Take a walk outside and you’re likely to see masks, gloves, or disposable sanitary wipes scattered about the ground. What began as a sign of due diligence to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 is now causing concern among many about the mounting environmental impact of PPE (personal protective equipment).
Mark Benfield, a professor at Louisiana State Universities Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences, first started noticing discarded PPE on his daily walks in March around Baton Rouge. It was the site of these materials that led him to reach out to colleagues across the globe to find out if they too were seeing the same problem – they were. Benfield went on to launch a tracking system allowing individuals to geotag photos of PPE waste not properly disposed of.
What is the Environmental Impact of PPE?
PPE is neither recyclable nor biodegradable which in turn are causing two unique problems as large parts of the world are still scrambling to contain the coronavirus. The sudden surge saw both individuals as well as waste and recycling facilities unsure of how to properly get rid of personal protection equipment. Individuals for their part face three choices to put them in the trash, to recycle them, or to dump them wherever they happen to be.
The choice to recycle PPE turns out to be the wrong one. They can’t be and as Steve Changris, the northeast region vice president of the National Waste & Recycling Association, points out they can contaminate sellable bundles of recycled materials. Additionally, if PPE is found within a recycling plant the process is shut down and materials picked through by hand. In turn, causing not just a slow down but a risk to workers health.
The act of littering is what has individuals concerned. Wipes are ending up in waterways which can and have clogged wastewater stations and city pipes. PPE pushed down storm drains which lead directly to rivers and lakes pose a threat to drinking water and local aquatic systems. These single-use products have been found on seabeds and washed up on beaches adding to the estimated 8 million tonnes of plastics entering oceans every year.
Officials around the United States are aware of the growing problem. Some cities and towns have raised littering fines as is the case for the Swampscott Police Department in Massachusetts. Frustration over accumulating PPE found throughout the town led officials to post a Facebook message “THIS IS A CRIME!! UNLAWFUL DISPOSAL OF TRASH and the first offense is finable up to $5,500…” The concern is two fold addressing both the act of littering and the fear that COVID-19 could be spread as a result of improperly discarded items.
Proper Disposal of PPE
The EPA advises throwing away used PPE in garbage bins and keeping it out of recycling containers. Health experts worldwide endorsed a statement that so long as individuals are following basic hygiene practices reusables aren’t inherently more dangerous than single-use plastics. And, a study published by the New England Journal of Medicine found that COVID-19 lasted longer on plastic and stainless steel.
A few small steps can help curtain the growing environmental impact of PPE:
Dispose of PPE in regular trash bins.
Cities, towns, stores and manufacturers should provide signage detailing appropriate disposal.
When it comes to sustainable investing and understanding the future of corporate reporting many of us are understandably lost. Environmental, Social & Governance ratings are a relatively new phenomenon and as Dr. Rocco Ciciretti points out there’s still a lot to learn for consumers, investors, and for the corporations themselves. I had the great pleasure of having Dr. Rocco Ciciretti as an economics professor years ago so when I started to delve into this topic I reach out to gain a better understanding. Below is the interview which helps us navigate the intricacies of evaluating companies who endeavor to leave a positive social and environmental footprint.
Interview has been edited for both clarity and brevity.
C: Talk to us a bit about what CSR (corporate social responsibility), SRI (socially responsible investing) and ESG (Environmental, Social & Governance) are and what they mean to corporations and individual consumers.
R: ESG is the umbrella under which CSR and SRI sit. ESG says if you apply E+S+G criteria you take into account the supply side which is CSR and the demand side which is SRI. Companies supply to the market their product using CSR but if you only supply ESG through CSR and nobody buys we say in economics that the market failed because you cannot clear the price. It’s a cleaning system. Market failure in economics means you don’t clear the price because you don’t match the price.
