fair trade and ethical trade: are there moves towards convergence?
TRANSCRIPT
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Fair Trade and Ethical Trade: Are ThereMoves Towards Convergence?
Sally Smith* and Stephanie BarrientosUniversity of Sussex, UK
ABSTRACTFair trade and ethical trade have traditionally had quite different aims, scope andmodalities, the former principally focused on terms of trade with small scale pro-ducers and the latter on working conditions in mainstream production. Global valuechain analysis suggests that this coincided with different forms of governance in thechain: fair trade reflecting relational governance based on trust and mutual depen-dence, while ethical trade was incorporated into the industrial coordination of buyer-driven, modular value chains. This paper explores the potential for greater synergybetween the two as a result of recent developments, taking UK supermarket valuechains as a case study. We conclude that convergence may occur in some supermarketchains, in a context of relational governance, while in others ethical trade and fairtrade will remain inherently different. Whether and how convergence occurs willdepend largely on the prevailing culture, values and strategies of the supermarketconcerned. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
Received 12 November 2004; revised 2 December 2004; accepted 1 March 2005
Keywords: fair; ethical; trade; supermarket; agriculture; global; value; chain
Introduction
FAIR TRADE AND ETHICAL TRADE HAVE BECOME INCREASINGLY ESTABLISHED IN MANY NORTH
European and American markets (Young, 2003; Jenkins et al., 2002). Both operate within the
broad parameters of international trade and have arisen largely as result of the actions of social
movements (Renard, 2003; Jenkins et al., 2002). Yet each arose for different reasons and their
principles and scope vary, with fair trade principally focused on terms of trade and ethical trade on labour
practices. However, over recent years, as each has evolved and expanded, the issues they confront have
increasingly overlapped.
This paper draws on research carried out in the context of supermarket retailing in the UK. Super-
markets now stock a range of fair trade products, and some have begun to extend fair trade labelling
into their ‘own brand’ goods.1 Many UK supermarkets also apply the principles of ethical trade to their
* Correspondence to: Sally Smith, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RE, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Details of all branded and own brand Fairtrade products available in UK supermarkets can be found at http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/down-loads/pdf/fairtrade_products.pdf
Sustainable DevelopmentSust. Dev. 13, 190–198 (2005)Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/sd.277
Fair Trade and Ethical Trade: Are There Moves Towards Convergence? 191
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 13, 190–198 (2005)
own brand lines.2 Therefore, the territorial demarcation that originally existed is becoming more blurred.
The aim of this paper is to explore the common ground and then examine the extent to which fair trade
and ethical trade remain inherently different, or instead are likely to converge.
A key feature of supermarket retailing in the UK (and many other Northern countries) is the domi-
nance of global value chains presided over by supermarket buyers, who exert increasing control over
their suppliers (Dolan and Humphrey, 2004; Vorley, 2004). Global value chain analysis (Gereffi, 1994;
Gereffi et al., 2001) provides a useful framework for examining fair and ethical trade, complemented by
concepts of quality used in convention theory (Boltansky and Thévenot, 1991). This paper will use these
analytical perspectives to compare the principles and scope of fair and ethical trade in the context of
supermarket value chains, and explore their potential convergence.
Differences between Fair Trade and Ethical Trade
Aims of Fair Trade and Ethical Trade
Fair trade is ‘a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, which seeks greater
equity in international trade’.3 The fair trade movement traditionally sought to achieve its goals through
facilitating the involvement of small producers in international trade and providing them with a number
of guarantees, typically a ‘fair’ price for their products, stable supply relationships, access to credit and
a social premium for community development projects. At the same time, through publicizing the plight
of marginalized producers and linking them with consumers in the North, the movement aims to raise
consciousness about ‘unfair’ trading practices and challenge the impersonal capitalist market practices
that characterize global trade (Murray and Raynolds, 2000). During the 1990s fair trade ballooned from
being a small market niche to having total annual sales of approximately half a billion Euro in 2002
(Young, 2003).
