Talk:Fairtrade certification
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The following users are active in maintaining and improving this article. If you have questions regarding verification and sources, they may be able to help: Vincentl (talk • contribs) |
Contents |
[edit] Major Edits
I was surprised to browse Wikipedia and find very little information on Fairtrade labelling and the FLO system. I have been involved in the Fair Trade movement for a couple of years now and I felt like I should correct and update the various pages Fair Trade, Fairtrade Labelling and create new pages for FLO and the International Fairtrade Certification Mark.
I added information on the Nestle Controversy - it was a very one-sided argument so I added the official response from the Fairtrade Foundation.
I also added a brief overview of FLO standards... it makes it a bit easier to understand the Fairtrade labelling and certification process.
I updated some of the numbers on sales etc. and included them to the first paragraph. I got those from the FLO Annual Report 2005.
I changed the picture on the top of the page - I thought it would be more appropriate to have a picture of a Fairtrade producer instead of just coffee. I uploaded the picture and obtained the rights from the author who works for FLO.
There is still a lot of editing to be done on this page... please let me know if you disagree with any of my changes.
Quebecois1983 12:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criteria for labelling
Is there any way someone who knows more about the subject could post a list of criteria that a company must abide by to attain a fairtrade sticker for its products? I think the extent of what is required is important for the fairtrade debate and the information needs to be out there. e.g. Is a company really operating 'unfairly' if it pays a decent local wage, maintains good health and safety standards yet doesn't subsidise the building of a local hospital, etc?
- All the details you could possibly want are to be found here at the Fairtrade Labelling Organization website. (Actually, probably a lot more detail than you want; if you do take the time to digest the info a bit, feel free to add some of that digested info to the article.) Rd232 20:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- May I offer this as a possible general statement to explain the fairtrade requirements?
Fairtade is an attempt to give agricultural workers -- both small farm owners (who must form into larger organizations in order to participate), and groups of hired workers (who must also form into an organization, and have say over the workings of the large company for which they work) -- from economically disadvantaged areas of the globe a chance to gain a greater opening into the global market, while at the same time ensuring that these agricultural working groups use only environmentally sound farming practices as well as following the ILO's general rules of fair labor practices. Any group who enters the fairtrade network must set up a system of accountability in the first year, and in subsequent years it must continually show progress made towards the goals of sustainable environmental and fair labor practices. For example, the preservation and enrichment of local soil and water quality is a general goal, GMO's are not allowed in production, the use of many pesticides, herbicides, rodenticides, etc. are prohibited, and child labor as well as the use of forced labor from prisoners or spouses, etc. is prohibited. It would seem that the idea behind fairtrade is to empower those people from poor countries who are trying to make a living from working off the land, while ensuring that they do not either get crushed by large companies, or resort to harmful practices just in the attempt to break into the difficult business of production and export of agricultural products.
If anyone reading this thinks this is okay or that with some tweaking it would work, then please by all means add it to the page?
- This whole paragraph needs to be changed to apply to all workers/industries, not just agriculture. Sui iuris 00:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article name
This article has existed for some time at Fairtrade labelling. A number of organisations, including the umbrella organisation Fairtrade Labelling Organisations, use the one word form "fairtrade", and this is also the preferred British English usage. In American English "fair trade" (two words) is standard, but Wikipedia is not a US encyclopedia, and US usage does not automatically win. It is decided on an article-by-article basis, and any proposed change to the status quo requires discussion beforehand. (There is also a secondary Wiki convention that the initial usage adopted in an article should be kept unless there is good reason not to.) Rd232 22:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Some more info: "Fairtrade" is European trademark of FLO. "Fair Trade" or "Fairly Traded" can be used by retailers/producers that are not FLO-certified. "Fair Trade Certified" is the US trademark of TransFair (part of FLO). Therefore "Fairtrade labelling" is probably the best option anyway.
- I agree - Fairtrade is the term used to refer to Fairtrade labelling initiatives worldwide while Fair Trade is commonly used to refer to the Fair Trade movement as a whole. The difference is thus fairly straightforward. Confusion however comes from the fact that TransFair Canada and Transfair USA have kept using the words Fair Trade to refer to labelling in North America, despite the international consensus... hopefully that will change. ah politics. Quebecois1983 12:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Terrorism
"Some fairtrade-certified companies have voiced support for Communist and even Terrorist organizations, which raises concerns about whether consumers seeking to help the Third World might be unwittingly funding human rights abuse."
