Jump to content

Talk:The Fairtrade Foundation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bias and Advertising slant

[edit]

The British spelling reversion was fair. I should have remembered that it's a British group.

But I think the flag is fair. Why was it removed? It seems to read even more like an advertisement with a phrase like "The Foundation achieves this by...". This assumes that the organization achieves its stated ends. For the organization to achieve its stated ends this article would additionally have to contradict or be contradicted by countless other articles that deal with the social sciences.

It is at least unaware of the controversy surrounding the Fairtrade movement as a whole that would necessarily be relevant to the Fairtrade Foundation.

I'm going to put a dispute flag up. If there is some reason why it shouldn't be there, I would appreciate hearing it.

--Nogburt (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An addendum:

I don't see any fundamental controversy with the article except for the "achieves this by" section with the two bullet points and perhaps the sentence above. Perhaps the Fairtrade impact studies or Fairtrade debate articles could be more directly referenced some of the material in those articles could be moved or duplicated, were appropriate, here.

The statistics, dates, factoids, and opening sentence, all seem reasonable and informative. I've read a few works and papers by Fairtrade-affiliated academic groups (many of which are referenced in other fair trade Wikipedia articles) and think that some of that information could be used here to expand this article more although that is a bit of a separate issue.

--Nogburt (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nogburt, I think you've misread the wording you've complained about. "The FTF exists to do X by Y. It achieves this - ie Y, not X - by:". In other words "It encourages industry and consumers by ...", not "It improves the position of poor and marginalised producers in the developing world by ...". So the amendment to "sets out to achieve its goals" is unnecessary. "It does this by" would have been more straightforward, but "It achieves this by ..." is quite OK. I honestly t see it as a claim that the means are acheieved rather than the ultimate goals.

So the statement isn't avoiding any controversies about Fairtrade/fair trade, they're just not relevant. In which case I don't see why the warning flag is needed. If anyone wants to add a section about controversy they're free to, but as it stands the article is quite straightforward as a description of the FTF and its aims and achievements to date. Opbeith (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:Fairtrade.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Providing balance

[edit]

It read as an advertisement. There have been criticisms from a lot of researchers, which have not been answered. These must be mentioned for impartiality.AidWorker (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ledgends

[edit]

barney evans ynyr Lloyd jones and Rhodri bullock who go to llandovery college are ledgends according to the lad bible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.133.202 (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to review Fairtrade Foundation Wikipedia article

[edit]

The Fairtrade Foundation Wikipedia article currently contains a number of statements which do not appear to be in the spirit of Wikipedia’s core editing policies (neutral point of view; verifiability; no original research). The majority of these are contained in the section titled “How it works”, which primarily focuses on critiques of the Fairtrade system for coffee. As the market for each Fairtrade product is informed by a complex range of factors, the section currently provides a limited overview of how the Fairtrade system operates more widely. It also contains limited factual content on the operation of the Fairtrade Foundation.

I am aware that where editors have a conflict of interest (e.g. they have links to the subject of an article), Wikipedia’s conflict of interest policy strongly discourages such editors from making any direct changes. As an employee of the Fairtrade Foundation, I strive to abide by this policy and have not edited the article other than to correct out-of-date statistics and definitions. In terms of my concerns around bias and referencing in the article, I invite editors to consider the examples and studies provided below and to amend the article as they see fit.

Overview of Fairtrade system

To help provide editors with an overview, I have set out the six central characteristics of the Fairtrade system below:

  1. The Fairtrade Minimum Price – Fairtrade buyers agree to pay at least a minimum price (which is intended to ensure that producers can cover their average costs of sustainable production) for a Fairtrade product when the world price for the product is below this price, or the market price if this is higher.
  2. The Fairtrade Premium – Fairtrade buyers agree to pay an additional amount of money for a Fairtrade product which goes into a communal fund for workers and farmers to use to improve their social, economic and environmental conditions.
  3. Stability and access to credit – Fairtrade buyers agree to sign long-term contracts (at least one year) and must provide advance finance to producer organisations if requested.
  4. Working conditions – Where workers (e.g. hired labour in a plantation) are present, employment conditions must be provided that meet internationally recognised standards and conventions, in particular those of the International Labour Organization (ILO) (including freedom of association; wages which are at least equal to legal minimum or regional averages; safe working conditions; and the prohibition of child labour).
  5. Institutional structure – Small-scale producers must organise as co-operatives or associations with democratic and transparent decision-making processes.
  6. Environmental Standards – Promote best agricultural practices that are more sustainable, minimise risk and protect biodiversity.