The demand side – SRI – is related to us both as consumers and investors. As a consumer I buy a product and as an investor I buy the stock of your company that produces that product. The socially responsible investing depends on the fact that if I buy your product your stock price goes up. The market equilibrium happens when the business strategy decided by the company in CSR terms fits the market demand (consumers) in terms of consumption of CSR goods and/or services and in terms of consumption of financial asset (investors).
C: Lately, there seems to be some talk surrounding CSR and how it may just be another form of corporate greenwashing leading consumers to lose trust in part due to lack of transparency. What are your thoughts on these concerns? Are they valid?
R: The difference between greenwashing and information is that greenwashing does not have value behind it. Information is the value. Price in the market changes as information changes. This information is related to the fundamental value. Information can then be translated to marketing but the fundamental idea of ESG through CSR is that when you advertise something you can prove why. It’s a way to root out greenwashing. Digging behind the marketing to look at the information provided by the ESG rating agencies.
C: Do governments have a role to play in the implementation or providing of guidelines for CSR across the private sector? What kind of challenges does this present?
R: I personally believe that the ESG standard cannot be settle by law or by government. ESG should be based on a voluntary bases and leave the market to choose. The pricing mechanism and the voting with the wallet will avoid greenwashing in the long run.
C: Going back just a bit to the viability of CSR, do you think it is a truly sustainable business model? The concern of course being that at its core CSR is only as viable as the company’s profits.
R: CSR is sustainable over time if and only if the demand side realize that the market is made by two sides and CSR in only the supply one. The active role of the demand side is important for the long run sustainability process of the ESG business strategy of the firms.
C: There’s been a widespread global call, especially among the youth, to overhaul current financial systems due to its negative environmental impact and lack of living wages. Is SRI a viable solution to transforming current capitalist structures? If not, can and how can corporations utilize SRI to meet the demands of younger generations?
R: SRI is the fastest way to reach younger generations. Financial markets are faster than the real economy and investors can define the market price of financial assets using their savings to reward companies that apply ESG criteria in their business. In addition to that, financial markets are transparent and any investors can check the firm activities looking at their financial and non-financial reports.
The work we do at the University is we create the ESG risk factor and then split the S & G to use the data from the rating companies which break up into 170 different subsections. You can have clean water as one of those subsections. Each company provides a declaration and then in our analysis we check if when the level changes from 5 to 100 if the price and risk change according to this number. The idea is that in our analysis we want to check if for example the number is 70 the changing price is related to the market level. For a listed company you have enough data to double check what the Chief Responsible Officer said in the market by looking at their financial data.
C: Can you give readers an overview of one company that you think is doing a good job with corporate social responsibility and one that needs to improve?
R: It’s hard to say because when we study ESG in financial markets we have more the eight thousand companies all over the world and we treat each individual company looking at the data they have. I don’t look at the name. My job is to relate the ESG rating to the risk return performance and to say the higher the ESG rating the lower the risk and the lower is the return. The more you buy ESG the more you lower your risk. The name doesn’t matter.
C: Considering the widespread business practices of profit over people and planet, widely seen in the stock market and answering to company boards, can SRI truly be a sustainable practice? If so, why and if not, what kind of changes would you like to see?
R: When price of the stock goes down the manager and the board are subject to (hostile) takeover by the market. Selling those stocks that perform poorly in ESG criteria and buying those that perform well is the best way for individuals to play an active role (engagement) in defining SRI as a truly sustainable practice.
C: What kind of responsibility to corporations and individuals alike bear when implementing SRI? Should they mimic the current political and social climates or should they push to meet the needs of future generations?
R: Firms should try to reach ESG criteria more and more over time to be sustainable over the long run and define a new sustainable economic paradigm. Individuals (as consumers and investors) must help *guide* firms *by* choosing good and services from those companies that show a true interest in redirecting their business strategy towards ESG criteria
C: For the layperson who wants to support companies invested in authentic CSR and SRI practices, what are some tools they can utilize when researching?
