we can operate safely, namely for climate change,
biodiversity loss and changes to the global nitrogen cycle (Rockström et al. 2009).
As agricultural land and forests occupy more than 60 percent of terrestrial surface,
and fishery activities can be found on virtually any water body, agriculture, forestry and
fisheries are major contributors to the ecological footprint of humanity. Thirty one percent
of global greenhouse gas emissions have been attributed to agriculture and forestry (IPCC,
2007). Agriculture alone accounts for 70 percent of global freshwater withdrawals (FAO,
2011). On the other hand, besides being necessary for everybody’s life and wellbeing,
agriculture (including forestry and fisheries) provides livelihoods for 40 percent of today’s
global population, including many of the world’s poor.
One approach to limit the risk of human economy overstraining the capacity of the
Earth’s ecosystem is to refer to the concept of a “green economy” that respects planetary
boundaries and adopts eco-efficiency as a guiding principle, an economy “that results in
improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental
risks and ecological scarcities“ (UNEP, 2011). The translation of the green economy
concept for the food and agriculture sector is reflected through the Greening the Economy
with Agriculture (GEA) concept developed by FAO: GEA refers to “ensuring the right
to adequate food, as well as food and nutrition security – in terms of food availability,
access, stability and utilization – and contributing to the quality of rural livelihoods,
while efficiently managing natural resources and improving resilience and equity
throughout the food supply chain” (FAO, 2012a). Similar advances are being made in the
context of marine and coastal systems and seafood production (UNEP et al., 2012). The
challenge of delivering sustainability lies in an effective integration of the environmental,

economic and social dimensions of development. This can only be achieved through
good governance.
Need for a common language

“Measure what matters” has become the mantra. But, measure “what” matters to “whom”
and “how”? While there is a wide awareness of the sustainability concept, there is also
wide interpretation of the definitions and components of sustainability, based on different
disciplines and political beliefs and values.
Recent years have seen the development of frameworks, initiatives, standards and
indicators for defining better management practices, assessing and improving the
environmental and social impacts of human activities. One hundred and six countries have
established national strategies for sustainable development, as well as sets of sustainability
targets and indicators (UN, 2007). Thousands of companies have adopted concepts such as
corporate social responsibility, creating shared value, responsible supply chain management
and the triple bottom line. These concepts are put into practice through internal management,
business-to-business and business-to-consumers communication. Systems for independent,
third-party verification, certification and accreditation have been put in place, as well as
participatory guarantee systems based on stakeholders’ assessments and peer reviews.
Of the many verification systems, tools, databases and other approaches for measuring,
communicating and improving sustainability, essentially related to environmental impact
or social impact, few cover the whole value chain and all dimensions of sustainability at
the same time (Appendix A). In the development and application of sustainability systems
and frameworks, small and medium size enterprises and stakeholders from developing
and emerging countries are less represented than large companies and stakeholders from
industrialised countries, in spite of many systems building on transparent, participative
mechanisms.
Despite the valuable efforts for making sustainability assessments in the food and
agriculture sector accurate and easy to manage, no internationally accepted benchmark
unambiguously defines what sustainable food production entails. There also is no widely
accepted definition of the minimum requirements that would allow a company to qualify as
“sustainable”. The SAFA Guidelines aim to fill this gap by making available a methodology
for assessing sustainability performance following defined reference points (i.e. themes,
sub-themes and default indicators).

SAFA PRINCIPLES
T he SAFA Guidelines are based on certain core methodological principles including

the Bellagio Stamp (IISD, 2009; Pinter et al., 2011). Additionally, SAFA draws upon
the ISO norms for Life Cycle Assessment (ISO, 2009), the ISEAL Code of Good
Practice (version 1.0; ISEAL Alliance, 2010), the ISEAL Credibility Principles (ISEAL
Credibility Principles v0.3 - June 2013), the Reference Tools of the GSCP (2010), and the
GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (version 3.1 and 4; GRI, 2011 and 2013). Table 2
summarizes the SAFA principles.
Bellagio Stamp
Sustainability Assessment and Measurement Principles emphasize openness
(accessibility and transparency), key indicators and standardized measurement
methods, communication (meets needs of stakeholders, simple, plain language), broad
participation, the assessment process for learning, sufficient institutional capacity
and the need for a coherent framework and goals.
Table 2. SAFA methodological and implementation principles
METHODOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
PRINCIPLES
Holistic Undertaking a SAFA addresses all four dimensions of sustainability: good
governance, environmental integrity, economic resilience and social well-being
and includes all aspects within the sphere and influence of the entity.
Relevance SAFA goals are aligned with globally agreed principles and international reference
documents, including Agenda 21 framework and goals.
Rigor All SAFA goals should be in line with the current state of scientific knowledge on
the economic, environmental, social and governance impacts of human activities.
SAFAs are implemented to deliver quality outcomes and an accurate picture of the
sustainability.

METHODOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
PRINCIPLES
Efficiency In order to leave a maximum of resources for improvement measures, the cost
of doing a SAFA is minimized by making the best use of existing data from other
sustainability, environmental and social management and auditing systems.
Companies that participate in systems with sustainability claims can use
the SAFA Guidelines to identify areas not yet covered by their sustainability
management.
Performance-orientation SAFA emphasis is on common outcome-oriented objectives enabling different
approaches and uses. Undertaking a SAFA serves to assess the sustainable
performance of an agricultural or food system entity. Commitments and
management plans alone do not suffice to qualify an entity as sustainable.
Transparency The disclosure of system boundaries, the indicators chosen, data sources and
stakeholder relations are an important aspect of the SAFA Performance Report.
Adaptability The Guidelines are generic in nature in order to be applicable worldwide and
across the whole diversity of situations that exist in the agriculture and food
sector. This principle supports “Accessibility” through the adaptation to all
contexts and sizes of agriculture, livestock, aquaculture, fishery and forestry
operations by adapting the generic set of themes and sub-themes indicators to
different socio-economic and environmental circumstances, type of entity and
data availability.
Continuous improvement SAFA is not intended as a minimum performance benchmark, but a tool to
assess performance and identify areas for improvement. In addition, the SAFA
Guidelines will be adjusted over time to continually raise the bar, as knowledge
and technology permit.
IMPLEMENTATION CHARACTERISTICS
PRINCIPLES
Build on existing tools SAFA recognizes that there is equivalence in different approaches and
collaboration is driven by the recognition that problems and solutions have to be
shared. No SAFA goal, objective or indicator should contradict rules and principles
that emanate from national law and relevant international agreements. The
conduction of a SAFA must comply with all applicable legal provisions, in
particular concerning privacy protection.
Take place in an open and The SAFA Guidelines are developed and hosted by FAO and are freely available
learning system to any interested party. They are the result of a continuing, open development
process, contributions to which are welcome from all who have a stake in the
sustainable development of food and agriculture systems. SAFA participation
must always be voluntary. Implementing SAFA is in itself a learning pathway to
create change and ultimately, deliver sustainability.
Accessibility Fair playing field by tailoring requirements to remove barriers to implementation.
SAFA is conceived primarily for self-evaluation, without necessarily resorting to
experts or third party assistance.

SCOPE OF A SAFA ASSESSMENT
B eing science-based and generic in nature, SAFA can be adapted to different

contexts and scopes. It is important to look at these different scopes in terms of
SAFA coverage: supply chain scope, temporal and sustainability dimensions.
Section 2 provides guidance on defining the different scopes outlined below.
Supply chain scope: setting the boundaries

A supply chain starts with the production of input materials for a primary commodity, ends
with the consumption of the final product - and it includes all of the economic activities
undertaken between these phases, such as: processing, delivery, wholesaling and retailing.
Including upstream activities that are critical to production, such as feed for livestock and
aquaculture, can be in some cases particularly important to the overall sustainability of the
supply chain. SAFA is applicable to all entities in supply chains, from the inputs suppliers,
through the site of primary production (agriculture, livestock, fisheries, aquaculture and
forestry), to that of final sales to the consumer (see Figure 3). The scope of a SAFA does not
however include consumers or end-of-life managers, as a SAFA does not rate product-specific
sustainability where inclusion of these stages would be relevant; rather, SAFA provides an
assessment of enterprises where these supply chain steps have limited relevance.
As this can be quite extensive in global supply chains, the intended scope of a SAFA
assessment includes all processes:
» that are part of production or distribution;
» that generate significant impacts on sustainability in the surrounding environment
and community; and
» over which the assessed entity has control or significant influence in terms of financial
and operating policies and practices.
Ownership is not required for an entity to have control or significant influence over
an area of land or water, or a production/processing facility. A SAFA can be also limited
to a single production site or step of the supply chain with clear documented justification.
The spatial coverage of SAFA extends to production facilities and their surroundings,
insofar as the assessed entities control or have influence over the activities in these areas.
Consideration of only specific areas or crops is not recommended.

In situations where a given enterprise is assessing supply from several farms that
are organized as a cooperative or producers group, it is recommended that the SAFA be
either carried-out for each farm individually, or for the group as a whole. For large groups,
coverage of all group members will not be feasible. Generally, a representative sample of the
group’s membership is a recognized solution to this challenge. Standard practice in group
certification, based on ISO 62 criteria, is the square root approach. For group certification, this
means the use of the square root of the number of members. However, it is also recommended
to do a risk assessment of the group members to ensure that critical issues are not overlooked.
The entity conducting the assessment needs to determine their realm of influence
accordingly (see Section 2, Step 1) by clearly defining the scope and setting boundaries
of the assessment.
Figure 3. Examples of different SAFA scope
Dairy Farmer SAFA Dairy Retail SAFA
Agricultural Cattle Feed Agrochemical Agricultural Cattle Feed Agrochemical

machinery dealer breeder Provider provider machinery dealer breeder Provider provider
SAFA Scope SAFA Scope

Waste disposal Dairy farmer Butchery Waste disposal Dairy farmer Butchery
company company
Waste disposal Dairy (incl. By-product Waste disposal Dairy (incl. By-product
company transport) processor company transport) processor
Waste disposal Food By-product Waste disposal Food By-product

company processor processor company processor processor
Carrier Carrier
Waste disposal Wholesaler Waste disposal Wholesaler

company company
Carrier Carrier
Waste disposal Waste disposal Retailer

Retailer
company company
Waste disposal Consumer Waste disposal Consumer

company company
Two examples of SAFA scope in dairy supply chains. Shaded rectangles with bold writing symbolise actors whose operations
are covered by a SAFA performed by a dairy producer (left) and a retail company (right), respectively. Dashed rectangles
represent actors outside the general scope of SAFA.

Example Box 1. Setting the supply chain scope

For this Community Supported Fishery operation, the and workers) were deemed necessary to be included in
process of setting boundaries and scope of their SAFA the SAFA. Temporally, this range extended back to when
included an assessment of their influence over certain the company began and its initial investments were
aspects of their value chain. This small-scale operation in made. Spatially, this range extended to everywhere that
USA owns less than 1 hectare and 2 small boats operated the farthest reaching vessels (the boats and trucks) went.
primarily by family members. For example, maps of protected waterways were compared
Identifying the scope of their assessment began with to regular boat routes and the fishing territories of neigh-
mapping their assets, including physical and spatial bors were reviewed to consider impacts on community
boundaries of their property; this included the family stakeholders, even though these impacts took place off
house with a fish pond on the property, a retail venue the property.
which included the cleaning and packing space, and their However, though this entity had developed positive,
boats and trucks. long-term relationships with the seven regional fishers
The second step was for the assessors and manage- they usually purchased from, they were not the sole buyers
ment to map their sourcing. The majority of their fish was from these other businesses, and they did not have signif-
caught by their own operation. In addition, the operation icant influence to control decision making of the other
purchased fish and seafood from seven local fishers. This enterprises. These relationships were carefully examined
was all noted visually in a diagram directly in the SAFA – because the entity did have control over the price paid
assessment tool. to the fishers and other important SAFA social dimension
The third step was to map-out the various routes of themes regarding their business relationship. All aspects
their product. The entity had a diverse range of sales, of the relationship that the entity could influence were
including wholesale to a large distributor, retail in their own deemed relevant and were included in the assessment.
community, sales of shares weekly to Community Supported Those that were excluded were aspects such as the fuel
Fishery members across their state, and specialty orders type and usage of the other fishers, as this information
to regional coops, supermarkets and restaurants. These was beyond the control of influence of the entity.
transactions were added to the diagram. As a rule of thumb, the assessors used a percent-
These steps to this point are the same that any age of total purchases to decide. If the entity’s purchases
company or entity would take in mapping their value exceeded 50 percent of the other entity’s annual busi-
chains. The fourth and final step for this entity, because ness then this second entity would be asked to partici-
they were considered a small-scale operation, was to pate voluntarily in the assessment and a higher number of
review their mapping for which relationships could be SAFA themes would be included. For this particular entity,
included in the SAFA, based on their level of influence. For their purchases represented less than 50 percent of the
example, the entity had control over nearly every aspect second entity’s annual sales.
of the Community Supported Fishery project, including The important lesson from this example is that the
their own fishing, planning and marketing, staffing and assessors were careful to only exclude those aspects that
transportation. They owned the necessary materials and were clearly beyond the control of the entity. Eliminating
equipment. Thus, every aspect of these operations (e.g. the entire relationship would have simplified the assess-
fuel used in transportation, the decision-making process ment, but would have also eliminated important SAFA
for marketing and governance of the business, the envi- components that the entity could control.
ronmental impacts of materials used, the wages of staff

Temporal scope: defining the time frame

SAFA is intended to cover the entity’s activities for one year, which becomes the baseline for
future assessments and identifying areas for improvement. This is particularly important
for establishing thresholds for the ratings, especially in the environmental dimension.
In the case of fisheries, activities can be very seasonal and multi-season trends and
impacts could be assessed. For some indicators, multi-year trends should be assessed or
sustainability impacts be allocated to a longer period; usually in these instances, a period
of five years is suggested. Assessing impacts on ecological processes cannot be punctual,
as responses extend to periods well beyond the 1 or 5 years proposed for certain indicators.
Time frames beyond the annual assessment cycle are specified in specific indicators, based
on expert consultation and scientific knowledge where applicable.
Thematic scope: defining the sustainability context

For each of these four dimensions of sustainability, SAFA outlines essential elements
of sustainability through 21 high level themes. These are applicable at any level of
development, for instance national level or commodity-specific. The themes are further
divided into 58 sub-themes. SAFA sub-themes are tailored to food and agriculture supply
chains and thus, are not well suited for policy development. Sustainability objectives for
each sub-theme are provided, which describe the expected sustainability performance for
that sub-theme. Default indicators are proposed in order to facilitate measuring progress
towards the objectives. These default indicators are provided as examples and can be
replaced where more appropriate indicators are identified. The SAFA default indicators
focus on performance rather than management systems; however different types of default
indicators (i.e. target-based and practice-based indicators) are proposed, with different
weighting to ensure accessibility of SAFA where performance is difficult to measure.
Details on the four sustainability dimensions: themes, sub-themes and default indicators
are provided in Section 3. Table 3 gives an overview of the SAFA themes, along the four
sustainability dimensions.

Figure 4. SAFA sustainability dimensions and themes
G1. Corporate Ethics
G2. Accountability
G3. Participation
G4. Rule of Law

GOOD
G5. Holistic Management
GOVERNANCE
E1. Atmosphere
Sustainability
E2. Water
means ensuring
human well-being E3. Land
(and achieving E4. Biodiversity
global food E5. Materials and Energy
ENVIRONMENTAL
security) without E6. Animal Welfare
INTEGRITY
depleting or
diminishing
the capacity C1. Investment
of the earth’s
ecosystems to C2. Vulnerability
support life or at
the expense of C3. Product Quality and Information
others’ well-being ECONOMIC
C4. Local Economy
RESILIENCE
S1. Decent Livelihoods

S2. Fair Trading Practices
S3. Labour Rights
S4. Equity
S5. Human Health and Safety
SOCIAL
WELL-BEING S6. Cultural Diversity

The Guide: how to use it

The SAFA Guidelines consist of three sections (Figure 5). Section 1 provides the basic
information on the purpose, linkages, background and use of the SAFA framework in terms
of different users and purposes. Section 2 outlines the step-by-step approach for SAFA
implementation, including guidance on setting scope, boundaries, contextualization and
reporting. Section 3 contains the SAFA protocol for sustainability themes, sub-themes and
default indicators. Guidance on default indicators is provided in the Guidelines complement
entitled “SAFA Indicators”, with detailed indicators description, relevance, measurement,
rating, limitations and sources of information.
For first time users, regardless of purpose, it is recommended to read the entire Guidelines
to understand the foundation and rationale of SAFA. This will aid in identifying the roles,
purpose and scope of SAFA and maximize the benefits of adopting the framework. Sections
2 and 3 will be most relevant for those responsible for implementing a SAFA assessment.
National governments, other sustainability initiatives and assessment initiatives may
adopt or align at different levels, as discussed earlier. Ideally, the sustainability themes
serve as the overall framework with sub-themes and default or other indicators used for
specific purposes and tools by different users.
Table 3 provides an outline and an example of the relationship between themes,
subthemes and indicators, with the progressive focus from major issues at a theme
level down to specific sub-theme and their objectives and finally indicators to measure
performance against a sub-theme.
Figure 5. SAFA Guidelines structure
SECTION ONE
FRAMEWORK
Purpose, Linkages, Rationale, Principles and Scope
SECTION TWO SECTION THREE

PROCEDURES SUSTAINABILITY PROTOCOL
Step 1. Mapping G
GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMIC SOCIAL
Step 2. Contextualization G
GOVERNANCE INTEGRITY RESILIENCE WELL-BEING
Step 3. Indicators 21 Themes
Step 4. Reporting 58 Sub-themes
(Indicators)

Figure 6. Components of the SAFA Framework
S A FA F R A M E W O R K EXAMPLE
THEMES DECENT LIVELIHOOD

Themes identify the major issue areas that must be Theme Goal: the entity provides assets,
addressed in assessing sustainability. In SAFA, themes capabilities and activities that increase the
are defined using Theme Goals, which briefly elaborate livelihood security of all personnel and the
on the scope and sustainable performance for the local community in which it operates.
issues the theme encompasses.
SUB-THEMES RIGHT TO QUALITY OF LIFE

Sub-themes are individual issues within This is one of the 3 sub-themes necessary
SAFA themes that are specific to supply for meeting the goal of the theme “Decent
chains. The sub-themes are further defined Livelihoods” at the supply chain level.
by Sub-theme Objectives, which are brief
descriptions of sustainable performance for Sub-theme Objective: all primary producers,
that issue. small-scale producers and employees
enjoy a livelihood that provides a culturally
appropriate and nutritionally adequate diet
and allows time for family, rest and culture.
DEFAULT INDICATORS WAGE LEVEL

SAFA has defined Default Indicators This is one of the 2 proposed indicators
within each sub-theme which identify necessary for meeting the objective of the
the measurable criteria for sustainable sub-theme “Right to Quality of Life”.
performance for the Sub-theme. Default
indicators are applicable at the macro
This quantitative indicator measures the
level – meaning to all enterprise sizes
percentage of employees that are paid a living
and types, and in all contexts. Default
wage. All employees, workers, or hired help of
indicators serve the purpose of providing
any kind, whether permanent or temporary,
standardized metrics to guide future
full-time or part-time, as well as employees
assessments on sustainability. However,
hired through sub-contractors, temporary
default indicators only contain the frame
agencies and others, are part of the scope of
for the rating scale. Within the guidelines,
this indicator.
default indicators have a rating
definition of the top level of sustainability
performance and unacceptable levels (Additional guidance on what is included
of performance, but they do not contain in this indicator, how to measure it, and
full rating scales (as this is only possible resources for developing contextualized
at the contextualized level) and are not indicator ratings are provided in the
a sufficient indicator set from which to Guidelines complement: “SAFA Indicators”.)
complete an assessment by themselves.

SECTION TWO
PROCEDURES
MAPPING CONTEXTUALIZATION INDICATORS REPORTING
23
SECTION TWO. PROCEDURES
SAFA OVERVIEW
T his section details the implementation of SAFA. It is recommended that the user
read through the entire Section 2 for an overview of the entire process. This will
facilitate the identification of the resources needed and define responsibilities in
the assessment team. There are four main phases to a SAFA assessment (see Table 4). It
is important to follow the sequence step-by-step because each phase builds the basis for
the next. However, it may be necessary to repeat certain phases if during the assessment
process it becomes clear that the scope needs to be modified. For example, if another
operation is added to the assessment.
The final output of a SAFA assessment is the Performance Report, which contains both
a descriptive and an analytical review of the sustainability of the assessed entities, based
on all four steps.
Table 4. SAFA step-by-step

STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4
Description Sub-themes: review of Indicator selection Polygon at aggregated and broken
of assessed sub-themes based on boundaries down level to illustrate sub-theme
entities and sustainability objectives scores together with contextual
issues, including risk areas (hot
spot issues), boundaries and data
quality, based on Accuracy Score.
Boundaries of Irrelevant sub-themes and indicators Final report, where all relevant
assessment are not selected issues and scope are treated and
(space and rationale, irrelevant sub-themes
time) and visual and indicators are justified, areas
representation for improvements are identified.
See Appendix B: Performance
Report Checklist.
What is excluded Guidance notes for indicators Critical Review – two levels are
from SAFA? Indicators: review of default Determine Accuracy Score for each outlined – Level 1 for less formal
(cut-off criteria) (or replacement) indicators in indicator SAFA assessments which involve
documenting the results but
Relationships of relevant sub-themes and use Documentation of input data and this is not subject to external
different supply of data regarding geographical, score 3rd party audit, while Level 2 for
chain members environmental, social, political Rating at indicator level, more formal applications of SAFA
and economic context to
determine detailed ratings aggregation of results at sub-theme includes a 3rd party audit.
and theme level

STEP 1. MAPPING
Setting goals and scope
STEP 1. OUTPUTS
» Statement of goals and purpose

» Description of assessed entity including geographical, size and sector
specific information
» Definition of scope for that SAFA assessment, including a description
of the assessed entity and of its sphere of influence and impact
» Definition of physical and spatial system boundaries, in relation with
the sphere of influence and impact
» Description and justification of cut-off and impact allocation criteria
» Visual representation of value chain, relationships and boundaries
RESOURCES needed for Step 1 include organizational documents, value chain map and
detailed description of assessed entities (e.g. type, value chain position, geography).
Step 1 consists of two main activities:
» Setting Goals: defining the goals of the assessment and description of the assessed entities.
» Setting Scope: identifying the boundaries of what will be included in the assessment.
Setting Goals
The goals should unambiguously state the reasons for doing the assessment, the intended
audience and the intended use of the results (ISO, 2009). The type, comprehensiveness
and complexity of the review should be defined and whether it needs to meet a Level 1 or
Level 2 critical review.
TOOLS Step 1 questions to be answered:

» Reasons for doing SAFA.
» Intended audience of SAFA.
» Intended use of SAFA results.

Example Box 2. Setting Goals
The first step in completing a SAFA assessment is setting During the workshop, Allos determined the appropriate
the goals, and being clear about what you expect to audience for their assessment results. They determined that
accomplish in this process. During the 2012-2013 pilot the main audience would be Allos themselves, for internal
phase, Allos, a German-based organic manufacturer improvement, but that they would also like information to
contracted the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture be available to their stakeholders (such as environmental
(FiBL) to conduct a SAFA assessment on their behalf. agencies, major, suppliers, buyers, workers) who would be
FiBL first worked with Allos to determine their goals involved in the pilot, as they were to be interviewed to get a
and interests in completing a SAFA assessment. FiBL comprehensive picture of Allos’ sustainability performance.
organized a workshop in the beginning of the project and As an output, a detailed internal report for Allos was
discussed the potential benefits. It became clear that created which explained their performance with respect
besides understanding the potential for internal improve- to the SAFA Sub-themes. Furthermore, a short version was
ments, it was important for Allos to communicate their developed for the internet.
performance. In fact, the main motivation for Allos was to This example represents a good method available to
be able to communicate their sustainability performance entities: an initial meeting or workshop to discuss goals.
in a transparent and credible way. At the same time, Allos Furthermore, this example demonstrates the importance of
was aware of the fact that there may be also negative determining those goals early on, as these were then able to
results arising from the SAFA assessment. dictate the format of the reports that would meet their needs.
Basic description of the enterprise

Basic information regarding the enterprise or entity should be documented for the next
step. This includes information such as the enterprise’s size, sector and location.
Setting scope and boundaries

Mapping the supply chain will enable the entity to understand what is being measured,
where the sphere of influence and direct control of the enterprise should stop, what/where
the organizational and operational boundaries are, and what interactions take place in the
production network.
Setting scope and boundaries is problematic and one of the most difficult steps. In the
real world, almost everything is ultimately connected with everything else. There are
indefinite and blurring boundaries:
» Spatially: difficult to limit to a geographically defined areas with influence and impacts
extending, including indirectly.

Example Box 3. Setting boundaries within a complex value chain
Setting boundaries within a complex value chain can be because they believed sustainability in a system would
a challenge. During the pilot phase of SAFA, Café Direct, be incomplete if their own actions were not evaluated.
a coffee importer with value chains stretching into multi- One important detail Café Direct considered when
ple countries, chose to set distinct boundaries on their selecting which entities to include was their knowledge of
assessment by identifying a small sampling of entities to sustainability and willingness to participate. Café Direct
represent the larger supply chain. works with six different processors, for example, but
Having had experience with the Life Cycle Assessment knew that the participating processor had sustainability
process, Café Direct was familiar with how to examine as their mission and thus, would be interested in the SAFA
and track their supply chains. They looked at their supply assessment. Collaboration and transparency were critical
chains from the product-based perspective and developed to completing an accurate assessment.
their supply-chain mapping based on the transactions Another important detail they considered was their
and processes their products went through all the way level of influence over entities in the supply chain, and
to the consumer level. For the SAFA assessment, Café what impact this might have on the assessment. Café
Direct included 5 individual entities in their supply-chain Direct noted that with certain suppliers, they had more
assessment: 3 producers of raw material, two of whom influence than others. Influence in part depends on the
were coffee growers, one processor who roasts and packs length of the relationship, and shared overall values
the product, and the head office for Café Direct. and principles, which may contribute to a successful
To select these entities, Café Direct had to consider assessment partner. However, influence is also about
their goals for the assessment. Reviewing all the entities power relationships. Café Direct ccautioned over of the
in all their supply chains would not be possible because risk that a supplier or processor who depends on the
it was beyond their capacity. They chose to narrow their contract with the leading entity in the assessment may
boundaries to two products, rather than all their prod- feel pressured to score well on the SAFA self-assess-
ucts. Then, they chose representative entities along the ment in order to keep up the good relationship. For this
supply chains for each of those products. One producer reason, Café Direct selected partners who understood
was in Tanzania, the other in Mexico. They used the same the goals of sustainability and the intention of SAFA for
processor. Café Direct included their own headquarters, their pilot experience.
» Temporally: causes and effects change over time with indirect impacts.
This often requires expert judgement, particularly considering externalities 2 . The
following Figure 5 from the GRI Boundary Protocol highlights the complexity and factors
for consideration.
2 An externality is a cost or benefit which results from an activity or transaction and which affects an
otherwise uninvolved party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit.

Figure 7. GRI Boundary Protocol
Where to Draw a Boundary for reporting?

weak
Material Producers
Upstream Suppliers
Service Providers
Operations
Logistics strong
Providers
Value Chain REPORTING Control Influence
ORGANIZATION
Wholesalers strong
Distributors
Retailers
Downstream
Consumers
End-of-product Managers
weak
*The entities listed here are examples
Source: adapted from GRI (2005)
Assessing the sustainability performance of an organization is challenging, as almost

everything is ultimately connected with everything else, directly and indirectly. No
organization is wholly independent. Activities involving a complex network of value
chain actors, sometime around the globe, affect and are affected by an organization’s
social, environmental and economic performance. Highly global vertical and horizontal
integration of enterprises in the postharvest value chain brings additional difficulties when
setting the boundaries. The degree of influence and control over these value chain actors
and the impacts can range from minimal to significant.
Mapping will facilitate the understanding of what to measure, where the sphere of
influence and direct control of the enterprise stops, what the organizational and operational
boundaries are, and what interactions take place in the production network.

In order to obtain an accurate assessment of the entity’s sustainability performance, a

SAFA should ideally encompass the entire realm of influence and impact of the assessed
entity. However, this is a complex undertaking in global supply chains. Thus, the scope
should focus on what is significant in terms of impact and what has control over what.
The scope of a SAFA assessment should include all processes:
» that are part of production, processing or distribution, relevant to inputs (e.g.
fertilizers, feed and irrigation water, wages at processing facilities);
» that generate significant upstream and downstream impacts on sustainability in
the surrounding environment and in the community (e.g. decisions regarding use of
freshwater, waste management); and
» over which the assessed entity has control or significant influence in terms of financial
and operating policies and practices (e.g. the activities of any subsidiaries, other
members in a producer group or procurement policy for inputs and suppliers).
For example, the production of procured raw materials and inputs should be included in
an entity’s SAFA assessment if the production and provision of these materials and inputs
cause substantial sustainability impact (e.g. by aggravating regional water scarcity); and/or
the extent of these impacts on sustainability could be significantly influenced by the buyer.
If a SAFA is not possible for every operation involved, the entity may choose to focus on
one chain of operations as a representative sample. A common challenge is to determine
a sample that gives an accurate picture of the entity’s performance for reporting and
the connected claim on performance. There is no one-size-fits-all scenario, but SAFA
recommends using the boundary setting questions as the basis for determining critical
issues and hotspots. For large groups, the square root approach (ISO 62) is recommended.
This means to use the square root of the number of the members in the group.
The full impacts of this entity should still be considered, including physical and social
external impacts. Other important contextual factors for consideration in defining the
scope include the sector and branch of the economy to which it belongs, its position in the
value chain, its geographical location and organizational size.
TOOLS A series of questions and activities will help the SAFA user to set the scope
outlined below. While there is extensive literature on how to set boundaries, with different
approaches and methodologies, an inclusion/exclusion approach is proposed for
simplification purposes. While simplified, this process is aligned with the GRI Guidelines
on Boundary setting.

Inclusion:
First describe the value chain by identifying all enterprises linked with company
undertaking the SAFA through a sustainability scan. These are potential spheres of
influence and/or impact and include:
» all enterprises exchanging products or services (including materials, water, energy,
etc) with the company;
» competitors - including through suppliers and customers.
Output: Description of assessed entities and supply chain map (see Figure 6).
Description of the entities

The description of the assessed entities should include the unique qualities of the entity’s
operation type, location, sector and surroundings, as well as information specific to the
context including sector specific risks, geographical issues, socio-political circumstances
and legal framework. This information will be used in Step 2: Contextualization.
Characteristics such as small-scale producers should be identified at this stage (see
criteria for small-scale producers below).
Supply chain map

Mapping a chain means creating a visual representation of the connections between
enterprises from inputs to end consumers. It does not need to be sophisticated using
custom software. A simple flow diagram in Word or Excel can help identify the potential
scope and relationships to facilitate decision making on the scope. This should begin with
entities listing all properties, operations, land and other resources under their ownership
or in which they play a decision-making role. From there, the list should be expanded to
include activities and other operations involved in production, processing and distribution
based on the entire realm of influence and impact of the assessed entity.
International and larger companies will have multiple complex supply chains with
potentially hundreds of entities that change constantly due to market forces. Bringing
together data is further challenged in delimiting, describing and analyzing supply chains,
especially when large, diverse and changing numbers of suppliers are involved.
Once the overall supply chain has been mapped and described, enterprises
undertaking a SAFA should focus on those supply chains and aspects where it has
significant influence and impacts, excluding others. This step of Exclusion of insignificant

supply chain actors defines the Assessment Boundary, described in detail below.
Management will find setting scope useful to identify where sustainability performance
needs to be tracked and in what manner.
Materiality
Materiality is a core principle of all kinds of reporting with different approaches
and definitions. The materiality focus of sustainability reports is broader than the
traditional measures of financial materiality. SAFA adopts the International Integrated
Reporting Council (IRRC) definition framework which considers the commonality of
materiality definitions from various reporting frameworks. This builds on the concept
“that material matters are those that are of such relevance and importance that they
could substantively influence the assessments of the intended report users.”
Defining the assessment boundary

Exclusion:
This step is also defined as cut-off criteria under ISO 14044 and in Life Cycle Analysis
(LCA). This step is intended to help focus the SAFA assessment. Boundary setting needs
to be pragmatic, well defined and specific. See Figure 7.
» Define the Material system boundaries:
»
Which entity is the focus of this SAFA?
»
How many levels of the food chain are you intending to assess?
»
Which is the entity’s sphere of influence?
»
Which other entities and processes need to be covered because of impact or risk areas?
»
If the focus of the SAFA is on primary production level, how many enterprises will
you include and how will you chose your sample?
»
Which entities and processes are excluded and why?
» Impact allocation criteria:
»
In conducting this SAFA, which of the governance, environmental, economic and
social impacts that occur beyond what is directly used by the assessed entity do you
intend to take into account?

Figure 8. Example of boundaries in a supply chain
Materials provider
Producer
Producer Supplier Supplier Producer Group
Organization SAFA Assessment
Processor
Traders
Wholesalers
Retailers ?
Consumers
End-of-product managers
»
How do you intend to allocate sustainability impacts for different levels of the food
chain, for assessed and non-assessed processes, entities, and locations so that allocation
problems are minimized and the impact boundaries for this SAFA are set clear?
» Visual map boundaries on supply chain map:
»
Where a boundary is narrowed, the SAFA reporting needs to be transparent on what
has been left out from the assessment and why (see Step 4: Reporting).

Figure 9. Decision tree for boundary setting
No Do you have control

over the entity?
No Do you have Yes

significant influence
No Do you have Does it have No

influence? Yes significant impacts?
Exclude Does it have No Not necessary

Yes
significant impacts? Yes to report
No Does it have
significant impacts? Yes Not necessary
to report
Not necessary
to report Yes
Performance data
Disclosures on management approach
Narrative reporting on issues and dilemmas
Source: GRI G3.1 Guidelines (2011a)
TOOLS Completing these steps will require that the entity make decisions
regarding which activities and operations to include. Expert support may be useful. The
decision tree of the GRI G3.1 Guidelines is a broadly tested tool for making decisions
regarding what is included in the scope (GRI, 2011a).
The entity may nevertheless limit the scope of the assessment for one level of the food
chain. In all cases, the boundaries of the assessment should be documented for use in the
Performance Report. Larger companies have a potentially larger sphere of influence than
a small individual farmer. SAFA acknowledges the growing responsibility for sustainable
production with growing enterprise size.

Small-scale producers and SAFA

SAFA aims to be applicable to both large and small-scale enterprises. Small-scale producers
face many unique challenges in terms of sustainability assessments, including limited
existing data, relevance of global indicators, lack of capacity to complete the assessment
independently and lack of resources. Small-scale operators may lack the resources to
conduct testing or other expensive means of collecting primary data, or may be located
in regions where this kind of data collection is not feasible.
SAFA was tested in smallholder settings to understand these issues and ensure the
applicability of SAFA to small-scale producers, among other stakeholders. Creating a
fair playing field for all users means among other things ensuring an equal burden in
time and investment for all users. Small-scale producers may be achieving the intent
outlined in the default performance indicators but may be achieving them through
mechanisms that are less easy to measure compared to enterprises in which more formal
and documented mechanisms exist. SAFA includes some sub-themes that specifically
address some of the concerns specific to small-scale producers, as well as different types
of indicators. The indicators and assessment steps have been adjusted in places to allow
exceptions for small-scale producers, so that they might still reach high sustainability
scores without required use of performance indicators, especially in the environmental
dimension of the SAFA assessment.
Small-scale producers are not, per se, users of SAFA, it is instead a tool usually used by
organizations of producers and governments. One incentive for small-scale producers’ use
of SAFA could be the compensation (e.g. through a Payment for Ecosystem Services scheme)
of growers who adopt sustainable practices. Other uses of SAFA to incentivize small-scale
producers include the implementation of regional planning, local procurement, investment
or the development of legislation, based on SAFA small-scale producer performance ratings.
Classification of small-scale producers in SAFA

It is important to understand that there are different definitions of small-scale producers
dependent on context, commodity, geography and other factors. These can be based on
size, assets and/or other factors, such as dependency on family labour. Their characteristics
differ by sector, country and production system. For example, not only does smallholder
farm or holding size vary, but also their allocation of resources to food, cash crops, livestock
and off-farm activities, their use of external inputs and hired labour, the proportion of

food crops which are sold, their access and use of natural resources and their household
expenditure pattern (FAO, 2004). Although differing, small-scale producers are often
subsumed in initiatives targeting family farmers; for the 2014 International Year of Family
Farming, the following definition was adopted: Family farming (also family agriculture) is
a means of organizing agricultural, forestry, fisheries, pastoral and aquaculture production
which is managed and operated by a family and predominantly reliant on family labour,
including both women’s and men’s. The family and the farm are linked, coevolve and combine
economic, environmental, social and cultural functions.
In order to ensure a transparent assessment, SAFA requires that small-scale enterprises
meet all three of these criteria for production systems. If small-scale enterprises complete
a SAFA assessment, the ways in which the following criteria are met must be detailed in
the SAFA Performance Report. For the purposes of implementing a SAFA and determining
the applicable rating framework, small-scale producers - including small-scale farmers,
pastoralists, forest keepers, fishers, aquaculturists - are defined according to:
» Size: manage areas considered small for their production and region;
» Mechanization: use no or little mechanization; and
» Labor: use mainly family labour for production.
The most common measure of small-scale producers is size although there is no universal
definition of “small” as it is sector and context specific. Generally, small-scale producers
mostly rely on family labour, as opposed to hired labour. Even though most work is done by
the family, depending on crop/region, small-scale producers may employ up to 2 non-family
permanent employees and hire up to 5 seasonal employees. In developed countries, the
level of mechanization and production intensity of small-scale producers may be higher
than in developing countries. Similarly, farms growing certain crops (such as grains) may
be generally larger in size than those growing other produce. Community farming, forestry
and fisheries may also be considered under the smallholder classification if the general
criteria are met for the individual members.
» Agriculture. Many sources define small farms as those with less than 2 hectares of crop
land3 . The size of land that small-scale producers manage varies among countries. In
favorable areas with high population densities, they often cultivate less than one ha of
land, whereas they may cultivate 10 ha or more in semi-arid areas, or manage 10 heads of
3 According to the IAASTD, 2009, there are 1.5 billion men and women farmers working on 404 million
small-scale farms of less than 2 hectares.

livestock (FAO, 2004). For the purposes of SAFA, a maximum limit of 10 hectares is adopted,
in conjunction with the other two conditions. Agricultural mechanization can be defined
as the economic application of engineering technology to enhance the effectiveness and
productivity of human labour. Sources of farm power include hand tools, draft animals and
mechanically-powered implements. Most smallholder farm operations are accomplished
through the use of hand tools and animal power since modern tools - even if rented or
shared among users - are too costly. As part of its definition, small-scale producers have
no or little mechanization of the planting, growing and harvest processes. The use of car,
motorcycle, and small truck still falls within the concept of low mechanization.
» Forestry. Small-scale foresters are those who own, manage or use forests which are
considered small in size, or who apply low intensity harvesting practices. There are also
known as non-industrial or small-scale. Small-scale forestry can also describe those
who practice community forestry, where ownership and management are community
controlled. In these instances, the land size may be larger than individual land holdings.
Therefore, in forestry, two broad types of small-scale producers should be considered:
users of small size forest but who apply high intensity harvesting (e.g. 10 ha of eucalyptus
plantation); and users of small, medium or large collective enterprises who apply low
intensity harvesting practices (e.g. community collectors of nuts in Brazil).
» Fisheries and aquaculture. Also known as small-scale or artisanal fisheries, there is no
universally agreed definition of scale because of high diversity of small-scale fisheries.
Small-scale fisheries are however characterized by household enterprises in pursuit
of a livelihood leading to a culturally conditioned way of life; fishers use small craft
and simple gear (though not necessarily simple techniques) of considerable diversity,
relatively low capital investment and low energy intensity of the operations. Almost half
of the world’s fishing vessels are non-motorized and 90 percent of those with engines
are less than 12 meters long. Fishing also takes place with handheld gear without a boat.
There is neither a strict definition of small-scale aquaculture. However, it is often based
around family labour, and ponds or farms are relatively small (usually around 2 ha), based
on family land. It ranges from what is commonly known as rural aquaculture – that is,
systems with limited investment, informal management structures and close integration
with other livelihood activities – to commercial undertakings requiring more substantial
labour and capital inputs and being more specialized. However, small-scale aquafarmers
often have limited access to financial and technical resources, as well as poor links with
markets. While no global estimates on small-scale aquaculture are currently available, it

is known that nearly 89 percent of global aquaculture production was produced in Asia
in 2008 of which about 90 percent was on farms of less than 1 ha size.
For farming, forestry and fishing operations, if an enterprise does not meet one of the
above criteria (i.e. size, mechanization, labor), but does meet the other two, and the assessor
believes this enterprise should be considered as small-scale for the purposes of the SAFA
assessment, the assessment can go forward with this classification – but the exception
must be clearly documented and justified in the SAFA Performance Report.
Example Box 4. Contextualizing the small-scale producers’ definition
The Rural Advancement Foundation International developed country context. SAFA’s smallholder qualifi-
(RAFI) conducted two assessments on small-scale cations reflect that limited mechanization may include
cotton and grain growers in Southeastern North a farm truck or car, but not heavy machinery, such as
Carolina, USA, as part of the SAFA pilot testing. The a combine. However, the SAFA Guidelines allow for one
RAFI assessment is an example of contextualizing SAFA’s exception to the small-scale producer qualifications.
criteria to reflect regional differences. RAFI felt that the two farms in question were small-scale
With regards to size, SAFA’s recommendation is 10 farms despite their use of combines. In USA, almost all
hectares or less. In reality, these cotton and grain growers cotton and small grains production involves mechaniza-
operated on 350 and 525 hectares, respectively. However, tion of this kind, therefore this criteria was not an apt
given their geographical context and the tendency of grain assessment of whether the farms could be considered
and cotton farms to be larger than others such as producer small. Instead, RAFI added a contextualized criteria: the
farms, RAFI added criteria to contextualize the small-scale relative power in the marketplace. Small-scale producers
producer definition. The size of the farms was considered tend to be “price-takers,” without the relative power in the
in relation to others in the same industry and region, and marketplace to negotiate a higher price. A consideration
the status of land ownership. Closer examination revealed of the market power, prices received, and market venue
that both farmers rented the majority of their land. Actual options of the two farms determined that they held the
ownership was limited to less than 120 hectares for one marketplace power typical of small-scale producers.
farm, and less than 75 hectares for the other. Secondly, As for labor, both farms are managed and worked by
and more importantly, an evaluation of the relative size of primarily family members. One farm is run entirely by a
cotton and grain farms in the country revealed that these father and son team, the other is managed by the owner
farms were amongst the smallest category. Thus, based on and one long-term employee. A significant component
their contextual size and the additional ownership criteria, RAFI found of assessing the personnel of a small farm in
RAFI determined that these two farms did meet the first this context which may help others in their analysis was
intention of SAFA’s small-scale producer qualification. that the owners were also the managers and workers. On
With regards to mechanization, grain and cotton larger scale farms, the owners often were absentee and
growing are highly mechanized crops, especially in a hired staff takes care of all aspects of the farm.

STEP 2. CONTEXTUALIZATION
STEP 2. OUTPUTS
» List of relevant SAFA sustainability themes and sub-themes

including declaration and justification of sub-themes deemed not
relevant
» Compilation of relevant contextual data
» Compilation of existing sustainability reports and assessments
(e.g. audit reports, CSR, LCA)
» Contextualized rating of SAFA default indicators
» List of data sources
Following the step of detailed mapping and boundary-setting, the assessor will have
collected a wide range of information about their context – meaning their geographic or
regional circumstances, such as climate and resource availability, as well as their socio-
political circumstances such as labour trends, legal framework and other such details. This
information will also be used in this step to:
» consider all relevant sub-themes; and
» contextualize SAFA’s default indicators for assessment purposes.
The purpose of contextualizing the default indicators is to refine the measurements and
ratings to be appropriate, based on the circumstances surrounding the entity assessed.
The default indicators provide essentially a frame for how to rate the performance of the
entity, based on the context of the entity.
RESOURCES needed for Step 2 include outputs from Step 1, complete with the detailed
description of the assessed entities and critical impact areas defined in the boundary
setting. The list of default indicators is found in this publication’s complement
“SAFA Indicators”.

Step 2 consists of two main activities:

» Review of all sub-themes, based on the defined boundaries and the sustainability
objectives of those sub-themes;
» Review default indicators in relevant sub-themes, based on context, in order to
determine ratings.
Contextualizing sub-themes
The assessor should begin with a review of SAFA’s sub-themes, paying careful attention to
the sub-theme objectives which describe the sustainability goal that should be achieved
in that area of performance. Based on the boundaries identified in Step 1, the assessor
may eliminate certain sub-themes that have objectives that are completely outside of the
boundaries of that entity. For example, the assessment of a mariculture operation (i.e.
farming of fish or other aquatic species in sea water) could exclude the sub-theme Water
Withdrawal which refers exclusively to freshwater. The other sub-theme “Water Quality”
would however apply, as mariculture operations can create localized pollution.
A series of questions for the specific sub-themes help the user identify the relevance
for the entity to be assessed. Available publications, reports and maps should be consulted
in this step to gather information necessary for finding out the relevance of certain
sub-themes. For example, information related to physical water scarcity in the region,
human rights situation, rule of law, soil degradation risk and land use cover change.
Sources used in this review should be included in the SAFA Performance Report.
Sustainability sub-themes which are not included because of lack of relevance in terms of
impact and influence should be detailed and justified in the final Performance Report. All
themes and sub-themes relevant for the sustainability performance of the assessed entity
must be addressed in the subsequent steps in order to generate a Performance Report that
is as accurate as possible.

