Search results

Since the introduction of product certification in the 1980s, fair trade has grown apart from its social justice roots and the focus has steadily shifted away from calls for institutional market reform, corporate accountability, and fair prices, and toward a celebratory embrace of poverty alleviation and income growth through market integration and business partnerships. This paper examines fair trade's narratives of poverty and partnerships, focusing on the brand communication strategies employed by influential fair trade organizations and businesses. These are compared with how fair trade coffee producers in southern Mexico understand and practice partnership, demonstrating some of the ways in which the latter resist narrative framings which position them as entrepreneurial businesspeople first and cooperativistas second. The business partnerships between coffee buyers and producers are highly asymmetrical, and the partnerships that matter most for the Oaxacan coffee farmers are not with global businesses and certifiers, but instead with each other and their producer organizations. These relationships did not originate with fair trade, although, they are, in part, sustained by this system which supports democratically organized producer groups, the sharing of technical and market information, and communal management of the fair trade premium. In contrast to the organizations that certify and market their products, the paper demonstrates how farmers regard their precarious economic circumstances as an issue of social justice to be addressed through increased state support rather than market empowerment. The analytical juxtaposition of farmers' attitudes with fair trade organizational priorities contributes to the expanding literature examining how fair trade policies are experienced on the ground.

The evolution of the Fair Trade movement offers an apposite case through which to examine the idea of regulating risk through a “social sphere.” An analysis of Fair Trade through the lens of “defiance” reveals discrete models and actors of risk regulation that evolve in an iterative fashion. These findings not only add complexity and heterogeneity to the social actors and mechanisms of regulation in the social sphere, but also highlight the challenges this diversity poses for the project of alleviating market risk. In turn, the framework of defiance offers a fertile analytical framework for the study of transnational risk regulation by capturing the dynamic actor and institutional complexities that underpin, and embody challenges for, the regulation of risk through the social sphere. The article begins with an overview of the Fair Trade movement and consideration of Fair Trade’s approach to regulating market risk. It then introduces the notion of defiance, focusing on two of its subtypes: game playing and resistance. Following a short overview of the methodological framework employed to analyze these dynamics, the third section applies these analytical categories of defiance to explore primary data gathered on Fair Trade’s evolution. The article shows that the motivational posture of game playing, through its continued experimentation and entrepreneurship in transnational risk regulation, is pregnant with potential to mitigate the risks generated by economic activity.

This chapter seeks to understand the emergence of new institutions of business regulation, standard-setting and governance commonly referred to as multistakeholder initiatives (MSIs), and to consider their implications both from the perspective of regulatory effectiveness and sustainable development.

The analysis synthesizes the findings of a review of 20 such initiatives. It draws on a wide body of literatures and conceptual insights to understand the emergence of these new approaches to international business regulation. The assessment of their emergence, performance, and impacts highlights the complex dynamics of regulatory change.

The findings caution against simple generalizations about the positive or negative outcomes of these new forms of collaborative governance. Their somewhat mixed record can be partly explained by the diverse set of interests, preferences, and agendas of the actors involved; variations in institutional learning, capacities, and power relations; as well as how such initiatives are nested in broader institutions and structures. This points to the need, raised in the conclusion, for intellectual pluralism in advancing knowledge of the effectiveness of new regulatory institutions.

The analysis aims to go beyond studies that (i) tend to focus on just one or a few cases; (ii) that ignore the implications of such initiatives for development in the Global South; and (iii) draw on narrow bodies of theory and literature to understand complex issues.

This introduction provides an overview of the discourse on alternative agrifood movements (AAMs) to (1) ascertain the degree of convergence and divergence around a common ethos of alterity and (2) context the chapters of the book. AAMs have increased in recent years in response to the growing legitimation crisis of the conventional agrifood system. Some agrifood researchers argue that AAMs represent the vanguard movement of our time, a formidable counter movement to global capitalism. Other authors note a pattern of blunting of the transformative qualities of AAMs due to conventionalization and mainstreaming in the market. The literature on AAMs is organized following a Four Questions in Agrifood Studies (Constance, 2008) framework. The section for each Question ends with a case study to better illustrate the historical dynamics of an AAM. The literature review ends with a summary of the discourse applied to the research question of the book: Are AAMs the vanguard social movement of our time? The last section of this introduction provides a short description of each contributing chapter of the book, which is divided into five sections: Introduction; Theoretical and Conceptual Framings; Food Sovereignty Movements; Alternative Movements in the Global North; and Conclusions.

