Tag Archives: Cadbury

Bitterness and Health of Dark Chocolate: Subtle Backstories Revealed

INTRODUCTION

“Ooooohhh, what’s this?  Free chocolate?!”

So began an informal chocolate tasting with 17 curious volunteers.  Each individual completed a survey that both collected and tested their knowledge of 8 anonymized chocolate samples.  At the end of the survey, respondents selected their favorite sample and attempted to match each one with its wrapper.

While more data was collected than ultimately analyzed, 2 themes cropped up relatively quickly that potentially revealed both underlying historical and contemporary backstories.  The first theme is the participants’ preference to sweet chocolate over dark chocolate, which can be explained by the historical dubious business practices of the Big Chocolate firms as opposed to the more simple explanation that all humans naturally prefer the taste of sweetness.  The second theme consists of the participants’ conflicting knowledge about the extent of dark chocolate’s health benefits.

METHOD

Planning the questionnaire at first proved challenging.  What question(s) would the survey attempt to answer?  Who would participate?  What kinds or brands of chocolate would be included?  Ultimately, it was decided to ask employees at a local Boston start-up company to participate in the survey as this particular office is known for its enthusiasm and participation in events.

The survey had two sections: pre-tasting and post-tasting.  The pre-tasting section focused primarily on the participants’ chocolate consumption (what determines the purchase of chocolate, how much chocolate is consumed, who receives purchased chocolate, what determines the purchase of a particular chocolate brand over others, etc.) with two preparatory questions meant to engage partakers with their chocolate.  The post-tasting section requested subjects to identify their personal favorite chocolate sample and to match all samples with their packaging.

Chocolate Samples
The chocolates sampled by the volunteers. All are advertised on the wrappers as either “dark” or “bitter.”  However, what the participants did not know is that the Hershey’s and Cadbury brands have such low cacao percentages, they are widely considered milk chocolates instead.  Brands were chosen based on their collective ability to compare sweetness, certifications, price, and brand recognition.  All samples were also easy to purchase and obtain.
20180501_205150
To keep participants from using indicators on the actual samples, all brand names and symbols were scraped off with a knife beforehand.  This was the most time-consuming aspect of the entire survey setup.

Neither section was designed to answer any particular predetermined question.  Instead, the resulting analysis was written based on the data collected and the trends it illustrated.  Only one of the biographical data sets was used for the analysis: city and country of birth.  For the reader’s reference, attached is the blank form all contributors received.

SWEETNESS AND BIG CHOCOLATE

The first overall theme from the results and sampling was that the majority of participants (9 of the 15 who responded to the specific prompt) preferred the sweet samples (Hershey’s or Cadbury) to the bitter/darker ones.  One volunteer jokingly referred to the 90% Lindt Supreme Dark chocolate sample as being “offensive” to her taste buds.  This is not surprising as most people exhibit a preference for sweetness.

As described by David Benton, “The attraction of chocolate lies in its taste.  The combination of sweetness and fat approaches the ideal hedonic combination.”  Benton further explains that within experimentation, “when the palatability of combinations of fat and sugar were compared, the optimal combination was found to be 7.6% sugar with cream containing 24.7% fat” and that “the fat content of chocolate is close to this ideal figure, although the sugar content of chocolate is greater” (Benton, 2004).  However, as this Slate article points out, humans “are the descendants of wandering hunter-gatherers with a powerful ability to learn from experience: Like them, we can train our palates and brains to extract some pleasure from almost any kind of food.”  For example, the Aymara of Peru possess genes that predispose them to despise bitterness, yet “their diets depended on a highly bitter strain of potatoes.  So they liked them.”  Ultimately, necessity and culture defeated their genetic predisposition (McQuaid, 2015).

Sidney Mintz also expresses his doubts that a human preference for sugar (a major ingredient in almost all chocolate) lead to the proliferation of sugar around the globe: “That human beings like the taste of sweetness does not explain why some eat immense quantities of sweet foods and others hardly any… There is nothing ‘natural’ or inevitable about these ‘processes’ [of adopting flavor preferences]; they have no inbuilt dynamic of their own” (Mintz, 1986).  Applying this logic to the survey volunteers, it can be suggested that the preference to Hershey’s and Cadbury is due to a lack of necessity and cultural pressure to enjoy bitter chocolate.  This is not difficult to imagine through the lens of Big Chocolate’s business model and ethics.

Chocolate’s history has undergone several drastic changes.  Where it was once solely available to Mesoamericans in Pre-Columbian times, it moved to Europe as a status symbol drunk by elites and eventually became a widely available treat in multiple cultures across the globe.  How this happened is a tale of several factors that include benign technological advances as well as pervasive slave labor.  Much, if not all, the cacao used for chocolate during the Industrial Revolution was harvested by slaves in the New World as “enslaved people were more valuable than indentured because their labor was purchased for life rather than for a limited period of years and the children of enslaved women were declared slaves at birth” (Higman, 2011).  Even after abolition, slave labor persisted in various forms such as indentured labor and debt servitude.  When journalists confronted the Cadbury company in the early 1900s with evidence that they were purchasing cacao from plantations utilizing slave labor, Cadbury did very little to change the status quo, instead hiring its own agent to investigate African plantation practices four years after first hearing rumors of slave labor in Africa.  In four years, the Cadbury company had “accomplished nothing for the slaves who produced the cocoa beans” (Satre, 2005).

By lowering the cost of labor, companies are able to save on production costs and lower the price for consumers, allowing their chocolate to become more widely available on the global market.  As seen by the Hershey’s and Cadbury wrappers used in the survey, neither has fair trade certifications that indicate better ethical business practices compared to their contemporary peers who attempt to solely purchase cacao from farmers and farming cooperatives ensuring child-free labor practices (among other things).  As seen in the figure below, Cadbury Royal Dark and Hershey’s Special Dark are at least 40% cheaper per ounce than their fair trade competitors (Endangered, Trader Joe’s, and Green & Black’s).

Chocolate Prices
Price per ounce of the 8 chocolate samples.

Creating a wider consumer audience was also accomplished with clever business tactics.  For example, Mars’ Milky Way was a creation specifically designed to skimp on expensive quality chocolate but still be considered tasty to consumers.  Forrest Mars recounted this about his father and the Milky Way bar: “He has a candy bar.  And it’s a chocolate malted drink.  He put some caramel on top of it, and some chocolate around it – not very good chocolate, he was buying cheap chocolate – but that damn thing sold.  No advertising.”  The Milky Way was strikingly different from its competitors because the malt-flavored nougat was the bar’s main ingredient.  It made the bar “much bigger, tasted just as chocolatey, but cost much less to produce.”  Forrest Mars bragged, “People walked up to the candy counter and they’d see this flat little Hershey bar for a nickel and right next to it a giant Milky Way.  Guess which one they’d pick?” (Brenner, 2000).

Due to competitive business practices between the various Big Chocolate companies, the American market is saturated with cheap chocolate.  There is also little incentive to purchase chocolate for cultural reasons, the other would-be defender of bitter flavors.  Unfortunately, American society has a less significant cultural history (comparatively speaking) associated with chocolate as “the institution of the chocolate or coffee-house seems never to have crossed the Atlantic to England’s North American colonies.”  Coffee and chocolate houses were hotbeds of sedition in England where men would drink chocolate or coffee and politically foment.  However, “parliamentary democracy did not extend to the colonies, and Americans were isolated from the give-and-take and political deals that were the daily fare of enfranchised Englishmen in [chocolate and coffee] establishments… The colonial well-to-do took their chocolate, but at home,” away from society at large (Coe & Coe, 2013).  This can be seen reflected in the fact that Americans consume less chocolate per person per year (9.5 pounds) than several European countries (UK = 16.3 pounds, Switzerland = 19.8 pounds, Germany = 17.4 pounds, and the Netherlands = 10.4 pounds) (McCarthy, 2015).

At this point, it should be noted that of the 9 participants who preferred the Hershey’s and Cadbury samples, 8 were born in the United States and 1 in Asia (which exhibits different chocolate consumption habits and preferences than in the West) (Allen, 2010).  All European-born participants favored the more bitter chocolates.  Unfortunately, only 15 individuals completed this section of the form, which does not make the survey particularly scientifically or statistically significant.  In future, it would be far more interesting to gather a larger number of participants.

HEALTH PERCEPTIONS

A far lesser but generally accepted theme among the participants was the perception of dark chocolate’s health benefits.  This was displayed during one particular key moment.  A few individuals expressed slight hesitation in joining the sampling due to dieting concerns.  “It’s not my cheat day,” one said of his regimen.  “Oh, don’t worry,” another participant exclaimed, “it’s all dark chocolate, so it’s healthy.”  On the one hand, the vacillating participants had a sense that eating dark chocolate broke their diet.  But then there were colleagues purporting that dark chocolate was healthy enough to break his diet. That was all that seemed necessary for the individual to become a volunteer and join the sampling party with his colleagues.

Unfortunately, the health benefits of chocolate have been vastly sensationalized as contemporary popular “claims confer on chocolate the properties of being a stimulant, relaxant, euphoriant, aphrodisiac, tonic, and antidepressant” (Bisson et al., 2013).  The woman in the video below is a prime example.

However, for every study suggesting positive benefits, there is a study to suggest that no significant effect is present at all.  For example, one study found that cocoa lowered blood pressure in patients with coronary artery disease, but then “a double-blind placebo trial using flavanol-rich cocoa beverages with natural or added theobromine, concluded that although after 2 [hours] of consumption the central systolic [blood pressure] was significantly lowered by the theobromine-added beverage, the [24-hour] ambulatory or central [blood pressure] was not affected.”  Consumers could theoretically just consume theobromine (a compound found in cacao) in chocolate every 2 hours, but that would mean ingesting a significant amount of calories, which provides its own set of health consequences.  David Benton summarizes this phenomenon succinctly:

“Chocolate contains a range of compounds… These include caffeine, phenylethylamine, magnesium, and anandamide.  A common reason why they are unlikely to have any significant impact is that with any likely consumption of chocolate they are certain to be provided in a dose that is inactive.  For example, to consume the minimal active dose of 1g of phenylethalmine one would need to rapidly eat 15kg of chocolate.  In addition, to prevent its breakdown by the liver the taking of a monoamine oxidase inhibitor is to be recommended… [O]ne would need to consume 25kg of chocolate to obtain a psychoactive dose of anandamide” (2004).

However, participants and readers should not be discouraged.  While much of dark chocolate’s health benefits are not firmly established, it is true “that dark chocolate ‘does no harm,’ to use the Hippocratic phrase – at least to humans… Dark chocolate does not cause diabetes, dental caries, or acne, or produce headaches, as sometimes has been alleged” (Coe & Coe, 2007).