Example Box 5. Contextualization of sub-themes
SAFA’s framework includes a wide range of themes and “Food Quality”. In order to ensure that sub-themes
sub-themes to ensure that all sustainability issues are such as this one were not eliminated inaccurately, a
covered. However, some entities may find that certain three-step process was used to check the relevance of
themes or sub-themes are irrelevant to their operation each sub-theme, including:
because of their industry or sector. During the SAFA Consideration of the content of the sub-theme and its
pilot phase, a forest operation, PROMACER, had to relevance to their industry.
contextualize the sub-themes to match their industry in Q: is food produced within the boundaries of the forest?
Spain. PROMACER is a group of small operations with A: no
68 members cover 532 ha, which in forestry can still be Consideration of the relevance of the sub-theme to
considered as a small plantation area. There are just two their specific operational scope. The scope of the opera-
direct employees and 4 to 8 indirect jobs. Their forest tion is focused exclusively in eucalyptus wood production.
operations are located in rural areas, where the primary Determination of linkages between this and other
sector is still an important economic activity. such sub-themes in their assessment concluded that the
An example of a sub-theme that PROMACER found operation had no sub-themes linked with food.
irrelevant and did not utilize in their assessment was
Contextualizing default indicators

Secondly, the assessor should review each of the default indicators (or identify replacements
for these) in the remaining sub-themes and use the data about their geographic/
environmental, social, political and economic context to determine detailed ratings for each
indicator. The default indicators provided by SAFA already identify high and low ratings,
which should be maintained. In some cases, few or no intermediate levels exist because
the indicator is simply a “yes” or “no” that something exists, for example “Forced Labour”.
Either it exists or does not. If it does not exist, it will be “best sustainability performance”.
For most indicators, it will be necessary to contextualize an indicator to determine the
intermediate ratings:
» Collect all relevant available data. Example: for the default indicator “Wage Level”
information on the regional living wage, average wage in the sector, legal minimum
wage and poverty rate should be obtained, as well as information about overtime
policies and maximum work week averages.

» Review SAFA’s rating frame provided in the complement “SAFA Indicators”. The
default indicator already provides that: a dark green score is received if (among other
things) 100 percent of employees and personnel involved in the organization are paid a
living wage; and a red score is received if workers are underpaid according to industry
averages, paid at the poverty rate, paid piece-rate that encourages unhealthy practices,
or if pay is docked or withheld under any circumstances. Using regional data, the
assessor should be able to establish what a living wage is, and what a normal or legal
work week is. Based on the living wage needs in their region, the assessor should also
be able to establish what amount per hour would qualify as “underpaid,” what would
constitute the poverty rate of pay, and what would be considered excessive length for
work week hours. In this manner, the assessor can contextualize numeric values for the
dark green and red scores of SAFA, based on the indicator’s frame.
» Determine the green, orange and yellow contextualized rating scale. To contextualize
the rest of the rating scale, a user would need to decide what wage rate and working
hours in their region and sector earns a “good” score, what earns a “moderate” score, and
what earns a “limited” score. This should be based on careful analysis of the regional
and industry data, as collected.
Contextualized Indicator: Hypothetical Example

Indicator: Wage Level
Context: South-eastern USA
Unit of Measurement (given in SAFA): this indicator measures the percent of
employees paid a living wage.
Unit of Measurement (contextualized version): living wages of at least USD14 per
hour are received for a maximum workweek of 48 hours per week.
A hypothetical tool developed for use in South-eastern USA with farmer associations
may develop a contextualized indicator such as this one, following the guidance
provided in SAFA’s default indicator that outlines the requirements for “Living Wage”.
Additional contextual details, such as exceptions or adjustments to the rating based
on local circumstances, would also be added at this point.

Example Box 6. Contextualization of indicators for a fish processor
One participant in the pilot phase of SAFA was a fish Such publications are available on FAO’s website, and
processor located in Northern Italy, where the economy could be researched through an internet search engine.
is driven by high input agriculture and mollusk farming After reviewing the material, the assessor made a chart
in lagoons. This entity, which had around 20 employees of activities and their corresponding best practices that
and facilities in a 6 ha area, found that they needed to were relevant to GHG emissions.
contextualize some of the SAFA indicators to make them An example of one activity that was listed on this
more applicable to their operations. Their experience is a chart was: “direct energy use, including all electricity
good example of how to use publicly available resources and/or gas necessary for pumps, equipment use, ice,
to contextualize indicators, especially when choosing refrigeration, storage, office or space, heating/cooling,
the practice-based indicator option in the environmen- and any on-site processing”. This activity was to be
tal dimension. measured in Kilowatts/ton output following processing
An example of one indicator that this pilot contex- and packaging. This measurement resulted in a ratio. The
tualized is the practice-based indicator for green- assessor was able to use her knowledge of the industry to
house gas (GHG) emissions. Because of the scale compare this ratio to other similar operations, and deter-
and resources of the operation, they did not have at mine if the entity was performing above average, or below
hand performance data about actual GHG emissions. average. In addition, other components listed on the chart,
Therefore, the assessor needed to develop a contextu- such as an evaluation of the type of equipment used or
alized practice-based indicator that would serve as a transportation fuel used, provided additional information
proxy for performance data. about the overall performance of the entity.
To do this, the assessor collaborated with FAO to The assessor was able to base a rating for the GHG
collect current publications and research about GHG emis- emissions practice-based indicator on this variety of
sions of small-scale fishery and processing operations. contextualized data.
TOOLS Examples of context considerations for rating:

» Size of the enterprise: for example, small enterprises can hardly be required to
quantitatively analyze biodiversity (e.g. species abundance), while this may be feasible
for large enterprises.
» Step of the value chain: are issues more relevant to a specific step in the supply chain
based on influence, control and potential impact?
» Type of value chain: are some issues more relevant to agriculture, livestock, forestry,
aquaculture and fisheries based on potential impact? For example, operations in
agriculture and forestry have more potential to sequester carbon than those in fisheries,
aquaculture, processing and retail.

» Region: are some issues specific to the region? For example: the relevance of water
withdrawal is much higher in water-scarce than in water-rich areas; soil properties and
thus soil fertility, as well as the potential to enhance soil organic matter content, inter
alia, depend on the local climate and bedrock.
» Use of the SAFA results: different types of indicators and integrity of supporting data
may be required to address either Level 1 or Level 2 critical review requirements.
SAFA has not developed contextualized indicators. In order for a detailed SAFA
assessment (the level of detail will depend on the purpose of the assessment) to be done
on an enterprise, contextualized indicators must be developed by the assessor. Other
organizations may also develop contextualized indicators using the SAFA framework
(themes, sub-themes and default indicators) as a guide, in order to assess their particular
operations, supply chains or projects.
This step of contextualization provides the basis for customizing the metrics in order
to determine performance in the intermediate ranges between “Best” (dark green) and
“Unacceptable” (red) practices.
Generally, it will require expert knowledge and/or technical expertise. Industry
associations, NGOs, universities and other groups working in sustainable agriculture,
forestry and fisheries will be key resources for identifying factors affecting performance.
Some organizations already have identified a continuum of performance for specific
products and geographies in databases of “better” and “best” practices. These levels
of performance may be reflected in percentages (RISE), icons (petals of a flower in the
Sustainability Flower) or something else like metals - bronze, silver, gold and platinum
levels of performance. Generally, these different levels of performance are defined by
experts based on research and knowledge developed over time (see Appendix A). Potential
resources of information for contextualization of indicators can be found in the complement
SAFA Indicators.
While a SAFA has a default set of indicators to ensure a holistic approach, it is also
important for the assessor to identify critical areas, based on materiality principles for the
context of that entity. Where issues are deemed material in the contextualization phase,
the SAFA Performance Report should acknowledge the relevance and disclose on those
issues or admit limitations in data availability in the reporting (see Step 4 Reporting).

Example Box 7. Contextualization of indicators for an urban farm
During the SAFA pilot phase, one participating urban farm eat produce from the garden, their clients and consum-
had to adjust indicators to meet their unique operation ers, and their staff. She did not need to change the
type. Their experience is a good example of how to use language of the indicator itself. However, she did need
contextualization as an opportunity to get a very accurate to contextualize the indicator. Based on reading about
and much customized SAFA assessment. This farm went other sustainability initiatives in urban areas, and using
above and beyond basic contextualization, by creating terminology she learned from that research, she compiled
customized questionnaires for each indicator, based on a list of farm activities that the enterprise could be doing
their region and industry. to earn a high rating for this indicator. Among others,
While located in a Canadian metropolitan center that these included:
is supportive of sustainability in the city policies, the four » Does your farm have a website, with complete and
farms were located in neighborhoods with relatively a high transparent information on it? How much consumer or
percentage of vulnerable populations and poverty. They community traffic to the website do you have?
grow food in large, mobile containers that can be moved » Does your farm have signage about its operations
when the site is no longer available for urban farming. that is clear and visible to the community and
This mobility means that some sustainability issues, such neighbours?
as community and stakeholder involvement, are different How much product is lost to theft or vandalism? This
than for other more traditional agricultural operations. is a means of measuring if the community is engaged
One indicator from the SAFA Governance dimension and committed to the farm, and therefore feel pride and
that the assessor contextualized to make their assess- ownership in it, or if it is viewed as an outside effort.
ment more accurate was “Stakeholder Engagement.” » What is the number of local community members
To begin with, the assessor took steps to identify involved in the farm, and how many volunteer hours
who the stakeholders for an urban farm would be. She are logged?
started by talking to the farmers in an interview and The assessor was then able to begin the data collec-
reviewed existing sustainability papers on urban farm- tion phase, knowing that she would gather answers to
ing. She identified stakeholders as funders, donors, local these questions and ensure that the stakeholder groups
community and neighbourhood, as well as those that she had identified were included in those answers.

STEP 3. SELECTING TOOLS AND INDICATORS
STEP 3. OUTPUTS
» Indicator type selection among hierarchy of indicators

» List of tools, metrics and standards for data collection
» Determine data Accuracy Score
» Documentation of input data and score
» Rating at indicator level, aggregation of results at sub-theme and
theme level
» A written interpretation of ratings and Accuracy Score
RESOURCES needed for Step 3 include the contextualized indicator list from Step 2,
reports from existing schemes and tools used by the enterprise, including certifications,
assessments, LCAs, CSR reporting, etc.
Step 3 further refines the relevant contextualization of sub-themes through indicator
selection and rating. Step 3 consists of four main activities:
» Selecting appropriate tools and data collection.
» Calculation of the Accuracy Score.
» Selection and rating of indicators.
» Aggregation of results.
Selecting appropriate tools and data collection

TOOLS For the purposes of the SAFA assessment, “tools” refer to the variety of
commonly used measurement systems or assessment techniques for different sustainability
topics. For example, there are many tools for assessing an enterprise’s greenhouse gas
emissions, such as the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, the
CoolFarm and the ExAct tools. Ideally, the entity would be able to collect necessary data using
existing tools, metrics and standards.

The sustainability tools and initiatives identified in Appendix A can provide some
additional guidance in identifying appropriate standards and tools. The selection of tools
should be based on:
» Default indicators (or their replacement).
» Availability of information on the entity’s performance.
» Budgetary constraints of the assessment.
» The use of the SAFA results and the associated compliance review level (i.e. Level 1 or 2).
The tools, metrics and standards used for data collection and measurement should be
listed in the SAFA Performance Report, along with the Accuracy Score.
Data collection
Data collection is the process of gathering and measuring information on the default/
replacement indicators, in an established systematic fashion in order to evaluate outcomes.
Within a SAFA, primary and secondary data can be used.
Using existing tools and data

Secondar y data is derived from other sources such as literature or databases
(ISO14044:2006). Secondary data is data that has been collected by someone else,
generally for another purpose. Secondary data is relatively inexpensive (or already paid
for) to obtain. However, because it was gathered for other purposes, it may be necessary
to tease-out the information needed for the SAFA assessment. SAFA recognizes existing
sustainability programmes and efforts as key data resources. The use of existing rules,
norms and standards expedite assessment for users, while avoiding duplication by
integrating existing data. Appendix A provides some examples of partner initiatives for
potential data sources. SAFA is coordinating with existing meta-initiatives and tools,
as well as the establishment of a common taxonomy including the SAFA framework,
components of a sustainability assessment and definitions in order to facilitate common
understanding and equivalencies among different initiatives. Data can also be collected
from public and other independent sources of information. However, the use of existing
data collected for a different purpose needs to be addressed in the assessment, both in
the data collection process and the reporting.
Caution must be taken when relying on best practices or estimations/proxies which
create variances and subjectivity of performance. In addition, there are variances in

temporal scope and timing of the data collection that influence the usability of existing
data. These issues must be considered. There may often be a direct trade-off between
feasibility (costs, time and availability), particularly for small-scale producers, with
accuracy of the performance assessment.
Example Box 8. Using existing data
Entities may already have much of the data they need to ners, etc. This tool aims to evaluate the degree of social
successfully complete a SAFA at their fingertips. Sources responsibility of businesses towards their stakeholders by
may include other tools or reporting mechanisms the using a set of socioeconomic indicators related to a list of
entity has used. During the pilot phase, Groupe AGECO, a social issues of concern, going from working conditions
Canadian consulting group specialized in socio-economic and local engagement to environmental practices.
studies, strategic planning and social responsibility Existing data from these studies were used to respond
assessment (including Social-LCA) in the agri-food sector, to several SAFA indicators. For example, the indicator
used the SAFA for the Canadian organization Fédération related to Employment Relations required that “Personnel
des producteurs du Québec (newly renamed as the have legally binding work contracts and no precarious
Éleveurs de porcs du Québec – Quebec Pork Producers). employment”. The S-LCA assessment on whether the
The Quebec pork producers represent more than 3 500 farm workers had access to written and formal working
pork producers, who employ over than 20 000 employees contracts showed that only 20 percent of farmers provide
and produce more than 7 million pigs annually. The scope their workers with such a document. Although AGECO was
of the SAFA pilot focused specifically on the pork produc- able to use this information to respond to this indicator,
tion level, of a representative sample of 182 pig farm- it conducted focus groups and spot-check interviews to
ers who participated to previously conducted LCA-based confirm that this data from the S-LCA was still relevant.
studies conducted in 2010-12, including a carbon and AGECO found that in some cases, the evaluation
water footprint assessments, as well as a socio-economic scales of SAFA and the S-LCA were different, and the focus
performance analysis. of the evaluation was sometimes dissimilar. But after the
An Environmental LCA, within an ISO standard frame- pilot experience they found that the SAFA provided an
work, is an internationally recognized approach that opportunity to complete, structure and organize the S-LCA
evaluates the potential environmental and human health results in a coherent way. Using existing data also allowed
impacts associated with products and services through- their organization to save time and money in completing
out their life cycle, from raw material extraction, including the SAFA assessment. In the end, AGECO felt that overall,
transportation, production, use, and end-of-life treatment. by linking these tools together, SAFA gives the opportunity
A Social LCA focuses on businesses’ behaviour and on the to organizations to better assess and communicate about
relationships they have with their stakeholders, such as their sustainability, hence contributing to promote more
their workers, the local community, their business part- socially-responsible practices in the agri-food sector.

Primary data
Primary data is collected (measured, calculated or estimated) from production sites
associated with the unit processes within the system boundary (ISO14044:2006). Directly
collecting the data needed has the advantage of being specifically tailored to the SAFA
assessment and indicator. However, primary data tends to be expensive to collect and takes
a long time to process. Entities undertaking a SAFA can supplement this existing data
with site visits, scientific sampling, interviews, stakeholder surveys and reviews of their
internal documents and programmes within the SAFA Framework. The methodology is
reflected in the Accuracy Score.
Data collection guidelines

For some indicators, data collection is especially difficult, as well as measurements in
relation to the “best” achievable objective. In some cases, exact thresholds are region-
specific and require expert knowledge. Especially in the environmental dimension (e.g.
air, water, biodiversity), degradation drivers are often independent of the enterprise’s
management, extending to larger ecosystems and wider timelines.
While SAFA cannot determine specific data protocols that would be applicable globally,
SAFA reporting would require transparency on the data collection protocols (timing,
content and type of data which are reflected in the Accuracy Score).
In small enterprises with low levels of documentation (e.g. small producer groups
or farms), almost all enterprise-related information will likely be collected via a farmer
interview and a personal inspection of farm and fields. This means that the “how” and
“when” of data collection can have influence on data quality and SAFA results.
Before and during data collection:
» identify potential data sources and challenges and the precautionary measures to
maintain the integrity of the assessment (e.g. timing issues, proxies);
» document data accuracy and quality issues using existing data;
» access and organize existing data and sources (e.g. CSR audit reports, assessments);
» map existing data with SAFA sub-themes and default indicators;
» identify data collection plan to fill in gaps with plan;
» determine (and create, if necessary) a method for collection, storage of data and retention
of data, merging existing and supplemental data;
» during data collection, the entity should monitor and support data collection activities;
» use the most precise and reliable performance data available;

» data should be collected using standardized measurement methods; where quantitative

data are used, these should be expressed in the International System (SI) units.
Determining the Accuracy Score

As previously explained for data collection, there are many potential sources for data that
SAFA users may access to implement SAFA indicators. The accuracy of the final ratings
and the SAFA report will depend on the quality of the data used. In some situations,
it may be possible for an enterprise to access high quality data for some indicators,
but not for others. In order to increase the transparency and credibility of the SAFA
results, an Accuracy Score, determined by the quality of data used, is a part of the SAFA
Performance Report.
UNDERSTANDING THE ACCURACY SCORE

Characteristics sProvides a snapshot of overall integrity of the assessment.
sGuides SAFA users as to where to focus resources for improvement in data collection and
sustainability assessment in the future.
sDoes not impact the rating (red to dark green) of indicators, sub-themes or themes.
sCan be completed simultaneously to indicator rating in the assessment process.
sBased on the quality of data, determined by the assessor using SAFA’s criteria.
Components Timeframe Is the data based on the most current information about the enterprise?
Type Is it primary data, secondary data, or a general estimate?
Methodology Was the data collected according to the SAFA Guidelines?
Components of the Accuracy Score

The components of the Accuracy Score include the timeframe, type and methodology, all
of which play a role in determining the quality of the data used in SAFA and the scoring.
Timeframe of data
Different types of data may need to be collected on different timeframes. For example,
data regarding energy and water use may be calculated at multiple times per year, while
data regarding living wage for the region may be updated annually. The most accurate
data will be the most current available. Ideally, data used in SAFA assessments will be no
older than 1-2 years, unless otherwise requested in the indicator measurement instructions.
Data that is older than 2 years may still be reliable, and may be used if more recent data
is not available, though this will lower the Accuracy Score to “moderate quality.”

SAFA recommends that data older than 5 years be refreshed if possible. If used, this
data would receive an Accuracy Score of “low quality.”
Type of data
There are various types of data, as described generally in the “Data Collection” section of
the SAFA Guidelines. To assign an Accuracy Score to the data quality, SAFA considers
whether the data is primary, secondary or estimation:
» High quality: primary data collected for the SAFA assessment, or primary data collected
using a sustainability tool, for a previous audit or by a 3rd party;
» Moderate quality: secondary data used as a proxy to make a generalized but educated
assumption regarding the enterprise;
» Low quality: estimates made based on general information about the enterprise that
are not based on primary or secondary data.
Methodology of data collection by type of data

The appropriate methodology for collecting data depends on the type of data and the
subject matter of the indicator. The following sections describe minimum guidelines for
the methodology to collect accurate data to be used in the SAFA assessment according to
each type of data: primary, secondary or estimations.
Primary data
There are two main methodologies for collecting primary SAFA data.
» Primary data collected by third party or using a sustainability tool: primary data about
the enterprise’s activities may be in the form of audit reports or existing certifications,
or other such data sources generated by third parties. In addition, there are many
sustainability tools that assist users to calculate information such as carbon emissions.
Primary data from these tools, listed in Appendix A, is highly recommended for use in
SAFA assessments.
Regarding certifications: the fact that the enterprise has passed an inspection does
not in itself serve as a data source for that enterprise in reference to the certification’s
standards. The detailed information about actual activities found to be in compliance
with the individual standard requirements must be documented in the certification
report, for this data to be considered of highest quality in a SAFA assessment.

» Primary data collected directly for the SAFA assessment purpose: primary data
collected by the assessor for the SAFA itself is considered highest quality within the
different sustainability dimensions, based on the following:
DIMENSION HIGHEST QUALITY DATA CRITERIA OR TYPE USED IN EACH DIMENSION

Governance Current business documents or records (e.g. personnel manuals, organization’s bylaws). Sources
may be website or company records.
Interviews with stakeholders that meet interview criteria.*
Interviews with management and senior management that meet interview criteria.* Interviews
with management in this dimension may be used as a means to confirm certain data, but should
not replace review of actual company records, where relevant.
Environmental Direct sampling or testing (e.g. soil tests, waste water tests).
Company records of current resource use such as utilities (e.g. electricity, water) or
fuel for transportation.
Visual inspection of grounds and facilities that meets inspection criteria.**
Economic Review of actual company records and book-keeping.
Current business plan or other financial planning documents.
Interview with book-keeper or management. For secondary information or confirmation of data,
not to replace review of actual records, where relevant.
Social Interviews with employees that meet interview criteria.*
Review of employee files, and related paperwork such as pay-stubs.
Physical inspection of workplace and facilities that meets inspection criteria.**
Interviews with suppliers that meet interview criteria.*
Interviews with supervisory staff, human resources, or management that meet interview criteria.*
* Interview Criteria
Highest quality data for some indicators requires interviewing various individuals or focus groups. Data from interviews can only
be considered highest quality (in terms of credibility of the data source) if at least the following criteria are met:
How many individuals are interviewed? Best - random sampling that includes members of staff groups with all diversity factors
including age, gender, ethnicity, seniority at the enterprise, vulnerability factors such as disabilities, etc.
Who conducts the interview? Best - interviewer must not be management or a supervisor, should ideally be someone external to
the enterprise, needs to speak the language of the employees and be sensitive to labor issues.
Ethics of the interview, including respect of agreed codes of conduct and standards of research practice? Best – respect of
confidentiality, anonymity, privacy, data protection and the possibility to withdraw from the survey at any time.
** Inspection Criteria
Highest quality data for certain indicators requires an inspection of the facilities or workplace itself. In these cases, the inspection
may not be completed by management. Ideally, the inspection will be completed by a 3rd party or trained individual outside of the
enterprise, unaccompanied by management.

Example Box 9. Conducting interviews
A key method of data collection for the SAFA assessment this process she established a clear understanding of all
is interviewing employees and other actors in the enter- farm operations and activities, agricultural practices and
prise. This step is necessary for data collection in all four production cycle.
dimensions. However, the challenge when conducting She found that the in-person interview provided her
interviews is to ensure that measures are taken to gather with a great deal of broader information, and a good
objective information. Interviews generate qualitative sense of the operations, but she needed to follow-up to
rather than quantitative data, which can be more chal- obtain more specific details. To do this, and to ease the
lenging to analyze. In the pilot process, one assessor dealt burden on the farmer, she prepared an online survey with
with this challenge by combining in-person interviews multiple choice and fill-in-the-blank style questions.
with online surveys to make the process more efficient. To develop the survey, she began by taking the envi-
This was an urban farm, located in Canada, with ronmental indicators that SAFA uses, and then break-
easy access to computers and internet. The operation ing down the operations and activities of the enterprise
had a rotating group of part-time employees and a small according to which SAFA indicators they would impact.
number of investors and co-owners. The assessor deter- For example, under the GHG emissions indicator, she
mined that the operation qualified as a small to moderate noted that irrigation type would have an impact. She then
scale farm. researched best practices for urban farming in her region
There were several indicators that required data and compiled a list of activities that would qualify for the
collection through interviews. As a result of the farm’s high rating in each indicator. Next to irrigation type, she
scale and access to resources, not much existing data noted: drip irrigation would be a best practice.
was available for environmental indicators, such as GHG She then compiled a list of questions in an electronic
emissions or even water usage. Without having these survey, which the farmer was able to fill out in a matter of
metrics to rely on, the assessor decided to use practice- a few hours. This combination of a preliminary in-person
based indicators as a proxy for performance. The assessor interview with follow-up through an electronic survey
thus began data collection for these indicators with a allowed for a more precise data collection through inter-
thorough, in-person interview with one owner. Through views, and was less burden on the farmer.
Secondary data
SAFA users may not always be able to collect primary data for all indicators. In some cases,
secondary data may provide a reliable source from which assumptions about the performance
of the enterprise being assessed can be drawn. In this case, the assessor should make sure that
the secondary data used is current and published by a reliable source. Preferably, statistics
or scientific information used as secondary data will come from a peer-reviewed source.
SAFA users will need to assess based on their own judgment if the quality of the
secondary data used is the best available. If it is, this data may be considered “moderate
quality”. If it is not, this data should be considered “low quality”.

Example Box 10. Using secondary data as proxy for performance data
In some cases, finding primary data for an indicator is wide in the industry and information had been compiled
not possible, as a result of the limited resources of the from the Ministry of Agriculture’s database. This original
entity, or the limited research or testing available for study had used these resources to identify sources of
that indicator. In these cases, the use of secondary data GHG in oil palm plantation (mainly from the production
as a proxy is possible, but it must be done carefully. The and use of N-fertilizers) and best practices (by optimiz-
secondary data available may come from existing studies ing fertilizer usage) for smallholders to reduce their GHG
by the operation, or studies relevant to that operation or emissions as follows.
industry. In the case of one group of smallholder grow- After the study, the small-scale producers in this
ers in Thailand, this was exactly the type of data they group had received related trainings and had been able to
were able to obtain. Their experience is a good example adopt the recommended best practices. The SAFA asses-
of how to diligently extract useful data for SAFA from sor was able to take the information regarding the GHG
existing studies. emissions correlated with best practices in the original
The Sustainable Palm Oil Production in Thailand study and estimate the total emissions that the group
(SPOT) project was commissioned by the German would have, based on their size, inputs and crops grown.
Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation For example, one component of the training included
and Nuclear Safety (BMU) and was implemented by GIZ teaching farmers about the appropriate amount of fertil-
in cooperation with the Thai government, the Office of izer to use according to the needs of the crop. The asses-
Agricultural Economics (OAE) and several other local sor assumed that those who had received the training now
partner institutions. The project worked with 500 small- used the appropriate amount of fertilizer. This represented
holder palm oil producers and aimed to promote sustain- a general reduction in their GHG emissions as per the
able palm oil production and to support the establish- previous year, before the training.
ment of certification systems for sustainably produced After reviewing the data, the assessor was able to
palm oil in Thailand. assign a “Best” rating for this indicator to this group of
This group decided to conduct a SAFA pilot assess- smallholders, because GHG emissions, biological pollut-
ment on a selection of 30 of their small-scale producers. ants and other air pollutants were minimized through the
One indicator this group realized they could not collect adoption of practices such as mulching and cover crops,
performance data for was GHG emissions. All members soil and leaf analysis, and Integrated Pest Management
of the group were small-scale producers and did not have methods, such as the use of barn owls for bio-control
the means to measure or track GHG emissions. of rats.
Therefore, the primary assessor used data from a While the method used in this example does not
previously conducted study funded by the BMU on devel- generate an exact measurement of GHG emissions, it is
oping a GHG calculation methodology for the Thai palm a good example of how to use available secondary data
oil industry: GHG Emission Optimization Guidelines for to generate educated estimates as proxy for perfor-
Life Cycle of the Palm Oil Industry. As part of this original mance data.
study, samples had been taken from operations nation-

Estimations
The final type of data that may sometimes be used in a SAFA assessment are estimations,
generally made by the enterprise management or staff themselves, regarding the
performance of the operation. An important distinction to make is that estimations are
different from data collected in interviews. For example, the assessor may estimate that a
farm operation uses xx quantity of fuel per year, and assume their carbon emissions impact
from this estimate. In the absence of documentation, the ability to test or complete a tool
or calculation, or the ability to draw from reliable secondary data, estimates may be used
to complete the SAFA indicators. However, these should be considered “low quality” data
and points for improvement in data quality in the future.
Example Box 11. Conducting interviews at a large enterprise
Groupe AGECO, a Canadian consulting group, used the SAFA The people interviewed were generally members of the
guidelines to assess the Canadian organization Canadian monitoring committee, although additional experts joined
Sphagnum and Peat Moss Association (CSPMA). The from time to time to discuss specific issues.
CSPMA regroups 17 peat moss producers and marketers These informal interviews were themselves a comple-
employing over 2 600 employees and 1 300 seasonal work- ment to a more structured focus group that took place during
ers. The SAFA pilot focused on the peat moss producers, the SAFA pilot. This formal meeting allowed AGECO to inform,
whose activities involve the extraction, processing, and describe and question internal management, experts and
distribution of the product. Specifically, the assessment producers, as well as external stakeholders (various key
covered a sample of seven producers who participated in actors identified based on the relationships and interests
previous analysis (among which a Social and Environmental they shared with the organization). These discussions were
Life Cycle Assessment). These businesses account together conducted by using slides and discussion guides. Two
for 70 percent of all peat moss produced in Canada. facilitators always guided the discussions to make sure it
To complete the SAFA, AGECO used interviews to was lively and not tiresome. When possible, AGECO asked
gather information for the indicator “Stakeholder Dialogue”. interviewees to provide them with written and formal docu-
Interviews with representatives among the organizations ments to prove that the disclosed information was correct
were necessary to check and complete this information (e.g. internal procedures). Finally, AGECO also asked third
because it was unavailable in existing reports/assessments. party reviewers to review the methodology, as well as the
In addition, since the identification of stakeholders is often content of the CSR report they produced, based on the SAFA
an implicit and informal process within organizations, it evaluation to make sure the information and results were
was also important to detail, describe and understand how both sound and rigorous.
this practice was performed to qualify the performance. The methodology used by AGECO to carefully conduct
Several interviews took place all along the projects interviews and focus groups and to tailor them to the
with representatives of the organizations. In most cases, needs of the assessment based on existing and available
discussions took place during conference calls, where 2 or data is a good example of how to use interviews for data
3 experts of the organizations answered AGECO questions. collection at a large enterprise level.

Steps to determining the Accuracy Score

The basic steps to determine the Accuracy Score are determined by the components
Timeframe, Type and Methodology described in the previous section. With that
information, an Accuracy Score can be determined for the SAFA Performance Report.
» Determine quality level of each indicator and assign score. After rating the performance
for an indicator, consider the quality of the data used for the assessment. Assign scores
per indicator based on whether the data is “high”, “moderate” or “low” quality.
» Calculate the average at sub-theme level. Once Accuracy Scores have been assigned
to all indicators in a sub-theme, an average score can be calculated for the sub-theme
as a whole. A mathematical average may then be taken for each sub-theme by adding
up the total points and dividing by the total number of indicators. If this math results
in ½ points, users are encouraged to round down to the lower score.
» Calculate the average at theme and overall level. After all sub-themes have been
scored, accuracy scores can be assessed at the theme level, and a final overall score for
the SAFA assessment can be established as well, using the same principles.
The final overall Accuracy Score will be reflected in the SAFA Performance Report. A
simple checklist can help in calculating the data quality Accuracy Score.
DATA QUALITY PER CRITERIA CHECKLIST ACCURACY

INDICATOR SCORE
High quality data Is data current? Maximum 1-2 years old.
Is it primary data collected directly for SAFA? 3
rd
Is it primary data from previous 3 party audit or sustainability tool?
Moderate quality Is it primary data older than 2 years, but considered still reliable?
data 2
Is it secondary data?
Low quality Is it primary data older than 5 years?
data 1
Are they estimations or proxies?
Selecting indicators and rating thresholds

For conducting a SAFA, indicators are specific measurements or assessments that provide
evidence as to whether or not a certain condition exists. By using indicators, an entity can
demonstrate their level of sustainability performance on the SAFA themes and sub-themes.

There are different understandings of what a metric, indicator and performance indicator
consist of. In an effort to create a common vocabulary, SAFA defines a set of terms that
will form the basis of the framework and assessment:
» An indicator provides evidence that a condition exists, or certain results have or have
not been achieved, and can be either quantitative or qualitative.
» a metric refers to a unit of measurement that is quantitative.
Types of indicators
All indicators are not created equally and provide different evidence depending on the type.
» Performance-based indicators, also called results-oriented or outcome indicators.
Performance based indicators are focused on the results of compliance with an
objective and can measure the performance of an operation, identify trends and
communicate results.
» Practice-based indicators, also called prescriptive or process indicators. These
indicators prescribe that the necessary tools and systems be in place to ensure best
practices. These indicators are process, rather than outcome-oriented. For example, these
indicators assume that having health and safety management systems in place leads
to better management of health and safety issues. The cause-effect between a given
practice and a result is however never precise. In fact, there is no science agreement on
most important topics, such as the cause-effect of management practices on greenhouse
gases and climate change. Thus, one can assume that a practice may yield a desired
result but with a substantial margin error.
» Target-based indicators. These indicators focus on whether the operation has plans,
policies or monitoring, with targets and ratings based on steps towards implementing them.
SAFA default indicators strive to be measurable, verifiable performance-based metrics.
These indicators focus on outcomes or results of the entity; do not prescribe certain
practices, as what matters is effective delivery of sustainability. In fact, it is reaching the
sub-theme objective that matters, while a multitude of means is permitted to achieve that
objective, including innovations. However, there are sometimes scientific and economic
limitations (particularly for small-scale producers) inherent in some types or contexts of
performance measurements. In these instances, SAFA proposes default indicators that
are practice-based that have been correlated to performance outcomes (best management
practices), which are particularly more appropriate for small-scale producers.

Example Box 12. Using practice-based indicators as proxy for performance data
Occasionally when performance data is not available, » Estimates regarding boat refueling and whether this
SAFA provides an option for users to determine a rating was decreasing over time relative to catch.
by evaluating their practices. During the pilot projects, » Investments in improved equipment efficiency (e.g.
Ahik Kai, a virtual marketing and sales platform for motor size and age).
indigenous foods in New Zealand, found that they had » Whether a choice was made to use an available
to use this option. Ahik Kai platform is a social enter- carbon-neutral electricity supplier for processing.
prise established by a Maori tribal council, Ngai Tahu. » Whether a choice was made to use a carbon-neutral
The platform is designed to assist in the economic and packaging supplier.
social development of family enterprises. It is a new and The amount of fuel consumption became apparent
developing initiative and currently consists of families through identifying how often refueling took place, while
producing traditional foods. the levels of efficiency became apparent through the effi-
For their assessment, the indicator on “Reduction of ciency of equipment and a demonstrated awareness of
GHG emissions” was not possible to analyze with perfor- practices to reduce fuel consumption. Finally, the choice
mance data. The enterprises operate at a cottage-industry of carbon neutral suppliers indicated the level of commit-
scale and there was not the capacity to gather and record ment to greenhouse gas reduction.
all of the primary data required to measure against this The assessors were able to obtain information about
indicator. Instead, the assessor looked at the enterprise’s these practices by conducting interviews, rather than by
practices, beginning by assessing which practices were using tools or tests, which allowed the assessment to go
related to GHG emissions. The primary source of GHG forward. In the end, Ahik Kai was able to establish a
emissions from the enterprises concerned fuel consump- rating for this indicator using practices as a proxy for
tion associated with harvesting and fishing, with small performance data. In addition, the assessors noted after
amounts of electricity associated with processing and their pilot experience that beginning with interviews about
packaging. The assessor considered the following prac- practices had been a good place to start in raising aware-
tices which were in place: ness among their members of sustainability issues and
» Measures taken to reduce fuel consumption over time options for continual improvement.
(e.g. efficient navigation and boat operation).
SAFA includes a hierarchy of indicators as outlined in Figure 9. Performance-based

indicators are more relevant and effective than practice-based indicators in demonstrating
performance and impacts and are thus, at the “top of the pyramid”. Where no relevant
practices are implemented, SAFA looks for the lowest indicator of intent to improve
specifically target-based indicators. These are necessarily at the “bottom of the pyramid”.

Figure 10. Hierarchy of indicators
Performance-based indicators
(trend and status)
Practice-based indicators
Target-based indicators
Target-based Practice-based Performance-based

indicators indicators indicators
SAFA’s default indicators were developed based on what expert analysis considers
to be the most critical individual components of a sub-theme to be measured in order to
assess sustainability at the sub-theme level. Default indicators are applicable at the macro
level – meaning to all enterprise sizes and types, and in all contexts. Default indicators
serve the purpose of providing standardized metrics to guide future assessments on
sustainability. However, default indicators contain only the frame for the rating scale.
Within the Guidelines, default indicators can be rated at the top level of sustainability
performance (dark green score) and unacceptable level of performance (red score), but
they do not contain full rating scales (as this is only possible at a contextualized level).
The primary goal of default indicators is to measure or assess performance. However,
in some sub-themes, assessing performance may require access to data that is difficult
for certain users to collect, or may be currently impossible, particularly for small-scale
producers. At the same time, another challenge facing performance indicators is that in
some cases one metric or measurement is not enough to provide a satisfactory analysis of
sustainable performance. This is particularly true for the environmental dimension which
includes multiple types of indicators for all of the sub-themes.

All of the SAFA default indicators can be found in the separate document “SAFA
Indicators”. In this document, each default indicator is detailed in terms of: an overall
description; relevance to the enterprise type (i.e. size) and supply chain level; unit of
measurement; how to measure; rating; limitations; and sources of further information on
that specific indicator.
The result of this phase is a list of the best indicators for sustainability performance,
based on the unique qualities of the entity’s operation type, location and surroundings.
Determinating thresholds
SAFA seeks to offer a fair playing field to assessing all types of enterprises across regions
and sectors. While flexibility is required to account for the diversity of settings, subjectivity
needs to be minimized in order to secure fairness of the SAFA outcomes. The SAFA scoring
system is crucial to this end.
Indicator rating
SAFA offers a 5 scale rating for performance. Generally the best rating and unacceptable
practices are defined for each sub-theme (see Part 3), with the three middle ratings to be
defined by the user based on context. This is detailed per indicator in the complement
“SAFA Indicators”.
PERFORMANCE PERCENTAGE SCORES

BEST 80-100 percent
GOOD 60-80 percent
MODERATE 40-60 percent
LIMITED 20-40 percent
UNACCEPTABLE 0-20 percent
Indicator weighting
In order that all sub-themes are weighted equally, it is necessary to weight indicators in
instances where there are multiple indicators at the sub-theme level. When sub-themes
only have one indicator, no weighting is necessary. The main dimension where weighting
is a critical step is the environmental dimension, for which all of the sub-themes have
three or more indicators.

The different types of indicators within the SAFA system have varying weight in terms of
their likelihood to fulfill the sub-theme objective. Performance indicators can be considered
very accurate, because they require the collection of primary data on the enterprise. Proxy
indicators (practice indicators) however are less accurate, as they give a good estimate of
performance but do not measure actual impacts. Finally target, policy or documentation
indicators for example, do not necessarily reflect performance. For these reasons, SAFA has
developed a system to differentiate indicators types. The goal of this system is to give higher
weight to performance indicators.
When discussing ratings, SAFA differentiates between rating in the environmental
dimension, where different types of indicators (target, practice and performance) coexist,
versus all other dimensions where indicators do not follow a hierarchy but have equal
standing within each sub-theme.
Rating sub-themes in the governance, economic and social dimensions

All relevant default indicators have to be chosen for a SAFA assessment in the governance,
economic and social dimensions. Given that all sub-themes have the same weight, and in
several sub-themes, more indicators are present, the weight is distributed evenly among
indicators within each sub-theme in these dimensions, as the following table shows.
IF NUMBER OF INDICATORS PER SUB-THEME IS: THEN INDICATOR WEIGHT IN THE GOVERNANCE,
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DIMENSIONS
1 100 percent
2 50 percent
3 33 percent
4 25 percent
Most sub-themes will receive the same score as assessed for the indicator, as there is
only one indicator (red/orange/yellow/green/dark green) and no need for weighting. In
case there are two indicators in a sub-theme in these dimensions, the mean has to be taken
of the two scores, which have equal weight in the overall sub-theme score. If the mean is
not possible, the lower score needs to be given (for instance if one indicator rates “yellow”
and the other indicators rates “orange”, than the sub-theme will be rated as “orange”). In
the few instances where a sub-theme has three and four indicators, the same rules apply:
taking the mean or the lower score. An easy way of calculating this is giving points to
each color code:

RATING SCORE PERCENTAGE SCORE

BEST 5 80-100 percent
GOOD 4 60-80 percent
MODERATE 3 40-60 percent
LIMITED 2 20-40 percent
UNACCEPTABLE 1 0-20 percent
For example if there are three indicators in a sub-theme:

» The maximum potential score is 3 indicators x 5 points (best/dark green) = 15
» The actual ratings are 2 yellow indicators (2x3) and one dark green indicator (1x5) = 11
» Divide the actual total score by the maximum total score (11/15) = 0.73
» The final sub-theme score is 73 percent. This is between 60 and 80 percent, which
corresponds to dark green rating, or good performance.
Indicators which were deemed irrelevant with clear rationale could be omitted, thus
changing the total maximum score for that sub-theme in question. For instance, if one
indicator is irrelevant in a sub-theme which has four indicators, then the maximum score
will be 15 (3 x 5) instead of 20 (4 x 5).
However, if indicators are omitted which were not deemed irrelevant with a justification
provided for each one, the resulting rating for the omitted indicator is 0 percent or
unacceptable. This score must be averaged with other indicator scores in calculating the
sub-theme rating. Thus, if a sub-theme contains only one indicator, and it was omitted without
justification, the sub-theme rating is 0 percent, or unacceptable. If a sub-theme contains three
indicators, and one is omitted without justification, a 0 percent or unacceptable score must
be averaged with the other two indicator ratings to determine the overall sub-theme rating.
Rating sub-themes in the environmental dimension

The environmental dimension sub-themes have multiple indicators and indicator types:
target, practice and performance. The majority of the sub-themes have 3 or more indicators.
This difference from the other dimensions has multiple reasons. While the combination
of target, practice and performance indicators are always the “preferred” SAFA approach,
alternative indicators are necessary to address the barriers and challenges of small-scale
producers outlined in the “Small-scale producers and SAFA” section. In addition, there is
some research and scientific evidence linking good agriculture practices to performance
done around the world.

Example Box 13. Rating Indicators 4
One of the most important steps in the SAFA assessment matter in the root zone above 5.16%. The prevailing soil
is carefully rating indicators. This can be a challenge, texture was medium; not too fine and not too coarse. The
because even once the contextualized ratings are estab- pH was between 5.5-7.3, which is more or less neutral.
lished, determining how to evaluate the data collected will The soils were fertilized only with natural materials so
require careful decision making. that no salts, which are usually the basis of chemical
In the SAFA pilots, PRONATUR, a cooperative in Peru, substances, could have any impact on microbial life. An
assessed six of their member farms. For this group, the average of 25 tons of compost was applied per hectare
indicator “Nutrient Balances” was a challenge, as they per year, enriched with goat dung or guano de isla and
found they had no data available about actual content of transported. The final step was analyzing this data to
plant-available nitrogen, phosphorus or any other nutrient. determine a rating for this indicator. The rating frame-
The exact indicator question given by SAFA was: “what work given in the pilot SAFA tool was linked to the share of
share of your land is sufficiently supplied with macro- land with sufficient macro- and micronutrients supply in
and micronutrients?” To come up with the most accurate percentage. Though they had not been able to conduct any
answer, PRONATUR first identified the factors that deter- lab-based soil analysis on exactly this question, they were
mine if soils do have enough nutrients. They determined able to assess their data and could assume that the four
that it was mainly the soil organic matter in combina- components they researched represented a good baseline
tion with the structure of the soil, the pH of the soil and for the “best” score, as the practices were applied to
what was added as natural fertilizer. Based on this list the entire cultivated area and the performance on the
of components, they took the next step of collection of researched components was very good. In this manner,
all the data they could find to match these components. PRONTAUR was able to carefully assign an accurate rating
On average, the six assessed farms had a soil organic based on a compilation of data.
Rating indicators took a different shape for the company “Greenhouse Gases” where taken into account. Therefore,
Allos, an organic manufacturer based in Germany, who a comprehensive literature review was conducted for the
called on the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture different measures.
(FiBL) to complete the SAFA pilot: rating the SAFA indica- They found that the main advantages of this approach
tors for GHG emissions was particularly tricky. The asses- were that benchmarks could be set in a more plausible
sors began working with the indicator “GHG Reduction” way, based on company practices and activities and
by asking: what functional unit to use as a baseline? And, possible flaws were excluded in CO 2 calculations (e.g.
which company or farm to compare themselves with for with respect to N2O emissions from fertilizer application).
rating purposes? After conducting research into popularly The assessors then collected data on the company and
used GHG measurements and their industry, they decided its context. Everything relevant with respect to the sub-
not to calculate GHG emissions directly but to consider theme in question was taken into account. For instance,
all measures that the company implemented that have the electricity mix in Germany was relevant for judging
an impact on GHG emissions and assign a rating based the performance of Allos. The assessors then determined
on these. For instance, the share of renewable energies the rating by normalizing scores on a scale from 0 to 100
used and the share of land under reduced tillage were percent, with 100 percent representing a state in which
taken as components of this indicator. As Allos owned a everything necessary was done by the company to ensure
wind turbine, the share of energy produced by this wind that the objective of a GHG sub-theme was fully achieved,
turbine was considered. Only measures which showed and 0 percent representing a state in which nothing was
a scientifically proven impact on the SAFA sub-theme done, or even adverse actions were taken.
4 Unlike this present version, the Test Version of the SAFA Guidelines was flexible on rating indicators in
order to gauge users’ creativity and derive lessons for the current Guidelines.

The hierarchy of the indicator types needs to be reflected in the overall rating of each
environmental sub-theme. All indicators need to be chosen, with small-scale producers
allowed the exception. Small-scale producers, for whom data for some performance
indicators may be too difficult to collect, can omit the performance indicators, with
documentation in the SAFA Performance Report. If small-scale producers omit a
performance indicator because of lack of available data or other reasons, they must justify
why they have omitted this indicator. Then the omitted indicator may be considered
excluded from both the sub-theme rating and the total possible sub-theme accuracy score.
If a regular enterprise omits a relevant performance indicator, this is not the case. In
this case the omitted indicator receives a 0 percent or unacceptable score automatically,
which affects the overall sub-theme rating. The total potential Accuracy Score for the
sub-theme does not change, meaning that the Accuracy Score will reflect the omission of
this indicator.
All SAFA sub-themes have equal weight and all environmental sub-themes have at
least three indicators of different type and thus, weight:
» Performance indicators receive the most weight.
» Practice-based indicators or those that are determined to be a valid proxy for
performance or impact are given the second most weight - except for small-scale
producers for whom performance indicators may be impossible to measure (for them,
practice-based indicators could represent the highest in the hierarchy).
» Target-based indicators based on documentation, presence or existence of policies,
plans, and targets or monitoring are given the lowest amount of weight.
Table 5 highlights the different rating scales for the hierarchy of indicators in the
environmental dimension.

