Many of you know that Nestle created some serious dissention when it entered the fair trade market. But most of you don’t know why it was such a big deal.
Thus, an explanation.
The problem: The fair trade certification seal (left), a seal which most people equate with the fair trade movement, is awarded for the PRODUCT, not the company. Unfortunately, it seems that lots of people think that the seal’s offered to the COMPANY, not just the product.
(Update, 1/26/06: I updated the image to the left to clarify that Nestle was offered the fair trade seal by the UK Fairtrade Federation, which does the fair trade certification for UK products — Nestle’s Partner’s Blend is only avaliable in the UK. TransFair USA, which certifies the US products, was uninvolved with the whole Nestle debacle. More details on the different fair trade logos here.)
This creates a problem, especially in the case of Nestle. Now, Nestle, the most boycotted company in the world, played — and still plays — a LARGE part in CREATING the coffee crisis. Yet, a few months ago, the company also launched a blend called “Partner’s Blend” — An instant coffee that’s fair trade certified.
Meaning — The farmers who produce the coffee for this one product are compensated fairly. Yey!
However, Partner’s Blend makes up less than .1% of Nestle’s coffee imports. This means that more than 99.9% of Nestle’s coffee’s bought through “conventional” channels, allowing Nestle to make good profits at the expense of the farmers who’re more or less forced to sell their coffee below cost.
Which means that people who see the fair trade seal on Nestle’s Partner’s Blend may assume that Nestle’s changed their ways, when really, Nestle’s done damn little, especially for an international company that has the money and power to make big changes.
Meaning, Nestle may just be using the fair trade seal on their Partner’s Blend to greenwash their image.
Thus, lots of seriously dedicated fair trade coffee companies are pissed, PISSED, that they’re now sharing the same seal as big bad Nestle.
Take Equal Exchange, for example. This is a 100% fair trade co-op, fully dedicated to the fair trade cause. Rodney, “The Answer Man” at Equal Exchange (yes, that’s actually his official title), wrote a long, passionate letter about this: “we see this as the latest in a long line of actions by the world’s largest food business to make small gestures that look good in solation, but ultimately forestall real change for impoverished small farmers, and instead offer marketing, PR, and token efforts in its place.”
Patti Rundall of Baby Milk Action agreed: “To give a Fair Trade mark to a company whose baby food trade systematically violates child rights on such a massive scale makes an absolute mockery of what the public believes the Fair Trade mark stands for.”
Amy Barry of Oxfam disagreed somewhat, saying Nestlé’s move was “a very small step” in the right direction: “We would welcome it, but with very big caveats.”
There’s no question why Nestle would want in. In the UK, fair trade has big cache. There, fair trade brands account for about 4% sales of instant coffee and 18% of roast and ground coffee. There’s also no question: Nestle’s huge. It’s considered one of the “big four.” Some say that Nestle’s entry into the fair trade market will encourage the other biggies to do so as well.
We’ll be talking about such issues at the “New challenges in the fair trade movement” workshop at the United Students for Fair Trade convergence next month. But I’m curious to hear what your thoughts are, reader.
What should we as activists focus on? Should we work to educate others that the fair trade logo goes for the product, NOT the company? Or should we demand higher overall commitments to fair trade from the companies that’re seeking the fair trade seal?
BTW — I have Rodney’s permission to circulate the letter — Just lemme know if you’re interested, and I’ll email you a copy.
Update: 2/10/06: A followup post — Greenwashing while badmouthing fair trade.
Tough call, I think. Unless Nestle spontaneously grew a conscience, I think you’re right to assume that they’ve added a fair-trade line in order to bring back the ethical consumer and restore whatever profits they make have lost to fair-trade products. Making the standards for certification more stringent may make even their token effort unprofitable and hence likely to be dropped entirely. Still, the Brits I know who already buy fairtrade would be more likely to drink blood than Nescafe, so I doubt it will help them much …
Comment by Brian — January 25, 2006 @ 7:53 pm
Consider the enormously successful “Dolphin-safe” certification. That is a certification for the company, not just the product. In the 1980s when the media started circulating that footage of dolphins being circled up in nets and wantonly killed in order to target the tuna that swam deeper below them, a tuna boycott was an easy sell. When Bumblebee, Chicken of the Sea and Starkist opted for Dolphin-safe certification it was as much because of the PR “black-eye” as for the loss of profits. They didn’t want to be a part of the gruesome destruction of cute animals.