While fair trade is principally concerned with the terms of trade between buyers and producers, ethical
trade (as it is understood in the UK) is focused on ensuring that working conditions in global value
chains meet minimum international standards.4 NGO and trade union campaigns against poor working
conditions in garment, footwear and agricultural industries during the late 1980s and 1990s prompted
many major US and EU retailers and marketing brands to adopt ‘codes of labour practice’ for their
supply chains (Jenkins et al., 2002). The adoption of voluntary codes has in turn spawned a number of
certification schemes and multi-stakeholder initiatives. One of the most prominent of these is the UK’s
Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), which currently has 37 company members with a combined annual
turnover of over £100 billion, as well as non-government and trade union organization members.
Analysis of Differences Between Fair Trade and Ethical Trade Using a Global Value Chain Framework
Fair trade and ethical trade have different scopes when viewed in the context of global value chains.
Global value chain analysis has been developed to explore the linkages from inception, through pro-
2 The following supermarkets were members of the UK’s Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) at the time of writing: Asda, the Co-Operative Group,J Sainsbury, Somerfield and Tesco (information obtained on 19 January 2005 from the ETI’s website: http://www.ethicaltrade.org/Z/abteti/who/memb/list.shtml#co).3 This definition of fair trade was agreed by the four main networks of fair-trade-related organizations: Fair Trade Labelling Organisations Inter-national (FLO); International Federation for Alternative Trade (IFAT); Network of European World Shops (NEWS!) and European Fair TradeAssociation (EFTA). The full definition of fair trade can be accessed at http://www.bafts.org.uk/fair-trade/fine.htm4 I.e. the rights enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights and International Labour Organisation (ILO) Core Conventions, includingprovisions on discrimination, freedom of association and collective bargaining and child and forced labour, as well as health and safety.
192 S. Smith and S. Barrientos
duction, distribution and retailing of goods to the final consumer (Gereffi, 1994; Gereffi et al., 2001;
Kaplinsky, 2000; Schmitz and Knorringa, 2000). Traditionally these linkages reflected arms-length
market relations between suppliers, agents and retailers, but increasingly global value chains are char-
acterized by more direct inter-connections and co-ordinated ‘governance’ of the chain. ‘Buyer driven’
chains are dominated by large global buyers, who do not own production but are able to exert power
over suppliers and smaller agents with whom they have established commercial relations (Gereffi, 1994).
Buyer driven global value chains are particularly prevalent in the food sector, where there has been an
expansion and consolidation of supermarkets (Vorley, 2004).
Gereffi et al. (2005) have characterized five different types of value chain governance. These range
from distant, hands-off market relationships through to vertically integrated hierarchies in which single
firms perform all aspects of distribution and production. In the UK, as supermarkets have increased
their dominance of food retailing they have moved from market towards ‘modular’ value chain relations,
in which a number of agents and producers are closely linked and suppliers produce according to spec-
ifications and standards set down in advance by the supermarket (Dolan and Humphrey, 2004).
Strengthening the direct linkages within the food chain has facilitated traceability and monitoring of
food production back to its source (important in the context of food scares such as BSE), as well as
enhanced cost effectiveness and the efficiency of ‘just in time’ delivery systems. Modular value chains
are increasingly characterized by sourcing from larger commercial producers who are more able to meet
buyer demands. Supermarkets use their buying power to control the chain to meet their needs, enabling
them to extract higher economic rents, or profits, through their dominant commercial and marketing
position.
This trend has been further analysed using convention theory concepts of product quality, as first
developed by Boltansky and Thévenot (1991). Social and environmental standards, including labour stan-
dards and fair trade, can be understood as a dimension of the quality of a product, along with aspects
such as appearance, origin and nutritional value, all of which play a role in determining demand for
that product (Raynolds, 2004; Renard, 2003). Sylvander (1994, 1995, cited by Renard, 2003, p. 88) dis-
tinguishes four ways to define quality in the agro-food sector.
• Industrial coordination, which rests on standards, norms, objectivized rules and testing procedures.
• Domestic coordination, based on face-to-face relations, on trust of people, places or brand names.
• Civic coordination, which rests on the adherence of a group of actors to a set of collective principles;
it structures its economic relations.
