Postcards from the Edge: Maintaining the 'Alternative' Character of Fair ...

6 downloads 1302 Views 91KB Size Report
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). ... global free trade, which structurally disadvantages producers in the global South. From its origins after ..... Changing (Dis)course – from Alternative to Fair5. It is hard to ...
Sustainable Development Sust. Dev. 13, 143–153 (2005) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/sd.275

Postcards from the Edge: Maintaining the ‘Alternative’ Character of Fair Trade William Low1* and Eileen Davenport2 1 University of Auckland, New Zealand 2 Compass Consulting, New Zealand ABSTRACT This paper argues that the pressures for fair trade to substantially increase market access for marginalized producers in the global South and subsequently move fair trade out of niche into mainstream markets is reshaping the boundaries of the movement. We suggest that going mainstream carries with it the danger of appropriation of the more convenient elements of fair trade by the commercial sector and loss of the more radical edges. This paper examines the changing discourse surrounding fair trade, critically reflecting on the movement’s history to understand how its evolution to date might influence its possible futures. The paper concludes by exploring how various elements within the fair trade movement are trying to retain a radical edge in order to continue to provide a critique of the dominant paradigm of business and trade. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment. Received 15 November 2004; revised 1 December 2004; accepted 20 February 2005 Keywords: fair trade; mainstreaming; sustainability; discourse; history of fair trade

Introduction AIR TRADE IS, WE SUGGEST, UNDERGOING A DRAMATIC TRANSFORMATION, BASED AROUND THE

F

‘mainstreaming’ of fair trade food commodities. We argue that the pressures for fair trade to substantially increase market access for marginalized producers in the global South has resulted in strategies that move fair trade out of niche into mainstream markets and that these forces are reshaping the boundaries of the movement. We suggest that going mainstream carries with it the danger of appropriation of the more convenient elements of fair trade by the commercial sector (fair prices but little in the way of capacity building, for example), and loss of the more radical edges of fair trade. The loss of these radical elements, we contend, will be greatly to the detriment of a movement that has always acted as both critic and conscience. Throughout its history, fair trade has been conceived by many in the movement as a model that has offered both a theoretical and practical alternative (Barratt Brown, 1993) to the existing hegemony of

* Correspondence to: William Low, Senior Lecturer in Business and Society, Department of Management and Employment Relations, University of Auckland, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected] Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

144

W. Low and E. Davenport

global free trade, which structurally disadvantages producers in the global South. From its origins after the Second World War period using ‘charity trade’ to provide emergency relief for refugee and marginalized groups, fair trade has evolved a hybrid model of business and long-term development assistance. It is now a global social movement based on an alternative business model with explicit guidelines for practice and conduct that go beyond the pursuit of profit – ‘business with social objectives’ (Lake, 1998). This paper examines the changing discourse surrounding fair trade and critically reflects on the movement’s history by drawing on documents gathered, and interviews conducted, throughout the 1990s. One critical example of the changing discourse is the way in which the movement has shifted from representing itself as ‘alternative’ to representing itself as ‘fair’. This subtle shift between two often interchangeably used descriptions of the movement has been crucial, we suggest, in moving the movement from niche to mainstream. We also argue that the fair trade movement still reflects its anthropocentric origins, though there is now a far greater awareness in the movement of the need to engage with the discourse on sustainability and to embed ecocentric principles. The trend towards mainstreaming raises the question of whether underlying principles of fair trade are being diluted. Both internal pressures to be more commercially oriented and external pressure from engagement with conventional commercial business has the potential to dilute the fair trade model of resistance. The paper concludes by exploring how various elements within the movement are trying to retain a radical edge to fair trade in order to provide a critique of the dominant paradigm of business and trade.

The Origins of the Fair Trade Movement We contend that there cannot be a single unitary ‘history’ of the fair trade movement and that those that have been presented most often conceive change in the movement in linear, epochal terms (e.g. Tallontire, 2000; Litrell and Dickson, 1999). Despite being considered a movement, the fair trade organizations (FTOs) that comprise it are far from homogeneous, having evolved in different countries over different time periods, and reflecting local political, social and economic conditions. We do argue, however, that the various branches of the movement share the same ‘roots’, with the defining feature of the movement being a primary focus on producer well-being (EFTA, 2001). The origins of the fair trade movement lie in a range of secular and faith-based perspectives and can be traced back to relief efforts in the post-WWII era. However, the movement is linked historically to an even longer tradition of alternative approaches to social relations of production and consumption. These include the mutual movement of producer and consumer cooperatives, Utopian industrialists, religiously inspired views linking business and social justice and ‘alternative lifestyles’ based on communalism and ‘counter-culture’. These disparate threads share common themes of self-help, development and social justice in production and consumption. The choice of organizations used as examples below is highly selective and reflects the authors’ personal experiences of the fair trade movement. Early Faith-Based Roots The majority of Christian faith-based organizations, including Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Mennonites, Anglicans and Quakers, have had a long history of involvement with charity initiatives in both the South and the North. Charity initiatives in the global South had, by the 1970s, evolved into international development initiatives, and often involved some form of community based income generation projects, including the export of locally produced handicrafts. Three organizations are Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Sust. Dev. 13, 143–153 (2005)