R: Investors and consumers can look at reports on products (i.e. Nielsen report, Global Sustainable Investment Review by Global sustainable investment alliance, US Social Investment Forum Foundation) and/or firms specific non-financial report, as well as third parties ESG rating agencies that provide information to define individual strategy to choose among all products/firms that make efforts to provide a sustainable market.
People in the financial markets believe that if they sell ESG it’s better but better to what? You still have to understand the risk/return. If we don’t understand the financial value of ESG we could end up with a bubble because people are paying more for something that is worth less solely based on perceived value rather than the actual risk/return.
C: Is the change to incorporate ESG and consumer demand happening fast enough to address climate change?
R: No. Climate change is not the priority for companies now. I believe if you don’t let the social part of ESG improve you cannot ask from a person who receives one thousand dollars a month to buy good food for their health and conduct proper waste management because they are focused on surviving. My position is that the environment was pushed too fast without taking care of the social part. People work every day for the environment but if you don’t let people work in a good environment such as enough money to eat they aren’t going to go clean the park. They’re too worried about eating. If you don’t have social stability (ESG criteria), the community and the worker related to that company, you cannot push the environment(al factors) faster because if the worker can’t survive until tomorrow why would they care about the long term environmental outcomes?
C: Any final thoughts? What would you like to see happen within the global financial world with respect to CSR and SRI?
R: I would like to see individuals aware of the possibility that demand can play an active role. To see more CSR in the market, consumers and investors must act as first movers and (then push) companies to implement more and more ESG criteria in their business activity, showing that those companies get a market reward for the shift if their business behavior.
He is Research fellow at SOM Research Institute at University of Groningen, at RCEA – Rimini, and at CEIS – University of Rome Tor Vergata where he is also Assistant editor for the CEIS Research papers series. Rocco was Research fellow at SIRP (funded by MISTRA), and at EPRU – University of Leicester School of Management. He was Visiting professor at New York University, and Fordham University.
He is referee for several international journals, and he published in Journal of Corporate Finance, Journal of Banking and Finance, Journal of Financial Stability, Journal of International Money and Finance, Journal of Financial Services and Research, St. Louis FED Economic Review, Journal of Business Research, Applied Financial Economics, Applied Economics, European Journal of Finance, International Review of Economics, Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia, and for ELSEVIER, NOVA SCIENCE, ROUTLEDGE, BANCARIA, Giappichelli.
Dr. Ciciretti served as Financial economist and assistant policy advisor in the Finance team at the Research department of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. Prior to joining the FED, he was Research associate in finance at the Lally School of Management and Technology-Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, NY.
A native of Italy, Dr. Ciciretti received his doctorate degree in Financial markets and institutions and his master of science degree in Economics and institutions from the University of Rome Tor Vergata. He earned a bachelor degree in Economics from the University LUISS-Guido Carli.
In March 2016 police forces and local authorities launched one of the biggest raids on brick kiln factories in southern India freeing 546 workers. The operation was part of ongoing efforts to find and liberate workers duped into bondage labor. The mission shed light internationally on the estimated 10 million people worldwide still working under the modern system of slavery known as bondage labor, a tentacle of forced labor.
Also known as debt bondage, bonded slavery, bonded labor, or peonage this form of slavery is not a practice relegated to the annals of history. The International Labour Organization estimates half of all victims of forced labor (21 million) are in some form of bondage labor, approximately 10 million worldwide. Within the agricultural, domestic work, and manufacturing sectors that percentages rises to 70 percent.
The practice of debt bondage has been around for centuries most notably in Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, some African Kingdoms, and Peru. In the United States although slavery was abolished in 1865 imposed peonage practices existed until the 1960’s. African Americans who were arrested under the vague legalities of vagrancy or loitering and unable to pay their court fees and fines were forced into bonded slavery.