• Market coordination, or coordination by market laws, basically through the mechanism of prices.
Ponte and Gibbon (2005) hypothesize that, in order to minimize transaction costs, lead firms in buyer
driven global value chains tend to rely on industrial and market forms of coordination. They point out
that processes of standardization, or ‘codification’, in industrial coordination do not imply any less buyer
control over the chain: ‘. . . as one moves from “hands-on” to “hands-off” coordination, the way power
is exercised changes, not its magnitude or who exercises it’ (Ponte and Gibbon, 2005, p. 19).
In response to civil society pressures, many UK supermarkets include minimum labour standards as
one of the criteria producers have to meet (Barrientos and Kritzinger, 2004). Suppliers are typically
monitored for compliance with a code of labour practice in a manner characteristic of industrial coor-
dination in buyer driven, modular chains. Ethical trade affects only the criteria for producers entering
and selling within the chain, not trading relations or governance of the chain. This is consistent with
the view that alternative forms of governance usually develop only when product specifications cannot
easily be ‘codified’ into technical standards (Gereffi et al., 2005).
Fair trade operates according to different principles, setting parameters for what is ‘fair’ in trading
relations, with the explicit aim of strengthening the position of producers. ATOs could be said to have
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 13, 190–198 (2005)
Fair Trade and Ethical Trade: Are There Moves Towards Convergence? 193
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 13, 190–198 (2005)
developed what Gereffi et al. (2005) termed ‘relational’ value chain governance. Here, there are more
complex interactions between buyers and sellers and ‘the power balance between firms is more sym-
metrical’ (Gereffi et al., 2005, p. 8). This may be mediated by social ties, trust and reputation, which
link buyers and producers, and can be seen in the close relations ATOs tend to have with their suppli-
ers. The principles of fair trade, such as stable supply relations, minimum prices and the provision of
a social premium, facilitate this relational interdependence. The establishment of trading principles
according to moral rather than market values is a classic form of civic coordination.
Fair trade and ethical trade thus involve different types of value chain relation, as summarized in
Table 1. Fair trade is characterized by relational value chains and civic coordination (as well as domes-
tic). It focuses on sourcing from small scale producers and is based on developing ties between actors
along the chain. Ethical trade is characterized by buyer driven modular value chains and industrial co-
ordination (alongside market coordination). It normally involves sourcing from larger producers and
extends the setting of standards to labour conditions as part of the governance of the chain. However,
this differentiation has begun to change as fair trade and ethical trade have expanded and matured. In
the next section we explore these changes and the extent to which they have led to a blurring of the dis-
tinction between fair and ethical trade.
Emerging Overlap Between Fair Trade and Ethical Trade
Expansion of Fair Trade into Supermarkets
For many years fair trade sales were largely of traditional handicrafts, supplemented by a limited range
of commodity food products such as tea and coffee. In the late 1980s the first fair trade label, Max Have-
laar, was established in the Netherlands in order to expand the fair trade market beyond the clients of
World Shops (Renard, 2003). Other fair trade organizations soon followed suit and in 1997 these
National Initiatives jointly formed FLO5 as the custodian of fair trade labelling standards worldwide
(Raynolds, 2000). The introduction of ‘certified’ fair trade products facilitated a move into mainstream
retailing, particularly in European supermarkets, and greatly expanded the potential scope and impact
of the movement (Renard, 2003). It also coincided with a greater focus on food and beverage products.
‘Traditional’ fair trade ‘Traditional’ ethical trade
Classic features • Guarantees of a ‘fair’ price for producers • Codes of labour practice to ensure decent• Long term relationships and trust conditions for workers in global value chains• Premium for social development • Buyer monitoring of supplier compliance• Campaigns against conventional
trade rules and practicesParties involved • Small scale producers in developing • Medium and large scale producers
countries • Retailers, brands and their agents• Alternative trading organizations
and world shopsValue chain governance Relational Modular (buyer driven)Quality coordination Civic (and domestic) Industrial (and market)
