Whenever another big company says they’re thinking ’bout doing fair trade, I get a few emails from diehard fans of Starbucks — including some employees.
Ha! They’ll say. What do you think of THAT!?
It’s as if they think I’m AGAINST big corps getting into fair trade. Which doesn’t make sense at all — If I were against big corps doing fair trade, I’d be demanding that Starbucks get out of fair trade, not pushing to get the mermaid to do more of it.
The latest big corp considering fair trade: Walmart. The behemoth already has Bom Dia fair trade coffee in its Sam’s Club stores, which I wrote about here. But now, that coffee might make its way into the actual Walmart stores too.
For the record, I LOVE it when a new company — big or small — joins the fair trade movement by intro’ing a new fair trade product. What I DON’T like is when a company does a teensy weensy amount of fair trade, then plays it off like it’s saved the world.
Make a real commitment, and I’ll be happy, whether the company’s big or small. Did I complain when McDonald’s switched more than 600 of its stores in the northeast to 100% organic, fair trade coffee? Of course not. I was psyched!
And I hoped that Starbucks would make a similar serious commitment to fair trade. I even asked: “Starbucks — what’s your move?”
No move from Starbucks, which as of yet STILL doesn’t offer a SINGLE blend that’s both fair trade and organic. And yet Starbucks, unlike McDonald’s, puts info about its “commitment to fair trade” all over its brochures and website and social responsibility report.
That’s rather deceptive, and disingenuous, in my view. THAT is what I don’t like.
In general, many people involved in the fair trade movement seem more than happy to see others join in. When I talked to Jeff of the 100% fair trade Pura Vida about the goings-on at the SCAA Conference, he said that while a few grumbled a bit about Costco’s selling fair trade coffee for really really cheap — perhaps making it harder for smaller companies to compete — he and many others felt this was a positive, necessary, and welcome move for the fair trade movement.
But Costco’s Kirkland brand went like all fair trade — which, I think, is one of the main reasons others in the fair trade industry embraced it.
Of course, Starbucks benefited — CSR-wise — from Costco’s move. Starbucks roasts Costco’s Kirkland brand, and when Costco requested more fair trade, Starbucks complied.
That, and not Starbucks’ “commitment to fair trade,” is why Starbucks’ fair trade commitment jumped from less than 2% to a whopping 3.7% between 2004 and 2005.
I’d be really curious to hear how much coffee at Walmart will be fair trade certified. If this much-boycotted and hated corp ends up surpassing Starbucks’ “commitment to fair trade,” it’ll become much harder for Starbucks to get away with its greenwashing…
Greenwashing.
Next.
Comment by Lezbro — June 12, 2006 @ 10:15 pm
Wal-Mart is also going in for organic food, but analysts think this may do more harm than good, by essentially industrializing the organic food industry and pushing small suppliers out the door. I summarized Michael Pollan’s take here:
http://www.bootstrap-analysis.com/2006/06/walmart_and_org.html
Not sure how these dynamics might play out with FT.
Comment by Nuthatch — June 13, 2006 @ 2:23 am
Greenwashing or not – I think that a Fair Trade choice in a store like Walmart is a good thing for Fair Trade and small mission based roasters because it may bring some bit of awareness to Walmart shoppers. Small roasters businesses are growing because they offer the quality and freshness that Walmart can not. A Walmart shopper might get some FT coffee at walmart and then stop off at a local bakery (maybe) and see the FT label or poster and go”Hey-Fair Trade coffee–cool” -give it a try – like it, maybe realise it tastes better than their Walmart coffee…. on it goes.
Comment by joebella — June 13, 2006 @ 5:28 am
“Fair Trade” and “Organic” need to MEAN something.
Part of the Bush administration’s “reformation” of the regulatory system has been to neuter these terms from a legal standpoint in order to allow the corporations to participate in the premium profits without having to change a thing.
Wal-Mart, Starbucks. These companies will never be free trade, organic, or local. That’s the nature of their business model, their leadership, their culture.
We need to get past labels, stickers, marketing, gimmicks, tags, and hype.
