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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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

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.