CONCLUSION

Participants in a novel chocolate tasting experience reinforced historical and contemporary trends prevalent in the chocolate industry.  These included the two themes of preferring sweet chocolate to dark chocolate and contradictory notions of dark chocolate’s health benefits.  The first theme revealed Big Chocolate’s history in slavery and dubious business practices as a potential explanation to consumers’ preference of sweet chocolate as opposed to the more obvious reason that humans naturally prefer the taste of sweetness.  The second theme featured the contradictory health notions associated with dark chocolate as described by participants’ hesitation to join the chocolate sampling.  To further improve the results, more participants could be used to capture more statistically significant data to make the analysis more robust.

REFERENCES

Allen, Lawrence. (2010). Chocolate Fortunes: The Battle for the Hearts, Minds, and Wallet of China’s Consumers. New York: American Management Association.

Benton, David. (2004). “The Biology and Psychology of Chocolate Craving.” Coffee, Tea, Chocolate, and the Brain. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Bisson, Jean-Francois, et al. (2013). “Clinical Benefits of Cocoa: An Overview.” Chocolate in Health and Nutrition. New York: Humana Press.

Brenner, Joel. (2000). The Emperor of Chocolate: Inside the Secret World of Hershey and Mars. New York: Broadway Books.

Coe, Sophie D., and Michael D. Coe. (2007). The True History of Chocolate (3rd ed.). New York: Thames and Hudson.

Higman, B.W. (2011). A Concise History of the Caribbean. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

McCarthy, Niall. (2015). “The World’s Biggest Chocolate Consumers [Infographic].” Forbes. Retrieved May 9, 2018 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/07/22/the-worlds-biggest-chocolate-consumers-infographic/#6bb1038f4484.

McQuaid, John. (2015). “Why Do We Like Bitter Foods?” Slate. Retrieved May 9, 2018 from http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/01/why_do_we_like_bitter_foods.html.

Mintz, Sidney W. (1986).  Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. New York: Penguin Books.

Satre, Lowell J. (2005). Chocolate on Trial: Slavery, Politics, and the Ethics of Business. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.

 

*** Many thanks to all the volunteers who sat down after a long day of work to eat chocolate and share their thoughtful opinions.

Advertisements

Green & Black’s: Ethical Chocolate, Corrupt Connections

Green & Black’s, a popular bean to bar company offers a chocolate bar completely outside of the realm of the common candy bar. However, the company’s outward ethical stance is at odds with the practices of its parent company Mondelēz International. Green & Black’s believes in a bean to bar ethical standard, meaning they expect co-manufacturers, partners, and sources to uphold certain standards in terms of wages and labor expectations. Green & Black’s marketing centers on their ethics; this is emphasized by their grassroots origin story. According to their website, Green & Black’s, founded in 1991 by Craig Sams and Jo Fairley, launched with a mission to create chocolate with the finest and most sustainable sourcing principles (Green & Black’s: Our Story). Craig Sams, founder of organic food company Whole Earth, was sent a sample of 70% dark chocolate made from organic cocoa beans. He left the half-eaten bar behind, only for his wife Jo Fairley to try it. They fell in love with the taste and set out to sell it to others. Today, Green & Black’s has a wide collection of bars, which are “all expertly crafted with hand-selected, ethically sourced cocoa beans” (Our Story). Green & Black’s were the UK’s first Fair Trade chocolate bar and in 2012, they launched Cocoa Life, a “third party verified cocoa sustainability program” which they certify their bars with (Green & Black’s: Responsibility). The chocolate industry is inundated with bars from major manufacturers that do not offer ethical verifications, no not present an upscale image, and do not offer transparency in their sourcing. Thus, Green & Black’s stands out among  the  common cheap candy bar. However, the Green & Black’s ownership by Cadbury and Mondelēz International (formerly Kraft Foods) undermines the company’s brand. While Green & Black’s seems to offer an ethical choice to consumers, it’s ownership by major manufacturers cheapens it’s brand by tying it to chocolate companies with possible unethical practices.

 

Green & Black’s gourmet chocolate offerings are full of variety. They offer bars under the categories of “dark,” “milk,” “organic,” “white,” “salted,” “nuts,” “caramel,” “fruit,” “mint,” “toffee,” and “ginger.”  With around 17 different bars, Green & Black’s flavors extend from 70% dark to pure milk chocolate to dark with raspberry and hazelnut (Green & Black’s: View Chocolates). Promoting the quality of their products, Green & Black’s writes the green “symbolizes our commitment to always sourcing ethical cocoa” and black stands for “our high quality and the delicious intensity of our chocolate” (Our Story). With an organic line, Green & Black’s successfully creates candy that caters to the rising interest in organic foods. Organic foods are foods grown without pesticides, fertilizers, or other chemicals (Martin Lecture: Alternative Trade). Foods that do not carry the organic label may possibly use these products in agricultural production, or in other stages of manufacturing. These chemicals can be environmentally dangerous. Claire Williamson writes that “organic food has become an increasingly popular choice for consumer over recent years with salves of organic food increasing tenfold in a decade” (Williamson 231). Green & Black’s organic line thus targets specifically those consumers who buy in the interest of avoiding potentially contaminated food, despite the insufficient amount of studies to suggest that conventionally produced food have worse nutritional value (Williamson 234). However, Green & Black’s ensures that part of its audience includes organic food buyers through their products, which sharply contrasts the typical convenient store chocolate bar brand.

 

In addition to Green & Black’s variation in flavor and target demographic, the company further separates itself from traditional candy by its branding; Green & Black’s distinguishes itself through its narrative, advertising, and packaging. A Green & Black’s bar is a refreshing new take on chocolate, as the use of bright colors, intense flavors, certification stamps, and luxurious designs in its website and social media elevate the bar as a gourmet item and not simply a snack food. Green & Black’s achieves this image through its marketing. Packaging, in particular, relates to food intake (Argo and White 67). The colors and shape of a package influence a consumer’s decision to buy it, by making consumers believe it tastes better (Miller). For example “the yellow hue of a 7Up can make the soda taste more lemon-y” (Miller). Thus, Green & Black’s takes advantage of this psychological phenomenon. Their packages use bright colors with bold fonts. Some of the bars are packaged in paper rectangles, giving the bar a more upscale exterior. The look of a Green & Black’s bar is luxurious and high end, when compared to Snickers or M&M bag.

gb.jpg
Source:  blogspot

In chocolate packaging, visual cues and promotional cues have a “direct positive significant effect in the buying influence of chocolates” (Shekhar and Raveendran 55). Indeed, Green & Black’s takes advantage of the power of color – the most important too for “emotional expression of a package” (Shekhar and Raveendran 56). Shekhar and Raveendran argue that in chocolate packaging the size, shape, and color influence the consumer’s decision to buy. Green & Black’s stands out for its use of elegant black combined with bright colors that suggest refined taste but also gourmet flavoring. Shekhar and Raveendran conducted a study of chocolate buyers and found that students were influenced in purchasing chocolate based on visual cues alone.

 

Green & Black’s chocolate is thus a completely stand out brand. The offerings are diverse, have exciting colors, and their promotional websites and social media brand them as a fine chocolate. However, Green & Black’s packaging further works to attempt accurately represent their ethical stance as well, through certification stamps. The cocoa life and fair trade certification suggest the company engages in ethical practices and works to invest in community development projects (Fair Trade America). However, given the little knowledge consumers have about fair trade and other certifications, Green & Black’s packaging comes off as simply a lifestyle and aesthetic choice for consumers, rather than an ethical choice. For example, Green & Black’s’s Instagram page @greenandblacks has no posts referring it’s certifications or ethical processes. Instead, the Instagram is a lifestyle page of bright colors, coffee cups, fruit bowls, and plants next to chocolate bars. What the Green & Black’s’s Instagram page seems to be selling is not simply chocolate, but a way of life. The biography states, “Green & Black’s create delicious ethically sourced chocolate from the finest ingredients” (@greenandblacks). But a typical posts celebrates Easter or Father’s Day and suggests that followers buy Green & Black’s to celebrate the holiday. Indeed, the branding of Green & Black’s confuses the message of ethically-sourced and organic food by instead promoting a lifestyle full of bright colors and upscale food.

Screen Shot 2018-05-03 at 3.21.45 PM.png
Source: Instagram

 

In Raising the Bar: The Future of Fine Chocolate, Pam Williams and Jim Eber suggest that the finest part of fine chocolate is the packaging alone. This is because defining premium chocolate is a grey area (Willams and Eber 168). There is no expectation for cacao percentages bean quality, or location of the chocolate source. Truly, Green & Black’s premium label is a work of personal brand and not simply fact.

 

While Green & Black’s is distinct for its bright colors and certifications, the company holds ties to business that is not as ethical as Green & Black’s claims to be. In 2005, Cadbury bought Green & Black’s and it became part of Mondelēz International (formerly Kraft foods). Both Mondelez and Cadbury have a poor record in sustainable and ethical chocolate sources. NGO Might Earth found that Mondelez was using cocoa grown illegally in protected areas in the Ivory Coast and Ghana (Chocolate’s Dark Secret). In certain areas, the actions of the companies have led to massive deforestation – a study by Marius Wessel and Foluke Quist-Wessel found that the search for new land to accommodate the increasing cocoa production in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana has led to “large-scale deforestation” as farmers establish new farms in the forest zone (Wessel and Quist Wessel). Since then, however, Mondelez has lead the private sector in forming initiatives to combat deforestation through a Cocoa Life program (Mondelez International). According to a 2015 press release on the Mondelez website, Cocoa Life is a “$400 million investment to empower 200,000 smallholder farmers and create thriving cocoa communities in Côte d’Ivoire and five other cocoa origins. Through Cocoa Life, Mondelēz International will participate in Côte d’Ivoire’s national REDD+ program to support the country’s bold ambition to reach zero-net deforestation in cocoa” (Mondelez International).

mondelez-international_416x416.jpg
Source: Forbes

 

Although Mondelez is acknowledging deforestation and working to fix it, it’s impact and practices in the region are a stain on the company that now connect it with Green & Black’s. In its report, Might Earth notes that “in West Africa, chocolate is rare and unaffordable to the majority of the population. Most Ivorian cocoa farmers have never even tried chocolate” (Chocolate’s Dark Secret). Mighty Earth underscores the biggest hypocrisy in big chocolate business – that the regions in which major companies create chocolate are the same ones that suffer from its worst environmental impact while simultaneously, the farmers there are not able to enjoy the products they create. Wessel and Quist-Wessel offer to companies proposing to make change: “take also into account aspects of the rural infrastructure such as education, health, and roads and access to credit and inputs” (Wessel and Quist Wessel). Additionally, their analysis pushes for companies to find advancements that allow more cocoa to be grown on less land as climate change and increasing demand for production will have a “negative impact on the size of the present cocoa growing area” (Wessel and Quist-Wessel).

