Doctoral TH GEMPh DSchool Filip Brkovic

An Assessment of Possibilities for Stronger Inclusion
of Upper-middle-income Economies in the Fairtrade System - Case Study Serbia
by
Filip Brkovic
MPhil Development Studies [University of Cambridge]
MA Political Analytics and Management [University of Belgrade]
BA Political Science - International Relations [University of Belgrade]
Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for
the double degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Politics and International Studies
at the Department of Politics and International Studies - University of Warwick
and at the Institut d'Etudes Européennes - Université libre de Bruxelles
as a part of the Erasmus Mundus Globalisation, Europe and Multilateralism PhD School
Academic Supervisors
Professor Matthew Watson (University of Warwick)
Professor Jean Luc De Meulemeester (Université libre de Bruxelles)
September 2015
To Katarina, for Mihailo
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Library Declaration and Deposit Agreement
Title Page .................................................................................................................................. i
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... iii
List of Charts, Graphs, Figures, Maps, Photos and Tables ..................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. ix
Declaration ............................................................................................................................. xii
Abstract ................................................................................................................................. xiii
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ xiv
Research Training ................................................................................................................... xv
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
1.1. From Kepler 22-b down to Earth .......................................................................... 1
1.2. Serbia and Serbian Food System after Global Food and Economic Crises .......... 9
1.3. Fair Trade Movement, Fairtrade System and Fair Trade Literature at a Glance 17
1.4. Gaps in Fair Trade Literature - Voices of the Excluded ..................................... 27
1.5. Research Questions and Contributions to Fair Trade Literature ......................... 36
1.6. Thesis Structure ................................................................................................... 38
1.7. Concluding Remarks ........................................................................................... 40
CHAPTER II - FAIRTRADE SYSTEM IN THEORY .................................................... 41
2.1. Shortfalls of and Answers to "Inclusive" Neoliberalism ..................................... 41
2.2. Fairtrade System, Global Food System and Gereffi's Global Value Chain
Analytical Framework ............................................................................................... 58
2.3. Fairtrade System and Caring Across Spaces ....................................................... 80
2.4. Concluding Remarks ........................................................................................... 86
iii
CHAPTER III - THE CONTEMPORARY FAIRTRADE SYSTEM ............................. 89
3.1. Fairtrade Principles and Monetary Benefits ........................................................ 89
3.2. Structure of Fairtrade System .............................................................................. 99
3.3. Fairtrade System and Global North - Global South Divide .............................. 111
3.4. Fairtrade System and Upper-middle-income Economies .................................. 114
3.5. Concluding Remarks ......................................................................................... 128
CHAPTER IV - METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 130
4.1. General Methodological Overview ................................................................... 131
4.2. Critical Analysis ................................................................................................ 138
4.3. Case Studies ...................................................................................................... 139
4.4. Comparative Method and Lesson-Drawing Process ......................................... 148
CHAPTER V - LESSONS FROM THE MEXICAN FAIRTRADE SYSTEM ............ 159
5.1. Fairtrade System in Mexico .............................................................................. 161
5.2. Lesson 1: Mexican Fairtrade Producers' Main Characteristics ......................... 164
5.3. Lesson 2: Mexican Fairtrade Producers' Benefits ............................................. 176
CHAPTER VI - LESSONS FROM THE UK FAIRTRADE SYSTEM ........................ 190
6.1. Fairtrade System in the United Kingdom .......................................................... 192
6.2. Lesson 3: Fairtrade Mainstreaming Through Supermarkets in the United
Kingdom ................................................................................................................... 195
6.3. Lesson 4: Fairtrade Campaigning in the United Kingdom ................................ 207
iv
CHAPTER VII - THE SERBIAN FAIRTRADE SYSTEM AND PROSPECTIVE
FAIRTRADE PRODUCERS FROM SERBIA ............................................................... 224
7.1. The Fairtrade System in Serbia ......................................................................... 226
7.2. Prospective Fairtrade Producers from Serbia .................................................... 229
7.3. Main Characteristics of Prospective Serbian Fairtrade Producers .................... 237
7.4. Necessity for and Advantages that Fairtrade Benefits Can Bring ..................... 258
7.5. Future of Serbian Fairtrade Production ............................................................. 275
CHAPTER VIII - SERBIAN PRESENT AND FUTURE FAIRTRADE TRADERS AND
CONSUMERS AND SERBIAN NATIONAL FAIRTRADE-LIKE SYSTEM ............ 283
8.1. Current and Future Fairtrade Traders in Serbia ................................................. 284
8.2. The Role of Fairtrade Mainstreaming through Supermarkets in Serbia ........... 287
8.3. Current and Future Fairtrade Consumers and Campaigners in Serbia .............. 300
8.4. Fairtrade Consumers in Serbia .......................................................................... 302
8.5. Fairtrade Campaigning in Serbia ....................................................................... 310
8.6. Serbian National Fairtrade-like System ............................................................ 318
CHAPTER IX - CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 330
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 343
LIST OF QUOTED INTERVIEWS ................................................................................. 386
APPENDIX 1 - INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM .......................................................... 392
v
LIST OF CHARTS, GRAPHS, FIGURES, MAPS, PHOTOS AND TABLES
Chart 1. Comparison of Fairtrade and New York Cocoa Prices ............................................ 93
Chart 2. World Bank's GNI per capita chart of some of the current producer-included
countries together with the world average contrasted with Serbia ....................................... 117
Chart 3. National Campaigner Committee ........................................................................... 219
Graph 1. Illustration of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd grade small producer organisations ............... 100
Graph 2. Fairtrade certification process ............................................................................... 105
Graph 3. Delhaize Serbia's total number of employees ....................................................... 287
Figure 1. Fairtrade International's FAIRTRADE Mark for products .................................... 24
Figure 2. Key supply chain management constructs .............................................................. 73
Map 1. Map of Mexico - States and State Capitals .............................................................. 165
Map 2. Map of Serbia with Jablanica District ...................................................................... 229
Map 3. Map of Serbia with Pcinja District ........................................................................... 229
Map 4. Map of Jablanica and Pcinja districts' municipalities .............................................. 230
Map 5. Food Security Risk Map .......................................................................................... 240
Map 6. Delhaize Serbia's national coverage ......................................................................... 287
Photos 1-3. Examples of intensive food production in Jablanica and Pcinja districts ......... 239
Photos 4-7. Producer villages in Jablanica and Pcinja districts ........................................... 243
Photos 8-11. Examples of road infrastructure in Jablanica and Pcinja Districts .................. 248
Photos 12-15. Jablanica and Pcinja districts' landscapes ..................................................... 267
vi
Table 1. Economies divided according to GNI per capita ....................................................... 7
Table 2. Serbia in WEF's GCR ............................................................................................... 11
Table 3. Estimated Fairtrade retail sales by countries ............................................................ 21
Table 4. Fairtrade producer-included upper-middle-income economies ............................... 29
Table 5. Fairtrade producer-excluded upper-middle-income economies ............................... 29
Table 6. WEF's GCR comparison of Fairtrade producer-excluded economy - Serbia and
producer-included economies - Mexico and Chile ................................................................. 31
Table 7. Ranking of all upper-middle-income economies covered by the WEF's GCR in 20
categories - Fairtrade producer-included and producer-excluded economies ........................ 31
Table 8. Practical challenges to key neoliberal presumptions identified in developing
countries ................................................................................................................................. 44
Table 9. Challengers of inclusive neoliberalism .................................................................... 44
Table 10. Key determinants of global value chain governance ............................................. 70
Table 11. Types of Fairtrade global value chains .................................................................. 76
Table 12. Five core groups of Fairtrade principles ................................................................ 91
Table 13. Two Fairtrade monetary benefits ........................................................................... 92
Table 14. Example of Fairtrade certification ........................................................................ 106
Table 15. Two subgroups of Fairtrade producer-included upper-middle-income economies
............................................................................................................................................... 115
Table 16. Two subgroups of Fairtrade producer-excluded upper-middle-income economies
............................................................................................................................................... 116
Table 17. Fairtrade producer-included and producer-excluded upper-middle-income
economies according to their GNI per capita ....................................................................... 118
Table 18. Three groups of Fairtrade Benefits ....................................................................... 178
vii
Table 19. Six positive aspects of Fairtrade mainstreaming .................................................. 202
Table 20. Six common risks of Fairtrade mainstreaming .................................................... 207
Table 21. Four main Fairtrade campaigning channels ......................................................... 216
Table 22. Jablanica and Pcinja districts - cities and municipalities ..................................... 230
Table 23. Serbian Fairtrade production potentials ............................................................... 236
Table 24. Average size of utilised agricultural land and average number of separate lots per
agricultural holding in Jablanica District ............................................................................. 241
Table 25. Average size of utilised agricultural land and average number of separate lots per
agricultural holding in Pcinja District .................................................................................. 241
Table 26. Delhaize Serbia's different store formats ............................................................. 287
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In numerous publications, a general trend is present to state that acknowledgements
are only for the author's expressions of gratitude and that they can be read, but could just as
well be skipped by the reader. I will take the opposite approach and invite my readers to
spend a few minutes and read about the people who helped me, encouraged me, supported me
and inspired me during my doctoral studies, greatly contributing to my final work.
I will start with Professor Matthew Watson, whom I thank less for being the best
supervisor and far more for being my first mentor. By collaborating with him, I have learned
what it looks like when you love what you do and do what you truly love. Thanks to him,
now I know the difference between a profession and a calling, how far I am from that ideal
and how much I have to work, as well as what I have to do in order to achieve it. His advice,
guidance, support and encouragement greatly contributed to this work and his friendship is
one of the main reasons why I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of my doctoral studies.
I thank my ULB supervisor, Professor Jean Luc De Meulemeester, who profoundly
influenced both my thesis and my future work upon joining the project into the second year.
His keen eye for detail is unmatched, and his ample interests contributed to the breath of my
dissertation, as well as to the richness of our discussions, which he scheduled in some of the
finest cities of interest in Europe. Finally, although seriously ill, he continued to work with
me and to support me right to the end of my doctoral studies, like a true scholar.
I would also like to thank Professor Mario Telò, whom I always considered my "third
supervisor". Given the fact that he is a director of the Board of Directors of the GEM PhD
School, through him, I firstly felt GEM's l'esprit de communauté. He was also the one who
helped me change my second institution to ULB and come to Brussels, which significantly
contributed to the quality of my research and changed my life in the process, by allowing me
ix
to meet people with whom I made long-lasting friendships and discover a city to which I will
cherish and return to for the rest of my life. Moreover, I thank him for offering me to be his
teaching assistant on the postgraduate course "Mondialisation et Régimes Sociaux -
Globalization, Global Food System, Food Security and Food Sovereignty - Critical
Perspectives", which augmented my experience and strengthened my decision to continue
teaching in future.
I would also like to thank two other GEM scholars, Professor Stéphan Sberro from
Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México and Professor Dai Bingran from Fudan
University who helped me with my trips to Mexico and China. I would also like to thank my
first and second year Warwick reviewers, whose numerous comments are now a part of my
thesis, significantly augmenting its quality.
Furthermore, I would like to thank Frederik Ponjaert and Johan Robberecht, who,
together with Melissa Venables, Jackie Smith and Sue Black were the kind faces of the
Erasmus Mundus GEM PhD School, the institution which offered me a scholarship thereby
enabling my doctoral studies. Due to their help, I experienced zero administrative, logistical
and technical trouble, allowing me to focus solely on my research. I am also grateful to the
University of Warwick's PaIS department and the Ministry of Youth and Sport of the
Republic of Serbia's Dositeja fund, for their additional support.
Moreover, I would like to thank Dr. Maja Savevska, the best young scholar that I met
for being a trailblazer. I would also like to thank Dr. David Guttormsen for being my viva
mock reviewer. Finally, I would like to thank my kumovi, Relja Dereta and Jon Dannemann
for proofreading my thesis and making it a far more enjoyable read.
Also, I am in dept to all of my interviewees from Serbia, Mexico, the United
Kingdom and Belgium who took their time to share their knowledge with me, and whose
voices were moulded into the choir of my thesis. Above all, I thank Professor Marie-Christine
x
Renard, who opened the door to Mexico for me. Susan Bentley and Cheryl McGechie from
whom I learned more about the UK Fairtrade system than from all the books I read. Also, I
thank Steven De Craen and Patrick Veillard for their help with the Belgian Fairtrade system.
In addition, I would like to thank Mitar Djuraskovic, Professor Tatjana Jovanic and Relja
Kosanovic, all of them Serbian Fairtrade pioneers, for their enduring help and support.
Finally, a special thanks is due to my uncle Slobodan Solevic, and Dejan Simic, who are the
main reason why I learned so much about Jablanica and Pcinja districts and why their voices
are heard through another international publication.
In addition, I thank my friends Sarah Goler Solecki, Kevin Solecki and little Julian,
Martina Paone, Domenico Manente, and little Diego, Sofia Jimenez, Anna Chung, Pola
Cebulak, Marika Mura, Ben Jacoby, Phan Chiengkul, Ben King, Misato Matsuoka, Michael
Foulon, Mato Lagator, Elisa Lopez Lucia, Coraline Goron, Toby Pforr, Katia Vladi,
Shunsuke Sato, Miwa Shimizu and little Yugo, Gustavo Müller, Magdalena Wanot, Zhun
Zhong, and the rest of the GEM, Warwick, ULB, Serbian, UK, Belgian, Mexican and
Chinese friends who made my doctoral studies such a pleasurable experience.
In the end, I left the ones closest to my heart. I thank my family, my mother Jelena,
my sister Dijana and my father Ivo for their love. Finally, I am blessed with my son Mihailo
who is now the reason for doing everything I do, and my wife Katarina, who is my
inspiration, my partner and my stella polaris. Without her, this thesis would not be written.
Any scholar could not ask for more help, support and encouragement.
xi
DECLARATION
I submitted this thesis to the University of Warwick and Université libre de Bruxelles
in support of my application for the double degree of Doctor of Philosophy as a part of the
Erasmus Mundus Globalisation, Europe and Multilateralism PhD School. It has been
composed by myself and has not been submitted in any previous application for any degree.
The work presented is original and was carried out by myself. Works of other scholars are
clearly quoted and referenced, as well as my previously published papers.
xii
ABSTRACT
During the last two decades, the Fair Trade literature has constantly questioned the
basic theoretical assumptions of dominant economic orthodoxies and the Fairtrade system has
challenged mainstream businesses with its market successes. In the heart of this rapidly
growing system is its general modus operandi stating, firstly, that all low-income, lower-
middle-income and upper-middle-income economies (i.e. developing countries) are
welcomed to join as countries where Fairtrade products are produced in primary production,
traded and consumed. Secondly, that the high-income economies (i.e. developed countries)
are the countries where Fairtrade products are traded (or processed in secondary production)
and consumed.
However, the Fairtrade system's practice is inconsistent with its internal normative
and operational bases in the case of nine European upper-middle income economies, which
are allowed to have Fairtrade traders (or processors in secondary production) and consumers,
however, their poor and marginalised small-scale producers are forbidden from entering the
Fairtrade system as primary producers. Therefore, they are under a direct threat of becoming
double-losers, potentially excluded from both non-Fairtrade and Fairtrade economy.
This inconsistency is important because the greater integration of all upper-middle-
income economies may in practice be another step towards the creation of a more global
Fairtrade system. In this envisioned state, firstly, the poor and marginalised small-scale
producers and workers from nine excluded upper-middle-income economies will gain a new
perspective to develop and thrive, by being included in the Fairtrade system. Secondly, more
poor and marginalised small-scale producers and workers from other countries of the world
will gain additional and stronger access to new markets in these nine upper-middle-income
economies once they are fully included.
One of these "producer-excluded" upper-middle-income economies - Serbia, and its
full Fairtrade potentials, which have never been fully on the Fair Trade radar before, will be
in the focus of my doctoral research.
xiii
ABBREVIATIONS
BTC Trade for Development Centre of Belgium
CDJPD Centre for Development of Jablanica and Pcinja Districts
Co-op Co-operative Food
DFID Department for International Development
EU European Union
Fairtrade Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International
International
FMO Fairtrade marketing organisation
FTO Fair Trade organisation
GCR Global Competitiveness Report
GNI Gross national income
IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
ILO International Labour Organization
ISO International Organization for Standardisation
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NCC National Campaigner Committee
NFO National Fairtrade organisation
SADS Serbian Strategy for Agricultural Development
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
WEF World Economic Forum
WFTO World Fair Trade Organisation
WTO World Trade Organisation
xiv
RESEARCH TRAINING
During my doctoral studies, research trainings greatly facilitated my PhD research.
Firstly, I passed the obligatory first year PhD course at the University of Warwick: The First
Year PhD Training Module, 2011/2012 - Explanation and Methodology in PaIS (October
2011 - May 2012). Furthermore, I participated at the ULB's Café Doctoral meetings (October
2012 - March 2013). Moreover, I audited two methodological courses at the University of
Warwick - Qualitative Methods (October 2011 - December 2011) and Quantitative Data
Analysis and Interpretation (January 2012 - April 2012).
In addition, I finished nine IT research courses organised by the University of
Warwick IT Service and University of Warwick Library: NVivo 9 - Working with Data
Training, NVivo 9 - An Overview Training Microsoft, IBM SPSS Statistics 19 - Data
Operations, IBM SPSS Statistics 19 - Elementary Statistical Methods, IBM SPSS Statistics 19
- An Overview Training and Word 2010 - Theses and Dissertations. Also, Understanding
Official Publications and Statistics Training, End Note Web and Current Awareness Services
Training and Electronic Recourses and Databases Training. Finally, I completed two of the
University of Warwick's Lifelong Language Learning French Language Lessons, acquiring
B1 and B2 levels (2011 - 2012 and 2013 - 2014).
xv
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION
1.1. From Kepler 22-b down to Earth
On December 5th 2011, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
announced the discovery of the Kepler 22-b, "the closest confirmed planet yet to one like
ours - an 'Earth 2.0'" (BBC 2011, p.1). Most certainly, this is one of the greatest discoveries
in the contemporary history of space exploration and the fact that there are currently 2,326
more Earth 2.0 candidates waiting for their status to be upgraded from "candidate" to
"confirmed" (Ibid.) demonstrates that it is just the first of many.
Eight months later, on August 6th 2012, the world witnessed another NASA
accomplishment, the landing of the Mars rover "Curiosity" (BBC 2012a). After surviving the
"seven minutes of horror", a name suitably given for the entry, descent and landing
sequences, Curiosity made her first steps, travelling at the speed of six meters per Mars day.
Two weeks after the successful lending, inspired by this astonishing success, NASA
announced another mission to Mars for the year 2016 - "InSight" (BBC 2012b).
By the end of 2013, another giant leap for mankind occurred when the Voyager-1
spacecraft left the Solar System and became the first manmade object to do so. According to
Professor Stone, the chief scientist on the venture: "This is really a key milestone that we'd
been hoping we would reach when we started this project over 40 years ago - that we would
get a spacecraft into interstellar space" (BBC 2013, p.1).
When these and many other contemporary achievements of the human race in its
constant quest for knowledge are taken into account, it seems that our curiosity, insight and
progress are unlimited.
1
Simultaneously, however, from cosmic heights down to Earth, the situation is rather
different. More than two billion people (World Bank 2013 and Shah 2013) live below
poverty lines set by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) at $1 (€0.89,
£0.65, RSD107.411) a day per person for Africa and Asia, $2 (€1.79, £1.30, RSD214.82) for
Latin America and the Caribbean, $4 (€3.58, £2.60, RSD429.65) for Eastern Europe and the
CIS countries and $14.40 (€12.87, £9.36, RSD1 546.72) for industrial countries (1997,
p.13)2.
Together with another billion people who live just above these lines (World Bank
2013 and Shah 2013), coming from both developing and developed countries, from the
Global South3, as well as from the Global North, almost a half of the global population is
often hungry, food insecure, or consumes food that is either unsafe or lacks critical
micronutrients essential to unobstructed psycho-physical development. Moreover, they
frequently lack access to clean and safe water, adequate shelter and health care. They are
often either fully or functionally illiterate, educationally disadvantaged, lacking essential
professional skills, involuntary unemployed and insecure. In addition, they are frequently
completely powerless to change both the national and international rules, which continually
frustrate their interests, and finally, on many meridians, and even in well-established
democracies, they can lack basic representation and freedom (broadened Stewart and Wang's
definition of poverty 2003, p.16)4.
1
When necessary, I will present the monetary data in four currencies - in US dollars ($), Euros (€), Pounds
sterling (£) and Serbian dinars (RSD). Exchange rates used are from September 10, 2015.
2
This UNDP's classification echoes in a number of more recent categorisations (see also UNDP 2014, World
Bank 2013, Shah 2013, Chang 2009, World Bank 2008 and 2000, etc.) and I will take it as a starting point as
well.
3
I will follow UNDP's definition of the Global South and the Global North: "The use of the term "South" to
refer to developing countries collectively has been part of the shorthand of international relations since the
1970s. It rests on the fact that all of the world’s industrially developed countries (with the exception of Australia
and New Zealand) lie to the north of its developing countries. The term does not imply that all developing
countries are similar and can be lumped together in one category. What it does highlight is that although
developing countries range across the spectrum in every economic, social and political attribute, they all share a
set of vulnerabilities and challenges" (2004, p.2, see also UNDP 2013 and Odeh 2010).
4
This broadened Stewart and Wang's definition of poverty is the one which captures numerous key qualitative
aspects of poverty and it will be the base for my understanding as well.
2
Global Food and Economic Crises
The most recent negative impact on their effort to break out of poverty and to start to
develop and thrive is the global economic crisis. According to one of the most prominent
development studies scholars, Cambridge Professor Ha-Joon Chang, who was recently voted
the third most influential economist after Paul Krugman and Amartya Sen (Prospect 2013),
the contemporary global economy "lies in tatters" (Chang 2011, p.xi). "While fiscal and
monetary stimulus of unprecedented scale has prevented the financial melt-down of 2008
from turning into a total collapse of the global economy, the 2008 global crash still remains
the second-largest economic crisis in history, after the Great Depression" (Ibid.).
Roubini chooses to focus more closely on different regions in order to illuminate the
current situation in the global economy, five years after the beginning of the crisis. Starting
with developed countries, the European Union (EU) has not resolved its fundamental
problems. Primarily, the rising inequalities between the northern and southern members,
followed by the "low potential growth, ongoing recession, loss of competitiveness, and large
stocks of private and public debt" (2013, p.1). On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, the US
still struggles with unemployment and high household debts, the fiscal drag, spending cuts
hindering growth and the dysfunctionality of the political system (Ibid., p.2).
Rapidly developing countries' troubles are numerous as well. China is struggling with
regional imbalances, growing income and wealth inequalities, too much savings, too little
private consumption, fixed investment and unprecedented environmental degradation. It
shares another important commonality with other BRIC countries (i.e. Brazil, Russia and
India) - overly entrenched state capitalism, "which does not bode well for growth" (Ibid.,
p.3), and can be especially problematic when mixed with high politics, as the current Russian
economic crisis illustrates (The Economist 2014).
3
Less developed economies were in a difficult position even before the global
economic crisis. According to Jaffee: "The unfairness of international trade has for centuries
troubled many people who have witnessed its human and environmental effects. The terms of
trade between North and South... have long been unequal" (2007, p.11). Therefore, with the
outbreak of the crisis, the already challenging situation became even more complicated. Not
only are the vast majority of more developed countries still far from recovering from the
impacts of the crisis, they have spent tens of times more funds addressing the shortfalls of
liquidity in their banks than is required for achievement and implementation of the United
Nations Millennium Development Goals5 (Cigna et al. 2014, p.500).
At the other side of the spectrum of economics, seemingly less alarmed World Trade
Organisation's (WTO) Director General, Pascal Lamy, nevertheless notes that even though a
few years have passed since the trade collapse of 2008/2009, "the world economy and trade
remain fragile" and that "we are not yet out of the woods" (WTO 2012, p.1).
WTO statistics quantitatively confirm Lamy's concerns. The expansion of the world
trade, which amounts to $18.3 (€16.36, £11.89, RSD1,965.63) trillion in total, out of which
the share of agricultural products is around 6 percent, i.e. $1.1 (€0.98, £0.71, RSD118.15)
trillion (Bozic et al. 2011), decelerated sharply from 13.8 percent in 2010 to only 5.0 percent
in 2011, slowing further to 2.0 percent in 2012. The WTO's predictions in 2012 had been
nearly twice as high: 3.7 percent (WTO 2012 and 2013). This growth rate for world
merchandise trade is "below the long-term average of 6.0% for 1990-2008, and it is even
below the average over the last 20 years including the period of the trade collapse (5.5%)"
(WTO 2012, p.2). In addition, it was followed by falling prices for traded goods. Many
5
"The United Nations Millennium Development Goals are eight goals that all 191 UN Member States have
agreed to try to achieve by the year 2015. The United Nations Millennium Declaration, signed in September
2000 commits world leaders to combat poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation, and
discrimination against women"(World Health Organization 2015, p.1).
4
commodities prices declined sharply in recent years, with coffee (-22%) and cotton (-42%)
being at the top of the list (WTO 2013).
In the end, Chang points out that the aftermath of the crisis will be felt for years by
the majority of people around the globe. "The huge budget deficits created by the crisis will
force governments to reduce public investments and welfare entitlements significantly,
negatively affecting economic growth, poverty and social stability - possibly for decades.
Some of those who lost their jobs and houses during the crisis may never join the economic
mainstream again. These are frightening prospects" (2011, p.xi).
Although the mainstay of practitioners and scholars focus on the global economic
crisis, it was, in fact, preceded by the 2005-2008 global food crisis, the significance of which
is usually underestimated. Lang describes it as a "shock to political elites" (2010, p.87).
"When world commodity prices rocketed in 2007, some policy language verged on the
apocalyptic" (Ibid., p.88) due to the fact that food policies were failing to respond adequately
to "the squeeze on land, people, health and environment" (Ibid., p.87), impacting the whole
global food system.
In line with his perspective is a United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development's research paper, stating that "[t]he already grave situation of global hunger was
further worsened by the 83 per cent increase in global food prices between 2005 and 2008"
(Mittal 2009, p.1). This crisis all but reversed the steady decrease in world hunger since the
1970s (Lang 2010, p.87).
Unlike many previously seen crises, the problems were not exclusively related to low-
income and lower-middle-income economies6, a fact that correlates with events during the
6
Economies (215 in total) are divided according to GNI per capita calculated by using the World Bank Atlas
Method (World Bank 2015a):
1) Low-income economies (31 economies) - $1,045 (€941.06, £678.05, RSD113,299) or less,
2) Lower-middle-income economies (48 economies) - $1,046 to $4,125 (€3,715.38, £2,676.49, RSD447,233),
3) Upper-middle-income economies (55 economies) - $4,126 to $12,735,
4) High-income economies (75 economies) - $12,736 (€11,469.22, £8,263.72, RSD1,380,837) or more.
5
global economic crisis of 2008/2009. Both crises equally represented a major challenge for
upper-middle-income and high-income economies as well (Ibid.). For example, many of the
upper-middle-income economies were hit hard because they are highly dependent on their
agro-food industries and very sensitive to changes in their agricultural imports and exports
(Bozic et al. 2011, p.42, 143). In addition, a stronger entry of low-income and especially
lower-middle-income economies in the world markets has shifted the patterns of comparative
advantage in upper-middle-income economies (Goldberg and Pavcnik 2007, p.30).
Low-income economies ($1,045 or less) - 31 economies

Afghanistan Gambia, The Niger
Benin Guinea Rwanda
Burkina Faso Guinea-Bissau Sierra Leone
Burundi Haiti Somalia
Cambodia Korea, Dem Rep. South Sudan
Central African Republic Liberia Tanzania
Chad Madagascar Togo
Comoros Malawi Uganda
Congo, Dem. Rep Mali Zimbabwe
Eritrea Mozambique
Ethiopia Nepal
Lower-middle-income economies ($1,046 to $4,125) - 51 economies

