![Sample our Global Development journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5929/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Global-Development.jpg"})
Abstract
Fair trade seeks to promote the well-being and empowerment of farmers and workers in the Global South. This article traces the contested growth and configuration of Fairtrade International labour certification, providing a multifaceted and dynamic view of private regulation. I explain why Fairtrade International began certifying large enterprises and how its hired labour strategy has developed over time, illuminating fair trade’s move from peasant to plantation sectors, stakeholder involvement in shaping the growth of Fairtrade labour certification, the internal and external balancing of farmer and worker concerns, and major innovations in Fairtrade’s ‘New Workers Rights Strategy’. My findings challenge the claim that recent market mainstreaming explains the rise of labour certification within fair trade and the more general argument that private regulatory programmes founded to foster empowerment evolve over time to prioritise a logic of control. As I document, Fairtrade International has recently moved to bolster producer power within its organisation and labour rights within its certification programme. My analysis reveals the dynamic nature of private regulatory programmes and the potentially influential role of diverse stakeholders in shaping the priorities of Fairtrade and other labour-standards systems.
Acknowledgements
This article has benefitted from the constructive comments of the anonymous journal reviewers and years of discussions with Fairtrade International affiliates and external stakeholders. The views presented here are the responsibility of the author alone.
Notes
1. ‘Fair trade’ refers to multiple initiatives pursuing a common vision; ‘Fairtrade’ refers to the certification system governed by Fairtrade International.
2. FTI, “Monitoring Seventh Edition.”
3. See Raynolds and Bennett, Handbook of Research.
4. See Besky, Darjeeling Distinction; Frundt, Fair Bananas; Makita, “Tea Plantation”; Nelson and Martin, Poverty Impact; Raynolds, “Fair Trade Flowers”; Riisgaard, “Global Value Chains.”
5. Auld, Renckens, and Cashore, “Transnational Private Governance.”
6. See King and Pearce, “Contentiousness of Markets”; Boltanski and Thévenot, On Justification.
7. Two key limitations of this methodology are acknowledged: (1) documentary evidence can overstate the coherence and permanence of changeable organisational policies; and (2) it is far harder to document the positions of organisations in their formative years than after they are well established.
8. See Bacon, “Coffee Crisis”; Jaffee, “Weak Coffee”; Renard “Small Farmer Cooperatives.”
9. Auld, Renckens, and Cashore, “Transnational Private Governance.”
10. Auld, Constructing Private Governance; Cashore et al., Governing Through Markets; Locke, Promoting Labour Standards.
11. Fransen, Firms and Activists; Keck and Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders; Newell and Wheeler, Rights, Resources.
12. Bartley, “Institutional Emergence,” 297.
13. King and Pearce, “Contentiousness of Markets.”
14. Auld, Renckens, and Cashore, “Transnational Private Governance,” 108.
15. Ibid., 109.
16. Ibid., 110.
17. King and Pearce, “Contentiousness of Markets,” 260–1.
18. Guthman, Agrarian Dreams presents the conventionalization thesis. Haedicke, Organizing Organic offers a reappraisal of this and subsequent conventionalisation studies.
19. Haedicke, Organizing Organic.
20. Boltanski and Thévenot, On Justification.
21. Ibid. Boltanski and Thévenot call conventions based on trust ‘domestic’; I think ‘relational’ conveys the idea of trust better in English.
22. Auld, Renckens, and Cashore, “Transnational Private Governance.”
23. Thévenot, “Marchés aux Norms.”
24. Ponte, “Convention Theory” provides a literature review.
25. Raynolds and Bennett, Handbook of Research provides a comprehensive overview.
26. Bacon, “Coffee Crisis”; Bacon, “Who Decides”; Jaffee, Brewing Justice; Jaffee, “Weak Coffee”; Mutersbaugh, "Fighting Standards”; Raynolds, “Mainstreaming Fair Trade”; Renard, “Quality, Market and Conventions”; Renard, “Small Farmer Cooperatives”; Renard and Loconto, “Competing Logics.”
27. Jaffee, “Weak Coffee”; Raynolds, “Mainstreaming Fair Trade.”
28. Auld, Renckens, and Cashore, “Transnational Private Governance.”
29. Bacon, “Who Decides”; Mutersbaugh, "Fighting Standards”; Renard, “Quality, Market and Conventions.”
30. Raynolds, “Mainstreaming Fair Trade.”
31. Clark and Hussey, “Certification as Oversight”; Renard and Loconto, “Competing Logics.”
32. Renard and Loconto, “Competing Logics.” See also Clark and Hussey, “Certification as Oversight”; Raynolds, “Social Regulation.”