Postcards from the Edge: Maintaining the ‘Alternative’ Character of Fair Trade

145

highlighted below that exhibit clear and continued association with the fair trade movement, initially using the successful ‘charity trade’ model of selling handcrafts and other goods (Tallontire (2000, p. 167) refers to ‘goodwill selling’) in order to raise funds for post-WWII war refugee and disaster relief. The Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) started SELFHELP Crafts of the World in 1946 initially to assist Palestinian refugees, and marginalized people from Puerto Rico and Haiti (MCC, 2004). Such actions are central to the Mennonite faith. The 16th century leader from whom Mennonites take their name stated ‘True evangelical faith cannot lie sleeping, it clothes the naked, it comforts the sorrowful, it feeds the hungry, it shelters the destitute, it cares for the sick, it becomes all things to all men’ (MCC, 2004). SERRV (the acronym for Sales Exchange for Refugee Rehabilitation and Vocation) began selling cuckoo clocks from Germany to US members of the Church of the Brethren in 1949 in order to fund refugee relief efforts (SERRV, 2004). Oxfam was started in the UK, by Quakers and other religious groups, to feed the hungry in war-ravaged Greece in 1942. To begin with, the goods were not in most cases made by those receiving assistance. However, the principle of linking income generation for marginalized groups through the sale of their own handcraft products had become the dominant paradigm by the late 1950s. Oxfam, for example, used a network of second hand shops to raise money for its relief efforts, and in the late 1950s started to sell crafts made by Chinese refugees alongside second hand goods. In 1964, Oxfam Trading was established as the first fair trade organization in the UK (Kocken, 2003). Political Roots A series of parallel developments outside the faith-based organizations coalesced around the politics of opposition to capitalism, decolonization and alternative lifestyles, and resulted in a range of fair trade organizations.1 The fair trade movement has always operated at an explicitly political as well as a practical level, educating Northern consumers and governments about production in the South and advocating for change in international trade. The World Shop movement has its origins in the Netherlands where ‘Third World groups’ started out selling cane sugar in the 1950s as a vehicle for educating consumers about development issues (Kocken, 2003). As the international disaster relief agencies evolved to become predominantly long-term development organizations, fair trade became part of the strategy for promoting development through the ‘Trade not Aid’ philosophy first espoused by UNCTAD in 1968. International aid was not considered a path to long-term development, with many arguing that the international trade system plays a pivotal role in creating and maintaining poverty in the South. So beyond generating income to directly support marginalized producers, reform of the international trading system to provide fair access to poor countries has always been a crucial goal of fair trade. Southern ‘Grassroots’ Whilst the concept known as fair trade is essentially a Northern development, indigenous attempts to empower producers and create alternatives to international trade have deep roots in the South. Examples from the sub-continent are particularly interesting because of the Khadi movement2 and the Indian co-operative movement, which began in the 1920s. Southern fair trade organizations developed out of

1

The faith-based elements of the movement have often been underplayed relative to the secular side in the recent discourse, but it should be remembered that amongst many of the small local ‘alternative’ initiatives that evolved into fair trade organizations at least some key members started from faith-based perspectives on development assistance. 2 Khadi means hand-woven cloth made using hand-spun yarn. Developed in 1920 to promote self-sufficiency and to boycott foreign goods, Mahatma Gandhi referred to Khadi as ‘The livery of freedom’ (KVIC, 2005). Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Sust. Dev. 13, 143–153 (2005)

146

W. Low and E. Davenport

indigenous income generation initiatives, such as EMA (Equitable Marketing Association), SASHA, SILENCE, SKVIS and TARA Projects in India, and with Northern NGO development assistance, such as CORR–The Jute Works in Bangladesh. These organizations play a key role in representing the interests of producers in the supply chain3 by consolidating orders, arranging export logistics and coordinating social development initiatives such as saving schemes and health and welfare projects. An important aspect of Southern FTOs has been their emphasis on producer empowerment through, for example, democratic decision making within cooperative structures.