Armenia Indonesia Samoa
Bangladesh Kenya São Tomé and Principe
Bhutan Kiribati Senegal
Bolivia Kosovo Solomon Islands
Cabo Verde Kyrgyz Republic Sri Lanka
Cameroon Lao PDR Sudan
Congo, Rep. Lesotho Swaziland
Côte d'Ivoire Mauritania Syrian Arab Republic
Djibouti Micronesia, Fed. Sts. Tajikistan
Egypt, Arab Rep. Moldova Timor-Leste
El Salvador Morocco Ukraine
Georgia Myanmar Uzbekistan
Ghana Nicaragua Vanuatu
Guatemala Nigeria Vietnam
Guyana Pakistan West Bank and Gaza
Honduras Papua New Guinea Yemen, Rep.
India Philippines Zambia
6
Upper-middle-income economies ($4,126 to $12,735 - 53 economies
Albania Fiji Namibia
Algeria Gabon Palau
American Samoa Grenada Panama
Angola Iran, Islamic Rep. Paraguay
Azerbaijan Iraq Peru
Belarus Jamaica Romania
Belize Jordan Serbia
Bosnia and Herzegovina Kazakhstan South Africa
Botswana Lebanon St. Lucia
Brazil Libya St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Bulgaria Macedonia, FYR Suriname
China Malaysia Thailand
Colombia Maldives Tonga
Costa Rica Marshall Islands Tunisia
Cuba Mauritius Turkey
Dominica Mexico Turkmenistan
Dominican Republic Mongolia Tuvalu
Ecuador Montenegro
High-income economies ($12,736 or more) - 80 economies

Andorra Germany Poland
Antigua and Barbuda Greece Portugal
Argentina Greenland Puerto Rico
Aruba Guam Qatar
Australia Hong Kong SAR, China Russian Federation
Austria Hungary San Marino
Bahamas, The Iceland Saudi Arabia
Bahrain Ireland Seychelles
Barbados Isle of Man Singapore
Belgium Israel Sint Maarten (Dutch part)
Bermuda Italy Slovak Republic
Brunei Darussalam Japan Slovenia
Canada Korea, Rep. Spain
Cayman Islands Kuwait St. Kitts and Nevis
Channel Islands Latvia St. Martin (French part)
Chile Liechtenstein Sweden
Croatia Lithuania Switzerland
Curaçao Luxembourg Taiwan, China
Cyprus Macao SAR, China Trinidad and Tobago
Czech Republic Malta Turks and Caicos Islands
Denmark Monaco United Arab Emirates
Estonia Netherlands United Kingdom
Equatorial Guinea New Caledonia United States
Faeroe Islands New Zealand Uruguay
Finland Northern Mariana Islands Venezuela, RB
France Norway Virgin Islands (U.S.)
French Polynesia Oman
Table 1. Economies divided according to gross national income (GNI) per capita (World Bank 2015a).
One of the main reasons contributing to this change is the increasing widespread of
inequality. Goldberg and Pavcnik, in up-to-date, one of the most comprehensive studies on
7
this issue, find that there are numerous evidences implicating the rise of inequality, globally
(2007).
Murray and Raynolds concur with them, stating that: "Wealth, in gross material terms,
increased to previously unimaginable levels in some parts of the world, but so too did income
inequalities within and between countries" (2007, p.6). Secondly, the UNDP's 2013 report
states that "[t]here are also deeper problems, shared by North and South: growing inequality
in many countries, both developed and developing, which threatens global recovery and the
sustainability of future progress and limits poverty reduction" (2013, p.1-2). "Wide disparities
remain within countries of both the North and the South, and income inequality within and
between many countries has been rising... Indeed, one can go further and state that there is a
"south" in the North and a "north" in the South" (Ibid.).
The majority of losers of both the global food and economic crises live in the poorest
developing countries, i.e. in low-income and lower-middle-income economies (UNDP 2013
and Mittal 2009). However, this certainly does not mean that poor and marginalised people
who live in upper-middle-income and high-income economies under or around poverty lines
are not experiencing comparable challenges, already identified in broadened Stewart and
Wang's definition of poverty stated above, thus showing that there is also a "south" in the
Global North.
In my opinion, the latter deserve similar attention. How they can return to the road of
development through one of the contemporary developmental initiatives, the Fairtrade
system, which originated as a response to the negative effects of the contemporary,
"inclusive" neoliberalism and the present-day global economic system (Schmelzer 2006), will
be the core research interest of my doctoral thesis. The specific focus will be on one of the
upper-middle-income economies, Serbia, which will be briefly presented next, together with
its contemporary challenges.
8
1.2. Serbia and Serbian Food System after Global Food and Economic Crises
During the last five years, both Serbia in general and its food system in particular
experienced numerous difficulties, which is, historically, not a novel situation. Bozic and her
colleague point out that even before the Second World War, Serbia was characterised as a
cheap labour, raw material producing economy (Bozic et al. 2011, p.238). They went as far as
to say that back then, it was "developed as a semi-colonial country" (Ibid.).
According to Professor Zaklina Stojanovic, a leading agro-marketing researcher in
Serbia, the Yugoslav planned economy, of which Serbia was a part, focussed primarily on
urbanisation and industrialisation, which left numerous negative consequences on its
agricultural and rural development (2013c, interview). Almost all ex-Yugoslav countries,
including Serbia, lost a decade of momentum to conflicts and international isolation, whereas
many other post-socialist economies evolved into high-income markets.
Following the fall of Slobodan Milosevic in October 2000, genuine political, social
and economic advancements commenced. After just a few years of progress, however, the
global food (2005-2008) and then, the global economic (2008/2009) crises influenced Serbia
in general, and its national food system in particular. This lead to the situation that today,
with $5,820 (€5,203.40, £3,781.92, RSD625,134.26) GNI per capita, Serbia is an upper-
middle-income economy (World Bank 2015b).
In its recent turbulent past, Serbia experienced unique major setbacks such as wars, a
crisis environment, adverse UN Security Council sanctions, the disintegration of Yugoslavia
and the general economic recession, accompanied by monetary disorders and the third most
severe hyperinflation in human history (Bogdanov et al. 2000). These additional problems
are, most often, not the burden that many of the upper-middle-income economies had to bear.
Given the fact that Serbia had to deal with them as well, the World Economic Forum's (WEF)
9
worrying data, presented in the 2013 Global Competitiveness Report (GCR), comes as no
surprise.
The following table below clearly depicts the graveness of the contemporary general
situation in Serbia. In more than two-thirds of categories, Serbia was ranked in the bottom 10
percent of the 144 countries analysed. A more comprehensive analysis will be put forward
below, but here I will just single out some of the issues.
To begin with, apart from affordability of financial services (100/144), Serbia is not in
the top 100 countries according to any parameter. Furthermore, in six out of twenty
categories (cooperation in labour-employer relation, buyer sophistication, burden of
government regulation, intensity of local competition, extent of market dominance and
efficiency of legal framework in settling disputes), Serbia ranks among the ten least capable
countries. In addition, regarding its extent of market dominance, Serbia is among the weakest
three countries, being second only to Mongolia and Haiti. This data alone is enough to start
the debate about "repositioning" Serbia in terms of its developmental realities further down
the list of developing countries, although it is geographically situated in the Global North.
10
Serbia in WEF's GCR
Category Serbia (/144)
1. Ethical behaviour of firms 132
2. Cooperation in labour-employer relation 139
3. State of cluster development 133
4. Local supplier quantity 110
5. Local supplier quality 113
6. Affordability of financial services 100
7. Ease of access to loans 105
8. Buyer sophistication 138
9. Agricultural policy costs 119
10. Favouritism in decisions of government officials 132
11. Burden of government regulation 136
12. Quality of overall infrastructure 120
13. Quality of roads 122
14. Quality of the educational system 111
15. Brain drain 141
16. Intensity of local competition 137
17. Extent of market dominance 142
18. Property rights 130
19. Efficiency of legal framework in settling disputes 138
20. Nature of competitive advantage 134
Table 2. Serbia in WEF's GCR (2013, p.313).
Therefore, the understanding of the current moment cannot be complete without
seeing the broader picture, best depicted by the words of one of my interviewees, Bojan
Tojaga. The director of the Agency for Local Economic Development of the City of
Leskovac in Jablanica District has noted that with regard to Serbia and its food system, "the
crisis is not present only for the last three or four years, here, the crisis has been happening
for far longer" (2013, interview 01:03).
Now that some of the key general contemporary Serbian indicators, challenges and
difficulties, typical and atypical for upper-middle-income economies' group have been
illuminated, I will briefly present the consequences of the crises on all of the three main links
in Serbian food value chains - the Serbian food producers, traders and consumers, which were
affected in different ways and to various degrees. These three referent objects, i.e. producers,
traders and consumers, will be the main referent points around which I will organise my
discussion throughout my doctoral thesis. A brief discussion will be presented now and a
11
more comprehensive debate will be put forward in chapters VII and VIII focussing solely on
Serbia.
Serbian Food Producers
Starting with the Serbian food producers, the first who felt the initial shock of the
crises were the biggest among them. Professor Natalija Bogdanov, director of the department
of agricultural economics at the Faculty of Agriculture of the University of Belgrade
explains: "The crisis in the food sector, from the producers' perspective, was felt with a one-
year time lag, because, as with all previous big economic crises in Europe, it was preceded by
inflation. That was the big jump in prices of agricultural products in 2008 [(the peak of the
food crisis)], which is always the first indicator of serious market and structural disorders...
Already back then, there were indications that we cannot expect anything good in the coming
years. The crisis started somewhere in the 2008/2009 vegetation cycle... at the start of the
crisis, the biggest producers were hit the strongest, [because] they are more strongly
connected with the market... and they are more sensitive to inflation and serious monetary
and fiscal disorders" (2013, interview 03:37). Therefore, for a number of them the crisis
"practically called into question their solvency and their capacity to continue production next
year" (Ibid., 6:02).
However, current increased food exports, coupled with further evidence presented by
Sberbank's senior agriculture credit and risk adviser, Elvis Colovic, seem to indicate that the
larger producers, with over 100 hectares (ha) of land7 have emerged from the crises with
rather less effort and slighter implications than others (2013, interview). In his opinion, they
were able to leverage effective investments due to the quality of their products, the Serbian
7
1ha equals 2.47105 acres.
12
natural potentials that remained in both domestic and foreign demand, but also due to their
comparatively low technological base in light of the political and economic circumstances
discussed above (Ibid.).
On the other hand, for the small-scale producers in Serbia, the situation was rather
different. The initial wave of the crises did not affect them, because they were generally
connected only with local markets selling either directly or through middlemen (Bogdanov
2013, interview). However, as the crisis continued, and other sectors began to deteriorate, the
full implications came to bear upon them. Especially problematic in the case of Serbia was a
sudden, sharp drop in general employment, given the fact that the number of employed
people fell by half a million between 2009 and 2011 meaning that the official unemployment
rate in Serbia is above 25 percent (Vukojicic Obradovic 2012, p.1). This had a particularly
negative effect on small-scale producers, because many of them worked, at least part-time, in
other sectors, and now found themselves without this very important additional source of
income (Bogdanov 2013, interview).
The same national setback led to the sudden impoverishment of their consumers,
especially from the biggest cities causing additional problems for small-scale producers, since
they were their main customers, as stated by Branimir Ivanovic, agricultural adviser at the
Municipality of Lebane in Jablanica District and a small-scale producer himself (2013,
interview). In the following years, according to him (Ibid.), and his colleagues from Jablanica
District, Bozidar Djordjevic, agricultural adviser at the Municipality of Medvedja (2013,
interview) and Nebojsa Stojanovic, president of the Municipality Vlasotince (2013b,
interview), small-scale producers were also confronted with the increase in prices of
mechanisation, seeds, fertilisers and pesticides. Consequently, if they fail to meet the
sustainability levels even just for one season, "they will not have the capital to restart their
13
production next year", rendering their situation particularly precarious in light of their
poverty and size (Ivanovic 2013 interview 02:31).
According to Donka Smiljkovic, agricultural adviser at the Municipality Trgoviste in
Pcinja District (2013, interview), their response was either to reinforce their efforts to
maintain themselves, or to leave production altogether and move, either to bigger cities or
abroad, as was the case in many of the most underdeveloped municipalities. This led to the
situation that today, Serbia has 20 percent less small farming households than it had before
the crises, which in absolute terms amounts to a loss of more than 150,000 small family farms
(Biznis i Finansije 2014). The future prognoses are even worse and according to the same
source, by 2020, when it is expected for Serbia to join the EU, it can lose additional 250,000
family farms, in which case in Serbia the talk will not be about empty villages, but of empty
regions (Ibid.).
Serbian Food Traders
In national terms, Serbian food traders, i.e. exporters/importers,
manufacturers/processors, wholesalers and retailers, are of almost equal importance to that of
food producers. This industry generates a significant part of the Serbian gross domestic
product (SADS 2005, p.19) and food exports represents 20 percent of total Serbian export
grossing over one billion dollars (€0.91, £0.64, RSD107.93) worth of foreign trade surplus
every year (Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia 2013a). The strongest Serbian
agricultural export potentials are found within: fresh fruits, dried fruits, fruit juices,
vegetables, maize and wheat (Bozic et al. 2011). Imports, in return, are driven by coffee,
citrus fruits, bananas, rice and cotton (Ibid.).
14
However, due to fifteen years of unsuccessful privatisations and the last five post-
crises years, many food traders are now out of business. This altered the trading link of
Serbian food value chains and induced a situation in which today the most powerful players
in the Serbian market are large foreign supermarkets. This is best depicted by the fact that the
entrance and cooperation with the biggest - Delhaize Serbia (part of the Delhaize Group)
which in 2011 acquired the Delta Maxi group (Archicom 2014, Cakic 2014 and Marinkovic
2014) is seen as the holy grail for all food producers and other food traders, according to a
number of my interviewees (Djuraskovic 2013, interview and Vuckovic 2013, interview, to
state a few).
Therefore, as in the case of Serbian food producers, the crises had less negative
effects on some of the biggest Serbian food traders, like the ones capable of exporting or on
large foreign supermarkets, primarily due to their strong position in Serbian food value
chains. Consequently, the failure of Delhaize Serbia to meet its targets in 2013 (Reuters
2013), originated in the dramatic impoverishment of the final link in the food system, i.e.
Serbian food consumers, instead of being caused by the food producers or other smaller food
traders better organisation in terms of value chain governance.
Serbian Food Consumers
The final link, the Serbian food consumers, shared the destiny of food producers.
Again, there is a significant minority which is still well-off, particularly in the capital,
Belgrade, but also in regional city centres, not excluding South Serbia's Leskovac in
Jablanica District or Vranje in Pcinja District. This is confirmed by several of my
interviewees, including Relja Kosanovic, sustainability officer at Delhaize Serbia in charge
with the regional line of Delhaize Fairtrade products (2013, interview), by Milica Fotiric
15
Aksic, Professor at Faculty of Agriculture of the University of Belgrade (2013, interview),
and by Dragana Nikolic, director of sales at Primanova (2013b, interview). It is therefore
reasonable to assert that a number of Serbian consumers are still more than capable to freely
express their shopping preferences, in spite of the crises.
The other side of the consumers' coin, according to the same interviewees, paints a
rather different picture. As already stated, the crises challenged numerous sectors and
industries strongly, especially in Serbia's biggest cities rendering the economic circumstances
of poor and average consumers precarious. This can be easily gleaned from "...the data on the
unemployment rate, average wage and the basket of goods and services. From these data it is
clear that one in four people cannot find work and that most of the citizens meet even their
basic needs such as housing and food with difficulty" (Vukojicic Obradovic 2012, p.1).
Finishing the short presentation of the final key element of the Serbian food system, I
briefly put forward the complete post-crises picture of the Serbian food system. Slavoljub
Blagojevic, the president of one of the least developed municipalities in Serbia, Crna Trava in
Jablanica District summarises the situation succinctly in stating that "[t]he crisis hit both the
rich and the poor, however, the poor are feeling it more" (2013, interview 00:06).
Following the discussion about the contemporary moment in which the global
economy in general and one of the upper-middle-income economies, Serbia, and its food
system in particular are, focused on widely discussed global economic crisis, but also on the
global food crisis which preceded it, the remainder of the Introduction will proceed in five
stages.
Firstly, I will briefly discuss the Fair Trade movement, the Fairtrade system and the
Fair Trade literature. Furthermore, I will identify gaps in the Fair Trade literature by
revealing the group of "producer-excluded" upper-middle-income economies. I will begin
bridging these gaps by analysing Serbia as one of its members, and its full Fairtrade
16
potentials, which have never been on the Fair Trade radar before. In addition, I will put
forward underlying research question and three attendant research questions, which will lead
the discussion, as well as contributions to the Fair Trade literature which I aim to make.
Finally, I will provide an outline of the chapters of my doctoral thesis and end the
Introduction with concluding remarks.
1.3. Fair Trade Movement, Fairtrade System and Fair Trade Literature at a Glance
The previous debate clearly demonstrates that maintaining the pre-2008
developmental rates, let alone eradicating global poverty, is proving a more challenging task
for civilisation than finding potentially habitable planets 600 light-years away, or sending
spacecrafts to Mars and beyond our Solar System. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that,
according to Abdelrahman, a number of development programmes, movements, initiatives
and campaigns tackle developmental issues today (2010).
Central to their agendas are new political, economic, social and ecological rights and
values (Murray and Raynolds 2007 and 2000, Buttel and Gould 2004). They offer "novel
ways in which they span North/South and producer/consumer divides" (Raynolds and
Wilkinson 2007, p.39), insisting on redefining trade relations between developing and
developed countries (Strong 1996) and believing that the trade and not aid should be accented
(Annan 2001). Furthermore, according to Fair Trade research doyen, Oxford Professor Alex
Nicholls and Charlotte Opal, the chair of the Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International's
(Fairtrade International) standards committee, today, their focus is on the global market and
not on national authoritarian regimes (2005, p.22-23). Instead of sole concerns about the
sustainability of production and its environmental impacts, they now focus on political,
economic, social and environmental contexts of the production processes in general and on
17
the global economy and international trade in particular, in order to make them more ethical
and fair (Ibid.).
From this milieu emerged the Fair Trade movement and the Fairtrade system, as its
most prominent part (Krier 2005), gaining significant momentum during the last two decades.
Academically, they were predominantly analysed by the Fair Trade literature. I will now put
forward their "at a glance" presentation, since all of the below-presented topics will be
discussed in detail in chapters II and III, in which both the literature review and doctoral
thesis' theoretical framework will be presented.
The idea of fair and ethical business and trade is not a new one and there are many
scholars who have tackled this issue (for examples, see in: Fontaine 2008, Jackson 2008,
Fridell 2003, Alvey 1999, Galbraith 1998, Drakopoulos 1997, Winch 1996, Canterbery 1995,
Rothschild 1993, Thompson 1991 and others). However, the earliest start of what is today
called Fair Trade, a proto-Fair Trade movement, began with a group of British Quakers who
founded Oxfam in 1942 in order to raise funds for wartime relief, primary in Greece in 1941-
1942 (O'Grada 2007, p.18).
The modern form of Fair Trade soon followed in the early post-World War II era
when the initial attempts to commercialise Fair Trade goods in the markets of developed
countries were undertaken. The pioneers were the Mennonite and Brethren in Christ churches
in North America that founded Ten Thousand Villages in 1946, which started the Fair Trade
supply chains in developing countries (Lyon 2006, p.454). A few years later, during the
1950s, secular alternative trade organisations and shops emerged in Europe, such as, for
example, the UK's Twin Trading, Dutch Fair Trade Organisatie and Oxfam's Worldshops
(Ibid.).
With the slogan "Trade not Aid", pro-Fair Trade initiatives gained international
recognition in 1968 when the United Nations acknowledged the concept for the first time
18
(Hockerts 2005). In 1986, Equal Exchange, one of the most famous Fair Trade coffee
companies was founded in Canton, Massachusetts (Lyon 2006, p.454) and it was one of the
most vocal heralds of major events which happened shortly after.
The history of the Fairtrade system itself began in 1988 with the launch of the Max
Havelaar label for coffee coming from Mexico, which was introduced by the Dutch
development agency Solidaridad (Fairtrade International 2012a). Three years later, this label
was replicated in neighbouring Belgium, a year after in Switzerland and in 1993 in Germany
and France (Giovannucci and Koekoek 2003, p.39). The Fairtrade Foundation, which was
founded in 1992 by a number of British development organisations, soon followed, and in
1994 it introduced the Green & Black's "Maya Gold" chocolate, the first product carrying the
mark which went on sale in the United Kingdom (Lamb 2008, p.60).
However, the history of Fairtrade changed decisively in 1997 when the above-stated
Dutch, Belgian, Swiss, German, French, British and eleven other National Fairtrade
Organisations (NFO)8 established Fairtrade International9 in Bonn, Germany, which united
them and pooled their certification and marketing resources together (Nicholls and Opal
2005, p.10-11). In 2002, they launched, for the first time, an International Fairtrade
Certification Mark (FAIRTRADE Mark), which is now a famous brand name in the
developed world. Following a decade of continuous growth, the Fairtrade system became one
of the largest social certification systems in the world (Ibid., p.128).
Another step forward happened in 2003 when Fairtrade International's certification
department ceased to exist in its original form and was outsourced to FLO-CERT that got the
International Organisation for Standardisation's (ISO) accreditation in 2007 and became "the
first accredited certifier for social standards and development" (FLO-CERT 2011, p.4). In
8
NFOs are also referred to in the Fair Trade literature as "national labelling initiatives" (LIs).
9
Fairtrade International is also referred to in the Fair Trade literature as "FLO" and "FLO International".
19
this way, the foundations of the Fairtrade system were laid, ushering in its rapid
contemporary development.
Therefore, according to its supporters, Fair Trade is a general term corresponding to a
broader social movement representing "a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency
and respect, that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable
development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalised
producers and workers - especially in developing countries" (Fairtrade International and
WFTO 2011, p.1). According to, for example, Murray and Raynolds (2007), Schmelzer
(2006), Ransom (2001) and Raynolds (2000), Fair Trade is one of the most dynamic
initiatives which emerged as a response to negative economic effects in recent decades.
Regarding the Fairtrade system, it is the leading Fair Trade movement in the
agriculture and food sector and one of the biggest ethical certification systems in the world,
following a very strict set of its own, combined with the International Organization for
Standardisation (ISO) standards, rules and regulations. According to its supporters, it is based
on five groups of high economic, labour, social and environmental principles and two
monetary benefits - the Fairtrade minimum price and the Fairtrade premium (FINE 2001, see
also in: Brkovic 2013a and 2012, Fairtrade International 2012b, Fairtrade International
2011a, Nelson and Pound 2009, Lamb 2008, Jaffee 2007, Raynolds et al. 2007, Hayes 2006,
Nicholls and Opal 2005, Auroi 2003, Murray et al. 2003 and others).
Quantitatively, the Fairtrade system has expanded rapidly over the last two decades, at
a stable rate of around 15 percent annually and it has been steadily developing even during
and after the global food and economic crises. In 2013, the sales of Fairtrade products
amounted to €5.5 ($6.15, £4, RSD660.77) billion worldwide (Fairtrade International 2014b,
p.19). The global leader is the United Kingdom, with €2.04 ($2.28, £1.48, RSD245.08)
billion worth of sales (Ibid.) and the Coordinator of Fairtrade Small Producers in Latin
20
America and the Caribbean (CLAC) is the regional producer network with the biggest
number of producer groups (Ibid., p.1).
Country Growth rate 2012 (in €) 2013 (in €) Per capita

Australia/NZ 1% 188,045,618 189,244,894 6.76
Austria 21% 107,000,000 130,000,000 12.54
Belgium 9% 85,837,221 93,209,845 8.3
Canada 1%* 182,638,667 173,179,745 4.87
Czech Republic 142%* 2,744,524 6,439,976 0.61
Denmark 13% 71,836,714 81,080,778 14.38
Estonia 65% 1,061,938 1,756,251 1.34
Finland 3% 152,263,629 156,785,309 28.7
France 3% 345,829,378 354,845,458 5.36
Germany 23% 533,062,796 653,956,927 8.08
Hong Kong 95% 422,803 825,175 0.11
India n/a - 641,890 0.0005
Ireland 13% 174,954,927 197,296,405 42.77
Italy 17% 65,435,059 76,355,675 1.24
Japan 22%* 71,419,147 68,976,524 0.54
Kenya n/a - 51,064 0.001
Latvia 4% 938,975 975,010 0.49
Lithuania 0% 846,027 842,258 0.29
Luxembourg 16% 8,319,391 9,628,859 17.32
Netherlands 6% 186,100,623 197,142,624 11.7
Norway 9%* 65,450,834 68,441,095 13.32
South Africa 22%* 22,263,619 22,573,605 0.42
South Korea 92% 1,989,631 3,814,805 0.08
Spain/Portugal 6% 22,274,635 23,663,783 0.42
Sweden 29% 178,951,375 231,668,646 23.91
Switzerland 13% 311,590,237 353,206,210 43.13
UK 12%* 1,904,891,092 2,044,926,208 31.7
USA 501%* 53,116,711 309,131,263 0.97
Rest of world 5% 47,487,290 49,657,508 0.01
Grand Total 15% 4,786,772,862 5,500,317,789 0.76
Table 3. Estimated Fairtrade retail sales by countries

