[The whole Certification Challenges series is here.]
Just to be clear — In my last post, when I talked about divisive tactics taken by mission-based companies, I wasn’t referring to companies leaving TransFair USA, which awards the fair trade sticker (left), in itself as being a divisive tactic. I would agree that the Cooperative Coffees members that broke with TransFair USA made that move because they honestly felt that they’d tried everything else.
I’m referring to tactics that seem to shame new entrants into the fair trade market — say, Green Mountain Coffee — for not being 100% committed like mission-based companies are.
Now, these new entrants tend to take widely divergent paths. Green Mountain Coffee, for ex, has ramped its fair trade commitment up quite impressively. Others, like Starbucks, have barely gotten up to 3.7% — even after SIX YEARS after entering the fair trade movement. I won’t even get into P&G’s pathetic percentages.
The problem I see right now: TFUSA feels many mission-based companies won’t be satisfied by anything less than an immediate, 100% switch to fair trade from all companies entering the market. Mission-based companies, on the other hand, feel TFUSA gives big companies the fair trade sticker without requiring any kind of serious fair trade commitment.
Most activists fall somewhere in between.
I personally would love to see big companies make a contribution to the FT movement, and feel that the participation of these biggies will be crucial in moving fair trade into the mainstream.
But I also feel it’s unrealistic to expect a multinational company to suddenly completely change the way it does business. Speaking as an individual — my passion for social, economic, and environmental justice evolved over time, from the kind and patient influence of those already in the environmental and fair trade movements. I think we should offer big companies the same patience in courtesy in rethinking their current business practices.
At the same time, I’m peeved at the way some big companies have been able to get all the benefits of being associated with fair trade while making only a minimal commitment to fair trade business practices.
For the benefit of the fair trade movement as a whole, we really need to start working together. Both mission-based companies and fair trade activists want a more equitable, just world economy. The real question is — how can we best achieve that? I’d like to see squabbles about fair trade certification move beyond petty questions about whether individual companies may be hurt or benefit from decisions TFUSA makes — which, unfortunately, is where the argument tends to get stuck right now.
When people complain about the way multinationals are brought in to the fair trade biz, TFUSA points fingers at mission based companies for caring more about their own bottom lines than about adding the power of big corps to end the coffee crisis. The mission-based companies point fingers at the big corps for fucking up the original goals of the fair trade movement, and at TFUSA for being swayed by big corp’s big bucks. And the big corps see all that finger-pointing and think they can develop “alternate” company-specific, watered-down programs that they can market as being “better” than fair trade certification.
Most of you reading this post are doing so because you want to see an end to the coffee crisis, and want to figure out what steps might be best in terms of trying to mitigate, if not end, said crisis — and how we might all work collaboratively towards that end.
I DO think that a big burden falls on the mission-based companies — because for most of us, YOU were the people who inspired us to get into the movement to begin with. Tell us: With a full, pragmatic consideration of the way the world’s set up at this moment, 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?
Yes, the title’s a reference to The White Stripes. My fave song from The White Stripes: Jolene.
Update, 3/17/06: Part XI is here.
[The whole Certification Challenges series is here.]
Just a question –
you advertise for “ideal bite” and in their current newsletter they praise Starbucks as a role model for green business –
what do you think about that?
Comment by Gernot — March 10, 2006 @ 3:41 am
Siel – I will e-mail you the Ideal Bite tip praising Starbucks. (As soon as I saw it, I thought of you!) There have been about a dozen comments on their related blog that have criticized their choice to feature Starbucks.
(I couldn’t find where the original e-mailed tip is though, that’s why I’m just going to forward it to you rather than posting a link here.)
But, here’s the blog link: http://idealbite.blogs.com/ideal_bite_blog_about_it/2006/03/starbucksgccs.html
Melis
Comment by Melissa — March 10, 2006 @ 9:16 am
Correct me if I’m wrong – I may have missed something.
In simple terms:
The “mission-based companies” have established themselves by helping to pioneer Fairtrading. They were the first to carry the Fairtrade label, and rightly proud to be such trailblazers. Now they are concerned because the likes of Sbx can buy 3.7% Fairtrade coffee and use the label “to greenwash their image”.
Is it fair to say that the mission-based companies can now capitalise by being the ones who say on their packaging and advertising “WE ONLY SELL 100% FAIRTRADE CERTIFIED COFFEE”?
