26 SEPTEMBER 2014 • WORLD AQUACULTURE • WWW.WAS.ORG must more than double food production to meet the needs of more than nine billion people. We must produce more food by the end of this century than we’ve produced in the last 10,000 years combined. To meet that challenge we have to embrace new models of public engagement that build and maintain public trust and our social license to operate. We need stakeholders who control social license to understand that, while our systems have changed and our use of technology has increased, our commitment to doing what is right has never been stronger. We need to be able to verify our claims with objective science and we must be able to continue to operate profitably if we want to survive. We need to adopt systems and practices that are ethically grounded, scientifically verified and economically viable (Fig. 4). If food system practices are not ethically grounded, they will not achieve broad-based societal acceptance and support. If they are not scientifically verified there is no way to evaluate and validate the claims of sustainability and, if they are not economically viable, they cannot be commercially sustained. This model encourages stakeholders to look for balance in an effort to find true sustainability. With this balance, we create systems that are truly sustainable. Ethically Grounded. Those who focus on ethics want food system practices that are consistent with the shared values of compassion, responsibility, respect, fairness and truth. They want to ensure that our increasingly sophisticated and technologically advanced food system does not put profits ahead of ethical principles and that science is not used as moral justification. When this side of the triangle is out of balance, critics claim there is no scientific basis for the claims being made and that the ethical demands will jeopardize the economic viability of the system. Scientifically Verified. Those with a primary interest in scientific verification are data driven. They want specific, measurable and repeatable observations to provide the basis for their objective decisions. They believe science can provide the insight and guidance necessary to make reasonable determinations about how food systems should be managed. When this side of the triangle is out of balance, critics claim the organization is relying on science while ignoring ethical considerations and that research may be done and recommendations made without consideration of the economic impact. Economically Viable. Those responsible for the bottom line are focused on profitability. They work every day to respond to demand, control costs and increase efficiency to maximize return on investment. They must manage the increasingly complex demands of competing in a global marketplace with volatile commodity markets and ruthless competition. When this side of the triangle is out of balance, critics claim profits outweigh ethical principles and that business decisions are made without the benefit of scientific verification, placing those decisions at risk when questioned by those who value validation. If we cannot operate a system that maintains a balance of practices that are ethically grounded, scientifically verified and economically viable, it will collapse. That collapse may subject producers, processors, restaurants or retailers to undue pressure that includes consumer protests or boycotts, unfavorable shareholder resolutions, uninformed supply chain mandates, regulation, legislation, litigation or bankruptcy. Maintaining balance is never easy. Success demands an increased level of communication and engagement and willingness to look for solutions that are ethically grounded, scientifically verified and economically viable for each segment of the food system. Only by working with stakeholders across the food chain can we maintain the integrity of a sustainable system. Doing so begins with realizing that transparency is no longer optional. Any person with a smartphone is an on-the-scene reporter and social media networks provide instant communications to thousands of friends and followers. Food companies must provide information to consumers about a company’s supply chain and its commitment to safe food, food integrity and maintaining the quality and safety of products. It is a matter of making sure the appropriate systems are in place to back up those claims. Building Trust through Transparency If an incident occurs, the key is to engage with consumers early by accepting responsibility, apologizing and helping people understand what is being done to rectify the situation. The Maple Leaf Foods deli meat Listeria outbreak of 2008 provides a great case study of a company that responded well. It was a devastating incident that resulted in loss of life and many illnesses. Maple Leaf accepted responsibility, apologized publicly and redoubled efforts to assure food safety. The company suffered $13 million in losses the year of the recall but rebounded with a $22 million profit the following year. Stock shares took only three months to return to pre-recall levels. While the loss of life can never be reduced to money, stock price is an indicator of how well the company recovered from an incident that could devastate or destroy an organization that is ill-prepared. CFI research quantifies specific social outrage factors and defines the attributes of trust-building transparency. Two factors FIGURE 4. Maintaining public support requires that our food system be more sustainable, which will require implementing practices that are ethically justified, scientifically verified, and economically viable.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjExNDY=