[Previously: Part VII: Global Exchange. The whole Certification Challenges series is here.]

Why this issue over transnational companies and fair trade has become such a big one: because so many people have put in so much time, energy, and money into trying to make fair trade certification work.

And some of the people who’ve put in the most effort are those working at TransFair USA, the fair trade certifying organization.

Which I think is what makes this debate so difficult — We’re all ostensibly working towards the same goal. But we disagree on how best to accomplish those goals, and what TFUSA’s role should be.

In terms of big, international companies: Activists and smaller companies ask why TFUSA isn’t using stricter guidelines with the bigger companies, while TFUSA says it doesn’t have that kind of bargaining clout.

The question is: What kind of power does TransFair USA have over big companies?

Not as much as activists seem to think, according to the TFUSA employees I’ve spoken with. To start a relationship with TFUSA and get products certified, companies have to sign a Letter of Intent — which is not legally enforceable or binding.

According to some employees, getting big companies to sign a legally binding contract to, say, up their fair trade commitment to 5% in 2 years, is a pipe dream. Most companies don’t like fair trade, they say, yet have been forced to deal with it. Working with such companies is a difficult and daunting task.

This came through loud and clear at the United Students for Fair Trade workshop last weekend. Jean of TFUSA emphasized that the relationship between TFUSA and companies is a partnership — That TFUSA tries to work with companies to promote fair trade — even with companies that wanna just dip their toes in the water. (left: Jean — original pic replaced with this one cuz Jean thought she looked horrid, though I think she looked cute! ;)

The problem occurs when this dipped toe doesn’t turn into a full-fledged dive into fair trade. Allowed by TFUSA to enter the fair trade market with a less than 1% commitment, companies can become reluctant to increase that commitment significantly — especially when that less than 1% is found to be enough to greenwash the company as a whole.

It’s at this point where activists and mission-based companies get angry and want TFUSA to do something to remedy the situation. It’s also at this point where TFUSA says its hands are tied. One TFUSA employee told me: “We don’t have the power to spank corporate America and keep them in line. We’re a struggling non-profit of barely 40 people on a shoe-string budget.”

The thing is, I DO get that TFUSA does not have unlimited power over corporations it works with. That said, this is also why I think the different facets of the movement need to work together.

Perhaps TFUSA, in a “partnership” with Starbucks, can’t actively demand that the mermaid go up to 5% fair trade in the next year. However, activist groups and NGOs can and should make such demands. I love that NGOs like Global Exchange are trying to run campaigns to put the pressure on companies like Starbucks to do more fair trade. After all, it was activist campaigns that basically forced Starbucks to get into the fair trade movement in the first place.

So then why did TFUSA come out against a campaign designed to give big companies some impetus for doing more fair trade — something we all say we want?

Cuz such an action makes it seem like TFUSA wants to be the ONLY party dealing with big, multinational corporations, whether or not that was the original intent.

And it doesn’t help when TFUSA has seemingly unlimited power to mold the details of the Letter of Intent signed by companies. Especially when that letter is confidential, between TFUSA and the company. No one else has a direct say, and no one else gets a direct look, at the deal.

A TransFair USA employee once told me that corporations change only under 2 conditions “when 1) it’s profitable and 2) their shareholders demand it.” I strongly disagree with such a statement — I do NOT think that activism is limited to what we simply buy, whether it be a product or stock, even while most of what I’m interested in is consumer activism.

That said, I’m working with Greg and Starbucks to engage more seriously in shareholder activism. Details on my next post.

[The whole Certification Challenges series is here.]

Comments