But the pandemic also highlighted the fragility of Canada’s domestic supply chains. The country was left scrambling when it came to personal protective equipment (PPE), hand sanitizer, and even vaccines, revealing a pressing need to grow our own domestic capacity across markets and sectors, particularly for necessities like food.

This is especially true with what’s happening in Ukraine, as an even greater threat is being posed to food security. While many in North America would dismiss this threat as something that will only impact Europe and Russia, the reality is that this conflict’s impact is global.

There’s a lot at stake in Ukraine, beyond the loss of human life. Chiefly, agricultural security: Ukraine is one of the world’s major producers of sunflower oil, meal and seed, corn, rapeseed, and soybeans, and is the world’s largest producer of wheat, with exports going to countries across Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

Agriculture employs 14 percent of the population in Ukraine. The sector is valued at $27.8 billion and accounts for 41 percent of the country’s exports. However, the Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group (UNCG) estimates that it will not be possible to sow approximately one-third of the total land area in Ukraine, rendered inaccessible by the armed conflict. If these crops are abandoned, resources will be in short supply, which will inevitably cause rising prices and increased competition for them, stoking conflict among people and nations.

In 2021, almost six million people were food insecure in Canada alone, more than one-third of them in the province of Ontario where a sixth of households have reportedly been struggling to make ends meet. Globally, by 2050, two billion people are expected to be food insecure.

In the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), food bank usage has tripled since before the pandemic. Second Harvest, Canada’s largest food rescue charity, found that 60 percent more Canadians are expected to use food banks and other support programs in 2023 following a year that saw a 124 percent increase in usage.

What is unique about this situation is that many of these people are working. Costs are simply unsustainable as wages lag behind increases in costs due to inflation, and rising interest rates are making mortgages unmanageable, putting a strain on social safety nets like food banks and food pantries, organizations that simply can’t keep up with demand.

Canada is known for being a net importer and exporter of food, a consequence of being a signatory to NAFTA version one. From oil to pulses, instead of satisfying local demand with domestic supply, Canada often sends its commodities out for processing elsewhere. This is especially true of the agricultural sector, both conventional and organic.

Local food systems could be a big part of the solution when it comes to food security. Local or regional food systems are integrated and structured as collaborative networks that embrace sustainable food production, processing, distribution, and waste management principles into their operations, in addition to prioritizing the health of local economies, environments, and communities.

They come in many forms: community-supported agriculture (CSA), food shares, farmers markets, farm stores, pick-your-own (PYO), farm to table restaurants. Whatever form they take, they all share a common goal: contributing to sustainable local food systems and improving access to fresh, nutritious food.

Beyond improving access to locally produced food, these networks offer a local magnifier effect in that they promote social interaction and civic engagement, provide education and awareness, and improve access to healthful, sustainable food options. Plus, more of the dollars spent will remain in the local economy, often in support of small family-operated businesses.

In the context of global affairs today, this may be a highly responsible way that governments and communities can invest in themselves and meet their own needs. For instance, the recent lettuce shortage is something that could have easily been mitigated through local production. When droughts and a virus impacted California’s lettuce crops, Canada was left with little option but to wait for supply from producers in Arizona and Mexico, as domestic capacity was insufficient to meet the market’s needs. Where there was lettuce available, it was extremely overpriced, causing restaurants to remove it from their offerings.

Canada once produced its own lettuce and with advancements in vertical gardens, hydroponics, greenhouses, and other growing methods, there is no reason that something like greens couldn’t be grown on a local scale year-round to reduce the country’s reliance on imported foodstuffs. Local food is fresher, more nutritious and of a higher quality overall than imported foods that have been forced to ripen on a truck or an airplane. As such, a local food supply could do so much more than just reduce food insecurity on a basic level: it could contribute to a healthier population and environment.

Part of the reason locally grown foods offer better quality and taste is that when you eat local you’re eating in season, so the food is at the peak of its flavour and freshness. It will also contain more of the nutrients needed by the body at the time of harvest. Fresh foods can be preserved in a number of ways to be enjoyed year-round.

It’s also an investment in the environment. Beyond more sustainable, equitable, and holistic agricultural and employment practices, local suppliers need less fuel-intensive transportation to bring their products to markets. From farm stands to pick-your-own options, there’s a far smaller footprint associated with local food systems, which most of the time end up being organic.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Association (FAO) defines organic agriculture as: “a holistic production management system which promotes and enhances agroecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity. It emphasizes the use of management practices in preference to the use of off-farm inputs, considering that regional conditions require locally adapted systems.”

Organic is based on four principles: health, fairness, care, and ecology. Organic processes emphasize sustainable, cultural, biological, and mechanical methods in place of synthetic pesticides and agrochemicals. On the other hand, mass agricultural production relying on synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, and agrochemicals has contributed to land degradation which negatively impacts over 3.2 million people around the world.