Table 1. Comparison of ‘traditional’ fair trade and ethical trade
5 FLO currently includes National Initiatives from 19 countries.
194 S. Smith and S. Barrientos
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 13, 190–198 (2005)
Sales of fair trade goods in UK supermarkets have contributed greatly to overall international growth
figures. All major supermarkets now stock at least one fair trade product and they have seen impressive
year-on-year growth in fair trade sales – a 112 per cent increase from 2002 to 2003 for the Co-Op, 70
per cent for Tesco and 24 per cent for Waitrose.6 A more recent development has been the inclusion
of fair trade products in supermarkets’ own brand range. For example, the Co-Operative Group
supermarket sells own brand fair trade coffee, chocolate, bananas, mangoes and chocolate cake, while
J Sainsbury’s has own brand fair trade tea, coffee, bananas, chocolate and drinking chocolate.7
As part of the expansion of fair trade, products are now increasingly being sourced from medium to
large scale commercial farms or plantations, which do not fit the traditional model of small marginal-
ized producers supplying through co-operatives. Examples include fruit, tea, flowers and wine originat-
ing from farms and plantations in Africa and Latin America. The developmental goals of fair trade in
this case relate to waged workers, rather than marginalized producers. As well as benefiting from a social
premium fund for socio-economic development, workers are guaranteed decent working conditions
through FLO’s established standards for hired labour. These standards are very similar to the codes of
labour practice used in ethical trade, though they also provide for continual improvement.
The move into mainstream distribution channels, including supermarket own brand lines, and the
use of standards for labour practices, takes fair trade into the terrain of ethical trade. We now turn to
developments in the field of ethical trade, which we will see increase the degree of overlap between the
two.
Recent Developments in Ethical Trade
Ethical trade has been established amongst UK supermarkets since the foundation of the ETI in 1998,
of which all but one of the major supermarkets are members.8 The experience of implementing codes
of labour practice has bought to the fore issues that illustrate the complexities of addressing labour stan-
dards through voluntary initiatives. In particular, a recent report by Oxfam (2004) focused attention on
buyers’ purchasing practices and the extent to which these exacerbate the poor labour conditions that
codes are meant to address. Summarizing research in food and garment production in 12 countries,
Oxfam highlighted the commercial pressure buyers put on suppliers, such as insecure contracts, falling
prices and shortening lead times to fulfil orders and deliver goods. It argued that suppliers offset these
pressures onto workers through the use of short term contracts (with workers hired or laid off as orders
vary), lowering of wages and increased work intensity (to counteract falling prices) and long and unpre-
dictable overtime (to meet short lead times). All of these practices are in violation of the codes that the
same corporate buyers insist suppliers meet.
The possibility of poor purchasing practices undermining ethical sourcing commitments was further
highlighted in a report commissioned by Insight Investment (Acona, 2004). It identified this as a source
of risk and recommended that companies manage the risk through more integrated supply chain man-
agement strategies. In an indication of how recognition of the role of purchasing practices is growing,
the chair of the ETI stated in his introduction to the 2002/3 Annual Report (p. 1) ‘It is increasingly
obvious that ethical trade personnel need to work more closely with their commercial colleagues to
ensure that buying practices do not adversely affect the impact that code implementation can have’.
As a result of issues such as these, some have argued that ethical trade needs to move beyond simple
code compliance to a more developmental and holistic approach (Allen, 2002). This includes address-
6 Figures released by the UK’s Fairtrade Foundation in 2003, cited in the Freshinfo news bulletin for 7 July 2003, www.freshinfo.com7 See http://www.co-op.co.uk and http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/downloads/pdf/fairtrade_products.pdf for details.8 Following their takeover of Safeway in 2004, Morrisons joined Tesco, J Sainsbury and Asda as the leading British supermarkets, all three ofwhich are members of the ETI at the time of writing. Morrisons is not currently an ETI member.
Fair Trade and Ethical Trade: Are There Moves Towards Convergence? 195
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 13, 190–198 (2005)
ing value chain relations between buyers and suppliers and facilitating change through more stable and
sustainable sourcing (Oxfam, 2004; Smith et al., 2004). This would involve a move in the direction of
at least some of the principles of fair trade. While products may not necessarily be labelled fair trade, it
implies a greater relational commitment between the different actors along the value chain.
