Antworten von Rainforest Alliance

Rainforest Alliance, eine Nichtregierungsorganisation mit Sitz in den USA, hat zu unserer Recherche ausführlich Stellung genommen. Wir geben anbei die Original-Antworten in Englisch wieder, welche wir am 11. März 2026 auf Anfrage per Email erhalten haben.

Certification and Audits 

1) Several plantations documented in our investigation — where workers report severe labor rights violations — are Rainforest Alliance certified. How do you explain that farms with alleged underpayment, excessive working hours, and unsafe conditions maintain certification? 

If a case of human or labor rights violations is found and confirmed on a Rainforest Alliance Certified farm, the focus is immediately and first on the safety of the victims, for example, making sure that mechanisms are in place to protect workers from retaliation. When human rights violations are confirmed, the producers must then work with other stakeholders to develop and implement remediation plans. Failure to do so can result in decertification. 

When credible, concrete allegations arise, Rainforest Alliance initiates an investigation, which can include unannounced audits and off-site interviews with workers. Investigation audits (conducted in response to a specific grievance, incident reported or substantial information received regarding the conformity of a CH) may be announced 24 hours in advance or conducted unannounced. Advance notice may depend on national security considerations or local property access laws. To support worker voice, the standard requires freedom of association and a functioning grievance mechanism. Workers may also submit complaints anonymously via the Rainforest Alliance website. 

We also work with producers to set up systems for mitigating and preventing against the occurrence of those practices. To prevent, mitigate, monitor, and address potential human and labor rights violations, CHs are required to follow an assess-and-address approach. Human rights violations have never been—and will never be—tolerated by the Rainforest Alliance. We have learned, however, through many years of experience that simply prohibiting these human rights violations in our standard is not enough. That is why our 2020 certification program promotes this risk-based approach that focuses on prevention, engagement, improvement, and incentivizing producers and companies to tackle these issues rather than hiding them.  

That said, regular certification audits cannot be expected to “find everything, everywhere, all the time”. No single organization or system can provide a 100% guarantee that such violations do not occur within a supply chain. Doing so would oversimplify a deeply complex problem that includes contributing factors including deep poverty, migration, and inequality. It takes everyone to fix systemic challenges – including governments, companies and other actors. 

2) What specific audit procedures were carried out on the plantations visited in the Escuintla department, in southern Guatemala, and when were the last inspections conducted? 

Certification audits are conducted by independent third-party Certification Bodies (CBs), not by the Rainforest Alliance. Those audits always include multi-day assessments involving desk review, fieldwork including worker interviews, stakeholder engagement, triangulation, and analysis. Investigation audits may be conducted when credible evidence of non-conformities is presented. This applies to all commodities and regions. 

The dates of the latest audits on farm Certificate Holders in the Guatemalan banana sector can be accessed publicly through the list of Certificate Holders on our website (under “Audit Details”). In the case of Frutera del Pacífico, a multi-farm Certificate Holder, the latest audit took place in mid-February 2026, and the audit results are still being processed. 

3) Are your audits announced in advance? If so, how do you ensure that workers can speak freely without fear of retaliation? 

As mentioned above, the audits are performed by third-party Certification Bodies (CBs), which are authorized and monitored by the Rainforest Alliance. The Rainforest Alliance sets requirements for CBs to follow regarding the audit process. For practical reasons, 90% of regular farm audits are announced and 10% are surprise audits. 

Several mechanisms are put in place to strengthen the audit process, e.g. a risk-based assurance process. This means that in case of increased risks on certain social topics, CBs are required to implement additional assurance mechanisms during the audit process. 

Additionally, CBs are required not to allow supervisors or management representatives to be present during worker interviews, to keep confidentiality and allow the workers to speak more freely. This can also entail off-site interviews. 

We require CBs to ensure that their staff is competent to perform audits against social requirements. Techniques to use during the audit and during worker interviews specifically are included in trainings for CBs. 