Table 5. SAFA indicator types and rating scales for the environmental dimension
INDICATOR TYPE AND DESCRIPTION POTENTIAL RATING SCALES

RESPONSES
Performance indicators are considered those Yes/no/partial 80 percent or more/Yes - SAFA defined
that take a direct measurement, utilize primary Percentage
data from the operation itself, or otherwise 60 percent - 80 percent - User Defined
calculate the actual impacts of the operation on 40 percent - 60 percent Partial - User Defined
the sustainability issue.
20 percent - 40 percent - User Defined
20 percent or Less/ No - SAFA defined
Practice-based indicators are those that Yes/no/partial Examples of better practices – SAFA defined
identify certain practices which, based on List of
general industry consensus or secondary practices List of practices - User Defined
data (such as scientific evidence), have been List of unacceptable practices – SAFA defined
determined to be a proxy for a certain level
of performance and thus considered “better
practice”. It may also be easier for small-scale
operations to collect data on practices than on
measurements for performance.
Target indicators refer to indicators regarding Yes/no/partial Written plan and steps taken towards targets
the existence of a plan or policy with a particular
sWritten plan available to all stakeholders but
sustainability target, such as “GHG reduction
by 10 percent”. The intention behind these no steps towards target OR
sSet target, steps taken but no written plan OR
indicators is that the enterprise has a plan with
sWritten plan, steps taken but not available to
a target that matches the SAFA sustainability
goal for that sub-theme. Primarily used in all stakeholders
environmental dimension. No requirements met
Thus, the following weighting applies to the environmental indicators:

» Target (T) indicators = 1 point
» Practice (R) indicators = 2 points
» Performance (P) indicators = 3 points.
The following combination of indicators exists in the environmental sub-themes. These
points are given only in case the best scores are achieved in individual indicators. Thus,
the table represents the maximum potential score per sub-theme.
COMBINATION OF INDICATOR TYPES IN THE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL INDICATOR POINTS IN THE

ENVIRONMENTAL DIMENSION ENVIRONMENTAL DIMENSION
T- R - P 1+2+3= 6 points
T- R - P - P 1+2+3+3 = 9 points
R-P-P-P 2+3+3+3 = 11 points
R-P-P-P-P 2+3+3+3+3 = 14 points
T-R-P-P-P 1+2+3+3+3 = 12 points

The rating is different when the best score is not achieved in any of the indicators:
RATING TARGET INDICATOR POINTS PRACTICE INDICATOR POINTS PERFORMANCE INDICATOR POINTS
BEST 1 2 3
GOOD 0.75 1.5 2.25
MODERATE 0.5 1 1.5
LIMITED 0.25 0.5 0.75
UNACCEPTABLE 0 0 0
All three types of indicators, target, practice and performance, have a 5-scale rating.
The rating weight increases incrementally as the score goes up from unacceptable to best.
As an example, if we take a sub-theme with three indicators (Target-Practice-Performance) and
a SAFA assessment of Target scored dark green, Practice dark green and Performance yellow:
» total maximum potential score is 1+2+3 = 6
» total actual score is 1 (Target best/dark green) + 2 (Practice best/dark green) +
1 (Performance moderate/yellow) = 4
» final score for the sub-theme is 4/6 = 66 percent.
This is between 60-80 percent, which corresponds to the good/green rating.
If any indicator is left unanswered, it is treated the same as unanswered indicators in
the other dimensions. In SAFA, all indicators that are relevant must be used. If an indicator
is not deemed irrelevant with a justification, or the enterprise is not a smallholder who
justifiably cannot access certain data, any unanswered indicator will automatically be
considered an unacceptable or 0 percent rating.
Rating for small-scale producers and irrelevant indicators in the

environmental dimension
Small-scale producers may opt to omit performance indicators. However, unlike with
other enterprises, when small-scale producers omit the performance indicators they do not
automatically receive a 0 percent or unacceptable rating for this omission. Instead, small-
scale producers will be asked to justify why they were unable to access necessary data to
complete the indicator.
The same applies to those indicators which are not relevant to an enterprise. This may
be as a result of the industry, geography, or other reasons. If an indicator was deemed

irrelevant during contextualization (e.g. indicators dealing with soils may be irrelevant
for some fishery operations), the omission of this indicator does not receive a 0 percent
or unacceptable rating. Instead the assessor must explain why and how the indicator
was irrelevant.
Example: a small-scale producer determines that he cannot feasibly calculate the
performance indicator “GHG balance” in the Greenhouse Gases sub-theme. As a
Performance indicator, it has a potential maximum score of 3. As a consequence, 3 should
be subtracted from the total maximum potential score for that sub-theme. The final
report should list and provide rationale for all indicators which were omitted during the
assessment either due to: (i) small-scale producers not being able to collect data; or ii)
irrelevance of the indicator question to the enterprise.
An enterprise may choose to only use certain indicators in each sub-theme, if certain
types of data are unavailable. However, the overall score and sub-theme rating will both
be lower than if all indicators are chosen. The enterprise can therefore receive the highest
score by selecting all of the default indicators in their assessment.
Rating at the theme level

To obtain a performance score at the theme level, several sub-theme scores have to be
aggregated into a single score. Each sub-theme score weights the same. The entity should
calculate an arithmetic mean of the sub-theme scores, or if not available on the lowest score
basis. The following guidelines should be applied:
» The calculation process, including rules for aggregation and weighting of indicator
values - must be transparent, with all decisions presented and justified in the
Performance Report.
» Data insufficiencies can sometimes require the estimation of certain values; in order
to ensure transparency, the Accuracy Score should be included at sub-theme and
theme level.
» Decisions on exclusions must be justified and described.
During the interpretation of results with regard to context, a holistic approach should be
adopted. The assessed entity should be perceived and understood as a whole because of the
inter-relationships of themes and sub-themes. For example, results for the Freshwater, Land
and Biodiversity themes may be linked with the same activities, such as soil tillage, use

of crop protection products and wastewater discharge. Such linkages should be identified
and addressed explicitly, as the resulting synergies, trade-offs and side effects of activities
will affect the planning and implementation of improvement measures.
All types of aggregation have in common that a gain in communicability is
accompanied by a loss of information and a risk of relevant information being masked. All
aggregated reporting should be transparent with any decision or judgment call justified
clearly in the SAFA Performance Report. Sub-themes and themes with low scores are
useful for identifying areas of improvement and should be highlighted in the SAFA
Performance Report.

STEP 4. REPORTING
STEP 4. OUTPUTS
» A visual representation of SAFA results

» A complete SAFA Performance Report including boundaries, hot spot
issues and data quality
» Disclosure of procedure
» Critical review
RESOURCES All documentation notes from Steps 1-3.
TOOLS Appendix B. SAFA Performance Report checklist.
Step 4 activities consist of combining the documentation from the previous steps into a
Performance Report for either internal purposes or external purposes.
Visualization
Sustainability is a complex topic and even with aggregation of the over hundred indicators
and 58 sub-themes, understanding all of this data can be challenging and difficult to
communicate internally or externally. Trying to find related content can also be difficult
and understanding the relationships in a two dimensional spreadsheet is daunting. But
data visualizations can make all of that much easier, allowing to see the concepts and
relationships. Data Visualization is a method of presenting information in a graphical form.
A possible illustration of the overall sustainability performance and sustainability gaps
is provided in Figure 11. This visualization of the SAFA sustainability performance ratings
is depicted in the polygon of a hypothetical enterprise. The thick black line connects theme
performance following a traffic light color code: best/good (green), needs improvement
(yellow/orange) or unacceptable (red).

Figure 11. SAFA sustainability polygon (example of an entreprise performance)
HOLIST
IC MAN
ERE
AT M O S P H
AGE
RU
LE
MENT
OF
ER
PA
RT
WAT
L AW
IC
IP
AT
ND
AC
IO
CO ITY
LA
N
UN RS
TA B E
ILI DIV
TY BIO
GY
S& ENER
CORPORA RIAL
T E E T H IC
S M AT E
CULTURAL DIVERSITY
SAFA AN IM AL WE LFAR E
INVE
LT H STM
& HEA ENT
ETY
N SAF TY
VU
A UI LN
HUM EQ ER
AB
ILI
TY
PR
TS
OD
GH
LOCA
ICES
UC
RI
DECENT LIVELIHOOD
TQ
UR
L EC
RACT
UA
BO
LIT
LA
ONOM
YA
ING P
ND
Y
INF
TRAD
OR
MA
FA I R
TIO
N
BEST GOOD MODERATE LIMITED UNACCETABLE

The final report

The final report is a synthesis of the SAFA assessment, including definition of scope,
boundary setting, qualified themes’ ratings (with the Accuracy Scores), hotspot issues
details, irrelevant sub-themes justified and areas for improvement identified.
Disclosure of procedure
The disclosure of procedure and methodology information should be transparent and
documented, regardless of intended use. Details on the selected system boundaries,
indicator, thresholds, data sources, inclusion of data from other sources including
assumptions and performance ratings should be included. In the presence of irrelevant
sub-themes and where a boundary is narrowed, the SAFA reporting needs to be transparent
on what has been left-out from the assessment, with a clear documented rationale. Where
evidence does not exist for material or hot spot issues, performance ratings should disclose
assumptions and risks associated with the issue. The Report should identify areas for
improvements based on the contextualization and ratings.
The assessment’s accuracy depends on the data and methodology of calculation used,
reflected in the Accuracy Score at sub-theme, theme and overall level. If a company wishes
to communicate the SAFA report outside of internal purposes, the complete report must be
shared. This includes information on the selected system used for boundaries, indicators,
thresholds, data sources, inclusion of data from other audits, and stakeholder’s relations.
Critical review
A critical review fosters the quality, credibility and transparency of the assessment. The
information and ratings included in a report should be supported by documentation that
could be reviewed and understood by someone other than the Report author. The review
should provide all information needed for a critical appraisal by interested stakeholders.
This is in line with the procedure outlines in LCA (ISO, 2009) and the G4 Guidelines (GRI,
2013), the transparency principles of the Bellagio STAMP (IISD, 2009) and the ISEAL
Impacts Code (ISEAL Alliance, 2010).
Organizations can use a variety of approaches to enhance the credibility of their reports
depending on the use of the results (see Table 7). In a SAFA, the critical review can be
handled at 2 levels:

» Level 1 – where a SAFA is being undertaken for internal use, by small-scale producers
or less formal purposes:
»
Preference for the use of performance-based indicators and if these are not available,
practice - or target-based indicators can be used.
»
Preference for primary (high quality data) and if this is not available, secondary data
(moderate or low quality) can be used.
»
For the internal assessment of the SAFA, it may be sufficient to have an internal
committee provide the review and feedback.
» Level 2 – where a SAFA is being used for business to business communication or
business to consumer communication:
»
Use of performance-based indicators, to the extent possible.
»
Use of primary data (high quality data) to verify indicators, where ever possible.
»
External verification of the SAFA assessment shall be undertaken by a suitably
qualified 3rd party.
Type, comprehensiveness and complexity of the review should be defined during the
SAFA scoping phase.
Sharing of results
Enterprises undertaking a SAFA have the possibility of benefiting from the experiences of
others and sharing results. This could be across supply chains or within a supply chain with
different suppliers, creating valuable lessons learned. This will allow enterprises operating
in the same region or production/processing sector to build learning on best practices and
establishing thresholds. Since sustainability is often considered a pre-competitive issue by
the private sector, as testified by the cooperation of numerous companies in the frame of
multi-stakeholder initiatives (e.g. WEF, 2010), mutual access to SAFA-related information
is in the interest of participating companies.
Use of results
SAFA is intended primarily for self-evaluation and internal communication about
sustainability performance for self-improvement. It is possible to use the SAFA
Performance Report for communication with other businesses to establish a common
understanding of sustainability aspects and for this, the use of the Level 2 compliance
review is encouraged.

Example Box 14. Use of results for self-improvement

One of the unique benefits of the SAFA report is the After the data collection and indicator, sub-theme
visualization of performance across dimensions and and theme rating phases were completed, the final
themes. This can be a helpful mechanism for entities polygon revealed that the entity was performing well
of all sizes to identify hotspots of sustainability perfor- in some areas they did not expect to, and not as well
mance. While this is not a mandatory step in the SAFA in others that they had overlooked. The assessor was
assessment, it is an opportunity that one Community able to easily generate a one page report on hotspot
Supported Fishery operation in the pilot phase chose to areas - both of high performance and of low perfor-
take advantage of. mance - simply by using the polygon as a guide, and
As a small-scale operation, this entity did not regu- reviewing the performance data for indicators in each
larly conduct sustainability assessments of their entire hotspot theme.
business. However, their mission was sustainability This hotspot analysis gave the entity a starting
focused and their shareholders and stakeholders were place for addressing certain sustainability issues in
interested in increased sustainability. Therefore, one of the coming year. If the entity completes a new SAFA
their motivations to complete a SAFA assessment was to assessment, they will be able to use the same procedure
learn about what areas they were performing well in, and to compare hotspot performance from year to year and
what areas they could improve. measure any improvement.
SAFA results can be used for internal management, as well as learning and
communication purposes. For credibility, it is essential that the SAFA procedures and
results have a high degree of transparency. The completion of a SAFA assessment does
not allow the entity to use the logo of SAFA or FAO in any way that implies endorsement
or certification, as no one is verifying the claim. SAFA is not intended for business-to-
consumer communication, as public assurance requires that certain characteristics or
attributes of the product (or its production method), as laid down in specifications, be
observed. SAFA does not assess products or processes – but enterprises. However, reference
can be made to “Consistency with the SAFA principles and procedures” provided that the
assessment is made fully transparent in all its choices and customization (e.g. with regards
to boundaries, data sources, indicator selection, rating).

STEP 4. REPORTING
SAFA Guidelines for claims and communications are based on, but are not limited to,
the following:
» U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Guides for the Use of Environmental
Marketing Claims;
» Canadian Competition Bureau guidance PLUS 14021 Environmental claims - a guide
for industry and advertisers;
» United Kingdom’s Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
Green Claims – Practical Guidance How to Make a Good Environmental Claim;
» Consumers Union Greener Choices;
» The European Commission’s Claims Guidance 2000;
» ISO 14020 series ((14020, 14021, 14024, 14025) on environmental labels and declarations;
» Global Reporting Initiative Reporting Principles, GRI 4.
SAFA communication principles

» Self-declared claims shall be accurate, verifiable, relevant, able to be substantiated and
not misleading.
» Claims shall be based on scientific methodology that is sufficiently thorough and
comprehensive to support the claim and that produces accurate and reproducible results.
» Information concerning the procedure, methodology and any criteria used to support
claims shall be available and provided upon request to all interested parties.
» The formulation of claims shall take into consideration all relevant aspects of the life cycle
of the goods or service, although not necessarily considering a full life-cycle analysis.
Table 6. SAFA communication claims

LEVEL OF SAFA COMPLIANCE KEY AUDIENCE POTENTIAL SAFA REFERENCE
COMMUNICATION REVIEW LEVEL VEHICLES
Product Level 2 Consumer Labels on and off
NONE
product
Brands Level 2 Consumer, CSR report, company “Consistency with
staff, NGOs, website, media, in the SAFA principles and procedures”
media store marketing with report disclosure
Industry partners Level 2 Industry, CSR report, “Consistency with
including B2B Government, company websites, the SAFA principles and procedures”
NGOs, media media with report disclosure
Sustainability Level 1 Varies Websites, tools, “Aligned with
metric partners assessments the SAFA framework”

If the polygon is communicated through whatever communications vehicle, the

following must be shown next to the polygon:
» A box on boundary choice and cut-off criteria.
» Accuracy Score.
» Excluded indicators and sub-themes.
» Details on hotspot sub-themes and indicators.
See Appendix B: SAFA Performance Report Checklist.

SECTION THREE
SUSTAINABILITY
PROTOCOL
75
SECTION THREE. SUSTAINABILIT Y COMPONENTS
OVERVIEW OF SUSTAINABILITY DIMENSIONS

AND CONSTITUENT COMPONENTS
T he main objective of this section is to provide the background and rationale for the
SAFA sustainability dimensions, themes, sub-themes and indicators. This section
should be read in its entirety to understand the holistic approach of SAFA. It also
serves as a reference document for implementers of SAFA who need further details to
determine relevance or inclusion in their SAFA scope.
This section begins with an overview of the high level, overarching dimensions of
sustainability: good governance, environmental integrity, economic resilience and social
well-being. It is recognized that these dimensions are broad and encompass many aspects.
There are numerous definitions depending on the context (e.g. government, corporate,
individual producer). For the purposes of SAFA, a broad definition and aspects are covered by
this dimension. The scope of topics considered under each dimension is the SAFA Themes.
In the next section, each of the 21 sustainability themes are detailed including a
definition for the purposes of SAFA, relevance, goals and sub-themes and sub-theme
objectives with some suggestions on indicators. Summary tables can be found in each
Theme section.
The guiding vision of SAFA is that food and agriculture systems worldwide are
characterized by all four dimensions of sustainability: good governance, environmental
integrity, economic resilience and social well-being. These are each explored in the
following table.

GOOD GOVERNANCE
CORPORATE ETHICS Mission Statement Due Diligence
ACCOUNTABILITY Holistic Audits Responsibility Transparency
PARTICIPATION Stakeholder Dialogue Grievance Procedures Conflict Resolution
Remedy, Restoration &

RULE OF LAW Legitimacy Prevention Civic Responsibility Resource Appropriation
HOLISTIC MANAGEMENT Sustainability Management Plan Full-Cost Accounting
ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY
ATMOSPHERE Greenhouse Gases Air Quality
WATER Water Withdrawal Water Quality
LAND Soil Quality Land Degradation
BIODIVERSITY Ecosystem Diversity Species Diversity Genetic Diversity
MATERIALS AND ENERGY Material Use Energy Use Waste Reduction & Disposal
ANIMAL WELFARE AnimalHealth Freedom from Stress
ECONOMIC RESILIENCE
INVESTMENT Internal Investment Community Investment Long-Ranging Investment Profitability
Stability of
VULNERABILITY Production
Stability of Supply Stability of Market Liquidity Risk Management
PRODUCT QUALITY & INFORMATION Food Safety Food Quality Product Information
LOCAL ECONOMY Value Creation Local Procurement
SOCIAL WELL-BEING
DECENT LIVELIHOOD Quality of Life Capacity Development Fair Access to Means of Production
FAIR TRADING PRACTICES Responsible Buyers Rights of Suppliers
Freedom of Association and

LABOUR RIGHTS Employment Relations Forced Labour Child Labour Right to Bargaining
EQUITY Non Discrimination Gender Equality Support to

Vulnerable People
HUMAN SAFETY & HEALTH Workplace Safety and Health Provisions Public Health
CULTURAL DIVERSITY Indigenous Knowledge Food Sovereignty

SUSTAINABILITY THEME PROTOCOLS
T he sustainability theme protocols provide detailed guidance for each of the 21

SAFA sustainability themes. Each protocol includes examples of suitable indicators
to determine sustainability performance for the sub-themes.
Outline of SAFA sustainability theme protocols

» Definition of the theme: during the SAFA consultation phase, numerous definitions
and connotations were identified depending on context, purpose and use of the theme.
Focusing on the SAFA vision and purpose, a basic definition is proposed for orientation,
but not necessarily definitive.
» Relevance of the Theme to sustainability: importance of the theme to sustainable
development, and in particular to sustainable food and agriculture systems.
» Theme sustainability goal: translation of societal and higher-level goals to one
operational goal in the food and agriculture sector.
» Sub-themes objectives: translation of the theme goals to operational objectives at the
supply chain level. Examples of best performance and unacceptable conditions and
practices for each sub-theme are provided, along with examples of indicators.

GOOD GOVERNANCE
GOOD GOVERNANCE
G overnance is the process of making and implementing decisions (UNESCAP,

2009), be it in the environmental, economic or social spheres. Unless good
governance is seriously considered, sustainability will remain a mirage. For
SAFA, this includes the aspects of Corporate Ethics, Accountability, Participation, Rule
of Law and Holistic Management.
GOOD GOVERNANCE
CORPORATE ETHICS Mission Statement Due Diligence
ACCOUNTABILITY Holistic Audits Responsibility Transparency
PARTICIPATION Stakeholder Dialogue Grievance Procedures Conflict Resolution
Remedy, Restoration &

RULE OF LAW Legitimacy Prevention Civic Responsibility Resource Appropriation
HOLISTIC MANAGEMENT Sustainability Management Plan Full-Cost Accounting
While governance is not traditionally included as a separate dimension of sustainable

development, the UN Indicators of Sustainable Development Indicator framework
(versions of 1996, 2001 and 2007) presented sustainability themes according to the social,
environmental, economic and institutional dimensions. SAFA expands on the earlier
institutional dimension of this UN framework and builds on existing corporate social
responsibility tools in order to establish the governance dimension. The weight given to
governance in the SAFA Guidelines is in line with other business approaches, such as the
UN Principles for Responsible Investment, the UN Global Compact (UNGC/IFC, 2009)
and the GRI Guidelines (GRI, 2013).

GOOD GOVERNANCE
The governance dimension of SAFA revolves around an understanding of Good

Corporate Governance (GCG) that explicitly takes into account all affected stakeholders.
SAFA has taken forward the governance dimension, particularly because SAFA users
are concerned with value chains and stakeholder relations, in which good corporate
governance is of paramount importance.
An enterprise committed to sustainable development needs a sustainability-oriented
governance structure, in which content, values and responsibilities of the company are
clearly stated and through which transparency and accountability are ensured. It organizes
processes that facilitate an active participation of all stakeholders. Further elements include
a strict orientation towards legitimacy and the rule of law and a rigorous sustainability
management. A new element brought by SAFA is “Full-Cost Accounting”, a still nascent
approach embedded in the intent of all those striving for triple bottom line considerations.
A business purpose that contradicts or ignores the sustainability principle will not lead to
a sustainably operating enterprise in the long run.

G1 GOOD GOVERNANCE
THEME G1 – CORPORATE ETHICS

Definition of Theme
Corporate Ethics in SAFA refers to the sustainability principle being embedded in the fabric
of the whole enterprise. Sub-themes included are: Mission Statement; and Due Diligence.
Relevance of the Theme to Sustainability

Corporate ethics includes the formulation of a statement that goes beyond profit to embrace
sustainability and is based on a vision of a future that is attractive to all stakeholders
(Maak and Ulrich, 2007). This is the foundation of a successful, sustainable and integrity-
oriented enterprise culture (Loew and Braun, 2006; Erwin, 2010). The mission statement
should state in credible, clear and authentic words, how the enterprise intends to contribute
to sustainable development. For small-scale producers who may be illiterate or just too
overworked to write things down, a written statement is not feasible. However, illiterate
small-scale producers may have strong and clear missions based on deeply held values
and as members of a community of shared values. It is important to acknowledge this
kind of mission statement along with the more formal statements one expects from a
larger farm or enterprise – especially because in practice, the small operation may have
reached a higher level of agro-ecological sustainability and continual improvement than
the bigger enterprise. For the operational level, principles are defined through a Code of
Conduct (Maak and Ulrich, 2007). The Code of Conduct provides clear guidance in concrete
situations, is authoritative, without limiting scopes of action too much, and fosters desirable
behavior. It provides management guidance and priorities for decision making in situations
where trade-offs between the dimensions of sustainable development are encountered.
Enterprises in the agriculture and food sector have a wide range of governance structures,
from a virtual absence of governance to highly sophisticated systems. Governance is also
expressed and practiced differently in different cultures. Traditional and tribal cultures
use forms which do not fit current Western definitions but which nevertheless can be
shown to be effective in managing sustainable development. Size and market power of
enterprises in the same sector, region or value chain are equally variable. This often results
in major imbalances and disadvantages, particularly where small enterprises depend on
large firms that are better organized, but lack a business purpose going beyond profit.
Larger size implies a larger sphere of impact and influence and thus, also of responsibility.
Therefore, large, well-organized enterprises should contribute to the improvement of

G1 G1.1 GOOD GOVERNANCE
market structures and to the sustainability of production of their suppliers, rather than
capitalizing on their weaknesses. In small enterprises typical of agriculture and fisheries,
operating culture depends on the personal integrity and values of the entrepreneur, who
is personally liable and responsible for the enterprise. Due diligence procedures can help
anticipate and prevent negative impacts on environment and people, and thus protect the
enterprise’s image. The SAFA goals on governance structure are relevant insofar as they
inspire reflections on values and principles.
G1 CORPORATE ETHICS
o Theme Goal
The enterprise has explicit, publicly available sustainability objectives and
effective means of implementation and verification, as well as of identification
and proactive addressing of major sustainability challenges.
Sub-theme G1.1 Mission Statement
f Sub-theme objective
The enterprise has made its commitment to all areas of sustainability clear to
the public, to all personnel and other stakeholders through publishing a mission
statement or other similar declaration (such as a code of conduct or vision
statement) that is binding for management and employees or members.
C Description
The Mission Statement is the highest-level governance statement and should
proclaim a commitment to sustainability. To be mission driven, the enterprise must
prove the mission is evident in enterprise codes and policies and the governance
body can demonstrate the influence of the mission in informing and developing
policy and practice. It should be noted however that having a mission that includes
sustainability principles is not evidence of sustainable practice. Mission statements
can also be used to project an image of sustainable practice beyond the actual effort
of the enterprise.

z
Examples of positive conditions and practices that fulfill this objective:
» 100 percent of employees, or members of a group of small-scale producers, are
able to explain the enterprise’s mission and identify how it influences the work
which they do.
» 100 percent of governance body and senior management can identify the
influence of the mission sustainability commitments in the key decisions and
processes of the enterprise.
z
Unacceptable conditions in relation to this objective:
» The enterprise or group of producers has no articulated mission.
» The mission of the enterprise or group of producers does not address sustainability.
» The key planning and reporting documents of the enterprise, or undocumented
rituals of the group of producers, show no evidence of sustainability principles.
» The governance body and senior management are unable to identify any
examples of mission driven decision making.
» Significant decisions of the enterprise and its practices are contrary to mission.
i Example or Default Indicators

G 1.1.1 Mission Explicitness
Is the mission of the enterprise articulated in all enterprise reporting and
understood by all employees or members?

G 1.1.2 Mission Driven
Is the enterprise’s mission evident in codes and policies, and can the governance
body demonstrate the impact of its mission on developing policy and practice?
Sub-theme G1.2 Due Diligence
The enterprise is pro-active in considering its external impacts before
making decisions that have long-term impacts for any area of sustainability.
This is accomplished through the enterprise following appropriate
procedures such as risk assessment and others that ensure that stakeholders
are informed, engaged and respected.

C Description
Due diligence involves the proactive consideration of the external impacts before
making decisions that have long-term impacts for any pillar; environmental,
economic, social or governance of sustainability. This is accomplished through the
enterprise following appropriate procedures such as risk assessment and others that
ensure that stakeholders are informed, engaged and respected. Larger enterprises
will typically have more due diligence systems. However, smaller enterprises can
have systems such as third party audits in production and processing that address
external impact and can be used.
z
» Accomplishment of all components of appropriate risk assessment, which
includes analysis of internal and external risks, as well as external impact on
others in all areas of sustainability.
» Has not experienced any major losses or caused major negative impacts as a
result of unmitigated risks.
z
» The enterprise has no evidence of proactive risk management.
» The enterprise has precedents of unsustainable goods and services procurement,
or of acceptance of funds from unsustainable enterprises.
» The enterprise has records of regular losses as a result of unmitigated risks.
» The stakeholders of the enterprise (e.g. staff, local community) are regularly
exposed to negative impacts as a result of the enterprise’s operations.
i Example or Default Indicator

G 1.2.1 Due Diligence
Does the enterprise have a clear policy for impact assessment, appropriate tools
for assessment and is it able to show that these are being used to inform decisions
which will have a long term impact on area of sustainability?

G2 GOOD GOVERNANCE
THEME G2 – ACCOUNTABILITY
Definition of Theme
Accountability in SAFA refers to the disclosure of credible information about strategy,
goals and performance to those who base their actions and decisions on this information.
Sub-themes included are: Holistic Audits; Responsibility; and Transparency.
Relevance of the Theme to sustainability

Shareholders, contractors, consumers, communities and other stakeholders may have
to take decisions based on information disclosed by the enterprise. Accountability
includes aspects to ensure such information is complete, correct and accessible. The
accountability concept is enhanced in SAFA to cover the disclosure of information about
financial, environmental and social performance (the dimensions of the “triple bottom line”
approach) and, where possible and relevant, its governance performance.
The success of an enterprise can be affected by the stakeholders’ view of its credibility,
transparency and performance. Perceptions of an enterprise’s integrity and responsibility
are affected by how performance with respect to the economic, environmental and social
dimensions of sustainability is communicated. Consumers too may prefer products of
respectable companies, and shareholders and investors increasingly tend to put their money
in operations for which the potential risk has been thoroughly assessed (G100, 2003).
The agriculture and food sector is at the nexus of the biosphere and the human economy
and can thus be considered a custodian of land, crops, animals and other resources.
Its products are directly used or consumed by everybody. This accounts for the strong
reaction of the public to actions and developments in this sector that impact people and
the environment. Transparency and responsibility are important for credibility in the food
and agriculture sector and SAFA addresses the account-giving relationship.

G2 ACCOUNTABILITY
o Theme Goal
The enterprise assumes full responsibility for its business behavior and regularly,
transparently and publicly reports on its sustainability performance.
Sub-theme G2.1 Holistic Audits
All areas of sustainability in the SAFA dimensions that pertain to the enterprise
are monitored internally in an appropriate manner, and wherever possible are
reviewed according to recognized sustainability reporting systems.
C Description
Genuine sustainability auditing is evidence of sustainability values being integrated
into organizational governance and culture. Institutionalized sustainability
reporting and auditing tools have been developed and adopted by many larger
enterprises, while smaller enterprises and those early in a sustainability journey
may find less prescriptive approaches, such as Social Auditing, more accessible as
it is able to make efficient use of all of the existing data systems of the organization.
The highly customizable approach has proven effective in diverse cultures where
evidence can be produced using a wider range of mediums than only paper or
electronic record.
z
» The enterprise has a regular sustainability audit using a recognized tool and
evidence that this is reviewed by a governance body and peer reviewed.
» The enterprise is a small-scale operation that has used a systematic approach
of its own, or with the assistance of an outside partner, to regularly review their
sustainability performance.

z
» The enterprise has no evidence of sustainability auditing, either formal or informal.
» Sustainability audits are found to be falsified or consistently fail to address known
deficiencies.

G2.1.1 Holistic Audits
Does the enterprise use an internationally recognized framework for sustainability
reporting such as the Global Reporting Initiative, or is social auditing being used
by the enterprise?
Sub-theme G2.2 Responsibility
f Sub-theme Objective
Senior management and/or owners of enterprise regularly and explicitly
evaluate the enterprise’s performance against its mission or code of conduct.
C Description
The enterprise’s governance body takes responsibility for the enterprise’s
performance in each pillar of the SAFA. Where the enterprise’s performance
is found wanting, the governance body takes responsibility for improving
performance and engaging stakeholders in the monitoring of performance
improvement plans. Organizations with more sophisticated governance will find
this easier to understand and institute than smaller and emerging organizations;
however, some small traditional enterprises have a very sound understanding of
leadership responsibility which may translate for this objective.
z
» The enterprise can clearly show that its governance body takes responsibility
for its impact.

» The enterprise has regular reviews of organizational impact and performance

against mission and sustainability goals and appropriately engages all relevant
stakeholders in the process.
z
» The enterprise has no evidence of having compared performance to mission.
» The enterprise has consistently excluded the views of relevant stakeholders.
» The enterprise has not taken early responsibility for its impact in any dispute with
stakeholders or when in clear breach of the pillars of sustainability.

G 2.2.1 Responsibility
Can the enterprise show, through governance papers or internal dialogue, that
performance against mission is regularly evaluated with appropriate stakeholder
input?
Sub-theme G2.3 Transparency
All procedures, policies, decisions or decision-making processes are accessible
where appropriate publicly, and made available to stakeholders including
personnel and others affected by the enterprise’s activities.
C Description
In sustainability circles there is a saying “a little sunlight is a great disinfectant“.
This refers to how much better sustainability systems and initiatives run when
organizations operate in a transparent manner. Real transparency involves
understanding the information needs of stakeholders and making accurate, timely
and relevant information available in an accessible way.

z
Examples of best performance in fulfilling this objective:
» The enterprise has a clear commitment to transparency. It has explicit and open
policies to deal with requests for information.
» It anticipates the information stakeholders need and makes this available in a
timely and accurate manner via channels which are appropriate and accessible
to its stakeholders.
» It regularly assesses its performance against this objective and invites
stakeholders to rate the performance and comment on how this could be improved.
» It can show a consistent history of improvement in its transparency.
z
» The enterprise regularly and deliberately withholds information from key
stakeholders.
» The enterprise provides information that is not fully accurate.

G 2.3.1 Transparency
Does the enterprise have a policy which requires management to report on
how policies, procedures, decisions and decision making processes are made
accessible to stakeholders?

G3 GOOD GOVERNANCE
THEME G3 – PARTICIPATION
Definition of the Theme
Participation in SAFA refers to the need for outreach to, and ensuring the potential for
involvement of, interested parties, in particular those who are materially affected. This
includes the ability to actively take part in decision making. Sub-themes included are:
Stakeholder Dialogue; Grievance Procedures; and Conflict Resolution.
Relevance of the Theme to Sustainability

In the context of SAFA, participation denotes stakeholder participation in the widest sense.
As with the issue of sustainable development, many different stakeholders may be affected
by the enterprises decisions and activities. A stakeholder is any group or individual who
can affect, or is affected by, the actions of the enterprise (Freeman, 1984). One needs to
distinguish powerful stakeholders who “can affect” from stakeholders with little or no
influence who “are affected by” decisions. Particularly concerning the second group, a wide
interpretation of the term “stakeholder” should be followed, covering local communities,
consumers, farmers and fishers, future generations and biotic resources.
Where there is a large imbalance (e.g. of market power) between stakeholders, the
weaker side should be empowered in such a way as to effectively participate in the dialogue.
If a misuse of power occurs, or stakeholders are harmed by actions of an enterprise,
adequate grievance procedures must be in place to ensure that remedy and restoration
are provided (see Rule of Law).
The agriculture and food sector is one of the largest sectors in terms of the number
of people working in, dependent upon and affected by it. While identifying, informing
and empowering stakeholders is crucial, considering the importance of transparency
and credibility in food chains (see Accountability), it also constitutes a further challenge.
Enterprises in the value chain will have to cooperate with each other to ensure correct and
comprehensive stakeholder information and participation. This offers the advantage of
enhanced transparency of the chain and of improved, systematic knowledge of the chain(s)
of which the enterprise is part. Even in smallholdings, at the level of rural households and
among producers, participation is essential to share knowledge and make fair decisions
regarding the use of family or community resources (see Equity).

G3 PARTICIPATION
o Theme Goal
All stakeholders substantially affected by the enterprise’s activities are identified,
empowered and invited to share decision making on activities impacting their
lives and having major environmental impacts.
Sub-theme G3.1 Stakeholder Dialogue
The enterprise pro-actively identifies stakeholders, which include all those
affected by the activities of the enterprise (including any stakeholders unable
to claim their rights), and ensures that all are informed, engaged in critical
decision making, and that their input is duly considered.
C Description
Stakeholder dialogue involves the identification of stakeholders and effective
engagement with these stakeholders that is mutually satisfactory and sustained
over time. Effective engagement takes into account an understanding of how
asymmetries of power can prevent the engagement of vulnerable stakeholders and
involves a commitment to identifying barriers to engagement for all stakeholder
groups and working with those groups to overcome barriers. It is of greatest value
when an organization can incorporate the views of its stakeholders in its decision
making. Engagement may take many forms and increasingly might embrace new
technologies and social media as well as, more traditional surveys, meetings,
interviews and focus groups.
z
» The enterprise has a clear commitment to stakeholder engagement and
participation. It is able to describe how it identifies stakeholders and how
spokespersons are identified and endorsed. It is able to list all stakeholders and
identify those who are vulnerable or ordinarily unable to claim their rights.

» Has achieved satisfactory engagement with 80 percent of identified stakeholders,

including all vulnerable stakeholders and those unable to claim their rights.
» Is able to identify potential barriers to engagement for stakeholders, has developed
strategies to overcome these barriers, and has evidence of this being successfully
employed in 80 percent of cases. It has process improvement plans developed or
in development for the remainder.
» Is able to identify how decisions have been impacted by stakeholder engagement
and has evidence (minutes, notes, source documents) of the impact and the
enterprise has evidence of how the impact of stakeholder engagement was
communicated back to stakeholders.
z
» The enterprise is unable or unwilling to describe the process used for identifying
or engaging with stakeholders or the process of identification and engagement
excludes the most vulnerable and those unable to claim their rights.
» The enterprise has identified or engaged with fewer than 30 percent of total
stakeholders, or less than 50 percent of most vulnerable stakeholders, unable to
claim their rights.
» The enterprise has unexplained failures to identify and act upon more than two barriers.
» The enterprise fails to develop and implement strategies to overcome barriers
for more than 50 percent of identified barriers.
» The enterprise has not engaged stakeholders or is unable to demonstrate that its
stakeholder engagement has genuinely affected the decisions it has made.
» The enterprise routinely fails to inform stakeholders of the outcome of engagement.

G 3.1.1 Stakeholder Identification
Can the enterprise identify all material stakeholders and describe the process by
which they were identified?

G 3.1.2 Stakeholder Engagement
Does the enterprise use appropriate mechanisms to engage with each group of
stakeholders?


G 3.1.3 Engagement Barriers
Is the enterprise aware of, and does it address barriers to participation of less
powerful stakeholders?

G 3.1.4 Effective Participation
Can the enterprise describe actual stakeholder participation (including
“least-powerful” stakeholders), its impact on their decision making and how this
impact was communicated to stakeholders?
Sub-theme G3.2 Grievance Procedures
All stakeholders (including as stated above, those who cannot claim their rights,
personnel, and any stakeholders in or outside of the enterprise) have access to
appropriate grievance procedures, without a risk of negative consequences.
C Description
Asymmetries of power can be reduced with the provision of clear, accessible and
fair grievance procedures. The procedures need not be identical for all stakeholder
groups but should follow the principles of natural justice and be designed to be
culturally appropriate and where possible, mirror processes which are familiar to
and respected by the stakeholder group. This objective is primarily relevant to
large-scale operations; however, it should be considered relevant for any enterprise
for which objective G3.1 was deemed relevant.
z
» The enterprise is able to identify grievance procedures for all affected stakeholders
and these are proactively publicized. These procedures meet the standards of
natural justice and are supported by stakeholders.
» Can provide evidence that procedures are being used, data on use and reports
of satisfactory resolutions.

z
» The enterprise has no formal grievance procedures for any stakeholders or has
procedures which do not meet the standard of natural justice.
» Stakeholders overwhelmingly reject the processes used and there is widespread
distrust of the procedures.

G 3.2.1 Grievance Procedures
Can the enterprise describe grievance procedures for each stakeholder group, how
they are publicized (especially with “least powerful” stakeholders) and their current
usage?
Sub-theme G3.3 Conflict Resolution
Conflicts between stakeholder interests and the enterprise’s activities are
resolved through collaborative dialogue (i.e. arbitrated, mediated, facilitated,
conciliated or negotiated), based on respect, mutual understanding and
equal power.
C Description
All enterprises have real or potential conflicts with their stakeholders. Conflicts
can be disputes of interests where the rights of the parties are in conflict and
have not been resolved, or disputes of rights where the interests of the parties
have been resolved but the interpretation of the rights conferred are in dispute.
To achieve compliance with this indicator, organizations will need to show
that conflicts between stakeholder interests and the enterprise’s activities are
resolved through collaborative dialogue (e.g. arbitrated, mediated, facilitated,
conciliated or negotiated), based on respect, mutual understanding and equity.
Addressing conflicts within and between sectors requires engagement with
different stakeholders.

z
» All relevant stakeholder groups are identified and no unexplained obvious
omissions of significant potential conflicts are present.
» The enterprise has identified examples of actual conflicts, with descriptions of how
they were resolved, providing evidence of how they were based on collaborative
dialogue, and were based on values of respect, mutual understanding and equity.
If there are no examples of conflicts of interest in the last 5 years, the enterprise
should be able to describe how they would resolve a potential conflict in this event.
» The enterprise provides actual examples demonstrating collaborative dialogue
AND consistent with values of respect, mutual understanding and equity.
z
» The enterprise identified less than 50 percent of relevant stakeholders, or more
than two unexplained obvious omissions of significant conflicts.
» Cannot provide actual examples demonstrating collaborative dialogue OR
consistent with values of respect, mutual understanding and equal power.
» Cannot provide hypothetical (and realistic) scenario demonstrating collaborative
dialogue or consistent with values of respect, mutual understanding and equal power.

G 3.3.1 Conflict Resolution
Can the enterprise identify potential conflicts of interest with and among various
stakeholder groups, and provide examples of resolution through collaborative
dialogue, based on respect, mutual understanding and equal power?

G4 GOOD GOVERNANCE
THEME G4 – RULE OF LAW

The United Nations defines the Rule of Law as a principle of governance by which all
persons and entities are “accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally
enforced and independently adjudicated”. In the simplest terms, it is compliance with
legislation. In SAFA, the Rule of Law is considered in a business context, its central aim
being the protection of the individual and group rights of all (Ehm, 2010). Sub-themes
included are: Legitimacy; Remedy, Restoration and Prevention; Civic Responsibility; and
Resource Appropriation.

The Rule of Law (ROL) is a concept important to modern legal systems and international
agreements. These laws have to be consistent with international human rights standards
(UN, 2004). Among the key elements then is accountability before the law, legal certainty
and legal transparency.
An enterprise committed to the ROL will only conduct activities that can be considered
legitimate in the light of the moral rights of all humans, as expressed in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UN, 1948). Businesses must respect and avoid being
complicit in human rights violations by the state, even if they are formally legal under
applicable national law. Enterprises with a large sphere of influence and impact should not
only respect the ROL in their own operations, but require business partners to do the same.
In the context of agriculture, forestry and fisheries, there are several important elements:
equitable access to, and legal certainty over natural resources on which production
depends; stakeholder participation in decisions affecting natural resource use and access;
the presence of complaints and disputes mechanisms to monitor, enforce and ensure access
to justice; and the legal empowerment of stakeholders.
Enterprises in food and agriculture operate in a variability of legal frameworks, with
different degrees of legal certainty and recognition of a universal ROL. Where states and
judiciaries are weak, unclear or illegitimate situations can evolve, for example concerning
ownership of and access to land, clean water and other resources. This applies in particular
to remote rural regions, where law enforcement tends to be particularly difficult. Major
imbalances between market players (see Corporate Ethics) can further contribute to
situations where “might makes right”.

Enterprises in the food supply chain can be very large and powerful, dwarfing even
nation states and yet, operate in highly competitive environments where there exists
constant pressure to reduce costs. Some enterprises become involved in changing
the regulatory environment within which they operate. In the case of organizations
with strong commitment to sustainability values, enterprises may strive to promote or
enhance the impact of regulatory or even voluntary codes, such as fair trade and seek
to strengthen these. Others are involved in trying to weaken and reduce coverage, or
limit sanctions. And others through organized lobby groups have sought to directly gain
advantage over other stakeholders through for instance, removing or lowering minimum
wage regulations.
G4 RULE OF LAW
o Theme Goal
The enterprise is uncompromisingly committed to fairness, legitimacy and
protection of the Rule of Law, including the explicit rejection of extortion and
corruption and of the use of resources that are under legal dispute, whose use
contradicts international agreements, or which are considered illegitimate
by affected stakeholders. Moreover, enterprises will proactively work to
improve the protections offered to the environment, vulnerable workers and
communities by seeking to strengthen applicable laws and codes in concert
with affected stakeholders.
Sub-theme G4.1 Legitimacy
The enterprise is compliant with all applicable laws, regulations and standards
voluntarily entered into by the enterprise (unless as part of an explicit
campaign of non-violent civil disobedience or protest) and international human
rights standards (whether legally obligated or not).

C Description
Operational legitimacy will firstly be judged by the enterprise’s adherence to
the rule of law. Legal or regulatory breach is a significant reputational risk for
organizations and it is important that the organization’s governance body is fully
informed and setting clear direction for management.
This does not mean that the enterprise will always necessarily obey the rule of
law but that any breach must be considered seriously at a governance level and be
assessed against the enterprise’s mission and values. Adherence to the rule of law is
a minimum standard and to achieve excellence in this objective, the enterprise will
be able to prove that it has gone beyond the rule of law by adopting and complying
with applicable international voluntary codes consistent with its mission. This supra-
legal initiative can be progressively adopted and its development should be included
in organizational plans.
z
» The enterprise can provide evidence of a governance-endorsed risk management
strategy in operation to ensure legal and regulatory compliance, including of any
standards voluntarily entered into, and international human rights standards.
» All laws, regulations and voluntarily entered codes, are included in this evidence.
» The governance body reviews this and any codes not yet adopted which may be
applicable against mission.
» The results of the review form part of a regular monitoring report to stakeholders.
z
» The enterprise is known to be in breach of laws, regulations and adopted codes
but this has not been the subject of governance scrutiny.
» The enterprise has no evidence of a governance endorsed risk management
strategy in operation, or the strategy is seriously inadequate.


G 4.1.1 Legitimacy
Does the enterprise’s policy, or producers’ code of practices, explicitly require that
all applicable laws and regulations, voluntary standards, adopted or existing, be
reported to the governance body, members or employees, and regularly reviewed
for compliance and congruence with mission?
Sub-theme G4.2 Remedy, Restoration and Prevention
In case of any legal infringements or any other identified breach of legal,
regulatory, international human rights, or voluntary standard, the enterprise
immediately puts in place an effective remedy and adequate actions for
restoration and further prevention are taken.
C Description
Operational legitimacy will firstly be judged by the enterprises’ adherence to the
rule of law and its ability to promptly remedy any breach, restore or compensate the
effects of any breach and put in place mechanisms to prevent any future breach. The
same regime applies to less sanctioned rules, such as local or national regulations
and voluntary codes to which the organization may subscribe or support and
should be applied to international human rights standards. While it is ideal for any
remedy to be applied immediately, this is not always practicable where significant
investigation is required.
z
» The enterprise can provide evidence of the prompt remedy, restoration or
compensation and action to prevent further breach.
» A review with any affected stakeholder confirms the adequacy of restoration or
compensation arising from any breach.

z
» The enterprise is known to be in breach of laws, regulations and adopted codes
and has no evidence that these have been satisfactorily remedied.
» The enterprise has failed to restore or compensate a significant breach.

