imagining a trading system based on gandhian ethics
I have been having a very good conversation with a few people on twitter about fairtrade. These people include @otherdiscovery (Dr Scott John who blogs here) @angryafrican (who has particular experience of Starbucks and blogs here) @Kon_Ioannidis and @Sharedinterest (Patrick Dodd who maintains the Shared Interest blog here). I feel inadequate among these wise fairtrade tweeters, and I recommend anyone who takes these issues seriously to check out their blogs and their twitter feeds. Anyway, I have been very energised by various academic papers I have been reading about fairtrade, in particular this paper which suggests that it might be time to find 'some alternatives to the alternatives'. Patrick very sensibly asks what my proposed solution is, so this post is going to be an effort to start the conversation - perhaps including posting elsewhere on other blogs to engage with others if appropriate.
To start with, I think we all need to acknowledge that Fairtrade as a movement is sailing into some very difficult waters. Those involved need frequently to make a choice, and at times that can be unclear how or what that choice should be.
- The assumption that international trade is a desirable course of action for poor farmers in developing countries. Maybe by locking them into deeply unfair trading conditions, we perpetuate a form of undesirable dependency which will never be able to bring the changes we want to see in their lives.
- The assumption that cash cropping becomes desirable when it can be sold at a premium above the level of an ordinary product. Maybe growing and producing cash crops is inherently environmentally unsustainable and hence maybe we are just encouraging poor farmers to mortgage their future production.
- The assumption that because we're all working for the right motives and because we sometimes see friendly representatives from the producers in developing countries, that makes what we're doing legitimate. Just because we believe in it and want it to work doesn't mean it actually does work.
- The assumption that the total volume of fairtrade sales is at all relevant.
- The assumption that 'trade' is better than 'aid'. Given the high level of 'aid' involved in the fairtrade system, it is highly dubious to suggest that it is in any way a real alternative to aid anyway.
I am sure there are others. There are many who have invested a lot into this paradigm, so it is hardly surprising that we find these things hard to talk and think about. But for me, examination of these assumptions draws into question the whole edifice we have built upon them.
The only logical questions left are:a) is this the best that Fairtrade can do - because if it is, it clearly isn't good enough and b) how do we re-design a system which prioritises the needs of producer groups above the needs of everyone else in the system, including me.
If we start to try to answer these questions without addressing the assumptions above, we don't get far. It seems highly unlikely that it will be possible to squeeze additional funds from the fairtrade supply chain to pay more to the farmers. Indeed, with the increasing corporate takeover of fairtrade, this prices are more likely to be under pressure than relaxed to maintain corporate profitability. Sadly, the fairtrade mark has ended up making the radical movement campaigning for trade justice impotent because it it is hard to negotiate with the big suppliers of consumer products for better farmer conditions when they already proudly wear the mark. We are more likely to be engaging with the corporates by buying their products in Fairtrade Fortnight than pressurising them to pay more to their fairtrade suppliers.
If it is actually true that we have reached an equilibrium point which represents the most consumers will pay as a premium for the product and the maximum level of benefits the corporates will pass on to the producers, then we need to think beyond fairtrade and contemplate how we can do more for the producers and their families. I think what we need to do is go back to contemplating the effect of our actions on the poorest person, as Gandhi suggested should be the basis for ethics. We then need to design systems that put them first, not as a bit actor in an amorphous system. Sometimes that might mean educating them to encourage diversification away from cash crops.Sometimes that might mean encouraging more valuable alternative cash crops with a better market.
Sometimes that might mean going back to the notion of solidarity on which the movement grew. The Côte d'Ivoire is said to produce more than 50% of all cocoa consumed by western countries. That should put them in an extremely strong negotiating position as they could totally disrupt the global cocoa market by refusing to sell. Instead, the isolated position of the cocoa farmer in that country means that they are ripped off every time and are some of the poorest of all commodity farmers. As for us, consumers in the rich countries, we need to understand that we are the weaker partner in these trading relationships. We might like to enjoy a varied diet off the back of the poverty of others, but that only works whilst the poor remain unorganised and powerless. When they start organising and challenging our right to dictate terms, we're stuffed. We therefore need to design systems in co-operation with partners growing the things we want (with 'co-operation' and 'partners' taking on their true meaning as the meeting and trading between equals). If we are unable to buy products at the prices we can afford and at the same time provide the producers with all that they want, maybe we need to cut back. Maybe we need to make changes about the way we consume. Maybe we need to form consumer co-operatives to join with others to buy directly from those producing what we want cutting out all the complications, the red tape, the expensive western processing and western employment. Maybe we need to assist the producers to take a stronger hand in the supply chain - imagine a producer group owning Cadburys and all the benefits that would entail to them. If we do that, I think we stand a chance.
