No abstract

affinity marketing, ethical leadership, fair trade movement, marketing ethics, no-sweat movement, zoos, aquaria, sweat shops, ethical purchasing, virtue ethics, conservation,

No abstract

Purpose -This paper critically examines the marketing of fair trade, arguing that the use of the term producer conflates a number of categories of actors, not all of whom benefit equally. The authors contend that the two existing archetypes -the noble peasant farmer and the independent artisanand the emerging archetype of the "empowered decision maker" serve to obscure and mask complex labour relationships. Design/methodology/approach -This conceptual paper draws on a wide range of literature and original fieldwork conducted by the authors to illustrate the three marketing archetypes in the fair trade value chain. Findings -Hidden behind the three dominant archetypes used to promote fair trade is a relationship between fair trade "producers" (small farmer, craft enterprise and plantations) and permanent and temporary/casual labourers. The trickle-down of fair trade benefits to these workers is uneven at best and falls far short of the expectation of empowerment of all "producers" that fair trade promises.Research limitations/implications -The fair trade project must look beyond the simple archetypes to engage more deeply with labour issues in the fair trade value chain, and to re-engage with fair trade as a development strategy through which broader and more complex forms of empowerment can be realised. Practical implications -Fair trade standards are not a substitute for organised labour's activities. Interactions between trade unions and fair trade bodies could ensure that existing labour standards are met, and improvements in the lives of all workers can occur. Originality/value -This paper conceptualises three fair trade mainstream marketing archetypes and suggests why and how the fair trade movement must move beyond these to ensure empowerment amongst its least well-off stakeholders.

The fair trade movement is arguably one of the most successful social movements of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. A key goal of the movement is to offer both a theoretical and practical alternative to the existing power relations in global trade which are argued to structurally disadvantage producers in the global south. Fair trade can be seen as a response to systemic harms and injustices caused by the global food production and distribution system to the people involved in the food industry – rather than instances of food adulteration and the misrepresentation of food quality highlighted elsewhere in the food crimes literature. While championing the agenda of global trade reform alongside anti-globalisation, ethical consumption, and anti-sweatshop activists, fair trade has offered a practical alternative for structurally disadvantage food producers to take direct action against the hegemonic forces of ‘free trade’.