[The whole Certification Challenges series is here.]
Kudos to TransFair USA! The nonprofit that certifies fair trade products for the US market has put up a FAQ to inform and educate — and to answer concerns brought up by fair trade companies and activists.
One of the most important parts, for me, is this: “At times, in our efforts to extend the benefits of Fair Trade to farmers and farm workers rapidly, we have failed to adequately engage the broader Fair Trade community effectively.”
Orgs and companies really win my support when they admit and acknowledge their fuck-ups, however big or small. Here, TransFair USA takes responsibility for its past shortcomings.
Of course, admission of wrondoing means little when it’s not combined with an effort to overcome those shortcomings. It seems pretty clear that TFUSA has at least made initial efforts to try to do better in the future. TFUSA says: “we have begun to implement several important initiatives that will allow our allies in the Fair Trade Movement to participate in forming our future directions” — and gives a list of initiatives.
The part of the FAQ that’s a lil iffy to me: TFUSA’s comments about greenwashing, and about Starbucks in particular.
First, I’d like to say I LOVE that TFUSA has been open and clear in addressing these issues. That said, I still have my concerns…
Says TFUSA: “we face a real dilemma with the large companies: if we take a rigid approach with regard to minimum volumes or percentages, presumably in defense of the credibility of the label, we could potentially lose significant volume, to the detriment of the farmers we seek to serve. On the other hand, if we are perceived as condoning greenwashing, we risk losing credibility with consumers and the movement upon which the long-term success of the Fair Trade market depends.”
Fair enough. So about that balance — TFUSA says it “encourages companies to commit to converting at least 5% of their total purchase volume to Fair Trade within the first two years of launching labeled products.” And apparently, most companies do so.
Except, notably, the big companies. Like Starbucks.
Even after 6 years after entering the fair trade market, Starbucks is only up to 3.7%. Yet TFUSA applauds Starbucks, and says “We at TransFair look forward to continued collaboration and continued growth in the volume of FTC coffee purchased, sold, and marketed by Starbucks; and we are working aggressively toward that goal.”
Ok — 3.7% in 6 years is NOT aggressive. C’mon now.
As an FYI — The FAQ lets less-than-happy activists know that there’s a specific person they can contact with complaints: Kimberly Easson, Director of Strategic Relationships.
Thanks to Jean of TransFair USA — I know she’s been working hard, along with others at TFUSA, to get this FAQ and other initiatives together.
[The whole Certification Challenges series is here.]
March 21st, 2006 at 11:41 pm
Why doesn’t TFUSA set a cut-off date by which point Starbucks (or any other company) has to meet the 5% threshold. Let’s TFSA gave a 10 year window, and moved the 5% ‘target’ to be a 5% ‘minimum’ volume . Then if Starbucks hadn’t met the minimum volume by 2010 they could still be allowed to purchase Fairtrade coffee - but not allowed to use the Fairtrade logo in any way to continue greenwashing their operation.
By the way though, if Starbucks DID increase it’s percentage of Fairtrade coffee, to 20% or 30%, can you imagine how much influence it would have on TFUSA then?
April 26th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
Well Mike — I have to say that’s a question that many fair trade advocates and companies have been asking.
According to TFUSA, the org doesn’t have the clout to make such demands — about cut-off dates and stuff — to big corps like Starbucks.
Of course, if the Bux DID actually make a serious commitment, it would wield even a bigger influence at TFUSA. That said, considering the fact that Starbucks is still at 3.7% after SIX YEARS, something like 20-30% is somewhat of a pipe dream for fair trade activists –