“The officer pulled out a long piece of paper from his pocket and read it to my new employer. When this was done I heard my new boss say “I beg your pardon, Captain. I didn’t know this nigger was bound out to you, or I wouldn’t have hired him.”So I was carried back to the Captain’s. That night he made me strip off my clothing down to my waist, had me tied to a tree in his backyard ordered his foreman to give me thirty lashes with a buggy whip across my bare back, and stood by until it was done. After that experience the Captain made me stay on his place night and day—but my uncle still continued to “draw” my money.” – Excerpt from A Georgia Sharecropper’s Story of Forced Labor ca. 1900.
Why Is Bondage Labor Slavery If Workers Are Being Paid?
Agreement to pay down a debt differs significantly from debt bondage. The United Nations Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery define debt bondage as:
“Debt bondage, that is to say, the status or condition arising from a pledge by a debtor of his personal services or of those of a person under his control as security for a debt, if the value of those services as reasonably assessed is not applied towards the liquidation of the debt or the length and nature of those services are not respectively limited and defined”(UN Supplementary Convention, art. 1)
When an individual is forced to work because they are either a) unable to pay off their original debt due to increased interest on that debt or b) not able to seek employment elsewhere to repay the original debt this is what is considered bonded slavery. Often these arrangements were and still are entered into under mutual agreement in good faith however, unfair contract conditions, exploitative conditions, and additional sums added to the original debt making repayment of the principle and the interest almost impossible. The evil of interest accruement is that it leads to a cycle in which the individual cannot leave and can force an entire family and future generations to work towards paying off a single individual’s debt.
Factors Leading to Bondage Labor
Today debt slavery is most prevalent in South-East Asia, India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh but is seen throughout the world. Using India as a case study the country is home to more than one-third of the world’s poor with 1.3 billion people living on less than $3 a day and 250 million people living on less than $2 a day. With very little money to survive on it is common for individuals of families to take out loans for medical needs, shelter, or food with little to no say over the conditions of that loan partly out of desperation and partly due to lack of education and knowledge of their rights.
Others from rural communities looking to make their way into the cities to find work agree to contracts that pay their passage. This was also seen in colonial American with poorer Europeans looking for passage to the New World. However, unlike most Europeans at that time modern contracts bind that individual to certain jobs with the base amount continually increasing. This debt can accrue over generations trapping individuals and their families in the same cycle of poverty they were working towards escaping.
What Industries Use Bonded Slavery?
Rice mills, farms, brick kilns, embroidery factories, construction, commercial fishing, and domestic servitude are the primary industries but bonded slavery can be found in just about every sector. The Sumangali Scheme in the Tamil Nadu textile and garment industry made global headlines when women started to speak out about the working conditions and impossible contracts. Young girls were (in 2018 Labour and Employment Minister Nilofer Kafeel and Textile Minister O.S. Manian said the scheme was no longer practiced however, many believe it has moved further underground) recruited to work in cotton spinning mills for three to five years in exchange for a grand sum upon completion of their contract. Unknown to these girls their room, board, food, and other expenses were being subtracted from their promised sum.
Should that sum be diminished the girls would continue to work unaware of their mounting expenses. Additionally, living and working conditions could be and often were dangerous. In one story a young woman, Vasandi, tells how they were locked in at night and unable to visit or speak with family. Many of the girls were injured or became ill from unsafe working environments. Those who made it to the end of their contracts were fired just before receiving any wages but most never reached that point either from quitting, injury, or in some cases death.
What Can Be Done To End This Practice
Lack of education and generational poverty are key contributors leading to continuation of bondage labor. The Rotarian Action Group Against Slavery (RAGAS) with the help of others works towards erradicating debt slavery through education. Through education individuals are better able to understand the types of contracts they sign and also provide skills so seek out alternative employment opportunities. Potential employers actively work against these organizations, who often operate in secret, to dissuade youth from attending lessons. Education will also help to prevent generational poverty leading many potential bonded laborers to borrow money from unscrupulous lenders.
