BUY LOCAL VS. FAIR TRADE: AN ETHICAL SHOPPER'S DILEMMA
Another gift giving season is upon us and it’s time to decide on a shopping strategy. In one ear you’re encouraged to shop locally, in the other ear you hear about the benefits of choosing Fair Trade gifts. So which strategy is best, and is one better than the other? To answer a question with a question, who says you have to choose? The ‘Buy Local’ and Fair Trade movements both have their benefits.

One way to honor the bumper sticker mantra “Think Globally Act Locally” is to support your local businesses. Why buy cheese from Europe when there’s a dairy farm down the road producing double creamy Gouda that will knock your socks off? Buying local refers to choosing locally made products and soliciting locally owned businesses, which have environmental and social benefits. Products made locally have a smaller carbon footprint than products shipped from overseas, and thus are less of a strain on the environment. Shoppers who buy locally travel less distances to shop, which also reduces the carbon footprint. Local businesses produce more income and jobs for local communities than large retail chains do, and are more likely to utilize local services, such as advertising and banking. Supporting local businesses preserves the economic diversity of our communities and the unique character of our neighborhoods.

Sounds great, right? But what about choosing Fair Trade, another moral purchasing strategy?

Fair Trade is an economic model that ensures products are made by producers who receive a living wage, work in healthy, safe conditions and in many cases, employ environmentally sustainable processes. Fair Trade also tackles the issue of child slavery by guaranteeing that there is no abuse of child labor.

In a world economy where globalization is king and profits are queen, small-scale producers are left without resources or hope for their future. Children are forced to work instead of receiving an education and local environments suffer from the ‘profits now’ mentality that damage environments for future generations. Fair Trade helps exploited producers escape from this vicious cycle of poverty. The Fair Trade system benefits over 800,000 Farmers organized into cooperatives and unions in 48 countries. Revenue from Fair Trade cooperatives is used on a variety of community projects, including training of producers in organic and sustainable farming techniques, building houses, schools and clinics and guaranteeing health care for the whole community.

So now it’s time to decide…buy local or Fair Trade? It’s important to note that choosing Fair Trade products can actually help your local merchants survive in this sluggish economy. Prices for cheap imports made in sweatshop factories outside of the US are usually so low that local merchants have no way of competing on price. So in a time when consumers are looking to cut costs wherever possible, cheap knock offs made in sweatshops often outsell locally made products, even though the quality is drastically lower.

Whichever you decide, the good news is that the ‘Buy Local’ and Fair Trade movements both have tremendous benefits. They support environmentally sustainable solutions, and layers of middlemen are left out of each economic model, helping to ensure that a fair percentage of profits actually reach the producers. Fair Trade and locally made products are often handcrafted with care, resulting in a higher quality product than the mass-produced sweatshop products available in big box stores, and in both cases, the preservation of cultural heritage is a by-product of doing business.

If you’re married to the idea of buying locally, remember that some items are not grown locally, like cocoa. Cocoa trees are only grown in tropical regions of Africa, Asia, South and Central America. So if you’re looking for socially conscious chocolate in the US, consider chocolate made locally with Fair Trade Certified cocoa. That way, you can support your local chocolate maker AND Fair Trade cocoa producers around the world.

Beyond chocolate, there are lots of other instances where products from the Fair Trade and Buy Local movements are harmoniously combined to create special products all their own. One example is from Handmade Expressions, a sourcing partner for socially and environmentally responsible products based in Austin, Texas. They sell their handmade copper alloy bells to local artists who incorporate the ethically produced crafts into their artwork that is then sold locally.

Some proponents of the buy local movement consider choosing Fair Trade products an ethical challenge because products imported to the US have a bigger carbon footprint than locally produced products. In an op-ed piece for Western M, Steve Brooks, the acting head of Oxfam Cymru points out that “if everyone in the United Kingdom switched one 100W light bulb to a low energy equivalent, CO² emissions would be reduced in one year by 4.7 times the amount saved by boycotting fresh fruit and vegetables from sub-Saharan Africa.” If this is true, then perhaps the carbon footprint issue is not such a big deal after all. If you’re not buying that, and you’re shopping for a coffee lover, consider Grounds for Change, the first coffee roaster in the nation to complete the rigorous third-party certification process necessary to obtain the CarbonFree® Certified Product label. To get a product certified CarbonFree®, a company must submit the item to a third-party process that formally scrutinizes the carbon emissions associated with every step in production from the country of origin to your cup.