4) How do you verify working conditions among subcontractors and labor intermediaries linked to certified companies such as Chiquita? 

Rainforest Alliance certification applies to certified farms and certified supply chain actors. Independent CBs assess compliance of both farm certificate holders and supply chain certificate holders (such as Chiquita) with social, environmental, and managerial requirements. 

The requirements related to labor providers in our standard (5.3.7.) require CHs to have systems in place to monitor compliance of those labor providers with our requirements. CHs need to report those labor providers to the Rainforest Alliance. If labor providers are used, they need to be included in the audit sample (see Auditing Rules). 

Labor rights and wages 

5) Workers interviewed in Chiquita’s suppliers’ plantations claim to be paid below the legal agricultural minimum wage. Are these findings compatible with the Wages and Contracts requirements in the Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Agriculture Standard Farm Requirements? 

No. The Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Agriculture Standard requires that at a minimum, workers are paid the applicable minimum wage (requirement 5.3.4). 

6) Does Rainforest Alliance independently verify payroll records and wage compliance? 

The certification audits, performed by independent CBs, include social criteria assessments. During regular audits, the auditor will assess wage data to confirm compliance with requirements in section 5.3 and 5.4 of the standard. The Auditor Verification Protocol provides guidance and more detailed clarification. 

7) What mechanisms are in place to detect illegal deductions from workers’ salaries, such as charges for protective equipment or unclear cooperative fees? 

Standard requirement 5.3.4 elaborates which deductions are allowed under certain conditions. For example, deductions for tools or gear are not allowed unless legally permitted. CBs will verify compliance during the audit process, and grievance mechanisms as well as investigation audits can address credible allegations of non-conformity in this regard. 

8) How does Rainforest Alliance assess piece-rate payment systems that may push workers beyond safe productivity limits?  

The CBs verify this during audits, through a combination of document review (actual quotas received, payments made, working hours registered, weighing methods and revision of calibrations of such mechanisms) and interviews with workers and supervisors, among others. This is then cross-checked with health and safety risk assessments, incident records, observations of conditions such as heat/shade, etc., and protective equipment or mitigation measures. CBs are expected to have general knowledge on the sector and its risks and hence will have an idea of what common quotas are in the sector. 

9) Does your certification require payment of a living wage, or only compliance with national minimum wage laws?   

Standard requirement 5.3.3 requires compliance with the national minimum wage laws or any collective bargaining agreement relevant to the Rainforest Alliance Standard. Workers are paid at least whichever is higher. 

Earning a living wage is a fundamental human right and central to sustainable supply chains. While achieving a living wage remains aspirational in many sectors, our standard requires farms to measure prevailing wages, calculate the gap to a living wage, and are encouraged to produce a wage improvement plan (see standard requirement 5.4.1). Through premiums and sustainability investments, companies can contribute to closing these gaps, taking a shared responsibility approach across the supply chain. 

Living wage is recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ILO Constitution, but remains difficult to achieve in many commodities due to low prevailing prices and systemic cost pressures. 

Health, safety, and pesticide exposure 

10) Workers report regular aerial fumigation with pesticides, sometimes without warning or protective measures while they are still in the fields. Are these findings compatible with Agrochemicals Management and Aerial Application requirements in the Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Agriculture Standard Farm Requirements and the Farm Annex? 

No. For details see question 11. 

11) What safeguards are required by Rainforest Alliance to ensure workers are not exposed during aerial spraying? 

The standard (requirement 4.6.7) as well as the Farming Annex (requirements 4) allow aerial pesticide application only when no workers are present, surrounding roads are closed, and weather conditions are managed to limit drift. Audits assess the CH’s compliance with those requirements, for example through the mandatory application reports and interviews. See also Auditor Verification Protocol, requirement 4.6.7. 

12) How does Rainforest Alliance evaluate occupational exposure to agrochemicals during certification audits? 

It is verified by CBs during the audit process. See also the Auditor Verification Protocol, for example requirements 4.6.4, 4.6.5. and 4.6.7. 

