Traceability, transparency & certification : an examination into the implementation, motivations, and utilisations of traceability in Ghana's cocoa sector

(1)

Traceability, Transparency & Certification:

An Examination into the Implementation, Motivations, and

Utilisations of Traceability in Ghana’s Cocoa Sector

James Crowley

Student Number: 12003018 MSc International Development Studies

University of Amsterdam

Email: james.crowley@student.uva.nl / himy2c@gmail.com Supervisor: Dr Mirjam Ros-Tonen

Fieldwork supervisor: Dr. Mercy A.A. Derkyi Second Reader: Dr. Esther Miedema

(2)

“As tangible, physical things – as the embodiment of particular uses and values – commodities have lives, or biographies. They are made, born or fabricated; they are fashioned and differentiated in a variety of ways; they are sold, retailed, advertised and ultimately consumed or ‘realized’ (and perhaps even recycled!). The life of the commodity typically involves movement through space and time, during which it adds values and meanings of various forms. Commodities are therefore pre- eminently geographical objects.” (Watts, 1999: 309).

Abstract

Traceability helps make much of what is “invisible” within food systems “visible”. It is the storyteller of agricultural commodities and their geographical life cycles within domestic and global value chains. Through exploratory enquiry, I wish to tell the story of how traceability performs, unravel the motivations underlying its implementation, and assess how traceability data is utilised within the Ghanaian cocoa sector. Examining why certain topics are made visible by traceability systems and how traceability enables this transparency from the ground up.

Within the Ghanaian cocoa sector exclusivity issues, poverty concerns, and the exploitation of labourers for corporate gain is at an abundance. In order to communicate the sustainable social, economic, and environmental production of cocoa, impactful certification and sustainability programmes require traceability systems to communicate data from one point in the value chain to another. Traceability performance also clutches to other incentives in Ghana, predominantly supply chain management and food quality assurance. Presently there is a lack of literature that juggles these various underpinning motivations of traceability systems and the utilisation of traceability information in a comparative fashion. Assessing the role of traceability to enable value chain transparency, certification, and other agendas must be further established in a ground up, ethnographic manner, in order

(3)

to account for the implementations, motivations, and utilisations of traceability in the Ghanaian cocoa sector.

Utilising a commodity-exchange network approach1 _{this research has analysed the}

practical implementation, network relations, and institutional arrangements of traceability systems, the underlying motives, and the manners in which traceability data is utilised. with a primary focus certification programmes and sustainability communication, but also regarding the flows of supply chain management information and food quality assurance signifiers, my research analysed the specific points and practices where traceability information was won and lost at the upper

ends2 _{of the Ghanaian cocoa value chain. Specifically between two specific nodes in}

this chain (Famer level and Purchasing Clerk/Society Shed Level) there was a widespread struggle to obtain, acquire, and sustain cocoa transaction and sales data within and between these two nodes. This research illustrates how this traceability vacuum exists, and how actors have designed and performed to overcome it.

Research methods included structured observation based on ethnographic enquiry, photography, key informant and semi-structured interviews, and focus group discussions. The data analysis process consisted of extensive qualitative and ethnographic reflection, and visual business process model and notation (BPMN) mappings of the informational, commodity, financial flows within the value chain. Traceability in and of itself is merely a manner in which to communicate a piece or a conglomerate of information. It comprises the digital or manual processes which

1 _{An elaboration of the network commodity approach used in previous value-chain studies: see (Barret}

et, al., 1999; Hughes, 2001; Klooster, 2005, 2006; Miller, 2014; Raynolds et, al., 2004; Smith et, al., 2002).

(4)

transfer intelligence from one actor/node in the value chain to another. It is clear that there is a conceptual interdependence between traceability, transparency, and the motivations that underlie traceability implementation and the uses of obtained traceability information. Traceability communicates specific data based upon its presupposed incentive(s), therefore creating transparency of certain aspects of the value chain according to what that presupposed incentive was. With increased traceability becomes increased transparency, but transparency for what and whose motives(s)?

The combination of the theoretical framework (the triangular interdependence of traceability, transparency, and certification/motivation) and the approach of the CENA analytical-optic has the potential to aid research of other value chains in various industries where the drive for traceability, sustainable commitments, and supply-chain process comprehension is well sought after.

Keywords: Traceability, Transparency, Certification, Sustainability, Cocoa, Value chain, Ghana.

(5)

Acknowledgements

I wish to show my sincere gratitude and appreciation to my supervisor Dr Mirjam Ros- Tonen who has guided me through this entire thesis process from start to finish, and has helped me define my strategy and goals with insightful feedback and key advice. I would like to show my gratitude to Dr Esther Miedema for giving her time to be my second reader. A huge appreciation reaches out to my local supervisor in Sunyani, Ghana, Dr Mercy Derkyi of the University of Energy and Natural Resources (UENR), who helped me find my feet in a foreign country, providing me with contacts, and a warm welcome to her home and office. This appreciation extends to all of the Forest Science team at UENR. I would like to show great thankfulness to my research colleague Dennis Owusu, who was a great translator and fellow researcher in the field. I would like to thank the University of Amsterdam for its financial support by providing me with a fieldwork subsidy and the local supervision fee to help me with travel and accommodation expenses.

Finally, Meda wo ase to the people of Ghana, who taught me to smile, to love, and to have fun no matter what you have or what worries may be passing through you. I would like to thank all the farmers and workers within the cocoa industry who gave their time to speak with me and share their knowledge unconditionally. To all the people in the cities and villages who stopped and welcomed me to their places of home, and to all who spoke “Akwaaba” when I entered a new place or abode. This thesis is dedicated to the people of Ghana.

