I remember well the first time I ever encountered the concept of “fair trade”: it was on a poster in the cafeteria of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Bonn, where I spent time during the summer of 2002 doing research in the “Archives of Social Democracy” for my first book. The poster proudly proclaimed that the coffee served in the cafeteria was fair trade coffee, and explained the basic principle — growers were paid a decent wage for their product — along with urging people to purchase fair trade coffee elsewhere. Before too long I started to see the same symbol for fair trade certification popping up in the United States, and nowadays I can walk into my local Giant Foods and purchase fair trade coffee for home use quite easily.
During our recent discussion about Steve Jobs and his legacy, Nawal suggested that we should have “fair trade computers.” This strikes me as a very good idea, and no crazier than fair trade coffee. I can anticipate the basic objection — consumer electronics are too price-sensitive, and people won’t pay more for a fair trade certified computer — but to my mind this is flawed because a) the Apple business model shows that people will pay a premium for quality and elegance, so why not for social justice; and b) at least nowadays, there isn’t a price differential between fair trade certified coffee and other coffee of comparable quality, at least not in my local food stores (sure, Folgers and Maxwell House make cheaper coffee, but that’s a different issue; if one is buying Peet’s or Newman’s Own or a comparable brand, the price of the fair trade stuff is the same as the price of the non-fair trade stuff).
So this leads me to wonder: why aren’t there fair trade computers? Is there something about the coffee industry that makes it uniquely susceptible to the notion of fair trade, and something about the consumer electronics industry that prevents it from adopting fair trade practices? Are those parameters fixed, or could they be reshaped? The Internet lets me down on this occasion, since googling “fair trade computers” doesn’t seem to turn up much insightful commentary on this issue. So I turn to the readers of the Duck to tell me either why fair trade computers are an unworkable idea, or — and perhaps better — to help me envision what a viable fair trade computer looks like. One thing I know is that it can’t be a sub-standard machine; I can’t imagine that fair trade coffee would succeed if all the fair trade product was horrible swill while the other coffee was uniformly better-tasting. So why not a fair trade iPad? I know I’d pay a premium for such a thing if it existed, and I’d bet that others would as well.
Apple may have already beaten you to the punch – depending
on who you ask. After a campaign by Greenpeace and others (https://www.greenpeace.org/apple/about.html),
Apple announced a new initiative, A Greener Apple, to minimize the
environmental impact of its products (https://www.apple.com/hotnews/agreenerapple/).
(I thought there was a green line of Apple products available, but I can’t seem
to find it.) That campaign ended, but in a recent ranking of computer
companies, Apple has dropped from 5th to 9th place in
terms of reducing the use of certain hazardous materials in its products (https://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up/).
But the environmental impact of a product is only one aspect
of “fair trade” – the term can apply to products that are produced not only
with an eye towards increasing the income of producers or minimizing
environmental harm, but also with regards to other human rights impacts linked
to the product’s life cycle. This could be anything from ensuring that the
minerals that go into the electronic components are not sourced from mines in
the Congo that fuel the conflict there or are linked to forced labor, to
guaranteeing that the rights of workers in the factories (largely in China)
assembling the products aren’t abused. With regards to China (and India as
well), there have also been concerns voiced that when companies say they
“recycle” their computers, in fact they are being disassembled in an unsafe
manner, exposing workers and the environment to the toxics that went into the
product in the first place.
So, in a nutshell, fair trade can encompass a number of
environmental and human rights concerns linked to a product – and while you
might do well on one aspect, you are unlikely to do well on all fronts. This
led one of my students to propose the creation of a new NGO – Ethical Circuit –
that would look at the entire product life cycle to minimize human and
environmental harms from inception to disposal. I’m not sure where he is on
that, but what is definitely starting up on campuses around the country –
including AU – is an effort to ensure that universities source their
electronics from computer manufacturers that abide by the Dodd-Frank provisions
to disclose information about their supply chains with regards to where they
source their minerals from. This is all rather hypothetical at this point,
since the SEC still hasn’t developed the reporting guidelines and apparently a
few companies are actively lobbying the SEC for laxer provisions. STAND is the
name of the student group heading these campaigns up (https://www.standnow.org/). It is part of
the Genocide Intervention Network, in which the Enough Project participates.