 

Recently, Green & Black’s has also adopted the Cocoa Life stamp for their products. However stamps such as Cocoa Life, while they represent great investments in sustainable food sources, further confuse consumers. Increasingly, more companies are establishing their own forms of certification for their products.  However, this undermines Fairtrade through alternative certifications that simply confuse consumers. For example, Mars established a certification plan. Other certifications include Fair for Life, UTZ Certified, and Rainforest Alliance. However, customers who already don’t understand Fair trade, are negatively affected by this. More certifications lead to disinterest and an unwillingness to understand the differences between the certifications. In 2011, NPR Morning Edition argued that Fair Trade labels confuse coffee drinkers, particularly as what is “fair trade” evolves (Carpenter). The Guardian agrees that Fair Trade is confusing and broad, referencing a survey of 1,000 shoppers conducted by consumer group “Which?” (Smithers). According to the survey, “seven out of 10 UK customers “admitted they would pay more attention to the environmental impact of the foods they buy if labels were clearer and more meaningful” (Smithers).  Green & Black’s “Cocoa Life” only adds to this problem. Fair Trade labels are poorly understood and there are far too many of them for consumers to keep up. The survey also found that “Nearly half the respondents (47%) said there were already too many things to think about already without worrying about the environmental impact of the food they buy” (Smithers). Thus, consumers cannot be left to understand the growing landscape of Fair Trade certifications. It should be on Green & Black’sand Mondelez International to make it clear on their packages what exactly “Cocoa Life” means. At face value, the label looks promising to consumers who look for certifications, however, consumers do not actually understand what separates one form of certification from another.

Fair-Trade-logos.png
Source: MediaFairTrade.org

Ultimately, Green & Black’s stands out as a fine chocolate maker with ethically and sustainably sourced cocoa. Despite this, Green & Black’s suffers from many of the same failures of the major chocolate and candy sellers: they contribute to a business that confuses it’s buyers. Their marketing strategy is more of a lifestyle brand and their use of bright colors attracts buyers more interested in design than content. Additionally, Green & Black’s parent company does not leave them controversy-free; they must work to overcome environmental and economic damage that their products have caused in particular regions.

 

Sources:

Carpenter, Murray. “Fair Trade Labeling May Confuse Coffee Drinkers.” NPR, NPR, 30 Nov. 2011.

“Fairtrade America.” Fairtrade Certified Coffee – Fairtrade America.

“Chocolate’s Dark Secret: Investigation Links Chocolate to Destruction of National Parks.” Mighty Earth, 29 Mar. 2018.

Martin, Carla. Course Lecture: Alternative Trade AAAS 199x: Chocolate. 2018

“Mondelez International to Lead Private Sector Action in Côte D’Ivoire’s Program to Combat Deforestation.” Mondelēz International, Inc., ir.mondelezinternational.com/news-releases/news-release-details/mondelez-international-lead-private-sector-action-cote-divoires.

“Our Story | GREEN & BLACK’S Our Story.” Green & Black’s, us.greenandblacks.com/our-story.

Shekhar, Suraj Kushe, and P. T. Raveendran. “Chocolate Packaging and Purchase Behaviour: A Cluster Analysis Approach.” Indian Journal of Marketing, vol. 43, no. 6, 2013, p. 5., doi:10.17010/ijom/2013/v43/i6/36388.

Smithers, Rebecca. “Food Labelling Confuses Ethical Shoppers, Says Survey.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 27 Sept. 2010.

Wessel, Marius, and P.m. Foluke Quist-Wessel. “Cocoa Production in West Africa, a Review and Analysis of Recent Developments.” NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, vol. 74-75, 2015, pp. 1–7., doi:10.1016/j.njas.2015.09.001.

Williams, Pam, and Jim Eber. Raising the Bar: the Future of Fine Chocolate. Wilmor Pub., 2012.

Williamson, Claire. “Organic Food: Is It More Nutritious?” Practice Nursing, vol. 19, no. 5, 2008, pp. 231–234., doi:10.12968/pnur.2008.19.5.29218.

Images:

http://w-duffy0912-dc.blogspot.com/2011/03/green-blacks-products.html

https://www.forbes.com/companies/mondelez-international/

https://www.instagram.com/greenandblacks/

http://stage.mediafairtrade.org/fair-trade/

Nestle Cocoa Plan: Not Quite Enough

Child labor in the cocoa industry has long been a hot topic embroiling nations, big chocolate companies, consumers, and more. Although some children may simply be assisting their family financially, many are victims of what the International Labor Organization defines as the “Worst Forms of Child Labor,” which includes work that is “likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.” (ilo.org) In an effort to source sustainable cocoa and end the use of child labor in the cocoa industry, some big chocolate companies have devised their own plans and certification programs meant to indicate their commitment to the cause. The Nestle company in particular has branded itself as the big chocolate company that is doing the most to eliminate child labor (Nestle Tackling Child Labor report).  

Screen Shot 2018-05-03 at 1.33.32 PM.png

 

 

 

(http://www.childlaborcocoa.org/images/Payson_Reports/Tulane%20University%20-%20Survey%20Research%20on%20Child%20Labor%20in%20the%20Cocoa%20Sector%20-%2030%20July%202015.pdf)

Despite the recent efforts, the problem of child labor has actually gotten worse. In a study that was conducted in 2013 and 2014, the number of children aged 5 through 17 years who worked in dangerous conditions on cocoa farms in Côte d’Ivoire grew by 260,700 in just 5 years (Tulane Report). While Nestle has made a comparatively thorough analysis of the problem of child labor in their supply chain through the creation of their own independent certification plan, the Cocoa Plan, many of their methods are opaque or inadequate; therefore, the plan may vindicate Nestle to the public, but does not go far enough to actually eliminate child labor.

Recent outrage over the issue of child labor on cocoa farms can be partially traced to the 2000 film Slavery: A Global Investigation that details the dangerous working conditions on Côte d’Ivoire cocoa farms (True Vision). After the release of the film and “following pressure and outrage from civil society groups and media outlets, large chocolate and cocoa corporations –– including Nestlé –– responded by claiming that they did not know about the situation and, like the public, were concerned.” Despite this supposed outrage, “For the past 15 years, Nestle and its partners in the Cocoa Industry have been intensely resisting government regulation regarding eliminating WFCL in their global cocoa supply chain” (Wood 4). In this context of mixed signals and discrepancy between Nestle’s actions and what they publicly displayed,  Nestle launched their Cocoa Plan in 2009. The plan is both an initiative and certification program that aims to improve farmer training, plant propagation, and improve work conditions, especially for children (Nestle “The Cocoa Plan” 2009)

Screen Shot 2018-05-03 at 1.34.50 PM

(http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn92074055/1910-07-29/ed-1/seq-2/)

One part of the Cocoa Plan that is honorable, and stands in contrast with how Cadbury handled slave labor in its supply chain during the early 1900’s, is that Nestle clearly and quickly acknowledges that child labor is present in its supply chain. Nearly a century before the outrage that prompted Nestle to create its Cocoa Plan came concern that slave labor was present in the Portuguese West African cocoa farms that Cadbury sourced from. In response, Cadbury hired Joseph Burtt to investigate the issue. However, “Burtt’s report…appeared more than six years after Cadbury Bros. first learned that slave labor was used in the growing of cocoa beans in Sao Tome and Principe and four years after the company decided to hire an agent to visit Portuguese West Africa” (Satre 98). Cadbury and another chocolate firm, Rowntree, were concerned about the implications of releasing such a report that indicated their use of slave labor. Therefore, it took an unusual amount of time for Cadbury to publish its findings and admit to the problem. Even with the evidence, William Cadbury remained skeptical of the scope of the issue and “while he was against the use of slave labor, he did not equate the labor of Sao Tome to that of other forms of slavery reported in Africa” (Satre 19).

 

//players.brightcove.net/2111767321001/default_default/index.html?videoId=4780236677001#t=2m27s

(http://fortune.com/big-chocolate-child-labor/)

Rather than withholding the truth or questioning the reality of labor conditions in West Africa, Nestle admits in the Cocoa Plan that “We know there are children working on farms in Cote d’Ivoire in areas where we source cocoa. No company sourcing cocoa here can guarantee they’ve eliminated the risk of children working in their supply chain” (Nestle Cocoa Plan Better Lives). As the Fortune video indicates, big chocolate companies often claim plausible deniability when it comes to child labor since there are many middlemen that stand between them and the actual laborers. As Brian O’Keefe acknowledges in the video, consumers are now demanding that big chocolate companies like Nestle take responsibility (O’Keefe). Therefore, Nestle sets itself apart from other chocolate companies and appeals to consumers’ desire for transparency by admitting to the issue. However, even in their statement admitting responsibility, Nestle still inserts a phrase that absolves them from any actual wrongdoing. By claiming that there is no company sourcing from Cote d’Ivoire that can ‘guarantee’ that there is no child labor in their supply chain, Nestle admits to the problem, but does not admit to guilt. Nestle’s Code of Conduct prohibits child labor and Nestle’s Executive Vice-President for Operations admits that “The use of child labour in our cocoa supply chain goes against everything we stand for” (Clarke, Nestle Cocoa Plan Better Lives). Despite their adamant position against child labor, Nestle continues to source from areas where it is endemic. While the effectiveness of boycotts is debated, still sourcing from areas with areas known for child labor indicates that Nestle adheres more to its moral mission in speech than it does in action.

Screen Shot 2018-05-01 at 1.03.38 PM.png

(https://www.nestlecocoaplanreport.com/sites/default/files/2017-10/NestleCocoaPlanReport2017_EN_0.pdf)

 

Nestle’s methods in its child labor monitoring and remediation program are inefficient and the scope of the program is relatively minimal. Nestle advertises in its Cocoa Plan that “In 2017, 51% of children identified are no longer in child labour” (Nestle Cocoa Plan 2017). While this initially seems like a significant improvement, it is important to distinguished how and how many children are ‘identified.’ The method in which child laborers are identified is outlined in Step 2 of the remediation program: “A child is spotted (or self-declares) engaging in a hazardous activity” (Nestle Cocoa Plan 2017). This is an extremely inefficient method since spotting child laborers requires a large number of personnel traveling from farm to farm observing practices. Self-declaring is also an unlikely occurrence as some children may not know the dangers associated with their labor and if they did, they may be too scared to report anything as it might implicate their family. Therefore, the number of children actually identified by Nestle is likely relatively low when compared to the true number. The lack of detailed information in the Cocoa Plan around this issue was picked up by an investigative report from the Watson Institute at Brown University, which states that “The researcher is unable to decipher what proportion of Nestle’s co-ops have Child Labour Monitoring and Remediation Systems. This is problematic because it serves as a barrier to criticizing Nestle for not taking enough action” (Wood 10). Essentially, Nestle provides vague information to indicate that it is taking some degree of action, but the extent of its action and operations remains a mystery. Furthermore, The Cocoa Plan itself hardly covers a majority of Nestle’s Cocoa. In fact, only “Around a third of Nestlé’s total global cocoa supply is currently bought from producers covered by the Nestlé Cocoa Plan” (Wood 10). Therefore, it can be estimated that the areas covered by this child labor monitoring and remediation program are a similarly small proportion. Even cocoa that is completely certified under the Cocoa Plan is not a guarantee that it has not been produced using child labor. Nestle admits that “7,002 Children [were] identified working on farms or in communities covered by the Nestlé Cocoa Plan” (Nestle Cocoa Plan 2017). This strips the certification program of clarity and even some of its legitimacy when it comes to child labor, as Nestle wishes to eliminate child labor, but still allows cocoa made with it to pass their certification.