(6)

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

BPMN CENA CEO

Business Process Model and Notation Commodity-Exchange Network Approach Chief Executive Officer

CHED Cocoa Health Extension Division (COCOBOD)

CLMRS Child Labour Monitoring and Remediation System

CMC Cocoa Marketing Company Limited (COCOBOD)

COCOBOD Ghana’s Cocoa Board

CRIG Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (COCOBOD)

CSOs Civil Society Organisations

CSSVDCU Cocoa Swollen Shoot Virus Disease Control Unit (COCOBOD)

FPOT First Point of Transaction

GCC Global Commodity Chain

GVC Global Value Chain

LBC Licensed Buying Company

LMB Landscape Management Board

MNCs Multi-national companies

NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations

OFIS Olam Farmer Information System

PBC Produce Buying Company (one of the LBCs)

PC Purchasing clerk

QCC Quality Control Company

SPU Seed Production Unit

SSSU Social Science and Statistic Unit of CRIG

(12)

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 The commodity-exchange network (CENA) approach ... 33

Figure 3.1 Map of Ghana's Western Region (Source: Miledzi Agblorti, 2011) ... 36

Figure 3.2 Visual representation of snowball sampling ... 37

Figure 5.1 The mass balance traceability concept ... 54

Figure 5.2 Four models of traceability ... 55

Figure 5.3 Visual Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) mapping of the non- certified PBC value chain ... 63

Figure 5.4 Map of the LMB project. ... 77

Figure 6.1 Visual BPMN Mapping of Tony’s Ghana Value Chain (Flows of Funds, Goods, and Information) ………. 114

List of Tables

Table 5.1 The three value chains analysed ... 57

List of Photos

Photo 5.1 Cocoa tree nurseries at the CRIG campus, New Tafo – Akim ... 60

Photo 5.2 Food science laboratory, CRIG Food Science department, New Tafo – Akim ... 60

Photo 5.3 Ripe cocoa pod freshly opened (Koajaba, Ghana) ... 66

Photo 5.4 PBC society shed, Koajaba, Ghana. ... 67

(13)

Photo 5.7 Hauler truck taking cocoa from the PBC district warehouse in Essam, to

the international exportation port in Tema ... 71

Photo 5.8 Ear tags as proofs of passed quality assurance check by QCC ... 72

Photo 5.9 Road to Juaboso ... 76

Photo 5.10 Rainforest Alliance office in Juaboso...78

Photo 5.11 Stencil code spray template, Elluokrom ... 81

Photo 5.12 Stencil code marking on export bag, Elluokrom ... 81

Photo 5.13 Olam Ways Bills, Elluokrom…...83

Photo 5.14 Cargill barcode tag, Essam PC Society Shed ... .87

Photo 5.15 Cargill’s Electronic Scales with Bluetooth Connection, Cargill PC Society Shed, Essam ... 88

Photo 5.16 Mobile e-payment devices ...90

Photo 5.17 Aqua boy in use, Cargill PC Society Shed, Essam ...92

Photo 5.18 CMC Warehouses (Right) and QCC Offices (Left), Photo taken from CMC Offices, Tema, Ghana ... 94

Photo 5.19 CMC Warehouse from the inside, Tema,. Ghana ...94

(14)

1. Introduction

1.1 Traceability and Sustainable Value Chains

Communicating a commodity’s sustainable origin or life cycle can be very difficult. Due to the internationalisation and globalisation of companies, sourcing agricultural products that follow processing and value adding arrangements creates value chains that meander between nations and cultural boundaries. For the food industry, the current trend shows that the movement of agricultural commodities travels from the global South, the origin of the food and raw material, to the global North, where the final tiers of processing industries are located (Syahruddin, 2011). Responsibility concerning the sustainable origins of production, fair labour practices, living wage rights (Global Living Wage, 2019), deforestation concerns, land rights and women’s empowerment were continually being shifted and shunned by corporations and firms that profited by sustaining ethically questioning sourcing and procurement. In the present day, there is no excuse. Traceability enabled through practice and technological advancement can surface transparency regarding the aforementioned topics. Alongside this, ethical trade has become a high preference for consumers when purchasing food commodities. As a result, traceability has become a foregrounding requirement of agricultural value chains (Dabbene & Gay, 2011).

Traceability in and of itself is futile. It depends entirely on what motivations predetermine advocating for traceability, and how traceability information is utilised, and made sense of, thereafter. Traceability is a concept brought into practicality by communicating specific sets of informational flow. Whichever actor advocates for surfacing these precisely chosen flows also dictates the level and scope of ensued transparency. Knowledge of the specific informational flows communicated, who communicates them, and the design structures of systems that capture them, unravels

(15)

a deeper understanding of the motivations, trade dynamics, and exchange subtleties amongst actors within the chain. This deeper analytical comprehension of data streams, and how they are surfaced and made intelligible, makes tangible the true motivations behind tracking and tracing commodities within international value chains.

Private, public and civil society organisations (CSOs) both support producer groups and network players in an attempt to implement and maintain certification, traceability and sustainability initiatives. However, there is a concern that the mainstreaming of certification programmes can see market-driven buyers advancing mainstream business practices, thus fostering competition and intensive buyer controls that shift network relations from that of partnership to traceability (Raynolds, 2008). As Raynolds (2008) recognises in the Latin American coffee sector, instead of being “mission-driven” and dedicated to the longevity of sustainability, “market- driven” corporations subordinate social and environmental progressions of certification, using the informational infrastructures of traceability within certification programmes instead for industrial and market conventions such as supply-chain management and control (Raynolds, 2008, p. 1088). The rising popularity of certification for agri-businesses and consumer preferences has encouraged the entry of new enterprises into export-orientated agricultural sectors. This surfaces concern that mainstreaming certification (and the traceability that ensues to authenticate and communicate the sustainability of production, distribution and exportation) will

overlook committed sustainable movement principles.3 _{Instead, the focus will be on}

increasing market value, brand equity, and management efficiency within the value chain for the organisation in question (Landrum & Ohsowski, 2018; Sukitsch, et al., 2015; Crane & Glozer, 2016). These commercial and industrial values driving firms in

(16)

commodity networks can erode the social and environmental values of CSOs, non- governmental organisations (NGOs), and third-party certification schemes who are promoting certification alongside sustainable initiatives (Renard, 2003).

It is essential to understand this movement and misuse of traceability and its dissected association with valued certification and sustainability. Grounded on this understanding, this thesis will primarily focus on the implementation practices, based on the motivations of actors that are “mission-driven”, “market-driven” (Raynolds, 2008), and those that tip toe in between. This understanding ensued does not hold to an agenda of re-connecting the questionable dissected relationship between traceability and certification, but aims to understand the design and performance of traceability that is moulded by an array of incentives such as certification (see Section 2.1.3), supply chain management (see Section 2.14), food quality assurance (see Section 2.14) and farmer/bag level traceability (see Section 6.2).

