Cost of coffee.indd - RISC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

64 Fairtrade mark and infant health could be damaged by Nestlé application warn campaigners Press release 6 October 2005 Baby Milk Action and other leading campaigning organizations are warning of the risks of the Fairtrade Foundation awarding a Fairtrade mark to a Nestlé product. Nestlé is the UK’s most boycotted company 1 , recently found to be the world’s ‘least responsible’ corporation in a global internet vote 2 . The public announcement that Nestle will launch its Fairtrade Partners’ Blend was made on 7 October. The World’s largest food company remains with 8,500 products which are not Fairtrade. Nestlé is the target of a boycott because of its aggressive marketing of baby foods and campaigners also highlight its trade union busting activities, involvement in child labour, environmental destruction of its water bottling business, use of GM technology and other causes of concern 3 . The announcement of the Fairtrade mark for Partners’ Blend comes in the same month trade unionists in the Philippines mourn the death of the leader of a protest at the Nestle factory, who was assassinated last week, as trade unionists from Colombia gather in Switzerland (information in French and German) to present evidence of Nestle’s links to paramilitaries who have been terrorising activists and a Halloween campaign is launched against Nestle in the US over its alleged “involvement in the trafficking, torture, and forced labor of children who cultivate and harvest cocoa beans which the companies import from Africa”, over which legal action has been brought. Public statements from Nestlé, one of the world’s big four coffee producers, demonstrate it is ideologically opposed to Fair Trade as anything other than a niche market and the mark, if awarded to Partners’ Blend, will undoubtedly be used as part of the company’s public relations strategy to divert criticism, claim campaigners 4 . While even many ethical shoppers believe the Fairtrade mark indicates a company treats all suppliers fairly, it applies only to the product bearing the mark. If Nestlé captured 100% of the current global Fair Trade coffee market using its massive global marketing budget of over US$10 billion per year, this would still only represent 3% of Nestlé’s green coffee purchase. In other words if existing Fair Trade companies lost all their business to Nestlé (or Nestlé doubled the market without taking sales from other companies), 97% of Nestlé coffee would still be outside the Fair Trade system 5 . Patti Rundall OBE, Policy Director at Baby Milk Action, which coordinates the international Nestlé boycott, launched by groups in 20 countries, said: “To give a FT mark to a company whose baby food trade systematically violates child rights on such a massive scale, contributing as it does, to the deaths of millions of children, would make an absolute mockery of what the public believes the Fairtrade Mark stands for and would show disregard for the feeling of thousands of people who’ve worked hard to promote the Fair Trade principles. It would certainly bring the mark into disrepute – something the Fair Trade rules themselves don’t permit.” 6 Nestlé is singled out for boycott action because independent monitoring conducted by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) finds it to be the largest single source of violations of the World Health Organisation and UNICEF’s International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant World Health Assembly Resolutions. As the biggest food company in the world, with a $67 billion turnover and thousands of brands, Nestlé is powerful. It dominates the baby food market and takes the lead in attempting to undermine implementation of these measures by governments. Nestlé operates in just about every country in the world, promoting its brands where it can in hospitals, clinics and schools. It is seen as inevitable that Nestlé will use the Fairtrade mark to try to cover up its bad practice and link its name to prestigious charities. When Oxfam launched a campaign in defence of coffee farmers in 2003 Nestlé shared the platform and claimed in public statements and to shareholders it was working in partnership with Oxfam while delivering virtually nothing Oxfam was calling for. In 1999 Saatchi and Saatchi advised Nestlé to “aggressively advertise its links with charities and good causes” precisely to offset bad publicity (Marketing Week Feb 1999) Its latest PR offensive is The Nestlé Commitment to Africa report in which Nestlé claims that it monitors its practices scrupulously and takes corrective action immediately on the tiny number
of shortfalls that occur (see Nestlé’s Public Relations Machine Exposed). Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator, conducted a quick survey of campaign supporters using an on-line questionnaire and has analysed the first 100 responses. He said: “Nestlé will use the Fairtrade mark as it uses its other token support of good causes, to try to divert criticism of its malpractice. Its problem is there is a great deal of overlap in the community that supports the boycott and Fair Trade. In our quick survey, 90% of boycotters also buy Fairtrade products, many of them actively promoting the Fair Trade campaign. Nestlé won’t have much joy in countering the boycott. Only 3% thought Nestlé was pursuing the mark because it cares about coffee growers and 93% said it was for public relations purposes. We do worry about Nestlé’s impact on the Fairtrade mark, however, as 50% said they would view the Fairtrade mark differently and