Got the email below from Rodney, The Answer Man at the fair trade company Equal Exchange today, who got together with Rink for a response to this post about Rink’s thoughts on fair trade :)
I’m still of the opinion that Rink was talking about more than consumer behavior (though I’m sure that was part of it) when he said that fair trade certification didn’t really matter — we were talking about the fair trade movement as a whole, and the directions it might go in the future.
More on that later — For now, here’s the email, the bulk of which I totally agree with — especially the need and utility of stronger fair trade certification standards. Thanks to Rodney for the convo :)
___
To further the general Fair Trade conversation, and specifically to add to the discussion that started with this post, I just wanted to share some more thoughts from Rink (Rink Dickinson, co-founder and Exec. Dir. of Equal Exchange), and some of my own.
When Rink said in the small group session at last week’s Summit that “Fair Trade Certification doesn’t matter†he meant that the presence of the Fair Trade Certified™ seal on packaging seems to have little to no effect upon consumer behavior – even though that is its raison d’etre. While we know there are individuals like you who were introduced to the bigger Fair Trade story through the seal, Rink was saying that the seal doesn’t make much difference to the average shopper.
For example, when Café Campesino and Dean’s Beans took the seal off their packages it seemed to have no effect upon their sales. In Rink’s estimation most people, even those buying products bearing the seal, just don’t know what it means. I personally would love to see someone conduct a proper market study to find out.
However, regardless of its influence upon consumers, the presence and promotion of the Fair Trade seal in the marketplace does seem to have an effect upon the companies that do, or might, use the seal (i.e. “licenseesâ€) and this can be a good thing. Namely because some companies believe that the seal offers competitive advantages they use it. Some a lot, some very little. [Right, the crowd at Equal Exchange's 20th anniversary party]
This, of course, means they have to buy at least that coffee or cocoa, etc. on Fair Trade terms. For conventional corporations this constitutes an improvement, and better incomes for farmers. Thus Rink’s take on Starbucks’ minimal participation in the Fair Trade Certification system – it’s better than nothing.
(I’ll speak for myself now)
Yet, with all that said, that dynamic represents a system that is heavy on marketing and light on the values that inspired the creation of Fair Trade over 20 years ago. Consequently, we have a tension that you might call a divide between “gradualists†and “acceleratorsâ€. (Not great names , I know, and maybe someone has already put other, better, labels on these camps, and on yet other groups in between).
I know that some folks, like “Havenocarâ€, won’t like the following, which is fine, but at EE we just can’t get excited about a low bar labeling system where, say, a multi-national corporation like Nestlé can convert less than 1/10th of 1% of their coffee supply chain and then present a “Fair Trade Certified™†package of coffee on equal footing with other products that come from an authentic Fair Trade supply chain and that represent real change – not just niche-marketing. [left: Equal Exchange's roaster]
Yes, there also has to be an incentive and method for conventional corporations to gradually reform their practices, which was the purpose of the Fair Trade Certification and labeling system. We simply think that it could, and should, ask much more of the participants than it does today.
For myself I think this advocacy for a high-bar represents a kind of optimism about people, and their readiness for change. That is that we think that if you did ask more of companies (ie apply stricter standards) they would still participate.
In contrast the counter-argument seems to be predicated on the assumption that if you ask for too much firms will stay on the sidelines. Remember, too, that within corporations there are also vying camps. There will be “change agents†and the “money crowdâ€, and the later will probably insist that their firm do as little as possible to meet the requirements. Hence, the lower you set the bar, the less real change you get. But that’s just my theory.
Regardless, what is even more concerning to us is that with each passing year the bar actually seems to go lower, not higher. The recent Fair Trade labeling of rooibos from white owned South African plantations is a great example of a bad trend.
Obviously, all this raises as many issues as it addresses, so we’ll look forward to more postings, comments, and general conversation. Thanks again, Siel, for making this forum possible.
Rodney
for rodney, the equal exchange answer man,
-while the use of the example of Nestle in the UK is justified in a disussion of licensing companies…in the UK, Nestle doesn’t have any fair trade products in the US market. people who continue to use this example in arguments about fair trade in the US market are confusing the issues and making it seem like TransFair was party to the Nestle deal in the UK. please stop using it if you’re talking about fair trade in the US market. and you know what else-it’s pretty weak argumentation to use the most extreme yet least significant example possible. what about the hundreds of companies who in their sourcing more closely resemble EE than they do Nestle?
-how is the supply chain for one fair trade certified product different than the supply chain for a product that comes from a company like EE? i would like to see an explanation of this. if a product is sourced from a fair trade certified producer and goes through all the requirements of certification, how is it different? if you give me the argument that the pricing of the product from the non-”100% company” is subsidized by the company’s non-fair trade products, you’re not answering the question. a company’s own internal pricing mechanisms have nothing to do with the certification of a product (assuming of course the minimum price was paid for the fair trade product.) i still don’t understand how EE’s products are more fair trade than say, Green Mountain’s fair trade offerings…a commodity is a commodity, not a company.