Enough – headed by John Prendergast an AU alum – has been spearheading the
whole mobilization against conflict minerals (https://www.enoughproject.org/conflict-minerals).
AU’s STAND student group passed resolutions through both the
WCL and undergraduate student governments encouraging the university to source
from companies abiding by Dodd-Frank when those reporting guidelines are
launched. Those of us on faculty will probably be hearing more from them soon,
as they just stopped by my office to ask about trying to get faculty to support
a similar resolution.
But I’ll end this by saying, beware! The rub with any kind
of claims about fair trade is to what extent one can actually be assured that
whatever standards are at the heart of the claim – be they environmental or
human rights – are actually being abided by and are having the desired impact.
Always look at what type of certification system, auditing mechanism, or
assurance framework is attached to a standard – and whether or not it is
independent from the firm that will benefit from the claim that it abides by
that standard. There is another post that can be written about the shortcomings
of such assurance frameworks – including those that have been used to certify
fair trade coffee – but just know that the devil is in the details!
The fair-trade coffee machine at our institute advertises in big letters: ‘ethically sourced for you!’. I think this suggests what the problem is. When we buy ‘ethical coffee’, we do it more for ourselves than anyone else. Just think about how the fair-trade industry keeps the ‘other’ of the third-world worker outside of the picture, or at the least very much in the margin. Fair trade works, because it allows us to narrate ourselves in better terms. The result is that we feel good about ourselves at practically no cost, and in a habitual setting, so that we don’t have to think that choice through very often. Computers being costly machines that we buy very consciously and that by themselves already make us very good about ourselves (partiuclarly when you buy yourself into an ‘IApple’ identity). Whether we would be willing to pay an additional 100 bucks in order to feel even better about ourselves, not so sure…
You move quickly from one sign (with a message that I’ve never seen) to a universal claim about internal motivation. But both the public messaging around fair trade and the possible motivations for consumers are considerably more varied than you suggest.
You don’t really offer a reason why PTJ’s question should be answers in the negative:”the Apple business model shows that people will pay a premium for quality and elegance, so why not for social justice”The question remains on the table.Of course, attacking the motives of those who wish to improve the world is a well worn rhetorical move. Critics have always suggested the world can’t change because of the self-centeredness or lack of commitment or what have you of reformers.
I took the sign to be exemplary for the ways in which we tend to transform ‘doing good for others’ into ‘telling good stories about ourselves’. This is not to suggest that intentions are bad or no good work is done, but rather that fair trade works within a culture in which talking about the ‘other’ becomes partially equivalent with talking about the self. This might considerably temper opportunities for fair trade computers, since buying one might produce a narrative of ‘showing off’ one’s ethical stance. If the self is what it is about, paying a hundred bucks more for a computer out of ethical considerations is flagging the ‘ethics’ flag in a serious way, and i doubt many people would find that label attractive (because it would imply ‘showing off ethical superiority’, or something lke that). if the narrative were about the ‘other’, instead, that consideration wouldnt play up at all.
Well, perhaps a group of brilliant NGO workers, local activists, and I daresay a few creative marketing execs (perhaps ones formerly affiliated with Apple…) could devise an effective campaign which documents current abuses among assembly workers, obtain their insights on how to improve working conditions, and incorporate their narratives into a fair trade campaign or something similar. I almost wonder if they could come up with better tactics than online petitions. Either way, the two need not be mutually exclusive Gerard–you raise an important cautionary note, and I agree, this should be about those suffering human and workers’ rights abuses, not just about consumers of products. The greater questions for me, however, is if fair trade campaigns are sufficient, do they actually have broad mass appeal, and what social impact do they have? It also begs the question, perhaps hearkening back to Marx, if the global capitalist system is itself fundamentally exploitative, and if such foundations for extant economic relations could ever be transformed… Given that capitalism seems to be the only game in the house at present, I’m curious how could abuses be curbed if possible beyond selective or narrow targets…
I think you are pointing to one aspect of the limits of consumption as politics. You are trying to affect change through a choice that is not just about what one needs but who one is – i.e. the self must be part of that equation.
