[Part I: basic deets on the workshop. Part II: pre-party, pre-workshop. Part III: a rundown of people and orgs who felt certification standards need to change. Part IV: the "What about the farmers" argument. Part V: Why TransFair USA loves Starbucks. Part VI: Presong Seesa-Ard's comments]
Everyone I’ve talked to wants big, multinational companies to join in the fair trade movement. The real question is — Under what terms? (left: Valerie of Global Exchange)
Unfortunately, those opposing stricter terms often turn the question back to to the entry of multinational companies in itself. Several people at TransFair USA have asked me: “Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like Global Exchange are pressuring Nestle to have fair trade chocolate! What if Nestle starts doing that? Will activists then accuse Nestle of greenwashing?”
Listening to such arguments, you’d think Global Exchange is 100% behind everything TransFair USA does — Including lowering the bar to get transnational companies in the fair trade movement. For ex, bay area fair trade dude writes in the comments: “talk to someone who was at Global Exchange when it all happened years ago and get some perspective.”
Luckily for me, Global Exchange has been speaking out on this issue for years.
In fact, a 2004 press release reported: “In 2000 Starbucks promised to sell Fair Trade Certified coffee—to head off a campaign by the international human rights group Global Exchange demanding that the company buy at least five percent of its coffee under Fair Trade Certified terms. Yet, in 2004 less than one percent of Starbucks’ coffee is Fair Trade Certified.”
Yes, Global Exchange has always wanted to pressure big companies into joining the fair trade movement. What the NGO didn’t anticipate was that standards for entry would be lowered to welcome these big companies.
And back in 2003, when Global Exchange called on Starbucks to do more fair trade certified coffee, TransFair USA posted a letter (below, in its entirety) up on its website, coming out against the National Call-In Day Against Starbucks organized by Global Exchange.
Which might explain why Valerie of Global Exchange spoke out so strongly for more stringent fair trade certification standards at the United Students for Fair Trade conference last weekend.
As Jordan wrote on the USFT listserv, “I haven’t heard many folks say that corporations should be completely cut out. I have heard people say that their participation should be more serious and more sincere…. Right now it seems that the corporations are being given extraordinary lattitude to dictate the terms of their participation and that this is occuring to the detriment of the movement.”
Update: Part VIII: In defense of TransFair USA.
_______
Position Statement on Anti-Starbucks Activism.
A National Call-In Day Against Starbucks has been organized for March 25, 2003, that calls into question Starbucks commitment to social responsibility and Fair Trade. TransFair USA would like to publicly clarify its position in response to this action.
TransFair USA is the only certifier of Fair Trade products in the United States today. TransFair works closely with almost 200 leading coffee companies to build the market for Fair Trade Certified coffee perhaps the strongest model available for applying the principles of corporate social responsibility to the global supply chain. In the last four years, Fair Trade has emerged as the fastest growing segment of the specialty coffee industry precisely because it builds on the common interest of farmers, industry and consumers for excellent coffee at a fair price to the family farmer.
Public awareness and consumer demand for Fair Trade Certified coffee are essential to the growth of the market. Activist pressure campaigns, however, are not an effective strategy for either building consumer demand or industry support for Fair Trade. TransFair USA strongly opposes pressure campaigns waged by activist groups that attempt to discredit the very companies that consumers should be supporting for their efforts to ensure a fair return to coffee farmers. Partnership, rather than pressure, is a far more powerful and sustainable model for engaging industry and helping farmers. We view the present activist campaign against Starbucks as particularly misguided and unfair because it ignores the companys many important contributions to coffee farmers through Fair Trade and other programs.
Starbucks has been an active and leading company in the Fair Trade market since 2000. Each year, Starbucks has significantly increased its Fair Trade purchases and sales, making its Fair Trade Blend available on a continuous basis throughout its national retail network. Starbucks recently increased its commitment by expanding its Fair Trade coffee program into Europe and Asia. Through its Fair Trade offerings, its sourcing guidelines and other programs, Starbucks has helped to improve the living standards of many thousands of family farmers around the world. TransFair USA recognizes and honors Starbucks for these accomplishments. We invite activists and consumers to join us.
Oakland, California
March 24, 2003
Hey BAFTD:
How does this jibe with your statements about TFUSA being wary of SBUX? Sounds like maybe they are more wary of GX. When we left TFUSA we noted this public statement by TF as a factor. When talking about the history of the FT movement, litlle gems like this seemed to be missing. Frankly, in the words of my dear old grandma, this lapdog-like public statement is “just shameful”.
-Matt
Comment by mateotemprano — February 23, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
This is most interesting. Why hasn’t anyone else commented on this? Is TFUSA (a company that profits from licensing fees is gets from Starbucks) lying in saying they don’t want people to pressure Starbucks to do more business with them? Don’t they make more money if Starbucks does more business with them? Have they been coerced, coopted by the Mermaid - phoned late at night and forced to write an “I Heart Starbucks” statement? Or do they really mean what they say?
This is most contradictory and confounding to me.
Comment by Liz — July 19, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
Hey Liz — TFUSA is a nonprofit, so its “money making” efforts are somewhat different than a “regular” company. For ex: it’s unlikely that individuals within TFUSA would see personal financial gain from getting more licensing fees — the issue has more to do with the “splash” TFUSA wants to create (as in being able to send out a press release that says “look! we’re doing 25% or whatever more!).
After I put the copy of the TFUSA statement above went up, I got emails from current TFUSA people expressing both outrage and shock that TFUSA had done such a thing (The org has high turnover, so many people who work there don’t have a long institutional history — the statement was news to many of them).
Which is to say that while I don’t think TFUSA was “coerced” by Starbucks, the org certainly seems to’ve been perhaps too sensitive to Starbucks’ point of view.
I’d like to think that’s been changing –
Comment by Siel — July 19, 2006 @ 11:17 pm