42 comments
What a great piece of work you have developed from asking that one question on Twitter yesterday that 'got this whole thing started' (again).
Congratulations on putting down your thinking so clearly and definitively...we probably need to thank Patrick @SharedInterest for that!
Thanks also for the big wrap in yr intro. I love to hear gross overstatements of my no matter how far removed from reality they actually are...enough...to get to your thinking about an alternative to the current alternative fairer trading model.
In seeking to understand you key points I ask... are you saying...
1. The current version of fair trade as it is applied and practiced today is unable to 'make good' on its espoused benefits/promised in that (from your research) it makes little impact on reducing poverty in developing countries? More specifically, as an alternative trade and market-based strategy for social change, it has made an insignificant difference in improving the lives and prospects of producers who have committed to using the fairtrade-system?
2. Are you also saying that these impact limitations are a direct result of applying a number of incorrect economic/trade assumptions about the worth or workability of the current version of fair trade?
3. Are you then saying that the fundamental fault in the current fairtrade system is that it does not or cannot maintain the needs and interests of the producer groups as priorities in this alternative trading strategy? And that a redesigned system to maintain producer priority would overcome these limitations.
4. Is your conclusion then that to achieve this, the alternative fair trading system needs to be designed so that current supply chain power imbalances are neutralized and strategies to increase producer power are developed?
Joe, am I understanding you correctly or am I missing some of your key points or more subtle nuisances?
Cheers
Scott
To address your questions:
1. I think there is good evidence that the fairtrade system has made a significant difference to the lives of producers. The problem is twofold - first, this seems to be patchy, so it is hard to tell how widely the benefits are spread within the producer groups. Which is in itself a major issue when the products are sold as being some kind of 'guarantee' of better conditions. Secondly, our understanding of beneficial impact is too woolly. If instead we say that we want to see people lifted out of poverty, as shown by (for example) higher education achievement, increased life options, full access to decent healthcare, sensible working hours, better roads, better housing, etc, the fairtrade system clearly does not have the capacity to deliver beyond a very small start.
2. I'm not sure I am qualified to answer this. It seems to me that we have been operating under certain assumptions and this is the end result. I am sure they developed out of necessity as nobody set out to develop a highly inefficient system which is not able to deliver all that we want it to.
3. Yes, ultimately many more people benefit from fairtrade systems much more than the farmers. We have created a 'slightly less unfair' trade system and then rewarded multinationals handsomely for participating.
4. Well, I'm saying we need to have a discussion based around what is best for the producers outwith of anyone else. Are there ways of redesigning supply chains to more directly link us with the producers? Can we think of smaller concepts which do not involve international trade which might have a more direct positive impact on producers - such as advocated by Excellent Development amongst others?
Well done. You've put forth, very eloquently I might add, a very compelling argument. It’s going to take me a day or so to respond. I have to say how surprised I am at how much you and I agree on this.
Cheers,
Patrick
For me the key principle of fair trade is transparent supply chains that demonstrate that any profit the retailer makes is proportional to the benefit the producers themselves make from the transaction. I do not believe that only non-profit organisations should retail fairtrade products (as co-owner of By Hand, this would be a somewhat illogical position to hold!) BUT those companies and organisations that do work in the fair trade arena need to demonstrate a real commitment to the producers themselves. They need to be motivated by making a real difference to the lives of the producers and their communities, not by winning new customers and increasing profit margins.
Unfortunately creating a situation where those working with the Fairtrade mark do so for ethical not economical reasons is almost impossible. Short of introducing a limit on the mark-up/profit margin of retailers working under the Fairtrade mark, I cannot think of a true solution.