Fair Trade is a certification that people embrace just as much as Dolphin-safe, once they understand what it is. Also, people care about, or profess to care about the less-fortunate humans of the world. So why isn’t it taking over the coffee, tea and chocolate markets by now?
Fair Trade is a more complicated message to send. That is a liability in this sound-byte world. Also the fact that it is a product certification might be a problem. If Dolphin-safe were a product certification would it have done as well? As it is, it can’t be used for greenwashing because it requires a corporate commitment. Starbucks demonstrates that a company can earn green points just by offering a little Fair Trade certified coffee. With this cynical adoption strategy Fair Trade foods will never be available enough to be an exclusive choice for most consumers. So what if Dolphin-safe were a product certification? If Starkist offered some dolphin-safe certified tuna and some non-certified lines, would you boycott the company altogether? Would you choose the certified? Even if it were 50% more expensive? Maybe it’s moot, since most people don’t consume as much tuna as coffee and a can of tuna is cheap.
I think the Starbucks Challenge is a great strategy for raising awareness. It is definitely working and that is important. But on a larger scale, what if there were a way to spark a wide-ranging non-Fair Trade coffee boycott the way the dolphin activists did? First, maybe a 30 second video depicting the inhumane consequences of the “conventional” coffee chain. Then, (after fixing the problem about FT certification excluding all privately owned farms) establish Fair Trade certification as the best solution with a 30 second video showing the consequences of Fair Trade.
I don’t know if it’s possible. And really, I don’t know if humans do care about people as much as we care about cute animals.
Comment by Wheeledmenace — January 25, 2006 @ 9:08 pm
We can look at Nestle’s greenwashing PR as a blight on Fair Trade and a mockery of the good work that real Fair Trade companies are doing, or we can look at it as an opportunity to show what it means to truly be fair trade, and elevate the companies that are doing good through the controversy. It’s already happening in this blog.
When someone does something that bothers us, we can let that inspire us to have deeper integrity; to be the solution. Nestle pretends to care about Justice. It’s up to us to compare that with companies that truly care, such as Equal Exchange and Ten Thousand Villages (which we’re starting in Pasadena!)
The consumers who care about justice will know the difference, and tell their friends. Walmart spent $1,000,000 in a campaign to get a ’superstore’ in Inglewood, CA. They tried to sell it as a benefit to the economy, that the average WalMart pay is over $10/hour and their employees get benefits…The grassroots movement to save the Inglewood family run stores had a few thousand dollars, and won! People can see through bullshit as long as we are organized to get the truth heard. Now, not only do we see that WalMart treats it’s workers and producers like machines, but that they are not honest. We value honesty, and support family owned businesses more than before. WalMart’s campaign became an alarm for Westside consumers.
Gandhi’s India and recent non-violent movements show that no matter what “they” do, even in the face of tyranny, deceit and violence, when we respond with love and truth, we all win.
By the way, we are starting a Fair Trade education movement in LA. We’ll be meeting on March 5, 2006 to discuss the issues and start planning the campaign. We’ll find out where soon.
Comment by Serez — January 25, 2006 @ 10:59 pm
I think 3 responders made good points. I like what wheeledmenace and Serez pointed out and explained, and I think I’d back them up even though I don’t have my own research etc. It makes perfect sense…pressure the huge companies to do justice all the way and educate people…at the end, ..”love and truth..” will win. Thanks you guys…Good topic, Siel :-) Cheers..
Comment by Maya — January 26, 2006 @ 1:13 am
Hey Siel
Great post…been thinking a lot about this and talking to lots of folks about it.
Personally I think any ethical behaviour regardless of the motive is to be applauded…a step in the right direction. Ethical behaviour in and of itself is a noble end to be achieved.
However whilst ethical behaviour is to be applauded unethical behaviour should be ‘named and shamed’. So Nestle producing FT coffee is good but that shines a brighter spotlight on the rest of Nestle.
Fairtrade is evolving in my opinion and people are more and more interested in the company than just the product.
Personally I think Nestle have miscalculated. They have stepped into ethical waters and for a company like them those waters may be too rough to survive in.
