Corporate washing

Clint Ku says: daily we do something that promotes slavery

Sometimes it’s so easy to admire the surface of something and forget the substance. To skip over the important details and to think, “Yeah it looks good, so it must be okay.” Matthew 10:16 says, “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” There are, indeed, a lot of wolves out there.

Something has come to me recently: Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade. Just to start off, from what I know of both these labels, they started for different things and for different purposes, and this article is not attacking either of these labels. But it occurs to me that some corporations may be treating us as fools. Let me just say this - just because a store has the word Fairtrade plastered all over their stalls doesn’t mean that the coffee that you buy from them is actually Fairtrade. The stuff behind the counter is just as likely not to be Fairtrade. Similarly, just because a corporation has Rainforest Alliance on their labels does not mean that the majority of its products are indeed good for the environment.

Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade are two different labels, with two different purposes. To say that Rainforest Alliance is “basically the same” as Fairtrade is an insult to both labels. Rainforest Alliance, as I understand it, was started to create environmentally friendly practices. Fairtrade is a label for goods that are produced ethically. (I apologize for my very simple understanding of both.)

It occurs to me as a commerce student these are the following advantages for labeling something Rainforest Alliance. Its name promotes a much larger agenda on the market - that of environmental protection - and as a label it also provides some protection for workers in the cocoa industry. From a marketing perspective, that’s killing two birds with one stone. It is debatable whether the companies using this label actually care about the environment, or whether the actions of the company as a whole are good for the environment. But it’s good marketing. And the happy consumer is ready to consume what we sell.

Corporate Greenwashing is a term environmentalists use to describe corporations who use marketing that just suggests eco-friendliness in order to brainwash consumers to buy products which are not actually environmentally friendly.

The Rainforest Alliance label helps to appease the guilty conscience of middle-class consumers - and hopefully makes them stop sending you hundreds of copies of the same angry letter written by some NGO or other. Now that is a rather unfair depiction of the consumer, and perhaps the corporations. But I must confess, the cynical part of me believes that is precisely the level on which some people and some corporations operate. And on occasion, I am one of those “some people.”

The question is, how deep do you want to go? The questions and answers are between you and God, and cannot be mediated by anyone except for Jesus. Do you stop with asking your pastor what his view is? Will you examine the labels themselves? Will you just listen to some idiot on a blog? Are you completely opposed because you are not convinced that this is the way to sustainable development? Do you believe in sustainable development? Is it right or wrong to impose the Western image of consumerism on the developing world? Is it wrong for the developing world to aspire to the way the developed world has developed, because it is likely to mean unsustainable development? What in the world is sustainable development? It just goes on.

I believe most people stop at the first question. I also believe that it’s not wrong to do so, but for me, I have to go all the way to the last question and beyond - and then to this question: Is this the kingdom, is this God’s will?

Because I realised that I must try and be ethical not because I need to get over some guilt trap. I get really awkward when other people go on about how “good” I am, getting onto this Fairtrade stuff, and how they feel “guilty” about not buying more Fairtrade. I understand what they are saying, but this has nothing to do with guilt. We are all guilty before God. Every day, we likely do something that promotes slavery in our world. And I am more than fully aware that there have been times when I have been a hypocrite. (There’s a photo of me below enjoying an iced coffee…)

As a Christian, a soldier of The Salvation Army, a lover of God’s creation and fellow man, I’m not promoting Fairtrade or Rainforest Alliance to deal with guilt. Jesus dealt with that. Jesus dealt with my sin. I purchase ethically (or try to as much as possible) because I believe they are a way of advancing the kingdom of God and God’s glory. I believe God wants people to be free from slavery and that God does want us to be good stewards of our environment.

Don’t play the guilty corporate washing game - don’t buy into it. Don’t miss the point. You can easily justify drinking any old coffee by saying “The damage has already been done, the cocoa beans have already been harvested, let’s just drink the coffee.” That’s not the point. You can use heaps and heaps of paper, because the trees have already been cut. That’s not the point. The point is that we believe in the redeeming work of Christ and God’s new creation. If you don’t believe that either label is going to further the cause of Christ, don’t buy it. If you believe that spending recklessly is God’s will for you, go for it!

