http://www.GlobalEnvision.org

A site that deals with global environmental and trade issues comprenhensively and intelligently. Perhaps the best I have seen so far.  Although charitably funded, this site is long on facts and information, which naturally makes me inclined to actually donate. Although I am new to this site, it appears they are very serious about their mission- not just their advertising!  Their approach to poverty alleviation is very well thought out.

One of my first experiences with the realities of third-world living took place in our third year of business in 1998 in Cambodia. one of our best fine basket makers had a child, a baby boy and everyone was happy for her. She was and still is a productive and skilled basket weaver as well a mother of several children. On one visit I saw her with her infant boy and we joked as usual about everything- how difficult the baskets were to make, how many orders they could expect, etc. The next time I visited, not more than four months later, the baby was dead. Apparently the boy had a severe bout of diarrhea and by the time she took the child to the doctor, it was too late. My staff told me she was depressed months afterwards.

Since that time, my company decided to make a pointed effort to educate our makers to call on us if they were in need. The poor are not respected in Cambodia when they go to the doctor. The doctors want to work on rich people.  Since that time we have accompanied scores of makers to the doctor for various reasons. They need an ombudsman to make sure they are treated properly.  We also make sure that basic medicines are in stock and paid for should our makers need them.  No other child has died in the last nine years, but the one child. I will remember him even though I saw him at the time as only another infant. He was and still is a symbol of how we failed. It was not enough to pay more than market prices as we were doing at the time. It takes more than that to escape the stigma of poverty.  She was afraid it would be too expensive to go to the doctor and did not trust the system, and yet she didn't ask us for help either. The cost of the medicine was about $.50 but she had no idea about this either.

Since that time- at every meeting of our makers, we encourage our people to seek us out for help. Some are afraid they will lose their jobs and occasionally even our local staff can be unsympathetic or disinterested, but slowly this mindset is changing.  This year we have funded four childbirths, a cesarean, 3 appendectomies, and a host of other maladies. One special case was a woman who was supported for 6 months during a bout of tuberculosis yet many maladies are as common as headaches, toothaches, ulcers, etc.  As well, we are treating a woman for cysts on her ovaries which may require extensive surgery or it may not. She may have to go to Thailand for surgery if it turns out to be serious.  We found a kind and respectful French oncologist who advised us not to rush surgery until the diagnosis is clear.  Funding this type of care is entirely within my means and my company means.  Yet- although we pay about 3x what is considered a 'fair' wage,  this wage still does not support adequate medical care.   It hasn't taken much but I now have the joy of watching healthy children develop each time our makers get together.  

TY

Emphasizing the following could transform the 'fair trade' label into something more meaningful.


1. Absolute Transparency

Publish exact locations and make your workers accessible to market conditions, including the names of your brokers.  (Alternately, the 'fair trade' organization could keep the names of these brokers to monitor compliance.)  List any claimed benefits to workers in detail or give exact dollar amounts.

Caveat-  This demands an ethical business model based on respect for companies who create and develop.  In other words, companies that are mere brokers of product must be careful of where they source, and how quickly they accept someone as 'fair trade'. Stamping someone 'fairtrade' who just copies another product eventually destroys the market and the label. 

2. Upward Mobility

A safe salary should cover more than just the need for survival.  A worker earning basic 'fair trade' rates could lose everything with just a small but serious medical problem.  The label should encourage and distinguish companies that are able to move wages higher or cover medical expenses, or both.  Higher wages help stimulate the local market much more efficiently than foreign aid, in many cases and are much less vulnerable to corruption.  Higher wages also stimulate the classes necessary to encourage democratic reform.  Rich countries should support this form of trade over all other because it helps build a popular democratic base as well.

3. Quality - An emphasis on quality over cheap handicraft.

This helps sustain an upward bias on wages and improves worker self esteem along with their bottom line.
Making cheap, easily duplicated handicraft offers little real future for workers, and in fact may encourage a downward bias on workers' welfare.

