Open conversation: Sjaak van der Ploeg and Marcel van der Lugt on mandatory certification according to FSI requirements

Royal FloraHolland wants all affiliated members and suppliers to be certified according to FSI requirements by 1 July 2027 at the latest. Some members have taken note of this. Other members are taking a more critical view. One of them is Sjaak van der Ploeg, who discussed this with Marcel van der Lugt, chair of the Members' Council.

Put Sjaak van der Ploeg and Marcel van der Lugt together at a table and you can be sure of one thing: it will be a passionate discussion. The two growers are extremely passionate about their profession, the industry and the cooperative. Marcel is co-owner of Lugt Lisianthus, a family business that has been around for more than 100 years. He has been chairman of the Members' Council since 1 January 2025. One of his ambitions is to bring the Members' Council even closer to its supporters: all the members. This conversation is an example of that. Sjaak has been a member of Royal FloraHolland since his company was founded in 1988. In Lisse, he grows two varieties of cut flowers: Alchemilla mollis and Limonium. He is a member, uses the Auction Focus package and offers his products exclusively at the hub in Rijnsburg.

Hooks and nodes

The passion for the sector is also the reason for the conversation at the Royal FloraHolland office in Naaldwijk. Sjaak is concerned about the image of floriculture. This has to do, among other things, with the upcoming mandatory certification according to FSI requirements. ‘I am certainly not against certification,’ Sjaak begins. "In fact, I think certification is very important for the sector. We have a responsibility to the trade and to consumers, who – quite rightly – are demanding more and more in terms of transparency and sustainability. But I do not agree with the current certification and the associated obligation imposed by Royal FloraHolland. Other smaller growers generally feel the same way. I know growers who are literally losing sleep over it, also because of the costs. But they find it difficult to speak out. I have less trouble with that."

Sjaak's main concern is the Environmental Certificate, which, alongside GAP and Social, is one of the three pillars of certification according to FSI requirements. ‘Our sector is under fire. Talk shows and newspapers are suggesting that our flowers and plants are toxic,’ says Sjaak, visibly passionate. ‘A good certification system can refute that criticism. But I don't think this certification system is good. In my view, the Environmental pillar should reflect the environmental impact, or footprint, of your product. That way, you are transparent and show what you are doing. Because that is what consumers want. And as I see it, the current certificate does not provide this transparency.’

Level playing field

Sjaak continues: "Any grower can now obtain an MPS-A certificate. That says nothing about the actual environmental impact you make. If you do better than your colleague, it's not visible. If Marcel's Lisianthus and my Limonium are both A-certified, they appear to be the same. But the environmental impact can be very different*. In my view, there is also no level playing field with other countries. They may use crop protection products that have not been approved in the EU because they have different diseases and pests than we do here. Those flowers do end up in bouquets with Marcel's Lisianthus or my Limonium. Critics throw that in our faces, and rightly so."

Marcel nods as he listens to Sjaak's story. ‘I partly agree with you, but partly disagree,’ he says to Sjaak. "I understand that the current certification system is not ideal. But you have to start somewhere. This way, we are creating a level playing field, also internationally. And even with the current certification system, we are transparent. It is now clear what is happening in the area of sustainability. And also what steps we have taken compared to a few years ago. However, that is for the sector as a whole. I agree with you that it is difficult to compare growers. This is being worked on and the Members' Council is also strongly committed to this. If buyers and consumers can compare the range on offer more easily, they can also make more informed choices."

Mandatory or not?

‘I recognise that this is already an improvement on a few years ago,’ says Sjaak. ‘But I believe we have a duty to consumers to tell a fairer and clearer story. That will only be possible once we have an optimal certification system, including the footprint per product. At the moment, I see it as a bit of window dressing. That's why I don't think it should be made mandatory.’

Marcel emphasises that there is support for the introduction of mandatory certification according to FSI requirements. "Ultimately, this is a decision for the executive board. But that decision is widely supported throughout the supply chain: from growers to buyers. This is certainly true for plant growers, who are almost all already certified. Seven years ago, there was more doubt about this; at that time, the decision was reversed on the advice of the members. Now, a large majority of the Members' Council and a large proportion of our members are convinced that mandatory FSI certification is a good step.”

Say for small-scale growers

Sjaak disputes this statement. "In my opinion, half of the members are not yet certified. Some are certified, but reluctantly. Mainly because of the obligation imposed by Royal FloraHolland. I am in favour of not making certification compulsory, but leaving it to the market. Let growers decide for themselves whether they want to be certified. There are plenty of buyers who will buy my products even if I'm not certified. And as far as support is concerned, perhaps that also says something about the composition of the Members' Council. Maybe a certain group of growers doesn't have enough say. And I say that out of genuine concern. Because it worries me.”

‘I certainly feel that sincerity,’ says Marcel: "We share that with each other. And based on that sincere commitment, I say that careful consideration is given to the composition of the Members' Council. The aim is to achieve a good reflection of the membership base. We take into account the distribution of plant and flower growers, but also gender, turnover class and location. As a result, smaller growers already have much more say than they did years ago, when everything was decided at a general members' meeting. We ensure that small growers are also well represented by the members' council. But okay, maybe there is room for improvement.”

Marcel also believes that Royal FloraHolland can and should impose certification on its members. “You shouldn't leave that to the market. Otherwise, you end up with a proliferation of certificates, with retailers imposing all kinds of different requirements, as has happened in the fruit and vegetable sector. Certification will become increasingly important in the future. It is good that we are already preparing for this and working with a benchmark. This also applies to the national government, so that we can demonstrate that we are working towards a more sustainable sector.”

Small-scale grower scheme

Sjaak: “I still think Royal FloraHolland is shooting itself in the foot with this obligation. With this mandatory certification system, Royal FloraHolland is taking the risk that a large number of members will leave sooner than expected. And with them, interesting trade. I think that's a great shame for the cooperative.”

Marcel: “I think Royal FloraHolland is thinking along with us. Also because we advised this from the Members’ Council.” Marcel refers to the small-scale grower scheme for growers with a total annual turnover from floriculture products of less than €250,000. Thanks to this scheme, they can comply with FSI requirements with less administrative burden and at lower costs. Entrepreneurs who want to stop within two years can apply for dispensation. Agreements have also been made about visibility. At Floriday and on RFH's clocks, the certificates are displayed for each grower, along with whether a grower is FSI-compliant. ‘Previously, it was explicitly stated when a grower was not certified. Now the approach is more positive,’ says Marcel.

A listening ear

Sjaak is glad that Marcel approached him. “I only want one thing: for our cooperative to remain proud and strong. And that's what you want too, Marcel. When it comes to certification according to FSI requirements, we can say: we agree to disagree. But it's good that we're talking to each other. I certainly feel heard. Although it would be to the credit of the executive board to reconsider the decision on mandatory certification. That would not be a sign of weakness, but of strength. It would show that you really listen to members.”

Marcel nods. “Listening to all members is one of my goals as chair of the Members' Council. Especially when it comes to such passionate members as you, Sjaak. So I'm glad you feel heard. And what you say is right: we both want Royal FloraHolland to be strong. I firmly believe that this cooperative structure ensures a strong floriculture sector. I want to involve the members more explicitly and make the role of the Members' Council clearer. I also want to show and tell the executive board and the Supervisory Board who we are. This includes on this subject. I will certainly take the concerns of the growers to the Members' Council and in my discussions with the executive board.”

*Addition by Royal FloraHolland: MPS does make a distinction here. The MPS classification ranges from C, B, A to A+. This classification shows the differences.