What is the value of certification? That was the question asked to a panel of experts at yesterday’s Sustainability in Drinks event. Lizzy O’Riordan reports on the results 

Sustainability certifications are well-intentioned. They’re a promise to the consumer that a producer is trying their best. A commitment from the producer to the earth. But with the dizzying number of options on offer – organic, biodynamic, regenerative, Fairtrade, B Corp – it’s becoming increasingly difficult to know which holds the most value, a vital piece of information considering how lengthy and expensive the process can be. 

For some, too many certifications can lead to confusion. João Barrosa, director of sustainable development and R&D at the Wines of Alentejo Sustainability Programme, explained there’s a perception of risk around certifications because “there is an overlapping and a flood”, which makes them hard to tell apart. 

A twofold problem: for producers, there can be so many certifications that the value of each feels reduced; and for consumers, who “take three seconds to choose a product”, the sheer number of certifications can leave them feeling bombarded and confused by the complexity. 

Even within a single certification, things can be hard to understand, added Sebastian Tramon, sustainability manager at Emiliana. Using organic as an example, “every country and continent has their own regulations” when deciding on the criteria. And while he expressed his wish for more consolidation among organic benchmarks, the differences between each seem to be growing. 

Still, among wine sustainability experts, the consensus seems to be that certification is generally worthwhile. This is especially true for large producers who want to break into multiple markets. Rob George, compliance director for Europe at A Greener World, said: “Certification isn’t for everyone. We come across some very small vineyards who sell locally and don’t need access to wide markets.” 

Yet for producers who do want large expansion, George said that certifications hold value. He continued that many of the producers who apply for the Greener World certification “use that credibility and the third-party annual audit as their access to the market. It’s a way of proving they’re doing the things they’re saying”. 

Agreeing, Dr. Ed Massey, general manager of sustainability at New Zealand Winegrowers, said that the reputation that comes with certification “drives value across our industry”. He added that this will only become increasingly important “with a younger demographic that aligns with values associated with sustainability”. 

Looking for a solution to the fact that certification is valuable but also difficult, George from A Greener World said there needs to be a focus on administrative ease. Returning to organic, he commented that within his organisation, “If we had a producer who is certified organic, we would recognise that so that they don’t need to duplicate it.” However, he added that this doesn’t work for all sections: “Say for social responsibility, the EU organic standard doesn’t measure that, so we’d need to ask about that separately.” 

Likewise, searching for resolutions, Barrosa suggested that retailers can help with consumer confusion. This can be done on a small level – by communicating the different certifications on a display – or on a much more radical scale, by embedding “the green feature of the product into the strategy of the company”. Drawing a parallel to furniture shop IKEA, which made the internal choice to purchase only FSC-certified wood, Barrosa posited that if retailers required certified wines, it wouldn’t be left to the time-poor consumer to figure it out. 

An ever-evolving and challenging topic, certifications are not perfect, agreed the experts. But they’re also something we should continue working on and toward.