TY

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/15/ethicalfashion.fashion

Finally, an out and out call for producers to list where exactly their product is made. This will keep some 'fair traders' scurrying for cover and hopefully will put well-intentioned others at ease that at last there is an effort in play for proof over condescending platitudinal nonsense.  Easy quick and to-the-point article to read about how a brand was shocked by the actions of a broker in the third world!!!   'We made so much money off this guy, and sold our clothes so cheap and all the time he was using child labor in India.' (paraphrased) This man has to go, yet they insist it is impossible to keep track of everyone- well, not really, if you really want to know you can know. There is effort involved and you must be intimate with your locations. You cannot just source product and forget about it.

TY 

Sometimes sarcasm combined with hyperbole can is an effective tool, and possibly therapeutic!!  Let's hope.

1.  USE POPULAR GUILT PRODUCING TERMS WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION   Use them all- eco, fair trade, organic - but never specific exactly what you mean by these.  Never justify - just pretend you are so above justifying these terms as though it is an affront to your 'goodness'.   Never state anything categorically - just a liberal sprinkling of terms will do. 

2.  DETAILS  Imply everything but offer little of value.  Make any seemingly important detail vaguely beautiful. If you use statistics, make them meaningless, and difficult if not impossible to verify.  Who has the time?, and we know the 'fair trade' organizations are not adequately funded to followup.  The perfect detail is the one that is difficult if you think about it - in detail.  Your details are meant to convey blind acceptance of what you claim and make 'doubting Thomas's'  feel guilt for asking. 

3.  SALARIES  Are you kdding? If someone actually knew what you paid, they may not see your 'fair trade' as so charitable afterall.  Stay on track.  Talking about salaries is considered impolite in 'fair trade' circles. Plus- If you are concerned about this, you may not be good 'fair trade' scammer material.

4.  NEVER PUBLISH EXACT LOCATIONS  'Nike' does this but apparently 'fair trade' is way above this concept.  Food items can be traced and payments verified, but handicraft production can be effectively hidden. Just mention a state in India with 150 million people.   At the same time,  don't hesitate to steal design ideas from those ethical companies that do publish locations. They just don't 'get it'.

5.  CHARITY  Yes do some, but advertise the heck out of it, and never give the actual price or value. Instead, couch your 'giving' as a percentage of profits or some other honest-sounding term that no one will ever really know.  Describe any charitable works that you do in terms that make them appear much more expensive than they really are.  For example- make digging  a well sound like you're installing an entire water system in spite of the cost only being a few hundred dollars.  Say you're supporting a new school in Timbuktoo after you drop off some used books.  Also- create a 'charitable' foundation .org style- People kind of assume that everything you do is altruistic, which means you can charge more.

6.  ASSOCIATIONS-  Yes. Cozy up to whomever you can.  Link to many 'fair trade' and charitable sites - can't hurt amd makes you look good by association.   Carry some products from a few companies that do practice an enlightened form of trade- Highlight these products in your advertising and on websites.  Use 'fair trade' in your labels, whether or not you are a member.  Promote a few good companies you buy from as examples; people tend to assume that everything you source follows 'fair trade' standards.  End result- 'fair trade light' equals more money for you (and less for the workers but we'll touch on that later).

7.  USING A BROKER  (A broker is a local rep or businessperson (usually a native) who does the onsite sourcing and tells the locals who gets to do what.)   A must for avoiding any complications should anyone find out you may not be all you appear.  Now you are 'supporting' development without actually developing anything.  Just as large companies can always scapegoat a few factories, a shady trader can always blame one of those pesky brokers that filled out the easy form you provided.  You thought you were being so clear!  Keep secret the fact that you buy from the same brokers as others who don't use the 'fair trade' label. 

8.  HELPING THE POOR  Never complement the workers for working so damn cheap on your behalf.  That could imply that maybe you don't pay as much as you should.  Instead, keep it simple - say you are just helping the poor.  Clearly, you hire them because they are poor, and because you are cheap, and how can you help the poor if you pay them enough so they are no longer poor? That defeats the system and we need to work together. We love poor people, - just as they are.  