Essentially it is up to the consumers to recognise the 'good' fair trade companies from the 'bad'. With its application by companies such as Starbucks as well as discount supermarkets and other retailers, the Fairtrade mark has lost one of its key values - consumer confidence that their purchase will benefit the producers above everyone else. Starbucks fair trade coffee will undoubtedly benefit producers more than Starbucks non-fair-trade coffee, but in brandishing the Fairtrade mark they are taking business away from the companies that are really looking to make a difference to the people at the bottom of the supply chain, rather than the shareholders at the top.
Consumers have to be aware; this new-found popularity of fair trade does not mean the end of campaigning to raise consumer awareness. In fact now that the Fairtrade mark itself has been almost hijacked, campaigning is as important as ever.
We would have to either base our systems on the teachings on the likes of Marx, Jesus or Gandhi in order to get this redistributive approach, and as our collective systems dont allow for this kind or radical overhaul that is just not going to happen.
What then exists in form of solution? Only a radical personalisation of the issue can make any substantial difference. By totally transforming consumer habits from within we can begin to make the world fairer. But that is not realistic, and won't answer the problem, as the majority of people will not accede to this request. Only a radical minority will.
Its not the great unwashed we need to convince, its the great washed.
It seems that the vast majority of people will only act in the best interests of others when two circumstances collide: a) that it becomes very easy to do so, and b) that their own best interests are shown to coincide with those of others.
If we as socio/economic reformers or radicals can come up with a way of demonstrating that people will benefit from considering others, and find a way that it is easy for them to do so, then we have a winning solution. At the moment no such solution exists, and in my experience and I'm sure yours as well, its jolly hard to get some people even just to purchase 'Fair Trade' with its tiny premium, never mind take any further steps.
Personally I find myself torn, between trying to encourage a move towards more 'ethical consumption' as a preference to the evil of grossly unfair trade which is all around, and then in trying to get people to see beyond the fetish of fair trade labelling or whatever, which gives them a false illusion that they can continue their unsustainable consumption habits so long as they pay a little more.
Yes I do co-operate with the Fairtrade movement, and continue to support it, while at the same time I pull my hair out at the thought that this is as far as we are prepared to go.
Probably not a very helpful comment, but sorry not to have been able to contribute to the discussion earlier.
You write that those involved in fairtrade should "be motivated by making a real difference to the lives of the producers and their communities, not by winning new customers and increasing profit margins". But couldn't you also argue that an unprofitable business is no help to anyone? If, like me, you spend too little time worrying about the market, your business is not sustainable no matter how good your intentions.
Isn't it also true that whilst the operations of a small business might well be closer to the producers, the inefficiencies still exist because of economies of scale? I just don't know how we argue with producers who say that they don't like the idea that more than 75% of the value of the product remains in the UK - because my experience suggests that is a low figure for a small clothing brand.
On the contrary, I think it was a very helpful comment and reflects well how many of us feel.
Thanks for your reply and your two good points.
Naturally I agree that unprofitable businesses are of no use to anyone, but I do believe that there is a clear distinction between businesses seeking to make as much money as possible and businesses seeking to exist to do good (and I mean ethical good, not simply lining the pockets of shareholders!).
In the case of By Hand, one of our main aims is to offer a market to the local village producers in Bali. If By Hand does not make enough money to remain a sustainable business itself then it will be of no use to the producers in Indonesia. But if By Hand were ever to get to the point where the owners are millionaires and the producers have seen little or no change to their lives then something would be very wrong.
This distinction is clearly not black and white. Personally I think that any company whose owners and shareholders earn £100,000s a year is 'bad'. If profit margins are that high, the producers are clearly not getting their fair share.
This is no doubt a very simplistic way of putting it. I believe that fair trade is the way forward because it is better than not having fair trade at all. If someone can create a Fairtrade Version 2 that better helps those fair trade originally set out to help - i.e. those traditionally exploited by capitalism; those at the bottom - and which cannot simply be hijacked by companies looking to pose as being more ethical then it would be welcomed by all those active in the fair trade movement, and no doubt hated by all those seeking to profit from fair trade. That would be a real development. However, until that arises we are stuck with non-fair-trade versus fair trade, and when that is the choice, I have to go with fair trade.