Consolidation and Competition The fair trade movement, North and South, enjoyed a period of international growth throughout the 1970s and most of the 1980s, expanding to encompass importing and retailing operations across all of Northern Europe and the English-speaking ‘developed’ world. IFAT’s 1999 conference report (1999a, p. 3) states that ‘In the 1970s a number of new ATOs started their work. In the 1980s their work was an explosion of sales. One could almost sell any product of any quality’. By the end of the 1980s growth in the numbers of new fair trade organizations and the volume of sales of fairly traded (handcraft) goods had slowed significantly. A number of factors contributed to this. On the supply side, a global free trade agenda in international trade led to a reduction in tariff barriers over a range of handcraft products. As a result, fair trade retailers faced increasing competition from other lifestyle retailers. Two examples in North America are Pier One Imports and Bombay Trading Company, sellers of ‘exotic’ homewares, soft furnishings and giftware. However, a multitude of smaller retailers now stock handmade and hand-finished items from developing countries. The weakening of the Multifibre Agreement opened Northern markets to Southern textiles and clothing and spurred the growth of companies such as Monsoon selling Indian inspired clothing and homeware ranges. As Humphrey (2000, p. 7) says, ‘fair trade companies lost their “unique selling proposition”, or USP, as more companies began to sell similar goods’, a view echoed by Litrell and Dickson (1997) and Scrase (2003) writing about the international craft market. On the demand side the protracted global recession in the mid- to late 1980s caused Northern consumers to be increasingly cost conscious. At the same time, committed fair trade consumers were becoming more discerning and were requesting information and guarantees: it was no longer enough that a product came from a fair trade retailer (EFTA, 2001). Northern FTOs were increasingly struggling with the need to pay more attention to marketing. As a warehouse manager at one of the major North American FTOs commented, ‘Do you sell the product based on a needy producer or based on market demands? You’re not doing the producer any good if you are selling something that the market doesn’t want or can’t appreciate’ (quoted by Litrell and Dickson, 1999, p. 349). In the South, producer organizations were struggling with demands from Northern fair trade buyers for higher quality and more design conscious products with a faster turnaround. At the same time, increasingly stringent European and North American legislation on health and safety issues was impacting on some production processes – for example the need to ensure that products used only azo free dyes4 and lead free paints – and was increasing costs to producers.

3

In some cases the Southern FTO is itself a producer. Azo colorants are the most important class of synthetic dyes and pigments, representing 60–80% of all organic colorants. Germany, the world’s largest producer of azo dyes, was the first country to ban their use in consumer products that have the potential of coming into close and prolonged contact with the skin (in 1994) as a suspected carcinogen. http://webdomino1.oecd.org/comnet/ech/tradeandenv.nsf/ viewHtml/index/$FILE/amines.pdf [12 November 2004]. 4

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Sust. Dev. 13, 143–153 (2005)

Postcards from the Edge: Maintaining the ‘Alternative’ Character of Fair Trade

147

As handcrafts struggled, the fortunes of fair trade food products took off. Indeed, somebody coming new to the concept of fair trade could be forgiven for thinking that fair trade is a recent concept relating to a limited number of food products. The rise and rise of fair trade food products has resulted, we would argue, from the convergence of a number of inter-related factors from the late 1980s onwards. The four critical factors we identify include the imperative for Northern FTOs to assist coffee producers in the coffee crisis, the beginnings of fair trade labels and brands, the need for Northern fair trade organizations to help find ways to offset failing handcraft sales and the rise of ‘ethical consumers’. Following the suspension of the International Coffee Organisation (ICO) in 1988, the price of green beans fell from around US$1.30 per pound of green coffee beans to below US$0.60, while the cost of production according to ICO data was around US$1.10 or more (Thomson, 1995). At around the same time, the first fair trade label for coffee, Max Havelaar, was developed in the Netherlands (1988), followed by Fairtrade Mark in the UK (1994) and Transfair in the USA (1998). The first fair trade brand of coffee, Cafédirect, was developed in the UK in 1991 (Tallontire, 2000). An international nongovernmental organization, FLO (Fair Trade Labelling Organisations) International, was established in 1997 to standardize the proliferation of different certification initiatives. The coffee crisis and the drop in handcraft sales gave the movement the impetus to push food products and to try new initiatives but external assurance that products meet international standards was crucial to winning new consumers to a differentiated product niche such as fair trade coffee. The consumers that the fair trade movement is wooing in the global North are part of a growing niche known as ‘ethical consumers’ (Cooperative Bank, 2003). Fair trade certification created a comfort level sufficient for mainstream retailers to stock fair trade foods and for consumers to try new brands being sold on the basis of ‘fairness’ to producers.

