The blue & green though often just black & white, though very distinct, Fairtrade label in the only one, as far as I can see, that guarantees a minimum income to the producers, the farmers and the workers. Other labels in what is slowly but surely becoming confusing array of “ethical” labels, that have followed in the wake of the Fairtrade label, cannot be seen in the same light. In fact, the cloud the issue, rather. Consumers are being bamboozled by the proliferation of bewildering labels claiming to be ethical, without, often, further explaining this. What, for instance, do those other labels stand for?
Why did not Kraft – with Kenco Coffee – go with the Fairtrade label? Because, no doubt, the Fairtrade rules are too rigorous for its liking. So, instead, they opted for an easier one; one that does not benefit farmers and workers, at least not in the same way as Fairtrade does. To the likes of Kraft, it appears to me, it is a matter of profit, yet again. At least Nestle, whatever one may like to say against it, and there are many things, went the whole hog with the Partner Blend instant coffee in that the product got the Fairtrade label. While this may, so far, only be one product of the Nestle range, it is a step in the right direction. Why, though, I would like to ask, is Nestle chocolate not all, by now, Fairtrade? If the Co-Op can have great Fairtrade chocolate at a very reasonable price why can not all Nestle's chocolate products be Fairtrade by now without any increase in price. A company the size of Nestle can do it. Profits and shareholder dividends, however, yet again seem to get into the way. Shame. But we all know that Nestle can do more and at the same price as they do it without Fairtrade and this is where consumer power comes in.
The same is true with other companies, such as Kraft, in the case of Kenco Coffee. If the consumers stopped buying Kenco because it is not Fairtrade and opted for those that are instead the message would be received soon loud and clear at Kraft HQ. Many local governments in the UK, for instance, buy Kenco Coffee, often because of the ethical label that it now has, seeming to think that they are doing their part, that they are doing good buy buying that brand. It is again down to us, in this case as residents, as local tax payers, to tell the town halls that we are not happy with the brand of coffee or whatever else that they are using. Education of the councillors here is the key and of council leaders and officers. We can do it.
Let me please stress at this point that I do not get paid in any way, shape or form, though chance would be a fine thing, by the Fairtrade Foundation, nor do I work for them in any way. I believe, however, that we must make the distinction clear to all as the differences between the labels. As far as it is public knowledge the Fairtrade label is the only one that actually guarantees a minimum income to farmers and workers who grow the cocoa, the coffee, the tea, etc. and by means of this guaranteed income Fairtrade enables those people to better themselves without the need of charity and aid.
It would appear to me that someone needs to write a guide of sorts – for the consumer – to all those “ethical” labels, be they “Rainforest Alliance” certification, or whatever. Without such a definitive guide, I believe, that the consumer will get confused, and this could be a confusion to such an extend even that he or she will become disillusioned with it all and no longer bother looking for or demanding Fairtrade.
Part of the success of Fairtrade has been to put social and environmental issues and the plight of farmers and workers on to global agendas, encouraging companies to see that consumers are not only concerned with price – that instead of always competing to offer the cheapest commodities, they can put real value back into our food and drink (and other goods). So, obviously, any and all improvements that benefit producers, e.g. farmers and workers, are welcome. But there is a flipside to this coin.
We must ensure that the gains the Fairtrade Movement has won by fighting hard and serious battles are not chipped away and undermined by companies opting for this previously mentioned proliferation of labels that confuse the public ; none of which carry the same guarantees as the Fairtrade label.
Some of the alternative schemes have a lot attraction: many of them are addressing issues such as the environment that are very important indeed and are sometimes doing a good job in many ways.
However, in most instances it is the companies, and NOT the producers, that are in the driving seat. Those schemes make fewer demands on the companies; usually even the largest plantations can enter and – most importantly – such schemes do not cost the companies much, as said already, because there is no minimum price to pay; no guaranteed income for the growers and/or workers.
They are not, I know, and have never claimed to be either, Fairtrade programs. In comparison Fairtrade must seem hard work and expensive to companies. But Fairtrade is THE ONLY scheme that works to address the root causes of farmers' and workers' poverty and it is the only one that has an organized global movement behind it. The movement's years of campaigning has given the mark an immense recognition to the extend that eight out of ten people in Britain know about the mark and about Fairtrade and what it stands for. This, in turn gives great power to the Fairtrade Movement to persuade traders and supermarkets to act, and this is what gives the Fairtrade Label its legitimacy, as well as its strength and makes it very special.
© Michael Smith (Veshengro), March 2008
Fairtrade and other Ethical Labels