look more closely at other companies with products bearing the mark. Only 17% of our respondents realised the mark relates only to the one product that bears it and not the way the company deals with all suppliers. A few comments support giving the mark to any product that complies with the Fairtrade criteria regardless of the malpractice of the company involved.” Baby Milk Action has asked the Fairtrade Foundation to make it much clearer what the mark does and does not signify and to remove the mark from Nestlé if it uses it to try to divert criticism from its widespread malpractice. The Fairtrade Foundation says in a Question and Answer sheet on its website posted on 7 October: “The Fairtrade Mark is only given to individual products and not to companies. The Mark indicates that the product Partners’ Blend has complied with the internationally agreed standards for Fairtrade certification. It does not refer to any other product marketed by the company. This product has undergone exactly the same certification process as all other Fairtrade products whether marketed by multinationals or smaller companies. The Fairtrade Mark guarantees consumers that those producers have received a fair and stable price for their product. The Mark is not an endorsement of any company or its activities… “Of course we acknowledge that many Fairtrade supporters have other concerns about this company’s practices. We also recognize that bringing about change in the behaviour of multinationals requires a variety of strategies and approaches… “We are not asking people to change their position on the boycott of Nestlé products, which aims to change the way the company promotes breastmilk substitutes around the world. We naturally respect the right of consumers to decide which products they purchase. “While some campaign groups use boycotts as a way of achieving their aims, the Fairtrade Foundation’s specific role is to engage with companies that are prepared to adopt Fairtrade standards and certification for particular products. They are different approaches, but with the same aim of winning positive change in the way business operations impact on people in developing countries. “Many people have supported both campaigns until now, and they will still be able to do so, as they can choose from 18 other Fairtrade certified instant coffee products.” Nestlé will pay 8 pence per kilo extra for the beans used in Partners’ Blend (33 pence rather than 25 pence). A 100 gramme tin of Partners’ Blend will retail for £2.69, which is 40 pence more than Nescafé Gold Blend. Notes 1 The Guardian reported on 1 September 2005: “What do Nike, Coca Cola, McDonald’s and Nestlé have in common? Apart from being among the world’s most well-known brands, they happen to be the most boycotted brands on the planet. That finding came from this week’s global GMIPoll, an online opinion poll that surveyed 15,500 consumers in 17 countries. Nestlé emerges as the most the most boycotted brand in the UK because of what respondents consider its “unethical use and promotion of formula feed for babies in third world countries.” 2 Nestlé won a global internet poll for the world’s ‘least responsible company’ coinciding with the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2005. Nestlé received 29% of the votes. This was more than twice that of joint second Monsanto and Dow Chemicals (of Bhopal infamy), each on 14%. 65
Page 2 and 3:
credits devised, written and design
Page 4 and 5:
“ A company that adopts and imple
Page 6 and 7:
the instructions What you need - ge
Page 8 and 9:
glossary bluewash The ploy used by
Page 10 and 11:
coffee file Coffee: adaptation of A
Page 12 and 13:
8 the story of coffee D the coffee
Page 14 and 15:
wet method D requires the use of re
Page 16 and 17:
200 Robusta coffee market 1986-2005
Page 18 and 19: drinker roasted, ground, instant CO
Page 20 and 21: 16 key ideas ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Page 22 and 23: Profit margins are high - Nestlé h
Page 24 and 25: key ideas ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ In respon
Page 26 and 27: • because of past price fluctuati
Page 28 and 29: aim a fair price? ◆ To analyse th
Page 30 and 31: ◆ Although in The coffee cycle Ne
Page 32 and 33: s Analyse the photos used and the o
Page 34 and 35: ◆ ◆ Real costs A supply and dem
Page 36 and 37: aim how fair’s fair? ◆ To explo
Page 38 and 39: actionpage: how fair’s fair? s Re
Page 40 and 41: 1990 european fair trade associatio
Page 42 and 43: Actionpage: Pros & cons 38 PROS Gua
Page 44 and 45: aim fair marketing ◆ To analyse t
Page 46: Actionpage: Logo ® 42
Page 49 and 50: actionpage: press release Statement
Page 51 and 52: appendix 1: the coffee crisis The I
Page 53 and 54: demand sides in which the coffee cr
Page 55 and 56: demonstrating that traditional shad
Page 57 and 58: appendix 4: co-op’s fairtrade cof
Page 59 and 60: appendix 5: mugged introduction The
Page 61 and 62: women earn less, work longer, have
Page 63 and 64: appendix 6: rescue plan A Coffee Re
Page 65 and 66: Consumer governments 1 Provide poli
Page 67: joining forces we believe that we w
Page 71 and 72: appendix 8: robbing coffee’s crad
Page 73 and 74: appendix 9: behind the mask the rea
Page 75 and 76: • change the law to enable people
Page 77 and 78: Fair Trade in Action - KS 3-4 Fairt
Page 79 and 80: ackground reading* Behind the mask:
Page 81 and 82: useful contacts Anti-Slavery Intern
Page 83 and 84: International Coffee Organisation w
Page 85 and 86: isc Reading International Solidarit
show all

Cost of coffee.indd - RISC

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?