One strong aspect of the Cocoa Plan is its analysis of the barriers children in cocoa growing regions face in receiving an education. While education is certainly important to the well-being of the children, it is still not the most effective way to end child labor. Nestle began its school building program in West Africa in 2011 and has since built or refurbished over 42 schools (Nestle Cocoa Plan Better Lives). While this is certainly a laudable achievement, Nestle also recognizes that children face far more nuanced obstacles than simply not having a school building. One such obstacle for girls in particular is that “Many schools in Côte d’Ivoire do not have toilets. Girls find this particularly difficult as they have to go further into the bush to relieve themselves. There, they are at greater risk of being bitten by snakes or insects, and there have also been cases of girls being harassed” (Nestle Cocoa Plan 2017). The lack of toilets may cause girls to miss school more often and may negatively affect their performance when they are in school. Another key obstacle that Nestle identifies is the “lack of a birth certificate, which is compulsory for entry to secondary education. Since the start of the programme we have enabled 4,517 children to continue their education by providing them with a birth certificate” (Nestle Cocoa Plan 2017). Therefore, Nestle shows that they have a more in depth and comprehensive understanding of and action plan when it comes to education. They both address the lack of physical buildings, while also addressing challenges to attending school in the first place. However, one important statistic that is tucked away in the Cocoa Plan report is that 17.5% of children who attend schools in Cote d’Ivoire also participate in child labor versus 23.4% of children who do not attend schools (Nestle Cocoa Plan 2017). This is a relatively minor decrease and indicates that access to an education is not a panacea for preventing children from working. The children who go to school still have to work face a serious burden, indicating that child labor is not just a result of a lack of alternatives, but is a result of greater challenges.

The Cocoa Plan lacks a plan to implement a crucial method to ending child labor: ensuring that the parents can earn enough to support their family. A March 2018 report by Stop the Traffik notes that while Nestle provides farmers with training and help improving productivity, it “Has yet to commit to paying farmers more for their cocoa and does not currently have any long-term plans for a living income” (A Matter of Taste). Writer Beth Hoffman argues in her Forbes article, 4 Reasons Why Nestle Cocoa Plan is Not Enough, that “The only way to truly ensure children can go to school is to guarantee their parents a living wage” (Hoffman). Thus, Nestle has outlined an elaborate plan that helps farmers and childrens in a myriad of ways, except for perhaps the most effective way. While they publicize that they are committed to eliminating child labor, their actions again indicate that their words do not match their actions.
ChocolateCertifications

(Lecture Slides)

Another flaw of the Cocoa Plan is the fact that it is a certification program in the first place. Fairtrade, another certification that sets various environmental and social standards and aims to pay growers a higher premium for their crops, has high levels of trust and recognition among consumers in Europe and the USA (Globescan). Consumers may not readily understand or recognize the Cocoa Plan in the same way. This may complicate decision making for consumers who may simply begin to overlook certifications in general. Beth Hoffman argues that “With more than 200 “ecolabels” now available on products, it is impossible for consumers to know (let alone verify) that every seal or logo claiming sustainability is actually making a clear difference in the world” (Hoffman).  This issue of verification is important. Although Fairtrade has its own flaws, the fact that it is a 3rd party certification gives it legitimacy and a reputation as unbiased, which builds trust among consumers that the chocolate will actually benefit growers instead of just big chocolate companies.

In an economic system where companies sometimes have just as much agency and ability as a country to enact social and economic change, it is honorable to see the Nestle Company acknowledge the problem of child labor in the cocoa that it sources and outline steps it is taking to eliminate it. Although the Cocoa Plan may sound adequate to the general public, looking at its nuances reveals how some parts may be flawed, misleading, or incomplete. Overall, the Cocoa Plan does not seem to go far enough as it does not include some of the most effective ways of ending child labor. As the Nestle Cocoa Plan plays out, the ability for profit driven companies to effect social change will be put to the test.

Works Cited

2013/14 Survey Research on Child Labor in West African Cocoa Growing Areas. Report. School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University. July 30, 2015. Accessed May 1, 2018. http://www.childlaborcocoa.org/images/Payson_Reports/Tulane University – Survey Research on Child Labor in the Cocoa Sector – 30 July 2015.pdf.


A Matter of Taste. Report. STOP THE TRAFFIK Australia Coalition, 2018.


“Better Lives.” Nestle Cocoa Plan. Accessed May 01, 2018. http://www.nestlecocoaplan.com/better-lives/.


Clarke, Joe Sandler. “Child Labour on Nestlé Farms: Chocolate Giant’s Problems Continue.” The Guardian. September 02, 2015. Accessed May 01, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/sep/02/child-labour-on-nestle-farms-chocolate-giants-problems-continue.


Globescan. “High Trust and Global Recognition Makes Fairtrade an Enabler of Ethical Consumer Choice.” News release, October 11, 2011. Globescan. Accessed May 01, 2018. https://globescan.com/high-trust-and-global-recognition-makes-fairtrade-an-enabler-of-ethical-consumer-choice/.


Hoffman, Beth. “Love Chocolate? 4 Reasons Why Nestlé’s Cocoa Plan Is Not Enough.” Forbes. May 22, 2013. Accessed May 01, 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/05/22/4-reasons-why-nestles-cocoa-plan-is-not-enough/1.


Nestle. “Nestlé and Sustainable Cocoa ‘The Cocoa Plan’.” News release, October 2009. Nestle.com. Accessed May 1, 2018. http://www.nestle.com/asset-library/documents/media/news-and-features/2009-october/the-cocoa-plan.pdf.


O’Keefe, Brian. “Inside Big Chocolate’s Child Labor Problem.” Fortune. March 01, 2016. Accessed May 01, 2018. http://fortune.com/big-chocolate-child-labor/.


Satre, Lowell Joseph. Chocolate on Trial Slavery, Politics, and the Ethics of Business. Athens, OH: Ohio Univ.Press, 2005.


Slavery: A Global Investigation. Directed by Brian Woods and Kate Blewett. True Vision, 2000. Accessed May 1, 2018. https://truevisiontv.com/films/details/90/slavery-a-global-investigation.

Tackling Child Labor. Report. 2017. Accessed May 1, 2018. https://www.nestlecocoaplanreport.com/sites/default/files/2017-10/NestleCocoaPlanReport2017_EN_0.pdf.

Wood, Madeleine. An Investigation Into Nestle’s Efforts To Establish Credibility In Its Global Cocoa Supply Chain. Master’s thesis, Brown University, 2015. Watson Institute. 4-10.

“Worst Forms of Child Labour.” International Labor Organization. Accessed May 01, 2018. http://www.ilo.org/ipec/facts/WorstFormsoffChildLabour/lang–en/index.htm.

Cadbury Bros. and the Chocolate Islands Scandal

Mrs. Beeton's Book of Household Management (28)
Image displayed on page 28 in Mrs. Beeton’s Book of Household Management by Isabella Beeton. The image shows an early Cadbury’s Cocoa advertisement. Printed in 1907 version. By Isabella Beeton. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

In 1908, a report by Cadbury Bros. agent Joseph Burtt detailing practices of slave labor in the Portuguese-owned “chocolate islands” of Sao Tome and Principe began circulating in Britain (Satre 73); and in March of the following year, the Quaker-owned firm announced its decision to cease the purchase of cocoa from the islands (Higgs 148). These announcements were met not with acclaim but coldness (Higgs 152-153); an article in the Standard attacked Cadbury’s policies, and Cadbury’s libel suit against the paper won them only a farthing in damages (152). The problem? The firm had known about the existence of slave labor on the chocolate islands for upwards of six years before Burtt’s report was ever made available or the boycott instated (Satre 32, 98)—and thanks to already-aired evidence (Satre 20), including a series of articles by journalist Henry Nevinson, so had much of Cadbury’s political peerage (Satre 12, 82; Higgs 152; Bulletin of the American Geographical Society, 566–568.) The firm’s disregard of evidence and lengthy delays (Satre 76) led to accusations of hypocrisy (Higgs 143, 152-153; Satre 78, 82), inaction (Satre 76), and greater concern for international politics than for the plight of those who provided their livelihood (Satre 75), all of which threatened to render null Cadbury’s righteous core. The story sheds a troubling light on the conflict between good business and good ethics (Higgs 165), and leaves open dark questions about how Western culture treats its less-seen, less-valued workers.

Cadbury's Cocoa advert with rower 1885
“Drink Cadbury’s Cocoa” advertisement with rower and lady friend – B&W engraving – 1885. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Cadbury became aware of slave labor in practice on the island of Sao Tome in 1901, by “an offer of a plantation for sale … that listed as assets two hundred black laborers worth £3555” (Satre 18). Lowell J. Satre marks this bill of sale as the initial point of concern for William A. Cadbury, then in charge of purchases for the company (18); but “ample” evidence was available to William through his connections with England’s Anti-Slavery Society (20)—reports describing starving workers, ships full of bought men and women, and brutal death rates of “servicaes” (Grant 1), or indentured servants, on the plantations (Satre 22-24). Cadbury Bros. was a Quaker company founded on Quaker ideals (Satre 14), with close ties to the Anti-Slavery and Aborigines’ Protection Societies (Satre 21) and a reputation for taking care of its workers at home (15-16), even building the Bournville Village Trust for factory employees (15-16), in addition to which the Cadbury-owned Daily News had run stories railing against slavery-like work conditions and “sweated trades” (16). Their treatment of the prospect that the plantations from which had come 45% of its beans in 1900 (Satre 19, 24) were practicing an evil they had long publicly opposed would have heavy implications for their hold on their moral high ground. Would the company apply the same stringent ethics they championed at home, and against other countries and trades, to matters that affected their own business? William Cadbury aired on the side of patient and cautious inaction; he never published the bill of sale, citing the document’s vagueness (as Satre icily puts it, his reasoning made “little sense, as the document specifically identified human beings as property”; Satre 19), and continued to dither in the face of distressing accounts. This silence would stretch until 1904 (22-24), when with new Portuguese labor legislation, and permission from the company’s board, William hired Joseph Burtt to travel to the Portuguese West African colonies (Satre 30-32) and investigate whether the whole unsavory matter had been put to rest on its own.