(Fairtrade International 2014b, p.19 and World Bank 2014).
Despite the above-stated fact and figures, both the total sales and the growth rates,
which remained stable even during and after the crises, Fairtrade sales still do not represent
more than one percent of the world commerce in products which are under its scope and for
which there are Fairtrade standards (Fairtrade International 2012c, Jaffee 2007, Lyon 2006,
Daviron and Ponte 2005, De Pelsmacker et al. 2005, Lewin et al. 2004, Ponte 2004 and
MacGillivray 2000). Even the most important Fairtrade products, like Fairtrade coffee,
gravitate around these numbers (Jaffee 2007, p.4).
21
However, in 2004, Roosevelt remarked that "Fair Trade is taking off", due to its
impressive growth rate and the potential for introducing new products, even though, in
absolute numbers, its market penetration amounted to 0.01 per cent of the total global food
trade at the time.
Furthermore, as Murray and Raynolds have stated, the Fairtrade facts and figures and
its continual development "cannot be discounted as merely the practices of an obscure and
irrelevant group of progressive producers and elite consumers. Fair Trade products represent
one of the fastest growing segments of the global food market" (2007, p.3). In addition, the
Fairtrade system emerged in response to the negative effects of the contemporary global
economic system, seeking to create greater social equity (Murray and Raynolds 2007,
Ransom 2001, Raynolds 2000 and others). In itself, this is an equally important and difficult
task as maintaining the growth rates and winning a bigger share of the global food market.
This point is crucial, given the fact that according to a former Managing Director of Fairtrade
International, Luuk Zonneveld, 80 percent of food and agricultural products imported from
the developing countries are imported from poor and marginalised producers. Since Fairtrade
shares no more than two percent of that market, Fairtrade International can continue to raise
questions regarding global trade repeatedly (in Nicholls and Opal 2005, pp.254-255).
There are other Fair Trade certification initiatives and international bodies as well,
most notably, the World Fair Trade Organisation (WFTO), the global network of
organisations that have Fair Trade as part of their mission, objectives and activities (Fairtrade
International and WFTO 2011, p.1). The WFTO is actually a new name for the oldest
international Fair Trade umbrella organisation, originally called the International Federation
for Alternative Trade or International Fair Trade Association, which was established in 1989
(Moore et al. 2006, p.330).
22
Its accompanying monitoring system is not based on the standards recognised by the
ISO, but on more flexible, "biennial self-assessments, peer reviews and external verification"
(Fairtrade International and WFTO 2011, p.1). Furthermore, the WFTO is based on the Fair
Trade Organisation Mark, which was created in January 2004, positioned to label
organisations rather than products (Nicholls and Opal 2005, pp.8-9). Finally, it is not focused
predominantly on food and agriculture, but also on handcrafts, garment, tourism and other
business sectors (Ibid., p.141).
Even though initiatives like the WFTO are very important for the Fair Trade
movement's development in general10, they will not be within the scope of my doctoral thesis
for the following three reasons. Firstly, the Fair Trade movement as a whole, with all its
initiatives is too broad and heterogeneous to be tackled in a single doctoral thesis at the level
of analytical coherence aspired to. Secondly, the Fairtrade system is the most prominent part
of Fair Trade and the main reason for its global success, since the impact of all other Fair
Trade initiatives compared to Fairtrade International's is greatly inferior (Krier 2005).
Thirdly, my research interest is primarily in food and agriculture, given the fact that food is
the world's most important business and that agriculture is its bedrock (Tansey and Worsley
1995, p.5, 16, see also in Lang 2010). Therefore, progressive changes in these areas can have
a profound impact on the world's poorest out of which, more than half are farmers (Fairtrade
International 2013a, p.4).
Consequently, my doctoral research will focus on the Fairtrade system, easily
recognisable by the FAIRTRADE Mark, which follows a set of strict rules, regulations and
its own, combined with the ISO's standards. According to Harriet Lamb, the CEO of
Fairtrade International, it has enabled seven million farmers, workers and their families to
10
There is also a great number of major, non-Fairtrade, sustainable, fair and ethical certification and labelling
initiatives like the Forest Stewardship Council, UTZ CERTIFIED, Bonsucro, Rainforest Alliance and many
others (Fortin and Richardson 2013 and Cashore et al. 2004). However, they will not be in the focus of my
research because they are not a part of the Fairtrade system.
23
move from income insecurity and poverty to economic self-sufficiency and ownership (2008,
p.44). Finally, it is important to point out that my sole focus on the Fairtrade system is not
unique in the Fair Trade literature and that other Fair Trade scholars have previously chosen
the same area of research (for examples, see in: Doherty et al. 2013, Nelson and Pound 2009,
Lamb 2008, Jaffee 2007, Hayes 2006, Schmelzer 2006 and many others).
Figure 1. Fairtrade International's FAIRTRADE Mark for products.
Regarding the structure of the Fairtrade system, three main links in Fairtrade value
chains - three referent objects of my doctoral thesis, are easily recognised. The organised,
poor and marginalised small-scale producers and hired labour, certified as per relevant
Fairtrade standards, who produce Fairtrade products, in countries which are identified as
"producer-countries" are the foundation of the system (Fairtrade International and WFTO
2011, p.1) and I will refer to them as "Fairtrade producers" in my doctoral thesis.
Producer-countries are economies which poor and marginalised small-scale farmers
and workers are permitted to produce and certify Fairtrade products from primary production
(Ibid.). All countries can produce or process Fairtrade products in secondary production, i.e.
to produce Fairtrade orange juice from Fairtrade oranges, Fairtrade honey cereals with
Fairtrade honey, or Fairtrade chocolate from Fairtrade cocoa and sugar, but only poor and
marginalised small-scale producers and workers from producer-countries can produce
24
Fairtrade oranges, honey and cocoa and be certified according to adequate Fairtrade
standards.
Once produced, the Fairtrade products are sold to the Fairtrade certified traders. At
present, there are thousands of Fairtrade certified exporters/importers,
manufacturers/processors, wholesalers and retailers worldwide (FairValley Farmworkers
Association 2015). These companies, which I will refer to throughout my research as
"Fairtrade traders" are certified mostly by NFOs11, which are, in turn, members of Fairtrade
International.
NFOs are responsible for "...licensing, marketing, business development and
awareness raising in a defined geographical area" (Fairtrade International and WFTO 2011,
p.1). If there is no NFO, Fairtrade marketing organisations (FMO)12 and local pro-Fairtrade
non-governmental organisations and informal grassroots groups and movements are
responsible for promotion of the Fairtrade, and Fairtrade International is responsible for
licensing "companies directly to use the FAIRTRADE Certification Mark" (Ibid.).
This system is governed by Fairtrade International, a "...multi-stakeholder, non-profit
organisation..." (Ibid.). The system is monitored by FLO-CERT, an independent third-party
certification body, which "evaluates Fairtrade certification applications, verifies compliance
with the Fairtrade Standards during audits, and decides whether Fairtrade certification can be
granted or not. Certificates are issued as proof of successful Fairtrade certification, and as
authorization to trade Fairtrade products" (Ibid.).
The end of the supply chain features the third most important part of the system, the
sensitised consumers who buy Fairtrade products. I will refer to them as "Fairtrade
consumers" throughout.
11
Currently, there are 24 NFOs and two applicant members (Fairtrade International 2015c and Fairtrade
International 2012d).
12
Currently, there are 7 FMOs (Fairtrade International 2015c).
25
The last two decades of the practical development of the Fair Trade movement in
general and the Fairtrade system in particular were followed by the rise of the Fair Trade
literature, which is a stream of academic, predominantly empirical literature (Nicholls and
Opal 2005, p.23) exploring its benefits, limits and contradictions. Even though this body of
work, presented across numerous academic journals, is still relatively limited, a clear
differentiation is taking place, parallel with mutually beneficial relation with broader,
particularly more theoretical, streams of literature. Indeed, the Fair Trade literature is
especially interconnected and borrows a number of theoretical foundations and concepts from
the findings of the following three bodies of work.
Firstly, it draws upon the development studies literature focused on the shortfalls of
the global economic system in general and international trade in particular, explaining the
emergence of Fair Trade (for examples in the Fair Trade literature see in: Lamb 2008, Jaffee
2007, Schmelzer 2006, Nicholls and Opal 2005, Nicholls 2004 and 2002 and others).
Secondly, on the global food system literature, especially informed by Gereffi's global
value chain analytical framework (Gereffi et al. 2005 and Gereffi 1994). This is due to the
fact that the Fairtrade system trades predominantly with food and agricultural products and
that the trade is organised through global value chains with three key links, my referent
objects: Fairtrade producers, traders and consumers (for examples in the Fair Trade literature
see in: Doherty et al. 2013, Karjalainen and Moxham 2012, Nicholls 2010, Smith 2009,
Davies 2009, Raynolds and Wilkinson 2007, Schmelzer 2006, Mair et al. 2006 and others).
Finally, the Fair Trade literature refers to caring across space literature, due to the
Fairtrade system's fundamental mission of "re-connecting" producers, traders and consumers
(for examples in the Fair Trade literature see in: Watson 2007 and 2006, Popke 2006,
Goodman 2004, Castree 2004 and others). I will also use this body of work to explain the
Fairtrade system's internal normative and operational logic, which is crucial to demonstrate
26
the mismatch between Fairtrade system's theoretical foundations and its exclusion practice,
which will be explained in detail in chapters II and III.
Finally, the most important academic network supporting the Fair Trade scientific
community is the Fair Trade Institute based in Switzerland, which describes itself as "[t]he
most comprehensive online collection of Fair Trade publications, where researchers convene
for Fair Trade" (2014, p.1). In addition, the International Fair Trade Symposium is the largest
regular gatherings of Fair Trade scholars in the world.
1.4. Gaps in Fair Trade Literature - Voices of the Excluded
Due to the relative novelty of the Fair Trade literature, the complexity of the Fairtrade
system and the fact that it evolves constantly, there are numerous undiscovered elements and
therefore, numerous opportunities to make contributions to knowledge. Some of these
unexplored aspects are the three gaps that I found.
Firstly, an unrevealed group that I identified as producer-excluded upper-middle-
income economies, which poor and marginalised small-scale agricultural producers have,
thus far, not been studied by the Fair Trade literature, and in practice are forbidden from
producing Fairtrade products in primary production, and consequently, under a direct threat
to become double-losers, expelled from both Fairtrade and non-Fairtrade systems. Secondly,
Fairtrade certified traders and consumers of Fairtrade products from the same group that are
largely unexplored by the Fair Trade literature as well. Thirdly, the literature does not discuss
the potentials of countries from this group for creating national Fairtrade-like systems.
Firstly, by equally developing all three Fairtrade aspects - production, trade and consumption,
secondly, by connecting their prospective Fairtrade producers with their Fairtrade traders and
27
consumers and thirdly, the question whether the whole will be greater than the sum of its
parts remains completely undiscovered by the same literature.
The Fairtrade system and Fairtrade International claim to have adopted a general
modus operandi that, firstly, invites all low-income, lower-middle-income and upper-middle-
income economies (i.e. developing countries) to join as countries where Fairtrade products
are produced in primary production, traded and consumed. Secondly, that the high-income
economies (i.e. developed countries) are the countries where Fairtrade products are traded (or
processed in secondary production) and consumed.
However, after the closer investigation of Fairtrade International's documentation in
general and the Geographical Scope Policy of Producer Certification for Fairtrade
International (Fairtrade International 2011b) in particular, it is clear that there are exceptions
to this rule and that actually two groups of upper-middle income economies exist in regard to
their current relations with the Fairtrade system. On the one hand, forty-four upper-middle-
income economies from the Global South, which I have identified as "producer-included"
countries, are permitted to both implement Fairtrade primary production, and to trade and
consume Fairtrade products. On the other hand, nine European upper-middle income
economies, hence, all from the Global North, which I have identified as "producer-excluded"
countries, are allowed to have Fairtrade certified traders and consumers of Fairtrade products.
However, their poor and marginalised small-scale producers are forbidden from entering the
Fairtrade system as primary producers.
The Geographical Scope Policy of Producer Certification for Fairtrade International
clearly states: "Fairtrade International's geographical scope encompasses almost all countries
in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Oceania, and the poorest countries in Asia...
Excluded from Fairtrade International's geographical scope are European Countries
(including Eastern European countries and Turkey) and all G8-countries (thus Russian
28
Federation as an upper-middle income economy)" (Ibid., p.2). In the footnote, an additional
explanation is put forward why Turkey, as an Asian, upper-middle income economy is
excluded: "Turkey is considered as West Asia according to the UN classification, but is an
official candidate for membership to the European Union" (Ibid.).
Fairtrade producer-included upper-middle-income economies (44 economies)

Angola Gabon Namibia
Algeria Grenada Palau
American Samoa Iran, Islamic Rep. Panama
Azerbaijan Iraq Paraguay
Belize Jamaica Peru
Botswana Jordan South Africa
Brazil Kazakhstan St. Lucia
China Lebanon St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Colombia Libya Suriname
Costa Rica Malaysia Thailand
Cuba Maldives Tonga
Dominica Marshall Islands Tunisia
Dominican Republic Mauritius Turkmenistan
Ecuador Mexico Tuvalu
Fiji Mongolia
Table 4. Fairtrade producer-included upper-middle-income economies.
Fairtrade producer-excluded upper-middle-income economies (9 economies)

Albania Bulgaria Romania
Belarus Macedonia, FYR Serbia
Bosnia and Herzegovina Montenegro Turkey
Table 5. Fairtrade producer-excluded upper-middle-income economies.
This is especially interesting from the academic point of view, for the following three
reasons, which will be further theoretically discussed in chapter II and III. Firstly, this
exclusion goes directly against the internal normative and operational logic of the Fair Trade
movement in general and the Fairtrade system in particular, which is about inclusion and re-
connection.
Secondly, it is also a paradox given the fact that the majority of the Fair Trade
literature, when studying Fairtrade producers and primary production of Fairtrade products
focuses on the ones coming from the producer-included upper-middle-income economies (for
29
more evidence see the most comprehensive meta-review of impact studies in the Fair Trade
literature Nelson and Pound 2009). This should not come as a surprise when it is known that
the country in which Fairtrade production originated was Mexico, an upper-middle-income
economy itself, which is, without doubt, the most studied Fairtrade case from the producers'
perspective (see more in: Jaffee 2007, Renard 1999 and others). This is also the case because
the producer-included upper-middle-income economies are, as a group, the largest producers
of Fairtrade products and not the low-income, or lower-middle-income economies (Fairtrade
International 2012c).
Finally, what is especially problematic with this exclusion is the main rationale
behind it, which is the fact that the producer-included economies are somehow far less
developed than the ones who are excluded, according to, for example, Harriet Lamb, the
current CEO of Fairtrade International (2008) and Joanna Milis, the education campaigns
manager at the Fairtrade Foundation (at the Warwick Fair Trade Fortnight Conference 2012,
see also Fairtrade Foundation 2012). A very detailed theoretical discussion of this issue will
be put forward in chapters II and III, which will continue through the whole doctoral thesis
and here, I will just put forward a few brief points.
If the above-stated WEF's GCR is recalled, problems connected with this
understanding can be immediately seen. Out of 35 analysed upper-middle-income economies
in 20 above-stated categories, only one ranked worse than Serbia - Algeria. Mexico, for
example, scored higher in every single category, directly challenging the dominant
understanding in the Fairtrade system. The same is true for Chile, yet another producer-
included economy, which is, on top of that, not even an upper-middle-income but a high-
income economy. Finally, the best-ranked producer-excluded country is Turkey, which came
8th and the best-ranked EU producer-excluded country, Bulgaria is at 29th place, hence, near
the bottom.
30
Category Producer- Producer- Producer-
excluded included included
u-m-i-e u-m-i-e h-i-e
Serbia (/144) Mexico (/144) Chile (/144)
1. Ethical behaviour of firms 132 76 24
2. Cooperation in labour-employer relation 139 47 39
3. State of cluster development 133 35 27
4. Local supplier quantity 110 42 61
5. Local supplier quality 113 37 45
6. Affordability of financial services 100 66 21
7. Ease of access to loans 105 82 21
8. Buyer sophistication 138 50 28
9. Agricultural policy costs 119 123 14
10. Favouritism in decisions of government officials 132 73 21
11. Burden of government regulation 136 97 32
12. Quality of overall infrastructure 120 65 31
13. Quality of roads 122 50 23
14. Quality of the educational system 111 100 91
15. Brain drain 141 54 14
16. Intensity of local competition 137 75 39
17. Extent of market dominance 142 113 112
18. Property rights 130 71 37
19. Efficiency of legal framework in settling disputes 138 100 23
20. Nature of competitive advantage 134 70 114
Table 6. WEF's GCR comparison of Fairtrade producer-excluded economy - Serbia (red) and
producer-included economies - Mexico and Chile (green) (2013, pp.136, 257, 313).
Ranking Country Mean ranking in 20 categories (/144)

1. Malaysia 19.75
2. China 41.75
3. Mauritius 48.1
4. Jordan 49.5
5. Panama 54.5
6. Costa Rica 57.1
7. Thailand 57.5
8. Turkey 57.55
9. South Africa 60.35
10. Botswana 63.9
11. Brazil 65.75
12. Azerbaijan 67.65
13. Montenegro 69
14. Mexico 71.3
15. Namibia 75.85
16. Lebanon 77.5
17. Peru 79.4
18. Jamaica 84.3
19. Kazakhstan 84.3
20. Colombia 85.6
21. Iran, Islamic Rep. 87.25
22. Dominican Republic 90.7
23. Albania 93.1
24. Suriname 95.45
25. Ecuador 96.15
26. Gabon 96.8
27. Paraguay 97.75
31
28. Macedonia, FYR 97.95
29. Bulgaria 104.3
30. Libya 108.05
31. Bosnia and Herzegovina 114.4
32. Mongolia 114.5
33. Romania 114.6
34. Serbia 126.6
35. Algeria 132.45
Table 7. Ranking of all upper-middle-income economies covered by the WEF's GCR in 20 categories -
Fairtrade producer-included (green) and producer-excluded (red) economies (2013).
Although WEF's GCR has a strong developmental and business focus important for
my doctoral thesis, which is particularly represented in the above-stated 20 categories, it is
certainly not the only indicator. However, similar situation can be observed when other
categorisations are taken into account. Given the fact that a detailed discussion will be put
forward, firstly, in chapters II and III and then through my whole doctoral thesis, I will now
just put forward two additional points. According to UNDP's Human Development Report,
Serbia ranks 77th, while Mexico is 71st and Chile is 41st (UNDP 2015) and secondly, unlike
Serbia, Mexico and Chile are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development's from 1994 and 2010 onwards, respectively (2015). This is yet another
argument for Serbia's repositioning and for a more updated view on the differences between
developing countries (for another debate regarding developmental differences between
developing countries see: Heron 2014).
The second gap in the Fair Trade literature that I have identified derives from the fact
that just a handful academic research were conducted in these nine producer-excluded upper-
middle income economies related to, firstly, their Fairtrade trading and consuming potentials
and, in countries where Fairtrade sales are at least partially present, focused on their Fairtrade
traders and Fairtrade consumers. This gap is directly connected to a great imbalance in the
Fair Trade literature which is almost solely, with a few notable exceptions (for examples, see
in: Ariztia et al. 2012), focused on Fairtrade traders and consumers coming from the high-
income economies from the Global North (for examples, see in: Lamb 2008, Lyon 2006,
32
Micheletti 2003, Shaw and Shiu 2002 and others). Therefore, the Fairtrade traders and
consumers in low-income, lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income economies, i.e.
from the Global South and upper-middle-income economies of the Global North are almost
completely ignored (also indicated by Jaffee 2007 and Nicholls and Opal 2005).
In the case of Serbia, which is at the centre of my research interest, to my knowledge,
thus far, I am the only one who has published peer reviewed academic works related to the
Fair Trade movement, the Fairtrade system and Serbia (Brkovic 2013a). However, apart from
my academic paper and a blog entry that I have written (Brkovic 2012), work on Fair Trade
and Serbia is scarce. It includes, firstly, two master's theses, one by Branislav Nesovic (2013)
and the second by Jelena Paunovic (2014) with both authors conducting informal interviews
with me during their research and two web articles, one published by Samuel Poos (2013)
and the second by Bozica Lukovic (2014), and for both, I gave formal interviews regarding
Fair Trade and Serbia.
Finally, the third gap which I identified, logically derives from the previous two and
that is the lack of research about the possibilities of holistically looking on Fairtrade
production, trade and consumption in one country. To my knowledge, currently, there is not a
single academic study solely focused on this topic in general, nor on any of the producer-
excluded upper-middle-income economies, including Serbia in particular. It is important not
to consider as suitable alternatives, also rare works which, although looking at the Fair Trade
movement and the Fairtrade system holistically - from producers, traders and consumers'
perspectives (Lamb 2008, Murray and Raynolds 2007 and Nicholls and Opal 2005), see them
on the global level and do not tackle the idea of national Fairtrade-like systems.
Therefore, my aim is to start to bridge these gaps by focusing my research on one
producer-excluded upper-middle income economy - Serbia. I aim to present the most in-
depth analysis ever conducted in any of the nine producer-excluded upper-middle income
33
economies about its full Fairtrade potentials with the original primary data collected about all
three prospective and current Fairtrade referent objects: Fairtrade producers, traders and
consumers. Hence, I am interested in exploring possibilities for the Fairtrade system's change
from its current focus, which is almost exclusively on connecting Fairtrade producers from
the Global South and Fairtrade traders and consumers from the Global North. By doing that, I
will introduce new, current and future Fairtrade producers, traders and consumers coming
from Serbia into the Fair Trade literature, thus laying a foundation for the change of discourse
which may lead in practice to their stronger inclusion in the Fairtrade system.
Following Gerring's advice that "[n]o case study research should be allowed to
conclude without at least a nod to how one's case might be situated in a broader universe of
cases" (2007, p.85), my research on Serbia is envisaged, above all, as a starting point for
following future research. Firstly, on other producer-excluded upper-middle-income
economies' full Fairtrade potentials and secondly, on other producer-included upper-middle-
income economies, especially about their capacities to be, besides Fairtrade producers, also
Fairtrade traders and consumers.
Consequently, the greater integration of all upper-middle-income economies may in
practice lead to the creation of a more global Fairtrade system and in this envisioned state,
firstly, the poor and marginalised small-scale producers and workers from underdeveloped
regions of nine excluded upper-middle-income economies will gain a new perspective to
develop and thrive by being included in the Fairtrade system more strongly. Secondly, more
poor and marginalised small-scale producers and workers from other regions of the world
(coming from all developing, and in future, even from all developed countries as well) will
gain additional and stronger access to new markets of upper-middle-income economies, once
discrimination of their producers ceases. In this foreseen state, the Fairtrade system will make
another step towards moving "beyond its origins as a social movement defined by
34
organizations in the Global North to assist disadvantaged producers in the Global South to
become a truly Global movement..." (Murray and Raynolds 2007, p.13).
How important these topics are and especially will be in the future, will be discussed
through my whole doctoral thesis. However, I will now put forward two anecdotes from two
meetings that I had during the last International Fair Trade Symposium in Milan in May
2015.
After one of my presentations, which argued why Fairtrade production should be
allowed in the Global North, one of the highest ranking Fairtrade practitioners, with whom I
already had discussions on this issue, approached me and told me that I should really stop
lobbying and advocating for this matter. When I asked why, she responded, because I am
getting good at it and since this is not in line how she sees the future development of the
Fairtrade system. In addition, at the same conference, another high ranking Fairtrade
practitioner approached me and said that although my understanding of the necessity for
Fairtrade production in the Global North is yet far from a general view in the Fairtrade
system, there are more and more people, including himself, who are in favour of this idea.
I put forward these two anecdotes, firstly, to point out that according to some of the
highest ranking Fairtrade practitioners, these questions are going to be in the future practical
focus of the Fairtrade system due to the numerous positive advancements it can bring, which
will be discussed throughout my doctoral thesis. Secondly, to point out that currently in
academia, this turn of the tide is not recognised and that further debates in the Fair Trade
literature are needed. A contribution to them is my doctoral thesis.
35
1.5. Research Questions and Contributions to Fair Trade Literature
Following the brief discussion about the Fair Trade movement, the Fairtrade system,
the Fair Trade literature and the gaps in that literature, I will now present my underlying
research question, which will encompass and lead the whole discussion in my doctoral thesis
and from which derive three attendant questions, each directly corresponding to one of the
gaps in the literature. By answering them, I aim to make four contributions to knowledge.
In order to bridge the three above-identified gaps in the Fair Trade literature, my
research is posing the following underlying research question: "To what extent can Serbia, as
one of the producer-excluded upper-middle-income economies, partake in the Fairtrade
system in the future, as a country where Fairtrade products are produced, traded and
consumed?" From it, I will derive three attendant research questions in order for me to be
able to break down my complex research puzzle to more manageable parts. Hence, by
answering all three of them, I will consequently answer the main research question as well.
The first attendant research question is: "To what extent can Serbian poor and
marginalised small-scale producers, currently excluded from the Fairtrade system partake in
that system?" This question corresponds to the first gap in the Fair Trade literature
concerning Serbian poor and marginalised small-scale producers, who are today under a
direct threat of becoming double-losers, and who were, thus far, unstudied by the Fair Trade
literature.
The second attendant research question is: "What is the current situation and what are
the potentials for further development of Serbian Fairtrade trade and consumption?" This
question is connected with the next gap in the Fair Trade literature identifying insufficient
academic research in these nine producer-excluded upper-middle income economies related
36
to their Fairtrade trading and consuming potentials and their Fairtrade traders and consumers
of Fairtrade products.
Finally, the third attendant research question is: "To what extent it is possible to
establish a national Fairtrade-like system in Serbia and in that case, is the whole greater than
the sum of its parts?" This question corresponds to the final gap, identifying that there is not a
single academic study solely focused on this topic in general and particularly in one of the
producer-excluded upper-middle-income economies.
By answering the three attendant questions and consequently, the underlying research
question, I aim to make the following four contributions to the Fair Trade literature. Firstly, I
aim to "examine a new topic", which was not discussed in this way previously in the Fair
Trade literature. I aim to do so by identifying the producer-excluded group of upper-middle-
income economies consisting of nine European countries and studying one of them - Serbia.
Secondly, I seek for "new primary data", since I will be the first Fair Trade scholar
who will conduct an academic field research about Serbia's full Fairtrade potentials, focusing
on the capital - Belgrade and two underdeveloped regions in South Serbia - Jablanica and
Pcinja districts.
In addition, I plan to present "an innovative comparison", hitherto unseen in the Fair
Trade literature, by comparatively employing two illustrative case studies, Mexico and the
UK, the former being the Fairtrade producers' and the later being the Fairtrade traders' and
consumers' global champion as the lesson-drawing base for my main case study, Serbia.
Also, my research can be a base for the future use of these two illustrative case studies when
researching, firstly, other producer-excluded upper-middle-income economies and secondly,
other upper-middle-income economies in general.
Finally, I aim to put forward "disconfirmatory empirics" by questioning the current
Fairtrade system's praxis. I aim to do that, firstly, by exploring the possibilities for the
37
development of Fairtrade production in producer-excluded upper-middle-income economies,
with a focus on Serbia, and secondly, by exploring the possibilities of creating a national
Fairtrade-like system, again focusing on Serbia.
Throughout my whole doctoral thesis, the discussion will lead up to making these four
contributions. The final debate, however, regarding all of them and especially the second
contribution - seeking new primary data, and the fourth contribution - putting forward
disconfirmatory empirics, will be presented in extensive chapters VII and VIII, which are
focused solely on the future of Fairtrade in Serbia. That being said, the important foundations
of examining a new topic, and the presentation of an innovative comparison, will be laid in
chapters II and III and chapters IV - VI respectively.
Therefore, the examination of a new topic, new primary data collection, an innovative
comparison and the presentation of disconfirmatory empirics will be my four contributions to
knowledge that I aim to make.
1.6. Thesis Structure
Following the Introduction, the rest of the thesis will be divided into two major
analytical parts, theoretical and empirical. The first consists of chapters II and III which will
present the literature review and theoretical framework of my doctoral thesis, reviewing and
critically analysing Fair Trade literature, especially those titles which are based on research
coming from the development studies, the global food system and the caring across space
bodies of work. These chapter will examine the issues outlined above in a new light.
Furthermore, before I move to the empirical part of my thesis, I will identify, outline and
explain the methodological choices of my doctoral research in methodological Chapter IV, in
38
which the foundation for my third contribution to the literature regarding my innovative
comparison will be put forward as well.
Following the successful presentation of the arguments that Fairtrade production,
trade and consumption is, "in theory", possible in producer-excluded upper-middle income
economies and is in line with the Fairtrade system's modus operandi, the empirical part of my
doctoral thesis - chapters V, VI and especially VII and VIII, which are focused solely on
Serbia, aims to show that this is possible "in practice" as well.
In chapters VII and VIII, I will base my conclusions on my field research in Serbia,
which is founded on four lessons learned from the Mexican and the UK illustrative case
studies. Two lessons drawn from Mexico about who is a Fairtrade producer and what are the
benefits of being a Fairtrade producers will be further discussed in Chapter V. Moreover, two
further lessons drawn from the UK about Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets and
Fairtrade consumption and campaigning will be further discussed in Chapter VI.
This analysis will be undertaken in order to demonstrate that the structure of
prospective Serbian Fairtrade production, as well as current and future Fairtrade trade and
consumption enables future Fairtrade developments. Hence, as already stated, chapters VII
and VIII will give full answers to the attendant and underlying research questions allowing
me to make all four above-mentioned contributions to the literature. The final, Chapter IX is
the overall conclusion of my doctoral thesis.
Therefore, my PhD dissertation will be the first to show the possibility of
incorporating one of the countries from the group of the producer-excluded upper-middle-
income countries - Serbia into the Fairtrade system on both sides of the value chain exchange
relation and consequently, the possibility to extend Fairtrade structures within a particular
country, in order to create a national Fairtrade-like system.
39
1.7. Concluding Remarks
Following the introduction of the main focus of my study, my research questions,
gaps in the Fair Trade literature and the contributions that I am to make, I will conclude the
Introduction by noting that even though, through my research, I found numerous positive
aspects of the Fairtrade system, I will fully follow the positions of some of the globally most
esteemed Fair Trade researchers. Among them, I will put forward Professor Marie-Christine
Renard at Universidad Autónoma Chapingo (Renard 1999), with whom I had a pleasure to
conduct an interview (2013), Professors Douglas Murray and Laura Raynolds at Colorado
State University (Murray and Raynolds 2007 and 2000, Raynolds and Murray 1998) and
Windsor Professor Lynne Phillips (2006). I will also be wise enough, as they were, not to
point to the Fairtrade system as the panacea for all developmental issues, or as the only or
necessary principal way forward on the humankind's quest to eradicate global poverty and
inequality.
However, I agree with them that "there are glimmerings of hope" (Phillips 2006, p.43)
that these efforts can raise incomes, reduce inequality and improve the quality of life for poor
and marginalised small-scale producers and workers around the world and influence the
contemporary global economic system. Therefore, in the following chapters, I will try to find
out to what extent these glimmerings of hope can illuminate the path of development in one
of the producer-excluded upper-middle-income economies, Serbia, and for its prospective
Fairtrade producers and current and future Fairtrade traders and consumers.
40
CHAPTER II - FAIRTRADE SYSTEM IN THEORY
In the theoretical part of my doctoral dissertation - in chapters II and III focused on
literature review and on my theoretical framework, I will continue and further develop some
of the discussions already started in the Introduction. In this way, I aim to set the theoretical
foundations, firstly, for making the contribution to knowledge regarding the examination of a
new topic, but also in more general terms, for empirical analyses which will lead to the
making of all of my contributions to knowledge. Before I start, I will just point out that my
theoretical discussion is divided into two chapters in order for it to be easier to read.
Therefore, in the first, Chapter II, I will review Fair Trade literature, especially titles
which are also founded on research coming from the development studies, the global food
system and the caring across space bodies of work. By doing so, I will show why and how the
Fairtrade system emerged and argue why I am seeing it as a trade initiative that exists
together with and in order to change the market, interconnected with global economic and
food systems, but based on a particular, relational type of value chain governance and
founded on care across geographical, economic and social spaces.
2.1. Shortfalls of and Answers to "Inclusive" Neoliberalism
The end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century witnessed a shift from the
pure Washington Consensus13 type of neoliberalism14, to a seemingly softer, "more inclusive
liberalism" (Schmelzer 2006, Porter and Craig 2004, Hart 2001 and others). This "revisionist"
13
Washington Consensus refers to a set of policy reforms based on ten principles: 1) fiscal discipline, 2)
reducing public expenditure, 3) lowering marginal rates and broadening the tax base, 4) interest rates
liberalisation, 5) competitive exchange rates, 6) trade liberalisation, 7) encouraging foreign direct investment, 8)
deregulation, 9) securing property rights and 10) encouraging privatisation, imposed on debtor countries in Latin
America, which became the Neoliberal Manifesto (Peet in Brkovic 2009).
14
In line with Cerny (2010, p.156), I also see neoliberalism not as a monolithic creed, but as a continually
evolving doctrine.
41
or "inclusive" neoliberalism is characterised by the usage of a more open and empowering
discourse, with the focus on notions such as: "market 'opportunity', 'empowerment', social
and economic 'inclusion', 'social capital', 'civil society' and 'partnership'" (Schmelzer 2006,
p.38). However, according to the same author, one of the main shortfalls of the inclusive
neoliberalism is its similarity to its predecessor, especially given the fact that it still enables
"processes of immense social and environmental destruction" (Ibid.).
This is, firstly, due to the fact that the central goals of development for both previous
and current neoliberal phases did not change, still promulgating economic growth and trade
liberalisation as stated in Peet's famous book "Unholy Trinity: The IMF, World Bank and
WTO" (2003). According to Fairtrade supporters, the "inclusive" version, even though
viewed as more all-embracing, is actually far from being in line with, for example, the Fair
Trade researchers' theoretical and the Fairtrade system's practical notions of inclusiveness and
sustainable economic, political, social and environmental development (Jaffee 2007 and
Schmelzer 2006). According to them, this is due to the fact that their aims and outcomes are
significantly different since they recognise other aspects of development as equally important
(Ibid.).
In particular, they are putting forward the UNDP's human development defined as "a
process of enlarging people's choices" (1990, p.1), Nobel laureate Amartya Sen's points
connected with the removal of major sources of unfreedom (1999, p.3) and finally, the
recognition of "external" costs and strive toward sustainable development (O'Kane 2012,
Jaffee 2007 and Schmelzer 2006). Therefore, according to Schmelzer, the Fair Trade
movement in general and the Fairtrade system in particular are false friends of the inclusive
neoliberalism and in fact, the standard-bearers of the third group of its challengers (2006).
42
Secondly, it is due to the fact that in the case of many developing countries, numerous
previous and current neoliberal assumptions simply do not correspond to reality. According
to Nicholls and Opal (2005, pp.18-19), the following key presumptions are absent.
Poor and marginalised agricultural producers and workers from developing countries
do not have direct market access and they often have to rely on middlemen. They frequently
do not have any information about market prices, because they lack access to knowledge.
They do not have access to financial markets and because of that, they are completely
exposed to the world price fluctuations, without any insurance policies or ability to take
loans, because the rural banks are either non-existent or inadequate.
Furthermore, unlike the presumptions of the neoliberal theoretical models, where
actors can switch easily from one income-generating activity to another, their poor and
marginalised agricultural producers and workers are unable to do so (Ibid.). For example,
when researching small-scale producers from Mexico, Weinberger and Lumpkin (2007) put
forward evidence that they cannot shift from their coffee production to horticulture, even
when the conditions in the market are favourable due to numerous practical limitations (see
also in Smith 2009).
Moreover, Stiglitz and Charlton are pointing out that the argumentation that the trade
liberalisation will allow resources "to be redeployed from low-productivity protected sectors
into high-productivity export sectors" (2007, p.25) is inapplicable in many developing
countries because it assumes that resources were fully employed in the first place, whereas in
most developing countries that is not the case (Ibid.). In addition, a number of developing
countries suffer from weak legal systems and enforcement of laws, far from the night-
watchmen state's ideal of the neoliberal theory (Nicholls and Opal 2005, p.18-19).
Finally, the opening up to trade changes the distribution of income, creating winners
and losers and according to Lamb (2008) the biggest losers are routinely poor and
43
marginalised small-scale producers and workers in developing countries. Belgrade Professor
Dragica Bozic and her colleagues recognised comparable inconsistencies between theory and
praxis in the case of Serbia as well, and are in line with Lamb's final point (Bozic et al. 2011).
Neoliberal theoretical presumptions Challenges identified in developing countries