13) Mancozeb — a fungicide banned in the EU and Switzerland — is reportedly regularly used on certified plantations. Is the use of substances prohibited in Europe compatible with Rainforest Alliance standards?  

(No answer)

14) How is the regular use of Mancozeb, a fungicide on Rainforest Alliance’s List of Prohibited Pesticides, compatible with the Rainforest Alliance certification? 

The Rainforest Alliance aims to eliminate Highly Hazardous Pesticides such as Mancozeb but recognizes that in some sectors farmers still face strong pest and disease pressure and lack access to safe, affordable alternatives. This applies in particular to the banana sector. Nearly all bananas grown for global export come from a single variety, meaning genetic diversity is close to zero. This monoculture creates ideal conditions for pests and diseases such as the widespread fungus Black Leaf Streak. In addition, tropical plantation conditions allow both crops and pests to thrive year-round, resulting in constant pest pressure. 

Therefore, the Exceptional Use Policy allows narrowly defined, temporary exceptions until the end of 2028, as a last resort and under strict conditions such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM), farmer training, protective equipment, environmental safeguards, and independent oversight. An immediate ban of HHPs without alternatives could threaten livelihoods. Therefore, a well-supported, sector-wide transition is essential. 

15) Are medical monitoring or health risk assessments required for workers handling or exposed to pesticides?    

According to our standard requirement 5.6.13, workers who handle hazardous agrochemicals undergo a medical examination annually. If they are regularly exposed to organophosphates or carbamate pesticides, the examination includes cholinesterase testing. Workers can access the results of their medical examination. 

Requirement 5.6.1 also requires CHs to perform a health and safety risk assessment. 

Forced productivity, fatigue, and drug use 

16) Multiple workers described the widespread use of tramadol-based mixtures (“la bomba”) to cope with extreme production targets. Does Rainforest Alliance investigate structural factors — such as unrealistic productivity quotas — that may indirectly encourage substance use? 

According to our Rules for CBs, audit personnel have to demonstrate knowledge of the applicable commodity category in the specific country and thus will have a general understanding of common risks. Additionally, they update a risk assessment for the country on a yearly basis. 

During the audit process, CBs interview workers and make informed on-site observations. They verify quota work, to understand how realistic quotas are and if especially more vulnerable workers (such as older or short-term workers) can achieve them. Additionally, auditors look into work incidents that could hint to unrealistic quotas. 

17) How do you evaluate whether productivity requirements exceed safe human capacity?  

CBs will verify related standard requirements throughout the auditing process. For example, standard requirement 5.3.3 refers to the payment of a minimum wage based on a 48-hour work week or the national legal working hours limit (whichever is lower), if work is based on production quota or piece work. 

During the audit, the auditor will not only verify requirements on quota work, but triangulate them with health and safety information that they gather during the audit, for example on workplace incidents. 

See also answer to question 8. 

Freedom of association and retaliation 

18) Testimonies suggest anti-union practices, including dismissals after attending labor meetings and the existence of informal “blacklists.” Are these findings compatible with the Freedom of Association requirements in the Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Agriculture Standard Farm requirements? 

(No answer)

19) How does Rainforest Alliance verify respect for freedom of association in high-risk contexts like Guatemala? 

Across banana farms from Guatemala to the Philippines, our certification programs focus on advancing the rights of thousands of workers around the world. As a priority, our standards require farms to uphold the right to freedom of association. This is an essential first step towards ensuring that workers can freely voice their concerns and collectively bargain on labor issues. 

We recognize the importance of labor unions and other types of workers associations, and we continuously engage with these entities to help improve working conditions on certified fruit farms across Latin America. Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining is a core requirement of our 2020 certification program. 

The Rainforest Alliance has a risk-based assurance model in place. Certification Bodies (CB) must take into account the scores in the Rainforest Alliance Child Labor and Forced Labor Sectoral Risk Maps for their audits. For countries and sectors designated as high risk, the CB must take additional steps in its audit. For example, conducting more worker interviews or investing more time in auditing these issues. 