1.2 Knowledge Gap

Amongst many disciplines and academic circles focusing on agri-food value-chains, there is expanding literature on traceability and traceability systems (Ringsberg, 2014). However, a great amount of studies orientate their focus on food product characteristics such as food safety and food quality (Ringsberg, 2014; Wilkins, 2015). Within the growing literature on the processes of certification in agri-food networks (Boström et al., 2008; Miller, 2014), there is a grey area of scholarly work that focuses on the comparison of systems that track and trace claims of sustainable production through global value chains (Mol & Oosterveer, 2015). Clearly there is no all- encompassing definition of traceability and there is a wide gap in knowledge and research that deciphers the various definitions and perceptions of the traceability concept (Fritz & Sheifer, 2010; Trautman et al., 2008). With regard to cocoa, this

(17)

opens up a fascinating space for potential research to identify the key agendas of traceability and the strengthening drive for traceability systems.

“Only very limited attention has been paid to the kinds of systems for tracking and tracing sustainability through such global value chains.”

(Mol & Oosterveer, 2015: pg 12260)

1.3 Aim of Thesis

The aim of this thesis is to outline the relationship between traceability, transparency, and certification within the cocoa value chains of Ghana, and to see how this triangulation of conceptual interdependence plays out in reality. This research will investigate the implementation and performance of traceability, the motivations that underlie the design of traceability systems, and the utilisation of acquired traceability information. Surrounding these three subdivisions of investigation are the frontiers to award certification, increase operational efficiency, communicate food quality assurance, and utilise bag/farmer level traceability information (see Section 6.2) by bridging the coined traceability vacuum.

Observing through an anthropological lens at the routines and practices that strive for these objectives, the systematic method of study follows a notion of commodity ethnography combined with the analytical-optic of the curated Commodity-Exchange Network Approach (CENA) (see Section 2.2.2). These methods embrace the cocoa agri-product as primarily a geographical object of analysis. This allows for a focused understanding of how traceability practices bring added value and interplay within the dynamism of network relations and institutional arrangements at various nodes of commodity exchange within the chain. Analysis will also include the impact of

(18)

1.4 Research Question and Sub-Questions

The main question that this research addresses is:

How is traceability being implemented in Ghana’s cocoa sector, and how do predetermined motivations shape traceability design, practices, and the way traceability data is utilised?

This question will be answered through the following three sub-questions:

1. How is traceability implemented, and how do network relations, institutional arrangements and technological innovations enable traceability performance in the cocoa value chain? (addressed in Chapter 5)

2. What are the predetermined motivations of traceability and how do they shape traceability design, performance, and the way traceability data is utilised? (addressed in Chapter 6)

3. How do the findings of this research inform the future development of cocoa traceability in Ghana, and the implementation of traceability systems in other sectors/industries? (addressed in Chapter 6 and 7)

(19)

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Main Concepts

2.1.1 Value Chain

Value chains can be understood as both operational and analytical models that focus on the integration and disintegration of production and distribution systems (Roduner 2005, 2007). Within the powers of globalisation that bring producers and consumers closer together, and carrying national and international competition into local markets, the value-chain lens takes note that the commodity in question is not consumed at the point of production, but goes through an abundance of transformation cycles until it reaches the final consumer (Jordaan et al., 2014). In the 1960s and 1970s analysts used the concept to charter the path of development for many mineral-exporting countries (Girvan, 1987). In more recent times value-chain analysis has moved from merely being a descriptive construct that provides a heuristic framework for the generation of data, to a comprehensive diagnostic framework that allows insight into production and governance structures of international exchange, and more strategic consideration into why some parties gain and others loose (Kaplinksy, 2000). Since the pioneering works of Michael Porter (1985, 1990), Womack & Jones (1996) (who refers to the value chain as the ‘value-stream’), and Gary Gereffi (1994) (who builds on world system analysis) a developing value-chain framework has provided an analytical approach to dissect the organisational determinants of inter- and intra-country trade and income distribution as a result of the managerial structures that span between international borders. Academic frontiers concerning the value chain have progressed from heuristic purposes of an operational nature to critical functions of power analytics and governance motives (Sturgeon et, al., 2008;

(20)

The value chain considered as an operational model sees a collection of actors and activities that are involved in these transformation cycles through the lens of organisational management, processing arrangements, and transportation and trade (Kidoido & Child, 2014). From an analytical perspective, a value-chain framework provides analysis on how power relations, network governance structures and institutional issues are embedded at sites of interaction within the performative value chain (Roduner, 2007). The many players involved are linked by complex relationships within a framework of network governance that holds power progressions at many different sites of interaction. This can also be seen within commodity studies which provide insightful avenues for investigating production, trade, and consumption networks within the agri-food sector, both globally and regionally (Daviron & Ponte, 2005). Both these investigative agendas can be underpinned by a commodity-chain tradition that focuses on the configuration of enterprises and the interlinking of products and services in order to unravel higher governance systems that determine the varied nature of buyer/supplier interactions and the power exercises of dominant buyers that shape global production and distribution (Gereffi, 1994; Gereffi et al., 2005). This well-renowned global commodity-chain framework was elaborated by Gereffi et al. (2005) changing the terminology from global “commodity chain” to “value chain” in order highlight value added to trade and the shifting end markets of certain global value chains due to the pull of market consumption towards these values (Gereffi, 2014).

It is essential to advance from the operational view of value chains to a more reflective analytical enquiry in order to account for the power relations behind institutional priorities and network collaborations within the ‘nodes’ of governance and commodity transactions. For the progressions of traceability systems and ethical trade within the Ghanaian cocoa sector, engaging critically allows for an understanding of

(21)

the rationalities and mentalities that underpin the organisational structures of corporate responsibility and sustainability within an attempt to re-regulate the trading network for the purposes of shared value (Hughes, 2001; De Leth, 2018). An application and an elaboration of the commodity-network approach (Barret et, al., 1999; Hughes, 2001; Klooster, 2005, 2006; Miller, 2014; Raynolds et, al., 2004; Smith et, al., 2002) entitled CENA will be the core of my analytical approach. It will build on the aforementioned global commodity-chain approach (Gereffi, 1994) and global value chain frameworks (Gereffi et al., 2005; Kaplinsky, 2010), which analyse the value- creating activities within chains of commodity production, distribution, sale and consumption (Smith et. al. 2002). However, it will focus more on a definite locus of investigation that’s analyses how incentivised traceability systems extract value from the chain and communicate flows of information to associated actors, organisations, and consumers. This will take into account value-creation activities, governance

relations, and institutional structures4 _{on which the aforementioned approaches}

orientate, and will concentrate on how specific sets of information are pulled from, and communicated through the chain, and for what reasons.