The beginning of Burtt’s journey to Sao Tome overlapped with the end of journalist Henry Nevinson’s (Satre 32); Burtt would return to England in 1907 (Satre 32, 73), by which time Nevinson’s articles and subsequent book (A Modern Slavery, 1906) about what he had seen in the islands were already two years published and on the market (Satre 32, 73). Burtt produced what Nevinson declared “an abstract of my book and no more” (Higgs 137), which nevertheless echoed Nevinson and the reports William Cadbury had heard: slavery, under a euphemistic title and technical obfuscations (Satre 76, Grant 1, Higgs 136-137), was producing the chocolate that Cadbury Bros. was buying (Satre 74). The onus was now on Cadbury, and its industry peers and allies, to put pressure on the Portuguese (78, 79)—but while the Aborigines’ Protection Society demanded an immediate boycott of the islands’ chocolate, international politics (one wonders if the companies’ bottom line and need for product didn’t also figure in) begged for another solution (Satre 81-82). William Cadbury’s decision to carry out the wishes of the Foreign Office (Higgs 135) by delaying Burtt’s report in lieu of a diplomatic meeting between the chocolatiers and the Portuguese planters (Higgs 134, Satre 75) nearly started a full-blown war with the outraged H.R. Fox Bourne of the APS (Higgs 134-136, Satre 78-80). The meeting with the planters took place in late 1907, with ineffective compromises, pleasantries, and technicalities exchanged (Higgs 141-142); it was followed by further negotiation the next year (143), by which William ended up taking a personal trip in October to Principe, Sao Tome (145) and the coast of Africa (146) to see if reform had been instated – and to look at the construction site of a railroad on the Gold Coast.

39618r
Cadbury’s almanack for 2,000 years – a literary & useful curiosity
Print shows a young boy dressed as a chef carrying a tray on which are a steaming ewer and cup of “cocoa essence”; also shows various graphics around the central motif and states that it is “Registered”. Digital file from original print. No known restrictions on publication. Manchester, England: Henry Blacklock & Co., [1885?] Via Library of Congress.
After meetings with reasonably cooperative planters and recalcitrant officials (146), William finally recommended the long-in-limbo boycott in January 1909, and in March Cadbury ceased buying cocoa from the chocolate islands – but not before the firm had purchased fourteen acres of land on the Gold Coast, near the new railroad, for a factory (147). Inaction, compounded by desire to maintain positive relations with the Portuguese in spite of the colonies’ violent and oppressive practices (Satre 77, 81), had forestalled the boycott for eight years; and though the guilt of the islands was off the company’s hands, and something of a backup plan in place, more sticky consequences had been set in motion. Cadbury Bros. was fighting a veritable media circus, demanding apologies from multiple papers for articles questioning the company’s actions regarding the islands (Higgs 143). By the time William left for Africa in 1908, a libel suit against the Standard was underway for a blistering (though hardly hypocrisy-free) article wondering “why the solicitude for the ‘white hands of the Bournville chocolate makers’ seemed not to extend to ‘African hands’” (Higgs 145).  William returned home in plenty of time to testify at the trial, which ruled in favor of Cadbury—awarding them all of a quarter-penny (152). Letters from Cadbury customers delivered their version of this scathing verdict—one addressed the company as “You pious Frauds,” “You Anointed Hypocrites” (152-153).

Cadbury’s Quaker morals, so intact in their home country, were proven by the chocolate islands scandal to be shaky with regard to their business dealings and their concern for what Fox Bourne phrased as “putting an end to a monstrous evil, for the tolerance and development of which Great Britain is to a large extent responsible” (Satre 77). William Cadbury taking earlier action might have been risky, but his caution and protection of trade interests in the face of oppressive practices led him to conflict and embarrassment. A review of Nevinson’s A Modern Slavery published in 1908 reads: “After reading Nevinson’s most interesting book one cannot doubt that slavery is still a tremendous problem, and that its origin and continuance are due to the fact that, for the present, peculiar … conditions have appealed to the selfishness of the Portuguese so strongly as to overcome all scruples” (Bulletin of the American Geographical Society, vol. 40, no. 9, 567-568). In light of the long years it took to acknowledge and boycott the slavery that gave them their cocoa, such a statement could well be applied to Cadbury Bros.

Grant, Kevin. A civilised savagery: Britain and the new slaveries in Africa, 1884-1926. Routledge, 2005.

E.H. “Bulletin of the American Geographical Society.” Bulletin of the American Geographical Society, vol. 40, no. 9, 1908, pp. 566–568. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/198362.

Satre, Lowell Joseph. Chocolate on trial slavery, politics, and the ethics of business. Ohio University Press, 2006.

Higgs, Catherine. Chocolate islands: cocoa, slavery, and colonial Africa. Ohio University Press, 2013.

“Cadbury’s almanack for 2,000 years – a literary & useful curiosity.” Library of Congress, http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2015651603/. Image. Accessed March 11, 2018.

Not So Sweet: Slavery in the Cacao Industry

dairy-milk-barsChocolate is arguably one of the greatest culinary achievements in human history. I currently do not have a citation for that statement, however I am banking on scholars and researchers to catch up to my sweeping generalizations. Chocolate, and cultivation of Cacao have been interwoven into the fabric of societies all across the globe. These connections have happened in so many ways that are not just appealing to the pallet but also to the spirit. Chocolate confections for some are the corner stone to childhood, and to others it is a symbol of ancestral connection. For some groups and societies, this connection has a more malevolent feel, either due to historical significance or even current trends in the chocolate marketplace. Chocolate and cacao production, have and continue to be connected to one of the darkest parts of the human experience. Slavery and forced labor are probably not what most consumers of chocolate think when they pick up their favorite chocolate candy in the local grocery aisle. This is likely due to the disparity and disconnection of the consumer from chocolates actual production. Chocolate production has been, and can continue to be, a marker for where such social disparity exists in our global market places. Using examples of past and present issues related to cacao production, it may be possible to shed light on how practice and policy of large candy manufacturers could potentially impact the lives of some of the most vulnerable communities in the world.
screen-shot-2015-03-12-at-7-11-13-pmGeorge Santayana said “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Building on this philosophy, it is important to acknowledge our past mistakes in order to inform our future practice. On the other side of the coin, we can also adopt what was successful into the same playbook. One instance that is important to highlight takes place over 100 years ago with a Quaker owned chocolate producer called Cadbury. The Cadbury family was not just associated with the prominent industrialist family, but also with the Quaker philosophy of passivity and equity. In the workplace, it was also important to the Cadbury brand and philosophy that this applied to the treatment of those in their employ. In the early 1900s, William Cadbury investigated allegations that the primary source of their chocolate was being produced with slave labor. Their chocolate was being imported from the islands of São Tomé and Príncipe, just off the western coast of the African continent. Once the allegations were verified, Cadbury petitioned the Portuguese government to change the labor practices and laws in their colony, however was not successful in its initial attempts. During this time, Cadbury continued to import a great deal of chocolate from the island, and in response faced a tremendous outpouring of public pressure. Due to their inability to appeal to the Portuguese government, Cadbury refocused their chocolate production elsewhere, and urged other chocolate companies to do the same. (Satre, 2005) While it was not a solution to the problem, it did demonstrate a morality in business practices that can be emulated in today’s chocolate industry.

So why look to Cadbury and the action of a chocolate maker 100 years ago? Well in the past two decades, allegations of chocolates connection to slavery have surfaced again. One of the countries that has been a focus for this issue has been Côte d’Ivoire. The accusations stated that nearly 90% of all chocolate produced there, had been involved in some form of slave labor. The international community was outraged, as Côte d’Ivoire was responsible for almost half of the world’s supply of chocolate. (John, 2002) cocoa-productin-and-consumption-map This practice also involves children, who are sometimes sold into labor from bordering nations like Mali. A great deal of pressure was put onto some of the largest chocolate manufactures such as Nestle, due to international laws and increased media attention on the subject. (Schrage & Ewing, 2005) One of the major differences in this instance and the Cadbury example is the speed of information and the influence of the global media. The outcry from the international community was enormous and promises were made from major manufactures because of it.

That was almost 20 years ago that light was shed on this issue. What about today? Côte d’Ivoire, along with others, is still listed by the U.S. Department of Labor as an exploiter of forced/child labor. (U.S. Department of Labor, 2016) Apart of their research found that in 2016, 2.1 million children had been involved in cacao production in an “inappropriate form.” (Lowy, 2016) 13E10CBB-C119-4185-AF0F-985DBD4FDAFE
Using Cadbury as a case study, it is possible to show that morality in business practice does not just positively affect the global community, but also can still be lucrative for a company. Cadbury did not solve the issue of slavery in the instance of the Portuguese colony, however they did influence the other chocolate makers to change their business practices which ultimately did leave a lasting impact on the islands need for forced labor. By doing so, they did not cease to exist, and by all accounts still flourish today. In today’s global economy, large manufactures have the opportunity to follow Cadbury’s example, and even potentially go a step further to create more sustainable practices for the global community.

Works Cited:

John, A. V. (2002, June). A new slavery? History Today; London, 52(6), 34–35.

Lowy, B. (2016). Inside Big Chocolate’s Child Labor Problem. Retrieved March 9, 2018, from http://fortune.com/big-chocolate-child-labor/

Satre, L. J. (2005). Chocolate on trial: slavery, politics, and the ethics of business (1st ed.). Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press.

Schrage, E. J., & Ewing, A. P. (2005). The Cocoa Industry and Child Labour. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, (18), 99–112.

U.S. Department of Labor. (2016). List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor. Retrieved March 9, 2018, from https://www.dol.gov/ilab/reports/child-labor/list-of-goods/

Cadbury and his Legacy on the History of the Cocoa Industry

         In 1824, an industrious 22-year-old named John Cadbury, opened a grocer’s shop where he sold coffee, tea, drinking chocolate, and cocoa in Birmingham in England. As a Quaker in early 19th century England, Cadbury was forbidden from applying to a university and he did not want to serve in the military due to his pacifist beliefs. Because of the government’s restrictions and commonplace discrimination against Quakers, many Quakers turned to entrepreneurial pursuits and became businesspersons; although none of them would reach the success that John Cadbury did (Ella 2009). The Cadbury chocolate company and its Quaker roots have an impressive legacy in the cocoa industry rooted in ethical, sustainable and revolutionary business practices. It would not be a stretch to suggest that John Cadbury’s strongly held religious beliefs and adherence to the Quaker tradition profoundly impacted the evolution of the Cadbury and by extension, the entire cocoa industry. John Cadbury’s empathy is clear by his reasoning for first opening up his shop at such a young age. He believed alcohol was a main cause of poverty and he hoped that selling chocolate and cocoa would be an alternative to people buying alcohol (Ella 2009). 194 years later and today, Cadbury is a powerhouse in the confectionary industry with more than $3 billion in global net revenues and over 70,000 employees (Ella 2009).

George Cadbury believed human beings should be treated equally

            Although John Cadbury never witnessed the titanic success his company is today, Cadbury worked hard and saw some early success. In 1854, Cadbury and his brother Benjamin who formed Cadbury Brothers received a Royal Warrant as the official manufacturers of chocolate and cocoa to Queen Victoria, a notorious sweet tooth. Their growing business was not able to fit in that small shop they first started in so they purchased 330 acres of land in the countryside out of Birmingham. Cadbury, out of his own pocket, built a model village known as Bournville with over 300 homes scattered across the countryside with large gardens, schools, parks, swimming pools, bowling greens, a fishing lake, and a large factory. Conditions at this model village were revolutionary for the age and were inspired by Cadbury’s desire to ‘’alleviate the evils of modern, more cramped living conditions’ (Ella 2009). The brothers set new standards for working and living conditions in Victorian Britain and the Cadbury plant in Bournville became known as “the factory in a garden” (Ella 2009).