Whether you choose local or Fair Trade products or a combination of the two this holiday, what’s most important is to shift your spending from mass produced products made in sweatshops to ethically produced products. According to the US Census Bureau of the Department of Commerce, US retail e-commerce sales reached $29.3 billion in the fourth quarter of 2006, and e-commerce sales accounted for just 2.8% of total retail sales, so you do the math. That’s a lot of dough! Wal-Mart alone reported $340 billion of sales revenue back in their 2006 financial report. Yet the Fair Trade Federation, the US’s network of Fair Trade businesses, reported $160+ million in total member sales in 2006, a tiny crumb compared to the overall US retail pie. If just 5% of US Wal-Mart customers shift their spending to Fair Trade products this holiday season, imagine the positive impact it could have on our environment and producers’ lives?

In November 2008 a McNeil/Lehrer report estimated US retail spending at 55 billion dollars. How much of that spending is on ethically produced products is up to you, so this holiday, remember that it’s not about buying more, but rather buying differently, and every dollar you spend is a statement about how you want this world to be.

Written by: Tex Dworkin, Global Exchange Director of Marketing

Sweatshop Barbie: Dynamics Factory in Thailand
Based on an article in The Humanitarist, January/February, 1997

The January/February 97 issue of "The Humanitarist" features an article by Anton Foek depicting the appalling labor conditions in Bangkok for Barbie production. Foek visited the Dynamics factory just outside of Bangkok where Barbies, stuffed Lion Kings and other Disney toys are made by 4,500 (mostly female) workers.

He was greeted by women and children in a rally, carrying banners that said, "we are not slave labour!" Most of the workers come from northeastern Thailand, where the poverty is abject and extreme. If the girls aren't sold into sexual abusive slavery at 11 or 12, they are sent to work at big city factories to provide a steady income. It's "long hours, hard work, low pay, no vacations, no sick days, no rights. No union and thus no voice."

Many of the workers have respiratory infections that come from inhaling dust (75%), others that work with lead and various chemicals suffer from chronic lead poisoning. If a worker wants to wear a mask, she can, but first she has to buy it, and with the $4 a day salary, most simply can't afford the protection. They are in "a catch-22 situation: if they don't work, their relatives get nothing; if they do work, they get sick from all the chemicals and dust."

Foek also visited Dr. Orapun who is investigating the widespread illnesses and the cases of deaths of workers in Bangkok. She started investigating sweatshops in 1991 as the director of Thailand's National Institute of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. First she looked into deaths from Seagate Techonology, a computer harddisk giant, with some 21,000 workers. Thai officials told her to stop but she refused to be intimidated. She was shortly removed from her post, but continued her investigation. By examining blood samples and workers, she has found great levels of lead poisoning. Other diseases are caused by inhalation of dust and solvents.

Foek also visited women who used to work at the factories and are now in Bangkok's hospitals. 20 yr Sunanta, former Dynamics employee, said "When we get sick, they throw us out." Sunanta says at least four of her factory friends have died, most have no health insurance. Her head is almost bald and she breathes with great difficulty. After working at Dynamics for only a year, she started to develop problems: irregularities with her period, then headaches, memory loss, and now hair loss. Foek says she feels depressed and embarrassed, shy and ashamed of being sick. Most of these women make no eye contact, they are tired and weak. Sunanta is interested in starting a movement because she believes if she doesn't help the other workers, her life will have had no meaning. It is unclear if she will survive. Foek tells of her astonishment when he mentions that there are "2 Barbies sold somewhere in the world every second, and that Mattel made more than $3.2 billion in 1994. More than a billion pairs of shoes have been made for Barbie, many in Bangkok."

Foek closes the article by saying, "I cannot help thinking of Cindy Jackson, an American photographer in London who has had 19 cosmetic-surgery operations to make herself look like Barbie - at a cost of some $165,000. I wonder what would Jackson say if she could see these sick and dying women and know how brutally they have been exploited in order to make dolls for First World children. Pramitwa, Sunanta, and Metha [workers interviewed] have never heard of Cindy Jackson, but my guess is they are glad not to be in her shoes. For them, it would be unbearable to live a life looking like Barbie."

Anton Foek is a freelance writer based in NY City.   http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/54/086.html

Hi there,

     I came across this article today (while setting up the new website w/blog here).  I am going to post it since awareness really needs to be raised here, and we of course offer the alternative.  This reminds me of the first month of owning Pathways Trading Co.  I set up a booth inside the Bayshore Mall, and we were neighbors with the Gap.  The mall shoppers did not seem all to concerned with who their purchases hurt, and we were not very successful there.  The highlight of that weekend was some activists in the mall all dressed up like mall zombies.  They were protesting  the maniacal Xmas shopping.  And speaking of Gaps, read below about the ethical GAPs these corporations have.