The harsh reality, according to the FAO, is that agriculture is the largest employer in the world, but those who do 80 percent of the agricultural work also represent the majority of the global poor.

Given these figures, the focus not only needs to be on how to grow more food, but also on how to preserve the environment, ensure equitable employment standards for agricultural workers (many of whom are temporary foreign workers who work for inadequate pay in less than ideal conditions), and ensure that food is grown so as to provide optimal nutritional value, freshness, and quality.

Rightly, the figures presented should generate an ominous feeling of insecurity in all of us: even a developed country like Canada is susceptible to food insecurity, and in fact, many Canadians continue to fall into that condition each day.

The good news is that the country doesn’t have to be dependent on other nations for its food and other necessities. Canada encompasses much arable land that’s ideal for growing and though some parts of it will have a shorter growing season because of the colder months, there are technological advancements that should encourage the nation to grow more of its own food supply.

Investments in organic transition programs, funding to support sustainable agriculture, greater adoption of community gardens, and investment in infrastructure and food education could bolster domestic capacity and strengthen domestic supply chains.

This is particularly important in the context of the current economic environment: prices are rising with no sign of slowing and income is not keeping pace; a persistent housing shortage is being exacerbated by rising mortgage rates on already inflated housing prices; gas prices are climbing; and more and more people are having to choose between housing or sustenance.

The recent train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio also emphasizes the importance of preserving our fresh water supply—along with any resource that could be threatened and upon which the population relies—in addition to our food supply.

When resources are in short supply, geopolitical tensions and conflicts are also heightened, which means now is the time to invest in local capacity to reduce our reliance on an external supply chain that at any point could be interrupted. Besides, local food supplies are better for individual health, the wellbeing of the community, the strength of the local economy, and the environment.

The post Overcoming Food Insecurity<p class="company">A Local Approach to a Global Problem</p> appeared first on Business In Focus Magazine.

COTA is the membership-based association for organic agriculture and products in Canada and represents the entire organic supply chain: growers, processors, distributors, consultants, and retailers. The organization focuses on improved market access, data and research, government relations, and regulatory affairs to expand awareness about organic and its many benefits.

“Organic is 3.3 percent of market share in Canada, but we are the fifth largest organic market in the world,” says Tia Loftsgard, Executive Director of COTA, of the Canadian organic sector. “We are very much an import nation for organic with much of our organic production in Canada being exported, therefore we play a major role on the world market for raw commodities. But the opportunity that we have that COVID exposed is that we should be sourcing and producing as much locally as we can.”

Why organic?
Most people are familiar with the word organic, but not with the effort that goes into ensuring that certification is achieved and upheld. Organic is the only federally regulated sustainability assurance system that encompasses the entirety of the production system: from field to purchase.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Association (FAO) defines organic agriculture as “a holistic production management system which promotes and enhances agroecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity. It emphasizes the use of management practices in preference to the use of off-farm inputs, considering that regional conditions require locally adapted systems.”

This is accomplished using sustainable cultural, biological, and mechanical methods instead of synthetic pesticides and agrochemicals, the overuse of which has caused soil and water contamination and a loss of biodiversity. The health of people and the environment are prioritized throughout.

As Loftsgard notes, “The organic sector cares about everything, not just about the production methods. They also care about having more sustainable packaging and reducing plastic in the world. We respond to what the market needs.”

Organic is a consumer-led initiative that allows consumers to use their purchasing power to put their values to work: supporting equitable employment practices and sustainable and holistic environmental practices, and at the same time satisfying their desire for more nutritious, fresh, quality products.

Loftsgard lists the four principles on which organic production is founded: “The principles of organic are health, fairness, care, and ecology. You can see many elements that tie into addressing rising food insecurity.” It begins with rethinking how food is grown.

“Organic requires a lot of training and education,” she says. “It does take a leap of faith to get the education and training to move in a new farming direction,” but its positive outcomes cannot be overlooked.

Mass agricultural production has contributed to land degradation, which is a direct threat to food and water security, which in turn becomes a source of conflict and migration, and that’s not the best way to meet the needs of an increasingly food-insecure population around the world.

Land degradation negatively impacts over 3.2 million people around the world. According to the FAO, agriculture is the largest employer in the world, but those who do 80 percent of the agricultural work also represent the majority of the global poor. By 2050, two billion people are expected to be malnourished unless significant changes to the global food and agriculture system are made.

The focus not only needs to be on how to grow more food, but also on how to preserve the environment, and ensure that food is grown to have optimal nutritional value, freshness, and quality.