1. Direct market access Trade through middlemen
2. Access to market price information Lack of access both to knowledge and information
3. Access to financial markets Lack of credits and insurance
4. Easy switch between income-generating activities Difficulties related to switching
5. Easy resource redeployment Only partial initial resource employment
6. Night-watchmen state Weak legal systems and law enforcement
Table 8. Practical challenges to key neoliberal presumptions identified in developing countries

(Smith 2009, Stiglitz and Charlton 2007 and Nicholls and Opal 2005).
.
Due to all above-stated issues, according to the literature, three theoretical and
practical contestants of the inclusive neoliberalism emerged (Smith 2009 and Schmelzer
2006). Firstly, there are practitioners and academics asking for the return of the "good old"
Washington Consensus neoliberalism emphasising "merits of market governance generated
through liberalisation" (Smith 2009, p.7, see also in Winters 2003). Quite oppositely, the
second tendency goes towards introduction of policies and building academic support for
stronger governmental involvement and protectionism in order to "govern the market" (see
also in Smith 2009, Stiglitz and Charlton 2005 and Chang and Grabel 2004). Finally, the third
answer to and the challenger of the current phase of neoliberalism is private governance,
which can, according to their practical and theoretical supporters lead to fairer global
economic system and international trade (see more in Hartlieb and Jones 2009, Low and
Davenport 2006 and Schmelzer 2006).
Challengers of inclusive neoliberalism Asking for:

1. Washington Consensus neoliberalism advocates Market governance through further liberalisation
2. Governmental involvement proponents Stronger governmental market involvement
3. Private (first- and third-party) governance supporters Monitored certification systems
Table 9. Challengers of inclusive neoliberalism (Smith 2009, Schmelzer 2006 and others).
44
Private Governance
According to Giovannucci and Ponte (2005), one of the crucial reasons for the
emergence of the private governance as one of the answers is the novel strategy of the civil
society in general and noncorporate private actors (especially campaigner groups) in
particular. Informed by the media and the Internet about unethical economic practices
worldwide (Nicholls and Opal 2005), but also realising that their initiatives targeting national
governments and international institutions did not deliver expected results, they started
targeting business directly (Hartlieb and Jones 2009, Low and Davenport 2006 and Bartley
2003). "Since the nineties these campaigns have become high profile, accusing and
challenging multinationals on environmental destruction, human right abuses or the
exploitation of workers" (Hartlieb and Jones 2009, p.592). However, there was a twist, since,
instead of pure confrontation, "third-wave environmentalists" changed their philosophy
adopting pragmatic, solutions-oriented approaches (Ibid.).
This led to private governance, which, although it always had to be accredited by the
government (Raynolds and Wilkinson 2007, pp.38-39), manifested itself through numerous
private and semi-public certification and labelling initiatives whose core activity consists of
"...'operating' an assurance system on the completion of which the awarding of the label is
based" (Hartlieb and Jones 2009, p.594). During the last decade, they grown and evolved
rapidly, promising legitimacy and credibility (Gereffi et al. 2009), and now two distinct
streams can be identified.
The first one emerged through corporate-led and retailer-driven self-regulatory first-
party certification systems. This was due to the decrease in state and increase in corporate
power and because of the pressures from the civil society (Giovannucci and Ponte 2005). The
big food companies and supermarkets were among the first to react. "They engaged in self-
45
regulation measures, such as corporate codes of conduct or industrywide standards... A new
discourse of 'enlightened business' and the 'business case' of a proactive stance towards
responsible business behaviour also appeared" (Bendell in Hartlieb and Jones 2009, p.592).
Some of the examples are the Common Code for the Coffee Community, EurepGAP or
Ethical Trade Initiative (Smith and Barrientos 2005, p.194).
However, there is a number of intrinsic shortfalls of the first-party certification
identified by numerous scholars. According to Karjalainen and Moxham (2012), Hartlieb and
Jones (2009), Raynolds and Wilkinson (2007), Utting (2005), Haufler (2003) and Auroi
(2003), the key problem is that the private, self-regulatory initiatives and first-party
certification lack accountability to external actors because businesses conduct both the
standard setting and the standard monitoring processes. In addition, Karjalainen and Moxham
(2012) and Auroi (2003) found that the codes of conducts are often very limited, focusing
only on one aspect of sustainability, for example, human or labour rights, environment, health
or safety conditions. Finally, their organisational or developmental support is inferior to most
third-party certification schemes (Mutersbaugh 2005a). Therefore, "these initiatives were thus
often strongly criticised by NGOs for being nothing more than 'window-dressing' or attempts
to pre-empt mandatory regulation" (Hartlieb and Jones 2009, p.592, see also in: Utting 2005
and Haufler 2003).
Therefore, the second stream of private governance - the third-party certification
gained momentum, inspired by even stronger pressures from noncorporate, non-industry,
nonstate coordinating bodies and their even higher economic, political, social and
environmental goals. Among numerous third-party based certifiers, according to its
supporters, one of the most influential practical initiatives today is the Fairtrade system.
46
Third-party Certification
Many authors identified the third-party certification in general and the Fairtrade
system in particular as the way forward (Hartlieb and Jones 2009, Schmelzer 2006, Brown
2005, Mutersbaugh 2005b, Auroi 2003 and others). Mutersbaugh stated that as a "semi-
public" space, it is superior to "fully private" schemes, offering more potential for influence,
accountability, transparency, organisational and developmental support (2005b). Auroi stated
that, contrary to the narrow focus of the private codes of conduct, the Fairtrade system offers
a far broader and, arguably, more comprehensive set of benefits (2003). In addition, from
2012 the Fairtrade system is jointly led by Southern Fairtrade producers and Northern
Fairtrade traders and consumers. Hence, unlike in any other private and most third-party
certification schemes, the producers have an incomparable power to influence all standard
setting processes according to two top Fairtrade practitioners, the first chair of the Fairtrade
Foundation's National Campaigner Committee, Susan Bentley (2013, interview) and a
stakeholder and policy manager at the Fairtrade Max Havelaar Belgium, Karlien Wouters
(2013, interview).
However, even with the third-party certification, there are certain inherent limitations
as well. According to Schmelzer, "Fair Trade certification and the general trend towards
private standards are not intrinsically good or bad" (2006, p.39), since they are neither
completely developed, nor carved in stone (Renard 2013, interview). Secondly, both streams
of private governance can be criticised for moving power and authority to business or civil
society actors which are equally unaccountable (Utting 2005). Finally, the problem with
certification and labelling is that they are "market-based tool[s] which turns ethical qualities
into a [mere] product characteristic" (Hartlieb and Jones 2009, p.583). However, it is also fair
to point out that according to the same authors, labelling proponents engage in additional
47
activities, above all in campaigning, education, capacity building and lobbying (Ibid., p.594),
hence, giving a voice to the labels. Secondly, many of them are voices in the market
themselves (Schoenheit 2007), since they turn "private concerns into a public statement"
(Hartlieb and Jones 2009, p.586).
The Fairtrade system evolved from this milieu and became a practical challenger of
the present-day economic practices based on the contemporary phase of neoliberalism.
However, with its emergence, the question how far it actually goes in its critique immediately
came to the fore in the form of the famous "in or against the market" dilemma which will be
discussed next.
"In or Against" or "Existing Together With and in Order to Change" the Market?
The "in or against the market" debate is probably one of the oldest in the Fair Trade
literature and in its initial form it already started in mid-1980s according to Low and
Davenport (2006, p.321). It was formulated by a Fair Trade doyen, Michael Barratt Brown
(1993) and it is connected with the second of the two core contributions that the Fairtrade
system aims to achieve. The first, straightforward, to benefit poor and marginalised producers
and the second, more controversial, to influence the current global economic system,
international trade, agro-food business and mainstream market (Schmelzer 2006, p.26).
In order to discuss this issue, I will firstly analyse two critiques - neoliberal and
radical - which see the Fairtrade system's market practices as either incompatible or fully co-
opted, as well as the Fair Trade literature's answers to them. Secondly, I will analyse this
problem by putting forward four arguments linked to questions of growth, mainstreaming,
value chain governance and free vs. fair trade debate, showing that in or against the market
perspectives are too exclusive. Summing up these discussions, I will put forward arguments
48
for an original position that the Fairtrade system is neither in, nor against the market, but that
it "exists together with and in order to change it".
Neoliberal and Radical Critiques of the Fairtrade System
The first critique starts with the Adam Smith Institute's claims that the Fairtrade
system promotes and implements nothing but another type of farm subsidies, which will lead
to oversupply and lower prices in the non-Fair Trade market (Sidwell 2008). Furthermore, in
line with this point are LeClair (2002) and Maseland and de Vaal (2002), who stated, basing
their analysis on philanthropy and international trade theories, that its market inefficiency
(distortion and/or over-production) may reduce income of other, even poorer households, due
to the lower prices on non-Fair Trade markets. In addition, the Cato Institute stated that the
Fairtrade minimum price structure is faulty because it is driven by humanitarian reasons, thus
failing to obey the rational rules of the market (Lindsey 2004).
Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz (2006) and Nicholls and Opal (2005) retort that the
market price already constitutes a distortion in itself, given the fact that it is, more often than
not, blurred by speculations and subsidies. On the other side, the Fairtrade system is a
completely consumer-driven movement, hence, removed from the control of any government
agency responsible for introducing agricultural subsidies (Stiglitz 2006 and Nicholls and
Opal 2005), which are widely present in the developed, "pro-free trade" economies.
Furthermore, one of the pillars of the contemporary economic system and an unlikely
ally, the World Bank, also claimed that the Fairtrade system has positive effects for both
Fairtrade and non-Fairtrade markets (Ronchi 2006), which is in line with the findings from
the above-mentioned Nelson and Pound's meta-review (2009, p.25).
49
Hayes also states that "from the perspective of economic theory based on competitive
supply and demand but informed by Keynes, fair trade improves welfare mainly by
strengthening competition for the labor of households and eliminating monopsony rents, and
that there are no grounds for any a priori claim that fair trade necessarily distorts competition
and promotes inefficiency" (2006, p.450). He also concludes by saying that "[f]air trade is
indeed an essential complement for any free trade policy that includes a genuine concern for
the welfare of the poor" (Ibid., p.466).
This last point is, at the same time, a good introduction to the critiques coming from
radical perspectives (see more in: Lyon 2006, Jones 2004, Starr and Adams 2003, Johnston
2002, Shreck 2002 and others). They point out that the current and future overall
contributions of the Fairtrade system are intrinsically insufficient, that it is, to a large extent,
nothing more than an inadequate neoliberal solution to problems with trade and that due to its
support to overconsumption it is unsustainable. In short, they are all asking the same question
as Moore and his colleagues did, i.e. if a preponderant paradigm "can ever be changed from
within or whether this requires an external, and potentially revolutionary, rather than
evolutionary, approach" (Moore et al. 2006, p.348).
Certainly, there are inherent limitations to the Fairtrade system, which are recognised
even by its strongest academic supporters and, as I have already stated, the Fairtrade system
cannot be seen as an answer to all trade problems. Even though it "can help many
marginalised producers and greatly contribute to the process of improving trade justice... it
cannot address alone the structural issues in world trade generally" (Nicholls and Opal 2005,
p.254). Zonneveld continues: "One of the challenges... is to understand where the
development needs and potential lie and where the market needs and potential lie… Not
everything that the market asks to sell as Fair Trade could make a difference without
impossibly expensive investments. There are lots of poor producers that should have the right
50
to a much better life, but maybe Fair Trade is not the adequate answer to it" (in Nicholls and
Opal 2005, p.254-255).
However, Nicholls and Opal stated that once Fairtrade's share becomes the majority
of a market, there is a possibility for the whole industry to move to become Fairtrade and not
the other way around. At that point "the Fair Trade concept effectively becomes irrelevant,
because other mechanisms would most likely be put into place that would effectively replace
it, namely legislation or industry codes of conduct. This must be the curious ultimate
commercial goal of Fair Trade - to put itself out of business" (Ibid., p.255). Jaffee concludes
that before this utopian end, the ultimate Fairtrade system's power lies not so much in its
current, nor even its future size, but in the alternative model of organising economic
exchange it provides, demonstrating that there is a possibility for "another, better way to
trade" (2007, p.9). This directly challenges the radical critics in their claims that it is just
another mainstream neoliberal solution.
Finally, the Fairtrade system cannot reduce global consumption, and shopping is still
seen as the main solution of global trade problems even from the Fairtrade system's
perspective (Low and Davenport 2006, p.325, see also in Davidson 2004). However, many
Fairtrade traders, such as the Divine Chocolate, for example, although rapidly developing,
still aim to remain pure and not to blindly follow "the carrot of volume" (Moore et al. 2006,
p.346). In addition, Fairtrade consumers are not drawn to the Fairtrade system in order to
consume for the sake of consumption (Ibid., p.333) and are not driven by "wanting to want"
(Dolan 2002, p.175), due to the fact that, according to its supporters, the Fairtrade system's
essence is not insatiability, but sustainability (Jaffee 2007 and Schmelzer 2006).
Now that the critiques which see the Fairtrade system as predominantly in or against
the market and the answers coming from the Fair Trade literature are presented, I will firstly
follow Doherty and his colleagues' call for academia to "move beyond the pragmatic versus
51
radical debate and explore alternatives" (2013, p.179). Secondly, I will continue from
Schmelzer's conclusions that "in or against the market" visions are "both too extreme and one
sided... [since] ...[t]he reality of Fair Trade lies somewhere in between" (2006, p.15).
I will do so by asking a question what if these internal contradictions of being a
business as well as a campaign that operates "in and against the market" (Barratt Brown
1993, p.87) was not looked upon as a problem, but as an advantage. What if the "inherent
contradiction of the model" (Renard 2003, p.91) is actually its inner strength? Therefore, I
will put forward my original suggestion that the Fairtrade system exists together with the
market but also that it exists in order to change it, which is one of its two most important
raison d'être.
Existing Together With and in Order to Change the Market
The base for my understanding of the Fairtrade system's relation to the market comes
from the following authors. Murray and Raynolds, who see it, at the same time, as an avant-
garde, a mainstream niche, an alternative network, an initiative and a social movement (2007,
p.36). Lamb who said that "...Fairtrade works in the market. It has to. There is no other option
to hand today" (2008, p.130). However, it "takes the rules of the marketplace and turns them
on their head" Ibid.). Daniel Jaffee, one of the most prominent research on Fairtrade globally,
who perceives it as a "hybrid - simultaneously a social movement and an alternative market
structure" (2007, p.1). Finally, from Renard who stated that the radical component of the
Fairtrade system is its ability to be a "tool for modifying the dominant economic model"
(2003, p.91) and Moore and his colleagues who pointed out that it aims to achieve a global
economic system with a more social end (Moore et al. 2006, p.331).
52
From these starting points, I see it as existing together with and in order to change the
market, firstly, due to the fact that the growth is a necessity for any big agro-food business
initiative in order to survive in the medium and long run according to Geoff Tansey, one of
the top global experts on food and his book "The Food System" written in co-authorship with
Worsley, which is still regarded as one of the most influential global food textbooks (1995).
Together with Rajotte, Tansey strengthens this point in a new, co-edited book "The Future
Control of Food" (2008). Consequently, the Fairtrade system, in order to develop and thrive
in the long run, has to work with the market (Low and Davenport 2006, p.316), a point also
confirmed by a number of my interviewees (Bentley 2013, interview, Wouters 2013,
interview, Kosanovic 2013, interview and others).
Connected with this point are two lessons deriving from my UK case study regarding
Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets and Fairtrade consumption and campaigning,
which will be further discussed in Chapter VI. At present, I will just point out that the
Fairtrade system's continuous mainstreaming and the influence of Fairtrade campaigning are,
in my opinion, arguments that "the power lies external to the FT supply chain partners,
emphasizing cooperation and preventing buyers from engaging in adversarial relations with
FT producers" (Karjalainen and Moxham 2012, p.278).
This is in line with the position of one of my interviewees, a Fair Trade expert at the
Oxfam Magasins du Monde, Patrick Veillard. He states that the Fairtrade growth and
mainstreaming, instead of co-optation, may also lead to continuous rethinking and
augmentation of standards and criteria, in order for the Fairtrade system to always be more
demanding and to have exemplary value, positively influencing the rest of the market (2013,
interview). This can be seen as a counterargument for all who a priori see Fairtrade
mainstreaming as a negative tendency and will be further discussed in Chapter VI.
53
The third argument is against the presumption that if the Fairtrade system uses the
same business structures as mainstream businesses, it is just "in the market". My position,
which I share with other Fair Trade researchers (Davies 2009, Smith 2009 and Raynolds and
Wilkinson 2007, among others) is that although it truly does share some of the most
important characteristics with other agro-food businesses, and among them, that it is based on
global value chains, it exists together with and in order to change the market because it
strives towards a particular model of the global value chain governance and uses unique inner
trading practices.
According to Smith, who is applying Gereffi's global value chain analytical
framework (Gereffi 1994 and Gereffi et al. 2005), "market governance is just one of five
ways in which commercial interactions are organised - and are thus only one system among
many that coordinates the economy" (2009, p.452). Consequently, together with others, such
as Davies (2009) and Raynolds and Wilkinson (2007), research shows that the Fairtrade
system does not aim for the market, but for relational value chain governance and different
business practices connected with it.
Gereffi's global value chain analytical framework and how the Fairtrade global value
chains are seen through its lenses will be thoroughly discussed below, but now I will just put
forward Murray and Raynolds' understanding of this Fairtrade system's uniqueness. In their
research (2007, p.3) they challenge the orthodox economists who regard all producers as
competitive advantage maximisers and players in a zero sum game by presenting Fairtrade
producers who are offering help to later entrants and working together in developing the
Fairtrade system. Furthermore, they question the mainstream economic rationales seeing
companies as always purchasing at the lowest prices and pushing costs down the value chain,
with Fairtrade traders who accept third-party certification and pay Fairtrade minimum prices
and premiums. Finally, unlike what is the dominant economic viewpoint of seeing consumers
54
as the ones who maximize their individual gains, Murray and Raynolds put forward millions
of Fairtrade consumers who are paying higher prices for Fairtrade products although there are
cheaper, non-Fairtrade alternatives, similar in quality.
The final argument why I see the Fairtrade system as co-existing and constantly
striving to initiate an evolution of the very market in which it operates is connected with the
question of fair vs. free trade. In my opinion, at least today, the Fairtrade system should not
necessarily be seen as a constant or even strong opponent of free trade, because it is not the
latter, but, according to Fairtrade supporters, a series of agricultural subsidies and
commodities markets rigged by the monopsonistic power of buyers which provide the
features of the trade regime, that Fairtrade is trying to circumvent (Smith 2009, Lamb 2008,
Schmelzer 2006, Brown 2005, Barratt Brown 1993 and many others).
Even if all basic development studies theoretical critiques of neoliberalism (see more
in Chang 2011, 2007, 2005a, 2005b and 2002, Gallagher 2008 and 2005, Rodrik 2001,
Weisbrot, et al. 2001, Wolf 2001, Khor 2000, Narayan et al. 2000, Sen 1999 and others) are
disregarded and the neoliberal viewpoints accepted, it is still not hard to show that many of
the contemporary economic practices, which present themselves as neoliberal and free trade,
are "a lesson in incoherence" (Stiglitz and Charlton 2007, p.v).
One of the most obvious examples are agricultural subsidies. The biggest champions
and promoters of neoliberalism, trade liberalisation and free trade, the developed economies,
are causing heavy losses to developing countries by subsidising their own agricultural
sectors. The subsidies "artificially lower the price at which First World producers can sell
their agricultural products, thus nullifying the comparative advantage of Third World
producers and forcing them to lower their prices if they are to be able to sell their goods"
(Watson 2007, p.274). Therefore, they are one of the main reasons why the real prices paid
for commodities vital to developing countries are constantly falling during the last three
55
decades (Mold in Lamb 2008, p.94) and "behind every falling line lie wrecked lives" (Lamb
2008, p.94).
The sugar industry is a very illustrative example. Until 2005, the European Union
was paying its farmers three times the world price to grow sugar according to Lamb (2008,
for another discussion about the EU and its sugar regime changes from 2006 onwards, see
Richardson-Ngwenya and Richardson 2014). Because of that, a handful of European sugar
manufactures, created an enormous surplus on the global market, pushing international prices
down by about a third (Lamb 2008, p.95). "It was a triple whammy for sugar growers in poor
nations [like Mozambique for example]: they could not sell freely into the vast European
market; they were pushed out of selling in other parts of the world by subsidised European
sugar; and they got less for what they grew" (Ibid., p.100).
Together with price distortions coming from unrealistically low prices for northern
agricultural products, the Fair Trade and development studies literatures also see the tariff
system as the reason why the current exclusive economic practices do not match the current
inclusive neoliberal theoretical discourses. This is due to the fact that the tariffs that
developing countries face are three to four times higher than the ones between developed
countries, combined with the fact that tariffs are not the same for primary products like, for
example, cacao beans (0 percent), higher value-added cocoa paste (9 percent), or for the final
products like chocolate (30 percent) (UNDP 2005, pp.126-127).
This has led to a peculiar situation in which developing countries produce 90 percent
of cacao beans, and Germany is the world's largest exporter of higher value-added cacao
products like cocoa liquor and cocoa powder (Ibid.). This is not only due to German primacy
in knowledge, technology and education, which is the explanation offered by both the
Washington Consensus and inclusive neoliberal orthodoxies, but also due to the system of
tariffs, which goes directly against the free trade ideal.
56
The final major point recognised by the Fair Trade and development studies
literatures is the problem of "new gatekeepers" in international trade (Ibid., p.139). Due to the
changes in the global value chains, a shift of influence towards big companies and
supermarkets has taken place, giving them an increased leverage and "tremendous power in
their negotiations with producers... [which they use]... to push the costs and risks of business
down the supply chain" (Brown 2005, p.3).
"Retailers have emerged as the gateways to consumers, using contracts and
specifications to gate-keep between primary producers and consumers, determining
technological improvements, distribution logistics, centralization of ordering, application of
computer technology, application of batch/niche production to mass lines ('flexible
specialization'), and in effect moulding consumer tastes and markets" (Lang 2010, p.88).
Therefore today, the biggest corporations "span the globe with interests across many nation
states and supply chains that encircle the planet" (Nicholls and Opal 2005, p.4).
The Fair Trade literature does not look on these and other current trade injustices as
neutral or natural and instead, it recognises that "the rules that enable the free market and free
trade to function [in the way they function]... serve certain interests and not others"
(Schmelzer 2006, p.39). Therefore, it can be said that the "fair versus free trade" dichotomy
is, at least at the current moment, a false one, because free trade is not the present experience
of the poor and marginalised small-scale producers who stand to benefit the most from
Fairtrade, according to its supporters.
Consequently, it is not fair against free trade, but the Fairtrade system's practice
against the contemporary economic practices full of double-standards, which neglect
"external" costs of production and fail to deliver sustainable development. So it is more of a
question of the Fairtrade system as a remedy of current economic downfalls rather than fair
57
vs. free trade dichotomy, which is the final argument supporting my "existing together with
and in order to change the market" position.
2.2. Fairtrade System, Global Food System and
Gereffi's Global Value Chain Analytical Framework
Apart from being interconnected with the global economic system, the Fairtrade
system is also a part of another global structure. Therefore, by using the global food system
literature, I will now present the global food system in which the Fairtrade system operates
and the general theoretical debate about three key referent objects, i.e. three main links in
food value chains, food producers, traders and consumers. This will be the theoretical and
analytical base for understanding these three referent objects in the Fairtrade system itself, i.e.
Fairtrade producers, traders and consumers.
Global Food System
According to Lang "[a] speed-up of change has occurred" (2010, p.88) from the mid-
eighteenth century industrial agriculture revolution, early nineteenth century chemical
revolution, twentieth century application of Mendelian genetics and oil usage, 1960s Green
Revolution, 1980s modern livestock revolution, to the contemporary age of biotechnology
(Ibid.). Following Tansey and Worsley (1995), today, I also see food trading as one of the
most complex businesses, involving most of the biggest multinational companies and their
global value chains (see also in: Gereffi and Fernandez-Stark 2011 and UNDP 2005), which
comes as no surprise due to the unchanged importance of food. The current way the food is
globally traded is interconnected with the main characteristics of the contemporary global
58
food system identified by numerous authors (O'Kane 2012, Bozic et al. 2011, Lang 2010,
Toler et al. 2009, Tansey and Rajotte 2008, Raynolds and Wilkinson 2007, Phillips 2006,
Raynolds 2004, Barham 2003, Wilkinson 2002, Marsden et al. 2000, Murdoch et al. 2000,
Tansey and Worsley 1995 and others).
The global food system today strives to achieve the constant availability of food,
contributing to increasing human longevity, minimising uncertainties and costs and
maximising returns (Tansey and Rajotte 2008 and Tansey and Worsley 1995). This is
becoming a particularly challenging task when it is known that world population nearly
doubled during the last forty years, from 3.6 to 7 billion (UNDP 2013, p.6). Furthermore, it is
tailored primarily for the people in affluent countries, who seek to control the production and
consumption, leaving individuals increasingly powerless and at the mercy of the market
forces. Moreover, it is a system that uses the industrial approach to agriculture and food
production, draws on produce from around the world and enables a wide range of foodstuffs
while treating food as a commodity. In addition, it produces diets very different from the
earlier consumption of relatively little processed food and in the end, it has not brought an
end to hunger in poorer countries (Tansey and Rajotte 2008 and Tansey and Worsley 1995).
Therefore, there are numerous general issues connected with how the contemporary
global food system functions in practice. To begin with, according to O'Kane (2012, pp. 268-
269), today, there are more than 800 million people who go to bed hungry. On the other hand,
developed countries experience an increase in obesity (Phillips 2006, Evans et al. 2003).
Furthermore, the global food system is still struggling with "old problems", as Lang calls
them - deep inequalities in and between countries, higher degree of control in the food sector
intertwined with the power that global food businesses have today (2010, p.94). In addition,
according to Phillips "[t]he overall costs of orienting local economies to world food regimes
are use-fully outlined by Murray (2001) and include the destruction of the domestic food
59
base, the loss of plant diversity through monoculture, and increased food insecurities for rural
populations" (2006, p.39).
Finally, Tansey and Worsley stated that the global food system interconnects three
different aspects of life: "biological: the living processes used to produce food and their
ecological sustainability; economic and political: the power and control which different
groups exert over the different parts of the system and social and cultural: the personal
relations, community values and cultural traditions which affect people's use of food" (1995,
p.2, emphasis added). The focus of my doctoral research is on the issues regarding the second
and the third parts of the system, while recognising the importance of the first, with the
narrow focus on global food value chains and their three main links - food producers, traders
and consumers, to be discussed next.
Food Producers
It is common knowledge that the global food system is becoming less and less able to
ensure the sustainable development of food producers, a problem which I have already
touched upon in the Introduction. In line with this point is Woodger's humorous comment
saying that it is highly unlikely to see the following headline in near future: "Farmers
[(especially small-scale ones)] accused of profiteering" (2012). Similarly, although in a far
more serious tone, Tansey and Worsley have said that "farmers and farm workers are
becoming something of an endangered species" (1995, p.86).
However, not all farmers are the same. Although they all have to make decisions
regarding the use of the three classical factors of production - land, labour and capital, they
do not do so from the same vantage point. On the one hand, there are large-scale agricultural
operators employing thousands of workers, which are often a part of an even larger
60
agricultural conglomerate or multinational agro-food business. On the other hand, there are
small-scale producers, which are currently in a far less favourable position, especially due to
the fact that they make up "half of the world's hungriest people" (Fairtrade International
2013a, p.4). However, their importance does not correspond to the individual size of their
farms, because their strength lies in numbers. Consequently, at the moment, small-scale
producers globally grow 70 percent of all food (Ibid.) and their products represent 80 percent
of all agro-food export of developing countries (Nicholls and Opal 2005, p.254-255). Given
the fact that they will be at the centre of my research attention, I will now discuss them in
more detail.
Poor and Marginalised Small-scale Food Producers
Connected with my decision to focus my research on poor and marginalised small-
scale food producers, I will now explain in turn all three aspects of my unit of analysis
("poor", "marginalised" and "small-scale") and the rationale behind my choices. Firstly, in the
previous chapter, I have comprehensively defined poverty, seeing poor people as the ones
living beneath poverty lines and in one of the conditions stated in Stewart and Wang's
broadened definition of poverty (see p.2). Therefore, my comprehensive understanding of
who is a poor producer covers both the above-stated quantitative and qualitative aspects of
poverty, and is in line with views of a number of development studies scholars (see for
example Winters et al. 2004, Stewart and Wang 2003, Sen 1999 and others).
Secondly, I will put forward a definition of what I consider to be a marginalised
producer. In order to do that, I will have to unpack the notion of marginalisation. In my
understanding there are two aspects that should be identified. Firstly, there is an absolute
aspect of marginalisation, asking the question "marginalised from what?". My accompanying
61
answer to this is - marginalised from opportunities, from access to markets, deprived, and
without bargaining power. This aspect of marginalisation directly corresponds to the above
stated qualitative and quantitative aspects of poverty, now in light of the general production
capacities. In addition, there is a relative aspect of marginalisation, which relates to the
question "marginalised compared to what?" Here, my accompanying answer is in respect to
other people (on average), since others (on average) have what they do not and cannot.
Finally, as I already stated in the Introduction, my focus will not be on poor and
marginalised workers/hired labour and the production on plantations, but on poor and
marginalised small-scale agricultural producers and on their small-scale primary production.
The rationale behind this focus is twofold. Firstly, the vast majority of Fairtrade production is
done by poor and marginalised small-scale farmers (Fairtrade International 2014a), especially
in the product categories in which I am interested, i.e. coffee, fruits and vegetables (the focus
on these products will be explained in detail in chapters V and VII). Banana production is the
only major product branch dominated by the plantation production model (for examples, see
in: Nelson and Pound 2009, Ruben et al. 2008, Moberg 2005 and others). Consequently, the
vast majority of the Fair Trade literature is focused on small-scale producers (for
representative examples see in: Nelson and Pound 2009, Jaffee 2007, Barrientos and Smith
2007 and Renard 1999). Secondly, poor and marginalised small-scale producers in Serbia,
who qualify to join the Fairtrade system, are small-scale land owners and not plantation
workers.
Therefore, food producers who meet the above-stated conditions, i.e. they are poor (in
quantitative and/or qualitative terms), marginalised (absolutely and/or relatively) and small-
scale primary producers, rather than plantation hired workers, lie at the heart of my research
into current and potential Fairtrade producers.
62
Finally, irrespective of their size, all food producers today face a number of
uniformed challenges. The most important is the fact that they are relatively small and
powerless part of the global food system in general and of the contemporary global agro-food
value chains in particular (Gereffi and Fernandez-Stark 2011, Raynolds and Wilkinson 2007
and Gereffi et al. 2005 and Tansey and Worsley 1995). In addition, they are the biggest risk
takers, since they have to cope not only with the internal mixture of challenges coming from
other parts of the system, but also due to the external factors, which are often completely
beyond their control, chiefly, changing climate and weather conditions (Milovanovic, 2013,
interview and Phillips 2006).
On the other hand, it is important to always bear in mind the fact that, although often
seen by the dominant academic orthodoxies as a small, largely powerless and heavily
controlled part of the global food system and global food value chains, food producers are
still "central to ensuring food security for everyone on this planet" (Tansey and Rajotte 2008,
p.3).
Food Traders
At the same time, another, parallel trend is present, given the fact that the global food
system is growing in terms of the number of people working in it, and in the size of the
companies which operate in it (Lang 2010 and Halweil 2000). This rapidly growing part of
the global food system are food traders (Ibid.), always on the "lookout for profitable
products" (Easterly 2006, p.66). Barratt Brown identified the reasons for changes in favour of
food traders mentioned earlier as originating in the increase in their size, access to finance,
manipulating and switching powers and the possibility of capturing the vital parts of the
63
global value chain (1993). Finally, Feenstra explicitly connects "'integration of trade' with the
'disintegration of production' in the global economy" (in Gereffi et al. 2005, p.80).
In my thesis, I will include food exporters/importers, manufacturers/processors,
wholesalers and retailers in the category of "food traders", hence offering a broader definition
of the term than usual (for example in Raynolds and Wilkinson 2007, Tansey and Worsley
1995 and Barratt Brown 1993). However, given the fact that the focus of my doctoral
research is predominantly on supermarkets as part of the food traders' group, the
terminological difference of my genus proximum, i.e. food traders, is of no substantial
importance and the only reason behind my decision is the analytical simplification which I
want to achieve.
Supermarkets
Regarding supermarkets themselves, following Tansey and Worsley's understanding,
I see them as "the closest most food buyers come to food producers. They used to be called...
grocers, but these names conjure up a picture which is not in keeping with the scale... [hence,
they are now companies which] gather, display and sell the products which shoppers,
depending on the money in their pockets, buy" (1995, p.124).
Secondly, battle for dominance between supermarkets and wholesalers, which began
two decades ago, has now matured. According to Gereffi and his colleagues, supermarkets
are developing closer relations with importers and exporters instead of purchasing from
wholesalers (Gereffi et al. 2005, p.93). This is the case because the base of the supermarket's
business model and corporate policy is the input price. With the exclusion of the
intermediaries, this price is lower, which is always a desirable scenario, as explained by
Primanova's director of sales, Dragana Nikolic (2013b, interview).
64
According to the Serbian Strategy for Agricultural Development (SADS 2005, p.65),
supermarkets also succeeded in changing the business practices of their suppliers. They did
this by enforcing their own production protocols (Hughes 2001), effected in turn by moving
to "renewable annual contracts with suppliers whose capabilities and systems were subject to
regular monitoring and audit" (Gereffi et al. 2005, p.93).
In addition, they managed to change the shopping habits of food consumers as well,
leading to the situation that, for example in the UK, one in every seven pounds spent in shops
is spent in one mere supermarket, Tesco (Wallop 2007). That the same supermarket is
simultaneously the UK's largest employer is highly illustrative (Ibid.).
However, the rise of supermarkets and their closer and tighter connection with all
other parts of the food value chains led to a positive outcome for the first- and third-party
certification supporters, since now supermarkets cannot avoid questions regarding their
business practices by saying that they do not have any control over their global value chains.
Consequently, consumers, NGOs and even governments are now increasingly holding food
traders in general, and supermarkets in particular, accountable for the whole length of their
global value chains (Karjalainen and Moxham 2012 and Amaeshi et al. 2008). This change is
one of the main bases on which the process of Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets
will develop, which will be discussed in detail in Chapter VI.
Food Consumers
The final pieces of the puzzle of any research focused on the global food system in
general, and global value chains and the Fairtrade system in particular are consumers, who
buy agro-food products. Tansey and Worsley define them as "those who spend money on
65
goods and services... exercis[ing] what is called effective demand", having rights and
obligations (Ibid., pp.142,159).
According to the Consumers International, the world federation of consumer groups,
consumers have the rights to satisfy their basic needs, to be informed and educated, to be able
to choose safe and healthy options and to be heard and acknowledged (2014). At the same
time, they have obligations as well, since they have to be critically, economically, politically,
socially and environmentally aware (Ibid.). Consumers deploy their rights and obligations
through consumption choices (Sassatelli 2006), i.e., through shopping. By understanding both
their rights and obligations and the manner in which they can exercise them through their
everyday shopping choices, consumers went from weak puppets to more informed and
educated, more sovereign, and often morally responsible actors (Ariztia et al. 2012). This has
lead us to the situation in which even an average consumer is far from passive (Gereffi et al.
2005, p.98) demonstrating different levels of "rationalism, individualism, collectivism and
social orientation" (Bondy and Talwar 2011, p.367).
At the same time, consumers are demonstrating mass consumer characteristics as
well, focusing on "price, quality, convenience and brand familiarity" (Ibid.) and, it can be
added, aiming to collectively exercise one or more aspects of their critical, economical,
social, political and environmental awareness. In this way, some of them have become
campaigners.
Today, previous focuses on price, value-for-money, health and safety of the products
are not the sole criteria for buying. As stated previously, consumers' greater awareness of the
global supply chains, enables them to identify unethical business practices more easily and
act upon them (Karjalainen and Moxham 2012, Park-Poaps and Rees 2010, Jiang et al. 2009,
Maloni and Brown 2006 and Whysall 1995). This exposure has also led to the situation in
66
which the effects of the consumers' shopping choices have become far more visible as well
(Ariztia et al. 2012, p.4).
This realisation can be a personal motivator for ethical consumption. More
importantly, however, if a number of consumers are inspired to collectively exercise one or
more aspects of their critical, economical, political, social and environmental awareness, then
they come to the fore as a very important group. "Although consumers are the least organized
of the actors involved in the food system, there is the potential for greater pressure from
consumers concerned about the direction and nature of the food system" (Tansey and
Worsley 1995, p.165).
Ethical labels, including the Fairtrade Mark are crucial for this, because, according to
their supporters, products carrying them offer ethically sound alternatives and because they
can be seen as a practical manifestation of ethical endeavours. "In this core role, labelling
initiatives can moralise and humanise key aspects of business processes by providing credible
and practical information for consumers, so they can apply personal convictions in their
consumption choices. But labelling can also help producers and business to communicate
'sustainable' benefits in a credible way while offering strategic options to improve
competitive positions based on sustainable production" (Hartlieb and Jones 2009, p.587).
The three above-presented referent objects will be further analysed throughout my
thesis by applying Gereffi's global food value chain analytical framework, which will enable
me to explain their interconnections.
Gereffi's Global Food Value Chain Analytical Framework
Two seminal works by Duke Professor Gary Gereffi lie at the heart of numerous global
value chain related analyses in the Fair Trade literature. These comprise his chapter "The
67
organization of buyer-driven global commodity chains: How U.S. retailers shape overseas
production networks" (1994) and an article co-authored with John Humphrey and Timothy
Sturgeon, "The governance of global value chains" (2005).
The first work contributed to an older body of work, the global commodity chain
literature, and set a path for the development of a novel global value chain approach by clearly
distinguishing "producer-driven" from "buyer-driven" chains. "Gereffi (1994) used the term
'buyer-driven global commodity chain' to denote how global buyers used explicit coordination to
help create a highly competent supply-base upon which global-scale production and distribution
systems could be built without direct ownership" (Gereffi et al. 2005, p.82). The second paper
explains a fivefold global supply chain governance typology, and offers an analytical
apparatus for explaining changes from one type to another, hence, adding dynamics to the
global value chain literature.
"GVCs [(Global value chains)] link firms, workers and consumers around the world
and often provide a stepping stone for firms and workers in developing countries to integrate
into the global economy" (Gereffi and Fernandez-Stark 2011, p.2). Due to its contemporary
influence, "[t]he global commodity chain approach is often now referred to as the global value
chain approach" (Raynolds and Wilkinson 2007, p.35)15. In addition, Gereffi's global value
chain approach provides a generally "insightful associated framework for analyzing the social
organization of transnational production, trade, and consumption networks... [and] the
interlinking of products and services, organizational and spatial configuration of enterprises,
and governance systems determining the distribution of profits and other resources in manu-
facturing" (Ibid.).
As stated previously, I employ the concept in this thesis to offer a novel answer to the
"in or against the market" debate. Even more importantly though, I will apply Gereffi's global
15
In the Fair Trade literature, this approach is predominant and I will follow it as well.
68
value chain approach as a major part of my theoretical framework in order to explain how
Fairtrade producers, traders and consumers are connected in the Fairtrade system, and what is
the difference between Fairtrade and other businesses' global value chains. Hence, it will
allow me to connect all four of my empirical chapters by using the common analytical
framework linking all three referent objects - Fairtrade producers, traders and consumers.
Gereffi and his colleagues develop a five-point, ideal type typology of global value
chain governance, taking into account questions of the complexity of transactions, the ability
to codify transactions and the capabilities of suppliers (Gereffi et al. 2005). At one end of the
spectrum, there is the first, market type of value chain governance with low complexity
transactions, and high abilities to codify transaction and capabilities of suppliers, leading to the
essential point of this ideal free market trade scenario that "the costs of switching to new
partners [(and the links between them)] are low [(and weak)] for both parties" (Ibid.). At the
other end of the spectrum lies the second extreme, absolute vertical integration in the form of
the hierarchy governance type. In this ideal type, the complexity of transactions is the
highest, while the ability to codify transactions and capabilities of suppliers is the lowest,
leading to a very high degree of explicit coordination and power asymmetry. "The dominant
form of governance is managerial control, flowing from managers to subordinates or from
headquarters to subsidiaries and affiliates" (Ibid., p.84).
In between, there are three more ideal types: modular, relational and captive value
chains. In all of them, the complexity of transactions is high and they differ, firstly, in regard
to their ability to codify the transactions with only relational value chain model scoring low
on this variable, meaning that responsibilities lie not predominantly with the producers,
leading to the second highest score in the capabilities of supply-base, which it shares with the
modular value chain. However, unlike modular value chains where producers make products
to a customer's specifications and take full responsibility, or the captive value chains where
69
producers are dependent on much larger buyers, facing significant costs of switching
partners, therefore, being "captured", in relational value chains the relations are rather
different. In them, there are complex interactions creating mutual dependence, functioning
well in both spatial proximity, but also distantly if relationships are built-up over time and
based on trust and respect (Ibid.).
Governance Complexity of Ability to codify Capabilities of Degree of explicit coordination

