The Challenges of Marketing Fair Trade - Wynne, Sandy

to change their corporate behavior of profits above all else. TFUSA is in an awkward
situation being asked to criticize its licensees. Hence, TFUSA has not been aggressive in
demanding corporate changes or trade policies. Some of these MNC licensees may even
benefit from unfair trade policies. TFUSA has left advocating for changes in corporate
behavior and trade policies to other NGOs like Global Exchange and Oxfam, which have
sponsored numerous campaigns, including the one that brought Starbucks to the table to
work with TFUSA. TFUSA can demonstrate it is not selling out by becoming an active
advocate in the Fair Trade goals of improving corporate practices and trade policies.
Selling out also involves TFUSA’s treatment of MNCs. When TFUSA signed up
Starbucks, they were given preferential treatment, related to requirements to initial
purchase quantities and fees that importers pay on a per pound basis (Jaffee, 2007,
p.203). After some loud outcries, these inequalities were adjusted. There are questions
about why importers, especially MNCs, are not required to have the same transparent
books that are required of the producers. Starbucks’ imports include coffee beans that are
roasted for other companies, making it difficult to ascertain just how much Starbucks is
committed to Fair Trade Certified coffee. With only a small percentage of Starbucks
coffee imports being Fair Trade, what is happening to all the remaining farmers who sell
to Starbuck’s? At the same time, companies that are 100% Fair Trade complain that they
are not rewarded for their efforts to fully commit to FTC products.
Addressing the criticism of selling out may require TFUSA and other NIs to
publicly disclose agreements made with MNCs. This disclosure is a real test of these
NGOs to a commitment of transparency throughout the Fair Trade supply chain. Along
with disclosure, TFUSA needs to go on public record that they expect and demand that
47