33. Renard “Small Farmer Cooperatives.”
34. Bacon, “Who Decides”; Raynolds, “Mainstreaming Fair Trade.”
35. Jaffee, “Weak Coffee.”
36. McEwan and Bek, “South African Wine”; Nelson and Martin, Poverty Impact; Riisgaard, “Global Value Chains.”
37. Besky, Darjeeling Distinction; Makita, “Tea Plantation.”
38. Frundt, Fair Bananas; Raynolds, “Fair Trade Flowers”; Raynolds, “Fair Trade Bananas.”
39. FINE, “Fair Trade Definition.”
40. See Raynolds, “Social Regulation.”
41. EFTA, “Fair Trade Yearbook”; TransFair, “Activities.”
42. To avoid confusion I use this group’s current name, Fairtrade International.
43. For a parallel participant’s view, see Thomson, “Unauthorised History.”
44. Coscione, Story of CLAC; Renard, “Quality, Market and Conventions.”
45. Lamb, “Fighting Banana Wars”; Thomson, “Unauthorised History.”
46. See Bennett, “Fairtrade Governance.”
47. See Thomson, “Unauthorized History.”
48. FLO, “Coffee Criteria.”
49. See Frundt, Fair Bananas; Lamb, “Fighting Banana Wars.”
50. FLO, “Generic Fairtrade Standards 2000.”
51. See FLO, “Fairtrade Fruits.”
52. See Bennett, “Fairtrade Governance.”
53. See Lamb, “Fighting Banana Wars”; Thomson, “Unauthorized History.”
54. Coscione, Story of CLAC; Renard, “Small Farmer Cooperatives.”
55. See Anderson, History of Fair Trade; Raynolds, “Social Regulation.”
56. Green Mountain Coffee, Fair Trade USA’s largest licensee whose founder has long been on its board, was the corporate trader on Fairtrade’s board from 2004 to 2008.
57. A major 2003 FLO Forum session was devoted to competing coffee certifications.
58. Professionalising Fairtrade appears across the 2003 FLO Forum agenda.
59. In 2000 Fairtrade International, Forest Stewardship Council, International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, and Marine Stewardship Council began collaborating to counter competition from less rigorous, often corporate, programmes. They created the International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance which identifies itself as the association of (now 22) ‘credible’ standards; ISEAL, “About Us.”
60. FLO, “Strategic Plan.”
61. FLO, “Annual Report 2003/2004” details the need to enhance credibility. Half of the FLO, “Annual Report 2005/6” text falls under the section title “Credibility.”
62. See Mutersbaugh, “Fighting Standards.”
63. Coscione, Story of CLAC.
64. CLAC, “Small Producers”; CLAC, “CLAC.”
65. Coscione, Story of CLAC; Renard, “Quality, Market and Conventions.”
66. FLO, “FLO Fresh Produce.”
67. FLO, “Annual Report 2005/6.”
68. FLO, “Strategic Plan.”
69. FLO, “FLO Fresh Produce.”
70. COLSIBA, “Recommendations.”
71. FLO, “Fairtrade Concept”; FLO, “Agenda.”
72. FLO, “Generic Fairtrade Standard 2005.”
73. FTI, “Monitoring Seventh Edition.”
74. Ibid.
75. Frundt, Fair Bananas.
76. Besky, Darjeeling Distinction; Makita, “Tea Plantation.”
77. McEwan and Bek, “South African Wine”; Nelson and Martin, Poverty Impact; Riisgaard, “Global Value Chains.”
78. Some programmes represent little more than ‘green washing’ efforts. More confusing are those that incorporate some but not all of Fairtrade’s standards. In tea, Fairtrade competes with Rainforest Alliance, Utz Kapeh and Ethical Tea Partnership. See Loconto, "Sustainability Performed.”
79. COLSIBA, “Recommendations.”
80. Frundt, Fair Bananas.
81. FLO, “Annual Report 2005/6.”
82. FLO, “News Bulletin January.”
83. Quigley and Opal, “Fair Trade Garments”; MSN, “Garment Industry.”
84. FLO, “Annual Review 2010–2011.”
85. ILRF et al., “Letter to TransFair USA.”
86. FT USA, “Two-Year Apparel Pilot”; Bair et al., Worker’s Rights reviews garment labelling debates.
87. ILRF, “Missed the Goal.”
88. FLO, “FLO Commends ILRF.”
89. Barrientos and Smith, “Do Workers Benefit.”
90. Compa, “Workers’ Rights.”
91. Raynolds, “Social Regulation.”
92. FT USA, “Fair Trade for All.” For a convention-based analysis of this split see Raynolds, “Social Regulation”; for an institutionalist view see Auld, Constructing Private Governance.
93. FTI, “Annual Report 2013/14.”
94. FTI, “Annual Report 2011/2012.”
95. FLO, “Annual Review 2010–2011,” 9.
96. See Frundt, Fair Bananas.
97. See Anderson, History of Fair Trade; Bair et al., Worker’s Rights.
98. FLO, “Working for Workers”; FTI, “New Workers’ Rights Strategy.” WRAC included Fairtrade Ireland throughout, Network of Asian Producers replaced by Fairtrade Foundation, and Max Havelaar Switzerland with Fair Trade USA, then alone.
99. FTI, “New Workers’ Rights Strategy.”
100. FLO, “Project on Workers’ Rights.”
101. FTI, “Fairtrade International Announces”; FTI, “Consultation Results.”
102. See Raynolds, “Fairtrade, Certification, and Labor”; Riisgaard, “Fairtrade Certification.”
103. FTI, “New Workers Rights Strategy,” 1.
104. FTI, “Bolsters Support for Workers.”
105. FTI, “Consultation Results.”
106. FTI, “Minutes Meeting 59.”
107. FTI, “Standard for Hired Labour 2014.”
108. Boltanski and Thévenot, On Justification.
109. Auld, Renckens, and Cashore, “Transnational Private Governance.”