type transactions transactions supply-base and power asymmetry
Market Low High High Low
Modular High High High ↑
Relational High Low High |
Captive High High Low ↓
Hierarchy High Low Low High
Table 10. Key determinants of global value chain governance (Gereffi et al. 2005, p.78)16.
Finally, Gereffi and his colleagues point out that changes from one type to another are
not only possible, but also quite common (Ibid., p.92-93). According to the same work, this
and other changes between different types of global value chains can be both facilitated and
anticipated. In the Fairtrade system, I see Fairtrade campaigners as the main initiators of this
change, which will be further discussed in Chapter VI.
In addition to these most important reasons, Gereffi's global value chain approach was
also chosen because of the following analytical advantages. To begin with, crucial for my
thesis is the fact that although generally very useful in analysing all types of global value
chains17, Gereffi's approach is particularly valuable for analysing agro-food sector (Raynolds
and Wilkinson 2007, Daviron and Ponte 2005, Gereffi et al. 2005 and Gibbon and Ponte
2005).
16
Statistically, there are three more possible combinations of these variables, however, according to Gereffi and
his colleagues, only these five actually generate global value chain types (Gereffi et al. 2005, p.87).
17
Apart from the agro-food sector, it is used to explain global value chains in manufacturing, tourism, logistics,
finance and many other business sectors (Gereffi et al. 2005 and Staritz et al. 2011).
70
Furthermore, Gereffi's global value chain approach also demonstrates how
contemporary global trade is not solely, or even predominantly, inter-national. In fact, it lies
largely within the international business sphere dominated by the biggest multinational
companies. These companies are also characterised by the second important new feature of
the contemporary global economic system, their vertical disintegration. In this way, they are
"redefining their core competencies to focus on innovation and product strategy, marketing,
and the highest value-added segments of manufacturing and services, while reducing their
direct ownership over 'non-core' functions such as generic services and volume production"
(Gereffi et al. 2005, p.79).
Yeats' findings (2001) are in line with this point stating that companies try to outsource
all of their non-core manufacturing and service activities due to the rising integration of world
markets. A number of authors (Smith 2010, Gereffi et al. 2005, Dolan and Humphrey 2004,
Henderson et al. 2002 and Hughes 2000) have come to the same conclusion. For example, in
spite of its increasing complexity, in the global value chains, dominant buyers, such as "new
gatekeepers", i.e. supermarkets and big agro-food businesses can distribute, coordinate and
control global-scale production systems without direct ownership. Secondly, they can minimise
their exposure to risk and push the risk down the supply chain, maximising their financial
returns, while at the same time, leading producers to the red lines of sustainable production and
often driving them below.
These findings are essential for my thesis as well, given the fact that due to the
nature of the Fairtrade system, my whole analytical focus is not on inter-national (i.e. trade
between Mexico and the United Kingdom, for example), but between Fairtrade producers,
traders and consumers, which is done within the international business sphere, which
currently has an hourglass structure, as it is dominated by a small number of big
multinational companies, known as "new gatekeepers".
71
Thirdly, Gereffi claims that the producer-driven global value chains have eroded and
that the new, buyer-driven global value chains are now the most dominant forms of
organisation, particularly in the agro-food sector. This finding is, again, crucial to my
research, because I similarly understand the Fairtrade system as buyer-driven. This is because
I recognise Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets as one of the most important ways
in which Fairtrade will continue to develop, which will be discussed in detail in Chapter VI.
Therefore, due to all above-stated, it is not hard to understand why more and more
Fair Trade researchers (Doherty et al. 2013, Karjalainen and Moxham 2012, Smith 2010,
Davies 2009, Reed 2009, Raynolds and Wilkinson 2007, Daviron and Ponte 2005, Gibbon
and Ponte 2005, Smith and Barrientos 2005, Taylor et al. 2005 and Dolan and Humphrey
2004), including myself, have recognised that this approach can illuminate the dynamics of
the Fairtrade global value chains and interconnections between Fairtrade producers, traders
and consumers. In addition, through these analytical lenses the Fairtrade system can be seen
as a "prototype for 'relational value chains'" (Raynolds and Wilkinson 2007, p.36) and this
will be discussed next.
Fairtrade Relational Global Value Chains
A trend present at the end of the 20th and at the beginning of the 21st century is the
complete disappearance of close links between producers and consumers (Moore et al. 2006
and Barett Brown 1993). The breaking of links is neither only, nor even predominantly along
the lines of geographical proximity or distances, but increasingly, along the economical and
social divides. According to its supporters, the Fairtrade system aims to bridge all of these
gaps by building closer links between Fairtrade producers and Fairtrade consumers, cutting
unnecessary middlemen, involving aware Fairtrade traders and paying Fairtrade prices and
72
premiums (Raynolds 2000). In this way, the Fairtrade system is offering an answer to Barett
Brown's question which stated that "we cannot now foresee what the new structures will be...
[which will be able to remedy] markets which split us into two halves - into producers and
consumers... so that we can once more become whole" (1993, p.191).
Therefore, understanding the relations in Fairtrade global value chains is one of the
most important tasks for the Fair Trade literature. As already discussed, the Fairtrade system,
as all other businesses, is based on global value chains. In this respect, the Fairtrade system
has to take into consideration a number of supply chain management constructs as much as
other food businesses do. The most important are: customer focus, environmental uncertainty,
top management support, purchasing strategy, buyer-supplier relationships, integration and
performance (Karjalainen and Moxham 2012, p.273). Although the Fairtrade global value
chains can be unique in some aspects, "this does not preclude FT chains aiming for cost-
efficiency, competitiveness and growth" (Ibid., p.278), which is true for any (agro-food)
business initiative.
Figure 2. Key supply chain management constructs (Karjalainen and Moxham 2012, p.274).
On the other hand, as already indicated, a number of Fair Trade scholars pointed out
that Fairtrade global value chains are considerably different than the ones of other businesses
in the market (Doherty et al. 2013, Karjalainen and Moxham 2012, Nicholls 2010, Smith
2009, Davies 2009, Raynolds and Wilkinson 2007, Davies 2007, Schmelzer 2006, Mair et al.
73
2006, Taylor 2005, Raynolds 2002a and others) due to the following specificities.
According to Raynolds and Wilkinson, the Fairtrade system is the prototype of a
relational global value chains (2007, p.36). They are characterised by "complex interactions
between buyers and sellers, which often creates mutual dependence and high levels of asset
specificity. This may be managed through reputation, or family and ethnic ties" (Gereffi et al.
2005, p.84). Relational value chains seek to replace, above all, market and captive types of
value chain governance with the form that "...considers the situation of producers in
structuring the terms of interaction" (Smith 2009, p.2).
The Fairtrade system, therefore, does not have a standard contemporary supply chain
structure and does not employ the same procedures (Karjalainen and Moxham 2012 and
Nicholls 2010), but tries to reconnect Fairtrade producers, firstly, with Fairtrade traders and
secondly, with Fairtrade consumers. Therefore, the Fairtrade system tries to shorten the
distance between producers and consumers and to humanise the trade by introducing
solidarity, cooperation and equality (Raynolds 2002a).
According to the Fair Trade literature, starting with the Fairtrade producers, the
Fairtrade system achieves this through its global value chains allowing them to have partner
relations with Fairtrade consumers (facilitated by Fairtrade traders). In addition, it allows
them to share the power of defining what is "quality" in a product (Goodman and Goodman
2001).
Continuing with the Fairtrade traders, their engagement in the Fairtrade global value
chains is different because there is a number of core, obligatory Fairtrade trade standards,
rules and regulations set by Fairtrade International and monitored by FLO-CERT, therefore,
third-party certification scheme, which they have to follow in order to sell Fairtrade products.
This includes paying the Fairtrade minimum price and premium, paying up to 60 percent
before the harvest and signing long-term trade contracts (Schmelzer 2006, pp.7-8).
74
Finally, being a part of the Fairtrade system is a different experience for the Fairtrade
consumers as well. They can "visualize a more or less direct link with the producer and
imagine (even if inaccurately) that every fair-trade-certified bean in their morning cup was
picked by democratically organized, fairly paid farmers in one particular coffee cooperative"
(Jaffee 2007, p.14).
In this lies the power, but also the specificity of the Fairtrade global value chain to
"put a face on commodities, to convey information about the social conditions under which
they were produced - and about the people who produced them" (Ibid.). Therefore, by the
words of Raynolds, it is not only that Fairtrade changes the market in which it operates, it
actually, just by functioning the way it does, "destabilizes neo-liberal knowledge claims"
(2002a, p.409), uncovering power domination by the strongest actors which are creating and
modifying market rules to serve their own interests (Taylor 2005).
Following the presentation of its positive, unique features, it is also important to point
out that, like all other business using global value chains, in practice, the Fairtrade system
meets similar challenges. I have already stated that a number of Fair Trade scholars find
Fairtrade to be a prototype for relational global value chains, however, there are, at the same
time, warnings stating that it can also slip to modular or captive value chains as well (Doherty
et al. 2013, Nicholls 2010, Smith 2010 and Raynolds and Wilkinson 2007, for example). The
Fairtrade system "may move toward "captive chains," if power asymmetry and Northern
market control is heightened, or "modular chains," if standardization, certification, and
market diversification loosens supplier networks" (Raynolds and Wilkinson 2007, p.36).
Therefore, as it will be presented in this section, not all practices of Fairtrade traders will
guarantee the relational nature of the Fairtrade value chains.
For example, Smith finds that the Fairtrade value chains, in the case of supermarkets
in the UK for example, are everything but homogenous (2010, p.258). "They can be quite
75
short with close relationships between all actors in the chain, or long and complex with little
direct contact from one end to the other. They may involve a string of independent entities
(producers, exporters, importers, processors and retailers) or contain elements of vertical
integration (a single company performing more than one function in the chain) or co-
ownership. They may be populated largely by social enterprises which deal exclusively in
Fairtrade, or be made up entirely of conventional commercial companies which include
Fairtrade as part of their broader business" (Ibid.).
Doherty and his colleagues therefore identified seven distinct Fairtrade global value
chains "which make up the vast majority of fair trade purchases today" (Doherty et al. 2013,
p.169) showing that they lead to the different social impacts, and are subject to different
levels of dilution, co-optation or reputational damage (Ibid.).
Value Fairtrade Participants Features Propensity for