Changing (Dis)course – from Alternative to Fair5 It is hard to conceive of the movement broadening its appeal and succeeding in placing food products on supermarket shelves in the early 1990s without a change in the discourse to emphasize the term ‘fair’ as opposed to ‘alternative’. Highlighting the interchangeable and often confusing use of the terms ‘alternative trade’ and ‘fair trade’ from the early days of the movement is more than just a matter of semantics. The term ‘alternative trade’ carries with it a constellation of meanings and we particularly draw attention to connotations of providing a practical and theoretical alternative model to commercial free trade. Quite crucially, ‘alternative trade’ allowed marginalized Southern producers, for example associations of landless urban poor, divorced and widowed women or groups of small family farms, a means of accessing Northern markets without having to deal through commercial ‘middle-men’, brokers and wholesalers. Having brought the goods from the global South to the global North the process remained ‘alternative’, traditionally using avenues outside the commercial mainstream to reach consumers. The non-mainstream distribution channels included Third World shops, health food shops, church organizations, women’s organizations, student and political groups, mail order and ‘alternative trade agents’ (for products such as tea). ‘Alternative trade’ also began to encompass what has been referred to as ‘solidarity’ trade, where groups seeking to bring about social justice through political reform (for example in Nicaragua, African front line states and Sri Lanka) were supported in the North by sale of crafts, or more commonly tea and coffee, through their World Shops and membership base. The current discourse on fair trade, we argue, downplays the notions of being alternative or acting in solidarity in favour of a central theme about paying a ‘fair price’ to producers. The findings of a joint 5 We acknowledge that the discussion presented here is strongly Anglo-centric. The French term has always been Commerce Equitable and in Spanish the term is Comercio Justo. In the Nordic countries, the term is Alternativ Handel.

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Sust. Dev. 13, 143–153 (2005)

148

W. Low and E. Davenport

market survey in 2004 by four fair trade organizations in North America concluded that ‘In the minds of consumers the issue of producer compensation, fair wages, etc., is central to fair trade’ (IFAT, 2004). The primary association of ‘fair trade’ with ‘fair price’ is not surprising, since fair trade labelled food products are predicated on a minimum ‘floor’ price paid to the producer group for the commodity, which is above the ‘free market’ price. Paying a ‘fair price’ to producers, a much debated concept,6 becomes the consumer’s way of ensuring that a higher proportion of the sale price goes directly to the producer, but operationally the fair trade process can also be deemed ‘fair’ because it offers more flexible and generous terms than are available from commercial entities. Fair trade organizations have historically made advance payments up to 50% on orders, with full payment on shipment. The subtle but significant shift in emphasis is important because the term ‘fair’, even if used without the nuances of meaning suggested above, is more inclusive than the term ‘alternative’. From a marketing point of view, more consumers are likely to view themselves as ‘fair’ rather than ‘alternative’. Equally importantly, it is hard to imagine any mainstream business that would not believe itself to be fair, but relatively few would label themselves alternative. The idea of shedding an old ‘alternative’ image can be seen within the fair trade movement through three examples. First, after 50 years under the name SELFHELP Crafts of the World, the Mennonite Central Committee changed the organization’s name to Ten Thousand Villages in 1996, drawing on Mahatma Ghandi’s idea that ‘India is to be found not in its few cities but in its 700 000 villages’. The change was considered necessary because ‘stores have been perceived as do-it-yourself crafts supply stores’ (MCC, 1996). Second, one of the peak bodies of the fair trade movement, IFAT, which was only officially constituted in 1989, changed its name from the International Federation for Alternative Trade to IFAT – the International Fair Trade Association in 2003. Finally, in August 2004, SERRV International launched a new name, A Greater Gift, for its handcraft program. The organization’s full name – Sales Exchange for Refugee Rehabilitation and Vocation – reflected the organization’s historical origins, not its modern mission, and was only used in its obscure acronym form. However, the transition from alternative to fair has itself been controversial within the movement. As far back as the early 1990s some leaders within FTOs were suggesting that the term fair caused a certain amount of disquiet as it implied that all other business was unfair,7 whilst other voices suggested the loss of ‘alternative’ would imply selling out on principles.8

