Here's what student activists are thinking these days...

United Students for Fair Trade recently completed an e-survey focused on the theme of corporate engagement in the fair trade label, in order to sound out our affiliates' opinions and positions on issues related to current debates within the fair trade movement on corporate engagement. Thank you if you took the time to fill out the survey; your responses were immeasureably helpful!

The results of the survey are below and reflect a very clear cue from our grassroots to the USFT Coordinating Committee about how it should stand in regards to the engagement of large transnational corporations in fair trade certification.

Corporate Engagement Survey Results

● Of the respondents, 19% were recent graduates, 67% were currently enrolled college/university students, 10% were graduate students, and 3% were faculty.

● To the question, Should USFT oppose fair trade licensing of products of corporations against which our allies (NGOs, other student organizations or campaigns, labor/farmworker organizations) have current campaigns, actions, or substantial problems?, 60% of 73 respondents answered YES, 20% answered NO, and 20% answered DON'T KNOW.

● When asked if they research corporations’ human rights, labor, and trading practices before buying their certified products, 32% of 73 respondents answered YES and 56% answered SOMETIMES. This demonstrates that the majority of USFT affiliates are at least aware of corporations' possibly questionable records, and a third of them actually act on that awareness to find out more.

● 93% of 73 respondents answered that the fair trade licensing of a company with a record of human rights abuses, or questionable labor, trade, or environmental practices would either worsen or greatly worsen their image of the fair trade label while only 6.8% said their image of the fair trade label would not change. This shows significantly that the image of the fair trade label would be damaged if companies with questionable practices were to be licensed.

● To the question, If TFUSA has the opportunity to license a corporation that has questionable trading, environmental, and/or labor practices, and does not impose a minimum percentage condition, or other conditions based on evaluations of trading, environmental, and/or labor practices that do not all directly fall within the scope of fair trade certification, what should USFT’s action be?, 46.5% out of 73 respondents said that USFT should oppose a deal between Transfair and any questionable company, and another 37% stated that USFT should actively oppose the deal publicly. The other 16.5% answered that USFT should neither support nor oppose the deal, or did not know.

● A whopping 92% out of 73 respondents said that the requirements for companies to be licensed to use the fair trade label should be stricter. The other 8% stated that they should not.

● An absolute majority of respondents supported the following changes:

o A required commitment to increasing % FT over time, with label removal if not completed.
o Companies must be transparent in terms of production and sourcing of both fair trade and non-fair trade products
o Differentiation between companies with varying levels of fair trade.

● About half of the respondents stated that they supported the following changes:

o Increase in minimum level of FT sales to 5% for companies.
o Giving companies currently under 5% 2 years to catch up or lose licensing.

● When asked if Transfair were to form an NGO advisory board to be a part of its decision-making process should USFT take part in that board, 96% said that USFT should participate in an advisory council to Transfair; however, 41% said only if there is an accountability structure in place.

● 63% out of 73 people said that Transfair should be accountable both to the student movement and a representative body of NGOs and producers, while 19% said that Transfair should be accountable only to a representative body of producers and 4% said that it should only be accountable to the student movement and NGOs. Only 8% said that Transfair should not be accountable to anyone.

● When asked how they would direct the actions of Transfair in the upcoming years if they were in charge of the labelling organization, an clear majority voted for only licensing companies with good all-around records even if it means slower growth for the movement, and for creating a process to encourage companies to improve their practices as a condition for receiving licensing. Very few votes (8 out of 73) were received for growing the market as fast as possible.

Conclusion:

Our student affiliates support the following actions or positions for USFT:

1) Oppose the licensing of companies facing campaigns from our allies, or with substantial problems from the social justice crowd.

2) Protect the integrity and image of the label by not supporting the licensing of questionable corporations.

3) Opposing such a deal with a questionable company if/when it comes up unless certain conditions are met.

4) Creating stricter licensing requirements by 1) adding a required commitment to increase fair trade sales % for corporations over time, where companies would lose licensing if they didn’t meet the required commitment; 2) requiring full transparency of production and sourcing for corporations' fair trade and non- fair trade products in order to get licensed; 3) differentiating in terms of labeling between companies with varying levels of FT commitment.

5) Participating in an advisory council for Transfair with a strong emphasis on the on the creation of a clear accountability structure.

6) Growing the movement with integrity, sacrificing a little speed for only licensing companies with good practices

7) Creating a process to encourage companies to increase their FT% in order to get/stay licensed.

Most of these positions are ones already practiced by USFT's Coordinating Committee, but the survey results clearly reflect that the Coordinating Committee is acting in the interests of its affiliates. The results also give USFT a clear mandate to take clearer positions that it has not publicly taken in the past; indeed we must, because we are accountable to you, our grassroots.

It will be important that we address these issues as a movement in the near future. As the student arm of the fair trade movement we have the ability to work towards a fair trade market that is accountable to producers and social justice activists. If you have ideas for how USFT should concretely address the issue of corporate engagement, or are currently organizing around these issues, please contact your regional USFT coordinator and we can start moving forward. You can find contact information for your regional organizer at www.usft.org.

Sincerely,

USFT Coordinating Committee