G 4.2.1 Remedy, Restoration and Prevention
Can the enterprise show evidence of a prompt and responsible response to legal,
regulatory, international human rights and voluntary code breaches, including
detailed response on how the breach was remedied, how the effects of the breach
will be restored or compensated, and the policies and processes instituted to
prevent further breaches?
Sub-theme G4.3 Civic Responsibility
Within its sphere of influence, the enterprise supports the improvement of the
legal and regulatory framework on all dimensions of sustainability and does
not seek to avoid the impact of human rights, or sustainability standards, or
regulation through the corporate veil, relocation, or any other means.
C Description
Enterprises in the food supply chain include very powerful global and national
businesses. To achieve excellence in this sub-theme, enterprises will need to show
that they proactively use that power responsibly and on behalf of the least powerful
stakeholders and those who cannot claim their rights. A sustainable food supply
chain will be achieved when all parts of the supply chain are free from exploitation
of individuals, communities and the environment across all four dimensions of
sustainability. Enterprises involved directly or indirectly engaged in activities which
seek to reduce the rights of less powerful stakeholders and those who cannot claim

their rights will not meet this objective. This could be burdensome for very small
enterprises who are members of large peak bodies but have little practical ability to
influence these.
z
» The enterprise has clear records or register of all groups of which it is a member or
supports which are involved in activities which seek to influence laws, regulations,
international human rights codes or voluntary codes.
» Examination of the records shows no activities directly or indirectly by
the enterprise to reduce the coverage or impact of these laws, regulations,
international human rights codes and voluntary codes.
» Where evidence is found of lobbying, the affected stakeholders have been
consulted and support the activities.
z
» The enterprise is found to support organizations who have been lobbying to
influence laws, regulations, human rights codes and voluntary codes against the
interests of the least powerful and those stakeholders who cannot claim their rights.
» The enterprise governance body has not been informed or directed the lobbying
efforts of the enterprise or its agents.
» Lobbying is not conducted in an open and transparent manner and attempts are
made by the enterprise to disguise its lobbying activities.

G 4.3.1 Civic Responsibility
Within its sphere of influence, does the enterprise proactively and transparently
support the improvement of the legal and regulatory framework on all four
dimensions of sustainability, and does it not seek to avoid the impact of human
rights or sustainability standards or regulation through the corporate veil,
relocation, or any other means?

Sub-theme G4.4 Resource Appropriation
Enterprises do not reduce the existing rights of communities to land, water and
resources, and operations are carried after informing affected communities
by providing information, independent advice and building capacity to self-
organize for the purposes of representation.
C Description
This objective would be typically achieved by ensuring that the principles of
Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) are addressed, as well as of those of the
Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure. FPIC principles
have been developed through extensive consultation to protect communities
from unscrupulous resource exploitation and misappropriation. They also provide
guidance for enterprises on how to work fairly with communities and some degree
of protection to the organizations reputation. Critical to the effective operation of
PFIC is the ability for an affected community to be informed. This includes the
provision of information; independent advice and the capacity to self- organize for
the purposes of representation. For tenure rights, there is need to define and regulate
how people, communities and others gain access to natural resources, whether
through formal law or informal arrangements. The rules of tenure determine who
can use which resources, for how long, and under what conditions. They may be
based on written policies and laws, as well as on unwritten customs and practices.
The responsible governance of tenure ensures access to land, fisheries and forests
are equitably shared. It protects economically and socially marginalized people
from alienation from the resources they need to live. Weak governance of tenure is
also associated with the over exploitation of natural resources and consequential
environmental degradation.
z
» The enterprise can demonstrate awareness of stakeholder’s pre-existing access
to land, water, biodiversity and natural resources, by community asset mapping
or other equivalent process.

» Has evidence of satisfying the standard and its stakeholders in respect of the
principles of FPIC.
» Has evidence that it recognizes any asymmetries of power between itself and
affected communities and that it has worked to ensure communities are well
represented in any negotiations.
» Has a record of all transactions related to tenure and access rights and can show
clearly all the principles of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance
of Tenure are met. Where there has been any breach or alleged breach of tender
rights, the enterprise can prove that it has fully and promptly co-operated with any
inquiry and remedy process to the satisfaction of affected parties.
z
» That not all components of FPIC are addressed for all affected stakeholders, or
there is any evidence of deceit or deception in the process.
» The enterprise has no records of any due diligence over tenure rights and/or has
repeatedly been involved in disputes over a breach of tenure rights. It has failed
to remedy tenure and access rights breaches with its stakeholders.

G 4.4.1 Free, Prior and Informed Consent
Is the enterprise aware of stakeholders’ pre-existing access to land, water and
resources, has it mapped this to the satisfaction of all affected stakeholders
and agreed to take no action to reduce this access until it has fully informed
stakeholders, negotiated on equal terms and provided for mutually agreeable
compensation, sufficient to allow sustainable livelihoods?

G 4.4.2 Tenure Rights
Is the enterprise aware of stakeholders’ pre-existing tenure and access to land,
water and resources, and can the enterprise prove that it has fully and promptly
co-operated with any inquiry and remedy process to the satisfaction of affected
parties in case of any (alleged) breach of tender rights?

G5 GOOD GOVERNANCE
THEME G5 – HOLISTIC MANAGEMENT

Definition of Theme
Holistic Management in SAFA is management that aims at the continuous improvement of
environmental integrity, economic resilience, social well-being and good governance, with
the ultimate goal of operations being fully in line with a sustainable development of society.
Sub-themes included are: Sustainability Management Plan; and Full-Cost Accounting.

The topic of holistic management is a relatively new one and thus, not treated in detail by
international agreements or recommendations. Some international sustainability reporting
standards are aligned or have equivalencies with international norms and reference
documents, for example the Global Reporting Initiative.
In business, a successful management of sustainability performance is achieved if the
management of environmental, social and governance issues is in line with increased
competitiveness and economic performance. The triple bottom line or the triangle of
“people, planet and profit” is frequently used to illustrate this. One particular challenge
to sustainability management is finding appropriate ways of dealing with trade-offs
between sustainability goals. Holistic management is about striking a balance between
short- and long-term interests, economic, social and environmental concerns, stakeholders
and shareholders. An appropriate code of conduct (see Governance Structure) provides
guidance on how to deal with trade-offs.
Enterprises operating in the food and agriculture sector can have effects external to
their business on the environment (e.g. air pollution), social (e.g. training of young people)
and economic (e.g. added tax basis with local service providers). In historical accounting,
these external effects are neither accounted for, nor considered in economic decisions.
So enterprises are neither rewarded for positive impacts, nor have to pay for negative
impacts. More recently, it is recognized that the consideration of such external effects in
decision making and accounting is a cornerstone of sustainable development. Full-cost
accounting is an integral part of holistic management that is particularly important in
the agricultural, forestry and fisheries sector, where production intensively interacts with
the natural environment. However, there still is a lack of adequate methods for putting in
practice the full-cost accounting concept.

G5 HOLISTIC MANAGEMENT
o Theme Goal
Production and procurement are managed, and accounting is done, with equal
consideration of all dimensions of sustainability and of the trade-offs and
synergies linking them.
Sub-theme G5.1 Sustainability Management Plan
A sustainability plan for the enterprise is developed which provides a holistic
view of sustainability and considers synergies and trade-offs between
dimensions, including each of the environmental, economic, social and
governance dimensions.
C Description
Sustainability plans are a relatively recent phenomenon, used by organizations
to provide good governance guidance for its sustainability efforts and to assist in
incorporating the values and aspirations for sustainability to be formally included
in business planning. The business planning cycle enables governance bodies
to hold management accountable for implementing the direction and targets set
for the organization. Sustainability planning is rapidly becoming the norm in
Western business; one report shows an increase in American businesses having
or developing such plans from 38 percent in 2011 to 64 percent in 2013. However,
there is a need to ensure these plans are holistic and cover each of the four pillars
of sustainability. In forestry, the preparation of a comprehensive forest management
plan is a fundamental requirement for sustainable forest management.
z
» The enterprise has a formal sustainability plan endorsed by the governance body.
» The enterprise is able to provide evidence of the plan, or values in it, being used
to improve the sustainability of the enterprise operations, as a result of better
decision making and the plan covers each of the pillars of sustainability.

z
» The enterprise has no sustainability plan.
» The enterprise cannot articulate the values and aspirations that a plan might address.
» The plan does not address each of the sustainability pillars.
» The plan is not implemented.

G 5.1.1 Sustainability Management Plan
Does the enterprise have a sustainability plan, endorsed by its governing body
(or producers’ association members or contractors), which provides a holistic
view of the enterprise’s sustainability and covers each of the environmental,
economic, social and governance dimensions, including references to mission
and demonstration of progress against the plan, or how the plan has driven
specific decisions and their outcomes?
Sub-theme G5.2 Full-Cost Accounting
The business success of the enterprise is measured and reported taking into
account direct and indirect impacts on the economy, society and physical
environment (e.g. triple bottom line reporting), and the accounting process
makes transparent both direct and indirect subsidies received, as well as direct
and indirect costs externalized.
C Description
Traditional accounting systems deal predominately in actual $ costs in the current
year. Matters outside of this, particularly where the $ cost is difficult to determine,
or has not been valued, are treated as externalities (matters outside the business
equation). As consumers, stockholders and other stakeholders become more aware
and concerned about the potential environmental and social impacts of business,
they are demanding better information about performance in these areas. This
movement began as “triple bottom line“ reporting, demanding that an enterprise’s

performance be assessed in economic, social and environmental terms. Social

auditing and environmental accounting have also contributed to an emerging field
of work which seeks to improve the accuracy and use of Full-Cost Accounting
(FCA). It is thought these initiatives will enable enterprises to make better decisions
because they more fully understand the full impact of these decisions. The FCA
process makes transparent both direct and indirect subsidies received, as well as
direct and indirect costs externalized. There is not yet an international consensus
on an all encompassing standard for FCA. However, very sound work is emerging
with comparable tools for some aspects of the accounts, such as measuring an
organization’s carbon footprint.
z
» The enterprise has evidence that it collects, analyzes and reports to its
stakeholders on its economic, social and environmental impacts and performance.
» The enterprise shows it understands the emerging discipline of FCA and is
actively involved in improving the scope and validity of its FCA reporting.
z
» The enterprise does not account for its impact and performance using any FCA
regime.
» The enterprise has significant costs on the environment and community which
are externalized from its accounting systems.
» The enterprise has FCA reports which are not validated.

G 5.2.1 Full-Cost Accounting
Is the business success of the enterprise measured and reported to stakeholders
taking into account direct and indirect impacts on the economy, society and
physical environment?

A s human activities are passing tipping points, or crossing planetary boundaries

(Rockstrom et al, 2009), protecting the integrity of the Earth’s system is a
precondition of any development. Environmental integrity consists of maintaining
life support systems essential for human survival by minimizing negative environmental
impacts and fostering positive impacts. In a SAFA, the following themes of environmental
sustainability are addressed: Atmosphere, Water, Land, Materials and Energy, Biodiversity
and Animal Welfare.
ATMOSPHERE Greenhouse Gases Air Quality
WATER Water Withdrawal Water Quality
LAND Soil Quality Land Degradation
BIODIVERSITY Ecosystem Diversity Species Diversity Genetic Diversity
MATERIALS AND ENERGY Material Use Energy Use Waste Reduction & Disposal
ANIMAL WELFARE AnimalHealth Freedom from Stress
The state of the world’s ecosystems, assessed in 2005 under the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, concluded that human actions are fundamentally and to a significant extent
irreversibly changing the diversity of life on Earth and the integrity of the environment.
Critical ecosystem services on which development depends, including air and water
purification, soil formation, disease control, pollination and reduced vulnerability to
natural disasters such as floods, droughts and landslides are compromised. The poor are
overwhelmingly located in rural areas and natural resources are their most important
asset. Human activity including land conversion for agriculture leading to habitat loss,

fragmentation and degradation, overexploitation of species due to hunting, fishing and

trade are considered the main drivers of the pressures on environmental integrity.
The Convention on Biological Diversity considers that a general application of an
ecosystem approach will help achieve a balance of three objectives, namely conservation,
sustainable use and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilisation
of genetic resources. The need for an ecosystem approach applies to the whole food
and agriculture sector, including livestock, fisheries, aquaculture and forestry. SAFA
environmental themes and sub-themes reflect the main areas of concern regarding adverse
human impacts and unsustainable exploitation, and give a comprehensive picture of
environmental sustainability through a life-cycle approach.

E1 ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY
THEME E1 – ATMOSPHERE
Definition of Theme
Atmosphere in SAFA refers to the integrity and preservation of clean air. Priority
atmospheric issues include climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, acidification
and eutrophication, urban air quality and tropospheric ozone. Agricultural activities and
the food sector are strongly affected by climate change, and at the same time they are
major contributors to it. These sectors also release air pollutants such as particulate matter,
sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxides, volatile organic compounds and ground-level ozone.
Sub-themes included are: Greenhouse Gases; and Air Quality.

Priority atmospheric issues include climate change, ozone depletion, acidification and
eutrophication, urban air quality and tropospheric ozone. Their impact relates to human
health, biodiversity, health of ecosystems, economic damage and global security.
The resulting decrease of the protective ozone layer causes increased ultraviolet
radiation at the earth surface that can damage human health. Terrestrial and marine
ecosystems are negatively affected e.g. through reduced photosynthesis.
Global warming refers to the rising of average surface temperature, expected as a
result of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into the atmosphere from human activity.
Many of the effects are long-term, global in nature and irreversible, with consequences
for future generations.
Agriculture, forestry and fisheries are strongly affected by global warming, as changes in
temperature and rainfall patterns, dramatic weather events and new pests and diseases can
impair productive activities. Global warming is already affecting the species composition
and other important attributes of the world’s forests. Those most vulnerable, rural small-
scale producers and small-scale fishers and farmers, women and the poor are predicted
to be the most affected, particularly in poor developing regions where people are already
vulnerable to food insecurity.
Agriculture, forestry and fisheries activities and the food sector also are major
contributors to atmospheric changes from livestock, fertilizers and energy use. Some
20 to 30 percent of global GHG emissions can be associated with food, while crop and
livestock production alone account for 10 to 15 percent of global GHG emissions (Bellarby,
2008; EC, 2010). Indirect but significant emissions drivers are the agriculture-driven land

E1 E1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY
use changes. Emissions from deforestation and forest degradation account for up to 20
percent of global GHG emissions. Aquaculture contributes about 0.96 percent of total
CO2 emissions and between 6.3 and 7.5 percent of agricultural emissions, based on IPCC
estimates (Hall et al., 2011); main emissions come from feed production and therefore,
different feed formulations, levels of intensification and food conversion ratios are important
variables. Fisheries’ key emissions come from fuel use for fishing operations and energy
demand depends on the type of fishing gear. However, fisheries overall contribution to
climate change is minimal (Troadec, 2000) and there is limited fishery-specific information
on emissions. In 2000, global marine landings of 80 million tones burned approximately
50 billion liters of fossil fuels, or 1.2 percent of global oil consumption. This represents 1.7
tons of CO2 emissions per tonne of fish landed (Tyedmers et al, 2005).
The environmental impacts of transportation systems have a wide reach, from
global warming to local smog and noise. For some organizations, particularly those
with extensive supply and distribution networks, environmental impacts associated
with logistics may represent a major part of their environmental footprint. The most
GHG intensive stages of the fruit and vegetable supply chain are transport network and
refrigeration. With the global increase in trade, transportation, particularly refrigerated
(land, rail, sea and air) and its associated players, are viewed as major contributors to
GHG emissions.
E1 ATMOSPHERE
o Theme Goal
The enterprise’s actions contain greenhouse gases to the extent possible and
do not release quantities of ozone-depleting substances and air pollutants that
would be detrimental to the health of ecosystems, plants, animals or humans.
Sub-theme E1.1 Greenhouse Gases
The emission of GHG is contained.

C Description
This objective aims to ensure that an enterprise’s GHG emissions are contained.
Whether an enterprise is complying with this objective can be established by
calculating the GHG balance and if difficult to assess, by estimating the impact
of practices on GHG emissions and sequestration. GHG balance is the difference
between the direct (and indirect) GHG emissions and the on-site sequestration
by the enterprise. Direct GHG emissions are emissions from sources that are
owned or controlled by the enterprise. On-site sequestration refers to practices
such as afforestation and enrichment of soils with soil carbon on the sites of the
enterprise. GHG mitigation practices refer to all practices that can potentially
mitigate emissions, such as improved livestock and manure management, improved
cropland management, restoration of degraded lands, water and rice management,
improved fuel efficiency in fishing boats, and reduced deforestation and forest
degradation. Resource-efficient practices that reduce the need for fossil-based fuels
and for nitrogen fertilizers, or that reduce the methane emissions of ruminants, or
the implementation of more efficient refrigeration technologies or technical and
operational technologies to reduce freight emissions, can help reduce GHG as well.
z
» The enterprise’s GHG balance is negative, that is, sequestration on-site is more
than total emissions.
» Adopted best practices in GHG emissions that: increase efficiencies of fossil-fuel
based inputs; add components of land use change that achieve neutrality in GHG
emissions; and sequester on-site to achieve a negative net emissions.
» A written plan, available to all stakeholders, with GHG emission targets and steps,
that has been already implemented towards achieving that objective.
z
Unacceptable conditions and practices in relation to this objective:
» The enterprise’s emissions are positive and are showing an increasing trend (i.e.
emissions are greater than sequestration and emissions have increased during
the last year/last assessed time).
» The enterprise uses any of the following practices: drainage of organic soils for
cultivation; creation of open-air lagoons from slurry; application of high rates of

nitrogen fertilizer; overgrazing or high stocking rates; land-use changes that reduce
ecosystem soil C stocks (e.g. deforestation, ploughing up long-term grasslands);
use of large-scale annual monocultures; slash-and-burn or burning of residues.

E 1.1.1 GHG Reduction Target
Has the enterprise set a target in reducing GHG emissions?
Type: Target

E 1.1.2 GHG Mitigation Practices
Which activities and practices has the enterprise implemented that have
effectively reduced GHG emissions?
Type: Practice

E 1.1.3 GHG Balance
What is the net direct GHG emission (i.e. annual emissions minus sequestration)
of the enterprise?
Type: Performance
Sub-theme E1.2 Air Quality
The emission of air pollutants is prevented and ozone depleting substances are
eliminated.
C Description
Air pollution derives from different sources, such as: biological air pollution
(pollen, small insects, bacteria, fungi, yeasts and algae); physical air pollution
(sound, smell, thermal pollution and radioactive radiation); and chemical air
pollution (ground-level and stratospheric ozone, aerosols and ammonia). Air
quality is measured by measuring ambient concentration of air pollutants, such
as particulate matter (PM2.5), ozone (O3 ), sulphur dioxide (SO2 ), nitrous oxides
(NOx ), volatile organic compounds (VOC), smoke and odors. Air pollutants are
influenced by many factors, such as local emission sources and weather conditions,

in particular the direction and speed of wind. Thus, an operation may not emit
any air pollutants and yet find itself in an area with high pollution due to wind
conditions and location (e.g. next to highways). Hence, the attribution of air
pollution to an enterprise can be challenging.
z
» The ambient concentrations of any relevant air pollutants that occur in the
surroundings of the enterprise during the analyzed time-frame do not exceed
regulatory ambient levels.
» Adopted air pollution prevention practices, such as: dense soil coverage, proper
storage and application of manure, slurry and plant protection products; the
installation of effective filters in stables and factories; the installation of spray
towers and scrubbers; the use of clean fuels and of catalytic converters in engines
of vehicles and boats, etc.
» A written plan, available to all stakeholders, with binding air pollution reduction and
prevention targets and steps has been implemented towards achieving the targets.
z
» Legal threshold values for ambient air pollutant concentrations are repeatedly
exceeded in or next to the enterprise’s operations, with the air pollution being
attributable to the enterprise.
» The enterprise uses any of the following practices : uncontrolled or poorly
managed waste incineration; burning of crop residues; has uncovered storage
of manure and slurry application without pressure control (e.g. splash plate);
substances controlled under the Montreal Protocol whose use should already
have been phased out in this country (e.g. Use of chlorofluorocarbon and/or other
ozone-depleting refrigerants); has a complete lack of filter equipment in facilities
that produce pollutant emissions; uses methyl bromide in storage facilities or
for soil fumigation; has open, uncontrolled incineration of wastes that can cause
problematic emissions (such as certain polymers, dyes etc.); has evidence of road,
railway and water product transportation uncontrolled for air pollution (black
smoke, odor and noise).


E 1.2.1 Air Pollution Reduction Target
Has the enterprise set a target in reducing the emission of air pollutants?
Type: Target

E 1.2.2 Air Pollution Prevention Practices
effectively reduced air pollutants?
Type: Practice

E 1.2.3 Ambient Concentration of Air Pollutants
What is the percentage of days of the year when standard air pollution values
have been exceeded in the surroundings of the enterprise?
Type: Performance

THEME E2 – WATER
Definition of Theme
Water in SAFA covers both freshwater and saltwater. Fresh water is naturally occurring
water on the Earth’s surface in ice sheets, ice caps, glaciers, bogs, ponds, lakes, rivers and
streams, and underground as groundwater in aquifers and underground streams. Saltwater
from oceans and seas constitutes 97 percent of the Earth’s water. Sub-themes included are:
Water Withdrawal; and Water Quality.

Approximately 50 countries are currently facing moderate or severe water stress and the
number of people suffering from year-round or seasonal water shortages is expected to
increase as a result of climate change. One of the main limiting factors of food production
to feed growing populations is water. Agriculture is the single largest user of freshwater
on a global basis using a global average of 70 percent of all surface water supplies. Water
consumption is growing at twice the speed of population growth. Water security is one of
the biggest issues driving management decisions (Little, 2008). The most important factor
in producing high quality fresh water is the presence or absence of a functioning forest
ecosystem within a watershed. Global issues of health, poverty, deforestation, desertification
and land use change are all directly associated with water resources and their management.
Freshwater quality is as important as sufficient water quantities. The increase of
urbanized areas and the compaction of arable soils by heavy machinery reduce soil
infiltration capacity, resulting in surface runoff, soil erosion and floods. About 20 percent
of the world’s irrigated land is salt-affected, and salt water intrusion is of particular concern
to arid and semi-arid regions and small island states. Inappropriate agricultural water
practices can pollute waterways or cause secondary soil salinization and particularly, is
affecting areas already facing land and water scarcity (FAO, 2011). At least 70 percent of
the pesticide pollution in surface waters is estimated to originate from agriculture.
As demand for water by all users grows, groundwater is being depleted, other water
ecosystems are becoming polluted and degraded, and developing new sources of water is
getting more costly. Water quality and availability are hitting the world’s poorest the hardest.
Water plays a pivotal role for sustainable development, including poverty reduction. The
use and abuse of, as well as competition for increasingly precious water resources, have

intensified dramatically over the past decades, reaching a point where water shortages, water
quality degradation and aquatic ecosystem destruction are seriously affecting prospects for
economic and social development, political stability, as well as ecosystem integrity.
The quality of the water in oceans and seas is increasingly threatened by pollution from
anthropogenic sources, and with it the fisheries and ecosystem services they support.
Coastal areas are particularly vulnerable to pollution downloads related to urbanization
and upstream economic activities, including food production.
E2 WATER
o Theme Goal
Freshwater withdrawal and use do not hinder the functioning of natural water
cycles, activities do not contribute to water pollution that would impair the health
of humans, plants and animal communities.
Sub-theme E2.1 Water Withdrawal
Withdrawal of ground and surface water and/or use does not impair the functioning
of natural water cycles and ecosystems and human, plant and animal communities.
C Description
This objective aims to ensure that an enterprise does not contribute to water supply
problems of ecosystems or human water users at any of the sites where it operates.
The share of the withdrawals of ground and surface water aims to put the freshwater
withdrawals of the enterprise in relation with the regionally available freshwater
resources (i.e. annual rainfall, annual groundwater recharge, water carried into the
region by allochthonous rivers) over the same period of time. Water conservation
practices refer to any beneficial reduction of water loss, use or waste in agriculture
and fisheries-based food chains. The reliable assessment of water availability in a
certain region can be challenging where no reliable public sources exist, such as

the assignment of water quantities to users in the watershed. It also needs to be

linked to the context of the region and other land uses and the cumulative effects.
z
» Does not contribute to water supply problems of ecosystems or human water users
at any of the sites where it operates.
» Has adopted water conservation practices, such as maximizing the efficiency
of irrigation systems, rainwater harvesting, cultivation of water-efficient crops,
re-circulating aquaculture systems, use of less water-demanding processing
technologies, etc.
» Has a written plan, available to all stakeholders, with water conservation targets
and steps have been implemented towards achieving these targets.
z
» The enterprise overuses water resources, thus putting the existence of human
water users and ecosystems at risk.
» The enterprise has: inefficient or not regularly maintained irrigation systems;
monoculture cultivation of water-demanding crops/trees in water-scarce areas;
inefficient use of water for processing purposes.

E 2.1.1 Water Conservation Target
Has the enterprise set a target for reducing water consumption or water withdrawals?
Type: Target

E 2.1.2 Water Conservation Practices
effectively increased the efficiency, or reduced the amount of, freshwater used
in the operation?
Type: Practice

E 2.1.3 Ground and Surface Water Withdrawals
What is the share of annual withdrawals of ground and surface water as a
percentage of total renewable water?
Type: Performance

Sub-theme E2.2 Water Quality
The release of water pollutants is prevented and water quality is restored.
C Description
This objective aims to ensure that enterprises address water quality issues and risks
associated with water pollution. Substances discharged into water bodies without
adequate treatment compromise the health of humans, animals and ecosystems. Most
water pollution comes from non-point sources (e.g. through sedimentation), whereas
point source water pollution occurs where wastewater is discharged. Many practices
can prevent and/or reduce water pollution, for example management practices that
control the volume and flow rate of runoff water, soil conservation practices, the proper
storage and application of manure, slurry and silage, and appropriate facility wastewater
and runoff management. The levels of water pollutants are influenced by many factors,
such as local emissions sources and weather conditions. An operation may not even
emit any water pollutants, yet finds itself in an area with high pollution because of its
location. Small-scale enterprises are probably less able to test for the concentrations of
water pollutants and may rely on either monitoring conducted by public agencies, or
rely on practice or target indicators to establish compliance with this objective.
z
» No critical water quality thresholds are exceeded in water bodies affected by the
enterprise operations.
» All wastewater discharged and reused by the enterprise is of a quality that will
not cause harm to the health of humans, plants, animals and ecosystems.
» Practices for the effective prevention of water pollution are implemented.
» The enterprise has a written plan, available to all stakeholders, with clean water
targets or reduction of water pollution.
z
» Has repeated releases of water pollutants that result in critical water quality
thresholds been exceeded.

» Has wastewater with pollutant concentrations that are dangerous to the health
of humans, plants, animals and ecosystems, and/or that exceed applicable legal
thresholds (or, in the absence of such thresholds, WHO recommendations) being
discharged repeatedly and in quantities that exceed the diluting capacity of the
concerned surface waters.
» Has applied pesticides that are not allowed by law.
» Has an absence of any buffer zones to protect surface water and violates water
protection areas.

E 2.2.1 Clean Water Target
Has the enterprise set a target for improving the quality of the water affected by
the operations?
Type: Target

E 2.2.2 Water Pollution Prevention Practices
Which activities and practices have been implemented that have effectively
reduced or prevented the release of water pollutants?
Type: Practice

E 2.2.3 Concentration of Water Pollutants
What is the percentage of days of the year when standard water pollution values
have been exceeded in water (groundwater, surface water, coastal and marine
water) as a result of the enterprise’s operations?
Type: Performance

E.2.2.4 Wastewater Quality
What is the share of wastewater with a good water quality (concentrations of faecal
coliforms, heavy metals, BOD and COD below critical levels) as a percentage of
the total wastewater from the enterprise`s operation?
Type: Performance

THEME E3 - LAND
Definition of Theme
The part of the Earth not covered by water is land and for the purposes of SAFA is
essentially the soil resources. Sub-themes included are: Soil Quality; and Land Degradation.

Humans use soils to grow food and fodder crops, renewable raw materials and energy. Soils
provide ecosystem services including water purification, nutrient cycling, carbon storage
and buffer, filter and habitat functions. Yet, land and soil are finite resources.
Soil conservation is a set of management strategies for prevention of soil being eroded
from the Earth’s surface or becoming unhealthy from overuse, over irrigation, acidification,
or other chemical soil contamination. Agriculture and forestry play a pivotal role in
sustainable land use, occupying two thirds of terrestrial surface. Natural fertile soils can
hardly be increased, but can easily be destroyed (World Soil Charter, 1981). Given the
limited availability of original fertile soils, more than 80 percent of the required growth of
agricultural production until 2050 will have to come from yield enhancement on currently
cultivated soils (FAO, 2011). Due to expanding human requirements, fertile land, suitable
for primary production of biomass, is a scarce resource. The magnitude of land cover
change threatens the stability and resilience of ecosystems, including through its impacts
on global warming.
Soil cover is important to prevent erosion, loss of nutrients (reduces productivity),
efficient use of water, soil and chemical run off resulting in reduced water quality and
desertification. Soil carbon, related to its organic content, is widely accepted as a major
factor in its overall health. There exists also the potential of soil as a carbon sink or offset
for climate change. Soils are highly complex ecosystems and the single most important
production factors for human nutrition. Maintaining and rehabilitating soil health is
an absolute imperative. Approximately 40 percent of agriculture lands are considered
degraded due to poor practices including unsuitable land allocation, inappropriate farming
and grazing practices and lack or misuse of appropriate technologies. The most important
processes (in terms of area) are water erosion, wind erosion, salinization, compaction and
chemical pollution (Oldeman et al., 1991; MEA, 2005). Desertification was identified as one
of the greatest challenges to sustainable development during the Earth Summit in 1992.

E3 LAND
o Theme Goal
No land is lost due to surface sealing or mismanagement of arable lands and
pastures, and soil fertility is preserved and enhanced.
Sub-theme E3.1 Soil Quality
Soil characteristics provide the best conditions for plant growth and soil health,
while chemical and biological soil contamination is prevented.
C Description
This objective covers the protection and enhancement of soil physical, chemical
and biological properties used by an enterprise. Monitoring and managing soil
physical structure such as the soil texture, porosity and structure reveal the grade
of nutrient- and water-holding capacity of the soil which are important aspects
for its health and productivity. Monitoring and managing soil chemical quality
determines a soil capacity to deliver various functions that are essential for
vegetation growth, nutrient cycling and other ecosystem functions. Monitoring
and managing soil biological quality include the macro and microorganisms
present in soils; soil organisms provide a multitude of benefits for soils and
ecosystems, including breakdown of organic matter leading to nutrient and carbon
release, improving soil structure and water holding capacity, providing a sink for
GHG emissions and regulating pests among others. Monitoring and managing
soil organic matter content is considered to be an indicator for soil quality and
productivity influencing physical, chemical and biological properties of the soils.
In particular, it contributes to soil aggregate stability, improving soil structure and
hence, soil aeration and infiltration, leading to a higher water-holding capacity in
the soil. Content and quality of soil organic matter also affect the nutrient cycling
and gas (including carbon dioxide) exchange in soils, and are thus related with soil
life, soil fertility and the functioning of ecosystems.

z
» Soil physical structure is in excellent condition on all land used by the enterprise,
with no signs of soil compaction of structural degradation.
» Soil chemical quality is in excellent condition on all land used by the enterprise,
with no signs of chemical soil degradation.
» Soil biological quality is in excellent condition on all land used by the enterprise,
with no signs of biological soil degradation, i.e. a reduction of soil life.
» Soil organic matter content and quality are in excellent condition on all land used
by the enterprise, with no signs of quantitative or qualitative losses.
» Adopting soil improvement practices to improve the physical, chemical and
biological properties of the soils used by an enterprise and tackling all problematic
aspects for soil quality by effective measures on all areas concerned.
z
» On a substantial share of land (e.g. 10 percent of the total area), soil physical
structure, chemical or biological quality has been damaged to an extent that
allows no more growth of productive vegetation or soil functioning (specialist
plant species with low biomass not included), especially if this can be attributed
to the enterprise management activity.
» On a substantial share of land (e.g. 10 percent of the total area), soil organic matter
content is massively and rapidly reduced, for example by draining peat land or
plowing up of grassland.
» Measures for enhancing or conserving soil quality (where it is already very high)
have been implemented on less than 20 percent of the used area.

E 3.1.1 Soil-Improvement Practices
What activities and practices have been implemented that have effectively increased
the quality and fertility of soils?
Type: Practice


E 3.1.2 Soil Physical Structure
On what share of the utilized land are the conditions of soil physical structure
good in consideration of the local climate and bedrock?
Type: Performance

E 3.1.3 Soil Chemical Quality
On what share of the utilized land is the chemical quality (e.g. synthetic compounds,
pesticides) of soil high in consideration of the local climate and bedrock?
Type: Performance

E 3.1.4 Soil Biological Quality
On what share of the utilized land is the biological quality of soil high in
consideration of the local climate and bedrock?
Type: Performance

E 3.1.5 Soil Organic Matter
On what share of the utilized land are content and quality of soil organic matter
high in consideration of the local climate and bedrock?
Type: Performance
Sub-theme E3.2 Land Degradation
No land is lost through soil degradation and desertification and degraded land is
rehabilitated.
C Description
This objective addresses the serious issue of land degradation. Implementation
of land conservation and rehabilitation practices aim at preventing the loss of
productive soils and at rehabilitating degraded soils.
z
» Achieving a positive land balance, that is rehabilitating more land than degrading
land on the enterprise site.

» Conservation practices are in place in all sites threatened by soil degradation,

and rehabilitation practices are in place in all sites that were previously degraded.
This includes controlled application of organic fertilizer, planting living fences,
increase of soil coverage, terracing, better drainage, etc.
» Having a written plan, available to all stakeholders, with land conservation and
rehabilitation targets.
z
» Soils are completely destroyed (usually to construct buildings) without any
compensatory measure and without any meaningful usage of the removed soil
material.
» Measures to conserve and rehabilitate soils are taken on less than 20 percent of
the affected area.

E 3.2.1 Land Conservation and Rehabilitation Plan
Does the enterprise have a plan which describes the steps of conserving or
enhancing soil health and rehabilitating degraded soils?
Type: Target

E 3.2.2 Land Conservation and Rehabilitation Practices
Which effective soil conservation techniques and/or rehabilitation measures have
been implemented and/or regularly practiced in the operation?
Type: Practice

E 3.2.3 Net Loss/Gain of Productive Land
What is the ratio between rehabilitated land and degraded land in the enterprise’s
operations?
Type: Performance

THEME E4 – BIODIVERSITY
Biodiversity is the diversity of ecosystems, of species in these ecosystems and of the genome
within these species. Agricultural biodiversity encompasses the variety and variability of
animals, plants and micro-organisms which are necessary to sustain the functions of the
agro-ecosystem, its structure and processes for, and in support of, food security. Sub-themes
included are: Ecosystem Diversity; Species Diversity; and Genetic Diversity.

The protection of biodiversity is essential for humankind, not only because a great diversity
of species is utilized, but also because healthy ecosystems provide vital services like
pollination, pest management, filter functions of soils and the regulation of nutrient cycles.
In 1997, the global economic value of ecosystem services was estimated at USD 16 to 54
trillion (Costanza et al., 1997); global GDP then was USD 18 trillion. Measures for the
protection of biodiversity and ecosystems pay off, return on investment being estimated to
exceed cost by a factor of 10 to 100 (TEEB, 2009). However because the services and costs
for impacting them are externalized (see Holistic Management), there has been limited
market incentives for the protection of biodiversity.
Human activity is altering ecosystems at unprecedented scales and intensity.
Biodiversity is adversely affected by pollution, land degradation, habitat fragmentation
and loss, introduction of exotic species, climate change and natural disasters. The overuse
of fish resources endangers livelihoods, especially for small-scale fishers in developing
countries (FAO, 2010b). A significant majority of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity is
found in forest ecosystems. The continuing net loss of forests is alarming: over 6 million
hectares per year between 1990 and 2000 (FAO, 2012d). Almost this entire decline is taking
place in tropical forests, as they are the most biologically diverse ecosystems on earth.
The production of genetically modified crops over large areas is increasingly associated
with resistance by weeds to glyphosate (UNEP, 2011), thus compromising the resilience
of GM-based production systems. Agriculture, forestry and fisheries dispose of powerful
levers to influence biodiversity, such as the allocation of areas to different uses, the choice
of species, varieties and breeds, fertilization, harvesting etc. In agricultural landscapes,
biodiversity depends on the landscape’s richness in biological structures and on the
intensity of farming.

E4 BIODIVERSITY
o Theme Goal
The areas under agriculture, forestry and fisheries are managed sustainably,
ensuring conservation of all forms of biodiversity.
Sub-theme E4.1 Ecosystem Diversity
The diversity, functional integrity and connectivity of natural, semi-natural and
agrifood ecosystems are conserved and improved.
C Description
Ensuring the effective conservation or improvement of complex ecosystems,
including those with agricultural and/or forest components, requires a broad
landscape approach. The purpose of landscape and marine habitat conservation
plans is the conservation, protection and restoration of wildlife habitat. Land use
and land cover change (LULCC), where natural/semi-natural habitats (e.g. wetlands,
primary forests, protected waterways, mangrove forests) or structurally complex
land use systems (e.g. grasslands, agroforestry, polycultures) have been replaced by
ecologically less valuable forms of land use and land cover. Ecosystem services that
benefit and at the same time are shaped by agricultural practices include nutrient
cycling, pest regulation, pollination, maintenance of soil fertility, water quality and
climate regulation. The adoption of ecosystem-enhancing practices builds functional
relationships and processes within ecosystems. However, the question of what is a
sufficient ecosystem diversity can be difficult to answer, as scientific and normative
aspects mix when it comes to biodiversity targets.
z
» Structural diversity on the utilized and adjacent enterprise is at least as high as
in natural ecosystems of the same region; polyculture is practiced both on land
and in aquatic (i.e. multi-trophic) operations.

» All areas at all sites used can be considered to be ecologically well-connected.

» The net LULCC caused by the enterprise is positive (more “upgrading” than
“downgrading” of habitat) and the enterprise has not caused any ecologically
degrading LULCC off-site. Failing this a partial compliance may be given if the
enterprise has not caused any ecologically degrading LULCC.
» Practices that aim at enhancing functional relationships and processes within
ecosystems by different actors in agriculture-based food chains, such as: greater
diversity and integration of plants and animals (including fish), maintenance of
semi-natural habitats with native vegetation and flowers, creation of pest-suppressive
conditions, etc.
» A written habitat conservation plan, available to all stakeholders, with exact
targets and time-frames and steps implemented towards achieving those targets.
z
» The enterprise has utilized all its and adjacent land/aquatic habitat and covered
it with monocultures with a single habitat layer and no substantial horizontal
heterogeneity, although the landscape would be structurally diverse without
human influence.
» The enterprise has less than 20 percent of the area of all sites used considered
being ecologically well-connected.
» The activities of the enterprise have contributed substantially to reducing the
connectivity and structural complexity of the landscape.
» The enterprise has caused ecologically degrading LULCC, without any ecological
compensation measures either on-site or off-site and the net LULCC caused by
the enterprise is negative.
» Has undertaken unacceptable practices such as: annual monoculture cultivation
and/or high external input livestock/aquaculture systems (e.g. stocking densities
that exceed the local carrying capacity by a factor of 2 or more); conversion of land
use or land cover change from more complex systems (e.g. natural or semi-natural
forests, grasslands and lakes), to arable land/aquaculture farms/single species
operations; reliance on off-farm synthetic inputs for both fertilizers and pesticides
and/or complete reliance on off-farm feed.


E 4.1.1. Landscape/Marine Habitat Conservation Plan
Does the enterprise have a plan that describes how to conserve or rehabilitate a
diversity of habitats within its sphere of influence?
Type: Target

E 4.1.2 Ecosystem-Enhancing Practices
What activities and practices have been implemented that have effectively
enhanced the functioning of ecosystem services, as well as the connectivity of
ecosystems?
Type: Practice

E 4.1.3 Structural Diversity of Ecosystems
On what share of utilized area does the enterprise have a high structural diversity
of habitats?
Type: Performance

E 4.1.4 Ecosystem Connectivity
What share of the natural and semi-natural ecosystems in the operation are
connected with similar ecosystems (within and adjacent to the operation’s
borders) in a way that allows an exchange between populations of key species?
Type: Performance

E 4.1.5 Land-Use and Land-Cover Change
Were any primary habitats (e.g. wetlands, primary forests, grasslands, protected
waterways) converted during the last 20 years by the enterprise’s operations,
including in areas where its inputs are sourced?
Type: Performance
Sub-theme E4.2 Species Diversity
The diversity of wild species living in natural and semi-natural ecosystems, as
well as the diversity of domesticated species living in agricultural, forestry and
fisheries ecosystems is conserved and improved.

C Description
The diversity of species in natural, semi-natural and productive landscapes and
seas can be influenced by a number of factors. Diversity of production focuses
on the share of utilized area where a diverse crop rotation and/or several species
are kept at the same time (e.g. polycultures, agroforestry, rice-fish systems). The
diversity and abundance of threatened and vulnerable wild species reflects the
integrity of the ensemble of species native to the site and must be protected
from invasive species. Many practices can contribute to the protection and
rehabilitation of species, such as maintaining a diversity of plants and animals
in production, the cultivation structurally diverse stands of perennials, the
protection of structures and habitats needed by wildlife (e.g. bird nesting aids
and insect nesting boxes) and the establishment of habitats within cultivated
landscapes that can serve as refuge to animals. The establishment of species
conservation targets and plans for the conservation, protection and rehabilitation
of species is not only important for rare or endemic species but also for capture
fisheries, regardless of the species they target (e.g. migratory stocks of some
tuna species).
z
» Has all of the utilized area either covered with diverse crop rotations or has
a polyculture/multi-trophic system in place AND all animal production is
characterized by a high species diversity.
» The diversity and populations of the threatened and vulnerable species have
increased, without creating imbalances in the ecosystem AND the populations
of introduced alien species have decreased AND the species selection and
monitoring methodology have been approved by public or private conservation
specialists or organizations.
» The enterprise has implemented all feasible conservation and rehabilitation
practices and for some of these, positive effects can be proven.
» The enterprise has written habitat/species conservation targets, available to
all stakeholders, with exact objectives and time-frames and steps have been
implemented towards achieving these targets.

z
» Crops are grown in monoculture, without any crop rotation, or only in a two-year
constant rotation with the same two crops, although alternative crops would be
available.
» Highly intensive single-species farming, forestry, fisheries operations and
plantations.
» The enterprise has no information about the development of populations of
threatened, vulnerable and introduced species in ecosystems managed or
influenced by the enterprise’s operations.
» Populations of threatened and vulnerable species have decreased and introduced
species have become invasive and this can partly be attributed to the impact of
the enterprise’s operations.
» The enterprise has implemented less than 20 percent of the feasible species
conservation practices or the enterprise’s activities have contributed to
deteriorating conditions for wildlife conservation and rehabilitation.

E 4.2.1 Species Conservation Target
Has the enterprise set a target for the conservation and rehabilitation of the
populations of rare and endemic species in its sphere of influence?
Type: Target

E 4.2.2 Species Conservation Practices
What activities and practices has the enterprise implemented to protect, maintain
and/or rehabilitate the integrity of populations of wild plants and animals in its
sphere of influence?
Type: Practice

E 4.2.3 Diversity and Abundance of Key Species
Have the diversity and abundance of threatened or vulnerable wild species on
the one hand, and invasive species on the other, increased in the operation? If
so, by what share?
Type: Performance


E 4.2.4 Diversity of Production
On what share of the utilized area does the enterprise have a diverse crop rotation
and/or use several species at the same time?
Type: Performance
Sub-theme E4.3 Genetic Diversity
The diversity of populations of wild species, as well as the diversity of varieties,
cultivars and breeds of domesticated species, is conserved and improved.
C Description
The importance of the abundance and diversity of species cannot be understated for
both agriculture and wild species. From wild species, pest resistance genes are rare
and predominantly found in unimproved varieties or wild accessions – the same can
be said about pathogen resistance, thus wild ancestors and relatives are the keys
to genetic diversity. Microorganisms, along with invertebrates, are also invaluable
contributors to ecosystems, as they pollinate crops and trees, recycle nutrients
in soils, ferment bread and cheese, help animals digest otherwise indigestible
forage and, with proper management, can provide natural protection against
plant pests. There are a wide range of strategies that can be adopted to enhance
genetic diversity including using locally adapted varieties/breeds, protecting and
preserving wild biodiversity and saving of seeds and breeds.
z
» For all species, the main genetic lineage of crops/exotic breeds, or the most
common genetic lineage within exotic breeds where no locally adapted breeds
exist, does not represent more than 50 percent. The threshold for a too high
genetic uniformity should be determined with the help of experts and for each
individual species.

» At least 50 percent of the cultivated lands are used for locally adapted, rare or
traditional varieties OR at least 50 percent of the animal population consists of
locally adapted or rare breeds.
» On at least 5 percent of the enterprise’s lands, non-utilized plants are growing
AND there is a high diversity of wild taxa.
» Most of the seeds of those species and varieties where this is feasible are saved
from year to year OR the enterprise is engaged with the breeding of at least one
locally adapted breed of animals in the operation, if feasible.
» The enterprise encourages its input providers to save seeds and keep rare/
traditional breeds and promote such practices in the enterprise’s communication
with all stakeholders.
» Practices are implemented to enhance the genetic diversity of wild species on,
or adjacent to its operations.
z
Unacceptable conditions and practices that fulfill this objective:
» The enterprise does neither save any seeds, nor use open pollinating varieties,
although this would be feasible OR it does not keep any locally adapted and/or
rare breeds, although this would be feasible.
» The enterprise does not have even 1 percent of land with non-utilized plants OR
the diversity of the chosen taxa is low.
» The common lineage/exotic breed or one genetic lineage within exotic breed where
no locally adapted breeds exist occupies 100 percent of lineages/breeds, in all
species used.
» The enterprise discourages its input providers (verbally or simply by avoiding
making contracts with such producers) to save seeds, use open-pollinating
varieties and/or keep rare/traditional breeds, although the enterprise could do so.
» The enterprise undertakes any of the following practices: monoculture cultivation
and/or intensive livestock/aquaculture operations (e.g. stocking densities that
exceed the carrying capacity of local pastures/aquaculture operations by more
than a factor of 2); has land use or land cover change from more complex systems,
such as natural or semi-natural forests and lakes, to arable land/aquaculture

farms/single species operations; has no habitat left aside for wildlife (e.g. buffer
strips, wildflower strips); captures/buys any fish species from stocks that are
endangered; production of crops is based on a single genetic lineage or all
production of animals is based on a single genetic lineage of an exotic breed.

E 4.3.1 Wild Genetic Diversity Enhancing Practices
What activities and practices has the enterprise implemented that have effectively
helped to conserve or rehabilitate the genetic diversity of wild species in its operation?
Type: Practice

E 4.3.2 Agro-Biodiversity in-situ Conservation
For each species, what is the share of production from others than the most
common genetic lineage/breed?
Type: Performance

E 4.3.3 Locally Adapted Varieties/Breeds
What is the share of production accounted for by locally adapted varieties/breeds
and by rare and traditional (heirloom) varieties and breeds?
Type: Performance

E 4.3.4 Genetic Diversity in Wild Species
How big is the share of the enterprise’s operation that shows a high diversity in
non-utilized plants, animals and microorganisms?
Type: Performance

E 4.3.5 Saving of Seeds and Breeds
Does the enterprise’s operation save seeds, or engage with breeding work to
conserve traditional and/or rare breeds on farm?
Type: Performance

THEME E5 – MATERIALS AND ENERGY

Materials and Energy in SAFA refer to the material input into an economy delivered by
the natural environment, the transformation and use of that input in economic processes
(extraction, conversion, manufacturing, consumption) and its return to the natural
environment as residuals or wastes. Sub-themes included are: Material Use; Energy Use;
and Waste Reduction and Disposal.

