A roundup of all my posts about current challenges in Fair Trade certification, to be updated as new ones are written — Mainly cuz I don’t wanna make a boo boo and write about the same stuff twice.

For those new to fair trade, TransFair USA is the nonprofit org that provides the fair trade certified sticker for US products (left). Other orgs and companies are described in part I. Start there, and welcome to the fair trade movement :)

And for more on what TFUSA’s and other certification labels mean, go here.

Certification challenges, part I. This post’ll give you a broad overview of who’s who and what’s what in the fair trade movement, kicking off a series of posts inspired by a panel at the United Students for Fair Trade (USFT) convergence in Feb. 2006.

Certification challenges, part II: Dancing with the devil. A frivolous post about the fun we had drinking and dancing the night before the panel at the USFT convergence :)

Certification challenges, part III: Fair Trade figleafs. Almost all fair trade activists say transnational companies can participate in the fair trade movement — but pretty much everyone who spoke at the USFT convergence argued for more strict, binding and public conditions and guidelines.

Certification challenges, part IV: What about the farmers?. A discussion about fair trade can end up being a bunch of non-farmers trying to speak for farmers. Of course, money plays a role for all of us in this capitalist culture. But we can’t expect others’ needs, wants, and greeds to always coincide with our own.

Certification challenges, part V: Why TransFair USA loves Starbucks. Starbucks’ licensing fees accounted for roughly 14% of ALL of TransFair USA’s total revenues.

Certification challenges, part VI: Presong Seesa-Ard’s comments. Julia of Equal Exchange took better notes than I did :P An elaboration on Thai rice farmer Presong Seesa-Ard’s comments at the USFT conference.

Certification challenges, part VII: Global Exchange. Back in 2003, when Global Exchange called on Starbucks to do more fair trade certified coffee, TransFair USA came out against Global Exchange.

Certification challenges, part VIII: In defense of TransFair USA. The conundrum 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.

Certification challenges, part IX: But we’re better than the fair trade label! Not all the blame falls on TFUSA. Some mission-based companies have used tactics that seem more unnecessarily divisive than helpful for the fair trade movement.

Certification challenges, part X: The two sides of my brain need to have a meeting. Enough finger pointing — How can we best work together to mitigate the coffee crisis? And what SPECIFIC changes are necessary in the way fair trade certification’s done today to further those goals? What, to YOU, would constitute a SERIOUS commitment to fair trade from the big corps?

Certification challenges, part XI: TransFair USA answers critiques. TFUSA puts out a FAQ addressing questions that’ve come up about fair trade certification. I love TFUSA’s effort to respond to concerns — Though I’m still not convinced that big corps aren’t getting too much leeway.

Certification challenges XII: The 5% question. When talking about big companies’ reluctance to ramp up their fair trade commitments, activists will often point to a 5% commitment. Where did the 5% argument come from?

Certification challenges XIII: 5% — requirement vs. recommendation. A more detailed answer re: the 5% question from Rodney of Equal Exchange.

Certification challenges, part XIV: Negotiating fair trade. Regardless, one thing I’ve been interested in is organizing and lobbying by mission-based coffee roasters.

Certification challenges, part XV: Riding on the coattails. Some non-fair-trade coffee companies use the arguments of mission-based coffee companies as an excuse for not practicing fair trade.

Certification Challenges, part XVI: A Fixable problem? Fair trade committed companies want TransFair USA to really listen to the issues these companies are bringing up, instead of catering overmuch to big corporations.

Certification Challenges, part XVII: Fair trade minimums. The minimum fair trade price for coffee hasn’t changed for 16 years — despite inflation –

Minimum price for fair trade certified coffee goes up. Starting June 1, 2008, fair trade coffee co-ops will get a 5 cent per pound raise. This decision brings the base price per pound of fair trade coffee to $1.25.* That means fair trade coffee co-ops will get $1.35 per pound of conventional coffee ($1.25 fair trade minimum price + mandatory 10 cent social premium). For organic coffee, fair trade coffee co-ops will get $1.55 per pound ($1.25 fair trade minimum price + 10 cent social premium + 20 cent organic differential).

A v. fair trade company returns to fair trade certification. Dean’s Beans decides to rejoin TransFair’s roster of fair trade licensed roasters. One company that took the fair trade certification logo off its bag — saying that the certification standards had gotten too watered down — is now embracing the logo again.

Accusations of Fair Trade Lite, part I. The basic argument goes thusly: Fair trade certification’s watered down, so you need to look beyond the label and support the REALLY fair trade companies. Here’s my problem with that argument.

5 Comments

[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.]

4 Comments

[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

3 Comments

An incomplete list of fair trade businesses in Colorado. I’ve excluded those that’re explicitly faith-based.

Crafts
Ten Thousand Villages, Denver. Denver fair trade craft store. 2626 E. 3rd Ave. Denver. 303.316.8773.

People of Hope Crafts. A fair trade craft store marketing products from El Salvador.

Beverages
Bongo Billy’s Coffees. Fair trade coffee roaster in Buena Vista, Colorado.

Conscious Coffees. 800-365-8616. A member of Cooperative Coffees, Conscious Coffee is a highly-dedicated mission-based fair trade coffee roaster that buys only fair trade, organic coffees sourced from co-ops.

Third Street Chai. A Colorado based Chai company in Boulder, Colorado.

3 Comments

[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]

I should really start taking notes and stuff during important events. Julia of Equal Exchange emailed me thusly [there's Julia to the right, after a few drinks the night before the workshop :P]:

my notes from the Thai farmer read a bit differently from yours. I thought he’d said that his cooperative seeks “partnerships with companies that can understand and embody the principles of fair trade.” He was surprised by the overall direction of our discussion. “Enabling large corporations to come into the movement” he said, “will mean allowing them to define the movement to the point where producers may not understand it for its true potential.” I.e. moving beyond a price and a product to encompass the nature of relationships.

A much stronger stance in favor of stricter guidelines for fair trade certification than what I previously reported. The farmer’s name, BTW, is Presong Seesa-Ard, according to Chris, the translator.

Updates: Part VII: Global Exchange. Part VIII: In defense of TransFair USA.

0 Comments