As I’ve mentioned here before, the industry juggernauts are beginning to notice. They’re beginning to tap into the growing target group that is the Fairtrade consumer. It’s been creeping in for a long time, ever since the pioneer brands (Traidcraft, Cafédirect, Divine, etc.) created enough of a presence to force supermarkets to realize we exist: we who care who produces, and what goes into, the food we eat.

So in the UK we began to see Tesco and ASDA branded Fairtrade-certified goods. At the time these changes were seen as a breakthrough, a sign that at last consumers were having an influence. The idealists among us imagined that eventually we would visit a supermarket and not have a slave-produced alternative, that it would all be fairly traded and that we would even hear reports of fewer countries classified ‘developing’, as they gain economic power themselves. But the supermarkets continued to stock the other products and they continued to fly off the shelves.

This year we have seen a spate of the big players decide to accommodate the ethical consumer in their product ranges: Cadbury have committed their Dairy Milk line to certification, Mars have announced that by 2020 they will be more ethical, and Kraft Foods, who want to buy out Cadbury, are taking steps towards working with the Rainforest Alliance. Sadly, on Monday when Nestlé announced that their four finger Kit Kat will be Fairtrade certified we got another whiff of the target group mentality – “we’ll create a line which is Fairtrade, so that we can tap into that niche.”

When this fair trade journey began, the goal was to play the capitalist game in a way that would benefit the poor. It wasn’t about charity: for people to throw money at the poor while they pretended to be interested in the product. We actually wanted better products that would be desirable for more than just their sense of conscience. That’s how Cafédirect came to be, and why Nestlé (Nescafé) were forced to pay a little more for their coffee (because apparently the farmers were giving their best produce to the highest bidder).

With this in mind, why does it leave a nasty taste in our mouths when we hear of a Fairtrade version of the Kit Kat, or a Fairtrade line of Nescafé?

Maybe we were hoping that the soul-less superpowers would grow souls? Or perhaps there was an idea that we would be proven right and that the oppressors would repent of their wrong doings and confess to being modern-day slave barons?

Of course, there’s no reason why Nestle can’t take the profits from their Fairtrade line and invest them in another less-than-ethical enterprise. There’s nothing stopping Mars from back pedaling before 2020 (as they have before). But, as Stephanie Celt points out, there are 8,000 farmers who will be affected, for the better, by this (Kit Kat) decision.

We must celebrate this, but also recognize that there will always be people who face injustice, and it is always our responsibility to fight it. Wearing our “consumer” hats and fighting on an economic level is not our only option. As George Monbiot reminded us recently:

“We cannot change the world by changing [only] our buying habits…our power comes from acting as citizens – demanding political change – not acting as consumers.”

And so the fight goes on. Yes, we’ve won a tiny fraction of Nestlé’s overall output, and yes, we will continue to long for a day when their whole product line represents our consciences. But until then we must allow these small victories to fuel our steady movement forwards.

This post is part of a larger debate on the mainstreaming of Fairtrade curated by Shared Interest on their Blog. Click here to read more.

(photo by Ahron De Leeuw)

It’s a disturbing thought that a market established on the dreams and imaginations of children could be profiting from the widespread use of sweatshops and unsafe working environments. According to Tim Hunt, of Ethical Consumer Magazine, this is today’s reality and ethically conscientious manufacturers are in the minority:

Up to 80% of the world’s toys are made in China, where human rights are often overlooked. The report “Nightmare on Sesame Street” by the US-based National Labour Committee last year highlighted many of these problems.

It found that in the Kai Da factory in Shenzhen city, which supplies Hasbro, a hundred 16-year-old high-school children and several younger children were working. Conditions in the factory were said to be dangerous, with potentially toxic solvents and paints routinely handled by workers with only rudimentary protective gear. Shifts were allegedly routinely over 12 hours long, seven days a week, with no days off for many months, plus mandatory 19- and 23-hour shifts at busy times such as the pre-Christmas rush.

(Source: The Guardian Online, Image: Katherine)

Answer: they all scored very poorly in a recent survey designed to find out how high street retailers treat their foreign workers. The survey, carried out by Labour Behind the Label, reported that:

“The scandalous truth is that the majority of workers in the global fashion industry rarely earn more than $2 a day in an industry worth more than £36bn a year, in the UK alone.”

For more on this, visit Money Central.

(source: Money Central. Image: Dan Lockton)

Six weeks after Stop the Traffik organized their March on Mars, the chocolate giant has committed to make incremental changes towards producing chocolate without slave labour. According to a recent update, Mars’ global range will be free from human trafficking by 2020:

As a first step, one of Mars’ leading brands, Galaxy bars, in the UK and Ireland, will be certified ‘from early 2010, through the Rainforest Alliance as, ‘free from trafficked and exploited labour’.

2020 seems a long way off, but this is still great news. Lets hope that more of these chocolate giants (Nestle, Kraft Foods) will join in this tide of change…

How important is it to be consistently ethical? What if a company is fair trade, but has other weak spots in their business dealings?

Once such example is American Apparel. They are well know for fashionable, “sweatshop-free” clothing, and pride themselves on having a strong relationship with their workers:

For us “sweatshop free” was never about criticizing other business models; it was about attempting something new. It comes down to this: not blindly outsourcing, but rather knowing the faces of our workers and providing them the opportunity to make a fair wage.

But there are two areas that wouldn’t fit within your average ethical business model:

1. The reputation of their CEO

While highly successful at growing and managing the company Dov Charney is known as something of a womanizing sex addict, who has faced a number of sexual harassment lawsuits. He apparently thinks nothing of propositioning his workers:

“I’ve got myself in trouble telling people what I like to do for 20 minutes off-site,” Charney says.

It could be argued that such a workplace isn’t as “fair” or ethical as “sweatshop-free” would suggest.

2. Soft Porn advertising

The company has come under criticism for using advertising which is shamelessly sexually provocative. Images are thought to mimic amateur soft-porn. In response Charney is defiant:

“It’s noise, it’s chatter, it’s bullshit, it’s perceptions, it’s stereotypes, it’s manipulation, it’s garbage…I never started making any proper money until I decided to make clothing that was geared towards young adults only …To meet their sensibility, sexy was job one. Fashion is all about sex and function.”

What do you think? Is it okay for a company to just be “sweatshop-free?”

Update: Influential web designer Cameron Moll has recently taken the decision to stop using American Apparel due to their advertising practices. Learn more about his reasoning here (06/12/2009)

(sources: The Guardian, American Apparel. photo: American Apparel)