Bournville became known as “the factory in a garden” 

            Over the years since then, Cadbury and his family built a company that placed a high priority on the welfare of the workers and set new standards for working and living conditions. These standards are now the benchmarks of safe, ethical, and sustainable benchmarks for cocoa manufacturers globally. Despite the wonderful model that Cadbury has developed, other companies like Hershey’s have not taken significant steps to ensure that their chocolate is made without exploitative labor.

            The chocolate industry is inherently dangerous from growing to harvesting to shipping and most cocoa farms are surrounded by intense poverty in Western Africa and Latin America. In Western Africa, several chocolate giants like Hershey’s, Mars, and Nestle are directly connected to horrific human rights abuses including child labor, human trafficking, and slavery (Jamison 2016)) . Child labor is particularly prevalent on the cocoa farms where child labor is used to keep prices competitive. A UN report illuminated the rampant child labor in a horrific report where they observed that, “a child’s workday typically begins at six in the morning and ends in the evening. Some of the children use chainsaws to clear the forests. Other children climb the cocoa trees to cut bean pods using a machete. Holding a single large pod in one hand, each child has to strike the pod with a machete and pry it open with the tip of the blade to expose the cocoa beans. Every strike of the machete has the potential to slice a child’s flesh. The majority of children have scars on their hands, arms, legs or shoulders from the machetes” (ILO 2005). Cadbury demonstrated its commitment to ethical working conditions first envisioned by their founder, John Cadbury, by only selling Fair Trade certified chocolates. In addition, Cadbury brought together 10 of the largest chocolate companies to create an ambitious program, CocoaAction. With over $500 million in funding, they are aiming to reach 3000,000 farmers in western Africa with training programs and education with the hope that healthier economies will translate to better conditions for the employees (O’Keefe 2016). Farmers who agree to these training programs learn how to properly use pesticides and fertilizers and sign a pledge not to exploit child labor. As a reward, they can earn bonuses on every ton of beans sold if they are certified (O’Keefe 2016) .

Screenshot 2018-03-09 21.47.42
Worker in Burkina Faso breaking apart the cocoa pods

            John Cadbury’s legacy of compassion, humanity, and philanthropy combined with a happy knack for creating amazing chocolate has forever influenced the history and the future of the cocoa industry. On the face of it, what Cadbury did when he was alive – treating humans fairly and justly – should not have been revolutionary then and should not be a groundbreaking perspective to take today. In fact, Cadbury showed that a company can manage a viable business while also maintaining high standards for ethical and sustainable conduct. And that is worth raising a bar for.

Works Cited

“Combatting Child Labor in Cocoa Growing.” (2005): n. pag. International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labor. International Laber Office (ILO), 2010. Web. 9 Mar. 2018. <http://www.ilo.org/public/english//standards/ipec/themes/cocoa/download/2005_02_cl_cocoa.pdf>.

Ella, Jill. “Cadbury: The Legacy in Birmingham.” BBC. BBC, 15 Dec. 2009. Web. 09 Mar. 2018. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/birmingham/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8412000/8412655.stm>.

Jamison, Richard. “Child Labor and Slavery in the Chocolate Industry.” Food Is Power. Food Empowerment Project, 2016. Web. 09 Mar. 2018. <http://www.foodispower.org/slavery-chocolate/>.

Martin, Carla D.“Race, ethnicity, gender, and class in chocolate advertisements”, Harvard University, CGIS, AAAS 119x, 2017.

Martin, Carla D. “Slavery, abolition, and forced labor”, Harvard University, CGIS, AAAS 119x, 2017.

Martin, Carla D. “Psychology, Terroir, and Taste”, Harvard University, CGIS, AAAS 119x, 2017.

O’Keefe, Brian. “Inside Big Chocolate’s Child Labor Problem.” Fortune. Fortune Magazine, 1 Mar. 2016. Web. 09 Mar. 2018. <http://fortune.com/big-chocolate-child-labor/>.

Smith, Janet. “John Cadbury.” Quakers in the World. Chilterns Quaker Program, 2010. Web. 09 Mar. 2018. <http://www.quakersintheworld.org/quakers-in-action/16/John-Cadbury>.

The Fine Line of Cadbury Business Ethics

We are often reminded that it is wise to toe a fine line and adhere to a certain code of moral conduct; but at what cost exactly?  This is a question that Britain’s chocolate giant Cadbury wrestled with during the beginning of the 20th century.  They flourished when it came to business ethics in their own Utopian village, Bourneville, yet struggled to maintain the same integrity when dealing with the horrific slave labor producing its most precious cacao supply.

In Lowell Satre’s article entitled Chocolate on Trial: Slavery, Politics and the Ethics of Business, the trial of the Cadbury chocolate company begins when a young journalist by the name Henry Nevinson embarked on a field assignment for Harper’s monthly magazine of New York in 1904.  The focal point of Nevinson’s field research was centered predominantly in the Portuguese controlled Angola territory in Africa.

ango-MMAP-md

Shortly after the United States of America had abolished slavery in 1865, Portugal had followed suit during the 1870’s by legally outlawing forced labor in all of its controlled colonies as well.  However, Satre writes “plantation owners still desperately craved workers” as this sweeping outlaw of slavery threatened the convenience of free labor by tipping the economic scale slightly out of their favor.  Satre continues, “To satisfy this constant demand for labor, a state-supported system of “contract labor” emerged, wherein government agents certified the natives could, or of their own free will, sign contracts committing themselves to five years of labor for a set wage” (Satre, pg. 2).  These “contract jobs” also came with the so called benefits of being treated humanely and having the ability to return to their homeland after their contract expired.  However, Henry Nevinson would soon discover, and corroborate an earlier tip that the Cadbury Company received in 1901, that these were empty promises and the idea of working voluntarily under humane conditions was clearly not the case.

The Cadbury Chocolate Company was located somewhere north of 4000 miles away from where Nevinson carried out his expedition.  This was a Quaker owned firm, which meant that they were very serious in regards to their Christian religious beliefs; abstaining from particular vices that could be frowned upon – such as alcohol.  The Cadbury Company in particular experienced a boom in business which warranted moving from the smaller shop that John Cadbury, founder and sole proprietor, operated out of in Birmingham; to a factory town that his son George Cadbury had designed himself.  After John’s first son, Richard passed away suddenly in 1899, George became chairman of Cadbury’s board of directors along with he and Richard’s sons serving as board members.  If you visit the Cadbury website, you can get their account of their story here:

The Story of Cadbury

            Interestingly enough, Lowell Satre reveals what the Cadbury Company site dared not mention; the 1901 trip, when William Cadbury (George’s nephew) visited Trinidad.  The company owned a small cocoa bean plantation there and he was told that slave labor was being used on the islands of Sao Tome and Principe.  Shortly after, this rumor was “given credence when the Cadbury company received an offer of a plantation for sale in Sao Tome that listed as assets two hundred black laborers worth 3,555 dobra” (Satre, pg. 18).  Despite the reports of slave labor and its corroboration by Henry Nevinson’s trip to Africa, the Cadbury Company began sourcing cacao from Sao Tome and Principe indicating that they needed to seek out additional confirmation that the laborers’ treatment there was indeed slavery.

William’s Cadbury’s uncle, George, had created a village called Bourneville in England with the intention for its portrayal to highlight what it meant to take care of company workers.  Bourneville had no pubs – further emphasizing the Quaker lifestyle that the Cadbury family believed in – and was “built upon George Cadbury’s vision of improved dwelling, light, space and air for his employees” (YouTube: Barton’s Britain: Bourneville).

The-Bournville-Cadbury-site

The contradiction was stark however, as the admirable gesture was tainted by the charges of knowingly benefiting from slave labor in Sao Tome and Principe.  It raised the eyebrows of the media as they began to question the integrity of the company for its blatant hypocrisy.  On one hand, they demanded further proof of people dying in Africa due to gruesome work conditions; while on the other hand politely fired female employees in Bourneville who announced they were pregnant so they can endure less stress and prepare for parenthood.

It is my inclination to believe that William Cadbury did not want to swiftly back out of using these cacao plantations because he did not want to affect the bottom line of his family’s business.  So instead, he bided his time looking for a second voyager to travel to Africa and double down on Nevinson’s account to a) protect the company’s investment and b) not offend their Portugal partners overseeing the plantation operation.  While the Cadbury Company strategically dragged their feet with these goals in mind, pressure was mounting from activist groups such as the Anti-Slavery Society and the Aborigines’ Protection Society.  Along with the press, these entities were pushing for the relationship between the Quaker company and slave labor it employed to officially be brought to light.  Finally, William Cadbury elected Joseph Burtt to travel to Africa and confirm what everyone already knew.

In Catherine Higgs article entitled Chocolate Islands: Cocoa, Slavery and Colonial Africa, Higgs details how Joseph Burtt embarked on his journey to Africa and found that Henry Nevinson’s account of slavery occurring was more than accurate.  It was so accurate that Joseph Burtt’s initial report, in the interest of Cadbury needed to be edited multiple times to lessen the impact of the ugly truth and not upset their cacao supplier.  Higgs states that “Cadbury argued that publishing the report in the English press without first giving the Portuguese the opportunity to respond – which Burtt favored doing – would give them “every right to say, as they have done with Nevinson’s report, that they consider the whole attitude as unfriendly and unfair” (Higgs, pg.  134).  William Cadbury was more concerned with protecting his brand, along with his business partners interest that he’d go as far as sugar coating (no pun intended) the truth about their operation rather than taking a stand against what was morally unacceptable.

Shortly after Burtts report had circulated within media circles in October of 1908, William Cadbury had diligently tried to walk back the implications of his company being accused of hypocrisy.  In the end, the Cadbury Company backed out of Sao Tome and Principe, leaving the door wide open for the Hershey Chocolate Company of the United States to swoop in and assume the position of having no moral compass.  In 1839, British colonial administrator Herman Merivale wrote, “Every trader who carries on commerce with those countries, from the great house which lends its name and funds to support the credit of the American Bank, down to the Birmingham merchant who makes a shipment of shackles to Cuba or the coast of Africa, is in his own way an upholder of slavery: and I do not see how any consumer who drinks coffee or wears cotton can escape from the same sweeping charge” (Martin, Lecture #6).  While Herman’s words were about 60 years before the Cadbury controversy in Sao Tome and Principe, they eloquently capture the struggles William Cadbury and his company faced in attempting to tight rope the fine line of running a successful business while being an honorable one simultaneously.

 

 

 

Works Cited

“Barton’s Britain: Bournville.” Gaurdian.co.uk, 2009, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz6tyxHlRlA.

“The Bournville Cadbury Site.” The Manufacturer, 16 Jan. 2015, http://www.themanufacturer.com/articles/200-workers-take-voluntary-redundancy-cadbury-plant/.