9.   PROFITS  Say you donate a percentage of profits because people don't understand that even small corporations can expense virtually everything so that after everyone is paid with salary and bonuses, very little is left over.  Then tell people you'll give back 10% of the pittance that is left.  Most people will think you are talking about 10% of the sale because most people do not run corporations or businesses. Be a private company, and by using profits as a guide, you can claim privacy concerns and never reveal what your profits are!! You're good! Skip to the bank with the additional 90%! 

10. ETHICS  Give the appearance of ethics whenever possible. Make a big deal out of every little thing you do, but never submit to an actual ethical foundation. That could cut into your profits and bonuses.  We love ethics. I mean without poorly informed but ethical people, who would buy from us?  That is our target market - the poorly informed.

11. WORKERS  Oh yeah, this can be problematic because the reality is most of them will never even know what 'fair trade' means.  After all, you're rich and they're poor. If they're studying english, just knowing you will give them pause to look up the word 'fair', and scratch their head. 

12. ENCOURAGE YOUR BROKERS NOT TO SPEAK TO STRANGERS   If the broker is new, he/she will do whatever you ask as long as you are a good customer.  If they breach protocol, you must immediately feign suprise and indignation should they reveal any 'fair trade' inconsistencies. Distance yourself at least enough for show.  You are also safely insulated from worker concerns like if someone gets deathly ill - although you still count all these workers as a statistic among the many thousands or people you claim to help. Forget about their names or medical or emergency needs. This is the broker's job, I think. 

13. TRAINING  Why should you spend significant funds training for new products if you can find a product another company has already developed at their own cost?  You can talk about it- just don't do any.  Just find a product to copy and throw it out to some poor neighborhood like you're feeding the birds. This takes next to no effort on your part. Then charge the same retail price as the company that has absorbed the cost of developing these products. Yell 'fair trade' and show the sign of the cross if someone calls foul.

14.  QUALITY  You're not selling quality. You're selling a feeling akin to giving someone a holy blessing - for blessing - your commercial activity. Just sprinkle some 'fair trade' angel dust in their face.  But beware!-  Emphasize quality and the workers will want more money and before you know it they may have a future and a high sense of self esteem. This is not compatible with poverty, and also cuts into 'fair trade' profits.  After all if salaries moved up, what would be the future of 'fair trade'?

15. SLICK PACKAGING Now make slick promotional material to summarize all the above, and in your literature constantly stroke the ego of your potential buyer for their charity, their awareness, their absolute intelligence, insight, and compassion along with anything else that makes their heads spin - just keep them from dwelling on anything in particular. Then give them one more spin just for good measure until you have gained cult-like acceptance. Congratulations!If you have done your job properly, your buyers are now literally saving the world (in their minds), and you're making super  profits from exorbitant markups on cheap handicraft.

GIVE BACK- Now is the time to be serious. You must give back- but remember a $100 donation can easily look like a $10,000 one if you describe things in glowing terms- I mean really glowing terms. This is why we learn english.   Make $500 seem like $50,000.  Make a $1000 look like- well, if you 're talking $1000 you need to go back and work on your english - just go back and polish those descriptions and pocket this amount. If you can't produce a warm glow out of $500, hire a publicist.  Giving can be a great advertising value, just don't parse hairs over how much you give - You're giving. Bill Gates gives. You give. We all give. We give because we care. Nuff said.

God bless. Peace and love.

'Fair Trade' Charley

PS- Donations Warmly Welcomed
plus they are tax-deductible!

NEXT:  A Serious Look at Transformation

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9431

Concludes that 'fair trade'cannot exist with capitalism. Good overview of 'fair trade'.  The basic error in judgement is that it assumes something must be 100% effective to be effective, but makes interesting reading.

TY

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/features/display.var.2348064.0.If_you_can_afford_to_pay
_a_fair_price_why_dont_you.php

What is it about England? They seem to have a healthy debate going on all sides of the issue of fair trade where in the USA it seems people would rather not know.