Further information on the Fairtrade Minimum Price and Fairtrade premium can be found here: http://www.fairtrade.net/standards/price-and-premium-info.html

Editors can also find impact research and evaluation studies commissioned by the Fairtrade Foundation here: http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/en/what-is-fairtrade/the-impact-of-our-work/impact-research-and-evaluation-studies

Examples of statements which appear to breach Wikipedia’s core editing policies

“It is argued that, because retailers and cafes in the rich countries can sell Fairtrade coffee at any price they like, nearly all the extra price paid by consumers, 82% to 99%, is kept in the rich countries as increased profit.”

This statement appears to breach the verifiability and no original research core editing policies. It does not contain a reference and despite checking the source materials for neighbouring statements (footnotes 5 and 6), I was unable to identify the quoted statistic of 82% to 99%.

information Note: Instead of the statement being cited immediately, the editors have included multiple studies as a part of footnote 7, which seem to relate to both statements being made. VB00 (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Fairtrade system, the Fairtrade Premium and Minimum Price operate at the point of sale by producer organisations to Fairtrade buyers. What price Fairtrade products ultimately end up being sold for depends on retail pricing negotiations between suppliers and retailers in the UK, which the Fairtrade Foundation cannot legally participate in. While in some cases Fairtrade products are more expensive than non-Fairtrade products, many Fairtrade products are priced competitively with other products on the shelf. For example, Fairtrade and non-Fairtrade loose bananas are both priced at 68 pence per kilo in different UK supermarkets.[1]

“To become certified Fairtrade producers, the primary cooperative and its member farmers must operate to certain political standards, imposed from Europe.”

This statement appears to breach the neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research core editing policies. It uses the words “political” and “imposed” to describe the process by which Fairtrade standards are set, providing no evidence or references to support this assertion.

 Done Reworded the statement to link back to the Fair Trade Foundation, making use of a reference provided below. VB00 (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Fairtrade Standards are based on a number of social, economic and environmental considerations and are set by Fairtrade International following consultation with key stakeholders, including Fairtrade producer organisations, and in compliance with the ISEAL Code of Good Practice for Setting Social and Environmental Standards (http://www.fairtrade.net/standards/our-standards.html). Editors can find further details on how the Fairtrade Standards are set here: http://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/standards/SOP_short_Development_of_Fairtrade_Standards.pdf

“This mode of operation has led to sharp criticism of the Foundation.”

This statement appears to breach the no original research core editing policy. I have looked at the source materials and note that two of the four references (e.g. Valkila et al., 2010 and Kilian et al., 2006) do not support the statement being made (which appears to be a statement that the Fairtrade Foundation has been heavily criticised for the fact that producers are only able to sell a fraction of their output which has been certified as Fairtrade to Fairtrade buyers).

 Partly done Removed the word "sharp". Criticism has been cited, and a note of such should remain in the article.VB00 (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other studies

In addition to the examples provided above, the “How it works” section contains an assertion that the higher price paid for Fairtrade products does not reach producers as the cost of Fairtrade certification outweighs the benefits for producers. I would like to invite editors to consider the following studies on this topic:

  • Mendez et al. (2010)[2] surveyed 469 households for 18 different cooperatives in four different countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, and Nicaragua) during the 2003-2004 coffee harvest and found a significant positive relationship between average sales price for coffee and Fairtrade certification.
  • Bacon (2005)[3] examined the sales price of coffee during the coffee price crisis of 2000-2001 for a sample of 228 coffee farmers from Nicaragua and found that Fairtrade certified farmers obtained significantly higher prices for their coffee: farmers selling coffee as Fairtrade received an average price of 84 cents per pound (net of costs paid to the cooperative for transport, processing, certification, debt service, and export).
  • Arnould, Plastina and Ball (2009)[4] examined 1,269 farmers from Nicaragua, Peru, and Guatemala in 2004-2005 and found that in addition to higher prices, Fairtrade certified farmers also had greater sales and higher incomes.
  • Chiputwa, Qaim and Spielman (2013)[5] surveyed 108 coffee-producing households in Uganda in July-September 2012 and found that Fairtrade certification increases household living standards by 30% and significantly reduces the prevalence and depth of poverty.
  • Jaffee (2009)[6] examined 51 coffee farmers (26 Fairtrade-certified; 25 conventional) from Mexico in 2001-2005 and found the same pattern as Arnould et al. He also found that there was a strong association between Fairtrade certification and environmentally-friendly farming practices (including producing compost and applying this to coffee plants; building terraces and contour rows to reduce soil erosion; and building live and dead plant barriers to reduce soil erosion).
  • Bacon et al. (2008)[7] surveyed a sample of 177 coffee farmers in Nicaragua in 2006 and found that 68% of Fairtrade farmers had implemented ecological water purification systems, compared with 40% for conventional farmers and that 43% of Fairtrade farmers had implemented soil and water conservation practices, compared with 10% for conventional farmers.
  • Dragusanu and Nunn (2014)[8] estimated the effects of Fairtrade certification on households living in the same area as Fairtrade coffee farmers in Costa Rica and found preliminary evidence that the incomes of (non-farmer) households increases as the extent of Fairtrade certification increases in a district.
information Needs discussion As the article cites the assertions, there isn't much that I can do. You should attempt to discuss this with editors who have worked on the article in the past, to try and build a consensus on how the balance should be built.

I would also like to invite editors to consider the following study which provides a more general overview of critiques of the Fairtrade system:

  • Dragusanu, Giovannucci and Nunn (2014)[9] provide a critical overview of the economic theory behind Fairtrade and conclude that empirical evidence suggests that Fairtrade achieves many of its intended goals on a comparatively modest scale relative to the size of national economies.

Dave at Fairtrade (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the request. The comments for individual parts can be seen above. Regards, VB00 (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.brandview.com/insights/are-tesco-and-asda-stocking-less-fairtrade-products-than-their-competitors/
  2. ^ Méndez, V. Ernesto, Christopher M. Bacon, Meryl Olson, Seth Petchers, Doribel Herrador, Cecilia Carranza, Laura Trujillo, Carlos Guadarrama-Zugasti, Antonio Cordón, and Angel Mendoza. 2010. “Effects of Fair Trade and Organic Certifications on Small-Scale Coffee Farmer Households in Central America and Mexico.” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 25(3): 236–51
  3. ^ Bacon, Christopher. 2005. “Confronting the Coffee Crisis: Can Fair Trade, Organic, and Specialty Coffee Reduce Small-Scale Farmer Vulnerability in Northern Nicaragua?” World Development 33(3): 497–511
  4. ^ Arnould, Eric J., Alejandro Plastina, and Dwayne Ball. 2009. “Does Fair Trade Deliver on Its Core Value Proposition? Effects on Income, Educational Attainment, and Health in Three Countries.” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 28(2): 186–201
  5. ^ Chiputwa, Brian, Matin Qaim, and David J. Spielman. December 2013 “Food Standards, Certification, and Poverty among Coffee Farmers in Uganda.” GlobalFood Discussion Papers No. 27
  6. ^ Jaffee, Daniel. 2009. “‘Better, But Not Great’: The Social and Environmental Benefits and Limitations of Fair Trade for Indigenous Coffee Producers in Oaxaca, Mexico.” In The Impact of Fair Trade, edited by Ruerd Ruben, 195–222. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers
  7. ^ Bacon, Christopher M., V. Ernesto Méndez, María Eugenia Flores Gómez, Douglas Stuart, and Sandro Raúl Díaz Flores. 2008. “Are Sustainable Coffee Certifications Enough to Secure Farmer Livelihoods? The Millennium Development Goals and Nicaragua’s Fair Trade Cooperatives.” Globalizations 5(2): 259–74
  8. ^ Dragusanu, Raluca, and Nathan Nunn. 2014. “The Impacts of Fair Trade Certification: Evidence from Coffee Producers in Costa Rica.” http://scholar.harvard.edu/nunn/publications/impacts-fair-trade-certification-evidence-coffee -producers-costa-rica
  9. ^ Dragusanu, Raluca, Daniele Giovannucci, and Nathan Nunn. 2014. “The Economics of Fair Trade” Journal of Economic Perspectives 28(3): 217–236
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Fairtrade Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Fairtrade_Foundation&oldid=1231548812"