Newsletter
Don't miss a thing!
We regularly provide you with the most important news, articles, topics, projects and ideas for One World – No Hunger.
Newsletter
Don't miss a thing!
We regularly provide you with the most important news, articles, topics, projects and ideas for One World – No Hunger.
Please also refer to our data protection declaration.
How can successful sustainability solutions grow without losing sight of local realities? Carolina Jaramillo Ferrer and Felix Strauss explore what it takes to bring them to scale, from community ownership and strong partnerships to data, policy and shared responsibility.
Carolina Jaramillo Ferrer: When working with communities, the most important criterion is that the initiative responds to a genuine need and aspiration identified by the community itself.
Sustainable change can only happen when people see value in the project and choose to engage actively in the process.
In Colombia, for example, two decades ago much of the conversation focused on people's rights, but far less attention was given to their responsibilities. As a result, some communities came to see themselves primarily as beneficiaries rather than as active agents of change.
For us, a key factor in selecting the communities we work with is their willingness to participate and contribute. We look for communities that have already raised their hand, demonstrated initiative, and are committed to being part of the solution, not simply recipients of support.
Another essential consideration is understanding their vulnerabilities. By identifying the most pressing challenges and barriers they face, we can design interventions that are both relevant and capable of generating lasting impact. When there is a clear community commitment combined with a genuine need, the conditions are in place for a project to grow, be replicated, and ultimately scale.
Felix Strauss: Generally, when we think about parameters to determine the selection process of projects for us, it has to balance credibility, impact and feasibility. On the one hand, sector-wide commitments are particularly important because they help establish a level playing field. They are key for us, and we look for strong sector-wide sustainability commitments that create consistent expectations for suppliers and help avoid fragmented approaches across retailers. They also help to minimise the risk of a race to the bottom.
We also look for strong local stakeholder support, or the potential to build it. At the same time, we take account of sector-specific differences and local context, as these can influence decisions on both project application and scale. These are crucial in globally integrated sectors such as bananas, where a robust multi-stakeholder approach is essential. And that's definitely something we've learned from.
Strauss: When we get into projects, we ask whether the suppliers we're working with are long-term partners and whether we have transparent costing approaches that allow us to understand if the sustainable cost of production can be covered. We also consider the readiness of suppliers and growers to engage in partnership more broadly. Lastly, we assess the potential for scalability and impact, taking into account the administrative complexity and technical practicality.
Jaramillo Ferrer: It depends on the scale and scope of the initiative. Communities can range from a small neighbourhood to an entire municipality, and each context has its own characteristics that must be respected.
In our experience, scaling does not mean abandoning local realities; rather, it means identifying approaches that can be adapted across different contexts while remaining relevant to each community's specific needs.
We look for projects that have a flexible design and can accommodate different variables. Often, when positive changes take place within a community, neighbouring communities observe the benefits and become interested in adopting similar approaches. This creates a natural process of growth and replication. However, for this expansion to generate meaningful impact, the communities involved need to be sufficiently connected. The “seeds” of change must be planted close enough to one another so that they can interact, learn from each other, and reinforce progress. When communities are too geographically or socially dispersed, the collective effect becomes much weaker and it is more difficult to build the momentum needed for lasting transformation at scale. In short, local context remains essential. The key is to scale principles and approaches, not to replicate solutions identically, while ensuring that communities can connect and strengthen one another throughout the process.
Jaramillo Ferrer: …yes, and in order to make that transformation happen, other aspects become less important. There are many basic needs that are unsatisfied. Sometimes you cannot just focus on one, you also have to address the others. For example, you want to make education better. Hence, you improve the facilities, work with the teachers, improve the governance of the school. But there are kids arriving at school without having anything to eat. So if their nutrition is not sufficient – even though you have made all the other changes – they won’t be able to learn the way they should be learning. It's hard to measure because so many factors are interconnected.
Strauss: Sector-wide collaboration has its strengths, but also raises a set of interconnected challenges. If a project starts as a single-company initiative or a highly unilateral effort, you can run into issues here.
You need to be mindful that one retailer alone cannot implement systemic sector-wide change, so scaling ultimately requires additional actors to come on board.
We have seen that retailers working together can create a more stable foundation for what we call pre-competitive collaboration, establishing regular, honest dialogue that helps build trust. I think this trust is particularly important in all directions, both horizontally and vertically across the value chain. We learned that the hard way in the living wage banana space. Initially it was a very retailer-led initiative, where, in hindsight, there was too little focus on getting local stakeholder support and a stronger focus at this as a one supply chain project. Experience has shown that meaningful scale requires broader participation and support from the outset.
