The bottom line
Maybe, when hell freezes over... Many would say when asked if companies would go green, given that it costs more?
This weekend there has been a lot of debate on the forum about the seemingly unstoppable force that is is Coca Cola: Would it rid the Innocent smoothie brand of its eco ethos since buying it? And, is it likely to adopt a more eco-friendly packaging in the future?
I've already been told by one blogger that I'm perhaps a little too optimistic about such corporations. On this occasion I must insist it's not naivety. Not only do I know it to be possible (like Coca Cola can't afford a few pennies more?!), but also, it has been done before, and done very well:
Hippy capitalism in action:
One such example is ice cream supremos Ben and Jerry's. They've bucked the trend, put their heads above the parapit and announced their bid to go Fair Trade, 100% Fair Trade.
Considering it costs more, and considering that their world renowned reputation was at stake, making the change was indeed a risk. Moreover the move was an unlikely one, given that they sold up to corporate giant Unilever ten years ago.
Not a walk in the park
Nobody's saying that sourcing 100% of your products ethically is going to be easy, but it is do-able. And it seems, everyone's a winner: Workers get a fair wage, businesses get some good publicity (and which business would turn that down?), and I dare say consumers, after some sweet-talking, wouldn't begrudge the extra few pennies.
So I'm off to ask Coca Cola et al the million dollar question, Why not go fair trade?
Stay tuned for their responses...
I shall be most eagerly waiting for those responses.
Fair trade costs much more. And it is not just about fair trade. Why do not do business ethically to society, employees, environment overall?
@ Hemant, so am I!!
@ Aija. In England, fairtrade doesn’t cost that much more. In fact a lot of price matching is going on to entice customers to make the swap. On your second point, I agree, it should be about a fair practice overall, but fairtrade is at least a good starting point, don’t you think?
@Lara
It is good starting point as every point towards achieving the goal. The question is what is the goal. It is easy to go for FT logo or move, but is it really FT?
And what do we understand by Fair Trade as it self? For me it means that all involved parties should be traded with respect and fairly (also shop assistants) ..
From their website: “Fairtrade is a strategy for poverty alleviation and sustainable development. Its purpose is to create opportunities for producers and workers who have been economically disadvantaged or marginalized by the conventional trading system. If fair access to markets under better trade conditions would help them to overcome barriers to development, they can join Fairtrade.
Fairtrade is a tool for development that ensures disadvantaged farmers and workers in developing countries get a better deal through the use of the international FAIRTRADE Mark.
Fairtrade Labelling was created in the Netherlands in the late 1980s. The Max Havelaar Foundation launched the first Fairtrade consumer guarantee label in 1988 on coffee sourced from Mexico. Here in the UK, the Fairtrade Foundation was established in 1992, with the first products to carry the FAIRTRADE Mark launched in 1994.”
I think that this model and this ethos can be broadened and built upon in order that the producers and workers are well treated, but all that the rest of the supply chain enjoys the same treatment.
It is quite possible that companies are behaving ethically, and carry the fairtrade mark, but don’t, for whatever reason, broadcast the rest of the good things they do.
I think ethical companies have been shown to have a higher profit margins too, so maybe mention that in your correspondence. Look forward to hearing from them
Thanks Clare, I never knew that!