Potential for Convergence of Fair Trade and Ethical Trade
These pressures and developments within ethical trade and fair trade are stimulating greater synergy
between them, illustrated by the fact that some producers are now applying simultaneously both ethical
and fair trade standards. An example is Kenyan roses, which are subject to ethical trade standards when
they are sold on a normal commercial basis to UK supermarkets, but also to fair trade criteria on the
commercial farms that sell fair trade roses to Tesco. However, does the increasing recognition within
ethical trade of the critical role of trade incentives and disincentives in improving labour standards, and
conversely the move of fair trade into mainstream production and distribution channels, mean that their
convergence is on the horizon?
Convergence of ethical trade and fair trade could be said to take place if their principles lead to the
same outcomes in a single arena. Our analysis suggests the potential exists for this to occur in UK super-
market value chains through the transformation of governance in those chains. We will now examine
the likelihood of this happening.
Transformation of Supermarket Value Chain Governance Through Ethical Trade and Fair Trade
Transformation Through Ethical TradeExperience suggests that if supermarkets succumb to civil society pressure to fulfil their commitments
to ethical trade this would require a move to more relational governance. However, strong commercial
forces act against such a transformation in the UK, where leading supermarkets are engaged in a price
war for customers and investor pressure encourages a short-term outlook (Blythman, 2004). In a case
study of horticulture, Dolan and Humphrey (2004) reflected that while UK supermarkets first responded
to the need for product differentiation and traceability with a move from market to relational forms of
governance they soon moved towards modular governance in order to limit costly hands-on manage-
ment of their value chains. Unless the costs of ‘unethical’ trade outweigh the savings from hands-off
governance, they may be unlikely to pursue a path of relational governance.
Since there is currently a shared level of risk when it comes to labour standards (as exemplified by
common membership of the ETI), the cost of unethical trade is reduced. However, this may not always
be the case, especially if civil society campaigns become more sophisticated and have an impact on the
market position of individual companies that are seen to not do enough. Second, the organizational
culture and values of companies, as well as their market strategies, have an important role to play. Those
that are pursuing strategies that rely heavily on corporate social responsibility, or that have a client base
that is sensitive to ethical concerns, are beginning to respond to current contradictions between ethical
trade and purchasing practices.9 Others that are more focused on the commercial battle for market share,
especially in consumer markets or countries where price is crucial, are less likely to follow their lead.
This implies that retailers may become more differentiated in their commitment to ethical trade, with
limits to the advance of relational value chain governance.
9 Personal communications with certain ETI members.
196 S. Smith and S. Barrientos
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 13, 190–198 (2005)
Transformation Through Fair TradeEarlier we suggested that, to date, the practice of ethical trade has tended to reflect industrial coordina-
tion of the value chain, doing little to alter power relations. In contrast, fair trade has involved civic coor-
dination, which specifically aims to redress the balance of power in the trading chain. However, fair
trade certification and labelling standardizes fair trade criteria in a way that may allow lead companies
such as supermarkets to absorb fair trade into their customary strategies for coordinating quality, i.e.
through industrial (and market) rather than civic coordination. Industrial coordination relies on ‘stan-
dards, norms, objectivized rules and testing procedures’ (Sylvander, 1995, 1996, cited by Renard, 2003,
p. 88). As things currently stand, FLO auditing of licensees and traders is limited to checking that the
minimum price and social premium have been paid.10 Other fair trade principles, such as formation of
a long term relationship based on dialogue and respect (which is linked to relational governance), are
not monitored. If supermarkets are able to sell fair trade products without incurring the extra ‘costs’ of
relational governance, their profit motivation may well lead them to do so, potentially limiting any
changes in the balance of power higher up in the chain.
In thinking through the possibilities for transformation of governance we need to distinguish between
fair trade branded goods and supermarket own brand labels. Some fair trade brands have seen marked
success in competing with commercial brands in the mainstream, with the brand creating a degree of
power in the lower part of the chain and potentially improving the bargaining position of producers.