The Discourse on Sustainability The history of fair trade, as discussed earlier, largely pre-dates the emergence of a broad-based environmental movement. As a result, fair trade starts from an anthropocentric view that privileges the producer’s well-being over environmental concerns. A changing discourse on sustainability and sustainable development within fair trade is, however, evident over the past 15 years. For example, the buying manager for Community Aid Abroad (CAA) in Australia said in 1991 that in the poor countries CAA trades with it worries about people first, not the environment.9 By 1996, CAA’s website listed three mandatory criteria for producer groups which were all anthropocentric, e.g. ‘the group should assist

6

Zadek and Tiffen (1998) outline many meanings, including more than the local price, more than the price available from other international traders, enough for producers to attain a reasonable living standard and a trading regime that allows southern producers to earn the same as their northern trading partners. 7 Personal communication with Bob Brown, CEO of Bridgehead, October 1995. 8 Personal communication with a founding member of Tradewinds (a fair trade organization importing tea into Australia), June 1991. 9 Personal communication, June 1991. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Sust. Dev. 13, 143–153 (2005)

Postcards from the Edge: Maintaining the ‘Alternative’ Character of Fair Trade

149

economically disadvantaged people from a developing country or community’. Some desirable criteria were also listed, with ‘promoting environmentally sustainable production’ the last on that list. At the 1994 North American Fair Trade Organization conference, four delegates presented views on ‘sustainable development and the [fair trade] movement’ (FTF, 1994, p. 10). Only one speaker made explicit reference to the now standard UN definition of sustainable development as meeting current needs without compromising future generations’ needs. The other three speakers were more inward looking, focussing on the ‘sustainability’ of the FTOs and producers themselves in terms of growing a Southern market for fair trade, more business development and design support and the conflict between producing for one’s own subsistence versus for income. By 2001, what had previously been a desirable criterion had now become a central feature of the movement. For example, in the widely used ‘FINE’ definition of fair trade, agreed by the four major coordinating groups within the movement – FLO, IFAT, NEWS and EFTA, sustainable development occupies a prominent place (only the relevant part is quoted, emphasis added, BAFTS, 2004a): Fair Trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers – especially in the South. We suggest that the FINE definition makes appropriate usage of the term sustainable development because it links the social, economic and environmental impacts of production, trade and consumption. Zadek and Tiffen (1998, p. 3) similarly argue that while ‘people who live on the edge – at subsistence or survival levels – cannot defend their environment . . . fair trade can increase people’s ability to defend their rights, including the environment’. An example of ‘win–win’ sustainable development in the fair trade movement has been the use of local resources to make handmade paper, ‘one of the fastest growing Fair Trade items in Britain at the moment’ (BAFTS, 2004b). The resources used for handmade paper products would otherwise be waste (pineapple leaves) or harmful to the environment (water hyacinth blocks waterways). Processing these raw materials uses less energy and chemicals than tree fiber paper production, and as a handmade product uses simple technology, and skills easily learnt by local people. Sunderbans Khadi and Village Industries Society (SKVIS), located just outside Calcutta, is an example of how an indigenous Southern NGO has combined ‘fair trade’ principles and local knowledge to produce socially and environmentally responsible products. SKVIS assists local women in the Sunderbans area with pesticide-free cultivation of mulberry bushes for raising silkworms. The cocoons are spun, by hand, into silk yarn and then handloomed into silk cloth. The resulting scarves, saris and other products are dyed with vegetable dyes, which SKVIS has developed through traditional knowledge of dyeing. This shift in both discourse and practice to emphasize sustainability principles is understandable. Fair trade, as a global social movement, is an alliance between social activist groups, who each start from different ideological perspectives but share a concern for producer well-being in the global South. Two of the strongest and fastest growing segments of this global alliance, which brings together peace activists, anti-globalization activists and liberation theologists, are the environmental and ecological movements. Some people whose primary concerns about the global trading regime are ecologically based may be members of fair trade organizations while at the same time the movement seeks to appeal to eco-aware consumers. Despite this shift, we would argue that there are limits to how far fair trade is likely to go in moving from an anthropocentric view to an ecocentric view. As a 2004 survey by four fair trade organizations studying their changing market concluded, ‘Consumers do not equate environmental issues with fair trade, but do care about environmental issues’ (IFAT, 2004, p. 3). Nonetheless, the changing discourse Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Sust. Dev. 13, 143–153 (2005)

150

W. Low and E. Davenport

about sustainability has also been important to the prospects of fair trade gaining a foothold in mainstream commercial outlets, in the same way as the shift from alternative to fair.

