“In 2012, Fairtrade International’s largest adherent, Transfair USA, split from the organization to launch a parallel label, Fair Trade USA. One of the primary reasons for the division was the difference in beliefs about whether the Fair Trade label should only be available to small-scale producers. While Fairtrade International believes that certification should generally be restricted to small producers, Fair Trade USA feels that that large producers and plantations should also be certified.” [1]
This difference of opinion essentially lays out the difference in perspectives between these two approaches. Is working exclusively with small scale, family and cooperative producers a better option than working with major corporations? Certainly, the Fairtrade Foundation,[2] internationally, has taken this approach since its inception in 1992 and so this split recognises a commitment from Fairtrade International to continue to adhere to this ethos.
This approach focuses on people and families as opposed to businesses and corporations, and so necessitates, what could be termed, a more human approach. As George Alagiah (Patron of Fairtrade Foundation) reflects: “When you meet the farmers, their pride shines through: pride in their perfectly kept account books and neat plots, pride in their new warehouses or school, pride that they are themselves selling quality products on world markets, but above all else pride in their ambitions and their bold dreams for the future.”[3]
These are not dreams for empires and corporations which will compete and amass wealth. These are dreams of an education for their children; of having enough food to eat every day; of medicine; of a fair hearing; of seeing their grandchildren growing up in a secure environment without the fears that they themselves experienced. On one level this is the message of Luke 4:18,19, but on another level, the question needs to be asked, what happens when the next generation grow up with more expansive dreams and the love of money begins to take hold? If the Western world is any gauge, then this is not a hopeful picture.
Is taking on “corporate giants to change the world,”[4] a preferable option? This would certainly be the ethos of many NGOs and non-profit organisations, such as ECRA, who’s tagline is “helping you to challenge corporate power.”[5] This approach can lead to some confusing advice, for example, the example of ECRA’s treatment of the Bodyshop.
The Bodyshop was set up in 1976 and was extraordinarily radical in its ethical approach and a pioneer in its policies on animal testing, environmental issues and human rights. In 2006 the Bodyshop was bought by L’Oreal, a corporate giant, considered by many to be at the opposite end of the scale. When (and because) this happened, ECRA issued a boycott call on Bodyshop. The Bodyshop had not changed its ethos, policies or practices but, because it was now owned by L’Oreal, it had become “tainted”. While I can see the argument here, the problem is that the farmers and producers from whom Bodyshop was buying would be the ones to suffer if people stopped buying their products.[6]
I would argue that taking opposition to corporations to this extreme, causes suffering to those who need the support and ends up accomplishing the opposite of what is hoped. This is one of the key problems to the small-scale approach. What happens if it grows and becomes large-scale, or (as in the Bodyshop example) is purchased by a multinational? The people growing the crops and making the products are the same people they were before so can we abandon them because of the powers that have now swept in? Without question, Big Business is not doing this out of charity but out of a desire to make more money, however that does not change the people at the end of the line who, most likely, are utterly unaware that anything has changed.
There are clearly weaknesses in this whole approach and it is easy to see how seeking to change big business is an attractive option. Working with one farmer or producer at a time is slow and in the short (or even medium) term will have less impact but arguably the long-term effect is a more human result and “biblical ethics asks how to live humanly in the midst of death’s reign.”[7] With this approach, we are reintroduced to real people, with children, families, hopes and dreams; moving away from faceless corporations, for whom the only measure of success is profit. Overall, my inclination is that this seems a far more kingdom-centred approach than dealing with big business.
[1] Daniele Giovannucci, & Nathan Nunn Raluca Dragusanu, “The Economics of Fair Trade,” Scholars at Harvard, 2014, <https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/nunn/files/dragusanu_giovannucci_nunn_jep_2014.pdf> (15 March 2018), 218.
[2] The Fairtrade Foundation provides certification and independent verification of the ethical sourcing of a given commodity. Any company can receive this providing that the stringent standards are met. The products are sourced from small producers and the “companies must pay the growers’ organisation a guaranteed, fair and stable minimum price…even when the going market price sinks below it.”( Harriet Lamb, Fighting the Banana Wars and other Fair Trade Battles (Rider, 2008), 17.)
[3] George Alagiah, Foreword, Lamb, Banana Wars, ix.
[4] The subtitle of Lamb’s book is, “How we Took on the Corporate Giants to Change the World,” Lamb, Banana Wars.
[5] www.ethicalconsumer.org. In their Ethical Consumer Journals and website, ECRA will focus on a given product and compare companies, scoring them out of a possible 20. This will include sores for environment, animal welfare, political affiliation and human rights. As a result, a product that is wholly ethical or sustainable may receive a low mark because it is produced by a company that also does something unethical, and a less sustainable, less ethical product given a higher mark.
[6] This boycott call was lifted in 2018 when Bodyshop was bought by Natura, when announced comprehensive policies. (Ethical Consumer Research Association, Ethical Consumer EC171, 8.)
[7] Stringfellow, Ethic, 151. Earlier on in the book, he defines death as “[apart from God], the greatest moral power…subduing all other powers,” 81.
0 Comments