A third and equally important contributing factor is rule of law which is either lacking in the case of the Democratic Republic of Congo or absolute in the case of North Korea. Both prevent appropriate oversight and prosecution of responsible parties. And yet, at the international level many refuse to hold individuals or governments accountable especially when bonded labor contributes to the global supply chain. This is most notable in the mineral mines across Africa which are key to the creation of modern electronics.
A call for transparency along supply chains, education, accountability, prosecution, and strengthened international laws will all be needed to eradicate bondage labor and other forms of slavery. But as some countries turn towards isolationism the question remains do we care so long as goods keep arriving at our doorstep?
In 1998 Paul Rice founded Fair Trade USA with the mission to provide quality consumer products without compromising social, environmental, or economic standards. Since that time Fair Trade USA has grown from focusing on coffee to now include apparel, food, and home goods. While Fair Trade USA continues to see consumer demand rise that doesn’t mean growth comes without challenges. I chatted with Katie Schneider (Communications at Fair Trade USA) to examine the challenges, future, and benefits of fair trade practices industry wide.
Q: Have you seen an uptick in applications from companies looking to incorporate fair trade practices in their business? If so, what does that outreach and the first few steps look like? What are they saying are the reasons for their desire to adhere to Fair Trade practices?
Katie: Definitely! There has been an incredible increase in demand for Fair Trade Certified products in the last 10 years. This can be attributed to a variety of factors, but the root of it all is the increasingly savvy consumer who is interested in knowing so much more than just the nutrition information for products they buy – they want to know how the product was produced, under what conditions, and how much the farmers or workers were paid.
This increase has been noticed by retailers, who have started to favor products that are certified. This is how brands that might not have otherwise been interested in certification come to call us. Benefits of Fair trade certification include giving employees at these companies a greater sense of purpose and fulfillment in their jobs because they are able to make a big impact around the world through the sales of their products. They also find that in addition to that feel-good element, fair trade gives them increased supply chain visibility that they otherwise may not have had.
Of course, there are also plenty of mission-driven brands who are at the heart of Fair Trade USA and come to us because fair trade is central to what they believe in and what they were founded to do. Fair trade allows them to carry out their mission in a way that is backed up by data, direct feedback from beneficiaries, and within a community of like-minded companies.
When a company is interested in getting started with fair trade, the first few steps involve examining their supply chain and determining whether it makes sense to certify their existing producers or for them to buy from producers that are already certified.
Q: Why the jump from coffee to clothing and other products? What were the pressing reasons to expand to other consumer goods?
Katie: Coffee was the very first Fair Trade Certified product back when Fair Trade USA started in 1998 (back then we were called TransFair USA) and it continues to be the leading fair trade product. Each new product that has been introduced since then has been done because of market interest and the opportunity for significant impact. Launching new categories like our newest ones, seafood and apparel, is labor intensive and time-consuming, so we need to make sure that there is enough brand interest and producers in need to make the effort worthwhile. The exploration of new categories is often grant-funded, and because we don’t take this process lightly, it can take several years before these products hit the shelves.
Although it seems like a no-brainer, the jump into apparel was a big challenge because it was our first non-agriculture product. We had standards for fair trade cotton, but we found that consumers and brands were really interested in bringing fair trade standards to garment factories. Thus, we spent years writing up standards for textile factories, getting those standards approved by stakeholders, and then finding factories and brands to pilot those standards. It was a big push, but all of this work paid off in a meaningful way that top brands are proudly sourcing Fair Trade Certified clothing and significant changes are being made in the lives of factory employees around the world.
Q: What were some of the initial challenges with bringing companies on board? Were these challenges similar to dealing with consumers?
Katie: As you can probably see from my answers so far, fair trade is complicated! There is a lot of education that needs to be done initially with both new companies and consumers. When a new company gets started with fair trade, we need to really examine their supply chain (which is often a mystery to the person working on the fair trade element). We can either apply fair trade standards to their existing producers, or we can connect them with producers that are already certified. The easiest scenario is with new companies that don’t yet have suppliers, in which case we play matchmaker and connect them with fair trade producers for the ingredients or products they need.