Mainstreaming – More Volume and Less Values? Selling fair trade goods through mainstream commercial channels has been an issue the movement has wrestled with for many years. In the case of Trade Aid, New Zealand’s only FTO, founded in the early 1970s to find markets for handcrafted woollen rugs made by Tibetan refugees, rugs and shoulder bags were originally sold through New Zealand art galleries and retailers, though later these, and other crafts, were retailed through a network of dedicated Trade Aid shops. At the IFAT biennial conference in 1999, a key question was the issue of mainstreaming. The executive summary report (IFAT, 1999a, p. 1) included the following statement: ‘There is still scope for market growth through the alternative channels of Fair Trade/World shops. Increasingly however we are looking for opportunities in the mainstream sector. . . .’ However, a more radical perspective explored at the conference (IFAT, 1999b, p. 1) asked Do we need alternative channels at all? [T]he market share [of alternative channels] will remain limited because it is something that is separated from the mainstream, and the success of the whole fair trade movement depends on there being no alternative trade channels at all . . . that is the ultimate success. The entry of fair trade food products into mainstream distribution channels – especially commercial supermarkets in Europe (over 43 000 supermarkets across Europe in 2001; see EFTA, 2001) and North America, resulting in rising sales of an increasing range of fair trade food goods over the last decade, has been hailed as a major victory for fair trade. Although no definitive figures are available that distinguish between sales in different channels, mainstreaming is likely have been a major factor in annual sales of fair trade foods ‘running at £100m after 40–90% growth a year for a decade’ in the UK alone (Vidal, 2004). The positive aspects of this move into the mainstream can be summarised as greatly increased volume of fair trade goods sold and a correspondingly larger number of marginalized producers (of an increasing range of commodities) benefiting, ready availability of an increasing range of fair trade food products on the high street, potential for the fair trade message to reach a much wider audience than ‘traditional’ fair trade purchasers and potential for fair trade practice to influence mainstream retailer sourcing policies. The fair trade product offering has grown ‘from one brand of coffee to 130 foods, including fruit, juices, vegetables, snacks, wine, tea, sugar, honey and nuts’ (Vidal, 2004). The question of commitment to the principles of fair trade has been asked of some prominent high street coffee retailers, most notably Starbucks. At the 2003 IFAT conference, the CEO of SERRV asked whether Starbucks was gaining credibility with concerned consumers by selling fair trade coffee without, in effect, significantly changing their buying practices, given that the amount of fair trade coffee sold amounted to a tiny percentage of their overall coffee sales. In response to criticisms of this sort, Starbucks points to the huge volume of coffee it sells (over 2.1 million pounds in 2003), an average price of around $1.20 per pound paid for its coffee (approaching the fair trade price of $1.26/lb) and its other programmes, which mimic fair trade principles (Starbucks, 2004). However, though food products are the growth area of fair trade, mainstreaming does not inevitably lead to a ‘win–win’ for fair trade organizations. Since Max Havelaar coffee was introduced to Denmark in 1995 and fair trade was mainstreamed, ‘more than 50% of the [fair trade coffee] turnover came from Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Sust. Dev. 13, 143–153 (2005)

Postcards from the Edge: Maintaining the ‘Alternative’ Character of Fair Trade

151

commercial retailers like supermarkets and groceries who could now get fair trade tea and coffee from the commercial importers [and as a result] only a small part of the turnover was generated by NGO fair trade shops’ (Thomsen, 2001). U-landsimporten, the largest Danish fair trade organization, which, ironically, was responsible for bringing Max Havelaar coffee to Denmark, saw its coffee squeezed off supermarket shelves and its own sales collapse in mid-1999. Whether it matters who sells fair trade products as long as more is sold, philosophically and in practice, are matters we conclude with.