On the last day, will you really say to Him: “Well, yeah I’m sorry about those slaves… hey, I tried - I bought some of that Fairtrade stuff…”  I don’t know about you, but I gotta say, if I’m honest in front of God, I’ll probably be like: “Yeah, okay… so. I didn’t do enough, I’m sorry. This is me, just as I am. But I opened myself to you as far as I could… what more could I do? I did this - whatever this is - and that’s the best I could come up with. At the end of the day, I need Jesus.” Right?

Once again, it’s about having a new heart. For some of us, Fairtrade is not enough. Fairtrade is the start of a whole series of life-changing decisions. For others, this might be enough. It comes back to that fateful Sermon on the Mount. “Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of Heaven.”

The question really is, just how are we attempting to enter the kingdom of Heaven? Are we trying to jump through some “ethical” hoops, or are we being born again through Jesus every day? Are we trying to bring about God’s kingdom by being like the Pharisees and obeying some rules, or are we letting Jesus permeate our lives? The companies, no matter how big, cannot wash away our sins. Not any of it. Not even a little bit. Don’t let them trick you into believing it. Don’t buy Fairtrade to alleviate guilt. Buy it because you believe it will advance the kingdom of Heaven.

Writer: Clint Ku, of Brisbane, Australia, became a Christian in April 2006… and God’s never let him go since.  He became a senior soldier of the Salvation Army in October 2007.  He will graduate with his Bachelor of Commerce and Arts in July, and he wants to go into the public service before starting full-time ministry when the time comes. Visit his blog.

14 Comments to Corporate washing

1. This is an interesting article, Clint.

   A question I’ve had and haven’t seen satisfactorily answered is: what’s the difference between Rainforest Alliance and FairTrade? Our Territory is (rightly) encouraging the use of ethically sourced goods where possible, and I’ve been a little confused about the two.

   My initial reaction to the Rainforest Alliance produce was that the marketing said a lot of good things without actually saying anything conclusive about the source of the product I was buying. ‘FairTrade’ sounds good, but the badge only seemed to be used by big coffee companies. I know of brands of coffee that are sourced ethically, but they don’t appear to use any ‘official’ labelling to say so. Is the label too expensive for the smaller operator to use? If so, we’re dealing with a whole new range of ethical issues. Small operators will not be able to break into ‘ethical’ markets without the say so of the multi-nationals. So much for self-determination.

   Disclaimer: my morning coffee hasn’t kicked in yet, so I may have misread your article completely!
Cameron Horsburgh on October 26th, 2008

2. Well as I said in the article (which wasn’t very well written, I’m working on my writing) it’s really all down to our faith in Christ. I’m taking the time when uni is over to do some research on Fairtrade.

   But for the meantime my own understanding of it is this (someone please confirm/correct, I’m talking about Danielle lol): Rainforest Alliance secures minimum wage standards in each country, Fair Trade secures a somewhat “better” standard. I think it sets a wage that is not about the minimum wage of a country but just sets a standard wage across all countries, which in most cases is above the minimum wage in certain countries. The problem is Fair Trade is more expensive, but most of the extra price for Fair Trade actually goes to the label not the farmers. That’s a problem because that is the complaint people have against Fair Trade, it’s not cheap enough. Now the Fair Trade label is just another company, so why normally Capitalism supporting people have a biff with a company taking profits is bizzarre. The only way to lower that price is to have other ethical labels competing. I think the only reason only big coffee brands have it is because the average consumer is not willing to pay extra for the Fair Trade coffee…hence their is no reason for smaller companies to adopt a brand they won’t sell anyway (or at least make a reasonable profit on).

   Think of the campaigns - “Stop the Traffik” and “Make Poverty History”, “Live Earth”. Nice catchy slogans…trying to “sell” the idea. Because that’s the way society works - everything’s being sold. But that’s how society works now, everything is bought and sold. I think it’s risky for us to jump on board these campaigns… (not that we shouldn’t) Because Christ called for something more than selling in our lives.