The flows of materials into, within and out of the human economy have reached
unprecedented levels. Unsustainable consumption and production patterns fuel material
consumption, energy use and waste generation. For example, 30 percent of foods produced
are not consumed, meaning the inputs made to its production are wasted as well. Food loss
and waste account for 3.3 Gtonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year, wastage of 350
km3 of water and undue occupation of 28 percent of world’s agricultural land (FAO, 2013).
The large quantity of global waste poses great challenges with regard to recycling and
disposal. Improper transport of hazardous waste, especially its export to countries with
insufficient national regulations on waste treatment, poses serious threats to humans and
ecosystems. Sustainable management of these flows is a key component of the green
economy concept (UNEP, 2011), which rests on the twin pillars of efficient resource
utilization and circular material flows (recycling and reuse).
Global energy use is by many accounts the most damaging activity on the planet. Its
many adverse impacts degrade air, water and soil quality, human and ecological health.
Current energy comes primarily from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and
natural gas. This burning produces a number of by-products, which mostly go into the
air as pollution, affecting people’s health and damaging soil and crops, freshwaters and
streams, ecosystems and accelerate corrosion of buildings and building materials.
Substantial cuts in the consumption of fossil fuels and associated CO 2 emissions are
necessary in order to avoid further temperature increases and the associated impacts
of climate change. With population growth, industrialization and urbanization trends,
demand is rising. Challenges to sustainable energy use include geological (limited
stocks of fossil fuels), biological (limited productivity of vegetation), economic (cost of
renewables) and social (limited acceptance of renewables) limitations. The two main

strategies to slow down the growth and impact of burning fossil fuels are: energy
efficiency (through technology) and recycling. Estimates are that the world could
halve the growth of energy demand simply through energy efficiencies and use more
renewable/alternative fuels. Renewable fuels are those that are continuously available
and sustainable in our environment (emissions neutral) like wind, solar, geothermal,
hydropower and biomass.
E5 MATERIALS AND ENERGY
o Theme Goal
Damage to ecosystems and contribution to resource scarcity resulting from
non-renewable material extraction, non-renewable energy use and waste
disposal are minimised through economical and efficient use, consequent reuse
and recycling/recovery and safe disposal.
Sub-theme E5.1 Material Use
Material consumption is minimized and reuse, recycling and recovery rates are
maximized.
C Description
Achieving efficiencies in the use of materials results in a wide range of
environmental, societal and economic benefits. Various materials that are of vital
importance to the functioning of food value chains stem from non-renewable
sources (e.g. Phosphorus fertilizers, fossil fuel, machinery, agrochemicals). As
many of these sources have to be considered as finite, reliance on them should
be gradually reduced by reverting to renewable alternatives and recycled
non-renewables. The replacement of virgin non-renewable materials with recycled
and renewable materials and the reduction of the material intensity of production
(as a measure of eco-efficiency) are central pillars of a green economy.

z
» The nitrogen and phosphorus balances of the operation do not deviate by more
than 10 percent from zero, that is supply and demand (imports and exports) are
in balance.
» The operation is completely independent from virgin non-renewable materials.
» The material intensity of production per unit of produce has substantially
decreased over the past five years. The percentage threshold for a “substantial”
reduction of material intensity should be set and justified by internal and external
experts, based on the level of material intensity already achieved by the company
at the beginning of the analyzed period.
» All feasible practices to reduce material intensity and replace non-renewable,
virgin materials have already been implemented.
z
» Major imbalances of nitrogen and/or phosphorus flows prevail over a prolonged
period and as a consequence, crop yields are reduced (nutrient deficiency), or
neighboring terrestrial and aquatic habitats suffer damage from eutrophication.
» Less than 20 percent of material inputs are procured from renewable and recycled
sources, although it would be technically and economically feasible to achieve
higher shares.
» The material intensity of production per unit of produce has substantially
increased over the past five years.
» Less than 20 percent of the feasible material intensity saving practices has been
adopted and/or less than 20 percent of the company’s materials-saving potential
has been realized.

E 5.1.1 Material Consumption Practices
What practices and activities has the enterprise implemented that effectively
replaced virgin non-renewable materials by recycled/reused/renewable ones in
the operation and replaced synthetic inputs with natural inputs?
Type: Practice


E 5.1.2 Nutrient Balances
What is the nutrient balance of the operations (supply vs demand, or imports vs
exports at farm or parcel level) for nitrogen and phosphorus?
Type: Performance

E 5.1.3 Renewable and Recycled Materials
What share of the enterprise’s total material use is generated from off-operation
virgin sources?
Type: Performance

E 5.1.4 Intensity of Material Use
How has the quantity of materials used (per unit produce) in the operations
changed during the last 5 years?
Type: Performance
Sub-theme E5.2 Energy Use
Overall energy consumption is minimized and use of sustainable renewable energy
is maximized.
C Description
While a shift from non-renewable to renewable and sustainable source of energy will
enhance the sustainability of food value chains, enhanced energy efficiency and
reduced energy use are further necessary pillars on the way to a sustainable energy
system. Not all enterprises however have access to renewable and sustainable
types of energy at an affordable price; however as renewable energy technologies
progress, they will be more common and affordable.
z
» The enterprise is completely independent from non-renewable and non-sustainable
sources.
» Energy use per unit of produce of the enterprise has constantly and substantially
decreased over the past five years.

» All feasible energy-saving practices have already been implemented and the
enterprise uses its full energy-saving potential.
» The enterprise has a written plan, available to all stakeholders, with a binding
renewable energy target and steps have been implemented towards achieving the
target.
z
» Less than 20 percent of net total energy supply is procured from renewable and
sustainable sources, although it would be technically and economically feasible
to achieve higher shares.
» Energy use per unit of produce of the enterprise has increased over the past five years.
» Less than 20 percent of the feasible energy saving practices has been adopted and/
or less than 20 percent of the company’s energy-saving potential has been realized.

E 5.2.1 Renewable Energy Use Target
Has the enterprise set a target for the share of renewable and sustainable energies
in its total direct energy use?
Type: Target

E 5.2.2 Energy-Saving Practices
What practices and activities has the enterprise implemented that effectively
reduced the energy requirements in its operation?
Type: Practice

E 5.2.3 Energy Consumption
How has the total direct energy consumption changed during the last 5 years?
Type: Performance

E 5.2.4 Renewable Energies
What share of total direct energy use is generated from sustainable renewable
sources?
Type: Performance

Sub-theme E5.3 Waste Reduction and Disposal
Waste generation is prevented and is disposed of in a way that does not threaten
the health of humans and ecosystems and food loss/waste is minimized.
C Description
The generation of waste, and in particular of hazardous waste, creates disposal
problems that can cause social problems (e.g. health risks, noxious odors),
environmental pollution (e.g. leaching from inappropriate disposal, gaseous
emissions) and economic damage (e.g. cost of disposal and rehabilitation). The
adoption of waste reduction plans and safe disposal practices is a foundation of
sustainable production in value chains. With regards to food waste, the minimisation
of food losses during production, post-harvest and processing, as well as food
waste that occurs at marketing and consumer level are an ethical imperative to all
enterprises.
z
» Food losses and waste do not exceed an inevitable minimum over the entire
sphere of influence of the analyzed enterprise. Where losses cannot be prevented,
all concerned food is put into use via other channels for reuse (e.g. charities, feed),
recycling (e.g. compost) or recovery (e.g. anaerobic digestion).
» The waste storage, treatment and disposal practices of the enterprise pose no
threat to the health of humans and ecosystems.
» All feasible practices to reduce waste generation have already been implemented
OR all of the enterprise’s operations are “zero-waste” operations.
» The enterprise has a written plan, available to all stakeholders, with binding waste
reduction targets, and steps have been implemented towards achieving the targets.
z
» Food loss and waste in the sphere of influence of the analyzed enterprise have
increased over the past years, OR the share of food loss and waste is higher than

usual in the same sector and region and the enterprise has taken no action to put
these into use via other channels.
» The waste storage, treatment and disposal practices of the enterprise cause
unacceptable or even illegal risks to the health of humans and ecosystems.
» Less than 20 percent of the feasible practices have been implemented OR less
than 20 percent of the company’s waste reduction potential has been tapped.

E 5.3.1 Waste Reduction Target
Has the enterprise set a target in reducing the generation of waste, as well as the
hazardousness of this waste, in or by its operations?
Type: Target

E 5.3.2 Waste Reduction Practices
What practices and activities have been implemented that effectively reduced
waste generation in the enterprise’s operation?
Type: Practice

E 5.3.3 Waste Disposal
How much solid waste does the enterprise generate that is not segregated,
stored and in such a manner that it is rendered non-hazardous to humans and
environment at the point of release from the enterprise?
Type: Performance

E 5.3.4 Food Loss and Waste Reduction
What is the share of food that is lost or wasted in the enterprise’s operations and
what share is reused, recycled or recovered?
Type: Performance

THEME E6 – ANIMAL WELFARE

Animal Welfare is the physical and psychological well-being of animals. Sub-themes
included are: Health; and Freedom from Stress.

The farm animal production sector is the single largest human user of land, contributing
to soil degradation, water quality and availability issues, and air pollution, in addition to
detrimentally impacting rural and urban communities, public health, and animal welfare.
It is one of the key drivers of deforestation in the Tropics. The scope of this sector’s
global impacts has been largely underestimated. Meat, egg, and milk production are not
just the direct product of rearing and slaughtering of farm animals. Rather, the animal
agriculture sector encompasses grain and fertilizer production, substantial water use, and
significant energy expenditures for transportation of inputs and finished products. Animal
agriculture’s greatest environmental influence may be its contributions to climate change.
According to the FAO, the animal agriculture sector is responsible for 18 percent, or nearly
one-fifth, of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, greater than the share contributed
by the transportation sector.
By 2050, global farm animal production is expected to double from present levels, with
most of those increases in the developing world. Livestock production under conditions
inappropriate for animal welfare and health is a major concern across production systems
and geographical regions. Common problems include overstocking, reliance on un-adapted
breeds, excessive or inadequate use of veterinary medicines, lack of space, light, clean
water and adequate fodder and cruel treatment. Ethical considerations are a major reason
to take care of animal welfare. For agronomic reasons as well, they have to be kept such
that their well-being is ensured, meaning that animals must be kept in an environmentally
unproblematic and species-appropriate way. Animal welfare applies to the same extent to
terrestrial and aquatic animals. Appropriate stocking densities, raising conditions and the
respect of slaughtering ethics are equally applicable in fisheries and aquaculture, as they
are for livestock and poultry animals.
During the last decade, many of the developed countries have seen a rapid move
toward explicit farm animal welfare standards. In 2005 the World Organization for Animal
Health (OIE) adopted guidelines for the international welfare of domesticated and food

animals. In Europe, the process has been led partly by national governments and the
European Union which have created mandatory animal welfare standards for most animal-
based commodities. In the United States, there are some legal protections against what
are considered the worst abuses, but the food service and retail sectors have played a
major role, with some companies creating standards that their suppliers are required
to meet. This has also been caused by public shift in perceptions towards animals with
demands for standards and safeguards for the care and use of animals in research, trade
and production.
E6 ANIMAL WELFARE
o Theme Goal
Animals are kept in such conditions that they can express their natural behaviour
and are free from hunger, thirst, discomfort, pain, disease and other distress.
Sub-theme E6.1 Animal Health
Animals are kept free from hunger and thirst, injury and disease.
C Description
Animal health is a state of physical and environmental well-being. For the sake of
simplicity, it can also be understood as the absence of illness and injury. Activities that
support animal health include good nutrition, health care and freedom from stress,
factors that reduce the need for veterinary treatments, as well as unwanted animal
losses.
z
» Preventive measures are preferred and no synthetic growth promoters (including
hormones) are used.
» Injury and disease rate is minimal or lower than benchmark values, if available.
» Regular check-up, if feasible, by professional animal healthcare.

» All animals in the enterprise’s sphere of influence benefit from integrated health-
promoting measures.
z
» Use of forbidden veterinary products and synthetic growth promoters and/or
inhumane treatment (including hormones).
» Although substantial health problems prevail, less than 20 percent of the
concerned animals benefit from measures to promote animal health in an
integrated manner.

E 6.1.1 Animal Health Practices
What activities and practices has the enterprise implemented that effectively
promoted the health of animals, while reducing the use of veterinary drugs and
preventing animal losses due to disease and injuries?
Type: Practice

E 6.1.2 Animal Health
What share of the enterprise’s animals is healthy and has not required any
treatment with veterinary drugs against illness or disease?
Type: Performance
Sub-theme E6.2 Freedom from Stress
Animals are kept under species-appropriate conditions and free from discomfort,
pain, injury and disease, fear and distress.
C Description
Humane animal handling practices seek to ensure that animals can enjoy the “five
freedoms”, namely freedom from: hunger and thirst; discomfort and pain, injury
and disease; fear and distress, and freedom to express normal behavior. Freedom
from stress increases animal health, as well as the quality of animal products.

z
» All animals in the enterprise sphere of influence have the possibility to behave
according to their specific needs.
» All animals in the enterprise sphere of influence live all of their life without
experiencing serious and prolonged stress.
» Avoidance of routine tail docking, teeth clipping, castration, de-horning and
comparable practices.
» There were no dead animals due to inhumane treatments.
z
» 20 percent (or less) of animals in the enterprise sphere of influence do not have
the possibility to behave according to their specific needs.
» Inhumane and illegal treatment of animals, such as butchering with a dull knife,
or unnecessarily long transport, without sufficient space and water.
» Practices to reduce the level of stress are implemented for less than 20 percent
of the concerned animals.

E 6.2.1 Humane Animal Handling Practices
Which practices and activities has the enterprise implemented that effectively
reduced the suffering and risk of injury of animals during all phases of their life,
including transport and killing?
Type: Practice

E 6.2.2 Appropriate Animal Husbandry
What share of the enterprise’s animals has the possibility to behave according
to their specific needs?
Type: Performance

E 6.2.3 Freedom from Stress
What share of the enterprise’s animals has sufficient freedom to move around,
live free of pain, discomfort and distress all the time, during all phases of their
life, including during transport and killing?
Type: Performance

ECONOMIC RESILIENCE
ECONOMIC RESILIENCE
I n a world dominated by shocks, SAFA focuses on economic resilience, more than on

economic development. Economic activity involves the use of labour, natural resources
and capital to produce goods and services to satisfy people’s needs (Jörissen et al.,
1999). The following themes are covered by the economic dimension of SAFA: Investment;
Vulnerability; Product Safety and Quality and Local Economy.
ECONOMIC RESILIENCE
INVESTMENT Internal Investment Community Investment Long-Ranging Investment Profitability
Stability of
VULNERABILITY Production
Stability of Supply Stability of Market Liquidity Risk Management
PRODUCT QUALITY & INFORMATION Food Safety Food Quality Product Information
LOCAL ECONOMY Value Creation Local Procurement
This dimension of sustainability is directly linked with the fulfilment of needs, a pillar
of sustainable development as defined by the World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED, 1987). Sustainability in the social and environmental domains is
supported by functioning economies and institutions. While inter-related, it is critical to
assess economic sustainability as a sustainability dimension in its own right.
To be considered economically sustainable, an enterprise should be capable of paying
all its debts, generating a positive cash flow, compensating for the negative externalities
it may generate, and adequately remunerating workers and shareholders. In addition, it
should have buffer mechanisms (savings, assets) to cope with changes and shocks out of
its control, for example, economic downturns, damaging weather, or catastrophic accidents.
In essence, it must be economically resilient.

ECONOMIC RESILIENCE
Some aspects of economic sustainability have potential tensions or tradeoffs with the
other concepts, such as “sustainable growth” and “green economy”. Steady and adequate
economic growth is a common proxy for positive socio-economic development. Economic
growth is the declared goal of most nation states and was endorsed by WCED (1987) and
UNEP (2011). The possibility of endless economic growth in a limited ecosphere has been
contested by many, and even dismissed as an oxymoron (Daly, 1990). Increasingly, the
goal of decoupling economic growth from the use of limited natural resources is becoming
popular (UNEP, 2011).
The SAFA Guidelines forego the macro-economic issue of growth rates in favour of a
micro-economic approach that focuses on the enterprise and the local community resilience.

C1 ECONOMIC RESILIENCE
THEME C1 – INVESTMENT
In SAFA, the term ‘investment’ is seen from a microeconomic perspective, that is it is
putting money into something, such as capital goods, human resources or ecosystems,
with a view to gain. Investments at the enterprise, community and value chain level are
considered. Sub-themes included are: Internal Investment; Community Investment; Long-
Ranging Investment; and Profitability.

Investment is an important factor in sustainable development. Improved production and
marketing and transfer of financial resources and knowledge are critical to ensure that
economic growth leads to social development, while preserving or enhancing the natural
resource base. Decisions about how and where to invest reflect the strategic direction of
the enterprise. Financial speculation, another form of investment, today has an enormous
importance for the economy, including in the food and agriculture sector. Investments into
sustainable development at the community level are important. Investment in sustainable
value chain development is considered, as it requires coordinated investment by actors
along the chain, with private enterprises having a key role in investing in improved logistics,
transportation, post harvest treatment, storage facilities, etc. Investment that is solely aimed
at public relations (e.g. branding, advertisements) does not fall into the scope of this theme.
Sustainable investment aims at supporting a development of the enterprise towards
enhanced social, environmental, economic and governance performance. Such investment
can for example take the form of research and development expenditures, development
and/or acquisition of infrastructure equipment that reduces polluting emissions to
the environment, services as monitoring, measures or technologies that enhance
buffering capacity against any kind of shocks (e.g. build-up of soil organic matter to
better withstand drought spells), and measures directed at capacity building or creating
awareness of sustainability in the organization. Some investment into sustainability may
have been done under different titles in the past, for example “lean manufacturing”, or
“eco-efficiency”. A survey by MIT Sloan Management Review and The Boston Consulting
Group revealed that “a growing number of companies are now increasing their investments
in sustainability“; 59 percent of respondents said they had increased their commitment
to sustainability from 2009 to 2010. As benefits, improved brand reputation (49 percent),

C1 C1.1 ECONOMIC RESILIENCE
reduced costs due to energy efficiency (28 percent) and increased competitive advantage
(26 percent) were most frequently cited (Haanaes et al., 2011).
Investment in the agriculture and food sector includes investment into agricultural
and agro-ecological research, agricultural training, the improvement and utilization of
neglected and underutilized crops, and smallholder agriculture (IAASTD, 2009). Fisheries
and aquaculture are equally concerned by these types of investment.
C1 INVESTMENT
o Theme Goal
Through its investments, the enterprise enhances its sustainability performance
and contributes to sustainable development at the community, regional, national
or international levels.
Sub-theme C1.1 Internal investment
In a continuous, foresighted manner, the enterprise invests into enhancing its
sustainability performance.
C Description
This objective relates to an enterprise investing resources (i.e. time, human
resources, funds) to improve the enterprises own sustainability performance at
any number of the dimensions: governance, environmental, social and economic.
Improving the enterprise sustainability performance requires the commitment of
the governance body and the capacity to generate change accordingly. Without
proper investment allocation and oversight of this matter, it is less probable that
an enterprise could make significant progress.
z
» Having a monitoring system in place to oversee the sustainability performance
of the enterprise at social, economic, environmental and governance levels.

» The enterprise has prioritized activities and practices that targeted the
improvement of the enterprise’s sustainability performance.
» The enterprise can demonstrate progress in its sustainability performance during
the last five years.
z
Unacceptable conditions that relate to this objective:
» The enterprise has not implemented any investment in the last 5 years aimed at
monitoring and improving its sustainability performance.

C 1.1.1 Internal Investment
In which activities and practices has the enterprise invested during the last 5 years to
improve and monitor its social, economic, environmental and governance performance?
Sub-theme C1.2 Community investment
Through its investments, the enterprise contributes to sustainable development
of a community.
C Description
Investing in a community refers to the allocation and use of multiple resources
(i.e. time, human resources, funds) to address and contribute to resolve a
community need(s). The enterprise’s micro-environment includes the community
where operations are taking place, so there is an organic relationship between
the enterprise’s activities and investments, and the community’s sustainable
development. Whether directly or indirectly, the enterprise’s operations have an
influence on the community.
z
» The investments and activities implemented by the enterprise address and meet
at least some identified community need.

» There are records of multiple positive socio-economic and environmental impacts

as a result of the enterprise’s investments and activities implemented.
» There is not a disproportionate (over)consumption of resources (i.e. financial,
energy, natural) in the investments made.
» Community beneficiaries acknowledge the effective and positive contribution of
the enterprise to the community sustainable development.
z
» The enterprise investments or activities increase community(ies) needs, either
directly or indirectly.
» There are records of negative socio-economic or environmental impacts, as a
result of the enterprise’s investments or activities implemented.
» The investments or activities jeopardize community(ies) by over-consumption
of resources (i.e. financial, energy, natural).

C 1.2.1 Community Investment
How has the enterprise’s investments contributed to address and meet community
needs, with an efficient use of resources and maintaining an environmental balance?
Sub-theme C1.3 Long-Ranging Investment
Investments into production facilities, resources, market infrastructure,
shares and acquisitions aim at long-term sustainability rather than maximum
short-term profit.
C Description
Financial sustainability is a major pillar to ensure the enterprise’s operations and
growth in the long-term and over its life cycle. An enterprise needs to develop
business plans and allocate resources to strengthen its capacity to generate and
increase profits over the long term – such as research on product development,

training programmes for selected employees, acquisition of resources, such as

land or businesses, equipment and facilities, design and implementation of a
marketing strategy. The enterprise also needs to invest for long-term solvency and
profitability in order to remain in business and to enhance its potential and growth.
Investiments to strengthen its capital structure (i.e. financial, natural, physical,
human and social), as well as its competitive advantage in the marketplace, are
needed to guarantee a sound economic performance, financial responsibility and
long-term success. However, the development of business plans and the making
of long range investment does not always ensure the business viability and
growth of an enterprise during its entire life cycle, as other factors might affect its
performance, for instance, the enterprise’s governance and management, external
policies and regulations and market forces.
z
» The enterprise has undertaken investments that aim to generate profits over a
period of at least five years.
» The enterprise has undertaken investments to generate profits in the short-term
and has met completely its financial needs and obligations of the current year.
» The enterprise has a business plan or an up-to-date document articulating
revenue streams, growth plans, and an operational action plan that projects the
generation of financial resources for the future.
z
» The enterprise has not done any investment that aim to generate profits over a
period of at least five years.
» The enterprise invests only to maximize its profit in the short-term.
» The enterprise has an incomplete, or no, business plan and does not have any
intention to develop one.

C 1.3.1 Long Term Profitability
Do the enterprise’s investments aim to establish and reinforce the conditions to
maintain, generate and increase the enterprise profits in the long-term?


C 1.3.2 Business Plan
Does the enterprise have a business plan or an up-to-date document articulating
revenue streams, growth plan, and an operational action plan that projects the
generation of financial resources for the future?
Sub-theme C1.4 Profitability
Through its investments and business activities, the enterprise has the capacity
to generate a positive net income.
C Description
Financial profitability is a major pillar to ensure the enterprise’s operations and
growth in the long-term and over its life cycle. Key contributing factors to the
profitability of an enterprise include its net income, its costs of production, as well
as the prices it sets and receives for its goods and/or services. Trends in these over
time provide insights into the profitability of an enterprise.
z
» The enterprises total revenue earned in the last 5 years exceeds the total expenses,
including interest and taxes over the same period.
» The enterprise has completed a process to determine the total cost of the products
sold and per unit of production and has calculated the break-even point.
z
» The enterprise has a negative net income in each year of the last five years.
» The enterprise has not completed any process to determine the total cost of the
products sold, per unit of production or calculated the break-even point.
» The full cost of a unit of production is not recovered. The enterprise has not
implemented any steps to improve the conditions lying behind the fact that the
cost of unit of production is not recovered.


C 1.4.1 Net Income
Does the earned revenue that the enterprise retains exceed the total expenses,
including interests and taxes associated with producing the goods sold, during
the last five years?

C 1.4.2 Cost of Production
Has the enterprise completed a process to determine the total cost of the product
sold and per unit of production to calculate its break-even point?

C 1.4.3 Price Determination
Has the enterprise considered a break-even point to negotiate with their buyer’(s)
selling price in all contracts?

THEME C2 – VULNERABILITY
Vulnerability relates to exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity of both human and
natural systems. Thus, it includes the degree of exposure to risk (hazard, shock) and
uncertainty, and the capacity of households or individuals to prevent, mitigate or cope
with risk. Sub-themes included are: Stability of Supply; Stability of Market; Liquidity; Risk
Management; Stability of Production.

The vulnerability of enterprises, value chains and markets to the dynamics of natural and
socio-economic environments can be buffered and their resilience enhanced by building
and maintaining adaptive capacity. Building resilient social, economic and ecological
systems is a key challenge on the way to sustainable development (Folke et al., 2002).
In economic systems, strong dependence on single suppliers and/or buyers due to a
dominance of one or few companies, or because only a single product is marketed, can
increase the risk of the enterprise if this supplier/buyer, or product, is gone. Factors that
contribute to resilience include a diversity of suppliers of production factors (including
capital and labor) and a diversity of income sources. Generally, and contrary to diversity,
the duration and stability of business relationships are predictors of resilience. Striking
a balance between the long-term goal of maintaining the diversity of production and
marketing channels needed to maintain resilience on the one hand, and the short-term
drive to reduce unit costs on the other, is a major challenge. A third pillar of resilience
is a sufficient buffering capacity, in the form of assets, inventory, formal and informal
insurance, which can help an enterprise withstand shocks and changes.
Enterprises in the food and agriculture sector operate under very volatile conditions.
Market dynamics, weather, political developments and technological progress are out of
the control of producers and operators and can be unpredictable. The globalization and
growth of markets, as well as climate change, enhance the uncertainty and volatility
of economic and environmental conditions (e.g. IPCC, 2007). In today’s industrial
agro-ecosystems, which rely on a narrow species and genome basis, production can be
disrupted if only one or few species substantially suffer stress or loss. While such agro-
ecosystems mainly depend on the availability of buffers in the form of energy (fuel),
pesticides and financial liquidity, buffering capacity can also be provided by soils with

sufficient content and quality organic matter and a good water retention capacity, by a
diversity of utilized species, varieties and breeds, and by services provided by natural
ecosystems (e.g. biological pest control).
Vulnerability and resilience in agriculture and food systems are not internationally
regulated. However, measures known to enhance resilience through increased diversity
and buffer capacity are defined in international sustainable agriculture and organic
standards, as well as for sustainable forestry, fisheries and aquaculture.
C2 VULNERABILITY
o Theme Goal
The enterprise’s production, supply and marketing are resilient in the face of
environmental variability, economic volatility and social change.
Sub-theme C2.1 Stability of Production
Production (quantity and quality) is sufficiently resilient to withstand and be
adapted to environmental, social and economic shocks.
C Description
As part of its risk management strategy, an enterprise needs to reduce as much
as possible the negative impact of having production shortages due to economic,
social and environmental shocks, and to ensure that volume and quality of the
production are met. There are a number of strategies that can influence the stability
of production; however, the applicability and effectiveness will vary between
situations. There are mechanisms that ensure that the quantity and quality of the
production is sufficiently resilient to withstand environmental, social and economic
shocks and which reduce the risks that might threaten the enterprise’s production
process and business commitments and quality standards. Product diversification
allows the enterprise to expand beyond its product range, by modifying existing
products or adding new products. It is a business strategy that could provide sales

opportunities and growth to the enterprise through additional market potential. It

aims to increase sales volume from new products and new markets. It also includes
brand extension, or the creation of new brands for existing products. Product
diversification also serves to manage the risks (i.e. market, weather, price) that the
enterprise may face by spreading it across multiple products and markets.
z
» The enterprise has a plan to guarantee the required volume of production and the
compliance with quality standards in the event of facing social, environmental
and economic shock.
» The enterprise has implemented all mechanisms included in the plan in order to
achieve its objectives.
» The enterprise currently produces a wide variety of products, goods, species or
varieties of plant or animal for income generation OR the enterprise offers a wide
variety of services to the industry.
» The enterprise has conducted a risk analysis to determine its level of vulnerability
versus the type and number of products, goods, species and varieties of plant
or animal it currently produces for income generation OR the enterprise has
conducted a risk analysis to determine its level of vulnerability versus the type
and number of services it offers.
» The result of the risk analysis does not recommend as a priority a greater product
diversification.
z
» The enterprise has not developed any plans, nor has identified any mechanism
to guarantee the required volume of production and the compliance with quality
standards in the event of facing social, environmental and economic shocks.
» The enterprise has not advanced in implementing any mechanism to guarantee
production and quality levels.
» The enterprise currently produces only one product, good, specie or variety of
plant or animal for income generation.
» There are records that reveal that the enterprise has an unfavorable level of
vulnerability due to its mono-production.

» The enterprise has not progressed in implementing any step towards product
diversification.

C 2.1.1 Guarantee of Production Levels
What are the actions and mechanisms that the enterprise has put in place to
reduce the negative impact of the risks that could affect meeting the target
volume of production and quality standards?

C 2.1.2 Product Diversification
Does the enterprise produce more than one product, specie or variety of plant or animal
for income generation?
Sub-theme C2.2 Stability of Supply
Stable business relationships are maintained with a sufficient number of input
suppliers and alternative procurement channels are accessible.
C Description
Stability of supply is influenced by procurement channels, or the ways the enterprise
obtains the input supplies (e.g. seed, fertilizers, food ingredients, packaging) required
to produce the product(s) to be sold in the market or to offer the core enterprise’s
service(s) to clients. Ensuring that inputs, goods and services, are delivered on time,
reduces the enterprise’s vulnerability and risk exposure to suppliers that might affect
reaching the expected production levels, or delivering the type and quality of service
offered. Suppliers that maintain a mutually beneficial business relationship with the
enterprise for long periods of time contribute to the overall stability. Diversifying the
enterprise supply structure helps to have the capacity and flexibility to face and to
resolve any kind of problem the enterprise could face in the market. It also reduces
supply risk default. Having a large number of suppliers does not mean necessarily
that the supply chain is diversified. It is equally important to assist and train the
suppliers on what the enterprise expects from them, and what the enterprise will
do with the inputs provided.

z
» The actions and mechanisms implemented target maintaining business
relationships with a number of suppliers that could guarantee the required input
supply.
» The actions and mechanisms implemented enable the access to alternative
procurement channels in case current suppliers fail to provide the required inputs.
» There are no records of input supply shortages, or periods during which the
enterprise has failed to meet the expected volume of production on time or to
deliver the service offered.
» 100 percent of contracts with suppliers are based on fair and beneficial terms and
conditions, and have remained on-going over the last 5 years.
» The enterprise has conducted a risk analysis of its supply chain in order to identify
its level of vulnerability to certain input supplies and suppliers.
» The enterprise has developed and implemented a strategy to minimize the supply
risk and to establish a diversified supply structure when it is more appropriate.
z
» No actions and mechanisms have been implemented to guarantee the required
input supply or to reduce its supply risk.
» There are records of input supply shortages that have undermined the production
process and the delivery of products and services to the market.
» No contracts with suppliers that enhance business development, based on fair
and beneficial terms and conditions has remained on-going over the last 5 years.
» There are records of unfavorable practices that the enterprise has had with any
of its suppliers during the last five years.
» There are records that reveal that the enterprise has an unfavorable level of
vulnerability to certain input supplies and suppliers.

C 2.2.1 Procurement Channels
Which actions and mechanisms has the enterprise put in place to reduce the
risk of having input supply shortages, including maintaining ongoing business
relationships with suppliers?


C 2.2.2 Stability of Supplier Relationships
What share of supplier contracts/business relationship has remained on-going
over the last 5 years?

C 2.2.3 Dependence on the Leading Supplier
What share of inputs comes from the leading supplier?
Sub-theme C2.3 Stability of Market
Stable business relationships are maintained with a sufficient number of
buyers, income structure is diversified and alternative marketing channels are
accessible.
C Description
Marketing channels refer to the ways the enterprise ensures the transfer and sale of
the products and goods to the next stage of the food chain and to the final consumer.
Key tasks include: making contact with potential buyers, negotiating price and
conditions, contracting, transferring the products and goods. The ultimate goal of
the marketing channels is to guarantee that the products or goods are sold at an
appropriate time, and the enterprise earns revenue. Ensuring that the products and
goods are sold at the appropriate time is a major business target. In order to guarantee
this success, the enterprise requires designing and implementing a marketing
strategy to identify potential buyers that could meet the enterprise expectations and
could eventually purchase its products and goods. Market risk could be significantly
reduced through the establishment of stable business relationships with a diversified
number of buyers. Furthermore, it could be minimized through the identification of
alternative marketing channels that could be accessible when contracts, agreements
or relationships are discontinued. In post-harvest chain, in perishable products,
additional uncertainties have to be handled because of vulnerabilities in market
supply and prices influenced by climate conditions/diseases or other disasters, such
as consumers´ behavior, among others.

z
» The actions and mechanisms implemented have targeted a diversified income
structure with at least three or more buyers, where no buyer is responsible for a
substantial part of the annual income obtained from the products sold.
» The actions and mechanisms implemented have targeted a consolidated income
structure where buyers have maintained a business relationship for at least more
than a year, with written contracts or agreements.
» The actions and mechanisms implemented allow the enterprise accessing
alternative marketing channels in case contracts, agreements or business
relationships are discontinued.
» Since the implementation of such actions and mechanisms, there has been no
records of related financial loses, as all products or goods have been sold.
z
Unacceptable conditions in relation to this objective;
» One buyer is responsible for 100 percent of the annual income obtained from the
products sold.
» The income structure of the enterprise is made of one or two buyers only.
» No actions and mechanisms have been implemented to enhance a diversified
and consolidated income structure.
» There are no written records regarding the sales agreement, or the purchase
order from the buyer.
» There are records of financial losses, as the enterprise hasn’t been able to sell the
products or goods at the appropriate time, and it has kept a large and unnecessary
level of inventory, when applicable.

C 2.3.1 Stability of Market
Which actions and mechanisms has the enterprise put in place to ensure a
diversified and consolidated income structure from product sales or from the
services provided?

Sub-theme C2.4 Liquidity
Financial liquidity, access to credits and insurance (formal and informal) against
economic, environmental and social risk enable the enterprise to withstand
shortfalls in payment.
C Description
The ability to sustain appropriate levels of financial liquidity against economic,
environmental and social risks is critical for a sustainable enterprise. Net cash
flow measures the liquidity level of the enterprise by calculating the net cash flow
that results from different activities that the enterprise implements, including for
instance, the disposal of a credit line. Safety nets – which could be programmes,
institutions, networks, social relationships and mechanisms - support the enterprise
to withstand any individual of systemic shock. The need to access safety nets is
critical, especially in periods of crises, when for instance, the enterprise faces a
lack of cash-flow and is not able to meet its short-term financial obligations (e.g.
payment of loans, payment of salaries, purchase of inputs, seeds). Safety nets can
be classified as formal and informal. Formal safety nets are those which legally
guarantee the enterprise access to financial, economic or social support (i.e. banks,
micro-credit institutions, public social programmes, government transfers of food
or cash). Informal safety nets provide likelihood of support to the enterprise to cope
with the risk and vulnerable situation it is facing, but with no legal guarantee (i.e.
family, friends, community groups and non-governmental institutions).
z
» Assessing a company’s comprehensive free cash flow ratio; although there is no
performance-tier system based on an exact percentage, the higher the ratio the
better.
» Net cash flow is above 0 (positive). The organization should record positive year-
over-year, or season over season, net cash flow. Short-term negative cash flow is
accepted only if the enterprise has set-up precautionary measures, like a bridge
loan, which will help it survive unexpected cash shortfall situations.

» The enterprise’s safety net includes a sufficient number of financing sources that
maintain its capital flow.
» The risk analysis of the enterprise does not recognized financial liquidity as a
major risk.
z
» Net cash flow is negative for each year, or season, of the period. Negative cash
flow balances put an enterprise at risk of becoming insolvent and cease to exist.
While planning to invest in new plant and equipment, the enterprise needs
to ensure that the investment will pay-off and generate a positive net present
value.
» The financing is maintained from one source, with no alternative back-up
financing solutions.
» Financial liquidity is a major risk faced by the enterprise.

C 2.4.1 Net Cash Flow
Has the enterprise generated a positive net cash flow in the last five years?

C 2.4.2 Safety Nets
Does the enterprise have access to formal or informal financial sources to withstand
liquidity crises?
Sub-theme C2.5 Risk management
Strategies are in place to manage and mitigate the internal and external risks
(i.e. price, production, market, credit, workforce, social, environmental) that the
enterprise could face to withstand their negative impact.
C Description
Risks that the enterprise could be exposed to include: price, production, market and
credit risk, unstable employment relations, unavailability of workforce, conflicts

with the community and other stakeholders, natural disasters, diseases and climate
change. Internal risks are those that the enterprise can have more control on within
the scope of the business (e.g. accidents at the workplace). External risks are those
risks that the enterprise does not have any control on (e.g. heavy rains). There are a
number of strategies that can be adopted to manage risks with the development of
a risk adaptation and mitigation plan being a common one. This is a structured set
of actions and mechanisms to implement to prevent, manage and reduce the extent
to which the enterprise is exposed to internal and external risks and likelihood of
occurrence, and to minimize possible negative impacts.
z
» A set of actions and mechanisms has been implemented to adapt and/or
reduce the possible negative impact of all internal and external risks that could
potentially threaten the enterprise’s business.
» Records that present how the enterprise has reduced the likelihood of occurrence
of certain risks, the level of exposure to them and their potential negative impact.
z
» The enterprise has not evaluated which internal and external risks could
potentially threaten its business.
» The enterprise has not implemented any action and mechanism to adapt and/or
reduce the possible negative impact of any internal or external risk that could
potentially threaten the enterprise’s business.

C 2.5.1 Risk Management
Does the enterprise have a plan to reduce and ready itself against risks that could
potentially threaten the business?

THEME C3 – PRODUCT QUALITY AND INFORMATION

Product quality is “the totality of features and characteristics of a product that bear on
its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs.”(ISO). Sub-themes included are: Food Safety;
Food Quality; and Product Information.

All people have the right to expect the products they consume, in particular their food, to
be safe and suitable for consumption (FAO/WHO, 2003a). Likewise, producers, processors,
retailers and consumers have a right to be informed by their suppliers about all attributes
of a product relevant for its utilization. As value chains have become more complex, the
number of opportunities for contamination and other quality loss has increased, together
with deception concerning origins and quality.
Food can easily be contaminated, for example, through environmental pollution of air,
water and soils, the intentional use of chemicals such as pesticides and animal drugs
(Campbell, 1992), microbiological contamination and spoilage. Contaminants may also
be present in food as a result of the production, manufacture, processing, preparation,
treatment, packing, packaging, transport or holding of such food (CAC, 2011). Food
quality and safety can be achieved through management systems that are built on good
agricultural and manufacturing practices. In addition, systematic preventive approaches
such as Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), controlling the flow of food
ingredients and products along the entire food chain, as well as traceability contribute to
food safety and quality.
The growing number of food safety problems and consumer concerns has prompted
governments all over the world to intensify their efforts to improve food safety (WHO,
2007). Traceability systems are also on the rise, especially for certain food products (e.g.
meat and livestock products) and consumer demand has driven certification systems that
provide guarantee on quality claims.

C3 PRODUCT QUALITY AND INFORMATION
o Theme Goal
Any contamination of produce with potentially harmful substances is avoided,
and nutritional quality and traceability of all produce are clearly stated.
Sub-theme C3.1 Food Safety
Food hazards are systematically controlled and any contamination of food with
potentially harmful substances is avoided.
C Description
A food safety hazard is a biological, chemical or physical agent in, or condition
of, food with the potential to cause an adverse health effect. Some examples are:
improper use of agricultural chemicals (i.e. insecticides, fungicides, herbicides,
fertilizers), metal and rock fragments, the appearance of virus, bacteria and
parasites and the use of some genetically-modified organisms that have been
proven to be harmful. The management of food safety risks includes awareness of,
and management of, control measures, or the actions that the enterprise can take to
reduce the potential of exposure to food hazards, or to reduce the likelihood of the
risk of exposure to the hazards being realized. Chemical substances or biological
agents used to prevent, destroy, attract, repel, mitigate or control any pest (such as
insects, plants pathogens, weeds, fungi or other microorganisms as bacteria and
viruses) are classified as moderate, hazardous and highly hazardous pesticides. The
category of Highly Hazardous Pesticides include: endocrine disruptors pesticides,
immune toxic pesticides, pesticides using hazardous nanomaterials, genotoxic
pesticides and environmental toxic pesticides (bee toxicity). Pesticides can cause
severe or irreversible harm to health or the environment under conditions of use.
An enterprise is responsible for ensuring a healthy and safe environment for its
employees, as well as preventing any health and environmental damage in the
society from exposure to these pesticides. There are cases in which adulteration
of food has been reported due to negligence, accident, or involuntary misconduct

of the enterprise. In these cases, food products that have been distributed and
consumed are spoiled or infected because they either contain microorganisms
(such as bacteria or parasites), or toxic substances that make them unsuitable for
consumption. The occurrence of food contamination could have severe negative
impacts on consumers’ health. Recurrent incidents of food contamination caused
by the enterprise’s products and goods could also affect buyers’ and consumers’
confidence and influence their buying decision.
z
» Control mechanisms are in effective operation that fully comply with
correspondent regulations to prevent and control food hazards and food
contamination.
» The enterprise has adopted best agricultural and manufacturing practices to
prevent and control food contamination, based on the correspondent health and
safety regulations.
» The enterprise employees are informed and trained and have access to the
equipment required to ensure food safety and prevent any contamination incidents.
» The enterprise has a policy (extended to the suppliers, when applicable) that
prohibits the use of synthetic pesticides in all the stages of the food chain OR
the enterprise policy is to use organic and natural pest control, when appropriate.
z
» There are no mechanisms in place to prevent and control neither food hazards,
nor food contamination OR there is lack of a written procedure clearly describing
actions in case of food safety event, responsibilities, communication and
withdrawal procedures.
» There are records of food contamination (chemical and biological) incidents from
the enterprise products in the last five years OR there is an increasing trend of
number of food contamination incidents reported during the period.
» There are records of contamination and toxic effects to human health and the
environment during the last five year attributed to the enterprise OR there are
records that the enterprise has used Highly Hazardous Pesticides during the
last five years.


C 3.1.1 Control Measures
Does the enterprise have food hazards and safety control measures in place that
comply with correspondent and applicable regulations?

C 3.1.2 Hazardous Pesticides
Have any of the employees handled, stored or used any highly hazardous
pesticides during the last five years?

C 3.1.3 Food Contamination
Were there any documented incidents where pesticide residues, in ingredients or
products, have exceeded the maximum allowed limits during the last 5 years, or were
there any other documented incidents of chemical or biological food contamination
(e.g. due to the use of heavy metals, unapproved GMOs, mycotoxins) during the last
five years?
Sub-theme C3.2 Food Quality
The quality of food products meets the highest nutritional standards applicable to
the respective type of product.
C Description
“Quality standards” refers to the set of rules defined to guarantee food quality
and to meet the highest nutritional standards respective to the type of product.
Quality standards are also important for forest products, including wood products
and non-wood products. Food standards are a body of rules or legislation defining
certain criteria, such as composition, appearance, freshness, source, sanitation,
purity, which food must fulfill to be suitable for distribution or sale. The enterprise
implements quality control measures to ensure that the expected level of quality
of the product and nutritional standards are met. Product quality is an important
component to leverage the enterprise’s market positioning and growth. Its
competitive advantage lays predominately in two main factors: quality of the

product and its price. Achieving high quality levels and the highest nutritional
standards might benefit considerably the enterprise’s business growth. Even
though each product might require meeting specific nutritional standards, there
are some that might be recommended across the food chain, for instance: level of
calories based on the ranges defined by the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs), low
content of saturated and trans fat, no added sugar, low content of additives, rich in
fiber, minerals, vitamins and proteins. The national departments or ministries of
health, education or agriculture tend to define and recommend specific nutritional
standards for each product that the enterprise should know to ensure its compliance.
Even though respecting pesticides maximum residues limits is considered safe in
food, food quality is enhanced when such residues are minimal or absent, such as
in organic food.
z
» 100 percent of the volume of production has successfully passed the quality control
that measures the required and highest nutritional standards the product needs
to meet.
» Wood and non-wood products meet accepted quality standards.
» The enterprise staff is informed and trained in adopting the best practices to meet
the expected food quality levels and the highest nutritional standards.
z
» Any amount of the production has not passed the quality control that measures
the required nutritional standards the product needs to meet.
» The enterprise has not implemented any step towards adopting best practices to
produce food products that meet the highest nutritional standards and food quality
levels.

C 3.2.1 Food Quality
What share of the total volume of production complies with the required quality
norms and standards?

Sub-theme C3.3 Product Information
Products bear complete information that is correct, by no means misleading and
accessible for consumers and all members of the food chain.
C Description
Product labeling is an essential part of transparent accountability to customers
and ultimately, consumers. Information usually provides details on the content
and composition of products but also particular aspect of the product, such as its
origin and its production method. Labeling and claims vary from nutritional, ethical
(e.g. fair trade) and production process (e.g. integrated production, biodynamic)
characteristics and can include the mundane, such as whether the food is the result
of genetic engineering (e.g. GMO-free) or specific consideration to wildlife (e.g.
dolphin-free tuna, bird-friendly coffee). Increasingly, mechanisms and procedures
ensure traceability over all stages of the food chain, so that products can be easily
and correctly identified and, if need be, recalled. Traceability systems improve
management of risks related to food safety and guarantees products’ authenticity
where specific claims are made (e.g. organic), thus giving reliable information
to customers. Certified sustainable production enables an enterprise to assure
its customers of the sustainability of the entire supply chain (i.e. production,
storage, processing, transportation, marketing). It is a growing field and is gaining
credibility, as very large and powerful enterprises are subscribing to it.
z
» The enterprise fully complies with all relevant legally required labeling codes for
its products. It seeks to go beyond minimum standards in providing consumer
information, is responsive to its stakeholders and has an accessible system
whereby consumers and other stakeholders can obtain further product quality
and safety information.
» 100 percent of the total volume of production for the last year can be identified,
followed and recalled along the food chain through a traceability system OR

the enterprise has established a traceability system that covers all the products
produced, covering all the stages of the food chain.
» The enterprise keeps a procurement record which identifies the certification
status for all procurement, distribution and production.
» The enterprise is able to provide evidence of assessments for any non-certifiable
procurement, distribution or production and this assessment details the problem,
reason for the decision, plan to remedy and date for review.
z
» The enterprise has not complied with labeling codes and has sought to avoid the
impact of these codes or products are knowingly or regularly incorrectly labeled.
» Zero percent of the total volume of production has a traceability system in place or
the enterprise has not advanced in designing and adopting a traceability system.
» The enterprise has no records of certification of its procurement, distribution or
production or the records of certified procurement, distribution or production are
not independently verified or are self-awarded.