This is particularly true where producers they have an ownership stake in the brand, permitting them
to ‘upgrade’ their position in the value chain. The most prominent examples of this in the UK are Cafédi-
rect and the Day Chocolate Company. Cafédirect has developed a strong brand image for its fair trade
coffee and in 2004 captured 8.9% the UK’s roast and ground coffee market, and 3.9% of the freeze
dried market.11 Following a public share issue in 2004, producers own a 4.9% share of Cafédirect.
Another example is the Day Chocolate Company, which markets a range of fair trade chocolate bars,
including the brands Divine and Dubble, which are now sold in over 4500 outlets including several
major supermarkets.12 Day Chocolate is a third owned by the Ghanaian producer cooperative, Kuapa
Kokoo, which has over 40000 members (Ronchi, 2002).
In the case of supermarket own brand fair trade products, these are increasingly sourced through cat-
egory managers (as part of modular value chain governance). Category managers are agents or large
suppliers that are contracted to supply a range of items within one product category (e.g. ‘salads’ or
‘citrus fruit’). Fair trade products may be treated by the supermarket as no different from any other
product in a particular category. The category manager is usually responsible for the relationship with
producers, ensuring that they deliver according to the supermarket’s standards, and the supermarket
may have little direct contact with individual producers. However, some supermarkets, especially those
with lower market share and eager to differentiate themselves amongst more exacting consumers, are
keen to pursue strong direct relationships with the producers of their own brand goods. This has a
greater synergy with the relational commitments of fair trade. For these supermarkets fair trade may
facilitate dialogue and increased awareness of the producer’s position, and foster a more equitable
balance of power in the trading relationship.
The potential for fair trade to transform governance of supermarkets’ own brand chains may there-
fore come down to company values and strategies, as with ethical trade. Importantly, fair trade labelling
may act to constrain the need for relational commitments within these chains. It should be emphasized
however that conventions evolve and, in a reflection of civic coordination, the FLO auditing system may
10 http://www.fairtrade.net/sites/certification/tradeauditing.html11 Figures cited on Cafédirect website: http://www.cafedirect.co.uk/pressoffice/pdf/Key_Facts.doc12 Figures cited on Day Chocolate Company website: http://www.divinechocolate.com/where.htm
Fair Trade and Ethical Trade: Are There Moves Towards Convergence? 197
in future be strengthened to more rigorously check that the principles of fair trade are being
adhered to.
Conclusion: To What Extent are Fair Trade and Ethical Trade Drawing Together Through Expansion?
The above analysis suggests that fair trade and ethical trade may merge in some UK supermarket value
chains, while in others they will continue as inherently different, depending on the values, culture and
strategies of the companies involved. These are difficult to ascertain, as companies tend not to publicly
acknowledge the more commercial, and less populist, reasons for adopting codes of labour practice or
stocking fair trade. However, one could surmise a relatively high degree of commitment when a super-
market switches an entire own brand line to fair trade. So far the only example of this in the UK comes
from the Co-0perative group, which converted all its own brand chocolate to fair trade in 2002, followed
by its own brand coffee the following year.
This is not to say that fair trade producers do not benefit from selling into supermarket value chains
with traditional buyer driven governance. Selling to supermarkets substantially increases the number of
producers and workers in developing countries that could benefit from fair trade. To the extent that
supermarkets are under pressure to adopt more ‘ethical’ purchasing practices as part of their commit-
ment to ethical trade, some of these benefits could extend to producers and workers beyond fair trade
labelled products. Experience suggests there may also be knock-on, indirect benefits for producers and
workers outside fair trade or ethical trade programmes as a result of the impact they have on local and
international industry norms and practices. However, empirical evidence for this is currently lacking
and is an important area for future research.
In this paper we propose that differences in value chain governance are important in determining the
outcomes of fair and ethical trade. Relational value chains facilitate both fair trade and ethical trade,
whereas modular value chains perpetuate industrial and market coordination without the need for
ethical ties. With modular forms of governance currently dominating, fair trade and ethical trade in
mainstream global value chains may do little to address the unequal balance of power that lies at the
heart of much conventional commercial trade.