2.1.2 Traceability

The definitions of traceability within social science, management, and business literature can either be very broad or very narrow. However, in most, if not all, cases, they refer to “the ability to guarantee that products moving along the food supply chain are both tracked and traced.” (Dabbene et al., 2014). The traceability of agri- foods and agricultural commodities refers to the documentation, maintenance, and recording of information related to processes in the value chain, in a manner that

4 _{The value-chain structure within agricultural settings is an inherently fragmented industry. A state of}

(22)

guarantees to the consumer and other stakeholders, the origin, location, and life

history of a product (Opara, 2003). This has largely been driven by external5 _consumer

demand for verifiable evidence of food product quality, safety and a more contemporary demand for knowledge concerning ecological, social and economic sustainability (RSPO, 2012; Staaij et, al., 2012).

On the “market driven” agenda (Raynolds, 2008), traceability is considered to enhance visibility (increased insights into the supply chain reveals vulnerabilities, strengths, and areas for improvement), improve operations and engagement (data collected informs the decision-making process, programme design, and how trading companies communicate to one another), and risk forecasting to avoid direct and indirect threats that affect shareholder relationships (Wilkins, 2015). Furthermore, in supply-chain management discourse, traceability is seen as a preventative strategy facilitating timely recall and a determination of liability when food safety and quality are jeopardized. It is appreciated as a proactive information-based strategy for food quality and safety management (Alli, 2003), standing as a complimentary tool to other quality management programmes (Opera, 2003).

Comparatively, within international development scholarship6 _{and environment}

policy, the concept of traceability has been realised in the growing demand for information concerning the sustainability of commodities, and the circumstances from which they have been produced (Hatanaka et al., 2005; Veldstra et al.; 2014). Since the 1990s there has been heightened awareness for the demands of social and environmental sustainability in transnational value chains by certification initiatives, non-governmental organisations and multinational corporations (MNCs) (Mol &

5 _{“external” in this case refers to a demand coming from outside the value chain. E.g. consumer}

demand.

6 _{It should also be mentioned that traceability, and the implementation of traceability systems in the}

(23)

Oosterveer, 2015). The implementation of traceability in the agri-food sector within this perceptive bracket has progressed under the wider “umbrella” function of certification. Whereas traditional commodity standards and certificates focus on the intrinsic attributes of the quality of a food product aforementioned (Alli, 2003), certification standards of traceability refer to the verification of ethical social and environmental production processes (Gereffi et al., 2001; Raynolds, 2009).

2.1.3 Certification

Certification, under the umbrella of ethical trade, aims to communicate the sustainable production obligations and moral trade of a commodity through the value

chain7 _{(Mol & Oosterveer, 2015; Klooster 2005, 2006). As a social, economic and}

institutional counter movement to the colonial and historically rooted international trade inequalities that have surfaced since the rise of capitalism it aims to build more democratic commodity networks in order to transform the North/South trade infrastructure from one of exploitation, to an avenue of empowerment to link marginalised consumers in the global South with producers in the global North (Long & Raynolds, 2007). Trade based on alternative standards of “partnership”, “fairness”, and “sustainable development” are grounded by social, ecological and “place- based” commitments (Wilkinson & Mascarenhas, 2007). But the verification, environmental governance arrangements, and informational processes that communicate these have, at times, become separate from the production origins of the agri-food commodities, and therefore detached from the support of “place- based” commitments. This has created an accessible, mainstreamed market of

7 _{It should be noted that this definition of certification does not apply to general certification for}

agriculture commodities, which is a process of obtaining a written statement that ensures production meets prescribed standards, and which is established by an independent third party. These standards

(24)

authenticated certificates and certifications of sustainability that can be bought into, with a greater focus and incentive to communicate sustainability “commitments”

rather than actually acting sustainably on the ground.8

The most prolific certification standards concerning cocoa in Ghana are UTZ and

Rainforest Alliance (recently merged), and Fairtrade International.9 _{These certification}

programmes aim to input social, environmental, and economic considerations into the already prevalent commodity-chain governance structures (Hughes, 2001; Taylor et al., 2005).

2.1.4 Traceability, Transparency and Certification/Motivations

(the Triangulation of Conceptual Interdependence)

Essential for certification programmes, private companies, and public organisations is that sustainability claims can be traced back through the sourced global value chain to communicate the ethical practice of trade and labour from the origin of production (Van Dam et, al., 2008; Bartley, 2014). Traceability reports on the social, economic, and environmental circumstances where the commodity has come from, been processed through, delivered by, and consumed, supplying information of the agricultural practices that predetermined the commodities exportation and the manner in which it has been handled through the value chain. This necessitates the value chain to be surfaced as transparent. In order for the value chain to be transparent, traceability verification is required to that the product is from a cooperative, smallholding or farm that employs socially, economically and environmentally sustainable agricultural practices.

8 _{See Section 1.1 - “mission-driven” vs “market driven” actors of certification (Raynolds, 2009).}

9 _{Concerning the realtionship between certification programmes and models of organisational}

(25)

Conceptually speaking, there is no transparency without traceability, and there is no certification without transparency. Certification requires and necessitates knowledge of transparency, which in turn demands knowledge of traceability. This triangulation of interdependency between traceability, transparency and certification is a key dynamic for exploration within this study (see Fig. 2.1). However, it is essential to understand that the strengths of adjunction between these concepts vary. Traceability has as strong triggering relationship with transparency, but the following causal relationship between transparency and certification is less solidified. The communication of traceability information will in most, if not all cases, surface a form of transparency. But transparency for whom? And for what motives? Transparency, via traceability practicality, may aim communicate or signify a different incentive from that of certification, based on a varied underlying motivation e.g. supply chain

management or food quality assurance.10 _{Transparency is the openness over the way}

a product is made, distributed, and traded. Traceability communicates this. But practicing traceability doesn’t necessarily mean entire transparency (and definitely doesn’t necessarily mean transparency of the standards met by the production of the commodity – certification). A certain level of transparency is created and communicated based on predetermined motives for the traceability system in use. If these predetermined motives differ from certification, then so does the level and focus of the communicated transparency. Traceability cannot exist without transparency, but the motive for traceability dictates the orientation and coordination of transparency developed.