This is quite an accusation and should either be backed up with evidence (in the article or as an external link) or removed. -- Spudtater 4 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)
- Sh*t, I missed the addition of that insane section. I've removed it now. Rd232 4 July 2005 23:00 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism of Fairtrade?
Are there any reasonable criticisms of fair trade out there, other than that it's more expensive? Are there reasonable criticisms of the monitoring groups? Chip Unicorn 8 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)
- Criticism is rather well covered in the Fair trade article. Most criticism does not really address the labelling system but some other (more protectionist-sounding) principles that have gone under the same name for decades. The most important criticism against the labelling system is whether the production of over-produced, under-valued goods like coffee should be supported in any way. However there are many other products too, so the criticism should (even though usually is not) address which product and which part of the globe is being discussed. Unknown 2 September 2005 16:00 EET DST
I've added a criticism of Fairtrade Labelling from a Reason magazine piece from last month. Reason magazine is a nonpartisan, highly regarded magazine of investigative journalism. Someone removed this addition, but I've now added it back. Listing criticisms does not violate NPOV, and it is valuable, neutral information that users may wish to see. Preventing users from seeing this information does violate NPOV. Please leave this section in place. --Jsorens 18:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- We could debate Reason's reputation, but the reason I removed that section is that it is inaccurate. Please browse the opening sections of the relevant FLO document ([1] - PDF) to confirm the inaccuracy of the assertion that FLO requires farmers to organise into cooperatives. Yes, that is the preferred option, but it is not the only one. Rd232 talk 22:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see the inaccuracy. Here's what the FLO document says: "Small farmers who are organised into structures (in co-operatives, associations or other organisational forms) can join Fairtrade if they are able to contribute to the social and economic development of their members and their communities and are democratically controlled by their members... Small producers who are either unorganised or are organised into structures which have no legal status, (sic) can join Fairtrade if they have a partnership with an intermediary organisation (exporter, processor, private enterprise or NGO), to which they contract and which is able and willing to contribute to their social and economic development." Thus, standalone private farmers are not allowed to join. Perhaps the best solution would be to include this quotation and then include a couple of quotations from critics? That would leave interpretation to the reader.--Jsorens 17:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think so: we can't seriously criticise an organisation like FLO for not dealing directly with individual farmers that have a couple of acres and a cow; multinationals can't do that either, for obvious efficiency reasons (it's called supply chain management). Reason's criticism was that FLO's intermediaries are required to be democratic: they aren't. There's no need to include that erroneous point just to refute it, unless it's a widespread error. However it is worth explaining more about the different possible structures as noted in the quote above. Statistics would be lovely of course, if we can find them, probably somewhere on the FLO website. Rd232 talk 09:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've asked the author to stop by the discussion and add his defense if he wishes. --Jsorens 19:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think so: we can't seriously criticise an organisation like FLO for not dealing directly with individual farmers that have a couple of acres and a cow; multinationals can't do that either, for obvious efficiency reasons (it's called supply chain management). Reason's criticism was that FLO's intermediaries are required to be democratic: they aren't. There's no need to include that erroneous point just to refute it, unless it's a widespread error. However it is worth explaining more about the different possible structures as noted in the quote above. Statistics would be lovely of course, if we can find them, probably somewhere on the FLO website. Rd232 talk 09:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see the inaccuracy. Here's what the FLO document says: "Small farmers who are organised into structures (in co-operatives, associations or other organisational forms) can join Fairtrade if they are able to contribute to the social and economic development of their members and their communities and are democratically controlled by their members... Small producers who are either unorganised or are organised into structures which have no legal status, (sic) can join Fairtrade if they have a partnership with an intermediary organisation (exporter, processor, private enterprise or NGO), to which they contract and which is able and willing to contribute to their social and economic development." Thus, standalone private farmers are not allowed to join. Perhaps the best solution would be to include this quotation and then include a couple of quotations from critics? That would leave interpretation to the reader.--Jsorens 17:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Weasel words?
In the fourth paragraph the intro "It would seem..." caught my eye. Is this grounds for an {{OR}} tag or something? It sounds (to me) HIGHLY suspiscious, I wanted to check before adding a template over this one instance. 68.39.174.238 10:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
