For a non-fair trade certified company, Groundwork Coffee buys a LOT of coffee from fair trade certified farms. Check out one of the many bushels of coffee in Groundwork’s offices, imprinted with the fair trade seal of approval.
So why don’t Groundwork coffee packages sport the seal? To get the seal, everyone in the chain has to be certified, from the farmer to the retailer. Groundwork, so far, has opted out.
Today, I met with Ric, COO of Groundwork, to find out why. We set up our meeting over a week ago – during which time I’ve speculated here about why a socio-enviro conscious company like Groundwork would snub fair trade certification. Turns out, I do damn good research (hihi), cuz my speculations were right on. Groundwork’s biggest peeves: 1. Fair trade certification is only open to small co-ops, which cuts out all individually owned farms and larger estates, and 2. Fair trade certification has no quality controls.
The first point, I totally agree, is a major shortcoming right now (The second I’ll deal with later – I can already sense this post’ll be longish). Which is why I’m totally with Groundwork if they can’t go 100% certified. But my question to Ric: Why not certify the stuff that comes from already-certified farms? (Ric with another certified bag, right)
For one, Ric believes that changes in the coffee industry will be propelled by the specialty coffee companies like himself, not the consumers. Ric has real reservations about whether or not the fair trade model – which relies on consumer recognition of the fair trade label — actually improves things. In the worst case scenario, he feels, the fair trade model would pay premium prices for gross tasting coffee, then let retailers gouge customers by hiking up prices.
Certainly not a happy scenario – but one, Ric pointed out, that’s happened in the past with organic certification.
A certification seal Groundwork proudly displays on its packages.
So if consumer recognition won’t change things, why the organic certification? Ric had said earlier that Groundwork’s choice to start going organic in 1996 was fueled by customer demand. The certification seal was necessary cuz it’s the only way customers know a product really is organic.
Which was my argument about fair trade certification. Ric said that customers who really care are welcome to come talk to him – like I was doing. “With most customers, I only get 10 seconds!� he said.
Well, yeah. But is that really a fair request to consumers? Undermotivated grad students like me can roll into Groundwork at 1:30 and chat for 2 hours, but Ric himself had rued that with work and travel, he doesn’t get to spend enough time at home with his wife and 4 kids. Meaning it’s one thing to ask concerned consumers to be aware a coffee crisis exists, and to care enough to buy fair trade certified when grocery shopping. Quite another to ask them to take time off work investigating coffee companies.
And in fact, even Groundwork’s use of the words “fair trade” on its website (the word “certifiedâ€? is carefully omitted) attests to the fact that Groundwork knows more and more consumers care about fair trade practices – and recognize fair trade certification. If Groundwork was simply describing their practices, “We pay our farmers living wagesâ€? would’ve been their text of choice. Instead, the site says that Groundwork’s practice supports “fair trade, shade-grown, and organic coffees.â€?
Fair trade, as it is now, is not a perfect system. But aside from certification, I just really don’t see any other way for masses of consumers to become more knowledgeable, to become engaged, to start demanding fairer trading practices both from companies and from our governments.
Green LA girl’s suggestions:
- To give a lil more info about Groundwork’s thoughts on “fair trade� on his website and in stores, since saying the coffee is “fair trade� without a mention of certification can be misleading (Ric plans to have something up by next week), and
- To offer at least one fair trade certified blend.
The logistics won’t be hard for Ric, since he already buys many blends that are certified on the farmer’s end. And when customers ask if all the other blends are certified? It’s an opportunity to begin a dialogue – talking about some of the reasons why certification isn’t possible for all coffee, for example — Which is what Ric wants to do anyway. Perhaps it would be a way for customers to invest more that 10 seconds in thinking about where the things we take for granted come from.
Let me make clear here that Ric seemed very concerned about – and personally involved in — fairer trading practices. It’s really just the certification bit we disagreed on, and our conversation was super-friendly and constructive, even when we disagreed.
And might I say that I changed Ric’s mind a little? As I left, Ric said I’ve almost convinced him to certify one of his blends, that he’s thinking about it.
Coffee aficionados of the blogosphere — your thoughts?
Filed in: fairtrade coffee losangeles california environment groundwork
September 29th, 2005 at 12:28 am
“2. Fair trade certification has no quality controls.”
Why should it have? This is akin to wishing that getting a university degree would make one better in bed.
To some extent it may work. While getting one’s degree, one typically spends time in bed with various persons. But normally this is not considered a part of the curriculum per se.
Similarly, Fair Trade addresses the financial and social problems in production. It was not designed as a quality control system. Quality has to be built in the production process by some other means. Education of farmers, for which Fair Trade might give the means, may be one of the steps.
So - this is not a reason not to get FT certified, but it may be a reason to require an extra certification, formal or informal, or to build a close relationship with known good quality suppliers. (I do not think that ISO 9001 is applicable to small farmers.)
Also, “quality” ought to be defined better. There are at least three ways in which you can look at quality. First, you can think of quality as a “premium”. Expensive, exclusive. Second, you can think of it as “quality guarantee”. This means that the quality is stable, one shipment very close to the previous one. If one shipment is on a required level, a high quality supplier consistently provides the same level of quality. Third, this can mean “value” - whether you get value for money.
As for the first definition of quality in FT, this is a regional issue. In Nicaraguan Cup of Excellence 2004 competition, many of the winners were also Fair Trade coffees.
As for the second one, this 2004 Coffee Review article talks about FT coffees being of consistent quality.
Third one, value for money, is very subjective. The added value of sustainable development must be counted in here. Businesses can make an objective assessment by subtracting the expenses from income. But for end customers, this measurement is rather fluid.
(Maybe I should really be blogging this.)