   Even if “Stop the Traffick”, “Make Poverty History”, all those campaigns achieved their goals…even if we did get legislation to stop slavery…you’re still left with sin, still left with a society that’s worshiping Mammon, still left with a society wrong with God, and thus wrong with each other. We must never forget that this fight is bigger than just “Fair Trade”…and thus one of my biggest frustrations when Christians either don’t care or find it too expensive…This is EASY! Buying Fair Trade should be easy…it’s giving up the life to Christ that’s hard.

   Sorry went on a tangent, but hope I answered the Fair Trade/Rainforest Alliance question.
Clint on October 28th, 2008

3. i’m not familiar with the coffee scene down under (tho it sounds like the Oz SA has taken on the fair trade cause pretty full-on), but here in Canada it’s not true that only big multi-nationals are getting Fair Trade certified. In fact the opposite is the case–smaller suppliers were the first to promote FT and some larger co’s like starbucks started doing it in response to consumer pressure. but most of the multi-national coffee co’s have been able to resist this pressure because, as you say, there is a big price differential between FT and non-FT.

   i think until people stop thinking that they are paying “a premium” for FT coffee and start realizing that their non-FT coffee is effectively SUBSIDIZED by the unremunerated labour of the 3rd world poor (and thus they as consumers are ethically implicated), the multi-nationals don’t have much to worry about. they can continue to depict FT as the niche cause of well-heeled cosmopolitan yuppies, and market their coffee to the masses of “ordinary folk.”

   it does come down to our hearts and whether we’re fully surrendering to Christ. i appreciate you pushing your readers to that level. i feel young christians today (i include myself) are excessively image-conscious and too many of our decisions are driven by the “cool” factor rather than by the principle of obedience. social justice is “cool” in the West now and as a result there’s been a backlash against the tendency to “do justice” for the sake of being cool (i sense some of that in your article). i think it’s good to call ourselves on that, especially within the church, but i’d caution that we don’t concomitantly dismiss some very worthwhile causes just because they also happen to be bandwagons. there are some very good bandwagons out there!

   peace!
grace on October 28th, 2008

4. I am in favour of any action that will promote fair trade and encourage sustainable environmental practices. Even though the impact of my actions may be microscopic in the global scheme of things, all my actions need to be just.

   As a consumer my decisions may have some impact - but greater influence is still required for significant change to take place.

   Somewhere along the line we need to begin to move up the ‘financial food chain’ and strongly promote ethical investment as well as ethical consumption.
Graham on November 3rd, 2008

5. I just ran into a woman from my corps at the library, borrowing movies for her kids because they had to cancel the cable or face two weeks of expenses with just $60. I don’t think cable’s necessarily the best use of money, but people promoting fair trade, in my opinion, are totally out of touch with the budgetary constraints of many Salvationists. If you want a social justice club, for wealthy first-worlders concerned about the third-world poor, fine. But that’s a departure from the function the Salvation Army has served traditionally. Fairness would seem to demand you put the word out to your donors.
Catherine W on November 3rd, 2008

6. Catherine W.

   I don’t understand the point of your post. There is nothing about Fair Trade that says whatever righteousness we can muster has to stop there. And, I can assure you that as tough as times get that they will not turn around until we start seeing what we have through the lens of abundance rather than scarcity. As a mother, I would choose to celebrate this woman’s postive family leadership rather than try to evoke some sort of pity. We don’t have to go to the developing world to see examples of communities where libraries do not have ample resources.

   Andrea
Andrea614Regent on November 3rd, 2008

7. My point was that my friend at the corps is struggling to take the basic steps of financial responsibility — live within her means and provide for her own family so others don’t have to. Asking her to ante up, on her already limited budget, for fair trade coffee I think is a bit out-of-touch with reality.

   There are lots of churches in my area that do great things for the poor, both here and around the world. The difference — superiority? — of the Salvation Army to me is that someone on a limited income can not just receive help, but come in and join the congregation/family. If you’re going to make $10 a pound coffee the cost of entry to the Salvation Army community, you’re going to shut people like her out. So what’s wrong with a boycott for those who can’t afford fair trade?
Catherine W on November 4th, 2008

8. Catherine W.

   The causes of struggles are there, some easier and more difficult to see. The way you’ve framed your argument against fair trade puzzles me. Because a) I don’t think it has ever been proposed as a “cost of entry” into the Army and b)as much as fair trade goes some sympbolic distance in compensating for the costs of a luxury item, I don’t see how we can afford NOT to adopt it.