FACT: 'Fair Trade' is being exploited for the lack of details accompanying the indiscriminate use of this term. Will those benefitting from this lack of detail succeed, or will the responsible public demand accountability and help to build a foundation of ethical trade that does not depend on platitudes, exagerrations, and misstatements?

TY
 

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article4150771.ece

This is truly one of the more thoughtful approaches to 'fair trade', clothing in this instance,although it deals with large producers. The important point she picks up on is that quality matters, not merely buying cheap articles of clothing. And she also deals with the sourcing of materials. And she also notes how every company seems to have an ethicist now. And seems to wonder if lip service is the biggest contribution of late to 'fair trade'. But it's wonderful to see someone with healthy skepticism instead of blind acceptance.

TY

Is What World of Good Doing Really Good for Fair Trade?
Reed-y for Change - Cheap purse copies at whose expense?

World of Good (WOG) or OriginalGood.com or World of Good.org operate fundamentally together to create a for profit 'fair trade' enterprise.  The .org site makes for great press, although it appears bereft of the most meaningful details, like exactly how much is actually spent, where, and for what. This use of the .org in this way seems to be on the increase.   WOG also use the term "reed-y for change" to refer to purses that are copies of purses originally designed by Baskets of Cambodia.

I use 'fair trade' in parentheses, because it is among the most loosely applied terms in commerce at present. It is not a licensed term and there is no surefire way to define 'fair trade', but it is a great marketing tool.  This creates a great loophole for any company to exploit, and I only scratch the surface here with this example.

Most companies who want to market themselves in this way choose to associate themselves with a 'Fair Trade' Association of some sort and then parlay this association into a 'fair trade' identity for their business.  Once you are 'certified' 'fair trade', then you have achieved a very important goal and can now sell your products under this umbrella.  You also have just lost the main incentive to pay higher wages! 

One problem with this umbrella approach is that once certified, you can source product from multiple locations, in many cases from sources distinctly not even close to 'fair trade'.  If you don't make this clear, the customer can imply that everything you do is under 'fair trade' principles.

There is also often very little underlying certifiable data to support your certification, certainly nothing warranting the use of the term 'certification'.  'Loosely certified' would be more accurate and most every 'fair trader' understands this.  With World of Good, they claim over 100 associations, yet give only limited and incomplete information on their website.  Who is certifying all these sites they source from?

In my opinion, WOG started their business plan knowing full well about these loopholes and also knowing full well that 'certified' or even labelled 'fair trade' products command a higher price.  I was one of their first suppliers.  They are now in business with eBay to further this business concept.

Let me give you an example of how this can affect other well meaning companies. From the inception of WOG, my company (Baskets of Cambodia (BOC)) supplied WOG with baskets and purses, all designed by BOC. BOC paid all necessary overhead and development  costs.  Basket makers are the lowest paid workers (about $50/month) and live in Siem Reap, Cambodia.  But  because of the markup in the states, purse makers can be paid at a higher rate (usually between $80 and $200). They can also be paid less if you choose not to have higher wage goals. 

Two years ago I received a call from WOG saying they wanted to specialize in some purses and wanted to know the best sellers.  Assuming they were sincere, I told them.    About 6 months later, my staff in Phnom Penh, Cambodia tell me that our best selling purses were being copied by a group of about 20 people living in a small house in the city, and making $50 a month!   We could never find this house but we later verified a broker had set up an operation of several houses near our own place of business in Phnom Penh. The broker would give them copies of our purse, a piece of woven mat, and the makers then scrounged the local market for the other materials to make a purse.

Some of these purses were being sold to WOG.  It appeared that WOG took the 3 best sellers I had recommended to Cambodia and had them copied.     They were labelled and sold as 'unique' and 'fair trade'.  BOC products were not labelled as 'fair trade', because of ethical issues with using this term so loosely, but we were paying considerably more than WOG for these purses, and we had developed this product.

At the same time, WOG stopped buying baskets that were being made by the poor people in Siem Reap. 