Conclusions: the High Street Alternative or the Alternative High Street? It has been argued that ‘market leaders in the fair-trade movement . . . sell first and foremost on the quality of their product, and use the fair-trade label as an additional marketing tool’ and that ‘people buy them because they like the product’ (SED, 2002, p. 5). To supporters of mainstreaming, selling based on the attributes of the product is likely to be a good thing since it expands sales beyond the alternative niche(s). Dissenting voices suggest that greater sales are not enough and mainstreaming may be a slippery slope towards marginalizing fair trade principles. Most provocatively, Ransom (2000, p. 11) asks ‘Would fair trade heaven have descended to earth if, say, fair trade Nescafé were sold by a financially responsible Wal-Mart?’. Less bluntly, Thomson (quoted by Johnston, 2002, p. 55) asks ‘At what point do increased sales and economies of scale cross the fuzzy line between more income and benefits for producers to dependency on mainstream markets and potential loss of the cutting edge in challenging unjust world trade relations?’. Tiffen (2000, p. 25) echoes this sentiment in saying ‘If we cannot retain ownership of the meaning and language of mutuality, we are mortgaging our own future. And we need thriving practical experience of what social solidarity and alternative economics feel like in reality in order to define what we mean and describe what we aspire to’. Elements within the fair trade movement have responded to the challenges these statements pose. Models that share power and value added between Northern and Southern partners are examples of alternative approaches to the ‘market’. The Day Chocolate Company, founded in 1998, was designed with its Southern partner holding an equity share (Tiffen, 2002). More recently, Cafédirect successfully launched a public share issue, a first for the fair trade movement, with the original NGO partners and the producer cooperatives retaining majority shareholdings, but the public now also has a direct stake in the company. Another bold experiment is Oxfam GB’s high street coffee bar venture, Progreso, with shares in the venture held by the farmers producing the coffee. In the search for new markets, some fair trade organizations are selling the fair trade message by engaging with people as both citizens and consumers. To do this, Equal Exchange in the USA uses an Interfaith Coffee Program. One project is trying to convince 10 percent of U.S. Catholic churches to buy fair trade coffee. Another brings together 1300 Lutheran congregations after services for coffee where they ‘learn about development and fairly traded coffee and they raise money for small scale farmers’ (Macadam, 2000, p. 16). We would argue that it is in these groups that the more difficult questions are posed that will ‘challenge unjust world trade relations’ and where people learn to ‘demand’ fair trade. Another example is the Fair Trade Town/City concept, which lobbies local businesses and organizations to sign a pledge to use fair trade items and local retailers to sell fair trade products. There are currently 77 fair trade towns and cities and 175 applications for fair trade zones in the UK, and a new programme that has created 10 fair trade university campuses (Fair Trade Foundation, 2004). Oxfam’s campaigns director, Adrian Lovett, says of initiatives of this type ‘We have to go to people where they are and reach them in their own environment, whether that’s in front of a PC or in a coffee shop’ (Shifrin, 2004). Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Sust. Dev. 13, 143–153 (2005)

152

W. Low and E. Davenport

Members of Fair Trade Forum (FTF) India in Calcutta are establishing a monthly farmers’ market that will sell bulk staples such as rice, spices and oils from fair trade producers.10 The goals are first to connect on a regular basis with consumers already buying from FTF India member stores, and second to build wider consumer awareness of the efforts of FTF India members in promoting community social development and trade reform. We argue that it is vital for fair trade organizations to remain central to the principles and practice of fair trade. Isolation from the mainstream risks irrelevance, and will not deliver the extent of change that is necessary to meaningfully assist producers. Uncritical engagement with mainstream business risks absorption and dilution of the movement. The practical experiences and the cutting edge demanded by Ransom, Tiffen and Thomson do not preclude mainstreaming, and exist, we would argue, in a range of ‘radical mainstreaming’ projects that keep FTOs central to the transformative project of fair trade.

Acknowledgements The authors thank the individuals and organisations interviewed. They also thank the anonymous referees for helpful comments. Funding for this research provided by the University of Auckland New Staff Research Fund, Grant #3603507. All remaining errors are the responsibility of the authors.