Traceability itself is merely an information-sharing arrangement (Opara, 2003). It is only a signifier system. It does not assure sustainability, but merely reports on it, and

(26)

signifies its potential existence. Hence, to flip the determinants, traceability does NOT ensure the transparency of social, economic, and environmentally sustainable agricultural practices, and therefore does NOT ensure the criteria for validated certification. Therefore, it is noted that traceability can exist without transparency, and transparency can exist without certification. Viewing the triangular interdependence of traceability, transparency and certification in this manner allows for an understanding that the “certification” feature in the tri-relationship is in fact disposable. This conceptual context, and sensitivity to the realisation that the “certification” feature is replaceable by other motivations depending on situation, allows for a more comprehensive enquiry to the various motivations that foreground

traceability performance and strive for transparency 11_.

In order to make intelligible the unconditional links between traceability performance / instigated transparency, and their motivations (see Chapter 6), the analysis spotlights the specific flows of information that traceability systems obtain or transmit through the value chain via manual or digital practices (see Chapter 5) .

11 _{Conceptually lucid, the definition of transparency is very malleable and context-specific in its}

intelligibility, and does not necessarily entail transparency in order to make visible sustainable progressions. Transparency of the processes and operations within a value chain can be heavily connoted to increased knowledge of supply chain management and operational efficiency (Hobbs, 1996) rather than to communicate sustainable or ethical commitments.

(27)

Value Chain Players

(see Section 2.2.1) Traceability

Implementation (see Chapter 5)

‘CENA’

(see Section 2.2.2, Figure 2.1, and Section 3.2.1)

Analytical Approach

Conceptual Scheme

1 Traceability

• Implementation/performance • Underlying motivations of traceability systems • Utilisations of traceability information

2 Triangulation of

_Conceptual

Interdependence

Transparency

3 Certification/

Other Motivations

• Sustainability commitments (social, environmental, economic) “placed based” and “mission driven”

• Supply chain management

“market driven”

• Food quality assurance

Value-Chain Influencers/Supporters (see Section 2.2.1) Motivations of Traceability (see Chapter 5)

Snowball

Sampling

(see Section 3.2.2) Systemic View of Value Chains (SVVC)

(28)

2.2 Analytical Approaches Towards Value Chains and

Traceability

2.2.1 A Systemic View of Value Chains (SVVC)

Much previous research on value chain analysis only considers actors that are directly involved in producing, moving or selling a commodity or focuses on firms and organisations above the actual practices of the chain (Jordaan et al. 2014, p. 5). Roduner (2005, 2007) reasons for a systemic view of value chains (SVVC) that has a widespread focus on all who partake and impact the value chain in question. This is illustrated by a three-level segmentation of the value-chain network;

• Value Chain Players; actors who are directly involved in changing the physical

commodity/product into the final commodity/product. The relationships between the value-chain players are essential for the analysis of traceability systems and certification procedures.

• Value Chain Influencers; value-chain players do to not operate in complete

isolation; there are a number of rules and regulations that determine their ways of doing things and their interactions with one another. Value-chain influencers provide the regulatory and administrative conditions that have to be met by all involved in the value-chain. This concept should also be extended to the social and physical environments that the producers, traders and transporters are influenced by and which they operate within.

• _{Value Chain Supporters; This includes all actors who provide training, support}

(29)

have the responsibility to support the value-chain players to operate in such a

way within the regulatory requirements set out by the influencers.12

The holistic view of the value-chain allows for an analytical praxis to unravel the governance structures and the institutional environment within which the implementation of traceability works. It abandons an operational view of the value chain, instead highlighting the dynamic interactions between and within the nodes and tiers, and the unearthing of opportunities and bottlenecks (Jordan, 2014).

2.2.2 A Network Approach and the

Commodity-Exchange Network Approach

“Value chains constantly evolve and can rapidly change. Therefore, any value chain analysis faces the limitation of providing a static picture, a snapshot at one moment in time. Development practitioners must learn to use analytical tools that help them understand the dynamics and tendencies.” (Roduner, 2007, p. 7) Building on the foundations of the global commodity-chain (GCC) approach (Gereffi,

1994) and global value-chain (GVC) frameworks13 _{(Gereffi et. al. 2005; Kaplinsky}

2010), the commodity-network approach sees the “network” metaphor replacing that of the “chain” in order to more explicitly capture the complexity of players and multi- stranded exchange relationships that accumulate within the ever-changing commodity systems (Barret et, al., 1999; Hughes, 2001; Klooster, 2005, 2006; Miller, 2014; Raynolds et, al., 2004; Smith et al., 2002). The abundance of actors involved in the governance of value chains are linked in a “network”, not a “chain” (Klooster,

(30)

2006, p. 405). This research will favour this semantic deliberation and focus of analysis over a more structural commodity/value “chain” approach in order to highlight the web of social and economic relations that uphold commodity relations within the cocoa sector of Ghana.

Commodity-network analysis provides insight into the way certain values and actors govern the production decisions of suppliers. It illuminates the connections between consumers, producers and workers and pays focus to the unequal distribution of power emanated through the social and economic relations of production (Klooster, 2006). Similar to the foundational commodity-chain and commodity value-chain frameworks, the act of governance is a central concept to commodity-network analysis, recognising that the trade of goods and services along a chain is more than a series of arm’s length transactions whereby buyers and sellers only bargain over price (Klooster, 2005). Lead firms hold a huge influence on how the commodity is produced, how it is traded and exchanged, and by whom (Gereffi, 1994). Commodity- network analysis insinuates that the governance of commodity chains involves a variety of underpinning values, including various social, environmental, and commercial priorities (Gibbon & Ponte, 2005). Moreover, it contributes to understanding the drive for traceability and the mainstreaming of certification by suggesting the dynamic relationships of power involved in commodity networks and “nodes” of governance, and illustrating how socio-environmental certifications can be seen as a mechanism to influence governance and organisational processes in order to achieve “control at a distance” (Gibbon & Ponte, 2005, pg. 9). It innovatively reconceptualises governance in GVCs through an analysis of how buyer-driven chains (and the consumer driven desires for standards and certifications) have taken over producer-driven chains (Rose and Miller,1991) resulting in indirect mechanisms of governance.