Is there a practical alternative? As a committed non-believer in either the Revolution or the Rapture, I often wonder if incremental changes in consumption — some with small but discernible positive effects — are as good as it gets. “The slow boring of hard boards, though shopping, and the strategic discharge of the guilt stemming from privilege” is not pretty or clean, but it might work.
I think the practical question that needs to be asked is does it even have an impact. With the exception of Linton, mentioned above on fair trade coffee, for almost all voluntary multistakeholder initiatives seeking to regulate global brands’ supply chains, there has been little to no systematic evaluation of impact. So we don’t know if it works, even incrementally. Forget the biggies of Rapture or Revolution, the larger concern is that without systematic evaluation of impact, we – i.e. socially and environmentally responsible consumers and the companies that offer such products – are acting as if it works, thereby potentially crowding out other efforts, such as the much smaller and diffused events of people putting their ‘moral imagination’ to work to think beyond ethical consumption.
I do think that the self-narrative aspect is important here, and I think that people whoa r willing to invest in the identity of a computer would also invest in the identity of being socially responsible if we could work out the problems of certification and price. Don’t underestimate the power of a little guilt to affect positive social change, even at the cost of making the Other even more invisible in the short term …
I think you are correct that consumption of fair trade products is at one level about how we construct our identities through consumption choices, but in terms of economic impact on producting communities and farmers in the Global South, check out some of April Linton’s work – https://sociology.ucsd.edu/faculty/bio/linton.shtml I believe she has found that fair trade coffee has actually had some significant positive impacts.
Just one piece of info. Fair trade (or “ethical” trade) extends well beyond the coffee industry. For a well-known initiative (and voluntary code of conduct), see:
https://www.ethicaltrade.org/about-eti/our-membersConsumer electronic companies have been part of the dialogue for awhile. Their industry isn’t all that different from the others. In the case of the computer majors, once you have the buy-in of the top people (more likely to happen after they screw up and there’s campaigning against the company,) the real challenge will lie in regulating and monitoring a supply chain that extends across the globe.
Although ethical trade and “public giving” are two different things (the former is systematic and tied to the “core” of the business, the latter usually not,) they are also related. I recently read this about Jobs’ philanthropic practices (or short supply thereof,) which may be useful to decipher why Apple didn’t apparently do all that much:
https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/the-mystery-of-steve-jobss-public-giving/
It costs about a billion dollars to make a modern silicon chip plant. Once you are talking about billions of dollars the concept of “fair trade” pretty much goes out the window.
Obviously, computers are very different from coffee. First, most of the cost is in the components, not the assembly in China and other low-wage countries. Thus, a large fraction of the money goes to large companies in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan that make the display and main chips, and that already pay their employees fairly well (though most of their costs are in building the plants and equipment).
So, if you want to talk fair trade, you really have to talk about “fair assembly”, paying a decent wage to the people doing the assembly. But I think the assembly and associated constant quality control is complicated enough to require plants and equipment, so this is not something you could farm out easily to individuals or village cooperatives. Part of why it works so well for coffee and chocolate is because the material starts out on farms, these farms can be small, and an experienced buyer of materials can judge the quality of the coffee or chocolate fairly easily. And for food stuff, it is much easier to convince yourself that “it also tastes better anyway” so people are willing to pony up a bit more.
Thus, fair sourcing from farms is very different from fair assembly. (Another interesting case in the middle might be textiles.) There may be models that could be built for fair assembly. But I suspect the best you can do is pressure existing manufacturers to eliminate the worst abuses, as this would impact the most people. (And the workers in the electronic plants already do a lot better than those still working the farms in Sichuan, or working in textile plants.)
This talk of “fair assembly” makes sense to me. It’s worth noting, as Rdewinter points out, that the abuses faced by workers in electronics plants stem not just from wage and labor practices, but also from the hazardous nature(s) of many of the materials with which they work. Working for the elimination, or for the strict post-consumer capture-and-reuse, of toxic substances would go a long way to protecting the lives and livelihoods of factory workers, along with people and environments up and down the commodity chain.
Tackling toxics may not even be the biggest environmental challenge, though, to do with iPads and their ilk. Try this one: can we ever expect iPads to climb out of the category of “disposable electronica” (https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/may/24/how-green-is-the-ipad)? How about an iPad that, from its screen and shell to its interior components, is built to be easily and endlessly upgradable, rather than built to be discarded as soon as the next generation hits the shelves? I’ll call trade in iPads “fair” when such trade provides real livelihoods for those who work in its manufacture AND dramatically reduces material throughput of all kinds.
