A Fair Trade Failure
Fair Trade is certainly not perfect, and I think in the honest interest of bettering the global economy, we are obligated to highlight its failures when they become apparent, and offer suggestions for improvement. We've discussed some other failures in previous posts and comments but a recent allegation in the UK highlights one of the major shortcomings of the movement in accomplishing its goal of a fairer trade system for the global economy's most disadvantaged citizens.
The BBC reported on May 23rd that workers at Pratt's Bananas, the UK's largest banana ripener (yes, they buy bananas, import and ripen them), and a ripener of some Fair Trade bananas, has been exploiting workers in just the ways Fair Trade attempts to stem. Workers complained of working six to seven days a week for 10-12 hour shifts, sometimes without breaks, if they did not meet strict quotas. One woman is taking the company to an industrial tribunal claiming her forced exertion caused her to miscarry.
These are eye-opening allegations and exemplify the common criticism of Fair Trade: it's certifications and standards are not always applied to the entire supply chain. While farm cooperatives in disadvantaged nations are certified and monitored annually, the importers are not always held to the same strict standards or monitoring. While such working conditions are illegal in the UK and the US, they certainly do exist in both countries. All of this raises the serious question of whether or not you can truly call a product Fair Trade with a straight face when the migrant workers in an unmonitored piece of the supply chain are being exploited. I think the easy and honest answer is no.
Fair Trade attempts to diminish this flaw by encouraging direct relationships between producers and retailers, but this is not always possible. Bananas, for instance, virtually require at least one middleperson to import, ripen and distribute to retail outlets. In this, and other similar cases, it seems essential for Fair Trade labeling organizations to develop ways to monitor the entire life of a Fair Trade product. If they cannot accomplish this, the label ought to make clear that the bananas were grown and picked under Fair Trade conditions but the certification ends there. And if they cannot accomplish even this, the only right thing to do would be to stop certifying products that are not unquestionably Fair Trade from crop to kitchen.
Sources: BBC - Banana firm 'exploits migrant workers'
Tags: bananas, Big Business, Fair Trade, fair trade labeling, Food, Pratts, UK
- Uncategorized
June 5th, 2007 at 8:13 am
As a producer in India I get the impression that the practices of the Fair Trade system negate their stated goals. Certification is such an expensive process that it is completely out of the reach of the really needy. I have written a blog on this subject at http://www.badlani.com/blog/2007/05/26/looks-like-others-also-find-fair-trade-expensive/ and have a couple of interesting remarks from readers.
The first reader to comment feels that the high price acts as a positive filter for Fair Trade. This is what he says:
It’s important to keep in mind here that fair trade, as opposed to most development efforts, is market-driven.
Therefore there is a reason why certification costs were added in the first place: without them, fair trade certification bodies would be flooded with thousands of applications of organizations who would probably not sell anything on the fair trade market (because of insufficient market demand).
Adding a certification fee allows the fair trade system to “filter out” all the organizations without a market demand and retain only those who actually have buyers for their products on the fair trade market. For these organizations these costs are easily outweighted by the benefits of fair trade (minimum price, development premium, prefinancing and so on).
There’s also another reason why certification fees were added: with them, fair traders finally have found an independent way to finance inspections who until then were only funded by “charity money” that could run out at any time. This independent source of funding also allows ISO 65 certification - an accreditation that basically confirms that the entire system is credible and effective.
I hope this answers your questions
I was about to reply back when I saw another comment posted and that removed the reason for me to reply. Here’s what she’s said:
Keep doing what you are doing…you don’t need to spend the money for Fair Trade Certification. That’s what wrong with things today. We keep getting more and more charges for labels and certificates and then can’t offer our products for an affordable price. You are doing a good job and valuable service for your community. I enjoy your writing and appreciate that you explained fair trade. I want to offer an affordable quality product for my customers and I am happy to have found you. Peace.
I must admit there is some validity to both points of view. Now as I study the system more I am beginning to see another huge flaw:
They insist you buy your fabric from certified producers. The ones I have seen listed don’t make the fabrics we use and a couple of the ones listed are so untrustworthy that I wouldn’t be able to work with them and make promises I’d be able to keep to my customers…
C’mon Fair Trade people… change your system to come closer to your stated goals…
June 7th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Fairtrade Foundation’s response to the allegations:
The Fairtrade Foundation has expressed shock and dismay about conditions experienced by migrant workers employed by Pratt’s bananas in Luton . The Fairtrade Foundation passionately believes that all workers should be treated fairly. Whilst UK working conditions technically fall outside the scope of the FAIRTRADE Mark’s explicit guarantee of a better deal for producers in developing countries, we take these issues very seriously. We have today issued a formal letter to the company, and requested that they take immediate action to address the concerns raised by the workers.
In particular, the Fairtrade Foundation, as a founder member of the Ethical Trading Initiative, recommends that the company joins this body, which was set up specifically to work with businesses on the progressive improvement of labour standards right through their supply chains, including the UK . In addition, we would urge serious dialogue by the company with the trade unions to ensure the day-to-day treatment of workers is fair, and that workers’ concerns can be represented on an ongoing basis to management.
We would urge all companies and government bodies to step up their efforts to ensure full compliance with the letter and spirit of UK employment laws, to ensure dignity and respect to all workers.
(http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/ps230507.htm)
June 9th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
There are two things that Fairtrade can do to make an immediate difference.
1. Only use companies that employ people directly, and don’t use gangmasters
2. Ensure that they use only companies that recognise, and negotiate with, trades unions.
As Britain has a lamentable record in regulating gangmasters, and I have seen comments from the TUC supporting the poor attempts new labour have made, one cannot expect the government to help with this, but these two things would go quite a way towards ensuring that no-one needs do any overtime that they don’t want to, and that workers’ rights, such as they are, are applied a little better.