Everyone wants to get paid, most people want to get paid 'well' (at least as much as our peers seem to be getting paid). Perhaps the best we can ask is for complete transparency, any enterprise wishing to trade as an 'ethical' outfit must post full details of supply chain, and of who gets paid what, for what. Currently Fair Trade only ask for minimal details of payments, they certainly dont care about how much a CEO is taking home. Complete transparency would be one way of ensuring a truly ethical system, sadly I think it would be too difficult for many to take up, as it would mean that every element of the chain would be willing to commit to a 'non competitive' form of trade.
And if you're doing that and nobody else is, you leave yourself open to someone (who doesn't really understand the costs of running a small business) coming along and saying 'call yourself ethical? you only pay the farmer £x!' Which might be fair enough if you're living on a cushy salary from a multinational, but rather annoying if you're only taking a small income at all from running your small company.
Sigh. The world is so messed up.
Business will always act in its own self interest – profit
driven. Therefore the onus is on the consumer to dictate what is in business’
best interest through the purchases that they make.
In order for consumers to do the right thing (make ethical
choices when they make their purchases) millions of pounds have to be spent
educating and informing. Part of
this is the establishment of a trusted mark/certification that consumers readily
recognise as symbolising an ethical decision.
These realisations have given us Fairtrade 1.0.
I think we all agree that Fairtrade works to some degree, but it is not
enough. What we need is Fairtrade
2.0.
The problem with Fairtrade 1.0 is that the emphasis on
being ‘fair’ is on the producer – from the legal structure (co-operative) to
environmental standards, working conditions and wages of the workers.
For the most part, all the buyer needs to do is to prepay a certain
percentage for each order and then ensure that the price paid meets the minimum
price required by the scheme. The
amount of effort to comply with Fairtrade standards is disproportionate
favouring, yet again, the buyer.
This has basically allowed companies like Starbucks and
Cadburys to reap huge marketing benefits with very little associated costs and
having absolutely no skin in the game.
Whilst this is better than nothing, the effects that Starbucks and
Cadburys have on producers is nothing like those derived from the relationships
between Divine, CafeDirect, Traidcraft, etc and the producers with whom they
work. To fully understand the depth of the true fair trade buyer/seller
relationship, I recommend visiting the Twin Trading
website (thanks for the tip
Dr. Scott).
The problem is that consumers dont understand that not all
Fairtrade is equal. Until they do, they will continue to buy Starbucks thinking
that they’ve done their part to save the world.
Fairtrade 2.0 will occur when FLO requires buyers to comply
with much higher ethical standards, like those that are already being practiced
by the previously mentioned companies.
With these new standards, FLO must develop a new mark (e.g.Fairtrade
Gold) that tells the consumer that purchasing this product does more to
alleviate poverty than purchasing a similar product that only carries that
traditional Fairtrade mark.
I believe that people will make the distinction and will
choose to do more with their purchasing power.
This, in turn, will make it more profitable for businesses to do whatever
it takes to get the gold level certification.
Real change only takes place when consumers demand it and
its time that FLO started holding buyers to higher standards.
Is anyone in dialogue with FT about this right now?
I come to it quite mindful of how even in schools, where our surveys show that ‘awareness’ rates of Fairtrade have risen sharply over the last decade from 39% of students in 1999 to 79% in 2007, a good ‘understanding’ of Fairtrade often lags behind awareness.
Schools have done a lot of good work explaining where products come from, who grows them, what’s in them, and how they’re made and packaged, but there is very little there about the politics of corporate power and marketing. There is a lot of groundwork to do to help our already quite well informed young citizens understand that, as SharedInterest put it, ‘not all Fairtrade is equal’.
I like SharedInterest’s clear take on Fairtrade 2.0! I would definitely prefer Fairtrade 2.0 to come from within the existing system. There is already an increasing issue with the proliferation of ethical certification marks in terms of confusing consumers, so the idea of more proliferation – e.g. a ‘Fairtrade Gold’ mark – worries me. I would like the existing Fairtrade Mark standards to be gradually toughened up, taking everyone on this journey together. On the other hand, if it gets to the point where the survival of fair trade pioneers like Divine, CafeDirect or Liberation Nuts is at stake, then Fairtrade Gold does look attractive, flagging these companies up to more thoughtful consumers.
While I agree with SharedInterest’s point ‘business will always act in its own self interest’ I don’t think the onus is entirely on the consumer to make up for this, nor can it be. As far as I can see, the hard truth from social surveys and research is that it is only ever a heroic minority of shoppers who are prepared to be delegated the responsibility of choosing society’s way out of unsustainability. We also have to ensure that governments engage in ‘choice editing’ for their citizen consumers too.