The actual level of risk for a CH depends on many factors, which will vary from one producer to another. Therefore, CHs operating in the same country and crop may have different actual risk levels. The risk for individual farms is determined through the Farm Risk Assessment Tool. If the CH is high risk, additional assurance measures are required – for example, if a high risk on freedom of association is identified, off-site interviews are required (see Auditor Verification Protocol and standard requirements 5.2 and Auditing Rules for Farms section 2.6). 

20) What protections exist for workers who report abuses on certified farms? 

Workers can report (anonymously if preferred) via farm-level grievance mechanisms, Certification Body grievance mechanism (each CB is required to have a grievance mechanism in place, see Rules for CBs), and the Rainforest Alliance grievance mechanism. The existence of a functioning grievance mechanism is mandatory. 

21) Have any plantations in Guatemala ever lost certification due to anti-union practices? 

No. We have not received any complaints related to this issue in Guatemala, at least since the launch of our standard in 2020. 

Subcontracting and supply chain responsibility 

22) In southern Guatemala, it appears that Chiquita relies heavily on subcontracted farms where working conditions appear significantly worse. How does Rainforest Alliance assess social risks linked to outsourcing models? 

(No answer)

23) Does certification extend equally to directly operated plantations and subcontracted suppliers? 

The Rainforest Alliance emphasizes shared responsibility across the supply chain and certification of both farms and supply chain actors. For general information see answer to question 4. It is important to note that no Rainforest Alliance Certified banana farm in Guatemala is operated by Chiquita. 

24) Who is ultimately accountable for labor violations on certified farms: the brand owner, the farm operator, or both? 

The farm (or farm group) is accountable as the Certificate Holder. At the same time, our system promotes shared responsibility among farmers, companies, governments, NGOs, and other supply chain actors. For example, companies sourcing bananas from Guatemala should take responsibility by improving their purchasing practices, including paying fair prices, building long term relationships and contracting, investing resources, and sustainable partnerships to support producers and promote equity in the supply chains.   

Grievance mechanisms and transparency 

25) Which grievance mechanisms exist for workers as part of the Rainforest certification scheme? How do you guarantee workers are not subject to repercussions for using the grievance mechanism? 

See question 20 - there are three levels of grievance mechanisms: with the Certificate Holder, the Certification Body, and with the Rainforest Alliance. 

Our standard (requirement 5.2.2) requires that the CH has a mechanism in place to protect workers from retaliation, and our Grievance Procedure includes a "Protection from Retaliation" clause. If the submission of the grievance to the CH's mechanism is not satisfactory, workers may submit a grievance to the CB. If that process is still not satisfactory, workers may then submit the grievance to the Rainforest Alliance grievance mechanism.  

26) Are workers informed — in their own language — about Rainforest Alliance grievance mechanisms? 

All workers are informed through written information displayed at central locations at all times that child labor, forced labor, discrimination and workplace violence and harassment are not tolerated, and that management has a system in place to assess and address related cases. This information is visibly displayed at central locations at all times (standard requirement 5.1.1). Workers can submit grievances in any language and the mechanism has to be accessible to persons without reading skills or internet access (standard requirement 1.5.1). To better reach illiterate workers, the Rainforest Alliance has created a poster with pictograms to be put on display by the CH. 

In this particular region (Escuintla), Spanish is the predominant language, so it is the language used for all verbal and written communication on the subject. 

27) How many complaints related to Guatemalan banana plantations have you received in the past five years, and what actions were taken? 

Since the launch of the 2020 Sustainable Agriculture Standard, we have not received any complaints related to the Guatemalan banana sector. 

28) Will Rainforest Alliance publish the results of investigations triggered by media and NGO reports such as ours? 

The Rainforest Alliance may publish a statement on the website if deemed appropriate. However, there are limitations due to the confidentiality of audit processes. The current certification status of farms or farm groups can be viewed publicly through the list of Certificate Holders on our website. 