They made their names by establishing their mission (which is their “unique selling point”) and branding/advertising/selling it. Now they must continue in the same vein, with a little evolution inspired by the recent changes in the market.
Those who have left Transfair will have to find other ways of convincing people that their products are more desireable.
Comment by beev — March 10, 2006 @ 9:53 am
Hey!
Beev, we at Just Coffee are actually not sweating not using the TFUSA label. To my knowledge we have lost no business for dropping it and, when we explain to people who are concerned about why we left, 95% seem to support us. We are still growing at between 85% and 100% yearly, so to me that is not it.
The issue to me is to work or not work with people who seem to be so eager to flush all of the hard work and good will that the FTC label had built down the toilet in search of volume for the sake of volume. What good is the label if it loses all of its meaning?
What do i mean by that?
1) TNCs do not want to raise the FT minimum for coffee, which many growers feel is a joke.
2) They generally do not pre-finance.
3) They buy from importers instead of practicing direct trade relations.
4) They are not expected to be transparent or democratic.
5) Many of them ARE the coffee crisis and don’t seem to give a rat’s ass about anything beyond doing as little as possible and getting the biggest reward.
To end it, a lot of us mission-based folks are spending, and have spent SOOOOOO much energy and time trying to figure out how to prevent SBUX from tearing everything down using our example as to why FT does not work, that I am physically sick. And then TFUSA sits around with their thumbs up their noses not bothering to comment and acting like the freaking Bush Administration with the “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” bit, ignoring that these are even real issues and painting companies like JC as self-centered and greed-driven while they call criminals like SBUX “leaders in the Fair Trade movement” in their press releases.
It is totally deflating.
I am going on vacation for 2 days and then I will come back to work with my incredible co-op, in another incredible co-op (Co-op Coffees), to roast coffee from other incredible co-ops of growers. To me trade cannot get a whole lot better, with or without a crummy label.
Put the TFC seal on my tombstone. (I am smiling as I say this, of course!)
Until I return to my senses, peace and out…
-Matt
Comment by mateotemprano — March 10, 2006 @ 5:33 pm
Matt,
I think labelling Starbucks “criminal” gets the FT movement nowhere. Leave such terms for the Bush “Administration.” Indeed, this movement has been built through hard work, but why not work with firms such as Starbucks, who can bring far more volume to this market? They are not going away, after all.
Clearly, going from zero commitment to 3.7% in six years is not good enough. But a bigger danger than opposing positive reform in fair trade certification is the introduction of company-sponsored C.A.F.E. standards that mislead the consumer into thinking that apples are apples.
But, even C.A.F.E. standards and 3.7% certified are better than nothing at all – the Nestle benchmark. Do you really think many consumers are misled into believing that Nestle and Starbucks are green companies? What should they being doing and, most importantly, how do fair trade advocates organize to get them there?
Comment by Fletch — March 11, 2006 @ 8:24 pm
Fletch – I absolutely do think that companies like Nestle and Starbucks get all sorts of mileage out of playing up their fair-trade brands. They are betting (and winning) on the way people think that fair-trade certification applies to companies, when in fact it applies only to certain brands. That’s the essence of greenwashing. Nestle gets all the gains of, say, Just Coffee (which in absolute terms is thousands of times the financial gain), for a trivial outlay of money… an investment like any other.
As I’ve noted in other places, Nestle, and to a lesser extent Starbucks, have managed to pull unfairness from the jaws of fairness, because they’ve managed to map a facade of justice over injustice. That’s why I sympathize with the 100%ers – anything under 5% (and climbing steadily) is just window-dressing.
Comment by esteban — March 12, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
I think everyone here would agree that under 5% after 6 years is not satisfactory. I guess my question is, what is?
I do think we need to kind of clarify what we expect from big companies that may move towards making big changes. To say that, currently, TNCs generally don’t prefinance or don’t open their books to outsiders is obvious. The thing is — How can that be changed?
I think we’re all interested in how the FT mark can be used to encourage steps in the right direction — so long as the companies make these steps in a reasonably timely, serious manner. But what steps are acceptable, and what constitutes a reasonably timely and serious manner? Cuz these companies aren’t gonna suddenly switch to 100% responsible practices, totally opening up their books, giving prefinancing to all the farmers, cutting out all middlemen, and going all fair trade and organic.
