The only way is ethics
"We are on a scary trajectory at the moment and yet we are only making small baby steps when it comes to creating a more ethical and sustainable food system they need to be turned into giant strides pretty quickly."
So says Dan Crossley, the Food Ethics Council's new executive director.
And, in his opinion, food manufacturers need to be at the forefront of this drive to create a food system that is fair and healthy for people across the world and for the environment.
Crossley doesn't shy away from the fact that this won't mean tinkering with production methods to save a bit of water here, or getting new kit that uses a little less power there.
He willingly concedes that putting "fairness and ethics" at the heart of food production requires fundamental changes even different business models.
But before you accuse him of being a wide-eyed dreamer shielded from the economic realities of modern-day commerce, he is keen to stress his background is very much rooted in a business environment.
"Back in the mists of time, I started out as an accountant with KPMG which was a great grounding in business.
"I then moved into food around 10 years ago when I went to work for Kerry Foods in a couple of roles: first, in a strategy and acquisitions role and, secondly, as a financial controller in one of their factories.
"It really made me appreciate that food manufacturing is a very complex and challenging business, I'm in no doubt that it is a very tough industry where margins are always under pressure."
A stint at not-for profit sustainable development organisation Forum for Future then followed, before he took on his present role at the turn of the year.
So how does an independent charity with a team of four further its cause in the global food production arena?
Crossley says it punches above its weight by being an "honest broker".
He says the organisation's regular business forums bring together senior executives to discuss sustainability issues on a neutral platform, while its reports gain credence because of their independent rigour.
"It is very important to us that we are independent and can be an honest broker to bring people together to consider these issues and have these discussions, such as we did with our Livestock Dialogue that brought together the National Farmers Union and [beef and lamb farmer body] EBLEX with some of the campaigning organisations that probably wouldn't have otherwise shared a room," he says.
"Because we don't come in with any attachment to government, business or NGOs [non-governmental organisations], we can bring people like this together and raise issues that, perhaps, others can't."
Pass the buck
While debate is essential, Crossley says now is the time for action.
He highlights what he terms the "pass the buck" mentality that prevails when it comes to creating an ethical and sustainable food system.
"The retailers are saying it's not down to us, we'll wait for consumers to take action, and manufacturers are saying we just do what retailers tell us, while government is saying we're not here to tell people what to do. "All of this means you end up with a status quo and a vicious circle where we are not able to move forward. "
For manufacturers, Crossley is well aware that their prime objective is day-to-day production amid a backdrop of retailer pressure and decreasing margins.
But if they fail to take notice, the likelihood is that they won't be able to adapt to the business changes needed to compete in a world of "environmental shocks to the system", he argues.
"We have to show the impact that some of these global issues will have on their business if they don't change. "There have been lots of environmental wake-up calls for food manufacturers in recent years, and they are only going to increase.
"There will be more of these shocks to the system that will make businesses realise this is not some nice and fluffy corporate responsibility issue, but fundamental issues for businesses that are reliant on ingredients that come from the ground and the people who help them turn them into something valuable."
So what steps would he like manufacturers to take?
For a start, those companies that are yet to move towards more sustainable production methods can start by picking off some of the "low-hanging fruit".
"They need to think about their own production methods and take what are often quite obvious steps by driving efficiency changes that tend to have knock-on effects for environmental issues around carbon and waste.
"There are still a huge number of food manufacturers out there that have to take those first initial steps along the way."
For the bigger firms that have already embarked on this journey and he cites Unilever and PepsiCo as leading the way he urges them to exert far greater pressure on government and retailers to change their ways, while also considering some more fundamental shifts in their business models.
And by fundamental, he means game- changing economic shifts that would not only alter business plans, but also increase prices and prompt societal transformations.
"We need to look at how a food business that is driven by profit and profit alone, with the pressure they are under from retailers, get the space and opportunity to create a business model that isn't ultimately about selling more and more products. We've got a finite planet that can't sustain that approach forever.
"The smaller steps around efficiencies and environmental benefits are critically important to build up momentum to show sustainability is better for the long term, but we also need more radical changes around our economic model."
One of those changes, he admits, is the need to pay more for the food we eat. It's the kind of message that few politicians would touch with a bargepole. Crossley maintains, though, that these are precisely the kind of contentious issues the Food Ethics Council needs to raise.
"We need to include the true social and environmental cost of food in the price," he says.
"It is not a very palatable message, especially in these hard economic times, but we need to recognise that we will probably need to pay more for our food in the long term.
"We only spend around 10% of our income on food. Traditionally, that figure was a lot higher.
"You have to start thinking about what else we spend our money on. These are difficult, but important discussions such as how we prioritise our satellite TV budget or our going out budget with our food budget.
"I'm not going to pass judgement on that here and now, but these are the sort of debates we need to have."
While Crossley is content for the Food Ethics Council to shape these debates and provide a platform for them, he says it will require a collaborative approach between consumers, industry and government to make the changes.
That's if they can be persuaded of its merits, of course, and cynics will no doubt say some of Crossley's aims are pie in the sky ideals.
However, he is convinced that consumers will increasingly demand better environmental and welfare standards for the food they buy and highlights the "exponential growth" of Fairtrade to highlight that but argues that does not let industry or what he terms a "laissez faire" government off the hook.
Contentious issue
In his short period in the post, Crossley said the response from manufacturers to the Food Ethics Council's agenda, has been overwhelmingly positive, not least because it doesn't preach.
"We do have an agenda and we do advise, but we want senior executives to make these decisions for themselves," he says.
"We need to create the platform for debate and make sure people are thinking about the impacts of their actions."
That said, he is unequivocal about what will happen to companies that don't seriously consider the impact of their operations.
"These are issues that will mean they are not in business in 20, 25 years' time if they don't make their supply chains more resilient, or look after their people and the planet."
"They should not think of this as some PR exercise that will get them some good publicity," he insists. "Even If you consider only the economic and financial implications for a business, it is far more serious than that."