Higgs, Catherine. Chocolate Islands: Cocoa, Slavery, and Colonial Africa. Ohio University Press, 2013.

Katz, Frau. “A Map of Angola.” Pinterest, http://www.pinterest.com/pin/345510602641044139/?autologin=true.

Martin, Carla. “Lecture #6.”

Satre, Lowell Joseph. Chocolate on Trial Slavery, Politics, and the Ethics of Business. Ohio Univ.Press, 2006.

http://www.iconinc.com.au, Icon.Inc -. “The Story of Cadbury.” Cadbury, http://www.cadbury.com.au/about-cadbury/the-story-of-cadbury.aspx.

 

Cadbury Ethics

In the early twentieth century, the Cadbury Brothers Limited was a prominent chocolate producer in Britain. In 1901, a member of the Cadbury company, William Cadbury, was exposed to the accusation of slavery in his company’s cocoa farms. The situation was such that “he was told that slave labor was used on the island of São Tomé. Shortly thereafter this unsubstantiated comment was given credence when the Cadbury company received an offer of a plantation for sale in São Tomé that listed as assets two hundred black laborers” (Satre 18). With the rumor of slavery existing and having a direct tie to the Cadbury company, William did not immediately conclude that slavery was going on because “he did not equate the labor of São Tomé to that of other forms of slavery reported in Africa” (Satre 19). Cadbury was not incorrect in observing that the labor conditions were different than the historical slavery in Africa, but it was still slavery and leads to the questioning of his ethics.

The slavery in São Tomé was different from other historical forms of slavery in Africa. “Portugal had abolished slavery in all of its colonies, including Angola, in the 1870s, but plantation owners and others still desperately craved workers” (Satre 2). “To satisfy this constant demand for labor, a state-supported system of ‘contract labor’ emerged. Wherein government agents certified that natives could, of their own free will, sign contracts committing themselves to five years of labor at a set wage.” The plantation owners abused these contracts, which lead to slavery. Nevinson, who was researching slavery in West Africa, described several reasons why people might become slaves, including the following:
“[s]ome had broken native customs or Portuguese laws, some had been charged with witchcraft by the medicine man because of a relative died, some sould not pay a fine, some were wiping out an ancestral debt, some had been sold by uncles in poverty, some were indemnity for village wars, some had been raided on the frontier, others had been exchanged for a gun; some had been trapped by Portuguese, others by Bibéan thieves; some were but changing masters” (Satre 7).
The exploitation of labor was in fact slavery, but William Cadbury wanted to be thorough in his obtainment of information because “he wanted to be absolutely fair to the responsible parties on the cocoa plantations and in Portugal” (Satre 19).
In order to come to a definitive conclusion regarding the possibility of slavery in the Cadbury cocoa farms, William Cadbury enlisted the services of Joseph Burtt, who would travel to São Tomé in order to uncover whether the rumors of slavery were true. Before Burtt could begin investigating, he had to first learn Portuguese. Cadbury might of had an expedited report if he had chosen someone who already knew Portuguese, but Burtt eventually found explicit evidence of slavery. When the time came for Burtt to publish his findings, he “added to the delays by pushing, in addition, for a ‘personal and private appeal to the planters’ to ensure they understood’ that the whole question has been taken up from a desire for decent conditions of coloured labour and not from English’ self-righteousness and hypocrisy” (Higgs 135). The delays in the report mounted to the extent that even though Burtt had been commissioned by the Cadbury family in 1905, he did not return to England till 1907. After William Cadbury read Burtt’s report and visted Africa, “he found a system he called ‘slavery in disguise’” (Vertongen).

Meanwhile, another party was uncovering the truth behind the working conditions. Henry Nevison was on an assignment to investigate the working conditions in West Africa. Nevison worked for Harper’s Monthly Magazine and would end up writing “a series of articles and a subsequent book describing slavery in Portuguese West Africa” (Satre 2). He witnessed explicit slavery and periodically published his findings in Britain. Nevison publically called for a boycott of the slave plantations.
With the information from Burtt’s report and the public scrutiny caused by Nevison’s exposure of the slavery conditions and pressure for change, William Cadbury came to the conclusion that a boycott was necessary. “1909, Cadbury Brothers wrote to Fry and Rowntree to recommend that all three firms ‘cease buying S. Thome cocoa’” (Higgs 147). All three firms began the boycott and were particularly effective in Britain because “[a]t the turn of the twentieth century, the British cocoa and chocolate business was dominated by three Quaker-owned firms-Cadbury, Fry, and Rowntree-although European companies continued to claim a large part of the British market” (Satre 14). The companies moved their cocoa farms to the Gold Coast in West Africa, where they knew slavery was not employed.

The ethics pertaining to William Cadbury’s actions in combating slavery need to be further examined. A substantial amount of time passed from when he first learned about the labor conditions in the cocoa farms and the action of the Cadbury company to boycott the slave labor being used. William is partly at fault for this delay. Although being prudent and securing a definitive report of the possibility of slavery may be wise, his choosing Burtt was problematic, since the latter had to learn Portuguese before beginning his research. The delays in the publishing of Burtt’s report were the result of Cadbury’s desire to not offend. Ultimately, William Cadbury can be criticized that the developments to end the slavery could have been conducted on an expedited time frame. Another reason for the delay was his not being convinced that the rumored conditions were in fact slavery, due to the differences between it and prior forms in Africa. He wanted more evidence of the exploitation as the Portuguese government even pledged to create better working conditions for the labors. Since “he obviously wanted to believe that the Portuguese government officials were sincere in their promise to enforce the new rules” (Satre 15), Cadbury’s delay in boycotting might be somewhat justified. In conclusion, enlisting Burtt to provide more evidence of slavery and allowing the Portuguese government time to correct the slavery problem are valid reasons for some of the delay in action, and given that the boycott of the slavery did ultimately occur, William Cadbury should not be regarded as unethical.

Works cited

Satre, L. Chocolate on Trial: Slavery, Politics, and the Ethics of Business

Higgs, C. Chocolate Islands: Cocoa, Slavery, and Colonial Africa

Vertongen, D. (Director), & Hargrave, G. (Producer). (2000). Extra Bitter: The Legacy of the Chocolate Islands [Video file]. Filmakers Library. Retrieved May 13, 2017, from Alexander Street.

From Cadbury to Nestlé: Big Chocolate & Forced Labor

While chocolate is a sweet delicacy enjoyed by millions around the world, the underlying forces of cacao production often leave a sour taste in consumers’ mouths. After Europeans “discovered” chocolate in Mesoamerica, its dissemination in Europe relied on the forced labor of indigenous populations and later African slaves on cacao plantations. Slavery was abolished on paper in England in 1833. Yet, it persisted under new names from serviçal in Sao Tome e Principe to “worst forms of child labor” in Côte d’Ivoire. I will compare the response of two influential companies in the cocoa industry–Cadbury and Nestlé–when faced with evidence of forced labor  in their cacao supply chain. While both companies’ actions are ultimately profit-driven, Cadbury took more legitimate actions to divest from forced labor than Nestlé, as the latter has yet to fully invest in ethically-sourced cacao.

Cadbury

William Cadbury’s awareness of forced labor in cacao plantations started with rumors of horrible work conditions in Sao Tome and Príncipe in 1901. At the time, Cadbury obtained 55% of its cacao from the area (Higgs 2012:9). He met with Portuguese authorities who assured him that new labour legislation addressed concerns of minimum wage (Satre 2005:23). Still, Cadbury commissioned Joseph Burtt in 1905 to investigate the work conditions in Sao Tome e Principe. Prior to Burtt’s return, Henry Nevinson published his investigative journalism in Harper’s Magazine in 1905.

Screen Shot 2017-03-24 at 07.27.43
Cadbury's_Cocoa_advert_with_rower_1885Nevinson shed light on the forced labor of indentured servants (serviçal) in Sao Tome e Principe (Martin 2017). It was indistinguishable from slavery. Burtt returns in 1907, and his report supports Nevinson’s research. Yet, British authorities request Burtt revise his findings to assuage Portuguese authorities because Portuguese authorities were instrumental to British colonial interests in South Africa (Satre 2005: 76, 24). Up to then, Cadbury’s actions were behind the public eye. While the company researched forced labor and attempted to negotiate with both British and Portuguese authorities with no divestment in sight, their consumers continued purchasing their “guaranteed pure and soluble” cacao. 

Nevinson persevered with his reporting and published “The Angola Slave Trade” in The Fornightly Review, which garnered a lot of publicity. Forced labor alarmed British consumers because although England had abolished slavery in 1833, they were still complicit to it. Slavery did not align itself with the Quaker values of the time. As consumers started demanding Cadbury take action, Cadbury takes a final trip to Sao Tome and Principe.

Upon his return, he convinces J.S. Fry and Rowntree, other British chocolatemakers to join him as Cadbury boycotts cacao production in Sao Tome and Principe. Presumably, Cadbury divests because of the continuous failed promises by the Portuguese government to ameliorate working conditions in both islands. While the Portuguese government was not intent on ending slavery in cacao production, Cadbury did not suddenly reach enlightenment in 1909. At the time of initial evidence of slavery in Sao Tome and Principe, Cadbury had no other sustainable source of cacao if it wanted to maintain its leading status amongst British consumers. A viable option was needed as the British confectionners turned to mainland West Africa. Hence, the boycott from its main source of cacao did not hurt Cadbury because during his backdoor negotiations with various stakeholders, cacao trees were being planted in the Gold Coast (present-day Ghana). From his visit to the Gold Coast in 1906 to the official boycott from Sao Tome’s cacao in 1909, cocoa harvest in the Gold Coast increased from 9004 to 20,534 metric tons (Grant 2005: 175). Therefore, in addition to being ethically sound, the move to the Gold Coast in 1909 was also business-proof.

Nestlé

A century later, big chocolate makers are still guilty of profiting from the fruits of forced labor in their supply chain. In 1998, A Taste of Slavery: How Your Chocolate May be Tainted was published. The UNICEF  report was one of the first to highlight evidence of child labor in West Africa, particularly in Côte d’Ivoire. Young people were often worked almost under horrible conditions: “the [Malian] boys had little to eat, slept in bunk-houses that were locked at night, and were frequently beaten. They had horrible sores on their backs and shoulders, some as a result of carrying the heavy bags of cocoa, but some likely the effects of physical abuse” (Off 2008: 121). Child labor in cacao farms in Côte d’Ivoire involves familial and contracted labor, often including human trafficking of children from neighboring countries like Mali and Burkina Faso. Such labor conditions violate the International Labor Organization (ILO) Minimum Age Convention and the ILO Forced Labour Convention (Schrage and Ewing 2005: 101-102).