(31)

This framework allows for an acute attention to how the drive for traceability has been pushed for by indirect consumer preferences for certification and the private influence of multinational buyers (see Section 5.4). It also allows for highlighting how the network relations utilising traceability systems within the chain have rearranged markets to make observable the sustainable socio-environmental origins from which producers and traders have performed within (Barham 2002, p. 350). The commodity- network approach, within this context, provides an analytical lens to identify the practices and representations behind the ever-malleable concept of traceability. In doing so, it acknowledges the social constructionist understandings of the symbolic

nature of commodities (Appadurai, 1986)14 _{and the priorities behind different actors}

within the value chain. This framework has the potential to reveal the rationalities and

conducts15 _{through which network players govern themselves and others (Blowfield}

& Dolan, 2008; Gibbon & Ponte, 2008) through market-associated incentives related

to traceability signification and technological innovation.16

The commodity-network approach can be developed to also specify the geographic location of network interaction, transaction and trade of the cocoa commodity between “players” (SVVC) (Roduner, 2005, 2007). Fixing the lens of enquiry onto the ‘nodes’ of commodity exchange, and the locations were traceability information is passed on through the value-chain I will title this development as ‘Commodity-

Exchange Network Approach’ (CENA).17 _{Equipped with this micro-analytic optic and}

14 _{E.g. Physical signifiers attached to cocoa bags that symbolise, carry and emit traceability information}

(see Chapter 5)

15 _{E.g. self-conduct of working ethic due to the the symbolic qualities of a physical traceability signifier}

(see Section 5.3.3.1)

16 _{E.g. Technological transparency of cocoa transactions causing an incentive for farmers to sustain}

trading patterns (see Section 5.6.3.4)

17 _{There are many critiques to the global commodity-chain (GCC) and global value-chain (GVC)}

(32)

unit of analysis, CENA (see Figure 2.1) can uncover the relationships between performative practices of traceability and informational exchange and decipher the value chain practices that contribute to traceability implementation. In reference to the coupled ‘Systemic View of Value Chains’ (SVVC), this analytically elaboration, focusing on the ‘nodes’ and hotspots of cocoa exchange, can only be asserted to the “players” segmentation within the cocoa value chain (Roduner, 2005, 2007).

dimensions and the global divisions of labour (Porter 1985, 1990; Gereffi, 1994). Furthermore, the role of state governance and control beyond individual firms is poorly developed. In addition, little analysis is done on processes that are internal to the ‘nodes’ of commodity exchange, production, and trade. In the context of this study, CENA can overcome this flaw by investigating the informational flows of traceability (and the conditions of its working) within the ‘nodes’ of the value-chain network.

(33)

Analytical Approach

The Commodity-Exchange Network Approach (CENA) of the

Cocoa Value-Chain in Ghana: An Analytical-Optic Studying the

Nodes of Cocoa Exchange and Traceability Performance.

Key

Circles:

- Nodes of Commodity Exchange

- Nodes where Traceability Information is won or lost Short Arrows:

- Representation of network interactions of traceability performance

Long Arrows:

- Commodity Flow (Movement of Cocoa up the Value Chain).

International Exportation

Brackets:

Motivations of Traceability by Value-Chain “Influencers” & “Supporters.

Hauliers: Transporters of Cocoa

Tema Port

LBC District Warehouse

PC Society Shed

Value-chain structure guided by World Bank (2011) and Amegashie-Duvon (2014)

Figure 2.1 The commodity-exchange network (CENA) approach

Mo tiv ati ons a nd uti lis ati ons o f T ra ce abi lity by V al ue -C ha in Infl ue nc er s & S up po rte rs

(34)

CENA differs from the network theory proposed by Senton in his article “A Network Theory Approach to the Study of International Commodity Markets” (2016). Senton’s approach illustrates a network science of international trade dynamics. The CENA approach is an ethnographic analytical tool, which focuses on the nodes of commodity exchange within the domestic realms of trade, and pays closer attention to the routines, customs, and subtleties of trade at the upper end of the value chain that are sometimes out of reach by digital data acquisition (see Section 5.1.2). Senton’s study focuses on economic interdependencies of complex networks of trade. My study focuses on informational interactions and traceability practices between and within nodes of trade, removing the analytical enquiry from a linear understanding of the value chain to an understanding of clusters of commodity exchange within a wider mapping of a commodity sector. This approach is reflected Figure 2.1 and is used in the analysis in the chapters that follow.

(35)

3. Research Methodology

3.1 Research Design

Three elements were involved in my research paradigm: ontology, epistemology and methodology. Ontology being the 'reality' examined by my study, and epistemology involving the relationship between me, the researcher, and the 'reality' being studied. My study followed a qualitative research design based on social constructivism as the ontological foundation. As for the epistemological foundation, this study followed interpretivism of a critical nature based on the Foucauldian notions of power, knowledge and discourse (Hall, 2001) The research will never assume that there are any objective truths, but multiple realities that are construed through communicative practices (constructions, presentations and understandings) and material, non- discursive entities (Fairclough, 2012).

Traceability is an extremely malleable concept, which is being bent, moulded and accustomed to predetermined motivations and pejoratives. Definitions of traceability pursued can also be socially and institutionally constructed. Specific groups of people and organisations may have a pre-defined, collective meaning of traceability, which they advocate towards stakeholders and shareholders and which dictate the definition perceived by others within that grouping. My type of research will be exploratory, exploring realities that do not have a clear, single set of perceptions or outcomes (Yin, 2003).

(36)

3.2 Research Location

The majority of fieldwork for this research took place in Western North Region (see Figure 3.1) in the towns of Essam, Juabeso, and Elluokrom. These peripheral locations were where the majority of the data was accumulated. These locations included (but were not limited to) Accra, New Tafo – Akim, Kumasi, Sunyani (Ghana), Amsterdam,

Utrecht, Rotterdam (Netherlands), London, Manchester, and Southampton (UK).18

Figure 3.1 Map of Ghana's Western Region (Source: Miledzi Agblorti, 2011)

3.2 Units of Analysis and Sampling

There were two major units of analysis studied.

(37)

• Value chain practices and traceability performance and implementation by value chain “players” (Roduner, 2005, 2007) (see Section 2.2.1) and technological innovations.

• Motivations of traceability by “players”, “influencers” and “supporters”

(Roduner, 2005, 2007) in and beyond the value chain;

3.2.1 Value Chain Practices and Traceability Implementation

The analysis of value chain practices and traceability implementation will only analyse the “players” of the value chain, specifying interactions, technologies and performance within and between the nodes of commodity exchange. The sampling strategy and respondent acquisition followed the guidance of the CENA (see Figure 2.1). CENA acts to further focus the lens of respondent sampling within the already deciphered “players”. This can be thought of as a unit of analysis within a unit of analysis.

3.2.2 Motivations of Traceability

The unit of analysis for studying the motivations of traceability followed all three segmentations of the SVVC: “Players”, “Influencers”, and “Supporters” (2005, 2007). These units of study were not determined by geographic location, population nor national/regional boundaries. The “Influencers” and “supporters” beyond the value chain were any

Figure 3.2 Visual representation of snowball sampling

individual or organisation that had influence on the implementation or performance of traceability.