Q: What was the initial interest in pursuing fair trade apparel? Was there a demand from consumers or was this more due to interest on behalf of companies?
Katie: It was both. Similar to your first question but, in apparel it was partially driven by a groundswell of consumers who are getting increasingly curious about “ethical fashion.” They’re knowledgeable about the Rana Plaza factory collapse. Sweatshops are almost old news to them, and they expect much better. They don’t want people to work under unsafe conditions or face death just to make their clothing. Still, not all of these people have the discretionary income to pay the hefty price tag that’s often associated with “sustainable fashion.”
So more and more conscious brands, especially those in the mainstream like J.Crew and Target, are becoming more concerned with their supply chains and workforce, and they’re looking for credible verifiers who can give them insight into and help them regulate their supply chains to ensure human rights and sustainability.
Patagonia, one of our longstanding partners, currently has the largest collection of Fair Trade Certified apparel. They’re sort of an outlier, both in apparel and in how they started their business with a “sustainability first” mindset and expected demand to follow.
Both models work and when they exist simultaneously they create that push and pull that means consumers get more sophisticated and choosy and brands make strides to improve the garment industry at a systems level.
Q: Can you tell me about the We Wear Fair Trade and your new look book?
Katie: Every April, We Wear Fair Trade honors the anniversary of the fatal Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh and joins in the larger conversation around Fashion Revolution Week. This year, the devastating impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on garment workers worldwide creates even greater urgency for all of us to fiercely advocate for the people in our clothing supply chains. To help increase awareness about fair trade apparel, we partnered with seven female advocates who modeled for the She Wears Fair Trade lookbook and spoke out on ethical, transparent, and sustainable fashion to shed light on the lives impacted by our garment purchases and the impact that’s possible through Fair Trade Certified™ factory-made clothing.
Q: How are prices calculated for raw goods so that it is both beneficial to the farmers, the manufacturers, the companies as well as being price conscious for consumers?
Katie: A great deal of research is done on all fronts to determine the minimum prices and Fair Trade Community Development Fund amounts. The goal is to make Fair Trade accessible to brands and consumers while also making a significant impact on farming, factory, and fishing communities. These prices are reassessed when needed to ensure that they are in line with the market and still working for everyone involved. You can see a list of these prices here. Question 10 is a great example of a pricing evaluation that was recently done in cocoa and resulted in a 20% increase to bring farmers closer to a living income.
Q: What are some of the biggest hurdles Fair Trade faces with expanding reach to companies, communities, and consumers?
Katie: Introducing fair trade to large, mainstream companies is a big commitment. Going through certification can take months of onboarding and compliance measures to either bring their current farm or factory into our program or shift their production into an already certified one. So they have to be 100% committed to authentic transformation before they invest.
For consumers it’s about awareness. We’re recognized in coffee and cocoa, thanks to long-standing grassroots advocacy, but shoppers don’t know to “seek the seal” on many of the other products we certify, like seafood, coconut oil, or their clothing. So a lot of the education we do is around what it means when a product comes from a Fair Trade Certified farm or factory, what products are available with the Fair Trade Certified seal, where shoppers can look for these products, and the big difference their purchase makes. Building fair trade awareness requires strong and thoughtful partnerships with advocates and our brand partners. We Wear Fair Trade is a strong testament to that.
You can watch the videos of our female advocates here.
Q: Tell us a bit about the differences and benefits for Fair Trade Certified for local communities/farmers and factories
Katie: Fair trade isn’t making anyone rich – unfortunately, coffee farming (or any type of farming for that matter) is a difficult business to be in. That said, fair trade is empowering small farmers, agricultural farm workers, and factory employees, to slowly lift themselves out of poverty by making much-needed improvements within their communities through their own hard work. These projects may start small to accommodate basic needs, but year over year, new projects are funded to uplift and give new opportunities to entire populations.