Strauss: This can be a significant barrier. We've experienced that the lack of national structures and institutions, or a lack of motivation of these structures to engage in such projects, can really hamper scalability. Often, a project starts in a particular region rather than across an entire country. When you look to scale it nationally, you can encounter barriers from national institutions that were not apparent at the regional level. At the same time, when supportive national structures and strong local partnerships are in place, scaling can happen much more effectively and create impact well beyond the initial project area.
Strauss: If you haven't thought of these issues from the start, you can run into challenges when it comes to scaling later on. The larger a project becomes, the more data it generates, and the greater is the need for a robust data architecture and governance structure to support it. Innovative sustainability projects do not always have an established proof of concept, which can mean limited data is available in the early stages. In short, it means that we must plan for scalability from the outset, particularly when it comes to administrative feasibility. The earlier these considerations are built into a project, the easier it becomes to scale successful approaches and maximise their impact over time.
Jaramillo Ferrer: In international cooperation, projects often come with predefined goals, methodologies, and implementation frameworks. However, we believe initiatives are more effective when the people experiencing the challenges are actively involved in shaping the solutions. They are the ones who truly understand the local context and can identify what matters most in their communities.
Sometimes, issues that may seem highly relevant from an external perspective are not the most pressing priorities on the ground. In other cases, concepts such as gender may feel too abstract or sophisticated for a particular context, whereas a broader conversation about inclusion resonates more effectively. Understanding and working with the local context is very important for us. It means listening to these voices and designing solutions together.
Jaramillo Ferrer: Of course.
Strauss: They are definitely important stakeholders to have in these projects. We see a diverse landscape among NGOs and certifiers. Some organisations have a stronger local presence and a deeper understanding of local contexts, which makes them particularly valuable partners. They can play a highly influential role. We speak a lot about scaling, but any successful large-scale or international project also needs partners that can help adapt it to local realities. Some NGOs are especially effective in this regard because of their strong local connection to the communities involved.
Jaramillo Ferrer: NGOs and certifiers can play an important role, and in some contexts they may still be necessary as facilitators or trusted intermediaries. However, I believe there is significant value in creating more direct conversations between those who want to support change and the communities that are experiencing the challenges firsthand.
Too often, substantial resources are invested in layers of intermediation. If we can build stronger direct relationships based on trust, transparency, and shared objectives, a greater proportion of those resources can reach the communities themselves.
This would not only increase the impact of investments but also empower communities to play a more active role in defining and implementing solutions. For me, the key is not eliminating intermediaries altogether, but ensuring that their involvement adds real value and that the maximum possible benefit ultimately reaches the people and communities we are trying to support.
Strauss: Data and previous experience can be a crucial and decisive factor in sustainability projects, although it always depends on the type of project. Take a living wage project as an example. You are dealing with payrolls and salary systems, and collecting large amounts of data that need to be analysed. Of course for that, we initially worked with an Excel-based tool, whereas today we use an online solution. Even so, the volume of underlying data remains significant.
And then you have other projects which are more beneficiary-oriented that may require a different approach. For example, when working with local communities, the key questions might be: Who has benefited from this project? How many people got a certain benefit? We are also increasingly engaging in environmental projects, and here the data requirements can vary considerably. Some projects are relatively straightforward, such as rolling out a tool or providing capacity-building training. Others, particularly implementation projects in areas such as regenerative agriculture, are much more data-intensive.
Strauss: Absolutely. As projects become more sophisticated, robust data becomes increasingly important. All of a sudden, you may need third-party verification because there's so much data. For example, you may be measuring soil organic carbon and other environmental outcomes, which requires specialist expertise and independent verification.
Jaramillo Ferrer: This is a very important issue for us. Measuring impact is essential, but it is equally important that the cost of measurement does not exceed the value of the investment itself. That is why we believe in working closely with the source, building trust, and keeping systems as simple and practical as possible. Another challenge is that environmental projects are often easier to measure because their outcomes are more tangible and easier to track.
Social projects are different. They involve changes in behaviours, attitudes, and culture, and those types of transformations are much harder to quantify. Cultural change, for example, is often necessary to create lasting improvements, but it does not always fit neatly into conventional metrics. As Felix mentioned with the example of living wages, some of the most important changes take place over time and cannot always be measured with complete certainty. We still need data, but we also need to recognize the limitations of measurement, particularly when it comes to social impact.
Jaramillo Ferrer: In Colombia, the needs are enormous, so government involvement is essential. In many cases, partnerships work best when companies contribute part of the investment and the government contributes the rest. This co-investment approach helps ensure that public resources are directed toward the territory where the project is being implemented. For us, having that commitment is crucial.