Some of the jurisdictions that have established organic transition programs most successfully offer funding and support for farmers who are working to become certified organic, as it takes three years to make the transition, a costly process that includes bringing the soil ecology and health up to the standard that is the foundation of organic agriculture.

“We place a great emphasis on healthy soil, with, every season, recycling organic materials back into the soil and in some cases utilizing new no-till methods that will allow the root and the fungi system to develop naturally without interference,” explains Loftsgard.

This calls for a lot of time and money, but it’s worth it as organic agricultural principles promote more resilient lands that withstand the impacts of climate and pests without the need for synthetic pesticides or fertilizer and reduce the need for irrigation, which saves money, reduces water use, and improves biodiversity and health outcomes for people, the environment, and the economy.

Overcoming barriers
The full advantages and market potential of the organic sector in Canada have yet to be fully realized and that won’t be until some changes are made, including greater government involvement and support in the form of stronger policies, infrastructure, and financial backing.

The Federal Government introduced national organic regulations in 2009 and continues to promote sustainability, but the country still lacks the necessary infrastructure and resources that are required to advance the sector.

As Loftsgard says, “The Canada Organic Regime is federally regulated. It is law. The logo and the word organic are owned by the Canada Food Inspection Agency, yet they do little promotion or education about what it is. They leave that to the industry.”

Government infrastructure by way of a Canada Organic Program would offer a growth strategy and plan for the organic sector to increase organic acreage, and increase investment and funding for the sector, thus creating mechanisms to enforce and review standards while strengthening the organic brand. It would also assist in improving data collection to better differentiate organic from conventional to help maximize the sector’s capacity.

Similarly, as organic systems are likely to be part of local or regional food systems, whereby reliance on fuel-intensive transportation is greatly diminished, the government could also play a more active role in facilitating market/buyer interactions and developing processing and distribution capacity to strengthen local markets and support more sustainable food systems across the country.

However, when it comes to sustainability, the government, with its most recent funding program, has overlooked the organic producers who have been actively contributing to sustainability using holistic approaches for some time.

“The Federal Government has introduced an On-Farm Climate Action Fund where they are encouraging non-organic to move toward more sustainable practices, yet organic farmers have been doing it on their own for many years without any support,” says Loftsgard, who hopes that there will be an opportunity for organic as part of Agriculture Canada’s Sustainable Agriculture Strategy.

“It’s great to see that finally, the government is starting to think about how they can have encouraging policies and programs, but it’s yet to be seen how organic will position in that once the consultations are done and they’ve put the whole strategy in place.”

Interestingly, part of the government’s overall strategy includes the deregulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and some new genetic engineering technology, which Loftsgard cites as “an imminent threat.” As such, COTA is working to ensure that the government understands the implications of this decision and will find solutions that will not be disadvantageous to the organic sector.

A collective future
Through its work, COTA endeavours to recognize organic and its many advantages on a greater scale. In partnership with other organizations, COTA will be making a formal submission for the next federal budget to hopefully gain support for an Organic Action Plan that will advance the sector as it matures, using the success of other jurisdictions as a framework for growth.

On the international stage, Denmark has a 90 percent acceptance rate for organic, and closer to home, Quebec has set its own Organic Action Plan with clearly established land conversion goals, programs, and support mechanisms like a transition program, infrastructure and resources, and a strong consumer education program, which could be adapted for use at the national level.

What is clear is that organic can help the Canadian Government achieve its sustainability goals while fighting against food insecurity and environmental degradation and there are countless strategies that can effectively meet those ends.

Whether it is funding for farmers, stronger policies, better crop insurance that reflects the full range and value of organic crops at a premium, a transition program, an organic plan, or increased education and awareness, COTA will continue to advance the cause of its members.

In this way, COTA will mitigate some of the risk shouldered by organic producers who are working to ensure that consumers enjoy organic products and their many benefits.

The post Advocating for Organic<p class="company">Canada Organic Trade Association (COTA)</p> appeared first on Business In Focus Magazine.

John Elkington put forth the theory in 1994 to measure corporate performance and to challenge companies to re-examine their approach to capitalism. The British management consultant, serial entrepreneur, and sustainability thought-leader wanted to propel companies toward a new way of thinking that would improve the wellbeing of both people and planet.

Traditionally, profit is the driving force behind a business and its measurement of success. Within the TBL framework, profit covers more ground than just how much money a company clears at the end of the day. Adherents must earn profits ethically and fairly, while also recognizing the impact that the company’s financial decisions have on others. This could mean utilizing local vendors and small businesses to support the community, paying their fair share of taxes, paying back loans on time, and investing financially into the community through corporate sponsorships, development projects, and more.

When it comes to people, a corporation’s primary concern is usually its shareholders. The people-centered focus of TBL shifts this concern to include all stakeholders, a broad category covering virtually everyone who comes in contact with the business. These people may not have a direct financial stake in the company, as shareholders do, but they still have a very real interest in, and are affected by, the way the business operates.