That includes finding ways to limit the power of corporations – e.g. the Corporate Responsibility Coalition’s proposal for a UK Commission on Business, Human Rights and the Environment, or the campaign for a new supermarket ombudsman that would oversee their relations with suppliers overseas – and ways to establish global frameworks like commodity agreements to support farmers in poor countries.
I hear what you are saying about children - but then I'm not sure it is a realistic message to expect them to distinguish between fairtrade companies. I wonder what effect it has in having them identify the mark - is there any research suggesting it increases sales?
I totally hear what you're saying about marks and certification schemes. We've talked about fairtrade here, but I am sure the same things could be said about all the other schemes. Fairtrade does have in its faviour a great level of visability which the other marks (perhaps) do not.
Two points - first, can you (or anyone else) comment on the effect of government takeover of ethics. Isn't it the case that once the movement is seen as being part of the government establishment, we have once again lost a voice of criticism, neutering an important part of our message?
Second, even a reformed 'fairtrade 2.0' still has the problem of linking development to consumption by rich people, hence the attitude that consuming more and more is 'helping poor producers'!
That is not the problem, but rather the solution. I believe this is where our opinions depart company Joe.
I think we consume too much stuff already. I don't think we should consume more, but find ways to reduce our consumption whilst at the same time increasing our impact on consumers.
Unfortunately, as this discussion has shown, this is proving to not be enough in many cases, as large companies are simply exploiting the positive consumer response to fair trade and hijacking the whole idea to maximise profits. The producers remain at the bottom of the heap and the large companies are still walking all over them to increase shareholder dividends.
We have to hope that the Fairtrade Foundation and others working for fair trade can respond and work towards this magical sounding Fairtrade 2.0 to stop fair trade becoming little more than a marketing ploy.
Oh, and someone needs to please tell consumers that Starbucks sporting the Fairtrade mark is STILL Starbucks!!!
And on the other hand, I can't think of any fairtrade product which is a necessity. Which means all of the products are luxuries of one kind or another.
So whilst I totally support your calls for new vigour in the fairtrade system and to engage with the FLO to make it happen, in a climate stressed future I cannot see how the world can continue allowing a minority to live on luxuries produced by a minority. So, for me, fairtrade is only a means to an end - a temporary step rather than the ultimate goal.
Anyway, I think we agree that we need to see more of the money spent by consumers reaching the producers - presumably both by supporting small brands to reach fairtrade 2.0 and putting the big brands under increased pressure to make more changes rather than taking our foot off the gas because they've gone fairtrade.
Thank you for your insightful article and the beginning of a great conversation. All the comments were very interesting and I’m more than happy to participate in this discussion.
I prefer to see Fairtrade as a movement, not as a marketing device. One of the initial and main goals of this movement has been the change of the (unfair) economic and political system, through challenging the conventional trade policies (highly paid intermediaries, oligopolistic markets, price fixing etc). We should also bear in mind that EU’s and US’s trade policy (protectionism, import/ export tariffs, conditionality in trade agreements with third world countries) maintain an inequitable trade system. Fairtrade should bring to the front these issues and set as a long-term goal the change of the ‘larger picture’. Price premium is vital for the development of third world countries, but without changing the main trade policies it could have less impact.
The ‘mainstream approach’ of Fairtrade carries some serious risks. Besides, it’s very hard to be contemporaneously in and against the market. The collaboration with a number of multinational corporations, may have some beneficial results for the lives of million of producers, but at the same time, constrains Fairtrade authorities from pursuing more radical goals.
In this new era of ‘mainstreaming’, Fairtade has to face some serious challenges and dilemmas and try to do the right thing in the right way. I remain optimistic for the future of Fairtrade, although it’s hard to keep the correct balance between ideology and marketing/ sales goals.
Cheers,
Konstantinos
Wow what a wonderful conversation! Great to see so many different perspectives.
It seems to me that the big missing element in the discussion is the perspectives of FLO or their associated national body in the UK, The Fairtrade Foundation.
Regardless what others say and do in the area of fair trade, there seems little doubt in my mind that FLO and their national members are the current controllers of the most common and powerful elements of what is generally considered 'fair trade'. They own the best known and best selling version of Fairtrade 1.0.
