In this series, coffee companies share what they think the top 3 things that needed to be changed about fair trade certification are. Read the whole series here.
____
Dean of Dean’s Beans, a 100% organic and fair trade coffee roaster, is considered one of the movers and shakers that helped pioneer the fair trade movement. Dean’s Beans — which is part of Cooperative Coffees, 17 fair trade roasters in the US and Canada that’ve established fair trade relationships with 9 coffee co-ops in 7 different producer countries — does a lot of innovative stuff, including working with the Coffeelands Landmine Survivor’s Trust.
But Dean’s Beans left the TransFair USA roster a few years ago, due to unresolved issues with the way TFUSA was doing certification in the US. The reasons why the company left are the same reasons that’re keeping it away today, sez Dean.
The top 3 things he believes needs to change:
1. TFUSA needs to incorporate the same transparency in its own operations that it requires of its farmers. More specifically, TFUSA needs to have a working advisory group of roasters, and an advisory group of farmers in order to ensure that policymaking at TransFair USA is more democratic and transparent.
The problem, at the moment, is that decisions are pretty much made by Paul Rice. And while he and TFUSA does get the input of others in the fair trade movement from time to time, that effort to involve others is done only on an ad hoc basis, when TFUSA is in response mode. “They’ve [TFUSA] got very good people,” sez Dean, “but there’s no place for other people to get in there to change its policies.” Dean sez the decision-making at TFUSA — if it wants to be part of a movement, as it sez it does — needs to be a broader based, ongoing process that’s built into the structure of TFUSA. “Ad hoc doesn’t cut it.”
2. TFUSA needs to require the same transparency from the coffee companies in the US that it requires of its farmers. All it takes is a simple graph, Dean sez, that gives us 3 bits of info for each fair trade licensed roaster: The total lbs of fair trade coffee the company buys, what % of all their coffee is fair trade certified, and what countries the company buys from. To the argument that such info’s private for the company, Dean sez: “If you’re proudly buying fair trade coffee, then why don’t you say how much? Just be honest about it.”
Too many marketing depts are taking advantage of this lack of transparancy — by buying only a teensy bit of fair trade coffee, then greenwashing their entire image with that bit. Then consumer gets a v. false impression that much more’s being done, and that the problem’s taken care of — when in fact very little’s being done.
3. Differentiate the fair trade label for the 100% fair trade companies. If committed fair trade companies are given, say, a label with a different color, then consumers would be able to tell at a glance that what’s on a bag of Starbucks coffee is not the same thing you see on an Equal Exchange bag. Without that differentiation in the logo, “people see the logo as a reflection of the company as a whole.”
___
So what if TFUSA said all these changes are seriously in the works? Would Dean’s Beans return to being a TFUSA licensed roaster? Sez Dean: “Yes. I’d very seriously consider returning.”
And he sez he feels really optimistic, from conversations he’s had with members of TFUSA’s board. “I’m actually amazed. I think it’s like synergy — The effort finally seems to have a critical mass.”
I too feel cautiously optimistic :)
Update, 1/15/08: Dean’s Beans has now gone back to getting fair trade certified. Find out why here.
I really agree with Dean’s comments. #’s 2 and 3 in particular would make a significant change in solidying FT as an economic movement as opposed to just a selling point. And I cannot think of any earnest objection to putting them in place.
Comment by Jerry at The Change — September 27, 2006 @ 8:27 am
Well — At the USFT meeting, Jean — who was speaking on behalf of TFUSA at the convergence — pointed to the difficulty of getting big corps (who arguably could make the biggest quantifiable difference, economically) in the fair trade certification system at all, if the “statement of intent”s weren’t kept confidential.
Of course, one can disagree with that for various reasons — But that’s one of the objections to point #2 put forth by TFUSA.
The objection to point #3, at least to me, seems mroe legitimate. Namely — What about the companies that’re, say, choosing to work with estates that’re clearly providing fair wages and benefits to its employees? What about companies that’re working with indiv. farmers that’re not part of a co-op, for whatever reason? These companies would get a non-100% FT seal, which might make them look like they’re at the Starbucks / Nestle level, when they’re clearly not.
In that case, it becomes a lil more difficult for me. While we can argue that the FT label denotes support co-ops, it’s clear that many, many people don’t necessarily associate fair trade with co-ops — they associate it with fair labor practices. And with that latter interpretation in mind, it’s difficult to argue that non-co-op coffee produced via fair labor practices shouldn’t get the benefits of the fair trade seal.
At least, that’s how I see it, right now. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise –
Comment by Siel — September 27, 2006 @ 11:39 pm