C 3.3.1 Product Labelling
Are applicable product labeling codes fully complied with, and can the enterprise
show evidence of exceeding these standards wherever possible?

C 3.3.2 Traceability System
Does the system ensure traceability over all stages of the food chain, so that
products can be easily and correctly identified and if need be, recalled?

C3.3.3 Certified Production
Can the enterprise identify all ingredients and inputs used in its enterprise and can
it provide evidence of certified sustainable sourcing?

THEME C4 – LOCAL ECONOMY

Local Economy in SAFA is considered from the perspective of the enterprise and the
contributions that the enterprise makes to local economic development. Sub-themes
included are: Value Creation; and Local Procurement.

In a sustainable economy, the region is not only a place to work, but one where incomes
are also spent and invested and where taxes are paid. Local Economic Development (LED)
is a process in which all sectors work together to stimulate local commercial activity. It
has been considered a cornerstone of sustainable development (UN Habitat, 2009). A
sustainable local economy is diversified and does not simply shift the costs of maintaining
its good health onto other regions. LED can thus reduce environmental pressures related
to transportation of goods over large distances (Norberg-Hodge and Gorelick, 2002). It
adds as much value as possible in the region, rather than just exporting raw materials.
LED should foster employment, infrastructural development, as well as a high quality
of life (OECD, 2010). Beyond economic growth, it is about providing opportunities for all to
obtain decent work at the local level. It can contribute to a region’s becoming more resilient
to turbulence in the global economy. Rather than opposing globalization, LED strategies
aim at strengthening local economies such that they benefit from the exchange with other
regions, rather than becoming overly fragile and losing their functionality.
In rural areas, farming substantially contributes to LED through value and job creation and
the creation and maintenance of infrastructure (FOAG, 2009). This is particularly relevant
for a sustainable development of these areas, as over the last 50 years, 800 million people
have moved from rural areas to cities and to foreign countries (IFAD/FAO, 2008). This
development often goes along with a “brain drain”, that is a loss of competent, innovative
workforce who could otherwise play a positive role for the sustainable development of the
region. The lack of investment in agriculture and rural areas, not only by private investors, but
also by governments, is among the principal causes of rural poverty and migration into cities
(IFAD, 2007). This lack of investment has been identified as an underlying cause of the recent
food crisis and of the difficulties developing countries encountered in dealing with it. Thus,
enterprises in the food and agriculture sector are in a particularly good position to contribute
to local economic development in those areas where local value creation is needed the most.

C4 LOCAL ECONOMY
o Theme Goal
Through production, employment, procurement, marketing and investments in
infrastructure, the enterprise contributes to sustainable local value creation.
Sub-theme C4.1 Value Creation
Enterprises benefit local economies through employment and through payment
of local taxes.
C Description
Enterprise can support the creation of value in a local economy through employment
opportunities and fiscal contributions. The employees the enterprise hires that come
from the community, municipality or region where operations are based create a
regional workforce. The contribution of the enterprise to the local economy through
the employment of local professionals and technicians is a significant component of
sustainable development, and might benefit the long-term business viability of the
enterprise. Fiscal commitment refers to the enterprise disposition to make effective its
responsibility and obligation as a tax contributor by paying the local taxes for which
it is eligible. The contribution of the enterprise to the local economy, by paying its
correspondent taxes at the appropriate time, is a significant component of sustainable
development
z
» The enterprise has a human resources policy that prioritizes hiring regional
employees when similar skills, profile and conditions are offered in relation to
other candidates.
» The enterprise has hired regional employees during the last 5 years in all the
cases that similar skills, profile and conditions have been offered to perform
adequately the required duties and responsibilities.
» The enterprise has paid all the local taxes that are applicable and due in all
countries of operation.

z
» The enterprise has hired during the last 5 years in all applicable cases non-regional
or external candidates when regional candidates offer similar skills, profile and
conditions.
» The enterprise has not paid any local taxes that are applicable and due in all
countries of operation.

C 4.1.1 Regional Workforce
Has the enterprise prioritized hiring regional candidates during the last five years
when considering other candidates with similar skills, profile and conditions?

C 4.1.2 Fiscal Commitment
Does the enterprise pay the applicable taxes as indicated by local regulations?
Sub-theme C4.2 Local Procurement
Enterprises substantially benefit local economies through procurement from local
suppliers.
C Description
Local Procurement refers to the commitment and effective accomplishment of the
enterprise to benefit local economies through procurement from local suppliers.
Procurement from local suppliers contributes to make the economy more dynamic.
Supply chain stakeholders grow and could generate value through employment,
investment in the community and skills development. Instead of buying its inputs
supplies from overseas, the enterprise could establish business relationships
with local suppliers and integrating them in the supply chain. By doing so, the
enterprise could have significant benefits also, such as influencing the quality of
the inputs, supporting the productivity and cost-efficiency of its suppliers through
the provision of training, technology or financial resources, and the possibility to
have regular and personal communication for mutual benefit.

z
» The enterprise has developed and applied a procurement policy that prioritizes
the purchase of inputs, products and ingredients from local suppliers.
» In 100 percent of the cases where local suppliers can provide the required inputs
to the enterprise, under equal of similar conditions in comparison to non-local,
the enterprise has selected local suppliers.
z
» In most cases where local suppliers can provide the required inputs to the
enterprise, under equal of similar conditions in comparison to non-local, the
enterprise has selected non-local suppliers.

C 4.2.1 Local Procurement
Has the enterprise procured from local suppliers when equal or similar conditions
apply in comparison to non-local suppliers?

SOCIAL WELL-BEING
SOCIAL WELL-BEING
S ocial sustainability is about the satisfaction of basic human needs and the
provision of the right and the freedom to satisfy one’s aspirations for a better
life (WCED, 1987). This applies as long as the fulfilment of one’s needs does not
compromise the ability of others, or of future generations, to do the same. In SAFA, social
well-being covers the following themes: Decent Livelihood; Fair Trading Practices; Labour
Rights; Equity; Human Health and Safety; and Cultural Diversity.
Basic human needs and rights are defined in the International Bill of Human Rights,
SOCIAL WELL-BEING
DECENT LIVELIHOOD Quality of Life Capacity Development Fair Access to Means of Production
FAIR TRADING PRACTICES Responsible Buyers Rights of Suppliers
Freedom of Association and

LABOUR RIGHTS Employment Relations Forced Labour Child Labour Right to Bargaining
EQUITY Non Discrimination Gender Equality Support to

Vulnerable People
HUMAN SAFETY & HEALTH Workplace Safety and Health Provisions Public Health
CULTURAL DIVERSITY Indigenous Knowledge Food Sovereignty
which consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN, 1948), the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UN, 1966a) and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UN, 1966b). For the food and agriculture sector,
Human Rights are translated into the Right to Adequate Food (FAO, 2004). Human Rights
are further specified for work environments in the Declaration of Fundamental Principles
and Rights at Work (ILO, 1998).
Guidance on how to protect and respect human rights in business operations is provided

SOCIAL WELL-BEING
by the “UN Protect, respect and remedy framework for Business and Human Rights”.
Business enterprises are responsible of respecting human rights, both in their own business
activities and where human rights impacts are “directly linked to their operations, products
and services by their business relationships” (UNHRC, 2011).
International norms and certification standards widely integrate the concepts
and principles of these conventions and declarations. In SAFA, the contribution
of the assessed entity to the fulfilment of human needs is at the centre of the social
sustainability dimension.

S1 SOCIAL WELL-BEING
THEME S1 - DECENT LIVELIHOOD

Decent Livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social
resources) and activities required for a means of living that meets the basic needs to
maintain a safe, decent standard of living within the community and have the ability to
save for future needs and goals. Sub-themes included are: Right to Quality of Life; Capacity
Development; and Rights of Fair Access to Land and Means of Production.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that “everyone has the right to a
standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family,
including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the
right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age
or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control” (UN, 1948). Livelihood
concepts, as reviewed by Hussein (2002), adopt a broader focus than just the material
basis of living. According to Chambers and Conway (1991), a livelihood comprises the
capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living. It is sustainable when it can
withstand and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or improve its capabilities
or assets, without undermining the natural resource base.
An adequate standard of living is out of the reach for billions of people around the world,
particularly for rural populations in developing countries, for masses of people who have
been dislocated from their homelands by economic pressures or environmental crises, and
for vulnerable groups such as women and children. Some 1.4 billion people lived in extreme
poverty (in 2005) and more than 2.6 billion people lacked access to improved sanitation.
Food security is no reality for 875 million people. Analysis of the current situation shows
a degradation of livelihoods in many places around the world. Indeed, over-exploitation
of natural resources impairs people’s capabilities to cope with stresses and shocks and
economic crisis, resulting in significant job and land losses add pressures on livelihoods.
The food and agriculture system plays a pivotal role to provide sustainable livelihoods,
as it can provide employment and create value for particularly vulnerable people. For
small-scale producers and family farms in general, the sustainability of the enterprise and
that of the family’s livelihood are intertwined, and one cannot be achieved in isolation
from the other.

S1 S1.1 SOCIAL WELL-BEING
S1 DECENT LIVELIHOOD
o Theme Goal
The enterprise provides assets, capabilities and activities that increase the
livelihood security of all personnel and the local community in which it operates.
Sub-theme S1.1 Quality of Life
All producers and employees in enterprises of all scales enjoy a livelihood that
provides a culturally appropriate and nutritionally adequate diet and allows time
for family, rest and culture.
C Description
Producers and employees in enterprises of all scales have the right to a quality of
life that affords time to spend with family and for recreation, adequate rest from
work, overtime that is voluntary and educational opportunity for themselves and
their immediate families. In addition, quality of life means that they have the
time to produce or procure and prepare healthy meals for themselves and their
families that include fresh produce and a culturally appropriate diet. Quality
of life furthermore implies the flourishing of culture, and the ability of all to
participate in the collective way of life built over generations by an identified
group or society. Defining features of a culture include different combinations of
the following: language, religion and ethnicity. Culture may be expressed in diets,
clothing, philosophy, arts, music, architecture, agriculture, business structures,
governance structures, celebrations, rituals and other social interactions and
customs. What constitutes a good quality of life however is subjective and
relative, and is difficult to quantify in one measurement.
z
» The enterprise stakeholders (i.e. primary producers, enterprises and all employees
and their families) report that they live free from oppression, in peace, security
and mental and physical health with adequate time for personal and family needs.

» 100 percent of employees and personnel involved in the enterprise are paid a
living wage.
z
» The enterprise prevents primary producers or employed workers from speaking
their native language, practicing their chosen rituals and religion, enjoying a
culturally appropriate diet, with adequate shelter, living with time for family life and
culture, free from anxiety or with the constant need for exhausting underpaid labor.
» Overtime is compulsory and not fully compensated.
» Employees are paid below the poverty rate for the region, or below the prevailing
average rate the industry.
» Employees are paid by piece-rate at a wage that requires more than standard
work-week hours or encourages unhealthy conditions to reach a living wage.
» Docking of pay or withholdings by the employer for punishment purposes.

S 1.1.1 Right to Quality of Life
Do all producers and employees in enterprises of all scales have time for family,
rest and culture, and the ability to care for their needs, such as maintaining
adequate diets?
S. 1.1.2 Wage Level
Do all primary producers who supply enterprises and all employees earn at least a
living wage?
Sub-theme S1.2 Capacity Development
Through training and education, all primary producers and personnel have
opportunities to acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to undertake current
and future tasks required by the enterprise, as well as the resources to provide
for further training and education for themselves and members of their families.

C Description
For enterprises to be sustainable, they must provide conditions for stable employment,
internal advancement, capacity development and growth for employees. Employees
who are learning and growing and feel that they have a promising career path
are more likely to do their best work and contribute to the improvement of the
enterprise. Similarly, producers have the right to adequate resources so that they
can increase their own skills and knowledge, and assure the future of their enterprise
by providing opportunities for learning and training for members of their family,
community or tribe. It should be noted that large operations have more opportunity
for advancement for their employees; however, even small-scale operations with a
very small number of seasonal employees may be able to provide educational or
training opportunities for them.
z
» Small-scale producers network to identify best practices with neighbors and other
farmers in the region, seek and attend trainings from extension agents or local
non-profits on improved practices.
» Primary producers recruit apprentices, or interested family members, to ensure
that the next generation of farm management is ready when the time comes.
» Enterprises enable producers and workers to attend training, conferences, or
other learning and networking events, with a view to introducing improved
management and techniques that are more productive and efficient, more
environmentally sound and innovative and more profitable.
z
» Employers hire from outside their enterprise when they want new skills or greater
capacity and do not give their own workers the chance to advance.
» Primary producers’ children seek opportunities elsewhere, as the enterprise fails
to adapt and innovate.
» The enterprise discriminates against particular ethnic, gender or racial groupings
when selecting candidates for training and advancement.


S 1.2.1 Capacity Development
Do primary producers and employees have opportunities to increase skills and
knowledge, to advance within the enterprise in which they work or to build the future
of their own enterprise?
Sub-theme S1.3 Fair Access to Means of Production
Primary producers have access to the means of production, including equipment,
capital and knowledge.
C Discussion
Primary producers’ rights to access means of production are critical to their
ability to build a decent livelihood for themselves and their families. The means of
production include knowledge, equipment, and facilities required for the producer
to meet the output level necessary to maintain a decent livelihood and cover their
costs of production, including paying a living wage to their employees. When
primary producers have access to the means of production, they are able to access
and implement training or other knowledge transfer regarding the best practices
for their operations. They are able to purchase or make equipment and materials
that allow for their operation to run efficiently and complete their harvests without
facing debt loads that could destabilize their operation.
z
» Access to agricultural extension services that are regular and relevant;
conferences, trainings, or events that regularly offer opportunities to gain skills;
courses at local or online colleges, foundations, or other programmes to teach
best practices and skills; other opportunities that allow the enterprise to regularly
update their operations to best practices for efficiency and sustainability.
» Access to necessary equipment and facilities.

z
» The enterprise is unable to maintain facilities and/or buildings or equipment are
in disrepair.
» Significant post-harvest losses, contamination or other loss of product occur that
reduce profits, and would be preventable with better equipment or implementation
of best practices.
» The enterprise does not have access through any conduit to further training or
knowledge and skill building regarding their operations.

S 1.3.1 Fair Access to Means of Production
Do primary producers, including indigenous people, have access to the equipment,
capital and knowledge or training necessary for decent livelihood?

THEME S2 - FAIR TRADING PRACTICES

Fair Trading Practices in SAFA include both legal and human rights that allow farmers,
pastoralists, fishers, craftspeople and other primary producers to have access to markets
where fair prices are negotiated, stable, based on true costs, agreements are long-term and
where contracts, whether written or verbal, include a process for settling disputes free from
retaliation in a mutually agreed manner. Sub-theme included are: Responsible Buyers; and
Suppliers’ Freedom of Association and Right to Collective Bargaining.

The fair trading practices theme covers the following objectives for primary producers: the
freedoms and rights of association, to collective bargaining, to fair choice of buyers and fair
competition, to fair prices, and to fair negotiations and fair trading conflict resolution. The
buyers’ responsibilities are to fully recognize these rights and freedoms and to negotiate
in good faith for mutually agreed fair terms and conditions.
While it is widely recognized that respecting the rights of workers and paying them
living wages is essential to agricultural sustainability, fair trading practices for primary
producers, whether they employ workers or do all the work themselves, is also essential
to maintaining the agricultural sustainability of their enterprises for the long term. In
cases where primary producers directly hire workers, it is a fundamental prerequisite for
workers’ rights to be fully achievable. With the globalization of trade, unfair competition
and practices have emerged to create a crisis for primary producers in both developing and
developed countries. Primary producers are losing their land, driven to the cities by wars,
environmental disasters, misguided public policy and economic desperation. The highly
concentrated and multinational agricultural buyers often receive governmental supports
that distort markets, encouraging pricing schemes that fail to reflect their full costs to society
and the environment while also failing to cover the full costs of production for primary
producers. Food policies that encourage or reward the undermining of fair trading practices
put constant downward pressure on the long-term sustainability of primary producers.
The position on human rights for workers adopted in SAFA - that of the UN ‘Protect,
respect and remedy’ framework, proposed by the Special Representative of the
Secretary-General on the issue of Human Rights and transnational corporations and

other business enterprises (UNHRC, 2011) - applies as well for small-scale producers. The
‘respect’ pillar of the framework addresses business enterprises. They are responsible
for respecting human rights wherever their own business activities and those directly
linked with their business relationships cause human rights impacts. In some countries
and in some jurisdictions, legal support for fair trading exists, but in all too many rural
areas around the globe, primary producers face buyers without adequate oversight, or
the necessary tools, information or power to negotiate fair terms. Primary producers
also bare an inordinate share of the risks posed by climate and environmental disasters,
while receiving market terms that are not sustainable or fairly established. By prioritizing
fair trading practices, SAFA helps set the groundwork for programmes that encourage
and develop collaborative and cooperative relationships among primary producers and
between those producers and the people who work for them. Only by recognizing their
common interests will producers and their workers have the power to transform the present
globalized markets into a just and sustainable food system.
S2 FAIR TRADING PRACTICES
o Theme Goal
Fair trading practices provide suppliers and buyers with prices that reflect the true
cost of the entire process of sustaining a regenerative ecological system, including
support for right livelihood for primary producers, their families and employees.
Sub-theme S2.1 Responsible Buyers
The enterprise ensures that a fair price is established through negotiations with
suppliers that allow them to earn and pay their own employees a living wage, and
cover their costs of production, as well as maintain a high level of sustainability
in their practices. Negotiations and contracts (verbal or written) are transparent,
based on equal power, terminated only for just cause, and terms are mutually
agreed upon.

C Description
For sustained trading relationships to exist, buyers must pay primary producers
prices for their products that reflect the real cost of the entire process of sustaining
a regenerative ecological system. This further supports a living wage and a right
to decent livelihood for primary producers, their families and workers, as well as
covering the producer’s costs.
z
» 100 percent of trade deals with suppliers are based on contracts with buyers that
include a conflict resolution process for resolving differences and agreement that
trade relations will not be terminated except for just cause.
z
» Buyers set prices without consultation with suppliers.
» Buyers make arbitrary changes to a contract without agreement of the supplier.
» Buyers retaliate against suppliers who raise issues or complaints about the terms
of trade.
» Buyers terminate trade agreements with suppliers without just cause.

S 2.1.1 Fair Pricing and Transparent Contracts
Do buyers through their policies and practices recognize and support suppliers’
(particularly primary producers) rights to fair pricing and fair contracts and
agreements?
Sub-theme S2.2 Rights of Suppliers
The enterprises negotiating a fair price explicitly recognize and support in good
faith suppliers’ rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining for all
contracts and agreements.

C Discussion
Suppliers’, particularly primary producers’, rights to freedom of association and
collective bargaining are basic freedoms that form the necessary basis and
prerequisite conditions for fair trading with buyers to be established.
z
» Buyers have relationships of trust with 100 percent of their suppliers, based on
their rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining.
z
» A buyer retaliates against suppliers for initiating their rights and freedoms,
including canceling of contracts and verbal threats against producers.
» Buyers do not allow producers to share proposed contracts or agreements with
family members, or have representative(s) of their choice present during any
negotiations and/or seek and retain legal counsel.
» Buyers pit one producer or group of producers against another.
» Buyers retaliate against suppliers who raise issues or complaints about the terms
of trade.

S 2.2.1 Rights of Suppliers
Do buyers explicitly recognize and support suppliers’ (particularly primary
producers’) rights to freedom of association and to collective bargaining?

THEME S3 - LABOUR RIGHTS

Labour Rights refers to the group of legal rights and claimed human rights having to do
with labour relations between workers and their employers, usually obtained under labour
and employment law. Sub-themes included are: Employment Relations; Forced Labour;
Child Labour and Employees’ Freedom of Association and Right to Bargaining.

Basic human needs and rights are a framework for human development that has been
acclaimed by the vast majority of countries. However, enforcement of international labour
standards still represents a major challenge for the food and agriculture sector. Overall, due
in particular to its largely informal nature, rural work is seldom covered by national labour
legislation, in law and in practice. In some countries and sectors of the economy, human
rights violations are a reality, including beatings and violence, the denial of basic freedoms,
intimidation and harassment, and even torture and death. The question of how business,
particularly multinational enterprises, should deal with human (and thus also labour) rights
issues not covered by national law is the subject of intensive debate. The position on the
issue adopted in SAFA is that of the UN ‘Protect, respect and remedy’ framework, proposed
by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of Human Rights and
transnational corporations and other business enterprises (UNHRC, 2011). The ‘respect’
pillar of the framework addresses business enterprises. They are responsible for respecting
human rights wherever their own business activities and those directly linked with their
business relationships cause human rights impacts.
Where the principles underlying the international declarations and covenants on
human and labour rights have been put into national law, their relevance to the food and
agriculture industries is obvious. Many companies in the sector pro-actively recognize
their potential to support human rights within their value chains, and also the benefits
that arise from doing so. Many international standards and approaches also implemented
in the sector address human and labour rights. Human rights and labour rights are also a
central issue in the standards of multi-stakeholder commodity roundtables. As labour rights
can be a sensitive topic, for example on small-scale and family farms, indicator selection
and data collection in the context of SAFA must be done very carefully. For example, it is
recommendable to gather evidence from local communities and civil society organizations,
including producers’ and workers’ organizations, as well as from labour inspectors, in

addition to interviewing employees directly. Such mechanisms are particularly important

in order to track the respect of main international labour standards in the frame of business
relationships established (e.g. sub-contractors).
S3 LABOUR RIGHTS
o Theme Goal
The enterprise provides regular employment that is fully compliant with
national law and international agreements on contractual arrangements,
labour and social security.
Sub-theme S3.1 Employment Relations
Enterprises maintain legally-binding transparent contracts with all employees
that are accessible and cover the terms of work and employment is compliant with
national laws on labour and social security.
C Description
Employment Relations refer to enterprises maintaining legally binding transparent
contracts with all employees that are accessible and cover the terms of work.
Employment is compliant with national laws on labour and social security. Verbal
terms of employment should be discouraged, however they are considered contracts
by courts and may be more present with small-scale producers.
z
» Enterprises written policies provide legally binding contracts for all employees
that meet labour laws and treaties.
z
» No written contract or terms of employment are provided by the enterprise.
» Contracts do not meet national and international labour laws and treaties.

» Contract terms are not clear to employees.

» Employees (or both employers and employees) are not literate and no provision
is made for third party verbal contract terms communications.
» The contract is not made available to employees upon request.

S 3.1.1 Employment Relations
Does the enterprise or employees’ sub-contractors have written agreements with
their employees that at least meet national and international labor treaties including
social security, or, for enterprises that are primary producers at least have a clear
understanding based on verbal agreement between employer and employees?
Sub-theme S3.2 Forced Labour
The enterprise accepts no forced, bonded or involuntary labour, neither in its own
operations nor those of business partners.
C Description
While legal slavery has been abolished in the countries where it has been practiced
historically, it still exists in many surreptitious and hidden forms. Employers or
their hired labour contractors, or crew leaders, keep workers’ passports or other
documents, thus preventing them from leaving or from protesting against work
and living conditions they might find abhorrent. Workers take positions in foreign
countries only to discover that the wages or living conditions are not what they
were promised and find themselves stranded without the means or language skills
necessary to switch to another job or to return home. Unfortunately, there are all
too many variations on this theme in workplaces around the world.
z
» The enterprise ensures that no forced labor is part of their supply chain through
written policies and in practice.

z
» The enterprise withholds full earned wages for any reason, including until the
end of a harvest season or completion of some quota of work.
» The enterprise pressures one spouse to continue working in order to preserve the
position of the other spouse, or for other reasons.
» Retaliates by reducing pay or with termination when employees raise important
grievances.
» Threatens to turn undocumented worker over to border patrol to force acceptance
of low wages or poor working conditions.
» Uses physical or psychological coercion to pressure worker to remain on the job
or to accept low wages or poor or dangerous working conditions.

S 3.2.1 Forced Labour
Does the enterprise or employees’ sub-contractors employ people who are not free
to quit or who cannot raise grievances without fear of retaliation?
Sub-theme S3.3 Child Labour
The enterprise accepts no child labour that has a potential to harm the physical
or mental health or hinder the education of minors, neither in its own operations
nor those of business partners.
C Description
Child Labour refers to work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential
and their dignity, and that is harmful to physical and mental development. Whether
child labourers work on their parents’ farms, are hired to work on the farms or
plantations of others, or accompany their migrant farm-worker parents, the hazards
and levels of risk they face can be worse than those for adult workers. Whether
or not particular forms of “work” can be called “child labour” depends on the
child’s age, the type and hours of work performed, the conditions under which it is

performed and the objectives pursued by individual countries. The answer varies
from country to country, as well as among sectors within countries (ILO Convention
182). Not all work done by children should be classified as child labour that is to be
targeted for elimination. Children’s or adolescents’ participation in work that does
not affect their health and personal development or interfere with their schooling
is generally regarded as being something positive. This includes activities such
as helping their parents around the home or family garden, assisting in a family
business or earning pocket money outside school hours and during school holidays.
These kinds of activities contribute to children’s development and to the welfare of
their families; they provide them with skills and experience, and help to prepare
them to be productive members of society during their adult life.
z
» The enterprise has no employees under the age of 16 that are regularly employed
in a way that would interfere with their rights.
z
» The enterprise hires workers for full-time positions who are under the age of 16.
» The enterprise does not verify the practices of business partners, subsidiaries,
input suppliers or sub-contractors to make sure that no minors are employed full
time or that children are employed even part time in dangerous work.
» The enterprise assigns jobs to minors that are dangerous to them physically,
mentally or morally.

S 3.3.1 Child Labour
Does the enterprise, or its subsidiaries or sub-contractors, employ minor children,
16 years of age or younger, who are working full time or more, engaged in jobs that
are dangerous to them physically, mentally or morally, and who are deprived of the
opportunity to live as children, to attend school and/or other appropriate training?

Sub-theme S3.4 Freedom of Association and Right to Bargaining
All persons in the enterprise can freely execute the rights to: negotiate the terms
of their employment individually or as a group; form or adhere to an association
defending workers’ rights; and collectively bargain, without retribution.
C Description
Employees’ rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining are basic
employee freedoms that form the necessary basis and prerequisite conditions for
employment to flourish into the future.
z
» The enterprise facilitates the establishments of all workers’ rights and provides
facilities and training on legal rights for all employees.
z
» The enterprise places restrictions on transparency and negotiations.
» The enterprise retaliates against employees for initiating the rights and freedoms,
including cancelling of contracts/subcontracts and verbal threats against labour.
» The enterprise refuses to allow employees to have representative of their choice
present during any negotiations or fails to allow employees to share proposed
contracts or agreements with family members and/or seek and retain legal
counsel.
» Makes arbitrary changes to contract without agreement of employees.
» Pits one employee or group of employees against another.

S 3.4.1 Freedom of Association and Right to Bargaining
Are the employees in an enterprise free to negotiate, as individuals or as groups,
or through a union or representatives of their choosing to set the terms of their
employment?

THEME S4 - EQUITY
Equity involves the degree of fairness and inclusiveness with which resources are
distributed, opportunities afforded and decisions made. Sub-themes included are:
Non-discrimination; Gender Equality; and Support to Vulnerable People.

Social equity is one of the principal values underlying sustainable development, with all
people and their quality of life being recognized as a central issue. Equity involves the
degree of fairness and inclusiveness with which resources are distributed, opportunities
afforded and decisions made. It includes the provision of comparable opportunities of
employment and social services, including education, health and justice. Significant issues
related to its achievement include the distribution of productive resources and employment,
gender and ethnic inclusiveness, and inter-generational opportunity.
As discrimination against women prevails in many places, gender equality is particularly
important. Substantially more women live in poverty (829 million) than men (522 million).
There is increased recognition of crucial links between poverty eradication, employment
and equality (ILO, 2011). Poverty eradication programmes that focus on general income
levels only (e.g. by providing income support) frequently miss the underlying causes of
vulnerability. For example, schooling levels among poor children can be raised through
spending on education, but future income will not increase without policies that effectively
address causes of economic vulnerability, such as ethnic, racial and gender discrimination
(UN, 2010). In agriculture, forestry and fisheries, government aid and training programmes
must extend to women producers, as well as men. For example, situations where the man
of the family takes over land for market crop production that the wife is using for family
subsistence should be avoided.
In a business context, implementing the equity concept means that any discrimination
of persons or groups on the basis of whatever characteristics must be avoided. This
requirement applies to hiring, promotion, job assignment, termination, compensation,
working conditions and even harassment, and it pertains to direct as well as indirect
forms of discrimination (ILO, 2011). Enterprises are confronted with equity aspects also in
their relations with suppliers, contractors, consumers or share-holders. Equity in business
relations is a principal pillar of good corporate governance.

In the agriculture and food sector, vulnerable and precarious working conditions are
particularly prevalent. The sector employs large numbers of non-salaried family members,
in particular women, of workers that have not benefited from professional training, and of
seasonal workers, many of them foreigners at the location where they work. The provision
of these types of work should firstly be recognized as a substantial benefit of the sector
to society. Furthermore, it implies a need and responsibility to pay particular attention to
equity at work, on family farms, in the household and in the apportionment of resources
between cash crops and subsistence.
S4 EQUITY
o Theme Goal
The enterprise pursues a strict equity and non-discrimination policy and
pro-actively supports vulnerable groups.
Sub-theme S4.1 Non-Discrimination
A strict equity and non-discrimination policy is pursued towards all stakeholders;
non-discrimination and equal opportunities are explicitly mentioned in enterprise
hiring policies, employee or personnel policies (whether written or verbal or code
of conduct) and adequate means for implementation and evaluation are in place.
C Description
Sustainable enterprises do not discriminate against any employee or prospective
employee based on race, creed, colour, national or ethnic origin, gender, age,
handicap or disability (including HIV status), union or political activity,
immigration status, citizenship status, marital status, or sexual orientation in
hiring, job allocation, training, advancement, lay-offs or firing.
z
» Enterprises have clear policies of non-discrimination and apply those policies
consistently to all employees and in all dealings with suppliers.

z
» As employers, enterprises give preference to one ethnic or racial group over
others in hiring, placement, training and advancement.
» As buyers, enterprises give preference to one ethnic or racial group over others
in awarding contracts.
» Enterprises pit one ethnic or racial group against another to drive down prices
or conditions of work.

S 4.1.1 Non Discrimination
Does the enterprise discriminate against any employee or prospective employee based
on race, creed, colour, national or ethnic origin, gender, age, handicap or disability
(including HIV status), union or political activity, immigration status, citizenship
status, marital status, or sexual orientation in hiring, job allocation, promotions and
firing or in awarding contracts to primary producers for supplies?
Sub-theme S4.2 Gender Equality
There is no gender disparity concerning hiring, remuneration, access to resources,
education and career opportunities.
C Description
This objective intends to ensure that barriers to the employment of women on an
equal basis with men are removed, that women receive equal pay for the same
or similar work, and have equal opportunities for training and advancement. In
addition, there are special protections for women employees before, during and after
pregnancy. Medical benefits are provided for the woman and her child in accordance
with national laws and regulations, or in any other manner consistent with national
practice. Finally, women are protected in their employment and are guaranteed the
right to return to the same position, or an equivalent position, paid at the same rate
at the end of her maternity leave.

z
» The enterprise has no discrimination against women in hiring, remuneration,
training, advancement, access to resources or firing.
z
» Given equal skills, the enterprise favours men over women in hiring, placement,
training, pay and advancement, or any other aspect of the operations.
» As buyers, enterprises give preference or pay higher prices to male primary
producers in awarding contracts.
» The enterprises fails to provide for the safety of pregnant women employees, does
not provide paid maternity leave, fires women who take time off to have a baby
or refuses to allow women to return to their previous position or a position with
similar wages when they return from maternity leave, and does not allow women
to nurse during working hours.

S 4.2.1 Gender Equality
Does the enterprise discriminate against women in hiring, remuneration, training
and advancement, access to resources or firing?
Sub-theme S4.3 Support to Vulnerable People
Vulnerable groups, such as young or elderly employees, women, the disabled,
minorities and socially disadvantaged are proactively supported.
C Description
Support to vulnerable people focuses on enterprises providing support and making
accommodations for employees and primary producer suppliers at different life
stages and differing levels of ability and disability. Enterprises can perform
important services by providing targeted recruitment for minorities or the socially
disadvantaged and language training for people who do not speak the dominant

language, or have not had the benefit of schooling. In addition, if a worker is injured
on the job, he is considered a vulnerable employee and the employer provides
alternative work at a comparable wage to accommodate the disability.
z
» The enterprise has policies and practices that have effectively accommodated
varying levels of ability and disability, young workers and aged ones.
» The enterprise provides resources to the local community to support vulnerable
people with social and health services, training including languages and
cultural events.
z
» Enterprise fires workers who have been injured on the job, or fails to provide
alternative work that these workers are still capable of performing.
» As a buyer, enterprise fails to award contracts to primary producers from minority
or disadvantaged groups.
» Enterprise assigns vulnerable workers (such as young or very old workers) to
tasks that involve using toxic materials or dangerous equipment, or schedules
them on night shifts.
» Enterprise does not provide jobs for the disabled, but does have the capacity to do so.
» Enterprise does not provide work that is appropriate for elderly employees, but
does have the capacity to do so.
» Employer hires only athletic young men and fails to rehire them if they have
suffered injuries or become older and slower.

S 4.3.1 Support to Vulnerable People
Does the enterprise accommodate varying levels of ability and disability, young
workers and aged ones and provide resources to the community to support vulnerable
people, women, minorities and the disadvantaged, with social and health services,
training, and cultural events for women, minorities and the disadvantaged?

THEME S5 – HUMAN SAFETY AND HEALTH

Human Health and Safety is the promotion and maintenance of the highest degree of
physical, mental and social well-being of workers in all occupations (ILO/WHO). Sub-themes
included are: Workplace Safety and Health Provisions for Employees; and Public Health.

Occupational safety and health are of paramount importance for the social sustainability
of personnel relations, for enterprises on all scales from the smallest holding to the largest
factory or plantation, and for national economies. There is growing evidence that improving
healthcare, fighting disease and increasing life expectancy are all essential for supporting
economic growth and long-term business success. Neither development nor enterprises
can be sustained when a high proportion of the population and the workforce suffer
from poor health. A clean environment is important to health and well-being. Protecting
and promoting human health requires primary health care – especially in rural areas
– controlling communicable diseases and preventing health hazards originating in the
working environment and from diets (see Product Safety and Quality).
The health of employees has a direct impact on their productivity at all types of work
(Nelson and Prescott, 2008). Worldwide, more than 350 000 work-related fatal accidents
and 2 million cases of work-related fatal disease occur each year. The number of non-fatal
accidents (causing more than four days absence from work) is estimated to be 1 000 times
higher (Al Tuwaijri, 2008). Beside the loss of work performance, the enterprise sustains
follow-on expenses for administration, recruitment and efforts for re-integration due to
loss of knowledge. The sustainability of the workplace should be improved by considering
health and safety concerns in the physical and psycho-social work environment, including
the organization of work and workplace culture, as well as personal health resources in
the workplace. Furthermore, participation to improve the health of workers’ families and
other members of the community is desirable (Burton, 2010).
In the food and agriculture sectors, the occupational security and health situation is
characterized by specific hazards and risks, with high numbers of incidences (Toscano,
1997; EWCS, 2007). Straining physical work, exposure to harmful substances (e.g.
chemicals, pesticides and dust), work with machines, equipment and animals all can
cause health problems and even death. Many enterprises in the sector are small and

thus, particularly suffer from absences from work and lack of resources to pay for health
services or support. Working hours in the sector are often very long, especially in family
enterprises and during the harvesting season, which can be critical for health and safety
as well (see Labour Rights).
S5 HUMAN SAFETY AND HEALTH
o Theme Goal
The work environment is safe, hygienic and healthy and caters to the satisfaction of
human needs, such as clean water, food, accommodation and sanitary installations.
Sub-theme S5.1 Workplace Safety and Health Provisions
The enterprise ensures that the workplace is safe, has met all appropriate
regulations, and caters to the satisfaction of human needs in the provision of
sanitary facilities, safe and ergonomic work environment, clean water, healthy
food, and clean accommodation (if offered).
C Description
Providing a safe and healthy workplace for all personnel and employees begins
by providing workplace facilities that are clean, adequately ventilated, and that
are structurally sound and meet or exceed local building codes, as well as the
necessary and safe equipment. Health provisions are either in the form of health
insurance, workers compensation, or public health services as provided by local
law; in addition, enterprises are prepared for medical emergencies. By providing
training in health and safety, enterprises empower employees to understand
the possible hazards of the workplace, to have thorough familiarity with the
materials and machinery they work with and are exposed to, and to understand
the ergonomics of the work, so that injuries from repeated motions, lifting or other
physical challenges will be reduced. The type of resourcing will vary however with

some small enterprises that do not have many staff having less formal systems or
resources for addressing employee’ health issues.
z
» The enterprise provides effective training in health and safety for 100 percent of
employees, including at least a basic health and safety training for those working
on specialized equipment.
» The enterprise ensures a safe, clean and healthy workplace for employees by
determining if facilities and structures, equipment, practices, and food offered
are safe and meet employee needs for healthy lifestyles.
» The enterprise provides health coverage and ensures emergency access to
medical care for employees.
z
» The enterprise has a higher rate of accidents than industry average.
» Buildings are compromised or unsafe OR sanitation facilities, transportation or
housing are filthy and unsafe for employees using them.
» Employees do not follow safety protocols, or none exist, for employees when using
toxic materials, hazardous materials or inputs.
» The enterprise does not have emergency plan in place to ensure medical care
reaches injured or at-risk employees OR employees report that accidents were not
dealt with quickly, and injured employees suffered increased injury as a result.
» Health and safety trainings are not offered on-site or off-site for employees at the
recommended level by local authorities or regional agencies.
» The enterprise fails to provide legally required level of health coverage, or fails
to provide any form of health coverage.

S 5.1.1 Safety and Health Training
Does the enterprise provide training in health and safety for 100 percent of
employees that are understandable by employees, tailored to their workspace
and effective?

S 5.1.2 Safety of Workplace, Operations and Facilities

Does the enterprise maintain a safe, clean and healthy workplace including all
grounds and facilities, and all practices?
S 5.1.3 Health Coverage and Access to Medical Care
Does the enterprise provide adequate health coverage per legal requirements, and
ensure timely access to medical care in emergencies for employees?
Sub-theme S5.2 Public Health
The enterprise ensures that operations and business activities do not limit the
healthy and safe lifestyles of the local community and contributes to community
health resources and services.
C Description
The enterprise should ensure that operations and business activities do not limit
the healthy and safe lifestyles of the local community by polluting or contaminating
water, air and soils. Furthermore, a larger-scale enterprise makes positive
contributions to community health resources and services by providing financial
support, while a small-scale producer contributes by selling healthy, clean and
locally grown food. Operations of any size can contribute culls and edible excess
produce to the local emergency food supply. Smaller enterprises will not have the
resources to provide financial support to local health services; nevertheless they
can serve as centers of health in and of themselves and set an example for others
to emulate.
z
» The enterprise takes measures to avoid polluting or contaminating the local
community and contributes to the health of the local community.

z
Unacceptable condition in relation to this objective:
» The enterprise pollutes water, air and soils with toxic materials.
» The enterprise expands without consideration for other area residents and their
needs.
i Example or SAFA Default Indicator

S 5.2.1 Public Health
Does the enterprise take measures to avoid polluting or contaminating the local
community and contribute to the health of the local community?

THEME S6 – CULTURAL DIVERSITY

Cultural identity is composed of ethnicity, language and religion and cultural diversity
refers to the innumerable forms taken through the process of acculturation, included
but not limited to age, sexual orientation, economic status, spiritual belief and political
affiliation. Sub-themes included are: Indigenous Knowledge; and Food Sovereignty.

Cultural diversity is a common heritage of vital importance for humankind. It is a concept
that defies simple definition, with different meanings depending on context (De Guzman
et al., 2007). The term “culture” relates to combinations of ethnicity, language and religion
characteristics. Awareness of cultural diversity has become relatively commonplace, as a
result of the globalization of exchanges and the greater receptiveness of many societies to
one another (UNESCO, 2008). However, greater awareness alone does not guarantee the
preservation of cultural diversity. Awareness and preservation are all the more important,
since culture is a determining factor for the relevance, failure and success of development
interventions. Cultural diversity is an asset that has been considered indispensable for
reducing poverty and achieving a sustainable development. Understanding this diversity
is a prerequisite for development interventions (UNESCO, 2008).
Workplace diversity as well is related to cultural diversity. Changing demographics
and an increasingly diverse marketplace are urgent reasons for an increased interest in
managing diversity at work. Many employers have come to realize that a diverse work
force is not a burden, but a potential strength (Henderson, 1994). Companies providing
culturally competent workplaces may gain a sustainable advantage over competitors that
are less aware and active in this regard. Cultural competence should therefore become
a core value of enterprises. Diversity management has become important for many
organizations, companies and governments, and valuing diversity is essential for an
effective management of human resources (Pitts, 2006).
One – but not the only – aspect of cultural diversity that is very important in the food
and agriculture sector, also in economic terms, is the issue of intellectual rights emanating
from traditional, indigenous knowledge of species and ecosystems. Rural communities
often dispose of a wealth of knowledge and have found ways to use genetic resources
that can be commercially utilized to develop food, medicinal and other products. Where

genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge are commercially used, this
should take place with the prior informed consent of indigenous and local communities.
Benefits resulting from the use of genetic resources rightfully held by indigenous and
local communities should be shared with those communities (Nagoya Protocol, 2009). The
importance of cultural diversity was recognized in the Universal Declaration on Cultural
Diversity, adopted in 2001, which aims to “preserve cultural diversity as a living, and thus
renewable, treasure that must not be perceived as being unchanging heritage, but as a
process guaranteeing the survival of humanity” (UNESCO, 2001). Concerning indigenous
knowledge, the above mentioned Nagoya Protocol, adopted in 2010 at the Conference
of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), contains access and benefit
sharing requirements for the utilization of traditional and cultural knowledge.
S6 CULTURAL DIVERSITY
o Theme Goal
The enterprise respects the intellectual property rights of indigenous
communities and the rights of all stakeholders to choose their lifestyle,
production and consumption patterns.
Sub-theme S6.1 Indigenous Knowledge
Intellectual property rights related to traditional and cultural knowledge are
protected and recognized.
C Description
Intellectual property rights related to traditional and cultural knowledge are
protected, and recognized. This category is inclusive of a broad range of cultural
knowledge, from art, rituals and indigenous customs in general, to knowledge
concerning growing and catching methods, techniques, seeds and their uses,
medicinal plants and their uses. Communities concerned are remunerated in a

fair and equitable way, based on mutually agreed upon terms, which explicitly
provide for continued access and on-going applications of this knowledge for
their communities.
z
» The enterprise recognizes and respects the universal rights of indigenous
communities to protect their knowledge.
» The enterprise provides remuneration to indigenous communities in a fair and
equitable manner, based on mutually agreed upon terms.
» In written policies and in practice, the enterprise meets all national and
international laws and treaties concerning indigenous knowledge.
z
» The enterprise has no written documentation of mutually negotiated terms when
indigenous knowledge is being exploited by the enterprise.
» Contracts do not meet national and international laws and treaties.
» Contracts are not available in a language spoken by the peoples involved.
» Enterprises have filed for intellectual property rights over said indigenous
knowledge without the permission of the indigenous group involved, or without
fair and equitable remuneration.

S 6.1.1 Indigenous Knowledge
Does the enterprise recognize and respect the universal rights of indigenous
communities to protect their knowledge and if appropriated and acquired, has the
enterprise remunerated indigenous communities in a fair and equitable manner,
based on mutually agreed upon terms?

Sub-theme S6.2 Food Sovereignty
The enterprise contributes to, and benefits from, exercising the right to choice and
ownership of their production means, specifically in the preservation and use of
traditional, heirloom and locally adapted varieties or breeds.
C Description
Based on a renewal of traditional agrarian and indigenous wisdom, Food
Sovereignty encompasses the need for a more just, local and sustainable food
system that affirms the underlying values of democracy, empowerment and self-
determination. Food Sovereignty results in a just, ecologically harmonious and
local food and agriculture system, which is derived from the right of peoples and
communities to define it themselves. Generally, food sovereignty is discussed
at a community level and is considered inclusive of all types of ownership and
production models in communities of every ethnicity and variety and both rural and
urban. This objective, however, applies to the individual enterprise being assessed
and it measures whether the operation has choices between different inputs and
raw materials and marketing outlets. Access to choice reflects the independence of
the enterprise and the ability of the food chain to have control or ownership over
their production and supply system.
z
» The enterprise sources locally adapted seed varieties or livestock breeds, or
traditional or heirloom varieties for at least a majority of their production.
» The enterprise maximizes purchases from local producers, specifically using
heirloom or traditional varieties instead of importing, or buying non-traditional
varieties, for at least a majority of their raw material needs.
» The enterprise avoids changes in production or purchasing that would eliminate
seed saving, or the use of heirloom, traditional or locally adapted varieties or
breeds in their own production or that of their suppliers.
» The enterprise avoids changes in production or purchasing that would limit
market access and consumers’ freedom to choose.

z
» The enterprise directly eliminates own or other operations’ seed saving, or
traditional variety use.
» The enterprise is acting as a buyer, and directly limits the ability to choose the
traditional varieties or breeds used.
» The operation is acting as a buyer and negotiates a price that undermines
supplier’s ability to choose the traditional varieties or breeds used.
» The activities of the enterprise have contributed to contamination or interference
with other producers’ ability to save seed, or use traditional varieties.

S 6.2.1 Food Sovereignty
Does the enterprise contribute to the food sovereignty of its region by exercising
its ability to preserve and use traditional, heirloom and locally adapted varieties or
breeds, as well as supporting others in pursuing this goal?