For example, the very first group I visited (over 10 years ago) was a women’s cooperative in Rwanda. My colleagues told me not to expect much, as they had just begun exporting their fair trade coffee. Well, as soon as I stepped out of the car, they came running over to shower me with hugs and appreciation. They told me that they had used their fair trade community development funds to help send each family’s oldest kids to school by providing them with shoes, uniforms and school supplies. They were confident that with future sales, they would soon be able to send ALL of their kids to school. So while it wasn’t a lot of money, it was enough to make all the difference in the education of the community’s children.
Other farms that I have visited are much more established, with 15-20 years of fair trade sales. In addition to meeting each family’s basic needs, they are able to focus on improving the quality and productivity of their members’ coffee in order to get better prices and increased income. They are also doing very advanced projects like providing members’ with microcredit loans to pay for fertilizer and other farming supplies or even start small businesses. They also have cooperative grocery stores that enable members’ to get discounted prices on food and other necessities. One group even bought weed-whackers to shave off hours of grueling manual labor. There is so much room for creativity!
The fair trade difference is seen in a variety of ways, including:
1. The safety net that farmers have against major drops in the market with the fair trade minimum price
2. Collective bargaining power and closer relationships with buyers.
3. The additional fair trade premium that can be invested in significant community development projects like schools, scholarships, medical clinics, new roads and bridges, cupping labs, etc. – whatever the community decides it needs most.
4. Greater access to credit, knowledge of best practices, transportation assistance, and washing/drying facilities.
5. Women’s empowerment through fair trade standards to reduce gender discrimination and include women in the fair trade committees.
Q: Has there been any push back on price increases?
Katie: Last July, we made the decision to increase the fair trade minimum price and premium 20% after conducting a thorough pricing review which found that even with fair trade, many farmers were still earning well below a living income. The price increase is one way to address extreme poverty and forced and child labor in the cocoa industry. While it’s never good news when prices increase, chocolate companies are well-aware of the challenges faced by cocoa farmers in West Africa, and they are eager to be part of the solution and make cocoa production an attractive profession for future generations to a steady supply of our favorite sweet treat.
Q: What’s in store for the future of Fair Trade Certified?
Katie: That’s the million dollar question on everyone’s minds right now! It’s so hard to predict the future during this unprecedented pandemic. In the short term, we have changed course slightly and are focused on helping our fair trade producers weather this storm. They are some of the most vulnerable populations, already living on the edge of poverty so we acted quickly to survey and assess their needs so that we could provide help or connect them with other NGOs. You can learn more about Fair Trade USA’s COVID-19 response here: https://www.fairtradecertified.org/news/covid-update-around-the-world
During the 1998 recession, while consumers were spending less, we saw that they started to be much more careful about how they spent their money. They bought products that were good for the planet or that helped others – like fair trade. The situation we’re in now is pretty different, but if the spirit of togetherness and helping one another that is so strong right now continues, I think people will continue to support farmers and workers around the world through their fair trade purchases.
*Katie Barrow Schneider has spent the majority of her career working to build consumer awareness on Fair Trade USA’s communications team. She enjoys traveling to remote regions of the world to visit fair trade communities and share their stories of hope and change. Now a part-time PR consultant and part-time homeschool teacher to her 4-year-old twin girls, she resides in San Jose, CA and travels much less than she’d like.*
Founded in 1977 by a small group of women, the Handknitting Association of Iceland recently won a major battle in the fight for ethical clothing. You’d be forgiven for not thinking about ethical clothing in the land of ice and fire and yet it pervades throughout every aspect of the Icelandic way of life.
The 2008 financial collapse presented a unique opportunity to a country that was often little more than a stop over from mainland Europe and North America. Deflation of the Icelandic króna led to a sharp increase in the rise of tourism which in turn helped the economy to rebound. An estimated 40% of the country’s export revenues and 10% of it’s GDP are linked to tourism. In 2019 around 2 million tourists visited the country and while that number has been declining the decade long boom left an enormous impact.
