Deforestation-Linked Brazilian Farms ‘Not in Breach’ of Better Cotton Standard

Jasmin Malik Chua
·6 min read

Better Cotton says that a third-party audit has found no breach of its standards at certified farms recently linked to environmental and human rights abuses in Brazil, although the allegations themselves, plus “additional analysis carried out internally,” have inspired it to expand its due diligence process.

The world’s largest sustainable cotton initiative published the results of its Peterson-conducted assessment on Tuesday, two weeks after London-based nonprofit Earthsight implicated fashion giants H&M and Zara owner Inditex in corruption, illegal deforestation, land grabbing and violence against local communities in the ecologically sensitive Cerrado region through their use of Grupo Horita and SLC Agrícola’s “tainted” cotton.

More from Sourcing Journal

But Earthsight said that the scope of the audit, which focused on three locations that Better Cotton said were licensed at the time of the investigation, already throws its conclusions into doubt. None of them, for instance, are located in Estrondo, a mega-farm in western Bahia where the nonprofit said the worst violations were taking place. It also “ignores the fact” that two of the farms have their legal reserves on the traditional lands of Capão do Modesto, even if they are “far removed” from the indigenous groups known as geraizeiros, as the audit notes.

That only three sites were examined is also an issue, said Rubens Carvalho, head of deforestation research at Earthsight. Both Grupo Horita and SLC Agrícola claim that all of their production sites are certified and the Brazilian Association of Cotton Producers, better known by its Portuguese acronym ABRAPA, states that 14 of the companies’ farms in Bahia grow Better Cotton.

“This so-called ‘investigation’ is so flawed as to be almost worthless. The investigators examined a tiny proportion of the farms claiming to be producing Better Cotton where we alleged serious harms were occurring, and assessed them in a narrow manner [that] ignored the complexities of the issues we uncovered,” Carvalho said. “This blinkered effort at greenwash won’t cut it with the public, and it shouldn’t with H&M and Zara.”

(H&M said it did not have a comment to share at the time. Inditex, which wrote a pointed letter to Better Cotton CEO Alan McClay last month to say that the allegations “represent a serious breach in the trust placed in Better Cotton‘s certification process by both our group and our product suppliers,” did not respond to an emailed request.)

Better Cotton insists, however, that the other farms in question weren’t covered by the standard during Earthsight’s timeframe. Peterson’s “enhanced check” also involved the use of maps, satellite images, official documents, literature and interviews with all the stakeholders involved, including Grupo Horita, SLC Agrícola, ABRAPA and Better Cotton.

The London- and Geneva-headquartered organization said that the audit found “no relation” between Earthsight’s allegations “relating to community impact” and the three Better Cotton-producing farms. It also found that the sites registered with the Rural Environmental Registry, a self-declaratory if mandatory database of rural properties, and therefore comply with ​​ABRAPA’s Responsible Brazilian Cotton, or ABR, protocol, which Better Cotton considers an equivalent standard. The farms are also certified by the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources, meaning that their use and conversion of land for cotton farming hews to both national legislation and the ABR standard. As for deforestation, Earthsight’s exposé refers to fines that pre-date the farms’ participation in the Better Cotton program, the audit said, adding that the use of satellite imagery confirms that no new land has been converted on them since 2008.

“There is no evidence of the illegal spraying of pesticides as alleged,” Better Cotton said. “The embargos on spraying were lifted in 2018 so the aerial sprays highlighted in the report were legal. The complaint did not provide objective evidence the farms applied pesticides in violation of legal distancing.”

But Carvalho called Peterson’s analysis “extremely unsatisfactory and incomplete.” If the ABR protocol is on par with Better Cotton’s standard, then why does the report say that the latter needs to “evolve to become more focused on issues such as community needs and cultural values of lands?” he asked. Or to ensure that land conversion doesn’t happen in areas of high conservation value? And why did the audit recommend that ABR criteria should be strengthened to ensure that producers are not engaged in corruption?

He also pointed out that Earthsight’s criticism was not so much with compliance but with the ability of the standard to promote traceability, protect land use and safeguard indigenous rights.

Better Cotton itself admits that the audit did not extend to the agribusinesses that own the farms, since both it and ABRAPA’s standards are limited to farm operations and cotton production. “It’s not surprising then that Better Cotton could not find any links to corruption,” Carvalho said. Both Estrondo and the reserves at Capão do Modesto, he added, are the subjects of land-grabbing lawsuits. Better Cotton said that it’s unable to comment on any ongoing legal investigations into landowners.

“Better Cotton says the auditors have engaged the communities which have had their lands stolen, but information Earthsight has received from the field indicates no such engagement has yet taken place,” he said. “Better Cotton does not say which communities have been contacted. If its investigation did not look at Horita’s farms at Estrondo, it is unlikely the consultants will talk to the traditional communities there. Yet these communities have suffered violence, harassment, intimidation and restrictions of movement over the last decade as a result of Estrondo’s land grabbing.”

Better Cotton says that it welcomes scrutiny from watchdog groups such as Earthsight, as they “help to shine a spotlight on areas where both farm and regulatory oversight need to improve.”

While the latest version of its standard is the “toughest yet” and demonstrates its commitment to “bringing the cotton industry on a journey of continuous improvement,” the platform is now “actively considering” conducting direct due diligence on large corporate owners of cotton farms due to the “wider impact of these businesses.”

A “further component” of Better Cotton’s response, it said, will be to “encourage and support additional engagement across commodity stakeholder groups, standards bodies and certification schemes to remedy the adverse impacts associated with cotton production.” And while Better Cotton didn’t specifically address its—controversial—use of “mass balance,” which allows conventional cotton to be mixed in with Better Cotton at different stages of the supply chain, It said that it aims, by 2025, to offer traceability not only at a country level but also at the ginning stage, “which is only one step removed from the farm.”

“That’s an improvement and it’s the first time we hear this,” Carvalho said. “Is this a reaction to our investigation? While better, this level of traceability is still inadequate. Cotton must be traced back to farms of origin, which is the level where land grabbing, illegal deforestation and human rights violations take place.”