APPENDICES
209
APPENDICES
Appendix A:
SELECTED SUSTAINABILITY TOOLS
Scope of selected sustainability tools as compared to the SAFA landscape
STEPS OF THE VALUE CHAIN SUSTAINABILITY

IMPACTS COVERED DIMENSIONS COVERED
Production Processing Retail Environment Economy Governance Social

TOOL TYPE/NAME
FootPrint Calculators
Cool Farm Tool x x
Water/Carbon/
Biodiversity FootPrint
x x
tools (e.g. WRI/WBCSD,
TEEB/WWF)
Directories (meta level)
UN International
Trade Centre Trade
x x x x x x x
for Sustainable
Development (T4SD)
Ecolabel Index x x x x x x
International References, Norms and Instruments
OECD Environmental
x x x x
Indicators
International Labour
Organization, Core x x x x
Conventions
System Benchmarking and Rating/Platform
Global Social
Compliance Programme
(GSCP) x x x x x x
Reference Tools (2011
versions)
People 4 Earth/
x x x x x x x
AgriPlace

APPENDICES


TOOL TYPE/NAME
Sustainability
Standards Transparency
x x x x x
Initiative
(GIZ, ITC, ISEAL)
Sustainability Assessment: Impact
Committee On
Sustainability x x x x x
Assessment (COSA)
Life Cycle Assessment

x x x x
(ISO 14040, ISO 14044)
Response-Inducing
Sustainability
x x x x
Evaluation (RISE,
version 2.0)
Sustainability
Monitoring and
x x x x x x x
Assessment RouTine
(SMART). FiBL
Sustainability Assessment (self)
Biodiversity Risk and

Opportunity Assessment x x
(BROA) Tool
Field to Market.
x x
Field Print Calculator
People 4 Earth x x x x x
SAI Platform
Sustainability
Performance x x x1 (x)
Assessment
(SPA; April 2012 draft)
Soil and More

Foundation
x x x x
Sustainability Flower
Quick Assessment
Global Food Safety

x x x x x x x
Initiative (GFSI)

APPENDICES


TOOL TYPE/NAME
ISO 22000 (for food

x x x x x x
safety)
ISO 26000 (for

corporate social x x x x x x x
responsibility)
Sustainability Assessment: Lifecycle
Life Cycle Assessment

x x x x
(ISO 14040, ISO 14044)
Social Life Cycle

Assessment (S-LCA). x x x x x x x
UNEP-SETAC 2009
Voluntary Sustainability Standards
The IFOAM Norms for

Organic Production and x x x x x
Processing Version 2012
4C Association, Code of
x x x x x
Conduct (version 1.2)
FLO-Cert Generic
Fairtrade Standards x x x x x x x
(2011 versions)
Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC) Forest x x x x x
Management Standard
Programme for
Endorsement of
Forest Certification
x x x x x
(PEFC) Standard for
Sustainable Forest
Management
GlobalG.A.P. control
points and major musts x x x x x
(version 4.0)
Proterra Standard V3 x x x x x

APPENDICES


TOOL TYPE/NAME
Roundtable on
Sustainable Biofuels,
Impact assessment x x x x x x
Guidelines (version 2.0;
2011)
Sustainable Agriculture
Network, Standards for
x x x x x
Sustainable Agriculture
(2010)
Supplier Ethical Data

x x x x x x x
Exchange (SEDEX)
Linking Environment
x x x x
And Farming (LEAF)
Sustainability Reporting
Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI) G3.1 x x x x x x x
Guidelines
Sustainability Assessment (corporate)
SAM Sustainability
Investing, Corporate
sustainability x x x x x x x
assessment
questionnaire
Unilever Sustainable
Agriculture Code (2010 x x x x
version)
Wal-Mart Sustainability
x x x x
Index
x1:Farm financial stability and occupational health and safety are not yet considered in SPA (April 2012), but inclusion is intended
for future versions.
Explanatory notes: sustainability dimensions are interpreted in accordance with the SAFA thematic scope (for details, see Part 3
of the Guidelines). “x” indicates that at least single, but not necessarily all, aspects of this dimension are taken into account in
the approach.

APPENDICES
Appendix B:
SAFA PERFORMANCE REPORT CHECKLIST
Description of the enterprise assessed
9 Enterprise name, location, primary products and services, legal form
Statement of goals and purpose of SAFA, including role of sustainability in the enterprise, intended audience
and intended use of results.
Description of geography, size, small-scale rationale where applicable and sector specific information.
Operational structure of the enterprise and countries, including operating companies, subsidiaries and joint
ventures with either major operations or that are specifically relevant to the sustainability issues covered in
the SAFA.
Mapping the sphere of influence:

material, spatial and temporal boundaries
Defined scope for that SAFA assessment, including a description of the assessed entity and intended reporting
cycle.
Defined physical and spatial system boundaries, in relation with the sphere of influence and impact.
Is the whole entity covered by SAFA? If not, what steps of the value chain are covered: primary production,
processing and/or marketing? Why where some entities included and others left-out?
Description and justification of cut-off and impact allocation criteria.
Visual representation of value chain, relationships and boundaries.
Contextualization of Sub-themes and Indicators

List of relevant SAFA sustainability themes and sub-themes, including declaration and justification of sub-
themes deemed not relevant.
Data sources for consideration in the assessment.
Detailed ratings for each indicator, using the data about their geographic/environmental, social, political and
economic context.
Identification of any critical areas based on materiality principles for the context of that entity, acknowledging
the relevance and disclose on those issues or disclose limitations in data availability.

APPENDICES
Indicator metrics, ratings and aggregation of results

List of tools, metrics and standards for data collection, qualified by type (3rd party verified, primary,
secondary, estimate).
Accuracy Score at indicator, sub-theme and theme levels.
Documentation of input data and score.
Listing of customized ratings for intermediate levels.
Rating at indicator level, aggregation of results at sub-theme and theme levels, including methodology
(mean, lowest score).
A written interpretation of the ratings and weightings.
Final Report
Written synthesis of all of the above components.
A visual representation of SAFA results of ratings (polygon(s) over traffic light color bands), showing the
enterprise performance for all sustainability dimensions at theme aggregated level.
Disaggregation of results at sub-themes level.
Identification of Gaps, Opportunities and continuous improvement
List of all Indicators with orange or red scores (hot spots).
Disclosure of assessment procedure including description of limitations and boundaries.
Accuracy Score at sub-theme and theme levels with any other limitations.
Indication on whether the procedure and the interpretation of results will be verified. If yes, what type: internal
or external?
Use of SAFA Results, sharing and learning goals.
Contact point for questions regarding the Report or its contents.

APPENDICES
Appendix C:
GLOSSARY
Accuracy score: in SAFA, the accuracy score refers to the data quality of the assessment.
It does not impact the rating of indicators, and thus the performance of sub-themes or
themes. The components of the accuracy score include the timeframe, data type and
methodology, all of which play a role in determining the quality of the data used in
SAFA and thus, accuracy and reliability of outcomes.
Air quality: the composition of air with respect to quantities of pollution therein; used
most frequently in connection with standards of maximum acceptable pollutant
concentrations.
Agricultural biodiversity: the variety and variability of animals, plants and
microorganisms which are necessary to sustain the functions of the agro-ecosystem,
its structure and processes for, and in support of, food production and food security.
Areas of high biodiversity value: habitats recognised for important biodiversity features
by governmental or non-governmental organizations, or through a biodiversity
assessment. This includes, but is not restricted to, areas protected by law.
Assessment: the evaluation or estimation of the nature, quality, or ability of someone
or something. Also means a process where there is a check of materiality issues and
iteration, including a critical review and validation of the indicators.
Audit: a systematic and functionally independent examination to determine whether
activities and related results comply with planned objectives (CAC, 1995).
Auditor: individual or group of individuals, belonging to an organisation, or a natural
or legal person external to that organisation, acting on behalf of that organization,
carrying-out an assessment of the sustainability management system in place and
determining conformity with the organisation’s sustainability policy and programme,
including compliance with the applicable requirements relating to sustainability
(modified after EC, 2009).
Benchmark: in SAFA, benchmarks are values or qualitative descriptions of activities, used
as the basis by which the performance of an enterprise is evaluated within an indicator
domain to facilitate a rating of sustainability performance. Regional and/or sectoral
averages, as well as defined average (standard) and best practice values can be used
as benchmarks.

APPENDICES
Best practice: similar to “leading practices”, as defined by GSCP (2010); proactive

identification, development and adoption of the latest technology, techniques or
practices that contribute to a better sustainability performance.
Biodiversity: the diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems, including
terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological complexes of which
they are part (Convention on Biological Diversity).
Break-even point: in economics and business, specifically cost-accounting, the break-
even point is the point at which the income from sale of a product or service equals the
invested costs, resulting in neither profit nor loss and one has “broken even.” A profit or
a loss has not been made, although opportunity costs have been “paid,” and capital has
received the risk-adjusted, expected return. The accounting method of calculating break-
even point does not include cost of working capital. The financial method of calculating
break-even, called value added break-even analysis, is used to assess the feasibility of
a project. This method also includes the opportunity costs of the capital required to
develop a project, but not the cost of working capital.
Business to business communication: a type of communication used in the commerce
transaction that exists between businesses, such as those involving a manufacturer
and wholesaler, or a wholesaler and a retailer. Business to business refers to business
that is conducted between companies, rather than between a company and individual
consumers. This is in contrast to business to consumer (B2C) and business to government
(B2G). A typical supply chain involves multiple business to business transactions, as
companies purchase components and other raw materials for use in its manufacturing
processes. The finished product can then be sold to individuals via business to consumer
transactions.
Business to consumer communication: the type of communication existing when business
or transactions are conducted directly between a company and consumers who are the
end-users of its products or services. Business to consumer as a business model differs
significantly from the business to business model, which refers to commerce between
two or more businesses.
Capacity development: process whereby people, organizations and society as a whole
unleash, strengthen, create, adapt and maintain knowledge and skills over time.
Certification: procedure by which officially recognized certification bodies, provide written
or equivalent assurance that foods or agricultural, fisheries and forestry control systems
conform to requirements. Certification is based on a range of inspection activities which
may include continuous on-line inspection, auditing of quality assurance systems and
examination of finished products (CAC, 2007).

APPENDICES
Certification body: a body, which is responsible for verifying that a product is produced,
processed, prepared, handled, and imported according to a set of standards or Codex
Guidelines (CAC, 2007).
Child labour: often defined as work that deprives children of their childhood, their
potential and their dignity, and that is harmful to physical and mental development. It
refers to work that is mentally, physically, socially or morally dangerous and harmful
to children; and interferes with their schooling by depriving them of the opportunity to
attend school; obliging them to leave school prematurely; or requiring them to attempt
to combine school attendance with excessively long and heavy work (ILO/IPEC, 2013).
Civic responsibility: refers to all those actions and attitudes associated with democratic
governance and social participation of citizens. Civic responsibility usually means
active participation in the public life of a community in an informed, committed, and
constructive manner, with a focus on the common good.
Climate change adaptation: adaptation to climate change refers to adjustment in natural
or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects,
which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities. Various types of adaptation
can be distinguished, including anticipatory and reactive adaptation, private and public
adaptation, and autonomous and planned adaptation (UNFCCC, 2007).
Climate change mitigation: intervention or policies to reduce the emissions or enhance the
sinks of greenhouse gases. The current international legal mechanism for countries to
reduce their emissions is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC, 2007).
Code of conduct: principles, values, standards, or rules of behaviour that guide the
decisions, procedures and systems of an organization in a way that (a) contributes to
the welfare of its key stakeholders, and (b) respects the rights of all constituents affected
by its operations (IFA, 2007).
Community investment: refers to all forms of investments through which the enterprise
contributes to sustainable development of a community, making an efficient use of
human and ecological resources.
Conflict of interest: a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person
or organization, which results in their inability to do justice to the interests of either
party. This includes for example when an individual’s personal interests or concerns are
inconsistent with the best interests of a customer, or when a public official’s personal
interests are contrary to his/her loyalty to public business.

APPENDICES
Conflict resolution: the methods and process of dialogue building which promote
the peaceful ending of social conflict in any setting, including between employees,
businesses, or even between countries. The broader term “conflict management”
involves a kind of proactive-reactive continuum. The proactive end of the spectrum
involves fostering productive communication and collaboration among diverse
interests, addressing the underlying causes of conflicts in order to prevent conflicts
from recurring, developing trust and understanding in order to prevent conflicts. The
reactive end of the spectrum includes approaches to managing conflicts that vary, by
order of increasing collaborative consensus building level: negotiated rule-making;
arbitration; mediation; facilitation; conciliation; and negotiation. The reactive approach
of conflict management is used after the conflict has erupted and is referred to as
conflict resolution.
Conformity assessment: any activity concerned with determining directly or indirectly
that requirements relevant to the assessment are fulfilled. According to ISO, three
types of conformity assessment are distinguished. a) First-party assessment: this is
the technical term used when conformity assessment to a standard, specification or
regulation is carried out by the supplier organization itself. In other words, this is self-
assessment. This is known as a supplier’s declaration of conformity. b) Second-party
assessment: this indicates that the conformity assessment is carried out by a customer
of the supplier organization. For example, the supplier invites a potential customer to
verify that the products it is offering conform to relevant product standards. c) Third-
party assessment: in this case, conformity assessment is performed by a body that is
independent of both supplier and customer organizations (UNCTAD, FAO and IFOAM,
2012).
Consumer advocacy: refers to actions taken by individuals or groups to promote and
protect the interests of the buying public. Historically, consumer advocates have
assumed a somewhat adversarial role in exposing unfair business practices or unsafe
products that threaten the welfare of the general public.
CSR reporting: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is the most common type of
sustainability reporting. Regular communication of information on economic, social,
environmental and governance performance to shareholders, stakeholders and the
general public. Other types of sustainability reporting include CSV (Creating Shared
Values) reporting and Triple Bottom Line (TBL) reporting.
Cut-off criteria: specification of the amount of material or energy flow, or the level of
environmental significance, associated with unit processes or product system to be
excluded from a study (ISO, 2009).

APPENDICES
Dietary reference intake: Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) are reference values that are
quantitative estimates of nutrient intakes to be used for planning and assessing diets
for healthy people. They include both recommended intakes and upper intakes levels
as reference values.
Due diligence: reasonable care taken by a person or an entity to avoid harm to other
persons or properties, especially in buying and selling something. Due diligence is an
integral part of business decision-making and risk management systems that consists
of identification, prevention and mitigation of the actual and potential adverse impacts
of an enterprise’s activities.
Eco-efficiency: refers to maximizing the efficiency of resource use and minimizing
pollution during the entire production process across economic sectors.
Ecosystem diversity: the variety of habitats, living communities and ecological processes
in the living world.
Employment relationship: the legal link between employers and employees. It exists
when a person performs work or services under certain conditions in return for
remuneration. It is through the employment relationship, however defined, that
reciprocal rights and obligations are created between the employee and the employer.
It has been, and continues to be, the main vehicle through which workers gain access
to the rights and benefits associated with employment in the areas of labour law and
social security. The existence of an employment relationship is the condition that
determines the application of the labour and social security law provisions addressed
to employees. It is the key point of reference for determining the nature and extent
of employers’ rights and obligations towards their workers (ILO).
Empowerment: empowerment takes place when people, especially poor or disadvantaged
people, are enabled to take more control over their lives, and secure a better livelihood
with ownership and control of productive assets as a key element. The individual’s
capacity to make effective choices is conditioned by: (i) ability to make meaningful
choices, recognizing the existence of options, and (ii) the opportunities that exist in
the person’s formal and informal environment (UNTERM, 2010).
Energy use: The amount of energy that is consumed in a certain period (usually one
year). This includes fossil fuels burned by machines (such as cars), as well as electricity
generated from nuclear power, geothermal power, hydropower, and fossil fuels. No
matter what its source, energy use per capita is measured in equivalent amounts of oil.

APPENDICES
Equal opportunities: principle of non-discrimination which emphasizes that opportunities

in education, employment, advancement, benefits and resource distribution, and other
areas should be freely available to all citizens irrespective of their age, race, sex, religion,
political association, ethnic origin, or any other individual or group characteristic
unrelated to ability, performance, and qualification (Business Dictionary).
Equivalence: the acceptance that different standards or technical regulations on the same
subject fulfill common objectives (UNCTAD, FAO and IFOAM, 2013).
Externality: an externality is a cost or benefit which results from an activity or transaction
and which affects an otherwise uninvolved party who did not choose to incur that cost
or benefit.
Food and agriculture systems: systems that serve the production, processing and
marketing of goods that originate from agriculture, forestry or fisheries.
Fair trade: fair trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and
respect, which seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable
development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of,
marginalized producers and workers.
Family farming: family farming (also family agriculture) is a means of organizing
agricultural, forestry, fisheries, pastoral and aquaculture production which is managed
and operated by a family and predominantly reliant on family labour, including both
women’s and men’s. The family and the farm are linked, co-evolve and combine
economic, environmental, social and cultural functions (FAO, 2013).
Food quality: food quality encompasses the basic composition of foods and aspects
concerning food safety. Consumers have the right to a good quality and safe food supply,
and government and food industry actions are needed to ensure this. Effective food
quality and safety control programmes are essential and may comprise a variety of
measures, such as laws, regulations and standards, together with systems for effective
inspection and compliance monitoring including laboratory analysis (FAOTERM).
Food safety: assurance that food will not cause harm to the consumer when it is prepared
and/or is eaten according to its intended use (CAC, 2003).
Food security: food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social
and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs
and food preferences for an active and healthy life. The pillars of food security are
availability, access, utilisation and stability (FAO, 1996).

APPENDICES
Food sovereignty: the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced
through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own
food and agriculture systems.
Footprint: a popular way of describing how human activities can impose different types
of burden or impact on the global sustainability. Humankind leaves “footprints”
for future generations to cope with. Reducing such footprints is one of the goals
of a sustainability strategy. A company footprint is the sum of the footprints of all
products or services produced by a company. A product, in most cases, is made up
of contributions from a chain of suppliers. It starts with raw material acquisition, and
then moves on to the company’s facilities (buildings [construction, furniture, heating,
electricity], administration [office equipment and machines, etc.], process facilities
[transportation, travel etc.], production processes and the product chain distribution,
customers [downstream producers, distributors, retailers, etc.], consumers, disposal/
recycling). (UNEP/SETAC, 2009b).
Footprint calculator: the ecological footprint calculators have a number of functions and
roles. Each of the calculators may help to understand what is to live and work more
sustainably by setting targets for achieving ecological footprint savings - both directly
through one’s own behaviour and indirectly through other peoples’ or organizations’
behaviour that one can influence. As measurement tools, the calculators also help to
compare the impacts that different activities or everyday decisions might have, whether
they take place at home, in school or office, or in managing an event. There are many
types of footprint calculators, such as the Cool Farm Tool (CFT) used in agriculture to
calculate farm-level greenhouse gas emissions. This tool identifies hotspots and makes
it easy for farmers to test alternative management scenarios and identifies those that
will have a positive impact on the total net greenhouse gas emissions. Unlike many
other agricultural greenhouse gas calculators, the CFT includes calculations of soil
carbon sequestration, which is a key feature of agriculture that has both mitigation
and adaptation benefits. Another international footprint calculator is the FAO EX-ante
Appraisal Carbon-balance Tool (EX-ACT), aiming at providing ex-ante estimations of
the impact of agriculture and forestry development projects on GHG emissions and
carbon sequestration, indicating its effects on the carbon balance.
Forced labour: forced labour is all work or service which is exacted from any person
under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself
voluntarily. “All work or service” includes all types of work, service and employment,
regardless of the industry, sector or occupation within which it is found, and encompasses
legal and formal employment as well as illegal and informal employment. “Any person”
refers to adults as well as children, regardless of their nationality, and it is considered
irrelevant whether the person is a national of the country in which the forced labour

APPENDICES
case has been identified. “Menace of any penalty “can refer to criminal sanctions as well
as various forms of coercion such as threats, violence, retention of identity documents,
confinement, or non-payment of wages. The penalty may also take the form of a loss of
rights or privileges. “Voluntary” refers to workers’ consent to enter into employment
and to their freedom to leave the employment at any time, with reasonable notice in
accordance with national law or collective agreements. In essence, persons are in a
forced labour situation if they enter work or service against their freedom of choice,
and cannot leave it without penalty or the threat of penalty. This does not have to be
physical punishment or constraint; it can also take other forms, such as the loss of rights
or privileges (ILO Convention, 1930).
Forest: land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 meters and a canopy
cover of more than 10 percent, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ. It does not
include land that is predominantly under agricultural and urban land use (FAO, 2012c).
Freedom of association and right to bargaining: freedom of association ensures that
workers and employers can associate to efficiently negotiate work relations. The ability of
workers, producers, or any persons extended these rights to associate with colleagues or
fellow producers, unions or other advocacy organizations, and discuss their terms ensure
that employers and workers have an equal voice in negotiations and that the outcome
will be fair and equitable. Collective bargaining allows both sides to negotiate a fair
employment relationship and prevents costly labour disputes. Indeed, some research
has indicated that countries with highly coordinated collective bargaining tend to have
less inequality in wages, lower and less persistent unemployment, and fewer and shorter
strikes than countries where collective bargaining is less established (ILO).
Full-cost accounting: the collection and presentation of information about the direct and
indirect economic, environmental and social costs of operations, or triple bottom line.
Gender: social, economic and cultural roles and relations between women and men.
Gender takes into account the different responsibilities of women and men in a culture
or location, and in different population groups (FAO, 1997).
Gender equality: when women and men enjoy equal rights, opportunities and entitlements
in civil and political life.
Generic: characteristic of, or relating to, a class or group of things (Oxford Dictionary).
The SAFA Guidelines provide principles, processes and themes that should apply to
(almost) all sustainability assessments in the food and agriculture sector.
Genetic diversity: the combination of different genes found within a population of a single
species resulting in different characteristics, and the pattern of variation found within
different populations of the same species.

APPENDICES
Goal: the higher order objective to which a development intervention is intended to

contribute.
Good corporate governance: the political system of an enterprise. It defines the rights
of stakeholders, provides for the separation of powers between management and
supervisory board, and seeks to insure responsible leadership in all dimensions of the
organization (Maak and Ulrich, 2007).
Governance: the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are
implemented (UNESCAP, 2009).
Green economy: an economy that results in improved human well-being and reduced
inequalities over the long term, while not exposing future generations to significant
environmental risks and ecological scarcities (UNEP, 2011).
Greenhouse gas: gaseous components of the atmosphere contributing to the greenhouse
effect. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, chloro-
fluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride, chlorofluorocarbons and
hydrochlorofluorocarbons.
Greening the Economy with Agriculture (GEA): refers to ensuring the right to adequate
food, as well as food and nutrition security, and contributing to the quality of rural
livelihoods, while efficiently managing natural resources and improving resilience and
equity throughout the food supply chain, taking into account countries’ individual
circumstances (FAO Council, 2011).
Grievance procedures: grievance procedures are a means of dispute resolution that
can be used by a company to address complaints by employees, suppliers, customers,
and/or competitors. A grievance procedure provides a hierarchical structure for
presenting and settling workplace disputes. The procedure typically defines the type
of grievance it covers, the stages through which the parties proceed in attempting to
resolve matters, individuals responsible at each stage, the documentation required, and
the time limits by which the grievance must be presented and dealt with at each stage.
The best-known application of grievance procedures is as a formal process outlined in
labour union contracts. Grievance procedures do not necessarily have to be so formal
and elaborate, and in fact, overly formal grievance procedures often discourage the
airing of disputes in a timely manner. In small businesses, the procedures may consist
of a few lines in an employee manual or the designation of a single ombudsman to deal
with problems as they develop. Peer review of employee concerns is another popular
way to address grievances. On the other hand, some larger companies may create

APPENDICES
an entire department dedicated to fielding complaints from employees or customers.

Whatever form they may take, grievance procedures are intended to allow companies
to hear and resolve complaints in a timely and cost-effective manner, before they result
in litigation (Legal Dictionary).
Harmonization: the process by which standards, technical regulations and conformity
assessment on the same subject approved by different bodies establishes
interchangeability of products and processes. The process aims at the establishment
of identical standards, technical regulations and conformity assessment requirements
(UNCTAD, FAO and IFOAM, 2007).
Holistic audit: holistic audit occurs when all areas of sustainability in the dimensions
for environment, social, economic and governance that pertain to the enterprise are
monitored internally in an appropriate manner, and wherever possible are reviewed
according to recognized sustainability reporting systems. Holistic auditing is
evidence of sustainability values being integrated into organizational governance
and culture.
Impact: primary and secondary long-term effects directly or indirectly produced by an
intervention (OECD, 2002).
Indicator: quantitative or qualitative factor or variable that provides a simple and reliable
means to measure achievement, to reflect the changes connected to an intervention, or
to help assess performance (adapted after OECD, 2002). An indicator provides evidence
that a condition exists or certain results have or have not been achieved.
Indigenous: signifies someone who is intimately connected with the land where she/he
lives, who has not arrived by immigration or is not in passage. The idea “indigenous”
is necessarily relative. It often expresses a cultural or property claim (FAO, 2003).
Indigenous knowledge: the local knowledge that is unique to a given culture or society.
It contrasts with the international knowledge system generated by universities,
research institutions and private firms. It is the basis for local-level decision making
in agriculture, health care, food preparation, education, natural-resource management,
and a host of other activities in rural communities. Indigenous information systems are
dynamic, and are continually influenced by internal creativity and experimentation as
well as by contact with external systems (WB, 1995 modified).
Inspection: the examination of food or systems for control of food, raw materials,
processing, and distribution including in-process and finished product testing, in order
to verify that they conform to requirements (CAC, 2007).

APPENDICES
Institution: a structure of social order governing the behaviour of a set of individuals and
that shape human interactions by serving collectively valued goals. The term includes
formal institutions (e.g. public institutions, non-governmental and private organizations,
training and educational institutions such as universities and research institutes) and
informal institutions (e.g. village committees, community groups, farmer groups).
Internal investment: internal investment refers to how much the enterprise has invested
into activities and practices to improve and monitor its social, economic, environmental
and governance performance: such as improvement of employees salaries and benefits,
investment in research and development, improvement of production efficiency, the
implementation of practices that preserve and regenerate natural resources, the use of
renewable energy, the adoption of a monitoring and evaluation system of sustainability
performance.
Land degradation: the reduction in the capacity of the land to provide ecosystem goods
and services and assure its functions over a period of time for its beneficiaries. Reduction
or loss, in arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid areas, of the biological or economic
productivity and complexity of rain-fed cropland, irrigated cropland, or range, pasture,
forest, and woodlands resulting from land uses or from a process or combination of
processes, including processes arising from human activities and habitation patterns,
such as: (i) soil erosion caused by wind and/or water; (ii) deterioration of the physical,
chemical, and biological or economic properties of soil; and (iii) long-term loss of natural
vegetation.
Legitimacy: the degree to which procedures for making and enforcing laws are acceptable
to the people. A legitimate system is legal, but more important, citizens believe in its
appropriateness and adhere to its rules.
Life cycle assessment: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an objective process to evaluate
the environmental burdens associated with a product, process, or activity by identifying
energy and materials used and wastes released to the environment. LCA addresses the
environmental aspects and potential impacts throughout a product’s life cycle. LCA
includes all costs associated with the life cycle of a product that are directly covered by
any one or more of the actors in the product life cycle (e.g. supplier, manufacturer, user
or consumer, also called cradle-to-grave) with complementary inclusion of externalities
that are anticipated to be internalized in the decision-relevant future.
Liquidity: the ability of the market in a particular security to absorb a reasonable amount
of buying or selling at reasonable price changes.

APPENDICES
Livelihood: capabilities, assets (both material and social resources) and activities required
for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover
from stresses and shocks, and maintain or enhance its capabilities or assets while not
undermining the natural resource base (Chambers and Conway, 1991).
Living wage: a wage ensuring for a person and his/her family an existence worthy of human
dignity, and supplemented by other means of social protection (UN 1948, Article 23.3).
It ensures a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being, including food,
clothing, housing, medical care, necessary social services and the right to security (UN,
1948, Article 25.1).
Local procurement: the commitment and effective accomplishment of the enterprise to
benefit local economies through procurement from local suppliers.
Marketing: is holding for sale or displaying for sale, offering for sale, selling, delivering
or placing on the market in any other form (CAC, 1999).
Materiality: materiality is a core principle of all kinds of reporting with different approaches
and definitions. The materiality focus of sustainability reports is broader than the
traditional measures of financial materiality. SAFA adapts the International Integrated
Reporting Council (IRRC) definition framework which considers the commonality of
materiality definitions from various reporting frameworks. It builds on the concept “that
material matters are those that are of such relevance and importance that they could
substantively influence the assessments of the intended report users.”
Mechanization: mechanization can be defined as the economic application of engineering
technology to enhance the effectiveness and productivity of human labour, hand tools,
draft animals, mechanically powered boats or small vessels.
Metric: unit of measurement that is quantitative; often, the basis for indicators.
Mission statement: a written declaration of a company or organization’s core purpose and
focus which normally remain unchanged, whereas business strategies and practices
may frequently be altered to adapt to the changing circumstances.
Non-discrimination: one of the fundamental principles of international human rights
law. Discrimination consists in any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the
basis of race, colour, sex, age, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or
social origin, property, birth or other status, or any other ground, which has the effect
or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by an
individual or group of their rights.

APPENDICES
Objective: the aims of an action, or what is intended to be achieved. Any objective will
include explicit statements against which progress can be measured, and will identify
which outcomes are truly important and the way that they interrelate.
Organization: a well structured body of people with a particular purpose, especially a
business, society, association, etc. (Oxford Dictionary).
Payment for ecosystem services: a voluntary contractual transaction between a buyer and
a seller for an ecosystem service or a management practice likely to secure that service.
A PES scheme can be put in place when: (a) the demand for at least one ecosystem
service is clear and financially valuable to one or more ‘buyers’; (b) the provision of
ecosystem services is threatened, but the adoption of specific land use/management
practices has the potential to address the supply constraints; (c) a trusted intermediary
is available to assist both parties in developing the negotiation and provide expertise
in the PES design; (d) clear criteria are able to be established to ensure compliance of
the contractual agreement by both parties; (e) land tenure and usage rights are clear;
and (f) there is a cross-sectoral coherence between existing policies and laws and PES
requirements (FAO, 2011c).
Performance: degree to which an intervention or an entity operates according to specific
criteria, standards and guidelines, or achieves results in accordance with stated goals
or plans (OECD, 2002).
Performance-based indicator: performance based indicators are focused on the results of
compliance with an objective and can measure the performance of an operation, identify
trends and communicate results. Also called results-oriented or outcome indicators.
Performance report: a detailed statement that measures the results of some activity in
terms of its success over a specific time frame. For example, an annual performance
report might be produced for each employee of a business, or such a report might
help management assess the success of a project or product and how well budgetary
constraints were adhered to. A complete performance report includes boundaries,
hot spot issues and data quality. In the SAFA context, it refers to the final output of a
SAFA assessment, which contains both a descriptive and an analytical review of the
sustainability of the assessed entities, based on the goals and objectives of SAFA themes.
Plan: amplification of the strategy showing the precise means by which objectives will be
reached; the policy instruments to be employed; the financial and human resources
required; and the time frame for implementation (FAO, 1998).

APPENDICES
Policy: the course of action for an undertaking adopted by a government, a person or some
other party. The instruments that exist to support policy and the tools used to achieve
policy objectives comprise some or all of the following societal instruments; economic
or market-based instruments; command and control instruments; direct government
involvement; and institutional and organizational arrangements. It is to be mentioned
that, although law may be used as a policy instrument, there are cases where law may
impose constraints on what policies can be adopted (FAO, 1998).
Practice-based indicator: these indicators are focused on prescribing the necessary
tools and systems required to be in place, best practices. They are process rather than
outcome-oriented. They assume that having (water or health and safety) management
systems in place leads to better management of environmental or health and safety
issues. Also called prescriptive or process indicators.
Processing: in general, it refers to a series of mechanical or chemical operations on
(something) in order to change or preserve it.
Product: goods or services offered to members of the public either by sales or otherwise.
(ISO 26000-WD4.2 (2008). For the purpose of SAFA, goods based on materials from
agricultural, forestry or fisheries activities during the production, processing and
marketing of food, beverages, feeds, fibres and agricultural commodities.
Product information: all food products should be accompanied by or bear adequate
information to enable the next person in the food chain to handle, display, store and
prepare and use the product safely and correctly. Complete product information (i.e.
ingredients, processing inputs) should be available at the enterprise level and across
the supply chain due to tracking and traceability systems (FAO, 1998).
Profitability: refers to the financial resources that the enterprise has allocated and applied
to strengthen its capacity to generate and increase profits over the long term. Through
its investments and business activities, the enterprise should have the capacity to
generate a positive net income.
Programme: descriptive notice of series of events, including an indication of the intended
proceedings. The term is often used for an undertaking structured around a defined
objective, usually consisting of a number of projects.
Preparation: the operations of slaughtering, processing, preserving and packaging of food
and agricultural products and also alterations made to the labelling concerning the
presentation of the production method (CAC, 1999).
Production: the operations undertaken to supply food and agricultural products in the
state in which they occur on the farm, including initial packaging and labelling of the
product (CAC, 1999).

APPENDICES
Public health: refers to all organized measures (whether public or private) to prevent
disease, promote health, and prolong life among the population as a whole. Its
activities aim to provide conditions in which people can be healthy and focus on entire
populations, not on individual patients or diseases. Thus, public health is concerned
with the total system and not only the eradication of a particular disease. The three
main public health functions are: the assessment and monitoring of the health of
communities and populations at risk to identify health problems and priorities; the
formulation of public policies designed to solve identified local and national health
problems and priorities; to assure that all populations have access to appropriate and
cost-effective care, including health promotion and disease prevention services. In the
SAFA context, it refers to all the healthy and safe lifestyles of the local community in
which an enterprise operates (WHO Glossary).
Qualitative indicator: qualitative indicators are nominative; they provide information on
a particular issue using words. For instance, text describing the measures taken by an
enterprise to manage stress (UNCTAD, FAO and IFOAM, 2012).
Quantitative indicator: a quantitative indicator is a description of the issue assessed using
numbers; for example number of accidents by unit process (UNCTAD, FAO and IFOAM,
2012).
Rare species: species listed as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered on the
IUCN5 Red List, or found to be vulnerable or endangered by scientific sources or a field
study.
Recognition: arrangement (either unilateral, bilateral, or multilateral) for the use or
acceptance of results of conformity assessments (UNCTAD, FAO and IFOAM, 2012).
Regional: regions can be defined based on homogeneity and functionality, both in relation
with the activities whose sustainability is assessed. There is no single definition of the
perimeter (in km) that can be used for distinguishing regional from supra-regional.
Renewable energy: energy derived from natural processes, such as sunlight and wind,
replenished at a higher rate than they are consumed; for example solar, wind, geothermal,
hydro, and biomass (International Energy Agency Glossary).
Resilience: the capacity of a natural system, community or society potentially exposed to
hazards to adapt, by resisting or changing in order to reach and maintain an acceptable
level of functioning and structure. This is determined by the degree to which the social
system is capable of organizing itself to increase its capacity for learning from past
disasters for better future protection and to improve risk reduction measures.
5 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources: www.iucnredlist.org

APPENDICES
Resource appropriation: refers to stakeholders’ pre-existing access to land, water

and resources. Any sustainable enterprise should map this to the satisfaction of all
affected stakeholders and agree to take no action to reduce this access until it has fully
informed stakeholders, negotiated on equal terms and provided for mutually agreeable
compensation, sufficient to allow sustainable livelihoods.
Responsibility: within the human-rights context exists a distinction is made between
responsibilities and obligations. While only states have legal human rights obligations,
all members of society (such as individuals, local communities, non-governmental
organizations, civil society organizations, as well as private sector) have responsibilities.
Responsible buyer: responsible buyers are the ones who recognize and support suppliers’
(particularly primary producers) rights to fair pricing and fair contracts and their rights
to freedom of association and to collective bargaining for all contracts and agreements.
For instance, buyers must pay primary producers prices for their products that reflect the
real cost of the entire process of sustaining a regenerative ecological system, including
supporting a right livelihood for primary producers, their families and workers as well
as covering the buyers’ costs based on full-cost accounting.
Rights: rights are defined by the legal framework and provisions under a given regime.
Different societies have different attitudes and so the nature of these rights varies,
notwithstanding that there are some rights that are fairly universally acknowledged
under declarations such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (FAO, 2003).
Right to quality of life: all primary producers, small-scale producers and employees
enjoy the right of quality of life when they enjoy a livelihood that provides a culturally
appropriate and nutritionally adequate diet and allows time for family, rest and culture.
Risk management: the process, distinct from risk assessment, of weighing policy
alternatives, in consultation with all interested parties, considering risk assessment
and other factors relevant for the health protection of consumers and for the promotion
of fair trade practices, and, if needed, selecting appropriate prevention and control
options (CAC, 2006).
Scoring system: scoring may use quantitative or qualitative scales, according to the
availability of information and the subcategory or impact category under consideration.
Scoring systems usually seek to standardize the scores for purpose of comparison
(UNCTAD, FAO and IFOAM, 2012).
Secondary data: data gathered by other researchers or collected for other purpose than
the one being currently considered or, often a mix of the two.

APPENDICES
Site: distinct geographic location under the management control of an organisation covering
activities, products and services, including all infrastructure, equipment and materials
(EC, 2009).
Social auditing: social auditing provides an assessment of the impact of an organization’s
non-financial objectives; a means of assessing and demonstrating an organization’s
social, economic and environmental benefits and limitations; a way of measuring the
extent to which an organization is living up to the values and objectives to which it has
committed itself. A social audit is typically undertaken by the organization concerned
and by those directly involved with. A person or panel of people external to the
organization may be engaged to verify the audit’s accuracy (UNTERM).
Soil quality: the terms soil quality (favoured by scientists) and soil health (favoured
by farmers) tend to be used interchangeably. Characterization of soil quality by
scientists focuses on analytical/quantitative properties of soil with a separately defined
quantitative link to the functions of soil quality. Characterization of soil health by
farmers focuses on descriptive/qualitative properties of soil with a direct value judgment
(unhealthy to healthy) integrated into the options for a given property; in addition,
interwoven into the properties of soil per se are value-based descriptive properties of
plant, water, air, and animal/human systems considered by farmers to be an integral
part of soil health characterization.
Soil degradation: reduction in the capacity of a soil to provide ecosystem goods and
services, and to support agricultural and forestry production. Soil degradation can be
caused by a variety of processes.
Species diversity: biodiversity at the species level, often combining aspects of species
richness, their relative abundance, and their dissimilarity (TEEB).
Sphere of influence: geographical area where an enterprise can show its power and
influence in the decisions with other enterprises/organizations/groups.
Stability of market: stability of market is ensured by all actions and mechanisms put in
place by the enterprise to ensure a diversified and consolidated income structure from
its product sales or from the services provided and when stable business relationships
are maintained with a sufficient number of buyers and alternative marketing channels
are accessible.
Stability of production: production (quantity and quality) is considered to be stable when
it is sufficiently resilient to withstand environmental, social and economic shocks.
Stability of supply: supply is considered to be stable when all measures have been taken by
the enterprise to reduce the risk to have input supply shortages, including maintaining
ongoing business relationships with suppliers.

APPENDICES
Stakeholder: A large group of individuals and groups of individuals (including

governmental and non-governmental institutions, traditional communities, universities,
research institutions, development agencies and banks, donors, etc.) with an interest
or claim (whether stated or implied) in any activities or decisions of an organization,
having the potential of being impacted by or having an impact on a given project and
its objectives (ISO, 2008).
Stakeholder dialogue: a proper stakeholder dialogue occurs when the enterprise pro-actively
identifies stakeholders, which include all those affected by the activities of the enterprise
(including any stakeholders unable to claim their rights), and ensures that all are informed,
engaged in critical decision making, and that their input is duly considered.
Standard: a document approved by a recognized body that provides for common and
repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for products or related processes and
production methods, with which compliance is not mandatory. It may also include or deal
exclusively with terminology, symbols, packaging, marking or labeling requirements as
they apply to a product, process or production method. Note: the recognized body can be
any relevant constituency (UNCTAD, FAO and IFOAM, 2007).
Strategy: in general, an elaborate and systematic plan of action. A strategy is a long term
plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal.
Supply chain: the entire network of entities, directly or indirectly interlinked and
interdependent in serving the same consumer or customer. Supply chain activities
transform natural resources, raw materials and components into a finished product
that is delivered to the end customer. It comprises of vendors that supply raw material,
producers who convert the material into products, warehouses that store, distribution
centers that deliver to the retailers, and retailers who bring the product to the ultimate
user. In sophisticated supply chain systems, used products may re-enter the supply
chain at any point where residual value is recyclable. Supply chains underlie value
chains because, without them, no producer has the ability to give customers what they
want, when and where they want, at the price they want. Producers compete with each
other only through their supply chains, and no degree of improvement at the producer’s
end can make up for the deficiencies in a supply chain which reduce the producer’s
ability to compete.
Sustainable development goal: one of the main outcomes of the Rio+20 Conference was
the agreement by member States to launch a process to develop a set of Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs), which will build upon the Millennium Development Goals
and converge with the post 2015 development agenda. It was decided to establish an
“inclusive and transparent intergovernmental process open to all stakeholders, with a
view to developing global sustainable development goals to be agreed by the General

APPENDICES
Assembly”. In the Rio+20 outcome document, member States agreed that sustainable
development goals (SDGs) must: be based on Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan
of Implementation; fully respect all the Rio Principles; be consistent with international
law; build upon commitments already made; contribute to the full implementation of the
outcomes of all major summits in the economic, social and environmental fields; focus
on priority areas for the achievement of sustainable development, being guided by the
outcome document; address and incorporate in a balanced way all three dimensions of
sustainable development and their interlinkages; be coherent with and integrated into
the United Nations development agenda beyond 2015; not divert focus or effort from the
achievement of the Millennium Development Goals; and include active involvement
of all relevant stakeholders, as appropriate, in the process. It was further agreed that
SDGs must be: action-oriented; concise; easy to communicate; limited in number;
aspirational; global in nature; universally applicable to all countries while taking into
account different national realities, capacities and levels of development and respecting
national policies and priorities (UN-SD Platform).
Sustainability management: environmental and social management and corporate
governance, in conjunction with financial management. Processes or structures that
an organisation uses to meet its sustainability goals and objectives while transforming
inputs into a product or service (modified after UNEPFI, 2006).
Sustainability management plan: a formal, governance body endorsed, sustainability plan
for the enterprise which provides a holistic view of sustainability which covers each of
the environmental, economic, social and governance dimensions, including in the plan
references to mission and demonstration of progress against the plan. Sustainability
plans are a relatively recent phenomenon used by an organization to provide good
governance guidance for its sustainability efforts and to assist in incorporating the values
and aspirations for sustainability to be formally included in business planning. The
business planning cycle enables governance bodies to hold management accountable
for implementing the direction and targets set for the organization.
Sustainability reporting: a sustainability report enables companies and organizations to
report sustainability information in a way that is similar to financial reporting. Systematic
sustainability reporting gives comparable data, with agreed disclosures and metrics.
This tool gives information about economic, environmental, social and governance
performance. For companies and organizations, sustainability – the capacity to endure, or
be maintained – is based on performance in these four key areas. An increasing number
of companies and organizations want to make their operations sustainable. Establishing
a sustainability reporting process helps them to set goals, measure performance,

APPENDICES
and manage change. A sustainability report is the key platform for communicating
positive and negative sustainability impacts. To produce a regular sustainability report,
organizations set up a reporting cycle – a program of data collection, communication, and
responses. This means that their sustainability performance is monitored on an ongoing
basis. Data can be provided regularly to senior decision makers to shape company
strategy and policy, and improve performance (GRI).
Sustainable: the capacity to sustain, or maintain. There are numerous definitions of
sustainability but all converge on the need to reconcile environmental, social and
economic demands for present and future generations.
Sustainable agriculture and rural development: management and conservation of the
natural resource base, and the orientation of technological and institutional change in
such a manner as to ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction of human needs
for present and future generations. Such sustainable development (in the agriculture,
forestry, and fisheries sectors) conserves land, water, plant and animal genetic resources,
is environmentally non-degrading, technically appropriate, economically viable and
socially acceptable (FAO, 1989).
Sustainable development: development processes that protect the natural resource base
and ecosystem functions, enhance economic resilience and promote human rights and
well-being in a manner that preserves future generations’ ability to secure their needs.
Sustainable forest management: ensuring that the goods and services derived from
the forest meet present-day needs while at the same time securing their continued
availability and contribution to long-term development (FAO, 2013).
Target-based indicator: these indicators focus on whether the operation has plans or
policies with targets, or a definition of intentions.
Technical regulation: a document which lays down product characteristics or their related
processes and production methods, including the applicable administrative provisions,
with which compliance is mandatory. It may also include or deal exclusively with
terminology, symbols, packaging, marking or labeling requirements as they apply to a
product, process or production method. Note: technical regulations can refer to, or be
based on, standards (UNCTAD, FAO and IFOAM, 2012).
Tenure: tenure is the relationship, whether legally or customary defined, among people
as individuals or groups, with respect to land and associated natural resources. Rules
of tenure define how property rights in land are to be allocated within societies. Land
tenure system determines who can use what resources for how long, and under what
conditions (FAO, 2003).

APPENDICES
Threshold: Limit below which a stimulus ceases to be perceptible or signal, indicating

that a critical state of a resource has been reached. In ICAM, thresholds are used (e.g. in
fisheries) as an early warning when a resource is approaching a target reference point or a
limit reference point, suggesting that a certain type of action (usually agreed beforehand)
needs to be taken. Thresholds therefore add precaution to natural resource management,
especially for resources or situations (e.g. uncertainty of available information, inherent
inertia of the management system) involving high risk (FAO, 2008).
Trade-off: the value of something that has to be given up in order to get something else
that is desired (e.g. the environmental cost incurred to obtain economic development).
Sustainability can be evaluated by the sum of the various social, economic and natural
resources where the degrees of use, exchange and trading among resources will vary
according to the values given to each. Trade-off patterns are therefore determined
by the different properties of a system and their importance to different groups. The
understanding of social dynamics and resource-use systems and the evaluation of
related trade-offs, in terms of equity, productivity, resilience and environmental stability,
are useful to envision alternative development scenarios (FAO, 2008).
Transparency: transparency refers to open access by the public to timely and reliable
information on the decisions and performance of entities. In the context of the
private market, it means open access to information regarding the mechanisms for
implementation of standards, regulations and agreements as well as individual decisions
undertaken within the enterprise.
Triple bottom line: a business approach to full-cost accounting that refers to three pillars:
people (social), planet (environmental) and profit (economic).
Value chain: a mechanism that allows producers, processors, buyers, and sellers – separated
by time and space – to gradually add value to products and services, as they pass from
one link in the chain to the next until reaching the final consumer. The main actors
in a value chain are suppliers, producers, processors, marketers and buyers. They are
supported by a range of private and public technical, business and financial service
providers. In a value chain, the various business activities in the different segments
become connected and to some degree coordinated (UNIDO, 2011).
Value creation: refers to the contribution of the enterprise to the local economy through
the employment of local professionals and technicians. It is a significant component
of sustainable development, and might benefit the long-term business viability of
the enterprise. Local employment and sustainable economic development are two
interrelated variables.