chain value chain co-optation,
dilution or capture
1 FTO/Social FTOs trading with FTOs, Strong relationships with Nil
Economy e.g. CTM Altromercato producers building
value chain trading directly through organisational capacity and
(100% associated world shops even producer equity.
Fairtrade) Consumer activists buying in
this chain
2 FTO value FTO products such as Strong relationships between Nil dilution but
chain with Divine chocolate and FTOs and producers. Retailer limited potential for
corporate Cafedirect distributed via purely route of distribution. cooptation or
retail supermarkets More convenient for reputational risk
participation consumers to buy
3 FTO FTOs supplying own-label Strong relationships with Nil dilution, limited
supplying supermarket brand such as FTOs and producers. Some cooptation but high
supermarket Agrofair selling fresh fruit FTOs maintain the intellectual levels of
own label produce through property with reference to reputational risk
supermarket branding producers on packaging
4 Corporate Starbucks Coffee Modular form where Some co-optation
dominate Company is an example corporation has significant of FT authorities
licensee and control over value chain. Not and dilution of
retailer all corporate products are FT some principles.
High reputational
risk
5 Corporate Own label supermarket Modular form where Very high
retail products sourced from supermarket retailer does not reputational risk,
dominated second tier manufacturers have to commit to FT some co-optation
but not such as supermarkets standards and minimum for FT authorities
licensee working through existing relationship with producers but limited dilution
own-brand suppliers
76
6 Corporate Multinational corporation Controlled and dominated by High co-optation,
manufacture such as Proctor & Gamble MNCs with limited dilution and
r as licensee or Cadbury's converting transparency. Power resides reputational risk
to retailer major brands for general with MNC due to power
sale imbalance
7 Corporations Control of value chain Similar to ethical trade with High co-optation,
and remains the same but with power very much with the dilution and
plantation adherence to social corporation. No consumer reputational risk
production premium and FT price brand choice as whole
such as large fruit categories are converted, e.g.
importers Chiquita or Dole bananas
Table 11. Types of Fairtrade global value chains (Doherty et al. 2013, pp.170-171).
This table shows seven different Fairtrade global value chains, however, the focus of
my doctoral research is only on the value chains two, three and five. They predominantly
involve supermarkets, with Fairtrade organisations either supplying their own products or
supplying supermarkets' own labels. Alternatively, supermarkets own label products sourced
from second tier manufacturers. These include existing own-brand suppliers, whose trade
pallet is just marginally focused on Fairtrade and who are searching for minimum (although
still Fairtrade) prices, instead of establishing the above-stated good Fairtrade trade practices.
The first, and according to Doherty and his colleagues, the most desirable value chain
type is based on 100% Fair Trade organisations (FTOs), trading with other FTOs and
consequently with Fairtrade consumers, most of them being radical Fairtraders. Although this
is the model in which the propensity for co-optation, dilution or capture is negligible, it has a
few major drawbacks, identified by a number of Fair Trade scholars (see in Doherty et al.
2013). These include sluggish growth rates, low annual sales and inability to move out from
the niche market and attract non-radical Fairtrade consumers.
As I already said, this is a serious downfall for any agro-food business model
identified both by the literature, but also by numerous Fair Trade experts I interviewed.
Therefore, this type of global value chain will not be at the centre of attention of my doctoral
research.
77
On the other side of the spectrum there are the global value chains four, six and seven,
where "the biggest fears of co-optation and dilution occur with powerful, and occasionally
ethically questionable, MNCs [(multinational companies)] such as... Starbuck's (type 4),
Nestlé and Cadbury's (type 6) and Dole and Chiquita (type 7)" (Doherty et al. 2013, p.175).
The analytical reason why they will not be included in my research is because in Serbia, at
the time of writing of this thesis, the Fairtrade global value chains "in the middle" prevail,
and according to my interviewees, the majority of the Fairtrade market will be based on them
in foreseeable future (Kosanovic 2013, interview and Seslija 2013, interview).
Consequently, the middle of this table, Fairtrade global value chains two, three and
five, will be at the centre of my doctoral research. They fit Fairtrade mainstreaming through
supermarkets process, which is happening in the UK, and which was the initial Fairtrade
spark in Serbia as well. The nuances between them allow me to analytically put forward the
fact that, firstly, not all supermarkets are "Fairtrade" to the same degree, in line with Smith's
argumentation that their commitment is not the same (2010).
Even more importantly, and something that even Doherty and his colleagues in their
up to date, the most comprehensive analysis on this issue did not realise, is that not all
Fairtrade products on supermarkets' shelves are the same. They do not result from the same
Fairtrade global value chains, since the certification specificities of the Fairtrade labelling is
focused on certifying products rather than companies, even though all of them met the same
Fairtrade International and FLO-CERT standards.
Exemplar supermarkets like the Co-operative in the UK are able to have Fairtrade
global value chain two with a great number of FTOs' products, but they also have products
coming from Fairtrade global value chains three and five (to a lesser extent). According to
Smith, this group of supermarkets have their Fairtrade global value chains differing from their
conventional global value chains, hence, "they are more likely to invest time and resources in
78
understanding and developing the value chain" (2010, p.262). On the other hand, supermarkets
like Delhaize in Belgium (Pauwels 2013, interview) and in Serbia (Kosanovic 2013, interview
and Seslija 2013, interview), Sainsbury's and especially Tesco in the UK have more Fairtrade
products coming from Fairtrade global value chains three and five (Bentley 2013, interview).
Given the fact that only Fairtrade global value chains two and three are the ones which
are identified as relational and therefore, more desirable compared to modular which is the
global value chain five, it is clear that the FTO and supermarket relational cooperation
happens either through FTO's or supermarkets' own Fairtrade brands. It is nevertheless
important to say that the "fair-washing is worsened in value chain 3 where the fair trade
licence is held by the FTO but all the reputational benefit goes to the own-brand retailer. The
most obvious examples of this are Agrofair's provision of own-brand fruit to major European
retailers, rather than its official óke brand or Divine's provision of... Sainsbury's Chocolate"
(Doherty et al. 2013, p.174, also stated by Poos 2013, interview and Bentley 2013,
interview).
Fairtrade global value chain five is, as already said, modular, which, due to one of its
characteristics can lead to strengthening, broadening and deepening of the current situation
where all Fairtrade standards, rules and regulations are obligatory for Fairtrade producers and
traders, but not for supermarket suppliers and finally, the supermarkets themselves. Hence,
the retailers who use third-party suppliers solely based on price "are less committed to the
success of fair trade, only fulfil the minimum fair trade requirements... and do not profit share
with producer communities. This ultimately leads to the cannibalisation of FTO sales and less
money per unit sold being redirected to producers" (Doherty et al. 2013, p.174). These
supermarkets in general and the Fairtrade products on their shelves in particular are coming
through the same global value chains as the non-Fairtrade products and are sourced through
79
category managers, who may treat Fairtrade products the same as any other in a particular
product category (Smith and Barrientos 2005, p.196).
The final point in this section is connected with the already explained possibility of
moving from one type of the global value chain to the other. Fairtrade campaigners are
critical to this transition. In particular, their efforts to help development of the Fairtrade
global value chains two and three and the ways in which they are able to influence the move
from the Fairtrade value chain five to two and three, since according to Doherty and his
colleagues' advice, "Fair trade authorities should try and replicate the development of value
chains 1, 2 and 3 in emerging markets..." (2013, p.180).
I regard the Fairtrade campaigning as the way to achieve this and my understanding is
further supported, firstly, by the literature stating that "[e]xperience suggests that if
supermarkets succumb to civil society pressure to fulfil their commitments to ethical trade
this would require a move to more relational governance" (Smith and Barrientos 2005,
p.195), and by my interviewees (Djuraskovic 2013, interview and Bentley 2013, interview).
This is particularly advocated by Bentley who stated that not only that Fairtrade campaigners
in the UK have brought Fairtrade where it is at the moment, but also in order for Fairtrade to
grow even further, supermarkets and campaigners have to find novel ways to coordinate and
cooperate (2013, interview).
2.3. Fairtrade System and Caring Across Spaces
The third body of work important for my doctoral thesis, from which Fair Trade
researchers draw theoretical bases and concepts when explaining the Fairtrade system, is the
caring across space literature. This does not come as a surprise given the fact that the links
between the notion of caring across space and the Fairtrade system are very strong and
80
numerous scholars have written about this topic (Watson 2007 and 2006, Popke 2006, Clarke
et al. 2005, Hale and Opondo 2005, Castree 2004, Cook et al. 2004, Friedberg 2004 and
2003, Hughes 2004 and others). Smith's seminal work (1998) is the foundation of most of
these writings. Similarly, I will base my analysis on Smith, including its more recent
interpretations coming from the Fair Trade literature.
The more common view held in the Fair Trade literature, which I favour as well,
gives more space to feelings and emotions in general and to the notions of care in particular
(see also in: Watson 2007, Popke 2006, Castree 2004 and others). Care is understood as "a
felt concern for the good of others and for community with them" (Baier 1987, p.43). It is
perceived as a warmer virtue than justice, however, strong enough to have practical
consequences for people who are in need (Smith 1998, p.16). However, the vital requirement
is to give care a substance (Tronto 1993) and the Fairtrade system qualifies as an excellent
vehicle for this which will be further discussed below, especially in chapters VI and VIII.
Now, I will put forward a discussion about three important topics which will aid me in
putting the theoretical foundations for understanding the Fairtrade system's internal
normative and operational logic and its re-connection mission, which will be discussed
thorough my doctoral dissertation as one of the main arguments against the current Fairtrade
system's practices of exclusion. These are the questions of how far we should care for others,
the perception of human sameness and difference and regarding the role of education in the
process of giving care a substance.
How Far Should We Care for Others
To be able to connect with, and favour people who live far from us in the same way
and at the same time as we do with the ones who live in our close proximity was, until very
81
recently, regarded as unusual (Smith 1998, p.17). The opposite was intuitive convention, due
to the fact that local groups protected themselves by having a negative attitude towards
strangers (Ibid.). Besides this fear of strangers, previously, people only had obligations to
their close family and friends because they were particularly, and most often, exclusively,
vulnerable to their actions and choices, while the distant strangers were not (Clement 1996).
However, in today's interconnected global economic and food systems this is not the case
anymore (Karjalainen and Moxham 2012, Chang 2011, Raynolds and Wilkinson 2007, Smith
1998 and others). Consequently, we have to ask the question how far we should care for
others, i.e. how much, as well as how far, in geographical, social and economic spaces (Smith
1998, p.15).
Regarding the former question focused on how much should we care, firstly, it is
necessary to recognise that "[a]ll of us have only a finite amount of time, attention, care, and
affection to devote to other people (or to ourselves for that matter), and life would scarcely be
worth living if we could not decide for ourselves - once we had met our general social
obligations - on whom these should be bestowed" (Barry 1995, p.201). However, O'Neill also
points out that albeit the fact that people cannot care about everyone, they can and should
care, at least to a certain extent, about others (1989).
Concerning the later question, Sidgwick starts by saying that these distant others are
"those who are in distress or urgent need [and because of that they] have a claim on us for
special kindness" (in Smith 1998, p.19). Apostrophising "special kindness" also serves to
confirm my affinity with the moral philosophical route arising from the Scottish
Enlightenment and against Hume's utility theory (1988 [1740]). In particular, against his
consequent account of distance-decay dynamics through which it is more difficult to care for
someone the further they were removed from you, both physically and socially.
82
The Scottish Enlightenment appealed instead to a notion of special cases, suggesting
that some people deserved more care simply on the grounds that their material conditions of
life were lower than most other people's (Watson 2007). Therefore, these special duties
should be enacted to poor and marginalised people based on the grounds of their poverty and
marginalisation, regardless if they are coming from the Global South or the Global North.
This is particularly true given that many people from the Global North, including the ones
coming from Serbia, are now in the same camp as people from countries for whom special
duties are usually claimed.
Furthermore, Singer continues by putting forward the principle that "if it is in our
power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of
comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. This principle takes no account of
proximity or distance" (Smith 1998, p.25). Immediately, there is a heretic voice which is
rather exclusive when stating that "...not all social interactions are going to have the same
pay-off. All other things being equal, your best reproductive investments are going to be in
helping close kin" (Ruse 1991, p.505).
The theory promoted by Ruse meets the praxis of the real life portrayed in the words
of Held who said that human beings can and do care on an everyday basis and certainly not
exclusively for their nearest and dearest (1993, p.53). In a more recent study, Toler and his
colleagues stated that there is much evidence to suggest that, firstly, people care not only for
their own, but for the monetary wellbeing of others as well (Toler et al. 2009, p.1272).
Secondly, that they care about distribution, inequality and efficiency as well (Ibid., see also in
Engelmann and Strobel 2004).
From the previous paragraphs, comprehending how far we should care for others is
crucial to understanding the Fairtrade system is designed, since this explains the first half of
its internal normative and operational logic. It clarifies the reasons why people would and
83
should care about both close and distant others, which is the starting point of the Fairtrade
system's re-connection mission between Fairtrade producer, traders and consumers (Watson
2007 and 2006, Moore et al. 2006, Goodman 2004, Whatmore and Thorne 1997 and others).
This lends itself to the fact that "[o]ne way of understanding the Fair Trade message... is in
relation to reducing the 'distance' between consumers and producers (Moore et al. 2006,
p.338), and "if. . . strangers make market exchanges in a capitalist economy, it is also true
that market exchanges make strangers" (Bowles in Watson 2006, p.442).
Secondly, they give a normative background to five core groups of principles and two
monetary benefits, explaining why people would and should go beyond what is today
accepted as a norm. From the producers' perspective - following the lowest legally binding
production standards, from the traders' position - applying the lowest legally binding trading
practices, from the consumers point - aiming for the lowest market prices, and instead accept
Fairtrade producers, traders and consumers' above-stated logic explained by Raynolds and
Wilkinson (see p.54). This is another theoretical foundation for understanding the empirical
debates which will be presented in chapters V - VIII.
Human Sameness and Difference
Following the debate about the question of how far we should care for others, the
second aspect of the caring across space literature to be discussed deals with the question of
human sameness and difference (Smith 1998, p.16). Smith has noted that this question is
central to many contemporary debates in geography and philosophy, also indicating social
and economic spheres as areas for future research (1998). Following numerous authors
(Watson 2007, Popke 2006, Castree 2004, and others), I also see it as crucial for
84
understanding the Fairtrade system, especially the second half of its internal normative and
operational logic.
This is due to the fact that the Fairtrade system's practice, according to its supporters,
aims to be in line with the following statement saying that "...solidarity is not thought of as
recognition of a core self, the human essence, in all human beings. Rather, it is thought of as
the ability to see more and more traditional differences... as unimportant when compared with
similarities with respect to pain and humiliation..." (Rorty in Smith 1998, p.23). This second
aspect broadens the previous understanding accentuating social and economic distances more
strongly, for people in need both far and close, in the Global South, as well, as in the Global
North.
The Role of Education
The third point, crucial for being able to care across spaces at all, is knowledge about
the ways in which one is, and should impact others that one has never met. One of the
Fairtrade system's most important characteristics is its educational and awareness-raising
character. Through education, the Fairtrade system in general and the Fairtrade campaigners
in particular, illuminate the problems concerning the global economic and food systems.
"Knowledge of the operation of these processes, of how 'we' in the affluent parts of
the world impact on the lives and environments of distant others, can lead to an extension of a
sense of responsibility" (Smith 1998, p.21). In that way, people can, firstly, imagine "how
they would feel were they to find themselves in the other person's situation" (Watson 2007,
p.267). This is in line with Nicholls and Opal saying that "...individual ethical decision
making can only come about by a process of development and self-awareness set in the
85
context of defined ethical ends or 'policies'. Thus, self-knowledge through learning can be
both the means to achieve ethical outcomes and an ethical goal in itself" (2005, p.66).
Secondly, the Fairtrade system and its campaigners offer a way for people to put their
care into practice, because the vital thing is to give care a substance (Tronto 1993).
According to its supporters, the Fairtrade system qualifies as an excellent vehicle which
facilitates this process, particularly because the emphasis on care "posits meeting needs for
care, rather than the pursuit of profit, as the highest social goal" (Smith 1998, p.27), which is
one of its core ideas.
In this chapter, I have reviewed the Fair Trade literature, especially titles which are
also founded on research coming from the development studies, the global food system and
the caring across space bodies of work. In doing so, I have demonstrated that the end of the
20th and the beginning of the 21st century witnessed a shift towards a seemingly more
inclusive liberalism. However, through literature review, I have also identified its main
shortfalls, i.e. its similarity to its predecessors, especially given the fact that it still enables
social and environmental destruction. Consequently, I encountered its theoretical and
practical contestants. One of them is the Fairtrade system, inspired by strong pressures from
noncorporate, non-industry, nonstate coordinating bodies and their high economic, political,
social and environmental goals. The Fairtrade system's emergence from this milieu
immediately begs the question as to how far it actually goes in its critique of the present-day
economic practices based on the contemporary phase of neoliberalism. I discussed this issue
by critically analysing the literature and developing my novel approach which sees the
Fairtrade system as existing together with and in order to change the market.
86
Apart from being interconnected with the global economic system, according to the
Fair Trade literature, the Fairtrade system is also a part of another global structure, the global
food system. By discussing food producers, focusing on poor and marginalised, small-scale
ones; traders, accentuating supermarkets; and finally, food consumers, highlighting
campaigners, I firstly set the scene for a more focused discussion about corresponding parts
of the Fairtrade system, i.e. Fairtrade producers, traders and consumers. They will be further
discussed in Chapter III, and this discussion will be the theoretical foundation for chapters V
- VIII, in which the empirical analyses of these three referent objects will be put forward.
Moreover, I reviewed literature on global value chains and put forward Gereffi's
analytical framework (Gereffi et al. 2005 and Gereffi 1994) which was applied extensively in
the Fair Trade literature and presented the understanding that regards the Fairtrade system as
based on relational global value chains, which differ from other value chain governance
types. Similarly, the same literature shows that the transition from one type to another is
possible, hence, current non-relational global value chains can become relational in the
future. By applying Gereffi's analytical framework, I was also able to put forward the
theoretical basis for tying all of my referent objects in the Fairtrade system, i.e. Fairtrade
producers, traders and consumer.
Finally, following the common position in the Fair Trade literature, I also give more
space to feelings and emotions in general and to the notions of care in particular.
Consequently, I asked three questions: How far we should care for others? How similar and
how different are we? Finally, which role does education have in addressing these dilemmas?
I concluded that the Fairtrade system is a suitable vehicle for giving care a substance. This
offered me a foundation for understanding the Fairtrade system's internal normative and
operational logic of care, re-connection and inclusion, and is a theoretical foundation for the
critique of its current exclusion practices, to be discussed in Chapter III.
87
In this way, I have continued and further developed some of the discussions already
started in the Introduction. Consequently, I began setting the theoretical foundations, firstly,
for making the contribution to knowledge regarding the examination of a new topic, but also
in more general terms, for empirical analyses which will lead to the making of all of my
contributions to knowledge. I will carry on with my theoretical debates in the following
chapter.
88
CHAPTER III - THE CONTEMPORARY FAIRTRADE SYSTEM
Continuing the brief discussion started in the Introduction about the Fairtrade system,
in this chapter, I will present the contemporary Fairtrade system, focusing, firstly, on its
principles and monetary benefits and secondly, on the three key referent objects: Fairtrade
producers, traders and consumers and on Fairtrade International and FLO-CERT, as the
leaders and regulators of the system. By explaining how the Fairtrade system works, I will
put forward the base for understanding the debates in chapters V - VIII in general and
particularly about the above-mentioned three referent objects - Fairtrade producers, traders
and consumers, in Mexico, the UK and Serbia.
Finally, I will present some of the most prominent critiques of the Fairtrade system
including the Global North - Global South divide critique and upper-middle-income
economies' position within the system, identifying dissent between theory and practice, and
setting the direction of the general debate of my doctoral dissertation and the one in chapters
VII and VIII focused on Serbia in particular.
3.1. Fairtrade Principles and Monetary Benefits
At the heart of the current Fairtrade system lie five core social, economic, labour and
environmental groups of principles and two major monetary benefits, the Fairtrade minimum
price and the Fairtrade premium guaranteed through a strict system of rules, regulations and
standards (FINE 2001, see also in: Brkovic 2013a and 2012, Fairtrade International 2012b,
Fairtrade International 2011a, Nelson and Pound 2009, Lamb 2008, Jaffee 2007, Raynolds et
al. 2007, Hayes 2006, Nicholls and Opal 2005, Auroi 2003, Murray et al. 2003 and others).
89
According to its supporters (FINE 2001, p.2-3), by adhering to these principles, the
Fairtrade system aspires to an altered global economic system, by providing financial,
technical and organisational support to producers, raising awareness in the Global North and
South and campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional international
trade. It also advocates a different way of doing business, by insisting on transparency and
accountability, treating producers and consumers with respect and by providing full
information to facilitate market access. In addition, it endorses better trading conditions by
way of fair remunerations, helping with access to pre‐harvest/pre‐production financing and
supporting longer term commitments in order to avoid producers falling into debts.
The Fairtrade system's penultimate aim is to secure producers and workers' rights by
providing a socially responsible, safe and healthy workplace in compliance with national
laws and the International Labour Organization's (ILO) conventions. In particular, with ILO
conventions C29 (1930) and C105 (1957) preventing forced or compulsory labour in all its
forms. C87 (1948) establishing the right to form and join organisations. C87 (Ibid.) and C98
(1949) promoting freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. C100 (1951)
calling for gender equality and C111 (1958) calling for elimination of discrimination on
grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin.
C138 (1973) aiming for the abolition of child labour and C155 (1981) about occupational
safety and health.
Finally, the Fairtrade system promotes sustainable development by strengthening
producers' organisations and encouraging better environmental practises, given the fact that it
promotes organic production and bans the internationally recognised most dangerous
chemicals, the infamous "dirty dozen". It is also important to state that all of these principles
are integral parts of all Fairtrade standards18.
18
Standard for Small Producer Organisations (Fairtrade International 2011c), Standard for Hired Labour
(Fairtrade International 2011d), Standard for Contract Production (Fairtrade International 2011e), Trade
90
Fairtrade principles: Will be achieved by:
1. Strive for an altered - providing financial, technical and organisational support to producers;
global economic system - raising awareness in the Global North and the Global South;
- campaigning for changes in trading rules and practice of the contemporary global
economic system.
2. Different way of - insisting on transparency and accountability;
doing business - treating producers and consumers with respect;
- providing full market information;
- facilitating market access.
3. Better trading - paying fair remunerations;
conditions - pre‐harvest/pre‐production financing;
- supporting long-term commitments.
4. Securing producers - providing socially responsible, safe and healthy workplace in compliance with
and workers' rights national laws and ILO conventions.
5. Sustainable - strengthening producers' organisations;
development - encouraging better environmental practises (especially organic production);
- banning dangerous chemicals.
Table 12. Five core groups of Fairtrade principles (FINE 2001 and others).
The first monetary benefit is the guaranteed Fairtrade minimum price, which covers
the costs of living and sustainable production. It is intended to provide producers and workers
with "...sufficient income to cover their costs of production and provide for their families"
(Nicholls and Opal 2005, p.41). In particular, when the global prices are below the
sustainability levels and particularly in volatile commodity markets (Murray and Raynolds
2007, p.5). However, if the market price exceeds the Fairtrade minimum price, the producers
and workers will receive the former. For some products, the Fairtrade minimum price is the
same for all (for example, cocoa and coffee) and for others (for example, fresh fruits), it
varies by countries (Smith 2010, p.261).
The second monetary benefit, the Fairtrade premium, is a separate payment allocated
for social and economic development in the producing communities used for improvements
in health care, education, social facilities and productivity, or the reduction of their reliance
on single commodities (Fairtrade International 2012b and Fairtrade International 2011a).
Fairtrade premium, which is seen by many as the most important contribution of the Fairtrade
system (Smith 2009, Utting-Chamorro 2005, DFID 2000 and others) funds the following:
Standard (Fairtrade International 2011f) and a number of product standards for small producer organisations and
hired labour (Fairtrade International 2012e).
91
 Broader community projects, i.e. roads, electricity, sanitation, schools, clinics
(Murray and Raynolds 2007, p.5);
 Business developments such as credit schemes (Milford 2004, p.53), weighing,
measuring and other technical equipment (Parrish et al. 2005, p.184);
 Product quality improvements (Raynolds et al., 2004).
In 2011, for example, the total Fairtrade premium paid to Fairtrade producers was €65
($72.7, £47.24, RSD7,809.08) million (Fairtrade International 2012c, p.3). Again, both
monetary benefits are parts of the Fairtrade standards and their implementation is constantly
monitored.
Fairtrade monetary benefits Aiming to:

1. Fairtrade minimum price - cover costs of living and sustainable production.
2. Fairtrade premium - fund developmental projects in producers' communities.
Table 13. Two Fairtrade monetary benefits (FINE 2001 and others).
In order to explain these two monetary benefits in more detail, I will put forward one
practical example - the price of cocoa beans. From 2011, the Fairtrade minimum price of
cocoa beans is $2,000/t and the Fairtrade premium is $200/t (Fairtrade International 2015a).
When the world price is below the stated Fairtrade minimum price, i.e. below $2,000/t, (for
example $1,800/t), the Fairtrade producers will get the Fairtrade minimum price ($2,000/t),
plus the Fairtrade premium ($200/t), which is in total $2,200/t (instead of $1,800/t).
On the other hand, when the world price is higher than $2,000/t, (for example,
$2,200/t), the Fairtrade minimum price will be $2,200/t, augmented by the Fairtrade premium
of $200/t, which means that Fairtrade producers will receive $2,400/t in total (instead of
$2,200/t). Therefore, Fairtrade producers are always better off, getting a higher price, both
when the market price is below and above the Fairtrade minimum price.
92
Chart 1. Comparison of Fairtrade and New York Cocoa Prices (Fairtrade International 2015a, p.4).
The reason why the Fairtrade premium is always paid, even when the world price is
high enough to enable decent living and sustainable production is partially ethical, since the
aim of the Fairtrade system is for this premium to be used for community based projects.
However, it is also commercially driven, since "[r]equiring Fair Trade importers to pay the
social premium even when the market is high represents an attempt to offer farmers
incentives to sell to the Fair Trade market, even when non-Fair Trade market prices are high,
to ensure the sustainability of the market" (Nicholls and Opal 2005, p.47).
Before concluding this section, I will put forward the critiques coming from the Fair
Trade literature regarding the two monetary Fairtrade benefits in general and the Fairtrade
minimum price in particular.
Fairtrade Minimum Price and Fairtrade Premium Critiques
Critics coming from both neoliberal and radical theoretical standpoints assert that
even if the Fairtrade system as a whole is not insignificant and that it can positively influence
93
the market, its impact upon small-scale poor producers is marginal at best, because the
proportion of the final selling price returned to them is very small (see for example Booth
2011, Lindsey 2004 and others). Factually, this is correct, and the example of coffee, which
offers one of the best ratios between retail and Fairtrade minimum price offered to the
Fairtrade producers illustrates how wide the gap between those two figures is.
Today, the Fairtrade minimum price for coffee is $1.40 per pound for nonorganic
washed Arabica and a minimum US 30 cents higher for organic (Fairtrade International
2015b). However, it still represents around 20 percent of the retail price as it did almost 10
years ago (Jaffee 2007, p.25). Even when the Fairtrade minimum price represents 20 percent
of the retail price, it still includes all additional transport and administrative costs. By the
time the funds reach an individual Fairtrade farmer, they rarely represent more than 10
percent of the retail price (Ibid.).
Lamb's (2008) rejoinder highlights that even a 2p, instead of 1p return to producers
already represents a 100 percent increase for them, and that the reason why it is not higher is
not the fault of the Fairtrade system, but rather reflects the multiple margins structure
(exporters/importers, manufacturers/processors, wholesalers, retailers, etc.), typical in
contemporary economic and food systems. Even though she offers numerous arguments to
support her position (Ibid.), certain points should be raised regarding the issue of the
Fairtrade minimum price in particular, and again, I will focus on the case of coffee.
The Fairtrade minimum price for coffee was raised just a few times, and the current
price is less than 20% higher than the previous (Fairtrade International 2015b and Jaffee
2007). On the other hand, Jaffee points out that, for example, Michiza, one of the biggest
producer groups in Mexico, experienced a rise in operating costs by a factor of three (Ibid.).
A the same time, the costs of living continue to rise year on year. Although the costs
of production are still covered by the Fairtrade minimum price, which is one of the main
94
principles of the Fairtrade system, for the first time, there is a question if the costs of living
are met (in Bastian 2006, p.8). "With school fees, hospital costs, funerals and other
obligations, most cannot meet their basic needs, even though most are able to eat year-round.
They therefore have to depend on other [non-Fairtrade] crops, livestock palm wine, petty
trading and non-agricultural activities" (Nelson and Pound 2009, p.10).
Aguilar demonstrates this problem on the practical example of Fairtrade in Bolivia (in
Nelson and Pound 2009). He pointed out that the average annual income of Fairtrade farmers
is $900 (€804.65, £584.83, RSD96,670.25), which is above the poverty line which he puts at
$812 (€725.97, £527.65, RSD87,218.05), but far from the annual income that he considers
sustainable, i.e. $1,791 (€1,601.25, £1,163.82, RSD192,373.79) (Ibid.). Finally, Professor
Pablo Perez Akaki, Fair Trade researcher at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
responded to my question if the Fairtrade minimum price is a sustainable by stating the
following: "[I]t is not sustainable, because a coffee producer is not just a coffee producer...
He is also producing corn, kidney beans for selling and for consumption, but he also works in
the town for getting more money, maybe his wife is also making some handcrafts for selling.
Maybe some of the children are in schools, or also working part-time... Fairtrade coffee is
just part of the income but it isn't sufficient to transform the economy of the household, or the
town, nor the region. It is helpful, but not enough" (2013, interview, 52:50, audio 1).
Previously, the Fairtrade system did not fully grasp these critiques and failed to
respond to them appropriately. The following examples support this point. In an interview by
Jaffee conducted with Paola Ghiliani, the president of Fairtrade International and the CEO of
Max Havelaar Switzerland at the time, the latter pointed out cooperative management failure
whenever the Fairtrade minimum price does not cover the costs of production and living.
"[T]hen they have a problem with the administration of their cooperative, and they can vote
in their general assembly... and change the president, or the administrator" (in Jaffee 2007,
95
p.240). Jaffee stated that he was astounded by this answer since "this is one of the most
influential people in the international fair-trade system, yet, rather than ask about local
conditions or express concern about the problem, she assumes that the cooperative's
leadership must be inefficient or corrupt" (2007, p.240).
In defence of Paola Ghiliani's general position, Berndt's research (2007) points out
corrupt Latin American Fairtrade producer organisations and their managers, who allegedly
resold, as Fairtrade, beans which were purchased from local, non-Fairtrade producers. In
doing so, they diverted both a part of the profit and the Fairtrade premium to their pockets.
However, the findings of this study are certainly the exception rather than the rule in the Fair
Trade literature, since no further studies support her claims. This is mostly due to the fact that
in practice, FLO-CERT rigorously controls and audits Fairtrade producer groups and
decertifies the ones which are not in line with Fairtrade standards (Nelson and Pound 2009).
However, this still does not justify an a priori rejection of the possibilities that the current
Fairtrade minimum price, for a particular product does not enable sustainable production in a
particular geographic area, even if it did just a year ago.
At present, the Fairtrade system has apparently come to terms with this issue.
According to one of Fairtrade International's latest reports, during the last few years, nearly
80 percent of monetary benefits were revised and Fairtrade producers actively participated in
all the revisions (2012c, p.8). In turn, this seems to suggest that Fairtrade International has
begun to constantly monitor and adjust them.
Secondly, it is generally unknown that Fairtrade International's Fairtrade minimum
price is not a farm-gate price, i.e. the one the Fairtrade farmers actually receive, but a price
set at the organisational (cooperative) level (Jaffee 2007, p.248). "The fact that the fair-trade
minimum price is not a farm-gate price - a guaranteed per-kilogram rate to the producer -
makes the entre situation much less stable... [Fairtrade International] should adjust the base
96
price so that it again provides a living wage... This change might involve varying the base
price to reflect national or regional contexts and the needs of different types of producers or
organizations" (Ibid., pp.238-248). This is particularly true when it is known that there can be
a number of deductions before the funds reach poor and marginalised small-scale producers
for "organisational, production or processing costs or improvements, for social and
environmental programmes, and for servicing debt payments" (Nelson and Pound 2009, p.9).
Not only is the Fairtrade minimum price not the farm-gate price, but during the last
decade in which it experienced the fastest growth, Fairtrade International was considering,
several times, to abandon the concept of the Fairtrade minimum price altogether (Jaffee 2007,
p.248). Only recent changes in the structure of Fairtrade International's General Assembly,
which now consists of 50 percent of Fairtrade producers' representatives (Fairtrade
International 2013a, p.19), guarantee that this issue is off the agenda.
In addition, beginning in 2004, Fairtrade International required for producer groups to
pay for their own certification. This move was justified by the aim for the future Fairtrade
producers to be more responsible towards the system (Lamb 2011). These inspection costs
are very high from the perspective of the poorest producer groups (Jaffee 2007, p.248).
"These fees impose a new financial burden on cooperatives - especially the smaller ones - and
will thus reduce producers' income. The two cents per kilogram (a penny a pound) represents
about 20 percent of the license fees paid by well-off Northern roasters" (Ibid., p.227).
In order for the Fairtrade system to continue to develop and thrive, it is essential for
the monetary benefits to be constantly re-evaluated, especially in the current economic
climate in which the poor and marginalised producers are hit hard by the aftermath of the
global economic and food crises. On the other hand, Jaffee, who had strongly criticised a
number of aspects connected with the contemporary Fairtrade minimum price, also concluded
that even when all of the above-mentioned shortfalls are included, Fairtrade producers
97
nevertheless still receive more money than their non-Fairtrade neighbours, even after
deducting all other costs (Ibid., p.123).
Following this point, numerous researchers have come to the conclusion that Fairtrade
producers are not in the Fairtrade system exclusively for the money. According to Murray
and Raynolds "producers and workers also have been drawn to Fair Trade's promise of
broader social benefits, including the support for rural livelihoods and rural communities, for
local autonomy, and in some cases for the promotion of indigenous rights" (2007, p.8).
Therefore, they stay because of the organisation that inserts them in the market and the fact
that they know where their coffee is going (Jaffee 2007, p.244).
Finally, I will put forward two impressive examples of the impact of the Fairtrade
premium in Costa Rica identified by Ronchi (2002a and 2002b). Firstly, an educational fund
was established courtesy of the Fairtrade premium, helping hundreds of students to graduate
from high school and supporting the work of nearly one hundred schools. Secondly, around
100,000 people gained access to medical attention and prescriptions, at the cost of mere 2
percent of the Fairtrade premium earned from just one purchase.
Therefore, "it is apparent that [the Fairtrade] system has a real impact... but in
different ways, more complex and sometimes less dramatic, than one might expect after
reading the promotional literature of some fair-trade organisations" (Jaffee 2007, p.132). That
being said, it is also important to repeat once again that, after all, the Fairtrade system is not
perfect since, according to its supporters, "[i]t's not perfection guaranteed; it's [only] a better
deal guaranteed" (Lamb 2008, p.171).
98
3.2. Structure of Fairtrade System
Fairtrade Producers
Given the fact that the Fairtrade system aims to put "a face and a name to the process
of international trade" (Watson 2007, p.272), I will start the discussion about the key referent
objects of the Fairtrade system with 1.4 million Fairtrade producers (Fairtrade International
2014a, p.3). According to the Fairtrade standards (Fairtrade International 2011c, Fairtrade
International 2011d and Fairtrade International 2012e), Fairtrade producers are divided into
two specific categories, small-scale producers and workers/hired labour19.
Poor and marginalised small-scale producers cannot individually join the Fairtrade
system. In order to become members, they must be organised into groups, because, according
to Lamb, as long as they remain isolated smallholders or workers, they are unable to
"...change their position in global trade or [to] ensure they get a fair price" (2008, p.19).
Depending on structural complexity, poor and marginalised small-scale producers are
organised in first, second and third grade organisations.
The first grade organisation "is a legally formed Small Producer Organization which
is able to contribute to the social and economic development of its members and its
communities and is democratically controlled by its direct members" (FLO-CERT 2015, p.3).
They are the most numerous form of Fairtrade producer organising (76 percent) and the vast
majority of their members are small-scale producers (Ibid.). The second grade organisation
"is a Small Producer Organization formed by 1st grades (members) which are legally
affiliated to the 2nd grade. The 2nd grade is democratically controlled by their direct members.
The 2nd grade organisation provides central services for its members" (Ibid.). Finally, the
19
It is worthwhile reiterating that my doctoral research deals with the former.
99
third grade organisation "is a Small Producer Organization legally formed by their affiliated
2nd grades" (Ibid.). The number of the first, second and third producer organisations have
grown during the last two decades of the Fairtrade system's development and currently there
are 1,210 of them, with producers coming from 74 countries, all in the Global South
(Fairtrade International 2014a, p.3).
Graph 1. Illustration of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd grade small producer organisations (FLO-CERT 2011, p.8).
These groups are further united through three biggest regional producer networks - the
Coordinator of Fairtrade Small Producers in Latin America and the Caribbean (CLAC), the
African Fairtrade Network (AFN) and the Network of Asian Producers (NAP). Together,
they form a cluster of Fairtrade producer networks - "CAN" (CLAC-AFN-NAP), which main
objective is to represent their members on Fairtrade International Board's meetings.
It is important to point out that the evolution of their Board20 participation was very
slow and that Fairtrade producers had to fight long and hard for their place under the
Fairtrade sun. In 1998, a year after Fairtrade International was created, producer
20
Fairtrade International's Board is "primarily responsible for the strategic direction... financial management,
risk management and employment of the Chief Executive of the association. The board also appoints the
members of the following FLO committees: Standards, Finance and Nominations" (FLO-Cert 2011, p.11).
100
representatives began attending Board meetings for the first time as observers. Two years
later, they actually became equal members in the Board, although, even up until today, they
do not represent 50 percent of the members of the Board. "FLO's Board of Directors is
elected and ratified by the General Assembly. It is composed of: 5 representatives of the
Labelling Initiatives (LI), 4 representatives of Fairtrade Producer Organizations (at least one
from each of the regional Producer Networks), 2 representatives from Fairtrade Traders, 2
external independent experts. The Chair of the Board leads its activities" (FLO-CERT 2011,
p.11).
On the other hand, it is also important to point out that from 2012, fifteen years after
the formation of Fairtrade International, Fairtrade producers finally constitute 50 percent of
Fairtrade International's General Assembly, its highest decision-making body. This
development will make them "50 percent owners of Fairtrade, with an equal say in major
decisions affecting the system" (Fairtrade International 2012c, p.4, see also Fairtrade
International 2013a, p.19). Hopefully, this is the first step towards their equal representation
in Fairtrade International's Board as well. Fairtrade producers will be the main topic of
discussion in chapters V and VII, where they will be presented in more detail relevant for my
doctoral research.
Fairtrade Traders
Upon production, Fairtrade products are sold to Fairtrade certified international
traders, i.e. exporters/importers, manufacturers/processors, wholesalers and retailers and
currently there are thousands of them worldwide (FairValley Farmworkers Association 2015).
Particularly important to the Fairtrade system are the 100 percent Fair Trade companies based
solely on the Fair Trade principles whose production is entirely based on Fairtrade products.
101
Also significant, especially for the process of Fairtrade mainstreaming are the biggest
companies like Cadbury, Ben & Jerry's or Mars that produce some of their products from
Fairtrade ingredients. However, it is important to reiterate that the FAIRTRADE Mark is
merely a product mark. If, for example, Mars' Maltesers is made from Fairtrade ingredients,
only this product is certified as Fairtrade, and not the whole company. Finally, the strongest
Fairtrade mainstreamers are retailers, among which, in turn, supermarkets are the strongest.
The later will be at the core of my research attention. Fairtrade traders will be the main topic
of discussion in chapters VI and VIII where they will be presented in more detail relevant for
my doctoral research.
National Fairtrade Organisations and Fairtrade Marketing Organisations
The above-stated companies are certified by NFOs, which are members of Fairtrade
International. Currently, there are 24 NFOs (twenty three in the Global North21 and one in
South Africa) alongside two applicant members, from Mexico and U.S.22 (Fairtrade
International 2015c and Fairtrade International 2012d). NFOs are responsible for
"...licensing, marketing, business development and awareness raising in a defined
geographical area. [They have] ...the right to sub-license the FAIRTRADE Certification
Mark to licensees and third parties within their area. [Some NFOs] ...are responsible for trade
audits in their territories" (Fairtrade International and WFTO 2011, p.1).
21
23 NFOs from the Global North are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,
Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,
Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom.
22
It is important to point out that from 2012 the Fair Trade USA (FTUSA) is not a member of Fairtrade
International anymore and that Fairtrade International is in the process of establishing a new NFO in U.S.
(Fairtrade International 2012c, p.19).
102
If there are no NFOs in a particular country, FMOs are responsible for promotion,
support and sub-licensing of the FAIRTRADE Certification Mark23 to third parties -
journalists, campaigners, etc. in their country or region, while the licensing is the
responsibility of Fairtrade International, since in that case, it licenses companies directly.
Therefore, in many ways, FMOs are similar to the national Fairtrade organisations, although,
they are not full members of Fairtrade International. Currently, there are seven of them, in
Brazil, Czech Republic, Hong Kong, India, Kenya, Slovakia and South Korea (Fairtrade
International 2015c).
If a country does not have an NFO or an FMO, then the promotion of Fairtrade is the
responsibility of the local pro-Fairtrade non-governmental organisations and informal
grassroots groups and movements, which is, for example, the case in Serbia. Fairtrade
International is again responsible for licensing companies directly.
Fairtrade International
The system as a whole is governed by Fairtrade International, which is a "...multi-
stakeholder, non-profit organisation focus[ed] on the empowerment of producers and workers
in developing countries through trade" (Fairtrade International and WFTO 2011, p.1). As
mentioned, it involves twenty four NFOs (plus two associate members), three producer
networks and seven FMOs which are associate members. Fairtrade International is recognised
by the ISEAL, the global association for social and environmental standards, and "[a]n
independent assessment in 2011 confirmed that Fairtrade is in full compliance with the
ISEAL Standard-Setting Code" (Fairtrade International 2012c, p.8).
23
"The FAIRTRADE Certification Mark ('FAIRTRADE Mark' or 'Mark') is a registered trademark owned by
FLO and sub–licensed to... [FMOs]. The FAIRTRADE Mark is only for use on consumer retail products that
have met the Fairtrade Standards, and for the promotion of such products by licensees, certified operators and
third parties" (Fairtrade International and WFTO 2011, p.3).
103
Fairtrade International itself is highly structured. Its core organisational units
comprise its General Assembly, which is the highest decision-making body, and Fairtrade
International's Board, which is responsible primarily for the strategic decisions, financial and
risk management, as well as for the appointment of Fairtrade International's CEO. In
addition, Fairtrade International is funded by, firstly, membership fees from FMOs, which are
calculated "as a percentage of the licence fee income of each labelling initiative" amounting
to €7.8 ($8.72, £5.7, RSD937.09) million in 2011 (Ibid., p.16). Secondly, from grants,
amounting to €7.1 ($7.94, £5.16, RSD853) million in 2011, part of which lies in restricted
funds, that may be used solely for the already arranged programmes (Ibid.).
FLO-CERT
With the development of the Fairtrade system, the need for a more independent
certification grew, a necessity experienced by a majority of rapidly evolving ethical
initiatives in light of their demand for increased legitimacy and credibility (Gereffi et al. 2009
and Raynolds and Wilkinson 2007). Therefore, monitoring by FLO-CERT commenced.
"FLO-CERT is the independent Fairtrade certification body offering Fairtrade certification
services to clients in more than 70 countries. [It is] a private limited company" (Fairtrade
International and WFTO 2011, p.1).
In addition, it "...evaluates Fairtrade certification applications, verifies compliance
with the Fairtrade Standards during audits, and decides whether Fairtrade certification can be
granted or not. Certificates are issued as proof of successful Fairtrade certification, and as
authorization to trade Fairtrade products" (Ibid.). FLO-CERT is therefore a part of the
Fairtrade system, since it "provides services for certification against standards" (FLO-CERT
104
2011, p.11) set by Fairtrade International and since it is "a wholly owned subsidiary of
Fairtrade International" (Ibid.).
However, FLO-CERT's independence comes from the fact that it is "exclusively
funded by the fees it charges to its clients" and not by Fairtrade International (Ibid., p.13) and
its rigorous certification audits, which already decertified numerous Fairtrade producers and
traders (Nelson and Pound 2009), confirm its autonomy. The integrity of the Fairtrade system
is finally guaranteed by the fact that FLO-CERT only offers the certification, i.e. the proof of
compliance with the Fairtrade standards, and once certified, Fairtraders must contact
Fairtrade International or an NFO in order to use the FAIRTRADE Mark (FLO-CERT 2011,
p.7).
Graph 2. Fairtrade certification process (FLO-CERT 2011, p.5).
Although starting with a modest palette of products for which it offered certification
(in 2006 the number was around 100), today, FLO-CERT covers the certification of over 300
raw products (Fairtrade International 2012c, p.8). These standards are binding, and
decertification due to non-compliance is not uncommon. The certification process starts with
the application process, and the fee in the case of small-scale Fairtrade producers is €538
($601.75, £391.03, RSD64,635.12) and it is non refundable (FLO-CERT 2015, p.4).
105
Furthermore, it is necessary for them to pay a one-time initial certification fee for the first 12
months ahead of the first audit. The cost of the procedure depends on the size of the
organisation, its complexity as a first, second or third grade organisation, whether it certifies
only one main Fairtrade products (for example coffee), whether it offers additional Fairtrade
products (for example, honey in addition to coffee) and whether it employs additional labour
during the harvesting season.
The table below is based on an illustrative example stated in FLO-CERT document
(2011, p.5). It is based on the certification of a first grade Fairtrade coffee producer
organisation (simplest organisation), with 200 producers, with one additional product (honey)
and with 50 additional workers during harvesting season.
First grade organisation indicators Factor Individual fee Total fee charged
Members - 101 - 250 x1 € 2,306 € 2,306
Additional products x1 € 184 € 184
Additional workers - 11 - 100 x1 € 420 € 420
Sum: € 2,910
Table 14. Example of Fairtrade certification (FLO-CERT 2015, p.5).
Therefore, together with the initial €538 ($601.75, £391.03, RSD64,635.12), 200 poor
and marginalised small-scale coffee producers, who have an additional Fairtrade product -
honey and who hire 50 additional workers during the harvesting season, have to pay €3,448
($3,856.59, £2,506.07, RSD414,241.46), or around €17 ($19.01, £12.36, RSD2,042.37) each.
This is the price before audits and fees, charged additionally depending on the size and
complexity of the organisation, its production volumes and its geographic location. In
addition, FLO-CERT enforces three- and six-year re-certification cycles, during which,
"surveillance activities are performed in order to make sure that all relevant requirements of
the Fairtrade Standards are complied with. Before the end of a certification cycle and the start
of a new cycle, a physical audit must take place" (FLO-CERT 2011, p.20).
106
Fairtrade Consumers
The end of the supply chain features the third most important element of the system,
the sensitised consumers who buy Fairtrade products. My understanding of a Fairtrade
consumer is to a large extent in line with Hayes stating that this term is used to "refer to those
who... support fair trade by purchase, investment, donation or activism" (2006, p.449).
Usually, the first conscious Fairtrade consumers in any national Fairtrade market often tend
to be the first Fairtrade campaigners as well.
According to a GlobeScan survey conducted in 17 countries worldwide, nearly 60
percent of consumers clearly recognise the Fairtrade mark and 90% of them trust it (Fairtrade
International 2014a, p.18). Unlike the range of less than one hundred products which were
certified as Fairtrade at the system's founding, their number had grown to a few thousands by
2007 (Lamb 2008, p.68), and currently, Fairtrade consumers can choose from among 30,000
Fairtrade products (Fairtrade International 2014b, p.3), with new market entrants like garlic,
pomegranates, star fruit and palm hearts (Fairtrade International 2013a, p.14). Globally,
consumers in over 125 countries can buy them (Fairtrade International 2014a, p.20). Fairtrade
consumers and especially Fairtrade campaigners will be the main topic of discussion in
chapters VI and VIII where they will be presented in more detail.
Critiques of Fairtrade System's Internal Politics and Recent Developments
Following the presentation of the Fairtrade system's structure and general modus
operandi, now I will deal with the issues regarding its internal power relations. This can also
be seen as an introduction to the final two sections explaining in detail one of the issues of the
107
Fairtrade system's internal politics - the existence of the Global North - Global South divide
and the position of Northern upper-middle-income economies.
I identified three main points raised by Fair Trade scholars (Watson 2007, Low and
Davenport 2006, Schmelzer 2006, Lyon 2006, Dankers 2003, Johnston 2002, Mendez 2002,
Perezgrovas and Cervantes 2002, Raynolds 2000, Fisher 1997 and others) regarding the
current power dynamics inside the Fairtrade system. Firstly, the imbalanced relations
between Fairtrade producers and consumers. Secondly, the question of pyramidal
bureaucratic set up of Fairtrade International and finally, the question of Fairtrade
International's internal democratic practices and with it connected, current and future changes
in Fairtrade International's General Assembly and Board.
Starting with the imbalanced relations between Fairtrade producers and consumers, I
will firstly point out that Fairtrade consumers are in a position to learn a great deal about
Fairtrade producers and in the case of some products, to identify the exact Fairtrade producer
organisation from which the products came. They can even visit Fairtrade producers in their
home countries, on their farms, through organised tours offered by Traidcraft, for example.
On the other hand, Fairtrade producers are often completely unaware of the
consumers who buy Fairtrade products. As Watson (2007) has suggested, Fairtrade producers
"will be aware that their products are being sold, and they will also be aware when their
products are sold with official fair trade accreditation, but they will not know which
consumers they are trading with" (Ibid., p.283). Therefore, the practice of "mutual
imaginative reconstruction" (Ibid.) is something that the current Fairtrade system is unable to
always offer, therefore, creating "an important asymmetry in the structure" (Ibid.).
Even when the Fairtrade producers are not completely unaware of their Fairtrade
consumers, their understanding often goes from antagonistic to utopian. I will illustrate the
first situation by an example of a cooperative manager who went to a country where Fairtrade
108
products are consumed. When he came back "he regaled members with stories of the coffee
shop he visited, which cups of the co-operative's coffee were three dollars [(€2.71, £1.29,
RSD325.67)] each. During interviews, several members recounted this price in disbelief. For
example, one demanded to know, 'How many cups of coffee can be made from one pound?'
In asking this question, they acknowledged the vast differences between themselves and
wealthy consumers in the North" (Lyon 2006, p.458).
They realised what Johnston has pointed out in her research (2002), i.e. that the
Fairtrade system, although maybe the best alternative they have at the moment, is far from
being perfect, due to the fact that Fairtrade consumers are neither paying the Fairtrade
producers what they make, nor do they consume at Fairtrade producers' levels.
On the other hand, an example of the second situation is offered by Fisher who
explains that a number of Fairtrade producers imagine developed countries as the land of
milk and honey (1997). This lack of awareness regarding their position in the Fairtrade
system and the knowledge about the other key elements in the Fairtrade chain is, according to
Renard (2003), a sign of a deeper problem regarding Fairtrade International's internal
organisation, which is the next point which I will tackle.
Jonathan Rosenthal, a founder of Equal Exchange and the director of Just Works at
the time, recalls an early Fairtrade International meeting with producer representatives as
follows: "We say we're here to serve producers, but we want to tell them what to do" (in
Jaffee 2007, p.228). Rentería illustrates the behaviour of Northern certifiers: "By 1992, when
the organic certifiers came, we had already done the quality controls... A Swiss inspector
came [to perform the required organic inspection], and he didn't believe it. He said,
'Indigenous people are not capable of doing this. It's a show.' We were furious" (Ibid., p.87).
Up until recently, when this practice changed (Fairtrade International 2013b) all Fairtrade
certification was conducted solely by the Northern certifiers predominantly from Switzerland,
109
Germany and the U.S. and always under a latent threat of decertification, which would be an
immediate cause of an economic ruin (Jaffee 2007, p.150).
Vander Hoff (2002) has therefore pointed out that the Fairtrade system, although
progressive, is still comparable to a pyramid whose top seldom communicates with its base.
In line with this point is Dolan (2007) stating that Fairtrade producers perceive Fairtrade
International often as a form of control, as well as Moberg (2005) who pointed out that the
Fairtrade producers sometimes recognise Fairtrade International, not as a partner, but more as
an outside agency. Consequently, even though "progress has been made towards greater
democratisation" (Lyon 2006, p.460), there are still issues that Fairtrade International have to
deal with.
In 2012, Fairtrade International marked a milestone in its internal evolution and
development toward a truly global and democratic organisation. Since then, Fairtrade
producers constitute 50 percent of Fairtrade International's General Assembly, finally
becoming "50 percent owners of Fairtrade, with an equal say in major decisions affecting the
system" (Fairtrade International 2012c, p.4, see also in Fairtrade International 2013a).
Primarily and above all, this was a victory of the Fairtrade producers, but certainly, Fairtrade
campaigners and Fair Trade scholars who had recognised this democratic and power balance
deficit supported them. In addition, the Fair Trade literature continues to criticise the next big
issue in Fairtrade International's internal organisation, the fact that Fairtrade producers do not
yet represent 50 percent of the members of Fairtrade International's Board.
Before I conclude this section, I would like to put forward Lyon's (2006) general
point. Lyon has stated that all the above-mentioned critiques, including her own, "offer no
constructive alternatives to fair trade or ethical consumption more broadly. Therefore, rather
than discarding the system, it would be wiser to resolve its inconsistencies" (Ibid., p.461).
110
This understanding guides me as well, especially regarding the issues to be discussed in the
next two sections.
3.3. Fairtrade System and Global North - Global South Divide
The issues of imbalanced relations between Fairtrade producers and consumers, the
question of pyramidal bureaucratic set up of Fairtrade International and the question of
internal democratic practices can be summed up in one sentence, and that is that the Fairtrade
system is still based on the relations between "global [raw material producing] South and...
the consumer North" (Jaffee 2007, p.xiv). Therefore, the fragments of the old Global North -
Global South divide are still present in the Fairtrade system. Consequently, one of the most
complex critiques of the current Fairtrade system is that it maintains the divide, i.e. division
between the Fairtrade raw material producing Global South and the Fairtrade trading and
consuming Global North and it is coming from both expected and unexpected sources.
Some of the critics coming from the radical perspectives (see more in: Lyon 2006,
Jones 2004, Starr and Adams 2003, Johnston 2002, Shreck 2002 and others) ask if the
Fairtrade system normalises the old and establishes new global inequalities, and if it is based
on old colonial trade relationships, especially by strongly encouraging cash-crop export
production and excluding the Southern participants from the decision making processes. In
addition, Jenni Ramone, co-director of the Centre for Postcolonial Studies at the Nottingham
Trent University, has pointed out that today's neo-colonialism is not like the one in the past,
but far more subtle. She has also remarked that the old trade relations are masked and that the
systems like Fairtrade, although certainly not neo-colonial, can be partially observed from
this perspective (2011, pp.10-13).
111
In addition, some of the strongest supporters of the movement and its biggest
academic allies, Nicholls and Opal (2005) and Jaffee (2007) inquire as to why Fairtrade
products cannot be sold on a larger scale in the Global South, and call for changes in this
respect. According to them, encouraging Fairtrade sales in developing countries is one of the
most important future projects of the movement. "The current focus on Northern markets
needs to be balanced by recognition of the opportunities offered by Southern markets, many
of which are producer-local. These markets can be accessed without significant shipping
costs or wholesaler intervention and would permit a re-engineering of the value chain to offer
end pricing that is suitable for consumers in developing countries... The development of
successful local markets not only adds to overall sales but also diversifies risk, particularly of
currency fluctuations" (Nicholls and Opal 2005, pp.242-243). This is a direct call for
exploring the possibilities of creating national Fairtrade-like systems as well and my doctoral
dissertation is the first which will answer it in regard to one of the producer-excluded upper-
middle income economies, Serbia, which will be discussed in detail in chapters VII and VIII.
Raynolds and Wilkinson have argued in support of this in that the "[s]hifting global
investment patterns are promoting South to South trade and domestic markets in the South in
both dominant commodity arenas and alternative arenas like Fair Trade" (2007, p.34). The
UNDP substantiates these claims quantitatively, stating that "between 1980 and 2011, South-
South trade increased from less than 8% of world merchandise trade to more than 26%"
(2013, p.2).
The immediate response from Fairtrade International is that Fairtrade products are
sold in around 125 countries worldwide, which, by extension, includes numerous countries in
the Global South (2014b, p.20). One of its most recent reports is rather enthusiastic about this
when it identifies Fairtrade Eastern Africa as having been founded in Kenya "to the delight of
local producers, NGOs and the government. Locally-grown Fairtrade coffee is already on sale
112
in Kenyan stores, as well as Cadbury Dairy Milk made with Fairtrade cocoa and sugar grown
in Africa" (Fairtrade International 2013a, p.10). Although all of this is true, upon closer
investigation, it is clear that the total worth of sales in the countries from the Global South is
around 1.5 percent of total Fairtrade sales worldwide (Fairtrade International 2014a), thus
challenging the quantitative relevance of Fairtrade International's rejoinder.
A category important to this critique, yet largely underexplored is the group of upper-
middle-income economies. A part of them harbours Fairtrade production critical to the
contemporary Fairtrade system, yet at the same time, their share in Fairtrade trade and
consumption is irrelevant. The second part is completely outside the Fairtrade system and the
final part is even prohibited from entering the system as producer-countries, for largely
unconvincing reasons.
This paradox will be discussed in detail in the final section, however, now it is
important to point out that all nine producer-excluded upper-middle-income economies are
European countries and thereby considered to be a part of the Global North, even though by
the level of their development, they are less developed than many of their Southern
counterparts that are already in the Fairtrade system as producer-countries. Their progressive
potentials regarding the Fairtrade system are not fully realised in practice and remain largely
underexplored by the Fair Trade literature. Following one of Jaffee's maxims that precisely
because Fairtrade "does make some difference... the system must be improved" (2007,
p.246), this is the gap that I aim to bridge by focusing on one of the producer-excluded upper-
middle-income economies, Serbia.
113
3.4. Fairtrade System and Upper-middle-income Economies
Continuing the discussion in the Introduction and the previous sections, I will now
focus on the contemporary relations between upper-middle-income economies and the
Fairtrade system, discussing them in detail.
As already stated, during the last two decades, according to the Fair Trade literature,
the Fairtrade system and Fairtrade International's general modus operandi, all low-income,
lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income economies (i.e. developing countries) are
welcomed to join the system as countries where Fairtrade products are produced in primary
production, traded and consumed. On the other hand, high-income economies (i.e. developed
countries) can only be countries where Fairtrade products are produced in secondary
production, traded and consumed.
However, as previously mentioned, upon a closer investigation of Fairtrade
International's documentation in general and the Geographical Scope Policy of Producer
Certification for Fairtrade International (Fairtrade International 2011b) in particular, it is clear
that this internal normative and organisational logic is not followed in practice. Hence, there
are two main groups of upper-middle income economies in regard to their current relations
with the Fairtrade system. I classify them as producer-included and producer-excluded upper-
middle-income economies.
Firstly, there is a group of forty-four upper-middle-income economies from the
Global South allowed to have both the Fairtrade primary production and to trade and
consume Fairtrade products. This group is divided into two subgroups. In the first, there are
twenty-one economies (Fairtrade Foundation 2015a, p.1 and Fairtrade International 2014b,
p.1) whose farmers and workers produce Fairtrade products and their Fairtrade traders and
consumers are allowed to buy and to sell them. However, the sales of the Fairtrade products
114
in these countries are insignificant, less than 2 percent of total sales worldwide (Fairtrade
International 2014a), even though many of them are leaders in production of a number of
Fairtrade products.
The second subgroup consist of twenty-three economies, where Fairtrade products
can be produced, traded and consumed, however, they are currently "outside of the Fairtrade
system". The qualification "outside of the Fairtrade system" does not mean that in these
countries there are no Fairtrade activities at all. However, firstly, they do not have official
connections with Fairtrade International. Secondly, they are either truly completely outside of
the Fairtrade system, with no Fairtrade sales or consumption of Fairtrade products
whatsoever, or their Fairtrade activities are so insignificant that they are not even a part of the
annual Fairtrade International's analysis.
Two subgroups of Fairtrade producer-included upper-middle-income economies (44 economies)