I most humbly suggest that before we can really explore the issues with the current system (and many have been identified here) or even consider the possibilities of what Fairtrade 2.0 might look like, we first need to hear from FLO or the FF about a few things.
Including:
1. Why have they chosen to adopt the current version of 'fair trade' as opposed to any other number of varieties, and why do they see this version as the best way to achieve the goals of fair trade as they were originally espoused?
2. Are they aware of the issues with achieving these goals (as discussed above) and what actions have they taken or intend to take to address and overcome them?
3. What would be required for FLO to consider making further changes to their system and develop a Fairtrade 2.0 in line with ideas similar to the one's suggested above?
4. What could others, who work both inside and outside their systems, do to support them to be able to move towards an 'improved' fairtrade system.
To me, until we know their answers to these questions, there is really no value, beyond our own self-interest, in continuing the discussion.
With FLO's answers to these questions, we will know the possibilities for re-visioning and reworking the current alternative or whether we must seek to build an 'alternative to the alternative'.
So Joe, maybe you need to make an appointment with someone in FLO or the Fairtrade Foundation or do whatever it takes and find out what THEY think!
Cheers
Scott
Scott, some challenging questions there. I have tried contacting the fairtrade foundation several times on these issues and have had no reply. Anyone have any contacts to put these points to them?
One of the things to state at the beginning is that Fairtrade is about more than just price – it’s also about defined standards for the health and social and economic welfare of producers, standards for the environment and offer advance payments too.
At Traidcraft, we work in partnership with producers, offering participation in decisions and a commitment to long-term relationships; commit to regular orders; and offer training and support.
For producers, the price is only one of the many benefits of engaging in fair trade. Many tell us that they place even greater value on the quality of relationship, regularity of ordering and commitment to capacity building that they receive from Traidcraft.
Fairtrade moves on as new areas are developed and consumers have an influence on how this progresses. We believe that it is vital for companies like Traidcraft, Cafédirect and Divine to continue to pioneer new ways of doing Fairtrade. At Traidcraft we also work to introduce new markets and work with producers who are not able (or not yet able) to participate in Fairtrade.
As Joe says, international trade is not necessarily right for all producers and some will not be able to achieve it. This is why Traidcraft provides training for people to help them understand local markets and also help them to form co-operatives to address the lack of power they have within the market. In addition, in countries like India and South Africa where there is an affluent middle class, it is also possible to work towards a fair trade local market too.
We also work with groups who do sell internationally to ensure they are able to diversify and we supported Apicoop in Chile to start growing blueberries, in addition to producing honey. This type of diversification limits producers’ risk and, in this case, was suggested by Apicoop themselves.
As Fairtrade grows, we are seeing more producers improving their lives through the benefits that come from Fairtrade. It is a challenge to get some companies on board with Fairtrade, and one that we are currently campaigning for in the tea sector.
By campaigning around supply chains, a supermarket ombudsman and Company Law reform, Traidcraft works to change the way trade works and we believe it is this, in combination with Fairtrade, that brings about the biggest change for producers and their communities.
I was surprised by the figures that TomAllen mentioned. 79% of students are familiar with Fair Trade. In the U.S. that number would probably be single digits for adults. Why is it that the movement has grabbed much better footing in the UK than the US? Is it just that Americans are less globally aware?
I guess that's a whole other post. But if anyone has seen any research on this let me know - kelsey@kelseytimmerman.com.
Okay, back to the topic at hand.
I have a mix of questions and comments:
1) Joe, you talk that fair trade in it's present form has topped out when it comes to benefiting producers. And also that the number of FT-supporting consumers has reached it's limit. Can we be sure about this? When I walk through my grocery store in Muncie, Indiana, I barely see a single FT product on the shelves. Seems like there is room to grow to me.
2) Are there any papers that highlight the different impacts of Starbucks fair trade vs. another company's FT. The consensus here seems to be that Starbucks fair trade is not the answer and much less preferred. Why?
(I apologize for my ignorance, if, in fact, these are ignorant questions. I've always taken FT at it's face value and never examined it as thoroughly as you all are doing so well here.)
3) Fair Trade isn't a silver bullet that's going to lift the world out of poverty. Maybe we're asking too much of it here.