As Nestle’s normal non fairtrade customers (not existing fairtrade people) move to their ft blend those same customers will start to learn more about ethical consumerism…the end of that road is those customers finding out via the web all about Nestle’s colourful ‘ethical’ [ahem] history.
The rise of online ethical consumer tools like ethiscore.org and seecompanies.com points to a more company-focused world where simply launching an ethical line will be seen broadly with cynicism and rightly so if the rest of the company is not in the same ethical place.
Do I applaud Nestle for their ethical blend? Do I support the farmers that benefit from Nestle doing that? Sure…all the way. Will I be buying Nestle? Not if there is almost any other FT option available.
Namaste
Al
Comment by City Hippy — January 26, 2006 @ 1:41 am
I think that City Hippy’s view is well-said. I’m still thinking about this post. Thanks for an informative explanation of the Nestle controversy.
Comment by lauren — January 26, 2006 @ 3:50 am
Where is the controversy? A person who thinks one FT certified product means the whole company is a FT company? I can’t imagine it. BUT if it is a problem, the solution is simple. Add the word “PRODUCT” below the standard logo; provide Bronze, Silver and Gold FT “medals” for companies whose product line is 75%, 85% and 100% FT certified.
This is a problem faced by many groups with good ideas: When the “enemy” sees the power of your idea and begins to adopt it is simple to claim “cheat” or feel tainted. But isn’t this exactly the point of FT?!? By market forces, move even the giant giant companies into dealing ethically when the law says they don’t have to?
If one FT product provides an unanticipated greenwashing effect due to unsophisticated consumers, then fix the FT logo . . . don’t blame the company responding to OUR consumer demand.
R.
P.S. I don’t like most Nestle products for the product, which is why I shop TJ.
Comment by Roger, Gone Green — January 26, 2006 @ 5:52 am
Response to “Roger,Gone Green”.
I see Roger’s point, but, as surprising at it may seem to those of us steeped in the Fair Trade movement, our experience at Equal Exchange consistently confirms that many, and very posssibly most, consumers DO misinterpret the Fair Trade seal to imply some kind of assurance about the practices and ethics of the COMPANY.
And, yes, a solution would be to fix the seal, and your specific suggestions for the seal to say something like “This Is A Fair Trade Product”, or to have bronze,silver,gold “levels” are good ones. However, the seal (in the US) is controlled by TransFair USA, and they alone can change it. Consumers, activists, and companies like ours can only ask and push, but cannot make the changes ourself.
Comment by Rodney North — January 26, 2006 @ 7:40 am
As a customer service representative for Equal Exchange (Interfaith Department) who deals with the average consumer directly every day, I can vouch for how difficult it is for some to grasp the concept of fair trade ITSELF. Some do notice the seal and ask about it, though. When they do, I find myself having to explain EXACLTY what it means; how it doesn’t mean the company, but only the product in their hands. You can almost hear the gears turning when they look in their case of 6 different kinds of our coffee and see that each one of those packages has a seal on it. That’s when they understand what it means to be 100% fair trade certified.
It occurs to me, then, that the fact that I have to explain to almost every customer who asks about the seal that it’s for the PRODUCT, not the company, is solid proof that the seal itself is misleading. It probably should be changed to be more specific, but as Rodney said, unfortunately all we can do is hope and push for the change we wish to see.
Comment by Danielle Lafond — January 26, 2006 @ 8:49 am
Wow! It is soooooo excellent to see this discussion front and center. As a worker-owner of a smaller 100% fair trade roaster, one that has parted ways with TFUSA over these issues, I think that open dialogue about this is crucial for the fair trade movement in general.
These issues are hard and sometimes contentious. That said they need to be dealt with if fair trade is going to live up to its potential and even its present claims. I hope that TFUSA will chime in on this as well. If not here, than in Denver at USFT and elsewhere.
This is a movement and not a private corporation. To me this means that we all should have a voice in shaping this thing and FLO/TFUSA (IMHO) should have an official mechanism for responding to stakeholders and the needed changes in their own policies.
Thanks Siel for putting this out there.
-Matt
Comment by mateotemprano — January 26, 2006 @ 11:12 am
Siel,
The logo you have displayed in this article is the logo for Fair Trade Certified goods in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MARKET. Nestle is NOT licensed to sell Fair Trade Certified goods in the US. They are licensed to do so in the UK.
