Introduction
The global meat production comprises large retail companies supplied by smaller firms lower in the supply chain. However, the responsibility for the environmental devastation often falls to the large businesses, which are placed under immense pressure by activists and policymakers. The case of Tesco explains the nature of this problem. For example, Tesco has faced protests from customers urging the company to drop those suppliers dubbed ‘Forest destroyers’, which implies those businesses whose actions are leading to massive deforestation across the world (Kirkman, 2021).
Many scholars have also explored the relationships between global meat production and such environmental issues as deforestation and carbon emissions or footprint (Pendrill et al., 2019; Theurl et al., 2020). The focus of this paper is to explore the conflict involving global meat production and its link to deforestation and to evaluate Tesco’s response to the issue from a stakeholder management perspective.
Conflict from a Stakeholder Management Perspective
Conflict management can be challenging for most business managers and leaders. According to Wang and Wu (2020), the problems arise from the sophisticated nature of relationships among the stakeholders. Therefore, all conflicts must be approached from a stakeholder’s perspective. In such contexts as project management, NIMBY (not in my backyard) conflict management has been explored by (Sun et al., 2016) to offer a glimpse of how stakeholders determine the approach adopted.
Such a framework can be applied in Tesco’s case scenario because some of the people are opposed to deforestation in their respective regions, which is similar to the expression of NIMBY. Additionally, the arena approach effectively places the conflict at the center and the stakeholders surrounding it. In this case, deforestation is the conflict, which attracts such stakeholders as Tesco itself and its suppliers, customers, governments, pressure groups, and native tribes whose habitats face destruction.
Deforestation across the Amazon and the tropics has become a hot topic due to the rate at which it is taking place and the fact that governments and businesses appear to have failed in controlling it. According to The Economist (2020), the big firms may not be the ones cutting down the trees but their suppliers are doing so at an unrelenting pace. Across the Amazon, massive chunks of land have become deforested to create room for both beef and soya production. Tesco and other large stores source their products from suppliers directly involved in these practices.
While Tesco can claim not to cut trees, its sourcing practices are unsustainable and unethical because of its affiliation with the deforesters. An argument can be made that Tesco will seek to reduce costs of supplies, which means cheaper suppliers are preferred. Such firms will require large-scale production lines, which drive them towards more unsustainable practices. Therefore, Tesco and its suppliers are automatically among the primary stakeholders in this conflict.
As major stakeholders, the conflict outcome depends on how Tesco and the suppliers respond to the pressure from other stakeholders. Tesco needs to stay afloat and continue offering good prices to its customers. The cost of food production keeps growing and the suppliers bear much of this burden. A commentary on Tesco’s food problem given by Willoughby (2021) explains this dilemma where the company and its suppliers need to offer adequate products to meet the demand and at the same time remain environmentally sustainable.
A key point noted is that meat production contributes more to climate pollution, contaminated drinking water, and requires more land for livestock feeding than the combination of all other food crops. in the case of Tesco, efforts to place requirements for suppliers remain ineffective because these firms face different problems. For example, a supplier of beef can only be profitable when producing on large scale, which means more land. In many cases, the land can only be obtained by encroaching forests. The interests of Tesco and its suppliers seemingly go against the environmental needs.
Another key stakeholder is the pressure groups, which include environmental activists and affiliated movements. A good example is Greenpeace, which has been spearheading massive campaigns against both Tesco and its suppliers. The independent environmental campaign organization has been targeting Tesco on many occasions, especially because Tesco is associated with many South American suppliers directly responsible for deforestation. In this case, Greenpeace accuses Tesco of being complicit in such events as deliberately setting fires to Brazilian forests (Nelson, 2021).
Greenpeace is extremely vocal as evidenced by the fact that its activities attract the attention of international governments, including the UK where Tesco is based. Greenpeace has also been successful in advocating environmental issues and exposing the vices of Tesco’s suppliers. For example, Greenpeace revealed that a Brazilian firm, JBS, operated across ranches that were illegally deforested lands (Shankleman, 2020). The organization uses these exposés to pressure Tesco to cut ties with such businesses. The pressure has been so massive that the company now also faces a backlash from consumers, another group of key stakeholders.
The consumers are another stakeholder whose role in the conflict can be contentious. The rationale is that their consumption patterns often dictate the practices adopted by businesses. in this scenario, Tesco desires to meet the growing demand for meat in the UK and other countries where it operates. Therefore, the company has to engage the suppliers who can bridge the gap and offer prices that will allow Tesco’s products to be affordable. In other words, there is a knock-on effect from the customers to the suppliers.
However, many people across the planet are becoming conscious of the environmental effects of certain practices, which can be attributed to the efforts of such groups as Greenpeace. Recently, thousands of shoppers in the UK have accompanied activists in the campaigns to force Tesco to drop those suppliers labelled as forest destroyers (Kirkman, 2021). The protests can be followed by boycotts by consumers, which means that this group of stakeholders can have a massive influence on the conflict. Therefore, deforestation is a problem that will have to be resolved because consumers have joined the fight.
Deforestation is a conflict that also draws in governments across the world, especially where deforestation takes place or where Tesco operates. In the UK, the government has a responsibility to force Tesco and its local suppliers to become more sustainable and to source from ethical suppliers. Additionally, Tesco will also need the help of the UK government in setting up policies and frameworks within which Tesco can operate sustainably. Some of the key responses by Tesco, as will be examined later, have included beseeching the UK government to help in controlling businesses associated with deforestation (Just Food, 2020).
