Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Kenya has built one of the world’s most robust ethical and environmental floriculture systems, but sustaining that leadership comes at a rising cost, raising a critical question: who ultimately pays for sustainability?

According to the Kenya Flower Council, 80% of exports are certified under the KFC’s lower and Ornamental Sustainability Standard (FOSS), and besides being a founding member of the as a founding member of Floriculture Sustainability Initiative (FSI), Kenya commands about 40% of the European market, where ESG standards are stringent.

Speaking during the Kenya Flower Council’s discussion on the state of the floriculture industry as the year comes to a close, Mr. Clement Tulezi, the council’s CEO, said, “Sustainability here is not branding, it is systems, audits, training, monitoring, and enforcement.”

For instance, FOSS requires responsible and judicious pesticide use, implemented in close collaboration with the Pest Control Products Board (PCPB) to ensure that only approved and safe pest control products are used on farms.

Moreover, these controls are aligned with global maximum residue standards, safeguarding both consumers and ecosystems.

Beyond environmental safeguards, FOSS places strong emphasis on labour protections, including fair wages, safe and healthy working conditions, and accessible grievance mechanisms.

It also integrates a gender-responsive approach, prioritising women’s inclusion, childcare protections, and workplace equity.

Rising Compliance Costs

Tulezi notes that the cost of certification, monitoring, and compliance is borne largely by growers themselves, even as sustainability requirements continue to tighten across global markets.

Environmental audits, pesticide controls, labour compliance systems, and continuous training all carry financial implications that farms must absorb long before a stem reaches the export market.

For many growers, sustainability is no longer a one-off investment but a recurring operational expense.

These costs are compounded by a dense web of regulatory fees, levies, and delayed tax refunds, creating a pressure stack that is increasingly difficult to manage.

“Freight alone accounts for 30 to 40 per cent of total production and selling costs, meaning that sustainability investments are layered onto already high logistics expenses.

At the same time, unresolved VAT refund backlogs tie up working capital that could otherwise be reinvested into compliance, innovation, or expansion,” says Tulezi, adding that while international buyers continue to raise ESG expectations, the financial burden of meeting those standards remains concentrated at the farm level, with little evidence of cost-sharing along the value chain.

The rising cost of sustainability also poses a quieter but more consequential risk: the potential exclusion of small and medium-scale growers.

Tulezi points to the recent entry of more than 20 smallholders into Kenya Flower Council membership as evidence of a sector that is expanding and becoming more inclusive.

Through group certification, a model he describes as globally novel in floriculture, small growers are being supported to access export markets that would otherwise be out of reach due to the high cost of individual certification.

Yet this progress remains fragile. Smallholders, particularly those producing outdoor and summer flowers, face steep learning curves as they navigate complex compliance requirements involving pesticide management, labor standards, and environmental monitoring.

“These growers require intensive training, frequent audits, and close technical support, all of which come at a cost; without affordable and predictable compliance pathways, sustainability risks become a barrier rather than a bridge,” says Tulezi.

Who Should Pay? The Policy and Market Gap

Tulezi calls for predictable and supportive policy frameworks that recognize the economic value of ethical production rather than penalizing it.

He points to the need for digitalized, “apply-once, pay-once” regulatory systems, faster VAT refund settlements, and rationalized tax structures that ease liquidity pressures on compliant growers. Without such reforms, sustainability investments risk being eroded by administrative inefficiencies and fiscal unpredictability.

But the accountability question extends beyond government. If sustainability delivers global reputational value, market access, and consumer trust, should the cost rest solely with producers?

Should governments absorb part of the compliance burden to protect jobs and export earnings? Should buyers pay meaningful sustainability premiums instead of transferring ESG expectations downstream?

Or should policy frameworks actively reward ethical production through incentives rather than layered levies?

As Kenya’s floriculture sector continues to green its practices, the answer to who pays may ultimately determine whether sustainability remains a competitive advantage or becomes an unsustainable burden.

Read Also: Red Land Roses Blossoms as a Special Economic Zone