Gender equality and women’s empowerment are considered core development objectives (SDG 5) and instrumental in achieving other SDGs such as economic growth and food security and improved health and education. Cocoa is seen as a ‘man’s crop’ and there is entrenched gender bias in its value chain. However, women play a crucial role in the tending and post-harvesting of cocoa which are key to the price paid. This chapter investigates, via a 20-year in-depth case study, the partnership between Fair Trade Social Enterprise Divine Chocolate Ltd and Kuapa Kokoo (KK) cocoa farmer’s cooperative in Ghana. The case takes an in-depth look at women’s role in the cocoa value chain and how their strategic interests, practical needs and power can be addressed.

The Divine–Kuapa Kooko partnership, which implemented a clear resourced gender equality strategy, has made a positive contribution to reducing inequality, empowering women cocoa farmers and improving their rights. Setting quotas for women’s representation at all levels of KK’s structure has improved the strategic interests of women cocoa farmers and transformed the political structures of the cooperative. Also setting gender equality as part of the KK’s constitution enhances the empowerment and power of women cocoa farmers. Providing equal access to training and resources also enhances the practical capabilities of women.

The chapter proposes a framework of how to achieve improvements in gender quality and women’s empowerment. This case will assist other organisations who have targeted Sustainable Development Goal 5 of gender equality and women’s empowerment as part of their strategy.

Purpose – The aim of this chapter is to deconstruct the idea of a ‘Big Society’. We do so by underlining the left libertarian tradition in which civil society led economic activity such as the solidarity economy is embedded.

Methodology – By analysing the thought of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a key thinker and activist in the 19th libertarian socialist movement, we identify the principles guiding the solidarity economy. We illustrate our argument by drawing on qualitative research conducted on solidarity economy organisations in France.

Findings – The solidarity economy illustrates an alternative to both capitalism and state socialism: libertarian socialism. This chapter demonstrates that this left libertarianism is not a new utopia. It is rooted in the long (but marginal) history of libertarian socialism, which was born in the 19th century.

Originality – An economy managed from the left based on libertarian political principles seems to be a novel experiment. We seek to illustrate what this may look like using the example of the present solidarity economy. However, we also emphasise that this would imply a reversal of the political programme of the ‘Big Society’. It would imply the redistribution of economic and political power not only from the state to local communities, but also from company directors and their shareholders in order to realise not a charitable but an economically empowered civil society.

Fair trade has made paying producers in poorer countries a “just” price one of its central aims, with the issue constantly in its public communiqués, from the print media to social networking sites. As most research has looked at fair trade in the South, where small producers and craft makers live, discussions of the fair price have centered on whether the wholesale prices paid to them are alleviating poverty. However, circumscribing the issue of the fair price only to its impact in the South impedes our understanding of how fair trade operates in the North, on which the system relies for its existence. Looking at fair trade from a Northern perspective, this paper sees the fair price as a partial illustration of the social processes that characterize reflexive modernity, particularly the ethical dilemmas that surround the composition of prices. But rather than focusing exclusively on activist discourse, the paper uses practice theory to build a more nuanced picture of the diverse beliefs and behaviors that the fair price is entangled with. Drawing on ethnography with people who consume and sell fair trade in the Italian city of Palermo, the paper shows how understanding what a fair price is appears to be an enigma that conceals different aspects of the fair trade network. Specifically, it reveals that the fair price is not a single but a double entity, comprising the wholesale price paid to producers, where “political” emphasis usually lies, and the fair retail price, an entity discussed far less often.