APPENDICES
Voluntary sustainable standard: any non-obligatory set of requirements explicitly

designed to promote the objectives of sustainable development, relating to
environmental, social, ethical and food safety issues in the production and processing
phases. Often third party-assessed through certification.
Vulnerable people: ethnic minorities, migrants, disabled, homeless, refugees, long-term
unemployed, female-headed households, teenage mothers and other minority groups
that experience a higher risk of poverty and socio-economic exclusion than the general
population.
Water quality: chemical, physical and biological characteristics of water in respect to its
suitability for a particular purpose or process. Water quality refers to a range of variables
which limit water use: for example, limits on the concentrations of toxic substances for
drinking water use, or restrictions on temperature and pH ranges for water supporting
invertebrate communities.
Water withdrawal: gross amount of water extracted from the resources for a given use. It
includes conveyance losses, consumptive use and return flow (FAO, 2000).
Well-being: the state of being or doing well in life; healthy, or prosperous condition; moral
or physical welfare (of a person or community).
Workplace safety and health provisions for employees: workplace safety is the practice
of an employer using preventative measures to prevent hazards to the employees’
health and personal safety according to government standards. This practice includes
creating plans and procedures for employees and managers in the workplace. In
addition, workplace safety involves creating policies and keeping emergency materials
available for employee and manager use while at a work site.

APPENDICES
Appendix D:
REFERENCES
4C Association. 2009. The 4C Code of Conduct. Common Code for the Coffee Community
Association (available at http://www.4c-coffeeassociation.org/uploads/media/4CDoc_001a_
Code_of_Conduct_v1.3_en.pdf)
AccountAbility. 2008. AA100 AccountAbility Principles Standard 2008. AccountAbility, New York
(available at www.accountability.org/about-us/publications/aa1000.html).
Al-Tuwaijri, S., Fedotov, I., Feitshans, I., Gifford, M., Gold, D., Machida, S., Nahmias, M., Niu, S.
& Sandi G. 2008. Beyond Death and Injuries: The Ilo’s Role in Promoting Safe and Healthy Jobs.
XVIII World Congress on Safety and Health at Work, June 2008, Seoul, Korea – Introductory
report. International Labour Organization, Geneva. (available at http://www.ilo.org/global/
publications/WCMS_094524/lang--en/index.htm)
Bellarby, J., Foereid, B., Hastings, A. & Smith, P. 2008. Cool Farming: Climate Change Impacts of
Agriculture and Mitigation Potential . Greenpeace International. (available at www.greenpeace.
org/international/en/publications/reports/cool-farming-full-report).
Beuchelt, T. & Zeller, M. 2011. Profits and Poverty: Certification’s Troubled Link for Nicaragua’s
Organic and Fairtrade Coffee Producers. Ecological Economics 70: 1316-1324. (available at http://
comerciojusto.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Coffee-profits-poverty.pdf)
BGR. 2006. Deutsche Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe. Jahresbericht 2006 (in
German). Hanover, Germany.
Blackman, A . & Rivera, J. 2011. Producer-Level Benefits of Sustainability Certification.
Conservation Biology 25: 1176-1185. (available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/
j.1523-1739.2011.01774.x/abstract)
Blumenthal, U. & Peasey, A. 2002. Critical Review of Epidemiological Evidence of the Health Effects
of Wastewater and Excreta Use in Agriculture. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
WHO. (available at http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/wastewater/whocriticalrev.pdf)
Boxall, A., Kolpin, B., Soerensen, B. & Tolls, J. 2003. Are Veterinary Medicines Causing
Environmental Risks? Environmental Science and Technology, 37(15): 286A-294A . UK.
British Heart Foundation (BHF). 2008. Protecting children from unhealthy food marketing.. London
(available at www.childrensfoodcampaign.net/BHFnonbroadcastreport.pdf).
Buchanan, James; Wm. Craig Stubblebine. 1962. Externality. Economica, New Series, 29 (116):
371–384. The London School of Economics and Political Science. (available at http://napa.
vn:8080/uris/uploads/2/Externality%20-%20Buchanan%20J%20M%20economica%201962.pdf)
Burton, J. 2010. WHO Healthy Workplace Framework and Model: Background and Supporting
Literature And Practices. World Health Organization. Geneva. (available at www.who.int/
occupational_health/healthy_workplaces_background_original.pdf).

APPENDICES
Business Leaders Initiative on Human Rights (BLIHR). 2009. Policy Report 4. (available at http://
respect.se/assets/BLIHR-4-Final-report.pdf).
Business Social Compliance Initiative (BSCI). 2009. Code of Conduct.. Version 3. Foreign Trade
Initiative. Brussels (available at www.bsci-intl.org/resources/code-of-conduct).
Campbell, C. 1992. Contaminants in the Food System: The Consumers’ Response. In Proc.
Nutr. Soc. Aust. 17: 33-35. W.Australia. (available at http://apjcn.nhri.org.tw/server/apjcn/
ProcNutSoc/1990-1999/1992/1992%2033-35.pdf).
Carney, D., Drinkwater, M., Rusinow, T., Neejes, K., Wanmali, S. & Singh, N. 1999. Livelihoods
Approaches Compared. Department for International Development (DIFID). (available at http://
www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/document/0812/lacv3.pdf).
Chambers, R. & Conway, G. 1991. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st
Century. IDS Discussion Paper 296. (available at http://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/
handle/123456789/775/Dp296.pdf?sequence=1).
Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC). 1999. Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labeling
and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods. GL 32. (available at www.codexalimentarius.net/
download/standards/360/cxg_032e.pdf).
Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC). 2007. Food Import and Export Inspection and
Certification Systems (Codex Alimentarius). Third Edition. Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards
Programme. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1391e/a1391e00.htm).
Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC). 2009. Guidelines for Organically Produced Foods.
Second Edition. Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. GL 32 – 1999, Rev. 1 – 2001.
(available at http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/230124/CXG_032e.pdf)
Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC). 1995. Principles for Food Import and Export Inspection
and Certification. GL 20 (available at www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/37/
CXG_020e.pdf).
Commission on Sustainable Development. 2001. Indicators of Sustainable Development:
Guidelines and Methodologies. Second Edition. UN, NY, September 2001. (available at http://
www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/guidelines.pdf)
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2010. Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. Secretariat
of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal. (available at http://www.cbd.int/doc/
publications/gbo/gbo3-final-en.pdf)
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem,
S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. & van den Belt, M. 1997. The Value of
the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature 387: 253-260. (available at http://
www.esd.ornl.gov/benefits_conference/nature_paper.pdf)
Crews, T.W. & Peoples, M.B. 2004. Legume Versus Fertilizer Sources of Nitrogen: Ecological
Tradeoffs and Human Needs. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 102: 279-297. (available
at http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/www.prescott.edu/ContentPages/15891389.pdf)
Daly, H.E. 1990. Toward Some Operational Principles of Sustainable Development. Ecological
Economics 2: 1-6.

APPENDICES
De Guzman, M., Hill-Menson, T. & Greve, V.L. 2007. Promoting Cultural Understanding and
Developing Cultural Competence. University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extention, HE Form 575.
Participant Manual (available at www.extension.unl.edu/c/document_library/get_file?folder
Id=221677&name=DLFE-3223.pdf)
Delhaize Group. 2011. Our Journey to Sustainability. Progress Report 2011. Brussels. (available at
http://www.delhaizegroup.com/en/Home/2011sustainabilityreport.pdf)
DFID. 1999. Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. Framework. London (available at www.eldis.
org/vfile/upload/1/document/0901/section2.pdf).
Dixon, J., Taniguchi, K., Tanyeri-Abur, A., & Wattenbach, H. 2004. Framework for Analysing
Impacts of Globalization on Smallholders. Smallholders, Globalization And Policy Analysis.
Agricultural Management, Marketing and Finance Service. Occasional Paper 5. FAO. Rome.
(available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5784e/y5784e02.htm)
Doane, D. & MacGillivray, A. 2001. Economic Sustainability. The Business of Staying in Business.
R&D report. The SIGMA Project. (available at http://projectsigma.co.uk/RnDStreams/RD_
economic_sustain.pdf).
ECOSOC. 2000. Integrated Planning and Management of Land Resources. Report of the Secretary-
General. Commission on Sustainable Development – VIII Session. UN DESA. (available at www.
un.org/documents/ecosoc/cn17/2000/ecn172000-6.htm).
Ehm, F. 2010. The Rule of Law: Concept, Guiding Principle and Framework. Unidem Campus Trieste
Seminar. Report to the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission)
(available at www.venice.coe.int/docs/2010/CDL-UDT(2010)022-e.pdf).
Elferink, E., Kuneman, G., Visser, A. & van der Wal, E. 2012. Sustainability Performance
Assessment of Farming Practices. Guidelines for Developers of Quantitative Monitoring Tools.
Version 1.0 . SAI Platform. (available at http://www.saiplatform.org/uploads/Modules/Library/
spa_version_1.0_may_2012.pdf).
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions . 2007. Fourth
European Working Conditions Survey. European Union. Dublin. (available at www.eurofound.
europa.eu/pubdocs/2006/98/en/2/ef0698en.pdf).
European Union. 2008. European Parliament and of the Council on Food Additives. Official Journal
of the European Union, Regulation (EC) No. 1333/2008. Eur-Lex. (available at http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:354:0016:0033:en:PDF)
European Union. 2009. The European Parliament and the Council on the Voluntary Participation by
Organisations in a Community Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS). Official Journal of
the European Union, Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009. Eur-Lex. (available at http://eur-lex.europa.
eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:342:0001:01:EN:HTML).
European Union. 2010a. Agriculture and Climate Change. European Commission (available at
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/climate-change/)
European Union. 2010b. European Regional Development Fund 2007-2013. Europa, EU legislation.
(available at http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/agriculture/general_framework/g24234_
en.htm).

APPENDICES
Fairtrade International. 2011a. Generic Fairtrade. Trader Standard. Fairtrade Labelling

Organizations International, e.V., Bonn. (available at http://www.fairtrade.net/trade_standards0.
html).
Fairtrade International. 2011b. Generic Fairtrade Standard for Contract Production. Fairtrade
Labelling Organizations International e.V. Bonn. (available at http://www.fairtrade.net/contract-
production-standards.html).
Fairtrade International. 2011c. Generic Fairtrade Standard for Hired Labour. Fairtrade Labelling
Organizations International e.V.. Bonn. (available at http://www.fairtrade.net/hired-labour-
standards.html).
Fairtrade International. 2011d. Generic Fairtrade Standard for Small Producer Organizations.
Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International e.V. Bonn. (available at http://www.fairtrade.
net/small-producer-standards.html).
Falkenmark M. 1997. Meeting Water Requirements of an Expanding World Population. In On the
Edge of the Malthusian Precipice? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci., 352(1356): 929-936.
(available at http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/352/1356/929)
FAO Council. 2012. Greening the Economy with Agriculture (available at www.fao.org/docrep/015/
i2745e/i2745e00.pdf)
FAO. 1983. World Soil Charter. In Keeping the Land Alive. Soil Erosion: Its Causes and Cures. Nat.
Res. Dept. Rome. (available at www.fao.org/docrep/T0389E/T0389E0b.htm).
FAO. 1989. Sustainable Development and Natural Resources Management. Twenty-Fifth Conference,
Paper C 89/2 - Sup. 2. Rome.
FAO. 1995. Sustainability Issues in Agricultural and Rural Development Policies. Trainer’s Manual,
Vol. 1. Rome.
FAO. 1996. Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action.
World Food Summit 13-17 November 1996. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/
w3613e/w3613e00.HTM)
FAO. 1997. Gender: the Key to Sustainability and Food Security. SD Dimensions. Sustainable
Development Dept. (available at http://www.fao.org/sd/wpdirect/wpdoe001.htm).
FAO. 1998. Integrated Coastal Area Management and Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. FAO
Guidelines. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/w8440e/w8440e00.HTM)
FAO. 2001. Lecture Notes of the Major Soils of the World. Natural Resources Management and
Environment Dept. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/y1899e/y1899e00.HTM)
FAO. 2003. Multilingual Land Tenure Thesaurus. SD Dimensions. Sustainable Development Dept.
Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/sd/2003/in0602_en.htm)
FAO. 2004. Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate
Food in the Context of National Food Security. Rome (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/
meeting/009/y9825e/y9825e00.HTM)
FAO. 2006a. Livestock’s Long Shadow. Environmental Issues And Options. Agriculture and Consumer
Protection Dept. Rome (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM)

APPENDICES
FAO. 2006b. Food Security. FAO Policy Brief, Issue 2. FAO Agriculture and Development Economics
Division. Rome (available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esa/policybriefs/pb_02.pdf)
FAO. 2010a. The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Addressing Food Insecurity in Protracted
Crises. 2010 Report. Rome (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1683e/i1683e.pdf)
FAO. 2010b. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Fisheries and Aquaculture Dept. Rome
(available at www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1820e/i1820e00.htm
FAO. 2010c. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. FAO Forestry Paper N. 163. FAO Forestry
Department. Rome (available at www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1757e/i1757e.pdf).
FAO. 2011a. The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture. Managing
systems at risk. FAO and Earthscan (available at http://www.fao.org/nr/solaw/solaw-home/en/).
FAO. 2011b. Payments for Ecosystem Services And Food Security. Natural Resources Management
and Environment Dept. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2100e/i2100e.pdf)
FAO. 2012a. Greening the Economy with Agriculture. Extract from the FAO Council document CL
143/18: Status of preparation of FAO contributions to the 2012 United Nations Conference on
Sustainable Development: Governance for Greening the Economy with Agriculture (GEA).
(available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2745e/i2745e00.pdf).
FAO. 2012b. FRA 2015 Terms and Definitions. Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper 180. FAO
Forestry Department. (available at www.fao.org/docrep/017/ap862e/ap862e00.pdf)
FAO. 2012c. Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and
Forests in the Context of National Food Security (available at http://www.fao.org/nr/tenure/
voluntary-Guidelines/en/)
FAO. 2012d. Global Forest Land-use Change 1990-2005. Fao Forestry Paper 169. (available at http://
www.fao.org/docrep/017/i3110e/i3110e.pdf)
FAO. 2013. Food Wastage Footprint. Impacts on Natural resources. Summary Report. Natural
Resource Dept. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3347e/i3347e.pdf)
FAO/WHO. 2003a. Expert Report on Diet, Nutrition and Prevention of Chronic Diseases.
Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. (available at http://www.who.int/
dietphysicalactivity/en/).
FAO/WHO. 2003b. Recommended International Code of Practice General Principles of Food
Hygiene. Cac/rcp 1-1969, Rev. 4-2003. Codex Committee on Food Hygiene. (available at www.
mhlw.go.jp/english/topics/importedfoods/guideline/dl/04.pdf).
FAOSTAT. 2010/2011/2012. FAOSTAT-Agriculture Database (available at http://faostat.fao.org/
default.aspx).
FAWC. 1979. The five Freedoms. Farm Animal Welfare Council of Great Britain (available at http://
www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm).
F O A G . 2 0 0 9 . S w i s s A g r i c u l t u r e o n t h e M o v e : T h e N e w A g r i c u l t u r e A c t . Te n
Years On. Federa l Of f ice of Ag r icu lt u re of Sw itzerla nd (ava i lable at w w w.blw.
a d m i n . c h /a k t u e l l / i n d e x . h t m l ? l a n g = e n & d o w n l o a d = N H z L pZ e g 7 t , l n p 6 I 0 N T U
042l2Z6ln1ad1IZn4Z2qZpnO2Yuq2Z6gpJCEdIJ9gGym162epYbg2c_JjKbNoKSn6A--).

APPENDICES
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, CS. & Walker, B. 2002. Resilience
and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of Transformations. Royal
Swedish Academy of Sciences Ambio 31: 437-440. (available at http://www.bioone.org/doi/
abs/10.1579/0044-7447-31.5.437)
Food SCP Round Table. 2012. Envifood Protocol. Environmental Assessment of Food and Drink
Protocol. European Food Sustainable Consumption & Production (SCP) Round Table. (available
at http://www.food-scp.eu/files/consultation4/ENVIFOOD_Protocol_November_2012.pdf)
Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic Management. A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge University Press,
Boston.
FSC. 1996. FSC International Standard. FSC Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship. Forest
Stewardship Council A.C., Bonn, Germany (available at https://ic.fsc.org/principles-and-
criteria.34.htm).
G100. 2003. Sustainability: A Guide To Triple Bottom Line Reporting. Group of 100 Incorporated.
Melbourne, Australia (available at www.group100.com.au/publications/G100_guide-tbl-
reporting2003.pdf).
GA. 2012. Accelerating Progress Towards the Millennium Development Goals: Options for
Sustained and Inclusive Growth and Issues for Advancing the United Nations Development
Agenda Beyond 2015. Annual report of the Secretary-General. A/67/257. Sixty-seventh session
of the General Assembly. (available at http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/
untaskteam_undf/sgreport.pdf.
Gesellschaft für angewandte Wirtschaftsethik (GfaW). 2012. Certified Sustainable Economics.
Standard for Certification of Sustainable Business Management. Version 01/2012. Bad Sooden-
Allendorf, Germany (available at http://angewandte-wirtschaftsethik.org/wp-content/
uploads/2011/09/en-final-Certified-Sustainable-Economics-Standard.pdf ).
GlobalG.A.P. 2011a. Control Points and Compliance Criteria. Integrated Farm Assurance. All Farm
Base. Version 4.0. FoodPlus GmbH, Cologne. (available at http://www1.globalgap.org/north-
america/upload/Standards/IFA/v4_0-1/120206_gg_ifa_cpcc_af_eng_v4_0-1.pdf).
GlobalG.A.P. 2011b. Control Points and Compliance Criteria. Integrated Farm Assurance. Crops
Base. Version 4.0. FoodPlus GmbH, Cologne (available at http://www1.globalgap.org/north-
america/upload/Standards/IFA/v4_0-1/120206_gg_ifa_cpcc_cb_eng_v4_0-1.pdf).
GlobalG.A.P. 2011c. Control Points and Compliance Criteria. Integrated Farm Assurance. Livestock
Base. Version 4.0. FoodPlus GmbH, Cologne (available at http://www1.globalgap.org/north-
america/upload/Standards/IFA/v4_0-1/120206_gg_ifa_cpcc_lb_eng_v4_0-1.pdf).
Grenz, J., Thalmann, C., Schoch, M. & Stämpfli, A. 2011. RISE 2.0 Field Manual. Bern University
of Applied Sciences, Zollikofen, Switzerland.
GRI. 2011a. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Version 3.1. Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam
(available at https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/G3.1-Guidelines-Incl-Technical-
Protocol.pdf).
GRI. 2011b. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Version 3.1. Food Processing Sector Supplement.
Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam (available at https://www.globalreporting.org/
resourcelibrary/FPSS-Complete.pdf ).

APPENDICES
GSCP. 2010. Reference Tools of the Global Social Compliance Programme. Issy-les-Moulineaux,
France (available at www.gscpnet.com/working-plan.html).
GWP. 2000. Towards Water Security: a Framework for Action. Global Water Partnership, Stockholm
(available at http://www.gwp.org/Global/GWP-SAm_Files/Publicaciones/Marco%20para%20
la%20Accion/Framework-for-action-Exec-Summary.pdf)
Haanaes, K., Arthur, S., Balagopal, B., Kong, M.T., Reeves, M., Velken, I., Hopkins, M.S. &
Kruschwitz, N. 2011. Sustainability: the ‘Embracers’ Seize Advantage. Findings from the
2010 Sustainability & Innovation Global Executive Study and Research Project. MIT Sloan
Management Review and The Boston Consulting Group (available at http://c0426007.
cdn2.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/MIT-SMR-BCG-sustainability-the-embracers-seize-
advantage-2011.pdf).
Helmholtz-Zentrum. 2007. Antibiotika und Antibiotikaresistenzen (in German). FLUGS-
Fachinformationsdienst. Helmholtz-Zentrum, München. (available at http://www.helmholtz-
muenchen.de/fileadmin/FLUGS/PDF/Themen/Krankheitsbilder/Antibiotika.End.pdf)
Henderson, G. 1994. Cultural diversity in the workplace: issues and strategies. Praeger Publishers,
Westport (CT).
Hill, C. & Jones. G. 2007. Strategic Management Theory: an Integrated Approach. Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston.
HLPE. 2011. Land Tenure and International Investments in Agriculture. A report by the High Level
Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition. Committee on World Food Security, Rome
(available at www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/hlpe/hlpe_documents/HLPE-Land-tenure-
and-international-investments-in-agriculture-2011.pdf).
Holling, C.S. & Meffe, G.K. 1996. Command and Control and the Pathology of Natural Resource
Management. Conservation Biology, 10(2): 328-337. (available at http://www.ecology.ethz.ch/
education/Ecosystem_Files/Holling_and_Meffe__1996__Pathology_of_Natural_Resource_
Management.pdf)
Human Rights Council. 2008. Promotion And Protection Of All Human Rights, Civil, Political,
Economic, Social And Cultural Rights, Including The Right To Development. Report of the
Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational
corporations and other business enterprises, John Ruggie. Human Rights Council VIII Session,
Agenda item 3. A/HRC/8/5. (available at http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Ruggie-report-
7-Apr-2008.pdf)
Hussein, K. 2002. Livelihood Approaches Compared: A Multi-Agency Review of Current Practice.
Commissioned by the UK Department for International Development’s (DFID’s) Sustainable
Livelihoods Support Office (SLSO). London. (available at www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/
document/0812/LAC.pdf).
IFAD. 2007. Lack of Investment in Agriculture Is Driving Massive Migration from Rural Areas.
Governing Council meeting 14-15 February 2007. IFAD/15/07. Rome (available at www.ifad.
org/media/press/2007/15.htm).
ILO. 1951. Equal Remuneration Convention. C100. Geneva (available at www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/
convde.pl?C100)

APPENDICES
ILO. 1958. Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention. C111. Geneva (available at
www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C111)
ILO. 1998. ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Geneva (available at
www.ilo.org/declaration/lang--en/index.htm).
ILO. 2006. Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social
Policy. 204th Session of the Governing Body of the International Labour Office. (amended at
its 279th (2000) and 295th Session (2006). (available at http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/
public/@ed_emp/@emp_ent/@multi/documents/publication/wcms_094386.pdf)
ILO. 2011. Equality at work: The Continuing Challenge. Global Report under the follow-up to the
ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Report of the Director-General.
International Labour Conference, 100th session. Report 1 (B). Geneva (available at www.ilo.org/
wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---declaration/documents/publication/wcms_166583.pdf).
ILO. 2012. Boosting Local Economies. Geneva. Sustainable Enterprise Programme. (available at
www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_ent/---led/documents/publication/
wcms_175521.pdf).
ILO/IPEC. International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC). (available at
http://www.ilo.org/ipec/lang--en/index.htm#a3)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis
Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva (available at http://www.ipcc.ch/
publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm)
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development
(IAASTD). (2008) Agriculture at a Crossroads: The Synthesis Report. Washington, DC, USA:
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development.
(available at: www.agassessment.org/)
International Energy Agency (IEA). 2009. World Energy Outlook. Executive Summary. OECD/
IEA. Paris (available at www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/weo2009sum.pdf).
International Foundation for Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). 2006. The IFOAM
Basic Standards for Organic Production and Processing. In The IFOAM Norms for Organic
Production and Processing (version 2005). Bonn. (available at http://www.ifoam.org/sites/
default/files/page/files/norms_eng_v4_20090113.pdf).
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). 2009. Bellagio STAMP:
SusTainability Assessment and Measurement Principles. 3 rd OECD World Forum, Charting
Progress, Building Visions, Improving Life. Winnipeg. (available at http://www.iisd.org/
measure/principles/progress/bellagiostamp/)
International Task Force on Harmonization and Equivalence in Organic Agriculture (ITF)
and The Global Organic Market Access (GOMA) Project. 2012. Organic Equivalence Tools.
International Requirements for Organic Certification Bodies (IROCB) and Guide for Assessing
Equivalence of Organic Standards and Technical Regulations (EquiTool). Version 2. An initiative
of the FAO, IFOAM and UNCTAD. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/an905e/
an905e00.pdf

APPENDICES
International Water Management Institute (IWMI). 2007. Water for Food, Water for Life: A
Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. Earthscan, London and
International Water Management Institute, Colombo. (summary available at http://www.iwmi.
cgiar.org/Assessment/files_new/synthesis/Summary_SynthesisBook.pdf)
ISEAL Alliance. 2010. Assessing the Impacts of Social and Environmental Standards Systems. ISEAL
Code of Good Practice, version 1.0. London. (available at www.isealalliance.org/resources/p041-
impacts-code-of-good-practice).
Isenring, R. 2010. Pesticides and the Loss of Bbiodiversity. How Intensive Pesticide Use Affects Wildlife
Populations and Species Diversity. Pesticide Action Network Europe. London (available at http://
www.pan-europe.info/Resources/Briefings/Pesticides_and_the_loss_of_biodiversity.pdf).
ISO. 2006a. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework. ISO
14040:2006. (available at http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=37456)
ISO. 2006b. Environmental Labels and Declarations – Type Iii Environmental Declarations –
Principles and Procedures. ISO 14025:2006. Geneva. (available at http://www.iso.org/iso/
catalogue_detail?csnumber=38131)
Jörissen, J., Kopfmüller, J. & Brandl, V. 1999. Ein Integratives Konzept Nachhaltiger Entwicklung
(in German). Wissenschaftliche Berichte FZKA 6393. Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Germany.
(available at http://www.itas.fzk.de/deu/Itaslit/joua99a.pdf)
Loew, T. & Braun, S. 2006. Organisatorische Umsetzung von CSR. Vom Umweltmanagement
zur Sustainable Corporate Governance. (in German). Institute 4 Sustainability, Berlin and
future e.V., München. (available at http://www.4sustainability.de/fileadmin/redakteur/bilder/
Publikationen/Loew_Braun_2006_Organisatorische_Umsetzung_von_CSR.pdf).
Maak, T. & Ulrich, P. 2007. Integre Unternehmensführung. Ethisches Orientierungswissen für die
Wirtschaftspraxis (in German). Schäefer Poeschel. Stuttgart.
Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). 2010. MSC Fisheries Standard. Principles and Criteria
for Sustainable Fishing. Version 1.1. (available at http://www.msc.org/documents/scheme-
documents/msc-standards/MSC_environmental_standard_for_sustainable_fishing.pdf/view).
McCann, K.S. 2000. The Diversity-Stability Debate. Nature, 405: 228-233. (available at http://www.
nature.com/nature/journal/v405/n6783/full/405228a0.html)
McInroy, N. & Longlands, S. 2010. Productive Local Economies: Creating Resilient Places. Centre
for Local Economic Strategies (CLES). Manchester. (available at www.cles.org.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2011/01/Resilience-for-web1.pdf).
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.
(available at www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx).
Nelson, J. & Prescott, D. 2008. Business and the Millennium Development Goals: A Framework for
Action (2nd edition). International Business Leaders Forum. (available at http://mapeo-rse.info/
sites/default/files/Business_and_the_Millennium_Development_Goals.pdf).
Norberg-Hodge, H. 2002. Think Global... Eat Local. The Ecologist (UK) 32(7): 28-31 (available
at www.rightlivelihood.org/fileadmin/Files/PDF/Literature_Recipients/Ladakh/Norberg-
Hodge_-_Think_Globally.pdf ).

APPENDICES
OECD LEED Programme. 2010. Local Development Benefits from Staging Global Events: Achieving
the Local Development Legacy From 2012. A peer review of the olympic and paralympic legacy
for east london proposed by the department of communities and local government, UK.
(available at www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/61/46207013.pdf).
OECD. 2002. Glossary Of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management. Paris. (available at http://
www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/glossaryofkeytermsinevaluationandresultsbasedmanagement.htm)
OECD. 2003. OECD Environmental Indicators. Development, measurement and use. Reference paper.
OECD Environment Directorate. Environmental Performance and Information Division. Paris
(available at http://www.oecd.org/environment/indicators-modelling-outlooks/24993546.pdf).
OECD. 2004. Principles of Good Corporate Governance. Paris. (available at http://www.oecd.org/
corporate/ca/corporategovernanceprinciples/31557724.pdf)
OECD. 2011a. Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. OECD Publishing. (available at http://www.
oecd.org/daf/inv/mne/48004323.pdf)
OECD. 2011b. OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. 2011 Edition. (available at http://
www.oecd.org/daf/inv/mne/48004323.pdf).
OECD/IEA. 2008. Towards a Sustainable Energy Future. In Support of the G8 Plan Of Action.
Iea Programme of Work on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development.
International Energy Agency, Paris (available at http://ccs101.ca/assets/Documents/g8_
towards_sustainable_future.pdf).
OHCHR. 1966a. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Geneva. (available
at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx)
OHCHR. 1966b. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Geneva. (available at http://
www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx
Oldeman, L.R., Hakkeling, R.T.A.& Sombrock W.G. 1990. World Map of the Status of Human-
Induced Soil Degradation. An Explanatory Note. ISRIC and UNEP. Wageningen, the
Netherlands. (available at http://www.isric.org/sites/default/files/ExplanNote_1.pdf)
PENN Behavioral Health Coporate Services. 2008. Developing Cultural Competency at Work: How
Organizations Can Benefit from Opportunities Provided by a Multi-Cultural Staff. University
of Pennsylvania, Philadephia (PA) (available at www.pennbehavioralhealth.org/documents/
cultural_competency.pdf).
Pfister, S., Koehler, A. & Hellweg, S. 2009. Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Freshwater
Consumption in LCA. Environ. Sci. Technol., 43: 4098-4104 . (available at http://www.
pe-international.com/uploads/media/Water_Footprint_Freshwater_Consumption_in_Life_
Cycle_Assessment.pdf)
Pimm, S.L. & Raven, P. 2000. Extinction by Numbers. Nature Volume 403: 843-845. MacMillian
Magazines Ltd. (available at : www.researchgate.net)
Pinter, L., Hardi, P., Martinuzzi, A. & Hall, J. 2011. Bellaggio STAMP: Principles for Sustainability
Assessment and Measurement. Ecological Indicators 17: 20-28. (available at http://disciplinas.
stoa.usp.br/pluginfile.php/106018/mod_resource/content/1/texto_3.pdf)

APPENDICES
Pitts, D. 2006. Implementation of Diversity Management Programs in Public Organizations:

Lessons from Policy Implementation Research. Georgia State University, Department of
Public Administration and Urban Studies Fiscal Research Center. Andrew Young School
of Policy Studies Research Paper Series. Working Paper 6-17. Atlanta (GA) (available at
http://aysps.gsu.edu/pitts_implementationdiversity.pdf).
Porter, T. 2008. Managerial Applications of Corporate Social Responsibility and Systems Thinking for
Achieving Sustainability Outcomes. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25: 397-411. Online
at Wiley InterScience. (available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sres.902/pdf)
Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI). (available at www.unpri.org)
Robles, M., Torero, M. & von Braun, J. 2009. When Speculation Matters. IFPRI issue brief 57.
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Washington, DC. (available at www.ifpri.
org/sites/default/files/publications/ib57.pdf).
Rockström et al.. 2009. A Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Nature 461: 472-475. (available at
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/461472a.html)
Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB). 2010. RSB Principles & Criteria for Sustainable Biofuel
Production. Version 2.0. Lausanne. (available at http://rsb.org/pdfs/standards/11-03-08-RSB-
PCs-Version-2.pdf).
Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB). 2011a. RSB Conservation Impact Assessment
Guidelines. Lausanne. (available at http://rsb.org/pdfs/guidelines/11-02-21-RSB-GUI-01-007-
01-(RSB-Conservation-Impact-Assessment-Guidelines).pdf).
RSB. 2011b. RSB Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Guidelines. Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels,
Lausanne , Switzerland (available at http://rsb.epfl.ch ).
Sainsbury. Sustainability Plan 20 to 20. http://w w w.j-Sainsbur y.co.uk/media/373272/
sainsbury_s_20_by_20_sustainability_plan.pdf
SAM Research AG. 2011. SAM Research Corporate Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire. DJSI
2012 – Test Companies. Zürich. (available at http://www.sustainability-indices.com/images/
sample-questionnaire_tcm1071-337498.pdf).
Schaltegger, S. & Wagner, M. 2003. Managing and Measuring the Business Case for Sustainability.
Capturing the Relationship between Sustainability Performance, Business Competitiveness and
Economic Performance. Greenleaf Publishing. (available at www.greenleaf-publishing.com/
content/pdfs/bcsintro.pdf).
Seuring, S. & Muller, M. 2008. From a Literature Review to a Conceptual Framework for Sustainable
Supply Chain Management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16: 1699-1710. Elsevier ltd.
Social Accountability International (SAI). 2008. SA 8000 Standard:2008. SA 8000. NY. (available
at http://www.sa-intl.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/2008StdEnglishFinal.pdf)
Stoob, K., Schmitt, H. & Wanner, M. 2005. Antibiotikaeinsatz in der Landwirtschaft – Folgen für
die Umwelt (in German). EAWAG News 59d. EAWAG, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN). 2010a. Standard for Sustainable Cattle Production
Systems. San José, Costa Rica (available at http://sanstandards.org/sitio/sections/display/3).

APPENDICES
Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN). 2010b. Sustainable Agriculture Standard. San José,
Costa Rica (available at http://sanstandards.org/sitio/sections/display/3).
Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN). 2011a. Group Certification Standard (version 2). San
José, Costa Rica (available at http://sanstandards.org/sitio/subsections/display/10).
Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN). 2011b. SAN Climate Module. Criteria for mitigation and
adaptation to climate change. Sustainable Agriculture Network. San José, Costa Rica (available
at http://clima.sanstandards.org/)
Taylor, M.B., Zandvliet, L. & Forouhar, M. 2009. Due Diligence For Human Rights: A Risk-Based
Approach. Working Paper No. 53. Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative. J.F. Kennedy
School of Government. Harvard University. (available at www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/
publications/workingpaper_53_taylor_etal.pdf).
Tesco. 2012. Annual Report and Financial Statements 2012. http://www.tescoplc.com/files/reports/
ar2012/files/pdf/tesco_annual_report_2012.pdf
The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity (TEEB). 2009. The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers. Sum-mary: Responding to the Value of
Nature. (available at http://www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/Study%20and%20Reports/
Reports/National%20and%20International%20Policy%20Making/Executive%20Summary/
National%20Executive%20Summary_%20English.pdf).
The European Commission DG SANCO and European Advisory Service. 2004. The Introduction
of Mandatory Nutrition Labeling in the European Union. Impact assessment undertaken for
the Directorate-General for Health and Consumers of the European Commission (available
at http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/nutritionlabel/impact_assessment.pdf).
Toscano, G. 1997. Brief: Dangerous Jobs. In Bureau of Labor Statistics. Compensation and Working
Conditions, Summer, 57–60.
Ulrich, P. 2008. Integrative Economic Ethics: Foundations of a Civilized Market Economy. Cambridge
University Press.
UN Habitat. 2009. Promoting Local Economic Development through Strategic Planning. Volume
5: Trainer’s Guide. UNON. Nairobi (available at www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.
aspx?publicationID=1922).
UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL. 2011. Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and
Human Rights. (available at: http://www.business-humanrights.org/SpecialRepPortal/Home/
Protect-Respect-Remedy-Framework/GuidingPrinciples)
UN Security Council. 2004. The Rule Of Law And Transitional Justice In Conflict And Post-Conflict
Societies. Report of the Secretary-General. (available at www.unrol.org/files/2004 report.pdf).
UN. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Geneva (available at www.un.org/en/documents/
udhr).
UN. 1996. Indicators of Sustainable Development Framework and Methodologies. UN Commission
on Sustainable Development. NY.

APPENDICES
UN. 2001. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies. Economic and
Social Affairs. NY.
UN. 2007. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies – Third edition.
Methodology sheets. Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). New York. (available at www.un.org/
esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/Guidelines.pdf).
UN. 2009. Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of
Benefits Arising from their Utilization To The Convention On Biological Diversity. Secretariat of
the Convention on Biological Diversity. Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal. (available
at www.cbd.int/abs/doc/protocol/nagoya-protocol-en.pdf).
UN. 2010. Retooling Global Development. World Economic and Social Survey 2010. Economic and
Social Affairs (DESA). New York. (available at www.un.org/esa/policy/wess/wess2010files/
wess2010.pdf).
UN. 2011. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2011. New York. (available at http://www.
un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/(2011_E)%20MDG%20Report%202011_Book%20LR.pdf)
UNCTAD, FAO and IFOAM. 2013. Common Objectives and Requirements of Organic Standards
(COROS). The Global Organic Market Access (GOMA) project and IFOAM Organic Guarantee
System (OGS). (available at http://www.goma-organic.org/tools/coros/)
UNEP DITIE/SETAC. 2009a. Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. UNEP/
SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. (available at http://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/
uploads/2012/12/2009%20-%20Guidelines%20for%20sLCA%20-%20EN.pdf).
UNEP DTIE/SETAC. 2009b. Life Cycle Management. How business uses it to decrease footprint,
create opportunities and make value chains more sustainable. A UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle
Initiative (available at http://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2009%20
-%20LCA%20-%20How%20business%20uses%20it.pdf).
UNEP DTIE/SETAC. 2011a. Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. Making informed
choices on products. A UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (available at http://www.
lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2011%20-%20Towards%20LCSA.pdf).
UNEP DTIE/SETAC. 2011b. Global Guidance Principles for Life Cycle Assessment Databases.
A basis for greener processes and products. A UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (available
at http://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2011%20-%20Global%20
Guidance%20Principles.pdf).
UNEP. 1992. Agenda 21. The United Nation’s Programme of Action from Rio. UN, New York (available
at http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf)
UNESCO. 2001. UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. (available at http://unesdoc.
unesco.org/images/0012/001271/127160m.pdf).
UNESCO. 2003. UN World Water Development Report: Water for People, Water for Life. 1st edition.
Jointly published by UNESCO and Berghahn Books. (available at http://www.unesco.org/new/
en/natural-sciences/environment/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr1-2003/)

APPENDICES
UNESCO. 2008. UNESCO and Cultural Diversity (available at http://www.unescobkk.org/culture/

diversity/lens/).
UNESCO. 2009. Water in a Changing World. The United Nations World Water Development Report
3. UNESCO Publishing and Earthscan. (available at http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-
sciences/environment/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr3-2009/)
UNHRC. 2008. Addendum. Corporations and Human Rights: A Survey of the Scope and Patterns
of Alleged Corporate-Related Human Rights Abuse. In Report of the Special Representative of
the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other
business enterprises. Human Rights Council VIII Session, Agenda item 3. A/HRC/8/5. (available
at www.reports-and-materials.org/Ruggie-2-addendum-23-May-2008.pdf).
UNHRC. 2011. Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue Of Human
Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises. Guiding Principles on
Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy”
Framework. A/HRC/17/31 (available at www.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/
ruggie/ruggie-guiding-principles-21-mar-2011.pdf).
UNIDO. 2011. Industrial Value Chain Diagnostics: An Integrated Tool. Vienna. (available at http://
www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/MDGs/IVC_Diagnostic_Tool.pdf )
Unilever. 2010. Unilever Sustainable Agriculture Code (available at http://www.unilever.com/
images/sd_Unilever_Sustainable_Agriculture_Code_2010_tcm13-216557.pdf.)
Unilever. 2012. Sustainable Living Plan. Progress Report 2012. (available at http://www.unilever.
com/sustainable-living/index.aspx
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2011. Sustainability and Equity: A Better
Future for All. 2011 Human Development Report. New York (available at http://hdr.undp.org/
en/reports/global/hdr2011).
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP).
2009. What is Good Governance? Bangkok. (available at http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/
ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp)
United Nations Economic and Social Council (UNECE). 2007. Guidance Document on Control
Techniques for Preventing and Abating Emissions of Ammonia. Economic Commission for
Europe. (available at www.unece.org/env/documents/2007/eb/wg5/WGSR40/ece.eb.air.
wg.5.2007.13.e.pdf)
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 1992. Basel Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and Their Disposal. Protocol on Liability
and Compensation. (available at www.basel.int/Portals/4/Basel Convention/docs/text/
BaselConventionText-e.pdf).
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2011. Towards a Green Economy. Pathways
to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication. A synthesis for Policymakers. (available
at http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/portals/88/documents/ger/GER_synthesis_en.pdf).

APPENDICES
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2012. Green Economy in a Blue World. UNEP,
FAO, IMO, UNDP, IUCN, World Fish Center, GRIDArendal. (available at http://www.unep.org/
pdf/green_economy_blue.pdf)
United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEPFI). 2006. Sustainability
Management and Reporting. Benefits for Financial Institutions in Developing and Emerging
Economies. UNEP Finance Initiative Sustainability Management and Reporting Project.
(available at http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/smr_benefits_dec2006_01.pdf)
United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) and International Finance Corporation (IFC). 2009.
Corporate Governance. The Foundation for Corporate Citizenship and Sustainable Businesses.
(available at www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/Corporate_Governance/Corporate_
Governance_IFC_UNGC.pdf).
United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). 2010. United Nations Global Compact Management
Model. Framework for Implementation. New York (available at www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/
news_events/9.1_news_archives/2010_06_17/UN_Global_Compact_Management_Model.
pdf).
Van der Ploeg, R.R., Ehlers, W. & Horn, R. 2006. Schwerlast auf dem Acker (in German). Spektrum
der Wissenschaft, August, 80-88.
Vargas-Lundius, R. & Villarreal, M. 2008. International Migration, Remittances and Rural
Development. IFAD/FAO. Rome. (available at www.ifad.org/pub/remittances/migration.pdf).
Vitousek, P.M., Aber, J.D., Howarth, R.W., Likens, G.E., Matson, P.A., Schindler, D.W.,
Schlesinger, W.H. & Tilman, D. 1997. Human Alteration of the Global Nitrogen Cycle: Sources
and Consequences. Ecol. Appl. 7: 737–750.
Von Wirén-Lehr S. 2001. Sustainability in Agriculture – An Evaluation of Principal Goal-
Oriented Concepts to Close the Gap Between Theory and Practice. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 84: 115-129.
Wackernagel M. & Rees W. 1997. Unser ökologischer Fussabdruck: Wie der Mensch Einfluss auf
die Umwelt nimmt (in German). Birkhäuser, Basel, Boston, Berlin.
Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart Supplier Sustainability Assessment (available at http://www.greenbiz.com/
sites/default/files/Walmart_Sustainability_Assessment.pdf).
Western Development Commission (WDC). 2007. Indicators, Balanced Regional Development
and the National Development Plan 2007-2013. Republic of Ireland (available at http://www.
wdc.ie/wp-content/uploads/reports_IndicatorsBRDandNDP2007-2013.pdf)
WHO. 2007. Food Safety. Foodborne Illness. World Health Organisation, Geneva (available at .
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/foodborne_disease/en/)
WHO. 2009. General Information Related to Chemical Risks in Food. Geneva. (available at www.
who.int/foodsafety/chem/general/en/index.html).
World Bank. 2011. World Development Indicators (WDI) & Global Development Finance
(GDF). World dataBank. Washington D.C. (available at databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home.
do?Step=12&id=4&CNO=2).

APPENDICES
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). 2000. Eco-efficiency. Creating
More Value With Less Impact. Geneva (available at www.wbcsd.org/web/publications/eco_
efficiency_creating_more_value.pdf).
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Report of the World
Commission on Environment and Development: Our common future (available at www.
un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm).
World Economic Forum (WEF). 2010. Realizing a New Vision for Agriculture. A roadmap for
stakeholders. (available at http://www.weforum.org/reports/realizing-new-vision-agriculture-
roadmap-stakeholders).

GUIDELINES
© FAO | July 2014

Design and layout: Pietro Bartoleschi ‹ Arianna Guida – Studio@bartoleschi.com
SAFA GUIDELINES
WWW.FAO.ORG/NR/SUSTAINABILITY/SUSTAINABILITY-ASSESSMENTS-SAFA
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS (FAO)

Viale delle Terme di Caracalla - 00153 Rome, Italy
ISBN 978-92-5-108485-4
9 7 8 9 2 5 1 0 8 4 8 5 4
I3957E/1/07.14

Guidelines: Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guidelines: Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guidelines: Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAFA

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SYSTEMS

CULTURAL AANIMAL WELFARE

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS - ROME 2014

ISBN 978-92-5-108485-4 (print)

S AFA is an initiative led by Nadia El-Hage Scialabba, Natural Resources

SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0 iii

iv SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0

SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0 v

vi SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0

SECTION ONE. FRAMEWORK............................................................................................................1

SECTION TWO. PROCEDURES ........................................................................................................23

SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0 vii

SECTION THREE. SUSTAINABILITY PROTOCOL ..............................................................................75

viii SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0

SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0 ix

x SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0

Sustainable development has been defined by FAO as “the management and

2 SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0

What is SAFA about?

Figure 1. SAFA Framework

SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0 3

Sub-themes: each of the 21 sustainability themes is detailed into sub-themes, or individual

4 SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0

Who are the Guidelines aimed at?

SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0 5

The objectives of SAFA Guidelines

6 SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0

Use of SAFA results

SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0 7

THE SAFA FRAMEWORK

SAFA linkages with other sustainability tools

8 SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0

Figure 2. Landscape of sustainability initiatives

SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0 9

Table 1. Overview of different tool purposes and SAFA

TOOLS DESCRIPTION MAIN SCOPE MAIN USE EXAMPLES SAFA INTERACTION

10 SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0

TOOLS DESCRIPTION MAIN SCOPE MAIN USE EXAMPLES SAFA INTERACTION

Assessments Globally harmonized and Production sRISE sHarmonized

SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0 11

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

12 SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0

Need for a common language

SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0 13

T he SAFA Guidelines are based on certain core methodological principles including

Table 2. SAFA methodological and implementation principles

14 SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0

SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0 15

SCOPE OF A SAFA ASSESSMENT

B eing science-based and generic in nature, SAFA can be adapted to different

Supply chain scope: setting the boundaries

16 SAFA GUIDELINES - version 3 .0

Figure 3. Examples of different SAFA scope

Dairy Farmer SAFA Dairy Retail SAFA

Agricultural Cattle Feed Agrochemical Agricultural Cattle Feed Agrochemical

SAFA Scope SAFA Scope

Waste disposal Food By-product Waste disposal Food By-product

Waste disposal Wholesaler Waste disposal Wholesaler