By placing the FTC US mark in your article about what’s going on in the UK, you are confusing stakeholders and customers. Nestle is NOT a licensee of TransFair USA.
Lastly, as you are based in the US and writing primarily about Fair Trade issues in the US, it doesn’t make sense to have the non-US Fair Trade logo at the top of your site. If anything, you should have the Fair Trade Certified mark and the Fair Trade Federation marks.
Comment by get it straight please! — January 26, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
but thanks for making the disctinction between Fair Trade Certified Products and the myth of “certified companies”
Comment by get it straight please! — January 26, 2006 @ 3:32 pm
Good point, get it straight please!, though your tone’s rather mean.
I’ll write a post clarifying it in a bit. But neither the TransFair USA nor the FTF marks will ever make it into my banner, cuz they’re drab and ugly, IMNSHO. How come the Brits get the cool, pretty logo?
Comment by Siel — January 26, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
sorry. Nestle is a sore point with me. i hope you accept my apology. and yes! those darn brits & europeans get all the fancy desins…
Comment by get it straight please! — January 26, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
Apology accepted! But you should know I already wrote a rather frustrated post about this today. I guess Nestle’s a sore point with me too…
Comment by Siel — January 26, 2006 @ 6:51 pm
Don’t know how it is in the USA, but here in Europe (Austria) we are used to different labels on products (e.g: organic, cruelty free…) certifying the product and not the company. On the other hand companies are launching product-lines that are “almost” or “as good as” FT (e.g: Lavazza with its new Tierra-coffee-line -> Rainforest Alliance certified).
The good thing is, that this shows an increasing awareness of the companies (I admit from a very low level). The bad thing is, that it additionally confuses customers.
To get the message of FT across proves likewise as difficult as conveying the real meaning of “organic”. But there are no shortcuts, you have to tell people over and over again!
Additionally there are some problems within FT-regulations that prohibit some producers from getting a FT-certification.
But this is gonna be a different story…
Comment by Gernot — January 27, 2006 @ 2:46 am
Yeah, the ‘nicer’ logo is also for FT products in France through maxhavelaarfrance.org :-)
Comment by Maya — January 27, 2006 @ 7:35 am
Hey Again:
“get it straight please” pointed out that Nestle is not licensed by TFUSA. Fine. Then let’s talk about Proctor and Gamble, SBUX, or Sara Lee. Plug one or all of those names into the spots that say “Nestle” and the argument remains. The point to me is that it is easy for big corporations to greenwash under the current system.
As far as what we can all work on, I would say that putting pressure on TFUSA to put mechanisms in place to get companies to ratchet up their commitment would be a good step. Also, to ask them to hold companies that use the FTC logo in misleading ways accountable would be nice. And finally, educating consumers that FTC does not speak about the company’s overall biz practices is another excellent campaign.
Finally, and this may be a leap, but if “get it straight please” is a TFUSA employee, maybe we could ask he/she to comment on the overall points Siel was making and questions that folks have brought up in the comments here. You know, now that the whole Nestle US vs. UK thing has been resolved.
Bye now…
-Matt
Comment by mateotemprano — January 30, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
I think part of the problem with getting the message out about fair trade has to do with the fact that many people have been inculcated to think that the way coffee’s traded in the world right now is via “free trade” — and anything messing with that, i.e. fair trade — will do more harm than good.
It takes a lot of work, then, to convince people that “free trade” isn’t free…. A tougher and more complicated sell than organic (no pesticides!) and dolphin-free tuna (save the cute animals!)…
Comment by Siel — February 2, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
I am writing an article for a local magazine, BOLD LIFE, about Fair Trade/Equal Exchange. Kelly Fain is a friend of mine and she visited Mexico in January, ‘06, as a representative of the Hendersonville Community Co-op, with 7 other Co-op people and it changed her life. I am writing about their journey. If you have anything that you would like to include, I can see what I can do. I am profoundly moved by the work you are doing. Thanks so much. DIane
Comment by Diane Rhoades URI Henderson County — February 5, 2006 @ 5:30 am
Hey Diane — Thanks for stopping by, and for the kind words :) Would love to send you some info — including Rodney’s letter — but am not sure how to contact you! Perhaps you could send me your eaddress? Mine’s greenlagirl at gmail dot com.
Comment by Siel — February 5, 2006 @ 1:22 pm