-let’s also consider this: you state that your supply chain is authentic and represents real change. there’s no doubt on those points. but what about a company which doesn’t have a 100% fair trade certified product line, yet does,say, 2, 3, 4 times the volume that you do AND it’s all bought on the same standards and terms as your products? who’s the better company? who’s affected more change? who’s more important to a producer-someone who bought 10 containers or 200 containers of coffee? while you would claim that any company buying this kind of volume is being held to a lower bar, how is that less real change? if the products they are sourcing are NOT being held to lower standards, then this example means REAL CHANGE. from this perspective, it’s easy to view one of the current rifts that threatens to tear appart fair trade in the USA: EE thinks fair trade means a 100% fair trade company, and TransFair doesn’t. EE doesn’t think real change can come about when other companies don’t strive to mimic EE’s business model, TransFair does.
-who has the more power to affect economic empowerment for farmers & farm workers in the developing world? by “gradualists” i assume Rodney means EE, Dean’s, etc., i.e., those who will grow the fair trade market by growing as companies. by “accellerators” i assume Rodney means TransFair and companies who plan to grow fair trade as a marketing strategy. can’t it happen both ways? let’s be realistic, how long will it take for EE to have the market penetration of Starbucks? and what about EE’s move into the Pacific Northwest, which is already fair trade coffee paradise? isn’t canibalization of fair trade market space a bad thing? should EE knock someone like Tony’s or Stumptown off the shelves because they’re not “100% fair trade” companies? honestly, who’s in the “money crowd” now? and how sustainable is it to ship beans from West Bridgewater to Seattle (assuming EE doesn’t have a roasting facility in the Pacific Northwest.)
-cafe campesino and dean’s beans left the fair trade certified system and stopped using the logo-this is true. whether or not the logo’s disappearance affected their sales is a complicated question-you have to look the strength of brand loyalty, if there was any growth upon adoption of the logo, how they communicated dropping the logo to their customers, etc. dean’s and campesino are not mainstreamed companies that seem to sell through traditional channels. their customers probably don’t need the logo to feel secure in their purchases-they’ve probably taken the time to go to dean’s site and slog through all the contracts. but for all the customers that aren’t loyal to dean’s & campesino, what do they have? in yours & rink’s statements above, you’re claiming that the label has little to no effect on consumer behavior…why? how? where’s your data? how are you qualified to make these statements? you even state “I personally would love to see someone conduct a proper market study to find out” yet you go ahead and claim that the label has little to no effect on consumer behavior? what’s goin’ on here?
-the south african roibos story. come on rodney. this may be your cause celebre but it surely isn’t a giant glowing example of some kind of standards-lowering conspiracy that you and many critics of FLO claim is taking place. what is supposed to happen to the workers on those plantations? are they just supposed to sit there in limbo because you think fair trade certification should include land reclamation? isn’t the ownership of companies in south africa a question for the south african government? at which point is fair trade supposed to include standards for pressuring & changing government policy? what if FLO had to say “sorry, no fair trade for you until you relinquish ownership of your company and hand it over to non-whites.”? how long do you think it would take for workers on that plantation to get any kind of economic & social empowerment? what if the workers revolted in a destructive manner? what if FLO became seen as an instigator of violence? how far do you parse this stuff?
i hope i’m not shouting into a hurricane here and perhaps, just perhaps, there are others out there who see a side to fair trade that is different from R & R’s or Dean’s or Intelligentsia’s. is there anyone else out there who feels that even Equal Exchange, Global Exchange, Dean’s Beans, the Fair Trade Federation etc. are not above criticism? anyone?
p.s. how fair trade does a company have to be in order to be seen as a “100% fair trade company?” how are the pens and pencils sourced at EE? the paper? your energy? the chairs you sit in? how many people drive automobiles to work at EE? what about your delivery system? your packaging? your carpets? your staples & staple removers? do you buy any office products that were made by child and/or prison labor in China?
Comment by max schtuckinaabar — July 25, 2006 @ 1:17 am
I’m not sure how demanding to know how pens and pencils are sourced at Equal Exchange helps your argument here, but I’ll leave the response to Rodney, who you addressed your comment to. He said he’ll try to respond either tomorrow or the next day :)
Comment by Siel — July 25, 2006 @ 10:59 pm
Yes, I’m look forward to continuing the conversation with Max. For now I can tell you that there is nothing interesting about our pens & pencils (or binders or paperclips), but I think we do use paper with high recycled & post-consumer recycled content. I’ll check the #’s when I’m back in the office. Better yet, we’ve built an intranet info system to dramatically reduce our use of paper.
Lastly - shameless merchandising plug - check out our certified organic, U.S. made, union-printed t-shirts, & such at: http://eeretail.stores.yahoo.net/funstuff1.html
Comment by Rodney North — July 26, 2006 @ 10:11 am