McDonald’s pushes their new healthy choices menu simply because they are trying to forestall litigation or purely for the purpose of image. The REALITY of McDonald’s is that 99.9% of the people who eat there pass the “Edimame and Soy Ginger Salad” display and order the same burger and fries they always have. The demographic that shops Wal-Mart cannot be won over to fair trade. If you want to support fair trade, how can you even THINK of shopping from a company that doesn’t pay its workers enough to reach the poverty level? A company, in fact, who relies upon the state and local governments to provide a living wage?
Come on.
Wal-Mart Welfare
How taxpayers subsidize the world’s largest retailer.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/WalMart_Welfare.html
>> Instead of providing affordable health insurance, Wal-Mart encourages its employees to sign up for publicly funded programs, dodging its health care costs and passing them on to taxpayers. The company is the poster child for a problem outlined in a 2003 AFL-CIO report on Wal-Mart’s role in the health care crisis: “federal, state and local governments” – American taxpayers – must pick up the multi-billion-dollar tab for employees and dependents, especially children, of large and profitable employers who are forced to rely on public hospitals and other public health programs for care and treatment they need but cannot obtain under their employers’ health plans.”
Comment by Lezbro — June 13, 2006 @ 8:22 am
Siel – If you hate Starbucks because they are a big company, that is your choice and more power to you. It is always good to support your local businessmen and women. But be careful about posting misinformation. I recommend verifying you facts. Starbucks committed to purchasing 11 million pounds of Fair Trade certified coffee before the Costco deal was ever discussed. And Starbucks introduced TransFair USA to Costco and recommended that Costco think about switching to Fair Trade. Not the other way around.
I know you like to portray Starbucks as “the bad guy” but name one US coffee company that purchases more than 10 million pounds of Fair Trade coffee or a coffee company that has invested $8.5 million dollars in loan programs for coffee farmers including FT producers (access to afforable credit is a requirement for FT certification) then I will completely support your claim that Starbucks is greenwashing.
Comment by CMH — June 13, 2006 @ 9:52 am
what about the fact that Starbucks owns Seattle’s Best-and they probably figure that brand’s fair trade products into their 3.7% figure. what if some of the fair trade beans they buy are sold out of the US market too? that 11 million figure doesn’t hold much weight anymore. 11 million isn’t much when you buy billions of lbs a year.
and lezbro: how has the Bush administration impacted Fair Trade Certification as set by TransFair USA and Fairtrade Labelling Organizations Intl.?
Comment by ummm.... — June 13, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
>> and lezbro: how has the Bush administration impacted Fair Trade Certification as set by TransFair USA and Fairtrade Labelling Organizations Intl.?
Specifically?
Dunno.
Don’t care.
The transnationals shed shell companies, thinktanks, and faux certification organizations as needed. If you like, feel free to spend the remainder of your days navigating the labyrinth of greenwashing, astroturf, and disingenuous press releases.
Collect as many acronyms as you desire.
The Bush administration is demonstrably corrupt and wholly in the service of transnational corporations. I don’t need to revisit the specifics each day to verify this. Those labels mean absolutely zero. Nothing.
Organizations can be loaded with board members who do the work of the highest bidder. Who do you think the “Bush administration” is? Merely the public face of the global economy.
These real world standards are moving targets. It’s an ongoing battle between independent journalists, citizens, bloggers (the very, very few who manage to stay afloat in our censorial society) and the corporations who can deluge the public with a torrent of disinformation.
I don’t put ANY stake in these non-profits or certifying agencies. I want to speak people to people to see whether it’s working. They are ways to dialogue with the farmers directly. Why go through some certifying organization? Sure, that’s a lot of work for a cup of coffee, but that’s where we are in 2006.
I don’t base my decisions on some sticker.
I go to the source.