(38)

I utilised snowball sampling (also known as chain sampling or referral sampling). This is a non-probability sampling technique, where my existing study subjects referred me to future subjects of interest and expertise that they have contact with. This was the sampling strategy of choice as it built on networking structures already made based on notions of trust and recommendation.

3.3 Ethnographic Data Collection Methods

3.3.1 Structured Observation

Following the analytical approach of the developed CENA, coupled with the SVVC, I observed the ‘nodes’ of commodity exchange of cocoa in order to analyse the network relations between the players of the value chain, the technologies present to trace the commodity of cocoa, and the institutional arrangements and governance structures that facilitate and enable a traceability system and its functionality. A great proportion of this analysis was done through ethnographic enquiry and structured observation. It should not be understated what valuable insights merely observing and note taking can bring to such a broad and complex phenomenon as traceability and the cocoa value chain.

3.3.2 Key Informant Interviews

This played a central role in acquiring general knowledge about traceability within Ghana’s cocoa sector. ‘Key informants’ were not necessarily experts in the area of traceability or traceability systems, but they had years or even decades of knowledge in Ghana’s cocoa sector. In relation to snowball sampling, this meant they referred me to other insightful respondents.

(39)

3.3.3 Semi-Structured Interviews

With selection based on snowball sampling, semi-structured interviewing played a central role in my data collection methods. The structure of these interviews built on the knowledge acquired from key informant interviews and from the understanding gained through structured observation. I found that these interviews followed trends and agendas depending on who I was interviewing and the status/occupation of that interviewee.

3.3.4 Focus Groups

One focus group was carried out during my fieldwork. This created an environment whereby smallholder farmers could confer and bounce off each other when enquired on specific topics of research. This focus group was held in Elluokrom, Ghana, and involved 5 males and 5 females.

3.3.5 Photography

Within the lens of ethnographic observation, I used photography to provide imagery of the story of cocoa traceability. This accompanied the storytelling aspect of my structured observation well and provided a visual insight into the lifecycle of the commodity. Photographic endeavour was a key asset as many traceability systems and practices communicated visually and symbolic physical signifiers. Furthermore, photography is a significant associate of ethnography, pulling the reader into the field of study by developing a visual reporting style.

(40)

3.4 Data Analysis

3.4.1 Atlas TI and Coding

As the research data obtained was solely through qualitative methods, an extensive coding arrangement was developed to dissect and organise the unstructured data into a comprehensible format. The coding skeleton was made ongoing throughout the research. It accumulated respondents who conveyed and expressed similar topics and opinions and allowed for analysation of primary findings through a weighting and evaluation of their importance. The coding was made functional by the Atlas TI computer software (Atlas TI, 2019) (see Appendix 4).

3.4.2 Storytelling

Storytelling, as an anthropological function, was the writing practice used to put my observation field notes into meaningful prose. My research design being of an exploratory nature, alongside the analytical framework of the CENA and the analytical units of the SVVC (value chain players, influencers and supporters) equipped me to unravel the traceability practices at specific ‘nodes’ of the value chain. Storytelling will allow for key insights into highlighted areas of study and pay acute attention to the trade routines and institutional/social embeddedness in which actors within the value chain find themselves.

3.5 Positionality

My grounding positionality going into this research is determined by the academic bias of my previous educational institutions, the grounding literature I have used to base this research proposal on, and my economic, environmental, and cultural nurture up until this point in my life. My undergraduate studies at the University of Sussex

(41)

(Anthropology BA) compelled my social science enquiry to take a very critical stance whilst studying postmodern social theory and Marxist influenced writings on the global political economy. For this study of traceability within Ghana’s cocoa sector, there was no doubt that this brought a bias viewpoint concerning the influence and motivations of MNCs in the sector. In order to construct the foundations for a thesis oriented around the concept of traceability, it is clear that I referred to academic literature beyond the development and anthropological scholarly sphere. References will be made to articles within business, management, and food quality/control scholarship, as well as an abundance of website articles.

Understanding my positionality was key when approaching potential interviewees, taking photographs, and generally observing in the field. As social constructivism was the ontological foundation of my research, it was central to be reflective on my pre- conceptions of traceability, and how I pre-conceive the motives of other actors who hold a traceability agenda. It was and is imperative that I am aware of my own subjective perceptions, based on my personal experiences and intelligibilities, in order sustain a considerate approach to data collection and fieldwork analysis.

3.6 Ethical Considerations

Ethical reflection was key thinking process throughout the research development and should not be taken lightly. Based on the Ethical Procedure and Questions of the Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research (AISSR) and in my specific case of study, it is key to reflect upon the neo-colonial associations with certification, corporate sustainability programmes, value chains, and development studies research in general. My background as a young white British/Irish male who has grown up in a privileged environment no doubt had an impact on the way I

(42)

Furthermore, global value chains in West Africa have been observed by many as exploitative and neo-colonial. In a niche of research and development practice that holds a strong presence of North American and European ‘experts’ that lead development projects, some may interpret my investigative agenda as holding neo- colonial connotations. The focus of research may in fact oppose this, however, with the genealogical foundations of the concept of traceability in agricultural value chains sometimes referring to corporate focus, this reflexive stance should not be downplayed when in the field.

In reference to safety in participation, in reflection the main problem encountered in terms of data acquisition, was respondents wishing for confidentiality when providing information about private companies involved in Ghana's cocoa sector. Anonymity was assured to respondents through dialogue, however at times some information was withheld due to the topic of conversation concerning specific topics, companies, and institutions. A major motivation for examples of information being withheld during an interview was due to the lack of knowledge of the respondent regarding the confidentiality procedure of the company that he/she is representing. Due to this uncertainty, some topics were seen as grey areas and were replied to in a reluctant, caged manner. This being said, the fact that patterns emerged concerning the specific topics which were often sided by respondents was interesting and noteworthy in and of itself. These certain taboo topics indicate to an extent research gaps or, more appropriately described, as corporate uncertainties that are protected for particular reasons.

Overall, it was apparent that the challenges encountered in reference to the safety of the participants was fear of breaking company conditions, and therefore mistrusting their employment. Self-conduct was evident as a sign of loyalty of employees to the companies researched.

(43)

3.7 Methodological Reflection and Limitations of the

Research

This section reviews the qualitative methods used in order to determine the reliability and authenticity of the data accumulated in the areas of study. The rigour and pathway of potential future research will also be considered, and the suitability of potential future research debated congruently with ethical dilemmas, based on the authenticity of the aforementioned collected data.