Employees are perhaps the most obvious group of people to fit the stakeholder category. According to the TBL philosophy, they must be given a safe environment to work in and earn a fair wage. They also need to be given a chance to develop professionally and better their situation, if applicable. Customers deserve safe, effective products developed with their feedback in mind. Vendors should be diverse and, when possible, small, locally owned businesses. Minority-owned businesses and woman-owned businesses should also be prioritized.

The planet, and the impact the company makes on it, is the third component of the triple bottom line. Rather than making choices based solely on cost savings, the TBL way of doing business requires companies to consider the welfare of the environment. In fact, cost savings no longer becomes the ultimate metric; environmental impact becomes a new, broader way of measuring a company’s success. This means that companies might not necessarily choose the most economical option. Indeed, sustainable alternatives are often more expensive but, according to the TBL, their benefits to the planet outweigh the extra cost.

Specific actions to reduce negative impact on the planet might include reducing the company’s carbon footprint, reducing or eliminating its use of toxic substances, utilizing natural resources, and reducing waste. To positively impact the planet, companies must go a step farther, taking on initiatives such as reforestation, waste removal, and environmental clean-up.

Our ideas around corporate responsibility have certainly evolved since Elkington coined the phrase ‘triple bottom line,’ with sustainability appearing to have become an important factor in how many companies do business. The TBL concepts have played a strong role in bringing about that change. But in 2018, Elkington “recalled” the theory, arguing in a Harvard Business Review article that the radical goal behind the TBL had been swept to the wayside. Rather than embracing true, systemic change, too many early adopters reduced his idea to a mere accounting and reporting tool—a balancing act in which companies adopted a “trade-off mentality.”

But the change was meant to be deep and disruptive. “TBL’s stated goal from the outset was system change—pushing toward the transformation of capitalism. It was never supposed to be just an accounting system,” Elkington writes. Instead, the principles were meant to be a “genetic code, a triple helix of change” for the future of capitalism.

Yet, many companies continue to put profit first while simultaneously earning the public’s goodwill for their environmental consciousness. It appears that Elkington’s recall is not due to a problem he has with the theory itself, but rather with the way it is being incorrectly applied or even, perhaps, twisted for advantage.

Elkington does not call for an end to the concept he coined, but rather “a strategic recall to do some fine tuning.” He points out that the success or failure of a company’s sustainability goals cannot be determined through profit and loss alone. Instead, the health of our planet, and the wellbeing of the billions of people populating it, must also be the deciding metric. He acknowledges there have been successes when it comes to sustainability, but that the Earth’s resources and climate remain under ever-increasing threat. “It is time to either step up—or to get out of the way,” he concludes.

Fortunately, there are some organizations that seem to have adapted TBL principles as they were meant to be. Elkington’s article mentions Unilever by name as one of them. On its company website, the global giant describes itself as “a company of brands and people with a clear purpose: to make sustainable living commonplace.” The company has demonstrated this statement through a number of initiatives to reduce its carbon footprint, waste, energy use, packaging, and water consumption.

When it comes to people, Unilever has been a UNICEF corporate partner since 2012, working to improve the quality of life for children around the world. Its brand Lifebuoy—a major seller in regions with high infant mortality rates—works to reduce the spread of disease through a hand washing initiative. Unilever has also worked to provide people with access to sanitary toilets and education. Dove, one of Unilever’s major brands, launched Dove’s Self Esteem Project to positively impact people’s self-acceptance and self-esteem.

Patagonia is another company that adheres to the triple bottom line. People come first, with employees receiving a fair wage, good benefits including health care, flexible work schedules, paid time off for environmental internships and, in some locations, subsidized childcare, according to the company website.

Patagonia does not produce its own products or own any of the factories that do. “This arrangement poses special challenges for us because we feel responsible for any work,” the company website states. Taking responsibility for this sourcing is an important TBL component.

“When considering new factories, or evaluating current ones, we take a ‘4-Fold’ vetting approach—one that considers social and environmental practices equally with quality standards and business requirements, like financial stability, adequate capacity and fair pricing,” the company website states. Patagonia even has a Social and Environmental Responsibility (SER) team to help ensure that the company doesn’t source from factories that don’t share its social and environmental values.

The TBL concepts have had an undeniable impact on how business is done around the world—and, in turn, on profits, people, and the planet. While not always carried out as Elkington intended, the companies that do adhere to the principles offer a hopeful glimpse into the potential that businesses have to embrace a bottom line that covers more than simple earnings, for the good of all.

The post People, Planet, Profit<p class="company">The Triple Bottom Line</p> appeared first on Business In Focus Magazine.