[The whole Certification Challenges series is here.]
This just in: a more detailed answer re: the 5% question from Rodney of Equal Exchange, below. It looks like Rodney wrote this a lil while back, but the message got lost somewhere in e-land –
During TransFair’s start-up period (specifically between 1998 and their signing of Starbucks in late Summer 2000) in meetings and correspondence our co-executive directors (Rink Dickinson and Rob Everts) urged TransFair to focus on building the volume of sales for farmers and to try to get companies to think deeply before committing to Fair Trade. Our thinking was that that would help ensure long term commitments, and not mere token participation. At this time (pre-Starbucks signing on) we urged that there be some minimum bars of entry.
We suggested a staggered formula, that recognized the real-world, operational constraints faced by large scale businesses. Therefore we proposed that the bigger a business the lower the initial Fair Trade percentage they would have to commit to in order to use the seal. On this scale 5% was the lowest hurdle. (If a company could not get to 5% right off, they could still import and sell Fair Trade coffee, but just not use the seal on packaging or marketing materials, etc, until they did hit 5%). And we believe that we got a commitment from TransFair to require the 5%. However, what happened in practice seems to be that TransFair simply encourages companies to work toward 5%.
Further, we also encouraged that the bar be raised steadily over time…. This would strike a balance between:
a) what was realistic and do-able for a conventional firm,
b) the goal of maximizing Fair Trade Certified volume,
c) the farmer co-ops’ capacity to meet growing demand
Of course, since we didn’t get the 5%, we didn’t get the “raising bar†requirement either.
So the mission-based, 100% fair trade companies seem to have pushed for a 5% requirement all along, but TransFair USA chose to make that 5% a recommendation, not a requirement.
TFUSA says it didn’t have the clout to make that 5% a requirement with the big companies — That’s the contention that’s currently up for debate.
[The whole Certification Challenges series is here.]
A starting point here is how “big” is big? I mean, how much is Starbucks moving in fair trade volume relative to a typical mission-based firm? Furthermore, have the mission-based firms organized a lobby to press Transfair to act on their original commitment? Maybe that should be the direction of forums like the U.S.F.T. Conference: A venue at which mission-based firms not only organize but lobby Transfair. In short, has there been any work toward networking to match the bargaining power Starbucks has with Transfair?
However, most of what I have seen indicates that 1) Mission-based firms often snipe at SBux (“Starbucks shouldn’t even been here,” etc.) instead of criticizing Transfair, 2) Mission-based firms often bicker among themselves whether SBux should be certified at all and when they cannot get their way with Transfair, they leave and invent their own certification, and 3) Mission-based firms sometimes profit from leaving by marketing themselves as purer than thou.
This may be too harsh an indictment of mission-based firms, but greivances are usually redressed in the real world by organizing and lobbying, not by walking away with your nose in the air.
Comment by Fletch — March 24, 2006 @ 9:25 pm
I started writing a response, but it got so long it’s now gonna be its own post. Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Fletch, and check out part XIV :)
Comment by Siel — March 26, 2006 @ 8:37 pm
Mmm… Good post :) Will watch your blog
Comment by harwin — December 12, 2006 @ 7:54 pm