Though there may not be many (or any) “fair trade electronics” organizations around, there are a number of “conflict mineral” organizations, namely Empower Congo, who attempt to limit the use of raw materials from conflict-ridden areas. The assumption behind this, of course, is that it is economic competition over raw materials which drives all of the country’s conflict. Though that might be a stretch, I think Empower Congo and other conflict-mineral organizations are a good start. As for the endlessly upgradable Ipad, that’s a great idea, but it would destroy Apple’s business model. They release products strategically, updating them every ~300 days. For Macs, it’s not that big of a deal—usually you can just upgrade to a new operating system. That is, however, until the next OS release won’t work with your hardware, usually after two or three hardware updates. You’re then forced to buy the new hardware if you want new software, which only comes on the new operating system.
Now, I know what you’ll say—you could just have interchangeable hardware: pop in a new CPU and updated ram, a new graphics card and fan, and you’re on your way. However, the way Apple, at least, thinks about computers doesn’t allow that. Each computer they make is a separate work of art, from the ground up. Each piece is custom designed for the user experience on that release alone. That’s why they’re so popular—none of their computers ever have trouble with any program, because they make sure no consumer can ever outrun his or her hardware with much newer software. Unlike Dell or Sony, the hardware is not a separate entity from the software; the entire computer, from the aesthetic qualities of the case to the smooth workings of Safari and Garageband, is one product.
It might be possible with other companies, but Apple would never sacrifice its precision. It’s content to take marginal environmental steps for public relations and keep on making those sexy silver machines.
Not sure that workers in the plants assembling electronics do much better than those in apparel factories or farms. For example, Foxconn – an assembly plant that Apple uses – was the subject of a lot of bad press because of workers’ rights abuses and a spate of suicides in 2010. (Not that I recommend Wikipedia as the best source of info, but there are links to reports and articles on Foxconn here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#Controversies) But yes, the apparel industry was one of the first global industries to take heat on conditions in (largely) non-owned factories in their supply chains. As a result, the brands developed standards and pressured their contractors to abide by them mostly through the use of social audits. The Fair Labor Association is considered exemplary in this regard. https://www.fairlabor.org/fla/
I always find interesting that people who want a “fairer”, “more just” and “better world” always start from what the OTHERS should do to achieve it.
So, why not start about ourselves, thus: What about “fair academics”? I suggest a few points:
1) what about asking academics to review IN DEPTH exams so to ensure “fair grading”. So, if I get a A- I want two pages long to explain me why this is not a B+ or a A.
2) what about asking academics to teach well, precisely and coherently so to ensure “fair teaching”. This also involves NO IDEOLOGY.
3) MOST IMPORTANTLY, what about asking academics to listen thoroughly to students’ issues so to ensure that EACH student has a fair treatment. This means: no one-minute long office hours meetings, short or no replies to emails, vague comments on essays, papers and dissertations?
The best would then to abolish the tenure system, but probably I am already asking too much.
ps: I remember too well my M.A. supervisor. He was so busy theorizing about world justice, fair trade and normative theory that his duty to meet me just disappeared. Is this justice, is this fair?
To clarify, I would probably agree with PTJ here regarding Weberian distinctions between science and politics as vocations. I agree an academic’s first priority should be first and foremost as a teacher and scholar; in this respect, I wouldn’t agree with supervisors prioritizing an activist, political or ideological agenda over the prior two goals. That said, my comments alluded to the idea of what we do as citizens or communities in general, even in our non-academic spheres of social life.
Either way though, I’m tempted to suggest that practitioners should lead the way here with such activist agendas, or academics could tackle it in their free time so long as it does not compromise their educational vocation (esp. in the areas you identify such as office hours, grading, etc).This translates into creating an open, safe space in their classrooms for debates and dialogues approaching issues–including those of social justice–from contrary perspectives in the spirit of academic freedom and intellectual diversity.
Hi there, the only fairtrade technology stuff i know about are phones, they’re made by a netherland company, have a loog please, maybe some day will pop other ones like that
https://www.fairphone.com/