 

Gap, Wal-Mart, Nike, and Tommy Hilfiger continue to use Sweatshops in Thailand

Posted March 1, 2003  http://www.clrlabor.org/alerts/2003/Mar01-Thai.htm

Find out how you can help!

Thai Garment workers are asking for your help. In December 2000, 149 Par Garment factory workers were dismissed from their jobs-- with compensation,salary and overtime unpaid after their workplace was suddenly shut down. Par Garment, located near Bangkok, produced garments for such international brands as Gap, Wal-Mart, Nike, and Tommy Hilfiger.

Following much local and international campaigning, the 30 union members and leaders dismissed at that time eventually won compensation, and the five who wanted reinstatement also won this. However, in violation of the court order, the factory paid the five union leaders but never allowed them to work in the factory since winning reinstatement.

Now, reports the union, the factory has decided to file for bankruptcy, close down Par Garment and relocate production to two other factories (which are not unionized) in the provinces far from Bangkok, which the Par Garment owner has a financial interest in.

The union is requesting pressure be put on the brand label companies and the Thai Government to accept responsibility and intervene to pressure the company to ensure that the workers demands are met. They are demanding compensation and back pay for the workers, and jobs for any workers who are willing to relocate at the two other companies.

More details on this case follow below, as well as names and addresses to write protest letters to. Please take action on this case today!

This case is exceptional in that far too often, workers don't bother to use labor courts, not trusting that any government process will protect their rights. Here, workers have won the case -- after several years -- and they have stayed attentive to the company's actions (The Thai Labour Campaign fighting side-by-side with them).

Source: TIE-Asia, February 18, 2003
Additional sources: Jeff Ballinger, Press for Change and Sweatshop Watch
'Runaway' employer at Thailand's Par Garments
Tommy Hilfiger, Gymboree, Wal-Mart, and the Gap challenged to comply with the law.

One hundred and forty nine Thai garment factory workers have been left without jobs or compensation, with salary and overtime unpaid after their employer 'ran away' from his responsibilities to his workers and to his loan payments to the Bangkok Bank in December last year (2002). The Par Garments factory in Pathum Tanee an industrial area on the northern outskirts of Bangkok - produced garments for international brand names Gap, Wal-Mart, Nike, and Tommy Hilfiger.

On the morning of 18 December 2002 the workers arrived at work to find the factory gates locked. A Bankruptcy Court notice on the gates stated that the Par Garments factory had been put into liquidation by the Bangkok Bank the day before. Factory owner Apiwat Latinat Mongalat (Mr. A) had failed to make loan repayments to the bank on time.

Following the December closure, Mr. A continues to manufacture for the international brands at two other factories in which he owns shares in provinces far from Bangkok.

In the weeks before the sudden closure of the Par Garments factory the workers had been forced to work five hours overtime each day and then for the last week given no work to do. The workers saw that some equipment was already being removed from the factory during this time. Although there were rumours about the future of the factory, the owner, Mr A, told the workers nothing.

They now believe that Mr A knew the factory would close, and that he was removing equipment that would otherwise have been taken by the Bangkok Bank following Mr A's failure to honour his loan repayments.

When the factory closed the workers were not paid for the last two and a half weeks at work including the forced overtime to finish orders.

The 149 Par Garments workers are now challenging the international brand name companies to pressure Mr A to pay the salary and overtime payments owed along with providing jobs in either of the two factories operating in the province (for those who are willing to relocate) and compensation for those who are unable to relocate. They believe that as the international companies are actively benefiting from Mr A's use of low-wage non-union workers in provincial Thailand. These companies must accept their share of responsibility to the workers who make their products.

Since the sudden closure of the Eden garment factory in 1996, Thailand's labour law now provides that where employers close their factories and fail to pay compensation the Ministry of Labour can make compensation payment to the workers. It is then the Ministry of Labour who sues the employer for the money owed. The workers then receive their entitlement without having to take perhaps long and expensive legal action. The Par Garment union is calling upon the Ministry of Labour to pay the full compensation owed to the workers from the compensation fund; the Ministry can then take action to recover the money from Mr. A. Those who have worked for more than 10 years at Par Garments are entitled to 10 months salary as compensation for loss of their jobs.

Many of the Par Garments workers are already over 40 years old and will find it very difficult to get another job. The Par Garments workers recognise that the liquidators for the Bangkok Bank now own their Pathum Thanee factory. However their employer continues to have a financial interest in two other factories making garments for the same international brand names. The union is demanding that workers be given the option of taking jobs at the two other factories that Mr. A has an interest in.

Par Garment workers are continuing to demand their right to compensation and held a rally at the Ministry of Labour on 15th February 2003.