Meaning — Matt — When I read your comment, it kinda sounds like you don’t see much room in the fair trade movement for TNCs at all. Now you’ve said you DO think TNCs can join in — but what are the criteria then? We all know it’s not gonna happen overnight, so I think some more specific, constructive guidelines are necessary — not general complaints about how TNCs aren’t immediately living up to all the cool stuff mission-based companies are doing.
Because sometimes, TNCs get the impression that no matter what they do, fair trade advocates will hate them. Which really doesn’t give TNCs much motivation to move in the right direction.
So what are we looking for in terms of TNC commitment — What can TNCs reasonably do to make even mission-based companies applaud their efforts? Is it requiring a ramp-up to 5% within the first 2 years? Is it requiring them to do some pre-financing? Is it a separate sticker for the 100% fair trade companies?
Comment by Siel — March 13, 2006 @ 2:28 pm
I just visited your site and look forward very much to reading your journal on fair trade. If you’d like another (sympathetic) perspective check out this paper from the International Workshop on the Economics of Fair Trade.
I agree that there is a tradeoff here for the fair trade movement. If Starbucks sells a paltry amount of Estima blend, and fools consumers into spending more on other unjust blends, then the objectives of fair trade have been violated. Is there any hard evidence on this greenwashing effect?
Comment by Fletch — March 14, 2006 @ 5:30 pm
Siel,
Provocative questions, indeed. Rather than bash TNCs and their commitment to fair trade, we should be thinking in a more positive direction. That doesn’t mean applauding them for what little they do. It means, foremost, recognizing that they aren’t going away and that they really can make a big difference given the enormous volume they sell relative to mission-based firms. There’s no simple answer to what percentage can be defined “commitment.” Until I see hard evidence that the fair trade logo is perceived by many consumers as company-wide rather than product-specific, I’ll reserve my cynicism and (naively) accept that Starbucks isn’t trying to greenwash. Nestle, though, inspires no such reservation.
Comment by Fletch — March 14, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
Hey All:
Yep, The “Bush Ad.” reference was a little harsh. SBUX as criminals, well, I’m not sure that that is not true. Although, we have no indictments at this point, right?
Sorry to use such inflamatory language, you are probably right that this is not really a help. It sheds light on the fact that I am WAYYYYY too invested in all of this and I need to get back to just doing what we do and step away from the keyboard.
Thanks for all of the comments and feedback. Take care…
-Matt
Comment by mateotemprano — March 17, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
“Because sometimes, TNCs get the impression that no matter what they do, fair trade advocates will hate them. Which really doesn’t give TNCs much motivation to move in the right direction.”
That is the impression I get from reading this blog, and I’m not even a TNC! Although I can only complement the quality of the debate on this blog, it seems to me that there is a lot of work to be done for Fair Trade advocates to accept TNCs into their movement, and look more objectively at what these companies do and don’t do that may or may not be considered “ethical trading”. (In other words, I’m saying we need to drop the assumption that just because a large corporation does ‘it’, that ‘it’ is automatically unethical.) If the goal really is to “mainstream” Fair Trade coffee, then it seems to me that there will have to be a change of attitude away from ‘anti-corporate cynicism’ and toward more open dialogue with people in these large corporations about what is realistic.
I’m not suggesting watering down the standards (although the limitations of Fair Trade standards does mean that not all coffee farmers are even eligible for FT certfication, which is a limit on the goal of making all coffee FT certified… but that’s a topic for another day…). Instead, I’m just saying that to engage with a corporation means that both sides have to drop their prejudices about each other and talk as one human being to another. In other words, corporations should stop seeing Fair Trade as an Marxist Hippie-movement, but at the same time, Fair Trade advocates should stop assuming corporations are Evil Capitalists bent on exploiting as many people as possible.
You can still look critically at corporate practices (and as advocates and activists, other people are depending on you to do this), but I think corporations need to be presumed innocent until proven guilty (in their intentions and their practices), not the other way around.
Comment by Liz — July 19, 2006 @ 5:02 pm
I think that — at least in terms of fair trade, the way activists often feel about TNCs is heavily influenced by the fact that TNCs have been allowed to get fair trade licensed by TransFair with only a v. minimal commitment to fair trade.
If TransFair USA made sure that TNCs made a more-than-greenwashing type of commitment to fair trade to get into the system, I think many activists would welcome the entry of TNCs. As it is now, activists are unhappy about TNCs getting into fair trade without doing much, and wonder if TNCs are effectively strongarming TFUSA to lower its bar for entry.
Comment by Siel — July 24, 2006 @ 12:04 pm