Published In
Agriculture and Human Values
Document Type
Post-Print
Publication Date
12-2016
Subjects
Competititon, Unfair competition, International trade, Foreign trade regulation, Free trade -- Law and legislation
Abstract
In recent years, consumers in the United States have been confronted by no fewer than four competing fair-trade labels, each grounded in a separate certification system and widely differing standards. This fracturing is partly a response to the recent split by the U.S. certifier Fair Trade USA from the international fair trade system, but also illustrates longstanding divisions within the fair trade movement. This article explores the dynamics of competition among nonstate standards through content analyses of fair trade standards documents from the four U.S. fair-trade certifications for agrifood products (Fair Trade USA, Fairtrade America, Fair for Life, and the Small Producer Symbol). It analyzes the differences among them, asking what kinds of social and labor relations are facilitated by each, and identifies how closely they correspond with key fair trade principles. We make two primary arguments. First, we contend that the case of fair trade challenges the dominant conceptual model used to analyze competition among multiple private standards in a single arena, in which newer challengers lower the rigor of standards. Second, we argue that the current fractured U.S. certification landscape illuminates divisions among different interest groups over which principles—and which labor and production forms—should be privileged under the banner of fair trade.
Rights
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Locate the Document
DOI
10.1007/s10460-015-9663-2
Persistent Identifier
http://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/19671
Citation Details
Published as: Jaffee, D., Howard, P.H. Who’s the fairest of them all? The fractured landscape of U.S. fair trade certification. Agric Hum Values 33, 813–826 (2016).
Description
This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Agriculture and Human Values. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Agriculture and Human Values, 33(4), 813-826.