PAR GARMENT WORKERS DEMANDS:

    * Their entitlement to 10 months salary as compensation for the loss of their jobs;
    * Jobs, for those who chose employment rather than compensation, in one of the two other factories in which Mr A has shares in and has responsibility for operations of;
    * That the Ministry of Labour pays the full compensation owed to the workers from the Compensation Fund;
    * That the Ministry of Labour takes action to recover the money from Mr A;
    * That Mr. A face criminal charges in court for refusing to pay bonuses, wages, and overtime to the workers;
    * That international brands Gap, Wal-Mart, Tommy Hilfiger, and Gymboree use their on-going business relationship with Mr A to pressure him to pay compensation to the 149 dismissed Par Garment workers in Pathum Thanee.

ACTION REQUEST

Please write letters to:

Prime Minister of Thailand
Prime Minister of Thailand
The Hon Mr Thaksin Shinawatra
Office of the Prime Minister
Pitsanuloke Rd
Bangkok 10300
Thailand
Fax: +66 22 82 8631

Labour Minister:
Minister of Labour
Mr. Suwat Lipatapallop
Fax: +66 22 45 2260

Par Garment Management:
Apiwat Latinat Mongalat
Par Garment Company Limited
9/4, Moo 3, Paholyothin Rd
Klong-nung, Klong-luang
Pathumthani
Thailand
Major Brand label buyers:

GAP
Sean Ansett
Manager, Global Partnerships
Gap
2 Folsom St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
United States
Fax: +1 415-427-6620
e-mail: sean_ansett@gap.com

TOMMY HILFIGER
Joel Horowitz
CEO and President
Tommy Hilfiger Corporation
11/F Novel Industrial Building
850-870 Lai Chi Kok Rd.,
Cheung Sha Wan
Kowloon, Hong Kong
Phone: +852-2216-0668
Fax: +852-2312-1368

GYMBOREE
Lisa M. Harper
Chairperson and CEO
Gymboree
700 Airport Blvd., Ste. 200
Burlingame, CA 94010-1912
United States
Phone: +1 650-579-0600
Fax: +1 650-696-2920

WAL-MART
H. Lee Scott
President and Chief Executive Officer,
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
702 SW Eighth St
Bentonville
AR 72716
United States
Phone: +1 479 273 4000
SOLIDARITY MESSAGES and copies of letters can be sent to:
Par Garment Union
c/o CLIST
Fax: +66 2 972 6385
E-mail: clist@loxinfo.co.th
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND ON PAR GARMENTS

Par Garments was established on 24 February 1987 with a capital of 180 million baht. Par Garments workers established a union in 1990.

Factory owner, Mr A, has been refusing to pay his workers at the Pathum Thanee factory their annual bonus every year since 1998. Each year the workers have had to sue their employer for unpaid annual bonus. Mr A told the courts that he had lost business and that he could not pay the bonuses. In 1997 and 1998 the workers won their bonus payments through the court.

The annual bonuses for 1999 and 2000 are still before the court.

On December 2000, 30 union members were dismissed. When the workers won an "unfair labour practice" case against Par Garments in the Labour Court the company was required to pay compensation to 25 of the workers who did not want to return to Par Garments. The other five workers were ordered by the court to be reinstated to their jobs.

However the employer refused to allow the reinstated workers inside the factory. Instead, for two years, the five workers would sign in and out every day at the factory gates. Although the factory owner continued to pay the wages of the reinstated workers, they were never again allowed to enter the factory to their jobs.

In 2001 the workers took their unpaid bonus case to the police. Mr A was arrested and released after payment of bail and the matter referred by the police to the court again.

Sometimes the workers' pay would be delayed for two or three days without explanation.

Mr. A maintains a financial interest in at least two other garment factories in provinces outside Bangkok. The Montini factory employs 700 workers in Korat in Ratjasima province 300kms north east of Bangkok and Par Consortium in Ubon Utijani province employs 500 workers.

In 1992, five years after establishing Par Garments, Mr A was involved in establishing Montini Garments in Ratjasima province. Montini produces Walmart, Gymboree and Tommy Hilfiger brands. Of the 60 million bath 600 million share capital, Mr A owns 11,880 shares. His brother-in law owns 545,121 shares.

Workers at the Montini factory are paid the local legal minimum wage of 145 baht a day (US$4). They can also receive a further 160 200 baht (US$5 $7) a month if they do not miss a single days work for sickness or leave. They can lose their monthly 'bonus' if they are late for work on one day. They do not have a union.

Workers can be forced to work overtime by the management refusing to provide return transport to the rural areas from which the workers travel each day to work. They can also be required to punch out on their time cards hours before actually finishing overtime. They then continue to work unpaid overtime or face the risk of lay-off. Such working conditions have lead to workers fainting on the job.
© 2004 Campaign for Labor Rights