Whether it was the volcanic eruption of Eyjafjallajökull in 2010, the rise of instagram influencers flocking to the vast expanses to snap an envious picture, the airline stopover promotions, or the popularity of Game of Thrones; Iceland was on a whole not prepared for what the influx of tourism would mean. Infrastructure was quickly built, tourism companies boomed, Airbnb sprang up in just about every apartment building in Reykjavik and farmhouse through the countryside, restaurants diversified, souvenir shops popped up throughout, and the endless wave led to a creative expansion across the country. But, not everyone embraced the transformation.
The lopapeysa sweater has long been the iconic garment of the Icelandic peoples. You won’t find a closet without one. And while there is a long history of knitting for both young and old, men and women, this particular sweater didn’t enter the vernacular until sometime between the 1920’s and 1950’s. It coincided with the more efficient mechanizations of processing wool. The sweaters are made from lopi a unique fiber to the sheep of Iceland and is heralded for both its lightness and strength while remaining waterproof. A must in the oftentimes harsh climate. Historically to be classified as a Lopapeysa the sweater must be knit from lopi in a continuous loop without seams. Additionally, it must include a circular pattern around the shoulders. It wasn’t until Iceland’s independence from Denmark in 1944 that the Lopapeysa became a national symbol.
Tourisms Impact On Ethical Clothing
Up until the tourism boom the Lopapeysa could have been used as an ethical clothing measuring stick. It was made from local wool from sheep that were treated humanely, mainly coming from small family farms. They were made from natural fibers and knitted in the country where living wages were paid. The surge in tourism drastically shifted the demand and by virtue of that the means of production.
The modern economy for all of its positives also brings with it plenty of opportunity to increase profit margins at the expense of quality, safety, environmental and worker well being. In the case of the Lopapeysa sweater, chasing the often elusive profit margin led many businesses to start outsourcing their manufacturing where wages remain depressed compared to that of Iceland’s. In short, to meet the demand while continuing to increase profits some high street Icelandic brands began contracting Chinese firms to either knit the sweaters from lopi at reduced wages or began making them from blended materials, sometimes both. A debate emerged as to whether or not they could truly be called Icelandic.
Clever marketing tags started popping up that without thorough research were difficult to differentiate. “Made in Iceland” or “Made from Icelandic Wool” became the greenwashing go-to for these companies. Made in Iceland may or may not mean that the sweater is made from a hundred percent lopi while made from Icelandic wool may or may not mean it was made in the country or contains a hundred percent lopi. Tourists were left to their own devices trying to figure out the authenticity but often became seduced by high street convenience and price differentiation while remaining none the wiser.
The Handknitting Association rallied against what they saw as a theft of local heritage and launched a campaign for clear and transparent labeling and protection. Members not only wanted to preserve the local craft but also ensure tourists and locals alike were buying the real deal: made in Iceland and from only Icelandic lopi. In March 2020 after years of lobbying they won.
The sweaters received the second only Designation of Origin Label granting it legal protection under The Icelandic Food and Veterinary Authority. The ruling in short protects the pattern, craftsmanship, means of production, materials used, and ultimately enshrines the cultural values associated with each one.
There has been no mention as to whether or not the labels “Made in Iceland” or “Made from Icelandic Wool” will disappear or continue to adorn knockoff products but they can no longer be called Lopapeysa sweaters without adhering to the seven conditions laid out by the Designation of Origin Label. What the Handknitting Association has accomplished is nothing short of a David versus Goliath narrative. They were able to preserve a traditional craft while at the same time laying a framework for companies, organizations, and governments around the world when it comes to the production of ethical clothing. Simultaneously they demonstrated that profit margins are not the be all and end all of today’s modern economy bringing hope to those who continue to fight for the widespread normalization of ethical clothing.