An argument can be made that Tesco can fail to control the activities of overseas suppliers but the government can achieve this goal. For example, if the UK government bans imports from companies bringing in deforestation-linked foods, then Tesco can be sure that all imported products are from sustainable businesses. fostering a good relationship with the government can help the company get better outcomes in this conflict.
Other governments that can be drawn into this conflict include the Brazilian government and other states in South America where deforestation is taking place. The rationale is that deforestation is a problem that should be fought against by the government, whose role includes protecting key resources and implementing the necessary environmental policies. However, a Brazilian president was known to encourage mining and agriculture in the Amazon rainforests, which works against the efforts of all other stakeholders fighting against deforestation (BBC News, 2020).
The growing deforestation can be attributed to a lack of government efforts to control the damage. For Tesco, all businesses approved by the South American governments can become potential suppliers, which creates a conflict of interest. Therefore, Greenpeace and other campaigners should also pay attention to the role of government instead of placing all the blame on Tesco.
Lastly, other stakeholders that would be interested in the outcomes of this conflict include the native tribes of South America and other regions that depend on the rainforests for their existence. However, such groups lack the necessary influence to fight both the government and large corporations responsible for destroying their habitat. In this case, only a slight consideration can be given that these populations are negatively affected by deforestation and that their existence is endangered. They remain a significant stakeholder since they have all the right to protect their home.
Therefore, the arena approach placed deforestation at the centre of the conflict. All companies, groups, governments, and individuals involved in the practice become stakeholders whose roles in the conflict vary depending on their relationships. However, the nature of the conflict places Tesco in the hot seat because many people believe that the company’s complicity is to blame for the conflict.
Tesco’s Response and Criticism
Tesco has responded to the conflict in several ways but none of them seems to have any real impact. As mentioned earlier, Tesco has sought help from the UK government to ban imports from firms involved in deforestation (Just Food, 2020). Such a response placed all the burden on the UK government because further cases of association with such businesses can be blamed on the inability of the government to fulfil its mandate. Additionally, Tesco cam appears to support the calls to end deforestation, which could be a public relations move to cleanse its name. however, it is important to acknowledge that if the government is successful the Tesco will avoid rogue suppliers.
A second response has involved addressing activists and explaining the company’s position regarding the conflict. For example, the company’s corporate and legal affairs director, Lucy Neville-Rolfe, addressed reports and claims from Greenpeace that Tesco was supporting deforestation. In a letter, Lucy stated that the company had made it clear to suppliers that beef from illegally deforested farms across the Amazon was not acceptable.
The main question from this response is whether the company’s commitment extends to actively discouraging the suppliers from deforestation or Tesco simply makes statements without actions to follow up on the matter. At the moment, the fact that Tesco continues to be supplied by rogue suppliers means that the company is not keen on acting against them. Tesco can be seen as the main conduit for such companies and should continue to face pressure to drop all those directly involved in deforestation. The accusations of complicity remain valid until effective responses are given (Nelson, 2021). In other words, the voice of the activists will not stop until action is taken by Tesco.
Lastly, Tesco has come out to support Greenpeace and the consumers’ protests by acknowledging the problem and vowing to act. The chief executive officer, Dave Lewis, stated that the company has seen the terrible images of Amazon burning, something which must stop (Tesco, 2020). To illustrate Tesco’s commitment, Lewis added that Tesco will not be purchasing meat from Brazil. The CEO also expresses commitment towards a policy of zero deforestation. However, the actions leading towards these visions are yet to be seen, which means that Tesco remains culpable.
Conclusion
Deforestation and the destruction of tropical forests have placed Tesco at the center of a global backlash and conflict. From a stakeholder management perspective, deforestation is a problem that requires deliberate efforts and commitment from all stakeholders, from the consumers to the suppliers. The roles and current efforts towards the conflict have been explored where Tesco, suppliers, and specific governments can be considered to have failed in resolving the conflict. Additionally, the responses from Tesco are inadequate because the company’s actions defy the statements made by various organizational leaders. Overall, all stakeholders agree that deforestation must stop and that rogue suppliers must be eliminated from Tesco’s supply chain.
Reference List
BBC News (2020) Brazil’s Amazon: deforestation ‘surges to 12-year high’.Web.
Just Food (2020) Tesco calls on the UK government to act on foods linked to deforestation.Web.
Kirkman, A. (2021) Giant protest at Tesco AGM as 10,000 shoppers say “drop forest destroyers”. Web.
Nelson, S. (2021) Greenpeace film targets Tesco’s meat over ‘burning secret’ of deforestation. Web.
Pendrill, F. et al. (2019) ‘Agricultural and forestry trade drives large share of tropical deforestation emissions’, Global Environmental Change, 56, pp. 1-10.
Shankleman, J. (2020) Activists push Tesco not to use supplier linked to Amazon deforestation.Web.
Sun, L. et al. (2016) ‘Issues of NIMBY conflict management from the perspective of stakeholders: a case study in Shanghai’, Habitat International, 53, pp. 13-141.
Tesco (2020) Tesco supports Greenpeace aim to end Amazon deforestation and calls for deforestation-free food in the UK. Web.
The Economist (2020) ‘Of chainsaws and supply chains’, The Economist, pp. 33-36.
Theurl, M. et al. (2020) ‘Food systems in a zero-deforestation world: dietary change is more important than intensification for climate targets in 2050’, Science of The Total Environment, 735, pp. 1-12.
Wang, N. and Wu, G. (2020) ‘A systematic approach to effective conflict management for program’, SAGE Open, 10(1), pp. 1-15.
Willoughby, R. (2021)Tesco’s meat problem (commentary).Web.