Increasing media attention to such reports of child slavery pushed the cocoa industry to stop dawdling and take action because “the mistreatment of children posed a clear threat to corporate reputation and sales” (Schrage and Ewing 2005: 104). As the United States Congress began the legislative process of banning Ivorian cacao, the industry proposed a protocol to address the reports. In September 2001, the Chocolate Manufacters Association (CMA) and the World Cocoa Foundation signed the Protocol for the Growing and Processing of Cocoa Beans and their Derivative Products in a Manner that Complies with ILO Convention 182 Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Chila Labor also known as the Harkin-Engel Protocol. Ever since its inception, the protocol has continuously been extended as chocolate companies fail to eradicate the worst form of child labor from their supply chain by their own deadlines. Many have critiqued the protocol as too lenient because a voluntary plan does not ensure the industry will be accountable.

Nestlé has undertook actions to adhere to the Harkin-Engel Protocol. The company joined the Global Issues Group (GIG), “an ad-hoc, pre-competitive association of cocoa industry participants formed in response to the agreements as spelled out in the Harkin-Engil Protocol” (Tulane research). Furthermore, Nestlé contracted UTZ Certified, a product certification organization, to be held accountable for its cacao consumption. Screen Shot 2017-03-24 at 16.27.24In 2009, Nestlé established the Cocoa Plan. The hyperlinked video highlights the work of the Cocoa Plan in Côte d’Ivoire. Through the International Cocoa Initiative, the Cocoa Plan has built schools throughout Côte d’Ivoire in order to provide alternatives for children who were previously child laborers or could potentially be involved in cacao production.This iniative, among others, empowers local communities and seeks to reduce the prevalence of the “worst forms of child labor” in cacao production.In addition, Nestlé has supported further investigation into their cacao sourcing. The Fair Labor Association (FLA) conducted a thorough investigation of the company’s cacao supply chain, making it the first chocolate-maker to undertake such a process (CNN 2012). The FLA has continued these investigations, which attest to Nestlé’s investment in an ethical supply chain. Nestlé’s actions were in response to growing criticism. The company had to handle lawsuits and respond to documentaries about the persistence of forced labor in Côte d’Ivoire in order to appease its consumer base, who was demanding more accountability in the cacao supply chain.

 

Screen Shot 2017-03-24 at 16.28.53Consumer demand for and consumption of ethically produced chocolate is highest in the United Kingdom. This trend explains why Kit Kat chocolate bars in the UK bear the Faitrade mark and Kit Kat chocolate bars in Germany do not. While both bars have the Cocoa Plan logo, Nestlé reveals that it only purchases 14.5% of its cocoa through the Plan, of which 75% is either UTZ or Fairtrade-certified (Nestle 2013: 160). While Nestlé has taken steps to ethically source its cacao, this has only been for consumers who actively demand it.

Similar to Cadbury, Nestlé is acting in a profit-maximizing way. Ethics are secondary because the investment in the Cocoa Plan for all of its chocolate would not be be as profitable beyond the UK. Unlike Cadbury, Nestlé has unfortunately not significantly addressed the Protocol because shared responsibility with other big chocolatemakers and lack of significant consumer demand diffuse the pressure to immediately conform.

Bibliography

Cadbury’s Advert with Rower 1885. 2010. Wikimedia Commons

CNN,. 2012. “Nestleé Advances Child Labor Battle Plan”. Retrieved March 23, 2017 (http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/29/nestle-advances-child-labor-battle-plan/).

Grant, Kevin. A Civilised Savagery: Britain and the New Slaveries in Africa, 1884-1926.  London: Routledge, 2005.

Higgs, Catherine. Chocolate Islands: Cocoa, Slavery and Colonial Africa Athens: Ohio University Press, 2012.

Martin, Carla. “Slavery, Abolition, and Forced Labor.” Lecture, Chocolate Lecture, Cambridge, March 01, 2017.

Nestlé,. 2013. Nestlé In Society: Creating Shared Value And Meeting Our Commitments 2013. Nestlé. Retrieved March 21, 2017 (http://storage.nestle.com/Interactive_CSV_Full_2013/files/assets/common/downloads/Creating%20Shared%20Value%20Full%20Report%202013.pdf).

Nevinson, Henry Woodd. “The Slave-Trade of to-Day. Conclusion–the Islands of Doom.” Harper’s Monthly, 1906, 327-37.

Off, Carol. 2008. Bitter Chocolate. 1st ed. New York [u.a.]: The New Press.

Satre, Lowell J. Chocolate on Trial: Slavery, Politics, and the Ethics of Business.  Athens: Ohio University Press, 2005.

Schrage, Elliot, and Anthony Ewing. 2005. The Cocoa Industry And Child Labour. Journal of Corporate Citizenship. Retrieved March 22, 2017 (http://www.justice.gov.il/Units/Trafficking/MainDocs/The_Cocoa_Industry_and_child_labour.pdf).

Cadbury: The Canary in an Unethical Coal Mine

Any company that can admit to contaminating a food product, and supporting forced labor and still retain the leading market share must understand its customers. For this reason, Cadbury’s advertisements may offer a unique perspective into European consumer culture during the late 1980s and early 1900s. Advertisements candidly portray the desires of their consumer base. For this reason Cadbury’s advertisements are a window into English consumer values. I argue that the Cadbury Company’s advertisements capture nineteenth century consumer culture as one that conflated personal purity with ethical behavior. Additionally these values inadvertently supported forced labor long after the official abolition of slavery.

Victorian era consumers were highly concerned with the idea of purity. As lower economic classes attained access to previously unattainable foods such as chocolate and tea, producers contaminated the foods with filler ingredients to maximize profits. In 1850, England’s newly created Health Commission found that, 39 of 70 chocolate samples contained red ocher, a color obtained from ground bricks. While most samples revealed the addition of starches from potatoes and various grains. The passage of the “British Food and Drug Act of 1860 and the Adulteration of food act of 1872, suggests that the British public were highly concerned with the purity of their foods (Coe, 2013).

Cadbury became England’s chocolate in the in the late 1800s and early 1900s through an aggressive advertising campaign that emphasized purity. Cadbury, though also implicated in starch contamination, understood customer concerns and adeptly rebranded as the only company that could guarantee purity (Coe, 2013).

Cadbury's_Cocoa_advert_with_rower_1885 (1)
An 1885 advertisement for cadbury cocoa

The above advertisement captures the ideals and aspirations of the English consumer in the late 1800s. The strapping rower, an icon of English vitality enjoys a day of leisure watching boat races. He holds his cup of Cadbury cocoa at the center of the image. By framing the cocoa, on two sides with the rower’s spotless white pants and shirt, and on the third side with the woman’s impossibly pale face, the artist emphasizes the purity associated with the beverage. The advertisement’s sub header, “Guaranteed Pure and Soluble,” explicitly restates the focus on purity. Because Cadbury captured consumer’s interest in purity, they were able to out compete Fry’s, an older company that dominated the market in the early 1800s.

Frys_five_boys_milk_chocolate
Fry’s 1910, milk chocolate advertisement

The above advertisement demonstrates a different understanding of English consumer values during the time. Fry’s, one of the first English chocolate companies sold 2.5 times more chocolate than Cadbury in 1870. However Cadbury won the hearts of English men and women, largely through advertising, and out sold Fry’s at the turn of the century (Fitzgerald, 2006). Fry’s emphasized nostalgia for childhood in their advertisement. A small girl holds a box with five portraits describing the emotions associated with chocolate consumption. Cadbury’s market success suggests that, English consumers preferred assurances about purity to a trip down memory lane.

Consumers conflated product purity with ethical behavior. Cadbury and Fry, both Quaker chocolate makers, were lauded for their ethical behavior. Temperance campaigns swept over the UK during the Victorian era. As per capita beer consumption decreased, consumers turned to chocolate for comestible indulgence. One strategy of the temperance movement was to tie ethical and spiritual purity to the purity of a diet. The messaging was of course focused on reducing alcohol consumption, but this rhetoric likely spilled over into other food consumption behaviors. Therefore, Cadbury’s Quaker image as evidenced by their “ideal,” and importantly ,dry village, Bournvile appealed to consumers of the day (Fitzgerald 2006; Johnson and Pochmara 2016).

However as consumers and companies focused on purity standards, horrific human rights abuses went over looked. Both advertisements focus on the consumer and the ritual of consumption. In a way these advertisements capture what the English population wanted to see in their consumer products. However even more informative are the ideas consumers did not want to portrayed in their advertisements. Any reference to location of origin, or producers is glaringly absent in advertisements of the day.

Ghana_Elmina_Castle_Slave_Holding_Cell_(2)
A prison cell used to hold enslaved people before their journey to Sao Tome or Principe

The above picture is of a prison in Elmina Castle, used to hold enslaved people before their forced voyage to a life of forced labor. Elmina was often the last place an enslaved person, captured in Angola, would set foot on the mainland (Finley 2004). Cadbury, Fry’s and other English chocolate makers bought cacao from Portuguese cacao plantations that depended on forced labor on the islands of Sao Tome and Principe. Though the Portuguese called this system, indentured servitude or “Servical,” a report by journalist Henry Nevinson, made it clear that Servical was indistinguishable from slavery. Though England outlawed slavery in 1833, Cadbury, the supposed icon of Victorian business ethics had been providing the English people chocolate made from cacao farmed by enslaved people as late as 1907. After an attempt at reparations, Cadbury and other English chocolate makers boycotted the islands of Sao Tome and Principe (Martin, 2017). However little changed on the islands, as the Hershey Company filled the consumer void left by the English companies. I contend that consumer interest focused so heavily on ideas of purity that consumers associated purity with ethical process and were therefore slow to examine the supply chain of their favorite chocolate.

Today chocolate companies often differentiate their products by advertising their location of origin. Additionally, fair trade products often command price premiums for ensuring ethical process. This expansion of consumer options suggests that consumers value ethical process as much as they value nutritional quality or taste. However, modern consumers we cannot forget the lessons of Victorian era chocolate makers. We must constantly investigate the supply chains of our favorite products to reduce our contribution to forced labor. Follow the below link to learn how many enslaved people are involved in producing your favorite products.

Find out how your consumption connects you to slavery.

 

Bibliography

Cadbury’s Advert with Rower 1885. 2010. Wikimedia Commons.

Coe, Sophie D., and Michael D. Coe. The true history of chocolate. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Thames and Hudson, 2013.

Finley, Cheryl. 2004. “Authenticating Dungeons, Whitewashing Castles: The Former Sites of the Slave Trade on the Ghanaian Coast.” Architecture and Tourism.

Fitzgerald, Robert. 2006. “Products , Firms and Consumption : Cadbury and the Development of Marketing , 1900 – 1939 Products , Firms and Consumption : Cadbury and the” 6791 (May). doi:10.1080/00076790500132977.

Fry’s Five Boys . 2005. Wikimedia Commons.

Ghana Elmina Castle Slave Holding Cell. Wikimedia, Wikimedia Commons

Johnson, Amelia E, and Anna Pochmara. 2016. “Tropes of Temperance , Specters of Naturalism : Tropología de La Abstinencia Y Fantasmas Del Naturalismo En Clarence and Corinne de Amelia E . Johnson” 2: 45–62.

Martin, Carla. “Slavery, Abolition, and Forced Labor.” Lecture, Chocolate Lecture, Cambridge, March 01, 2017.