Comment by Lezbro — June 13, 2006 @ 10:49 pm
lezbro: well, good for you. i suppose you bring sacos back up from Jinotega on a donkey and roast it yourself in your kitchen. i’m sure you expect every coffee consumer in this country to fly down to origin and do the inspections themselves, right? face it, the average US consumer doesn’t have time to do days of research and interviews when deciding to buy a bag of coffee. but they do have enough time to read a label.
and i never thought that ignorant cursory dismissal was a good way to make your decisions:
“Specifically?
Dunno.
Don’t care.”
wow. brilliant.
“Those labels mean absolutely zero. Nothing.”
please explain how and why.
do you dismiss all certification labels? if you rode a motorcycle would you dismiss the Snell/Ainsi sticker and wear a non-certified helmet? would you rather not buy Energy Star electronics/home appliances and just believe that a company says their computer moniters save energy?
again I ask, how do we empower the average american consumer to make more sustainable choices?
Comment by ummm.... — June 14, 2006 @ 11:22 am
The Internet makes source communication and research viable, even convenient. I don’t need to fly a donkey from the sticks to communicate with the farmer or the laborers themselves. Energy Star means nothing to me. The stickers on a helmet mean nothing to me. The stickers on my coffee mean nothing to me. Nothing. Zero. You call that “cursory dismissal.” I’ll call it doing my own legwork. The corporations hide most, if not all, of their abuses in these shell companies and paper tiger certifying agencies and groups.
>> again I ask, how do we empower the average american consumer to make more sustainable choices?
The average consumer is chum to the predatory billions spent to spin them in a constant cycle of disinformation, press releases, false studies, and pseudo-scientific “findings” about products or services marketed by trade groups.
The average consumer either becomes the Unaverage Consumer by detaching himself or herself from the corporate disinformation network or they can keep eating corn syrup, mercury, and BSE-contaminated pseudo-meat and continue to marvel at the multitude of “mysterious” ailments which continue to plague their family and friends.
There is NO easy answer.
Not when it comes to food, labor, or politics.
Consumers either get informed at the source or they will be abused and exploited. Stickers won’t change anything.
Comment by Lezbro — June 14, 2006 @ 11:46 am
well, i hope you don’t ride a motorcycle…
Comment by ummm.... — June 14, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
I’m with joebella, mostly. For the most part, I’m liable to think that, once people discover fair trade, they get further into it.
Meaning — a Walmart customer might pick up fair trade coffee by accident or out of curiousity. They read more about it, google it, and realize that buying fair trade coffee at Walmart’s a bit of an oxymoron, and start looking for better options for fair trade coffee.
I guess I feel different people come to fair trade in different ways. Giving people more ways to join the movement seems to me a step in the right direction, though certainly not an end-all.
CMH — Did you read the post? Cuz this is the second time — at least since you changed screennames — that you’ve commented misconstruing what I have said. The post actually starts out with me talking about how I’d love for more big companies to do fair trade, not how much I hate big companies.
According to the “Starbucks Commitment to Social Responsibility” brochure for 2004 — which I currently have on my desk — Starbucks committed to a goal of 10 mil lbs for 2005, not 11 mil. Please check your facts yrself. The fact is that even after the Costco deal went through, Starbucks ended up exceeding that 10 mil lbs goal by only 1.5 mil more lbs — which makes me wonder if the mermaid would’ve met the goal at all had it not been for Costco’s request to make its Kirkland coffee fair trade.
As you know, the size of Starbucks really dwarfs that of all other specialty coffee companies. Which is why a lb by lb comparison just doesn’t give us a clear pic of the depth (or lack thereof) of commitment Starbucks has made to fair trade. The fact is, even after the Costco deal, Starbucks was only at 3.7% fair trade.
Lezbro — I admire your enthusiasm and thank you for taking the time out to read and post frequently. However, I’m not sure that making accusations about orgs that you reportedly “Dunno. Don’t care” about is a valuable addition to this discussion. It’s one thing to express your opinion that consumers should look beyond the label, but it’s quite another to imply that TFUSA and other orgs are under the thumb of the Bush administration — when, as you said, you dunno anything about it. I hope to hear more from you, but also hope that you’ll try to stay away from unwarranted accusations.
Comment by Siel — June 15, 2006 @ 10:18 pm