I can't comment on the fairtrade market in the USA as I am totally ignorant of it. I can't think of a reason culturally why this is less of an issue in the USA, although it appears to me there is much wider awareness of sweatshops and apparently 'sweat-free' clothing in the USA than in Europe.
I don't know many research papers about Starbucks in particular, but you might like to check out these two about the mainstreaming of fairtrade and corporations http://bit.ly/7mCo8 http://bit.ly/ThWq7 . You might also want to check out this one http://bit.ly/Ot8Ou (although unfortunately I can only find the abstract of it online) and this one http://bit.ly/McRwl . I guess Starbucks is just a case in point, being such a massive consumer of coffee.
I don't think anyone assumes that fairtrade is a silver bullet - but I think it is realistic to expect it to do what it says it does and what popular imagination thinks it says it does. When it doesn't, or can't, then there is a problem.
I'm wondering if actually they are not 'able' to. If they were to admit that 'all fairtrade is not equal' that might undermine the united message that they are trying to put across. Equally if they were suddenly to start talking about a 'fairtrade 2.0' or 'fairtrade gold' this probably wouldn't look to good to the corporations, who by now must be one of the main funders to the whole effort.
So to be fair to them, maybe this discussion puts them into a very uncomfortable catch-22. Just a thought..
Kelsey, if you want to see how a coffee importer can make a massive difference to the lives/livelihoods of the producers with whom it works go to the following blog post - http://www.otherdiscovery.com/?p=444 – and scroll down to the comment made by Cafe Direct employee Jacquie Bance. Compare that to those that are simply prepaying a certain percentage of the order upfront and meeting the minimum price and you can see that not all Fairtrade is equal.
Patrick
Sales of Fairtrade goods in the UK are increasing dramatically, according to the Fairtrade Foundation.
Since 2001, sales volumes have grown by 40-50% on average, with 1.3 million more households buying Fairtrade goods in 2008 than in 2007, the foundation said.
The value of these goods was £500m in 2007 and £700m in 2008, it added.
Surveys also show, as you say, that levels of global awareness are quite low in the US compared to many European countries so it is less fertile soil for the movement, as it were, though the roots of the movement in the US are just as old as in Europe.
The Fairtrade movement in the UK has benefitted from various strategic structural gains. It grew out of a vibrant and well supported international NGO sector, as well as having wholehearted support from churches.
We've had a sympathetic Labour government over the last twelve years that has introduced a quietly revolutionary 'global dimension' to the National Curriculum. And Fairtrade companies, international NGOs and the Fairtrade Foundation have worked hard to get Fairtrade educational resources into schools. e.g. (and I have to declare a personal interest in promoting these!) the 'Pa Pa Paa' resources (www.papapaa.org) telling the story of Fairtrade and chocolate since 2000.
The founding of local Fairtrade Town campaigns since 2000 has meant there is a powerful grassroots support network across the UK, raising awareness and getting products into shops, workplaces and homes - essential when you set Fairtrade against the massive marketing budgets of mainstream companies.
One would think it ought to at least be possible to assess the value of the fairtrade premium awarded to co-operatives, given that the FLO administers this.
I agree with Tom that there has been a long history of trade activism in the UK led by the churches, socialist groups, grannies etc and radical brands and organisations like traidcraft and shared interest - along with charity support. This radical coalition got the movement to the position where it is today. Maybe these things are missing in the USA - I really couldn't say.
@gentlemandad
I borrowed the term “fairtrade authorities” from a very comprehensive paper by Iain Davies, 2007. He considers as ‘authorities’ the organisations (like FLO, FtF, FINE) that oversee Fairtrade and audit related participants (http://tinyurl.com/yle6e5r ).
You can also find more about the argument of “being in and against the market” in the great book “Brewing Justice: Fair Trade Coffee, Sustainability and Survival” by Daniel Jaffee. (http://tinyurl.com/ygxzhco )
@KelseyTimmerman
There is a great paper on fairtrade and Starbucks by Gavin Fridell, 2009 (http://tinyurl.com/yzsmw7c )
Moreover, the company I work for had conducted a global survey on CSR and Fairtrade in 2007. You can see the levels of Fairtrade awareness (per region) here: http://tinyurl.com/yl6wauk
Leave a comment...