We have found that governments are more willing to engage when there is already a strong local partnership in place that is also willing to make a meaningful financial contribution. This is particularly important in rural areas, where development costs are significantly higher than in urban centres due to transportation, logistics, and limited access to materials and services. By investing in these territories, companies can help attract additional public funding and create the conditions for broader transformation.
Jaramillo Ferrer: When we look at territories that have successfully transformed, they are often places where major industries have established a long-term presence. Those businesses create networks, attract investment, and generate opportunities for further development.
At the same time, due diligence and corporate responsibility are essential. Companies have an important role to play, but they cannot replace the state. If governments do not fulfill their responsibilities, even a company’s full profits would not be enough to address all the social and infrastructure gaps that communities face. Working together with governments can be challenging, but it is necessary and ultimately far more effective in creating sustainable change.
Strauss: A couple of things. In our view, infrastructure and the state play an essential role because many on-the-ground changes require more than better purchasing practices, good projects or good project design. National institutions enable long-lasting solutions. Achieving durable improvements depends on embedding initiatives in national and international structures, supported by relevant institutions such as on one hand ministries, but also on the other hand, UN entities like the ILO that can help coordinate stakeholders and sustain progress over the long term.
We also see robust mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation as essential. We are a strong supporter of such legislation because it is an important step towards upholding human rights and environmental standards in global supply chains. As a retailer operating in 11 countries and sourcing from more than 100 sourcing countries, we recognise the importance of consistent frameworks that help create a level playing field. That’s why we have a strong track record of publicly supporting EU-wide due diligence legislation such as the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).
Jaramillo Ferrer: A lot. I completely agree with what Felix just said. And there are two additional aspects that are important for us.
First, when companies and governments invest together, it is essential that these partnerships are not used for political gain.
Long-term commitment and continuity are critical for achieving meaningful results. The second aspect is trust. In some of the regions where we work, security conditions can be very challenging. This year, for example, we will not be able to visit all the farms because of the situation in one of those areas. We understand the need for verification, but there are times when partners must trust the local actors who are implementing the work on the ground. Not everything can be observed directly, and building impact at scale requires a certain degree of confidence that the process is working, even when circumstances make full visibility difficult.
Strauss: From the company's perspective, we strongly support the implementation of the CSDDD and the German Supply Chain Act. These legislations represent clear advancements and help create the level playing field that is so important to us. We see the CSDDD as a key enabler for advancing both human rights and environmental protection.
Consistent regulatory frameworks can play an important role in reducing fragmentation across markets and supply chains. By establishing common expectations and standards, they help align approaches across sectors and create greater certainty for companies, suppliers and other stakeholders. Ultimately, that makes collective action easier and supports more effective progress on shared sustainability challenges.
Jaramillo Ferrer: In theory, these regulations and initiatives are meant to help us. In practice, however, that is often not the case. Too frequently, requirements are written into contracts and producers are simply told: “you must comply with this and this,” regardless of whether those requirements fit the local reality. Building a sustainable supply chain cannot be the responsibility of producers alone. Europe also has a role to play.
Strengthening supply chains requires genuine participation and shared responsibility. It is not enough to provide training or impose standards. It also means ensuring that investments flow back into producing regions and that solutions are developed together. What concerns us most is the lack of context. We see political statements, regulations, and legislation coming from Europe and the United States that may look very good on paper but are often disconnected from the realities on the ground. The key question is not whether a policy sounds good in principle. The key question is: what impact will it actually have in the territories and communities where it is expected to be implemented? Without that understanding, there is a real risk of creating requirements that are well intentioned but ineffective, or even counterproductive.
Jaramillo Ferrer: Let's take chemicals, for example. Some of them should no longer be used. But we need to understand the difference between a rainforest and a dry forest environment. For example, 70% of the banana production in Colombia comes from rainforest areas, where disease pressure is high. And we need to use certain pesticides because there are no other things that work. It doesn't make any sense. We have to find a way in between.
And when you say, "let's work organic" – organic production may cost three times as much. Are you willing to pay three times more for the same product? These are the kinds of things you have to analyse. And to put it in a local context, the government just raised the minimum wages, which is the living wage number by the ILO. But so far for having a good idea and not good doing it: Thousands of jobs were lost because of that, because the companies and people cannot afford it. This will break down the country. It is impossible. We won't be competitive.
Strauss: I think so. When designing a project, many people often think about where it will take place and who needs to be involved. What is often overlooked is how those stakeholders are integrated into the project from the very beginning. From our experience, investing more time in early engagement and co-design can make a significant difference to both the effectiveness and long-term success of a project. But too little time is often spent on actually integrating them into the early project design.