In terms of the general practice of the research and its immediate trustworthiness, the level of credibility of the research methods stands at a decent level. Through the process of structured ethnography, the research accounted for an attempt to record the “realities” of the cocoa value chain in Ghana through direct intelligibility, experience, and perception. The analysis of these perceptions and first-hand experiences can be easily questioned due to the preconditioning of my cultural assemblage that, in turn, affects how I make sense of reality.

However, with reference to the explanation of ‘credibility’ made by Bryan (2016, pg. 377), it is naïve to orientate a methodological analysis on the accounts of reality and “how close” a researcher sides to one particular reality. Hovering within a postmodern critique of Bryan’s short explanation of the sub-criterion ‘credibility’, in order to understand the motivations behind the use of traceability systems within the sector, realities and perceptions need to be juggled between one another. In this context an objective reality is deemed non-existent, holding instead to a function of balance and comparative analysis between realities and the expressed subjective perceptions of those realities. In so doing, it is more beneficial to flip the definition

(44)

of ‘credibility’ defined by Bryan, and ask instead “are you giving a holistic, comparative account of realities?”

It was evident that trust was also a major factor in enabling my respondents to have an active interest in participating and contributing to my research. In reference to the levels of trust assured between myself and my respondents to initiate voluntary participation, this was assured via two methods: confidence in person, and via the authenticity of introduction documents from well-regarded institutions (see also Section 3.6). These two methods were carried out side by side at all times at introductions, and when introducing on behalf of research colleagues. The introduction documents act as the key pivot in personal trust between the researcher and potential respondents. Due to the nature of the institutions prevalent in the Ghanaian cocoa sector, many potential respondents working for specific institutions held the obligation to ask for supporting documents in order to validate my presence as a foreign researcher. In doing so, the level of rapport became dramatically more open once these documents were shown and made more authentic, with heightened levels of trust creating a more in-depth and fluid conversation concerning the subject matter in hand.

(45)

4. Context and Background

4.1 Ghana’s Cocoa Sector

Ghana is one of the world’s leading cocoa producers and exporters, with the sector playing a crucial role in the nation’s economic growth and development (McKay & Aryteey, 2005; Bogetic et al., 2007). In the 2016/2017 season it was the second largest producer of cocoa in the world, producing approximately one fifth of the global cocoa supply (970,000 tonnes) (ICCO, 2018). There have been many attempts to diversify the economy and find oil in recent years, but cocoa remains the country’s leading exporter and foreign exchange earner. The impact of Ghana’s cocoa supply system has shown to both help and hinder achievements in poverty reduction and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Amegashie-Duvon, 2014).

In 1986, with the help of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the Ghana government initiated a cocoa sector stabilisation programme under the Economic Recovery Programme. The programme was managed by the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) and substantially increased producer prices and the supply of subsidised inputs to cocoa farmers (Amankwah-Amoah et al., 2018). The network of cocoa supply in Ghana has been developed around COCOBOD, which regulates private sector activities within the value chain, facilitates the supply and marketing processes, and represents the functional presence of public government to the sector (Amegashie-Duvon, 2014) (see also Section 5.2). It is also evident that the publicly run organisation has an established monopoly for the sale of cocoa to foreign buyers by determining a fixed annual local purchasing price. COCOBOD operates through distinct divisions and subsidiaries specialising towards the farmer end of the value

(46)

Pre-harvest divisions of COCOBOD:

• _{The Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG)}

• _{The Seed Production Unit (SPU)}

• The Cocoa Swollen Shoot Virus Disease Control Unit (CSSVDCU)

Post-harvest divisions of COCOBOD:

• Cocoa Marketing Company Limited (CMC)

• _{Quality Control Company Limited (QCC)}

With a monopoly over marketing practices, quality control, and a stronghold over support to the upper end of the value chain, there is no question that the Ghanaian state has a widespread influence on all things cocoa in the country (Kolavalli & Vigneri 2011)

4.2 Inclusivity, Transparency, and Sustainability Issues

With approximately 800,000 cocoa farmers (out of a population of 28 million people) and cocoa being the main source of income for the majority of smallholder farmers (Laven et al. 2018), it is evident that there is an abundance of inclusivity problems within Ghana’s cocoa sector. More generally in West Africa, poverty has been heavily determined by farmgate prices that have kept many famers below measured poverty lines (Fountain & Hul1tz-Adams, 2015). It can be argued that the main cause of poverty in cocoa value chains is due to questions concerning the wider powers of the political economy and global market fluctuations which results in the producers of the commodity to remain under a measured living wage (Asamoah, 2015). Between September 2016 and February 2017, the global market price of cocoa fell by a third (ICCO, 2018). The government-led Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) maintained farmgate prices for the following year compared to the Ivorian cocoa marketing board (Conseil du Cafel1-Cacao (CCC– Côte d’Ivoire) which reduced farmgate prices by 36%

(47)

in 2017 (Monnier, 2017). Despite declining world market prices and pressure from the International Monetary Fund to lower the cocoa price, COCOBOD has maintained farmgate cocoa prices at 475 GHC per 64-kg bag or 7,600 GHC per tonne for the last

three years. 19

4.2.3 Minimum Floor Prices

In June 2019, both buyers and processors of cocoa in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire met in the Ghanaian capital Accra and agreed a floor price of 2,600 USD per tonne for exporting beans (Bloomberg, 2019). This collaborative effort from the two top cocoa- producing countries in the world aims to exert more stability over the ever-fluctuating market to ensure that farmers and local economies derive more benefit from the industry.

“Over the years it has been the buyers who have determined the price for the suppliers.” – Joseph Boahen Aidoo, CEO Ghana Cocoa Board

(Africa News, 2019). A seemingly historic move in the cocoa industry, this could see a shift in trade dynamics whereby producers can now dictate and determine the price for consumers instead of the opposite way around. Ghana specifically will only implement the minimum floor price of 2,600 USD for the 2020/21 crop season. Although a step in the right direction, setting this minimum floor price can result in the overproduction of cocoa, as suppliers will forecast buyers to meet the minimum pay in the future. Furthermore, this floor price is not necessarily pegged with farmgate prices. Therefore, it could be argued that larger actors within the value chain my gain

Traceability, transparency & certification : an examination into the implementation, motivations, and utilisations of traceability in Ghana's cocoa sector