References BAFTS. 2004a. www.bafts.org.uk/aboutFairtrade/fineCriertia.htm [20 September 2004]. BAFTS. 2004b. www.bafts.org.uk/documents/Paper.pdf [6 February 2005]. Barratt Brown M. 1993. Fair Trade: Reform and Realities in the International Trading System. Zed: London. Cooperative Bank. 2003. The Ethical Consumerism Report 2003. The Cooperative Bank: Manchester. European Fair Trade Association (EFTA). 2001. Fair Trade in Europe 2001: Facts and Figures on the Fair Trade Sector in 18 European Countries. EFTA: Maastricht. Fair Trade Federation (FTF). 1994. North American Fair Trade Organization 1994 Post Conference Report. FTF: Washington, DC. Fair Trade Foundation. 2004. www.fairtrade.org.uk/downloads/pdf/Fairtrade_towns_list.pdf [2 February 2005]. Humphrey L. 2000. www.traidcraft.co.uk/getdoc.asp?ID=247 [30 August 2004]. IFAT. 1999a. www.ifat.org/fairtrade-res-milan1.html [3 December 1999]. IFAT. 1999b. www.ifat.org/fairtrade-res-milan3.html [3 December 1999]. IFAT. 2004. North America/Pacific Rim Conference Report. IFAT: Bichester. Johnston J. 2002. Consuming global justice: fair trade shopping and alternative development. In Protest and Globalisation, Goodman J (ed.). Pluto: Sydney; 38–56. Kocken M. 2003. www.gepa3.de/download/gepa_Fair_Trade_history__en.pdf [1 November 2004]. KVIC. 2005. www.kvic.org.in/v4/KHADI2.ASP [2 February 2005]. Lake R. 1998. Fair Trade and Ethical Trade: Distinct but Complementary, Traidcraft Briefings. www.traidcraft.co.uk/trade.htm [1 June 2000]. Litrell MA, Dickson MA. 1997. Alternative trade organizations: shifting paradigm in a culture of social responsibility. Human Organization 56(3): 344–352. Litrell MA, Dickson MA. 1999. Social Responsibility in the Global Market: Fair Trade of Cultural Products. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. Macadam M. 2000. The percolator. New Internationalist 322: 16. Mennonite Central Committee (MCC). 1996. www.tenthousandvillages.com/aboutus/NewsService [1 November 1996]. Mennonite Central Committee (MCC). 2004. http://www.tenthousandvillages.com/aboutus/history.asp [4 November 2004]. Ransom D. 2000. Fair trade – small change, big difference. New Internationalist 322: 9–12. Scrase T. 2003. Precarious production: globalisation and artisan labour in the Third World. Third World Quarterly 243: 449–461. 10

Personal communication, 3 February 2005.

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Sust. Dev. 13, 143–153 (2005)

Postcards from the Edge: Maintaining the ‘Alternative’ Character of Fair Trade

153

SED. 2002. Crossfire: fair trade is a worthy idea but flawed in practice. Small Enterprise Development Journal 13(3): 4–7. Sales Exchange for Refugee Rehabilitation and Vocation (SERRV). 2004. www.serrv.org/about/index.php?category_id=1317 [4 November 2004]. Shifrin T. 2004. www.guardian.co.uk/ethicalbusiness/story/0,14713,1247526,00.html [25 August 2004]. Starbucks. 2004. www.starbucks.com/aboutus/StarbucksAndFairTrade.pdf [11 December 2004]. Tallontire A. 2000. Partnerships in fair trade: reflections from a case study of Café Direct. Development in Practice 10(2): 166–177. Thomsen M. 2001. www.salam.dk/sw170.asp [25 August 2004]. Thomson B. 1995. members.rogers.com/fairtrade/who/unauthor.html [5 November 2004]. Tiffen P. 2000. Good busy-ness. New Internationalist 322: 24–26. Tiffen P. 2002. A chocolate-coated case for alternative international business models. Development in Practice 12(3/4): 383–397. Vidal J. 2004. www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,2763,1158282,00.html [20 April 2004]. Zadek S, Tiffen P. 1998. ‘Fair trade’: business or campaign? Development. Autumn; 48–53.

Biography William Low (corresponding author) holds a BA and MA from UBC and a PhD from LSE. Trained as an economist, he is currently a Senior Lecturer teaching Business in Society and Sustainable Business at the University of Auckland Business School. He has taught in Canada, the USA, the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Will also does consulting work for private companies and NGOs, including The Warehouse Group, Oxfam NZ and UNICEF. He can be contacted at the Department of Management and Employment Relations, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92109, Auckland, New Zealand. Tel.: +649 373-7599 Ext 82895 Fax: +649 373-7477 E-mail: [email protected] Eileen Davenport holds a BA in Sociology, and MA and MPhil degrees in Planning. She runs her own independent social development consultancy in New Zealand, specialising in social assessment for international infrastructure projects and local community development in New Zealand. Eileen’s clients include The World Bank, ADB, NZAID, The Warehouse, Oxfam NZ and UNICEF. Previously she was Research Director of the Council for International Development, Wellington and Senior Research Fellow at Warwick Business School. She can be contacted at Compass Consulting, Auckland, New Zealand. Tel.: +649 372-2851 E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Sust. Dev. 13, 143–153 (2005)