Acknowledgements
This paper draws on research funded by the Leverhulme Foundation (reference F/00230/L) and the UK Department for Inter-national Development (SSR Project No. R8077 2002–4), to whom we are grateful for their support. The views and opinionsexpressed in the paper are those of the authors alone.
References
Acona. 2004. Buying Your Way Into Trouble? The Challenge of Responsible Supply Chain Management. Insight Investment
Management: London.
Allen M. 2002. Increasing standards in the supply chain. Ethical Corporation Magazine 10: 34–36.
Barrientos S, Kritzinger A. 2004. Squaring the circle: global production and the informalization of work in South African fruit
exports. Journal of International Development 16: 81–92.
Blythman J. 2004. Shopped: the Shocking Power of British Supermarkets. Fourth Estate: London.
Boltansky L, Thévenot L. 1991. De la Justification: les Economies de la Grandeur. Gallimard: Paris.
Dolan C, Humphrey J. 2004. Changing governance patterns in the trade in fresh vegetables between Africa and the United
Kingdom. Environment and Planning 36(3): 491–509.
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 13, 190–198 (2005)
198 S. Smith and S. Barrientos
Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI). 2004. Harnessing Difference. Annual Report 2002/3. ETI: London.
Gereffi G. 1994. Capitalism, development and global commodity chains. In Capitalism and Development, Sklair L (ed.).
Routledge: London; 211–231.
Gereffi G, Humphrey J, Kaplinsky R, Sturgeon T. 2001. Globalization, value chains and development. IDS Bulletin 32(3).
Gereffi G, Humphrey J, Sturgeon T. 2005. The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy12(1): 78–104.
Jenkins R, Pearson R, Seyfang G. 2002. Corporate Responsibility and Labour Rights. Codes of Conduct in the Global Economy.
Earthscan: London.
Kaplinsky R. 2000. Spreading the gains from globalisation: what can be learned from value chain analysis? IDS Working Paper110. Institute of Development Studies: Brighton, Sussex.
Murray D, Raynolds L. 2000. Alternative trade in bananas: obstacles and opportunities for progressive social change in the
global economy. Agriculture and Human Values 17: 65–74.
Oxfam. 2004. Trading Away Our Rights. Women Working in Global Supply Chains. Oxfam International: Oxford.
Ponte S, Gibbon P. 2005. Quality standards, conventions and the governance of global value chains. Economy and Society 34(1):
1–31.
Raynolds L. 2000. Re-embedding global agriculture: the international organic and fair trade movements. Agriculture and HumanValues 17: 297–309.
Raynolds L. 2004. The globalization of organic agro-food networks. World Development 32(5): 725–743.
Renard M-C. 2003. Fair trade: quality, market and conventions. Journal of Rural Studies 19: 87–96.
Rhonchi L. 2002. Monitoring Impact of Fair Trade Initiatives: A Case Study of Kuapa Kokoo and the Day Chocolate Company.
Twin: London.
Schmitz H, Knorringa P. 2000. Learning from global buyers. Journal of Development Studies 37(2): 177–205.
Smith S, Auret D, Barrientos S, Dolan C, Kleinbooi K, Njobvu C, Opondo M, Tallontire A. 2004. Ethical trade in African hor-
ticulture: gender, rights and participation. IDS Working Paper 223. Institute of Development Studies: Brighton Sussex.
Vorley B. 2004. Food Inc. Corporate Concentration from Farm to Consumer. UK Food Group: London.
Young G. 2003. Fair Trade’s Influential Past and the Challenges of its Future. King Baudouin Foundation: Belgium.
Biography
Sally Smith (lead author – addressee for correspondence) is employed at IDS as a Research Officer in
the Poverty and Social Policy team. She can be contacted at the Institute of Development Studies, Uni-
versity of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RE, UK.
Tel.: 01273 873663
Fax: 01273 621202
E-mail: [email protected]
Dr Stephanie Barrientos is employed at IDS as a Research Fellow in the Poverty and Social Policy team.
She can be contacted at the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RE,
UK.
Tel.: 01273 877032
Fax: 01273 621202
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 13, 190–198 (2005)