Broader accountability 

29) Critics argue that certification schemes risk legitimizing harmful practices by providing a sustainability label despite serious abuses. How do you respond to accusations that certification may create a “greenwashing” effect? 

Certification is one essential sustainability tool among many. Robust, third-party verified programmes provide a shared framework for sustainability and signal a commitment to continuous improvement. They strengthen transparency and accountability and build market incentive for responsible practices. Done well, they support more stable farmer income, stronger livelihoods, and greater resilience to climate shocks. At the same time, we are clear about certification’s limits. It is not a silver bullet and therefore cannot single-handedly solve complex challenges such as inequality or rural poverty. When designed and implemented rigorously, certification provides a foundation for meaningful progress. 

The majority of certified farms we work with are diligently working to promote better working conditions and adhere to the law. For all the producers engaged in our program, our primary goal is to assist in improving operational standards, including human rights, labor rights and working conditions, as required by law and our standards. We believe in working with producers to improve the working conditions on their farms, and we recognize that immediate decertification often has the opposite effect, pushing producers further away from best practices. However, if a producer consistently fails to meet critical criteria, they may be removed from our certification program. This helps to ensure program integrity and encourages continuous improvement among all producers engaged in our program. 

Certification can serve as a valuable tool in identifying and tackling critical issues in agricultural supply chains, but to effectively address deeply rooted sustainability issues, especially in medium and high-risk geographies for labor and human rights violations, a multi-faceted approach is needed. This involves collaborative efforts among key actors, including government enforcement of laws, monitoring of businesses, education on labor rights, and engaging with worker representatives and civil society. Through our advocacy work, landscape management programs, and supply chain services, the Rainforest Alliance aids in convening stakeholders across the value chain in these efforts, but there is always more that can be done. 

Our mission is to continue our efforts in making agricultural production more sustainable, and to promote continuous improvement of working conditions in global supply chains. In this way, we also believe it is important to give individuals and organizations the opportunity to return to our program after correcting any non-compliances to our standard, and demonstrating a commitment to staying aligned with local laws and the certification rules of our standard in order to contribute to the improvement of supply chains as a whole. 

 30) In light of these allegations, will Rainforest Alliance consider suspending or reassessing certification for the plantations concerned? 

Generally speaking, when presented with credible, concrete evidence of non-conformities, Rainforest Alliance will conduct investigations and take action in line with its program rules. 

In the case of the plantations concerned, earlier audits are currently being reassessed and appropriate measures will be taken, as appropriate. We ask for your understanding that we are unable to provide further details at this stage in order to safeguard the integrity of the process. 

31) What concrete corrective measures would be required for a certified banana producer in Guatemala to remain compliant with your standard? 

Generally speaking, compliance would require meeting all social, environmental, and managerial requirements of the standard, including upholding freedom of association, complying with strict agrochemical safety measures, implementing risk mitigation measures where exceptional pesticide use applies, and operating a functioning grievance mechanism. 

To close any non-conformities (NC) identified in an auditing cycle, CHs perform a root-cause analysis of what factors led to the NC and create and implement a remediation plan for correcting the issue. This includes ensuring that harm that has previously been done is corrected and the root causes have been addressed.     

If farms do not close those NCs within the time established in our rules, their certification can be suspended. Suspension can last up to three months, during which time the farm will not be able to sell their yields as certified, which carries significant financial consequence for the farm. Suspension is temporary and provides farms with the opportunity to work on improvements, often with support from the Rainforest Alliance and other parties involved.     

In certain cases, decertification is also an option. These cases may include: recurrent severe human rights cases which were either not remediated or not disclosed by the CH, evidence of fraud or cover-up, bribery, intimidation, harassment of auditors or certifiers, or systemic, recurrent  non-conformities that cannot be corrected.  

Should they wish to become certified again, former CHs would have to wait at least six months, and then reapply to start the auditing cycle as if they were applying for the first time.