Mainstreaming and its Discontents: Fair Trade, Socially Responsible Investing, and Industry Trajectories

Abstract

Over time, according to popular and academic accounts, alternative trade initiatives [such as fair trade, organics, forest certification, and socially responsible investing (SRI)] almost invariably lose their oppositional stance and go mainstream. That is, they lose their alternative, usually peripheral, and often contrarian character. In this paper, I argue that this is not always the case and that the path to going mainstream is not always an unproblematic one. I observe that while scholars have documented various aspects of specific alternative trade initiatives, little comparative work has been done to theorize their different trajectories. To advance the scholarship, I compare two alternative trade movements, fair trade and SRI, and develop three hypotheses-the relation motivations hypothesis, the material interests hypothesis, and the organization of credibility hypothesis-that explain why going mainstream has been so hotly contested in the fair trade movement but not the SRI movement. I articulate these hypotheses and evaluate their merits.

Fairtrade Towns as Unconventional Networks of Ethical Activism

“…These include acting: as the catalyst behind the establishment of the market, as a target market in themselves, as guardians of certification systems, as advocates for government support, as promoters of FT as a form of standard, as market innovators, as co-creators of research about FT and as a force to keep other system stakeholders accountable and responsive. The development of the FT market is set out in detail by Doherty et al (2013) and has gone through distinct phases or eras (Child 2015;Davies 2009;Golding and Peattie 2005;Nicholls and Opal 2005) beginning with an era of ''solidarity selling'', notable for relatively poor quality products (particularly coffee) marketed through unconventional channels. It represented a distinct market niche in which FT movement activists marketed directly to consciously activist consumers.…”

“…The ''mainstreaming'' era that followed generated rapid growth in FT consumption, reflecting a greater emphasis on marketing management, improvements in product quality, packaging and branding and increased access to supermarket channels (Child 2015;Davies 2009;Doherty et al 2013). Mainstreaming saw FT become an element of the product selections of global brands such as Starbucks, Nestlé, Costco and Cadburys (Jaffee 2010;Doherty et al 2013) and interest broaden beyond specifically FT activist consumers to a broader category of political consumers (Wilkinson 2007).…”

“…Some argue that this creates ''corporate activism'', a situation in which the agendas and ideologies of social activists and businesses are in harmony rather than opposition (Paynton and Schnurer 2010). Mainstreaming creates a challenge for FT marketers in balancing the pressures for FT to further expand in order to do more good, yet remains true to FT's ethical roots in order to protect its unique selling proposition (Child 2015;Davies 2009;Jaffee 2010).…”

“…These contributions help us to understand the development of the FT movement and the challenges it faces (Child 2015;Hira and Ferrie 2006;Jaffee 2010;Moore 2004;Nicholls 2010), and the ethical dimensions of the decisions and actions of FT suppliers (Davies and Crane 2003;Davies and Ryals 2010), FT consumers (Castaldo et al 2009;Chatzidakis et al 2007Chatzidakis et al , 2016De Pelsmacker and Janssens 2007;Doran 2009;Doran and Natale 2011;Kim et al 2010) and the supply networks that connect them (Davies 2009;.…”

Voluntas Symposium: Comments on Salamon and Sokolowski’s Re-conceptualization of the Third Sector

“…And should we worry about how organizational behaviour about profit distribution changes over time? (For a discussion of these and related topics, see Child 2015Child , 2016 As my examples in the previous paragraphs suggest, I do not find the operational definitions as laid out in the TSE model entirely convincing. For example, are cooperatives and mutual benefit firms really so fundamentally different from social ventures and enterprises that they belong on opposite sides of the ''core'' in Fig.…”