   When we start placing value on the work and resources that go into producing coffee, then perhaps we will start to value the work and resources it takes to raise a family.

   Andrea
Andrea614Regent on November 4th, 2008

9. Catherine W - I actually agree. A boycott is just as applicable. Coffee after all is really a luxury item. We might remove some sources of addiction and over consumption in our lives. Is it really ‘wrong’ for a financially less well of family to buy chocolate that is not fair trade for their kids? I don’t think so.

   On a personal level I’m questioning the applicability of this Fair Trade fight. I feel the answer is more cultural then just on unjust exploitation of cocoa farmers. If there wasn’t so much extreme poverty, there would be less exploitation of those who are poor. If we in the west (particularly Christians) did not buy into consumerism so much, could chocolate manufacturers, coffee manufacturers, or indeed any form of rampant consumerism - would there be this amount of exploitation in the first place? IMO the issue has to do with the way we in the “west” live and how we as an Army deal with and fight against the prevailing culture.

   How do we tackle extreme poverty overseas? And what about all the other items we buy that contributes to slavery…or at least exploitation of others for low wages?

   I think Fair Trade, is most certainly ethical. Whether it is the most effective, or even effective tool, in dealing with sex-trafficking, I’m not so sure.
Clint on November 5th, 2008

10. Andrea,

    Am I correctly understanding you, that you think someone barely able to put supper on the table for her kids, someone who may use the Salvation Army food pantry to tide her over so her family has enough to eat until payday, someone who’s making decisions to cut out luxury items so she can pay for rent and heat, would be considered morally reprehensible to you and unwelcome in the Salvation Army community unless she’s willing to buy $10-a-pound coffee? And how is that valuing her effort to raise a family? I am not understanding you, I hope.
Catherine W. on November 6th, 2008

11. Catherine W.

    You’ll have to forgive me, as I didn’t catch on, as Clint did to the boycott suggestion.

    Quoting myself:

    <>

    But annoying as it is when one finds oneself deprived to hear that somebody, somewhere else, is worse off, recognizing this reality and realizing its connection to our own misery is critical to transcending it.

    The use of the church pantry is a clear expression of need, but the Church meets needs in all sorts of ways that are often less visible. The need to think beyond ourselves is great and needs to be fed in all of us.

    Andrea
Andrea614Regent on November 6th, 2008

12. Thanks for illuminating your view — I will certainly let her know, as the opportunity arises, how lucky she is and that she ought to pay four times the going rate for coffee because the slaveholders aren’t making enough on their product.

    As to the boycott, I thought this was an interesting piece. http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=2228
    Anybody think free trade is a benefit to poor countries? Or is it fundamentally unfair, as the moniker fair trade implies?
Catherine W. on November 8th, 2008

13. That article lol.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Foundation_for_Economic_Education#Current

    It’s a liberal free-market think tank, which would imply it’s been sponsored by big business and other people in who’s interest it is to promote free-trade.

    I have many problems with the article but in the interests of being objective as possible, just some thoughts:

    - the rich have plenty of voices, you don’t see think tanks for people in Africa do you? or the slaves?
    - what is apparently good in economic theory, does not hold so well in real life
    - “Economic achievement depends on personal, cultural, social and political factors, that is people’s own faculties, motivations and mores, their institutions and the policies of their rulers.” what is implied exactly by this? that 1) developing countries are all corrupt (because that doesn’t happen in democracies), and 2) reinforces the old adage that poor people ‘don’t work hard enough 3) assumes endless production is in fact a good thing for the world and humanity
    - there is also the assumption with all this stuff that we have the right being the “civilised west” to tell those in poverty how to structure their economies and societies…do we?
Clint on November 8th, 2008

14. Thanks to everyone for your vigorous engagement with this post.

    Comments on this article are now closed.
Site administrator on November 9th, 2008

Leave a comment