[Q] Do you think getting a Fairtrade Mark has considerable positive impact on a brand in terms of sales, image, etc?
[ML] Yes there is certainly a lot of evidence to suggest a growing need for that. I think brands are doing this to appeal to a wider audience.
[Q] What is your view on the fact that companies certify just one or two out of their whole range of products and then they can already benefit from the positive image of the FAIRTRADE Mark?
[ML] I would like to think the people understand what the Mark is… If someone like Nestlé carries the Mark on one of their products, do they think that Nestlé is a Fair Trade company, I don’t think so. However, there will be, I am sure, a proportion of people who don’t understand the difference. But I think that would be a small percentage.
[Q] Salisbury’s Chief Executive Justin King said he believes in Fairtrade because of Fairtrade’s sales (Marketing Week, May 2010). What is your view on this?
[ML] I think it completely depends on the company. I think there are some companies that genuinely do believe doing it for the right reasons.
[Q] But there is a proportion…?
[ML] There is a proportion that are doing it purely for the sales. They understand that it has a CSR (corporate social responsibility) potential, that people will look at that company and say, “well, it offers a Fairtrade product so it can’t be that bad.” And from our perspective, we just provide a certification mechanism. We don’t comment on companies. If we said we are not working with Nestlé, we are taking away the opportunity of all the farmers that are working for Nestlé.
To answer your question, ethical branding is big business. It might not be core to everybody’s business but offering at least one product ticks a box and it says “we do care”. I think our hope is it widens and widens and it becomes mainstream, a norm. So that people are not buying if the product is not Fairtrade.
[Q] But surely even if something that does not carry a Fairtrade Mark, it does not mean that it has not been fairly traded? For example, none of the products in Japan Centre carries a Fairtrade Mark, can we then say it is not fair?
[ML] I think that might be the case but I think the consumers will understand. If they go to Japan Centre then they might be buying something that is authentically Japanese. But for the vast majority of the consumers they are shopping in supermarkets. I think it is about core products, it’s about chocolate bars, sugar, cocoa, fruits. These are the core set of products that are Fairtrade, can be Fairtrade, and therefore should be Fairtrade.
[Q] Do you think we have entered into an age when consumerism and branding are so advance that we cannot sell/buy anything that is not attached with high values anymore?
[ML] I think it depends on the product. Where there is a lot of product competition, then yes. The USP (Unique Selling Point) is always the key thing. Does that product has a USP already? Or does it need an added USP which is like you said, an “added value” of “ethical labelling”.
2 Posters from Fairtrade Foundation
[Q] We see a lot of images of people from the developing countries through Fairtrade. Do you think using images like these foster racial stereotype & reinforce our perception in the international division of labour?
[ML] I don’t think so. I think it’s all down to the individual on how they perceive it. If I look at it I’d think that is a farmer and he is producing oranges or bananas and good for him. And I think Fairtrade always tries to talk about empowerment. We want to portray those people as hardworking… hardworking, positive, independent business people. Our core messages are about empowerment. I think that’s a very positive message. We hope we are creating a communication with people clearly understanding that it isn’t charity. It’s about empowerment, it’s about fair deal. We always try to show the producers being very dignified. We want them to be in control of their destiny. For us it’s about connecting producers to the consumers.
[Q] I am just wondering if this flooding of portraits of the poor will have something to work on our perception?
[ML] I think things will change. We try to reflect reality. The reality that a lot of these developing countries are agriculturally based.
India is an interesting case because it has become very industrialized, in recent years it has been manufacturing a lot. But we are mainly concerned with commodities and production of food therefore we would tend to be relatively showing agricultural work. If a country changes, develops to become different then I think we would reflect that. For instance mining. But it really depends on the country, depends on the commodity.
[Q] Do you think the Mark is somehow losing its integrity as the organisation goes more and more commercialized? Instead of challenging the powerful, which is the initiative, has it, instead, been absorbed by the powerful?
[ML] There is always a danger. But as long as those commercial partners are doing what they need to do to earn the Mark then that’s all we really mind.
[Q] So far our conversation has placed a lot of focus on the “commodities”. But relying on “commodities” is dead end. The reality is for centuries poor countries are made suppliers of raw materials only while activities that generate real profit are in the tight grip of the rich nations. Do you think Fairtrade should focus more on actions and publications to dismantle this “grip”, rather than encouraging more export of raw commodities?
[From Aurelie Walker (policy team)] This is certainly true, and part of our strategy is to address this. Product diversification and increasing the value added is part of our work already in many products (coffee, nuts, cocoa and fruit), but beyond this, the issues of ownership of companies and export markets will be addressed at the FLO level as this is not just a UK question, it relates to the movement as a whole.
[Q] Here we have some images. Would you think it could be dangerous to put ourselves on such a high moral ground? On the other hand, producers are often shown as showing gratitude. Do you think this would influence how we position ourselves and others?
(Left) Screen shot from the Foundation’s online video Fairtrade Heros; (Right) Image used on Fairtrade Foundation website
[ML] I think images can be very subjective, so, with the Fairtrade Heroes imagery, the idea is to show that ordinary people are making a big difference. The strategy is to encourage other people to become involved but also to reward those who make a difference. We’re not sure that most people would make such a direct comparison between the different images we use.
I think moving forwards we are trying to focus very much on empowerment and are looking at ways to get the producer more central in our communications.