Since that time, WOG continues to market near exact copies of not their own styles, but instead styles developed by BOC coasting into stores with the 'fair trade' label.  The rate they pay for their purses has risen, but this coincided with BOC complaints and threats to expose this operation.  The rates they pay now are still less than BOC pays and BOC provides more benefits to its employees.

Here is the problem-  WOG does not invest significantly in these companies it buys from.  In this case cheap copies are acquired by brokers and sold in the USA for about the same price as BOC  while the workers get less with no noticeable benefits. Meanwhile, BOC covers all the costs of development and design, as well as other benefits for its workers.

You could argue that WOG is giving work to poor people. I would argue that actually creating something would be a better way to give work to poor people.  Then people could buy different styles. Their current method of copying others takes away from Baskets of Cambodia workers who are also interested in staying out of poverty and do not deserve this kind of unscrupulous competition. 

One of the main issues here is the cost of development and the lack of openness.   The WOG model is not a good one because it does not invest fully as a business on the ground so they have no consequences for example when they stop buying baskets from the poor people in Siem Reap. At BOC, we have to struggle to keep these people employed or suffer the consequences.  Instead, a company like WOG reaps unearned rewards for product they did not develop, and discourages development of further products by piggybacking on the backs of companies that do develop.   And their responsibility to the actual workers is limited. 

In our case, it is interesting to note that after we exposed this, KNN, the local broker in Cambodia used by WOG to make these copies is featured on the WOG website.   No mention of the origin of the design of these products is given to BOC.  That would be to admit the obvious.  The products are still called quite shamelessly 'fair trade' and 'unique'.   And if any case is addressed publicly  by WOG, it will be this one because I have chosen to go public. 

You can buy products designed by us at stores like Whole Foods, Earthfair, Amazon, Pronto and Pharmaca Pharmacies or even on the WOG website but you would never know that BOC designed and developed these products.    The WOG workers will be getting less, not more, and our workers will lose work by this downward bias on the market and the cheapening of quality.  If you buy from Baskets of Cambodia, we can guarantee worker benefits and trade significantly better than World of Good pays, and you will be buying from a company with employees that developed this product. We are not brokers capitalizing on the 'fair trade' charade. We have developed and created these particular designs and our workers will benefit the most from your choice as consumers. (You will also see the difference in quality and expertise.)

This type of behind-the-back copying of the development efforts of other companies, in the long run will benefit only the 'fair trade marketeers', as they move from one innovative company to another seeking product to copy. 

Our philosophy- BOC philosophy has always been to pay as much as the market will allow and to produce our own designs and ideas. That is the lifeblood of development.  Companies invested on the ground should always hold a higher status than companies who can buy and leave as their market dictates.

In a busy month, our purse makers make around $150. We also pay for emergency health care and birth related expenses. We also know their names.  Do you think $150 is too much to pay?  We do not. That is our goal.The 'fair trade' base wage seems to hover around the poverty rate or minimum wage, currently about $30-$50 a month in Cambodia. To us, that is not enough.  How much virtue is involved when you buy at the lowest rung on the ladder when you do not invest directly?   There must be an upward bias, and there must be notice for companies who actually create, and sustain the costs and risks of development.

When people have more to spend, this also stimulates commerce in the entire community. When wages just barely pay for food, there is nothing left to contribute to the community.

This is just one example from us although other examples are being researched.  We believe these issues will only be addressed by complaining openly.  

"Fair Trade' deserves better than just clever marketing and promotion. 'Fair Trade' does not need business school antics. It needs ethics and absolute clarity.    Those creating products under honorable conditions should be the real foundation for this.   Brokers like World of Good need a lot more scrutiny.

http://www.ripongazette.co.uk/ripon/Disappointment-at-Fair-Trade-backing.4179569.jp

Comment: In this case, both sides have issues. the town is right in some sense- 'fair trade' is being used by those involved to get a leg up on the competition. At the very least, there should be a real comparison between products- not just a fixation on the label.  Anyone using the label should also show in detail how their approach to business differs from the competition. That should be a responsibility and expectation of anyone using the label.
Any other company should be allowed to supply competing information. That would protect all workers' interests.