September 29th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
Well, I’ve stated before - I’m not hung up on that little label so much because I recognize that there are criteria that preclude *some* coffees and teas from getting that little label, even though most of the criteria of Fairly Traded goods apply. So while it is desirable, there are plenty of non FT certified teas and coffee that I will still buy and feel reasonably sure that I’m not contributing to a negative.
Alteration of the entire process is needful, imo. Alteration of our attitudes as consumers, alteration of how buyers think of coffee and coffee farmers and alteration of the criteria required for certification.
Thanks for following up on the meeting with Groundworks!
September 29th, 2005 at 4:17 pm
Hi, this is peterb from Tea Leaves. Thanks for leaving your comment, and I found your article interesting. Here’s my thoughts on the issue.
As long as fair trade concentrates solely on the value provided to the supplier rather than on that provided to the consumer, it will remain little more than a sad footnote in the history of commerce.
Consider the organic movement. We don’t spend twice as much on organic milk than on regular milk because we think organic farmers are somehow more deserving than the non-organic cooperatives in, say, Vermont. We spend twice as much on it because, rightly or wrongly, we have been convinced that it tastes better and is better for us. Whereas fair trade coffee is marketed solely on the basis of where the money goes rather than on the basis of what the product is. That’s a losing proposition.
Not only don’t I particularly care where my money goes when I buy a cup of coffee, but even asking me to think about it is demanding far too much of me before I’ve had my first cup of coffee of the day. It’s a cup of coffee. This is not exactly a high-impact item; it’s not a car, or a house, or a major investment in a mutual fund. So fair trade coffee as marketed to the consumer is doomed to eternal marginalization, fundamentally, because it is asking the consumer to consider a nonsequiteur when performing a trivial purchase. The mere fact of thinking about that issue increases the transaction cost on the part of the consumer. Who will respond by telling you, with their dollars, that they don’t care.
The way I see it, there are exactly two ways for fair trade coffee to make an impact among anyone other than people who don’t actually care about how their coffee tastes:
(1) Turn fair trade into a guarantee of some minimal standard of taste and quality, in which case the consumer will actually care, or
(2) Market fair trade at the corporate level. If your fair trade coffee isn’t going to taste better, then I, the consumer, don’t care at all. But you might convince a coffee shop that they care, because they can then pass that on to the consumer: “Hey, we only sell fair trade coffees, and here are the ones we recommend.” This increases the impact of the transaction on the fair-traders, and simultaneously eliminates the psychic transaction cost to the consumer of choosing between fair-trade coffee that tastes ok or non-fair-trade coffee that tastes better. All the consumer has to decide is whether she or he likes the coffee shop.
Anyway, those are some of my thoughts.
September 30th, 2005 at 5:01 am
i think your suggestions to groundworks were good ones, and i agree that change is going to be needed at all levels, and it’s going to be a gradual process. this same process is going on in a lot of areas, for instance in labeling animal products as humanely produced. hopefully by studying at the issues raised in other areas (certified organic, animal care certified) and how they are resolved, it can ease the path a bit in the fair trade arena.
one part of the solution might be instituting another fair trade certification, one that would include individual farmers, etc. but in the meantime, i think siel is doing exactly what needs to be done - get the discussion going on the consumer and retail level, develop “brand recognition” for the fair trade designation, etc.
by the way, a lot of consumers will buy fair trade coffee just because of ethical concerns as to how it’s produced and there are a lot of people (like me for one) who buy organic solely because it’s better for the environment not because we think it tastes better or is healthier. this is especially evident in the demand for organic cotton textiles, which is solely an environmental issue - nobody wants organic cotton clothes because they look better than regular cotton. one indication of the consumer demand for organic cotton is the fact that nike has responded with an organic cotton line.
October 1st, 2005 at 10:04 am
I’m not ignoring these comments — Just thinking through the great feedback here — thanks peeps! — and working on a post about quality and consumer advocacy and grassroots movements. More later :)
October 2nd, 2005 at 11:57 am
One way to enforce fair trade is to organize domestic coffee company employees into international unions — into unions affiliated with the ones that coffee pickers and processors are in. Then, you tie work conditions over there, to the ability to move the coffee to market here.
This can work if the worker organizations deal with the issue globally, and have a global attitude to labor.
October 2nd, 2005 at 5:59 pm
International coffee unions would really change the coffee industry!! A truly fabby idea — Though I’m not so sure how possible it would be to achieve… I mean, it’s tough for coffee workers to unionize locally even, at the moment. But certainly a goal to work toward?
December 7th, 2005 at 7:17 pm
in response to peterb from Tea Leaves.
i hope you were being rhetorical in your 4th paragraph.
-coffee is not a trivial purchase for a lot of people. $1.75/day ads up over the year.
-people do care where the money they spend goes. look at the anti-sweatshop movement and other consumer boycotts
-Fair Trade Certified goods focus on more than just the value sent back to the producer. Non-organic certified Fair Trade Certified has high standards for pesticide use (higher than the US EPA and the EU) and in ‘06, GMOs will be banned. The majority of FTC goods in the US market are already certified organic.
Personally, I will buy organic produce when I can, because I know it’s better for me personally and it’s better for the world. It’s a simple decision and statement and a simple decision. Numerous studies have been done to show that consumer loyalty to organic brands is very high. Furthermore, a few studies have come through to show that out of all “cause coffees”, Fair Trade Certified has the highest conversion rate-i.e., when a customer becomes aware of Fair Trade, they are most likely to convert that awareness into a purchase. More than TWICE than organic. SO, the key would seem to be building consumer awareness…
March 4th, 2006 at 5:54 am
Hey you! What a kewl blog, do you own any other blogs? I would love to see them too. Maybe you would like to see mine its about all kinds of herbs, you can find it here: http://www.herbalsmokeshop.be