Fairtrade producing countries currently inside Fairtrade producing countries currently
Fairtrade System (21 economies) "outside" Fairtrade System (23 economies)
Belize Algeria
Brazil American Samoa
China Angola
Colombia Azerbaijan
Costa Rica Botswana
Cuba Dominica
Dominican Republic Gabon
Ecuador Grenada
Fiji Iraq
Iran, Islamic Rep Jordan
Jamaica Libya
Kazakhstan Malaysia
Lebanon Maldives
Mexico Marshall Islands
Panama Mauritius
Paraguay Mongolia
Peru Namibia
St. Lucia Palau
South Africa St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Thailand Suriname
Tunisia Tonga
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Table 15. Two subgroups of Fairtrade producer-included upper-middle-income economies.
115
The second group of upper-middle-income economies, which was also already briefly
mentioned in the Introduction consists of nine European upper-middle income economies,
hence, from the Global North, which are allowed to have Fairtrade traders and consumers.
However, their poor and marginalised small-scale producers are forbidden from entering the
Fairtrade system as primary producers and therefore, as already said, under a direct threat to
become double-losers, potentially excluded from both the mainstream economy and the
Fairtrade system.
I also divided them into two sub-groups, the first consisting of seven non-EU
countries including Serbia together with Albania, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Macedonia, FYR, Montenegro and Turkey and the second, consisting of two EU countries -
Bulgaria and Romania. The division is due to the fact that one of the reasons for the exclusion
stated by Fairtrade International, in the case of Turkey for example, is its relation with the EU
(Fairtrade International 2011b). This categorisation shows that only two countries are inside
the EU, and that Serbia is not one of them. In addition, in Chapter VII, a more detailed
discussion will be put forward regarding the relation of a non-EU economy - Serbia and the
EU and arguments why this is not a reason for exclusion.
Two subgroups of Fairtrade producer-excluded upper-middle-income economies (9 economies)

Non-EU countries EU countries
Albania Bulgaria
Belarus Romania
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Macedonia, FYR
Montenegro
Serbia
Turkey
Table 16. Two subgroups of Fairtrade producer-excluded upper-middle-income economies.
The rationale behind the exclusion of all poor and marginalised small-scale producers
originating from these nine European upper-middle-income economies including Serbia are
numerous, and will be tested below.
116
Question of GNI Per Capita
To begin with, the first and the most conventional argument for this exclusion is that
the upper-middle-income economies in the Global North and their poor and marginalised
small-scale producers are too developed to have Fairtrade production and that they "already
have so much" (Crowther 2015, Fairtrade Foundation 2012, Fairtrade International 2011b,
Fairtrade Supporter Conference 2012 - "Local and Fair" panel and Lamb 2008, see also in
Brkovic 2013a). Nevertheless, just a short glance on the list of these countries clearly
demonstrates that, by using the same methodology used by Fairtrade International to
determine who can enter the Fairtrade system as a producer-country, the World Bank Atlas
Method (World Bank 2015b and Fairtrade International 2011b, p.2), this contradicts logical
reasoning.
A simple comparison of the GNI per capita (which is Fairtrade International 's key
indicator) of, for example, Mexico and Chile contrasted with Serbia pinpoints glaring
inconsistencies and proves that both countries, which are currently inside the Fairtrade
system have a higher GNI per capita than the one which is forbidden to become a producer-
country, because it is "more developed" and "has so much".
Chart 2. World Bank's GNI per capita chart of some of the current producer-included countries together with the
world average (upper lines) contrasted with Serbia (bottom line) (World Bank 2015c).
117
When all upper-middle-income economies are brought into picture the situation
according to this World Bank's classification is not significantly different.
Ranking Upper-middle-income economies GNI per capita - 2014

1. Brazil 11,760
2. Kazakhstan 11,670
3. Palau 11,110
4. Panama 10,970
5. Turkey 10,850
6. Malaysia 10,660
7. Mexico 9,980
8. Lebanon 9,880
9. Costa Rica 9,750
10. Mauritius 9,710
11. Romania 9,370
12. Suriname 9,370 (in 2013)
13. Gabon 9,320
14. Turkmenistan 8,020
15. Libya 7,920
16. Botswana 7,880
17. Grenada 7,850
18. Colombia 7,780
19. Azerbaijan 7,590
20. Bulgaria 7,420
21. China 7,380
22. Belarus 7,340
23. Maldives 7,290
24. Montenegro 7,240
25. St. Lucia 7,090
26. Dominica 7,070
27. Iran, Islamic Rep. 6,820 (in 2013)
28. South Africa 6,800
29. St. Vincent and the Grenadines 6,560
30. Iraq 6,410
31. Peru 6,410
32. Ecuador 6,040
33. Dominican Republic 5,950
34. Cuba 5,910 (in 2011)
35. Tuvalu 5,840 (in 2013)
36. Namibia 5,820
37. Serbia 5,820
38. Thailand 5,410
39. Algeria 5,340
40. Angola 5,300
41. Jamaica 5,220 (in 2013)
42. Jordan 5,160
43. Macedonia, FYR 5,070
44. Bosnia and Herzegovina 4,770
45. Fiji 4,540
46. Belize 4,510 (in 2013)
47. Albania 4,460
48. Mongolia 4,320
49. Marshall Islands 4,310 (in 2013)
50. Tonga 4,280
118
51. Tunisia 4,210 (in 2013)
52. Paraguay 4,150
53. American Samoa N/A
Table 17. Fairtrade producer-included (green) and producer-excluded (red) upper-middle-income economies
according to their GNI per capita (World Bank 2015b).
Although the highest ranking non-EU and EU economies, Turkey and Romania, are
ranked relatively highly at 5th and 11th place, respectively, the majority of the producer-
excluded economies are in the bottom half. Serbia is among them and it is ranked 37th, on a
par with Namibia.
Moreover, two out of six developing countries, which according to the UNDP are
doing especially well at the moment are Brazil and South Africa (2013, p.1). By contrast,
Serbia, in the WEF's GCR (2013) quoted above, scored second worst in 20 identified
categories, which is particularly worrisome regarding its future business developments.
Furthermore, it is rated 92nd on the Fund for Peace's Fragile States Index (2015), again worse
than the majority of other "producer-included" upper-middle income economies. For
example, Mexico scored 8 places higher, while Chile is 58 places in front of Serbia (Ibid.).
According to Blagojevic, the current economic situation is worsening, especially in
South Serbia (2013, interview). Unlike many other producer-included upper-middle-income
economies during the last two decades, including Mexico, the already-stated major specific
negative factors heavily influenced its development (Bogdanov et al. 2000). This is another
argument for Serbia's repositioning and for a need of a more updated view showing that it is
in the same camp as countries for whom special duties are often claimed, as discussed in the
section on Fairtrade system and caring across spaces.
119
Question of Underdeveloped Regions
Confronted with this data, Cheryl McGechie, director of marketing at the Fairtrade
Foundation stated that the GNI per capita may not be the best indicator (2013, interview24),
which I agree with. Secondly, the dominant Fairtrade discourse points to the fact that the first
group of countries features heavily underdeveloped regions, and that this warrants their
inclusion (Fairtrade Supporter Conference 2012 - "Local and Fair" panel and Milis at the
Warwick Fair Trade Society's Conference 2012, for example).
I challenge this position with the following arguments. To begin with, most of the
Fairtrade producers from the first, "producer-included" group are not the most marginalised
and from the poorest regions. There is a comprehensive debate about this topic in the Fair
Trade literature showing that the poorest and the most marginalised small-scale producers
and workers without land most often cannot join the system (see more in: Nelson and Pound
2009, Raynolds et al. 2007, Utting-Chamorro 2005, Guthman 2004, Raynolds 2004 and
others). Here, I will put forward just two arguments from my Mexican interviewees.
Perez Akaki stated that in Puebla, the region where he conducted his research,
Fairtrade is not focused on the poorest of the poor. They were possibly poor before, but since
20 years have passed, the developmental difference that Fairtrade has brought is manifested
(2013, interview). "But if the poorest want to enter now in Fairtrade, it is closed for them"
(Ibid. 56:04, audio 1). Secondly, according to Professor Patricia Pocovi Garzon, a Fair Trade
researcher at the Universidad Jesuita de Guadalajara, in Chiapas, many poor and marginalised
small-scale producers do not have a budget for certification and that today this is "a very big
problem" (2013, interview 06:29).
24
McGechie's views expressed in my doctoral thesis are her own, and not those of the Fairtrade Foundation.
120
Furthermore, at the Warwick Fairtrade conference, which I organised together with a
number of my University of Warwick and GEM PhD School colleagues as well as Fairtrade
supporters, the case of Santiago's shantytowns in Chile was presented by Joanna Milis from
the Fairtrade Foundation as an example of a heavily underdeveloped area, that is home to
Fairtrade producers (2012).
In fact, however, just a minority of Chilean Fairtrade producers live there. Moreover,
regarding the present-day state of Santiago's shantytowns, Easterly notes that "...[a] purer
vision of the benefits of [current] Chile's development came during a visit to a shantytown in
Santiago. Accompanied by some idealistic upper-class students who ran a charity renovating
shantytown dwellings, I visited some clean orderly homes amid well-kept streets. I talked to a
grandmother whose cement dwelling was adorned by hanging pots of flowers, a television,
and comfortable furniture. Poverty was here, but it was quite muted by comparison with other
shantytowns I had visited around the world. Chile's economic growth has benefited poor as
well as rich" (2006, p.316).
This statement directly challenges the old poverty stereotypes about some of the most
developed Latin American countries, which are still present in the dominant Fairtrade
International's discourse. These are simply outdated, especially due to the fact that Chile, as
already stated, is not even an upper-middle-income economy. Rather, it is a high-income
economy evidenced by its $14,900 (€13,321.41, £9,682.24, RSD1,600,429) GNI per capita.
Therefore, a high-income economy's least developed region was employed by Fairtrade
supporters in order to prove that the least developed regions of upper-middle-income
economies from the Global North cannot enter.
That the producer-excluded group of upper-middle-income economies has heavily
underdeveloped regions is predictable. For example, the conditions in South Serbia in
general, and in particular, in Jablanica and Pcinja districts which were are at the centre of my
121
doctoral research, are dire. The situation in these two districts is best described by the
following data. Out of eleven municipalities, all but one, Vlasotince, fall into a category of
marginal and less favourable areas for both economic and rural development (CDJPD 2013).
Furthermore, seven out of these ten municipalities are categorised as the least developed in
Serbia: Presevo, Bujanovac, Medvedja, Crna Trava, Bojnik, Bosilegrad and Trgoviste
(CDJPD 2013, Agusi 2013, interview, Dodic 2013, interview, Simic 2013, interview,
Slavkovic 2013, interview and Smiljkovic 2013, interview). Finally, according to all (rural)
development parameters, Jablanica and Pcinja districts are characterised as one of the least
developed districts in Serbia (Ibid.).
The comprehensive debate about the state of these districts and their comparison with
the ones in Mexico will be presented in chapter VII. For now, I will simply put forward the
fact that, firstly, they have a greater percentage of people living under poverty lines than what
is the Serbian average, especially in municipalities like Trgoviste and Presevo (Murati 2013,
interview and Smiljkovic 2013, interview). In addition, their unemployment rates are higher,
i.e. 30 percent in Pcinja and 40 percent in Jablanica districts, on average (CDJPD 2013, p.46)
and up to 75 percent in some municipalities like Presevo, according to Nehat Murati,
agricultural adviser at the Municipality of Presevo (2013, interview).
Question of Northern Lower-middle-income Economies
The penultimate argument in this debate is the fact that there are additional European
countries, like Ukraine and Moldova, which are not even upper-middle-income economies,
but rather a part of the group of lower-middle-income economies. Even if all of my above-
stated critiques are discarded regarding the Global North in general and the nine upper-
middle-income producer-excluded economies in particular, then the ban on production in
122
force in these two countries remains hardly defendable. Argentina's 2014 ascent into the
group of high-income economies reinforces this dilemma, joining Chile as the second
wealthy producer-included economy.
Question of Fairtrade System's Raison d'Etre
The next argument is connected with the very raison d'être of the Fairtrade system. In
particular with its internal normative and operational logic, connected with its aspiration for
all poor and marginalised producers and workers to be treated fairly in every country. By
definition, this amounts to including the Global North in general and the nine European
upper-middle-income economies in particular.
Fairtrade International states that it "works to secure a better deal for farmers and
workers in developing countries" (Fairtrade International 2012c, p.2), hence, in all
developing countries and not only in the ones which are from the Global South. Fairtrade
International's vision is "[a] world in which all producers can enjoy secure and sustainable
livelihoods, fulfil their potential and decide on their future" (Ibid.), which again does not rule
out nine Northern upper-middle-income economies in particular or any economy (including
the high-income ones) in general.
Fairtrade International's mission is to "connect disadvantaged producers and
consumers, promote fairer trading conditions, and empower producers to combat poverty,
strengthen their position and take more control over their lives" (Ibid.), again, both in upper-
middle-income and high-income economies and in the Global South as well as in the Global
North. This applies to the upper-middle-income economies in particular, given the fact that a
number of them are already a part of the Fairtrade system and, as was already mentioned,
123
excluding their producers and workers from the current Fairtrade regime risks the potentially
tragic moment of creating "double-losers" in these countries.
Many of them were first rendered casualties of trade liberalisation, then losers of food
and economic crises (Chang 2011 and Lang 2010). If they also remain excluded from the
Fairtrade system, they will eventually become one of the most vulnerable and poverty- and
marginalisation-prone groups in the world.
In addition, it is also important to put forward the case of the most prominent
Fairtrade trade and consumption system, the one in the United Kingdom, and to focus on its
NFO, the Fairtrade Foundation. The Fairtrade Foundation's vision is: "a world in which
justice and sustainable development are at the heart of trade structures and practices so that
everyone, through their work, can maintain a decent and dignified livelihood and develop
their full potential. To achieve this vision, Fairtrade seeks to transform trading structures and
practices in favour of the poor and disadvantaged" (Fairtrade Foundation 2008, p.1, emphasis
added). Therefore, it is in line with Fairtrade International's positions presented above.
Its mission is to "work with businesses, community groups and individuals to improve
the trading position of producer organisations in developing countries and to deliver
sustainable livelihoods for farmers, workers and their communities" (Ibid., emphasis added).
It is important to point out that, both the Fairtrade Foundation's vision and mission favours
development countries' poor and disadvantaged producers from all developing countries and
not only the ones from the Global South. Conversely, it is also important to point out that
their vision is broader than their mission, including both developing and developed countries.
There is an immediate, obvious conclusion deriving from these observations. Both the
visions and the missions of Fairtrade International and the Fairtrade Foundation are not in
line with Fairtrade system's praxis of exclusion of poor and marginalised Fairtrade producers
and workers from nine developing upper-middle-income economies from the Global North.
124
McGechie offers an answer to this problem by saying that the question on the more
abstract level is either Fairtrade for all, or we focus on Southern producers (2013, interview).
She continues: "The interesting thing in Fairtrade - is it about making a trading world a fairer
place, even playfield for all, Fairtrade in its truest definition, or is it about the people that we
perceive as beneficiaries of Fairtrade, because they are two overlapping concepts, but not the
same things. So you could have a choice of just making life better for 1.5 million farmers in a
developing world, or you can make a choice to say we are about fair trade so we will tackle
unfair supply chains whenever we see them, so those are two very different strategies and you
are right, definition of Fairtrade is open enough so you could choose either" (01:53, audio 3).
Given the fact that the Fairtrade Foundation has limited resources and that according
to McGechie, they are now working simultaneously on emerging in new markets, aiming to
achieve typing points with key product categories in the UK and to move forward to the new
product categories, the question of the Fairtrade farmers from the Global North is not the
most pressing issue at the moment, especially due to the risk of overstretching (2013,
interview).
In my opinion, however, this practice could well lead to the Fairtrade system's failure,
due to the inconsistency between its aspirations and its practices, which represents a
reputational hazard. In light of the fact that the Fairtrade system trades in trust and credibility,
this could, in turn, induce the demise of its certification scheme.
Consequently, I queried all of my interviewees where the opposition against
subsequent modifications originates. To begin with the Global South's perspective, Perez
Akaki fully agreed with my challenge to current practice. "I think, Fair Trade is necessary all
around the world... If you say, is there a space for small producers [from the Global North] in
Fair Trade, of course there is a space, because the principle of Fair Trade is solidarity,
reciprocity, fair price for the products, closer relations. I think this is an idea, but in this idea,
125
there is a space for everyone who produces and for everyone who consumes" (2013,
interview 01:06:06, audio 1). According to Perez Akaki, it is a mistake to exclude other
upper-middle-income economies and if Fairtrade International and the Fairtrade system do
not evolve in this direction, it could spell their ultimate failure (2013, interview).
In accordance with him is Ines Chadi who, from her Fairtrade work and research
experience in Mexico and Latin America, concluded that any certification of big estates in the
Global South and a parallel exclusion of the poor and marginalised small-scale producers in
the Global North is, to put it in her own words, "ridiculous" (2013, interview 16:34).
Finally, Luis Martinez Senties, a senior member of the Mexican government in the
Ministry of Agriculture and an experienced diplomat, put forward two further points. Firstly,
he does not see that the producers from the Global South and the Global North will be
competitors. Secondly, once the criteria as to who counts as a poor and marginalised small-
scale producer from the Global North are clearly established, producers from the Global
South will not have any problem with their inclusion (2013, interview). From these
interviews, it is evident that the Global South is neither the principal, nor the strongest critic
of the inclusion of small-scale farmers from the Global North.
Consequently, now I will move towards the second and third referent objects of my
thesis, Fairtrade traders and consumers and discuss their positions. According to the newest
market research conducted by the Trade for Development Centre of Belgium, only 14% of
Belgian consumers believe that Fairtrade should be just for the producers from the Global
South (Coremans 2013, interview).
Data suggests equivalent understandings in the UK as well. In one of the largest
recent studies, based on numerous interviews, Adams and Raisborough (2010) concluded that
"[w]hile a sense of fairness resounded through many accounts, there was a keen sense that
126
commitment to a distant other should be matched, or secondary, to a commitment to
producers 'closer to home'" (Ibid., p.271).
Fairtrade traders, and especially supermarkets' policies are in line with the ones of
their consumers. Delhaize's understanding expressed by Anaïs Pauwels, sustainable private
brand manager at the Delhaize Group, is particularly relevant to my research. Pauwels
unequivocally responded to my question whether it will be equally easy for them to present a
Serbian Fairtrade product, compared to the ones coming from Mexico or Chile by simply
asking "why not?" (2013, interview 12:30). She went even further stating that she will
include products of small-scale producers from all developed countries as well, under some
kind of Fairtrade-like mark, because she believes that indeed something has to be done for
small-scale producers from developed countries in order to make sure that we do not forget
them as well (Ibid.).
There are certainly immediate difficulties connected with their inclusion recognised
by numerous Fairtraders (Fairtrade Supporter Conference 2012 - "Local and Fair" panel) and
the most significant are issues of uniformity of the Fairtrade mark and the difference between
the Global South and the prospective Global North's certification processes, minimum price
setting and auditing.
Recognising these difficulties and acknowledging the resource limitations of the
Fairtrade system and its objective inability to develop simultaneously in all directions, due to
the imminent risk of overstretching, my position is that these problems are still far more
technical than substantial. In addition, with the clear positive impetus from Fairtrade
International and NFOs, other parts of the future, truly global Fairtrade system, i.e.
prospective Fairtrade producers from the Global North, as well as Fairtrade traders and
consumers from both the Global North and the Global South will be able to do most of the
work themselves and consequently lead to future Fairtrade advancements.
127
This is especially important when it is also known that, according to McGechie,
Fairtrade-like production in the Global North will happen in foreseeable future. "I perceive
that happening at some point, whether it's us or someone else" (2013, interview 02:51, audio
3). That Fairtrade International's producer-excluded upper-middle-income economies, for
example, Bosnia and Herzegovina, are already among countries where the World Fair Trade
Organisation's producers operate (BHcrafts 2015), renders her statement remarkably
prescient.
In this chapter, I discussed the contemporary Fairtrade system, firstly focusing on its
principles and monetary benefits. I started off by putting forward a debate about five core
social, economic, labour and environmental groups of principles at the heart of the current
Fairtrade system and I continued the discussion by focusing on two monetary Fairtrade
benefits, the Fairtrade minimum price and the Fairtrade premium.
Secondly, I focused on the three key referent objects, i.e. Fairtrade producers, traders
and consumers highlighting campaigners as well, and on Fairtrade International, NFOs,
FMOs and FLO-CERT, as the leaders and regulators of the system. By explaining how
Fairtrade system works, I put forward a theoretical base for understanding the empirical
debates in chapters V - VIII.
In addition, I presented the Global North - Global South divide critique showing that
fragments of the old divide, i.e. division between the Fairtrade raw material producing Global
South and the Fairtrade trading and consuming Global North are still present in the Fairtrade
system. Finally, I discussed upper-middle-income economies' position within the system,
identifying discrepancy between theory and practice. I pointed out that there is a group of
128
upper-middle-income economies, consisting of nine European upper-middle income
economies, i.e. from the Global North, which are allowed to have Fairtrade traders and
consumers. However, their poor and marginalised small-scale producers are forbidden from
entering the Fairtrade system as primary producers and therefore, under a direct threat to
become double-losers, potentially excluded from both non-Fairtrade and Fairtrade
economies. I challenged their exclusion fourfold, beginning with GNI per capita differences,
continuing with the realities of heavily underdeveloped regions and the existence of two
excluded European lower-middle-income economies in opposition to two included high-
income economies from the Global South. Lastly, I finished by discussing the Fairtrade
System's raison d'être.
By concluding this chapter, I finished the first major analytical part of my thesis - the
one focused on theoretical aspects. In this way, together with the debates presented in the
previous chapter, I presented the literature review and the theoretical framework of my
doctoral thesis. Moreover, I fully set the theoretical foundations for making the contribution
to knowledge regarding examination of a new topic, and in more general terms, the direction
of the debate of my whole doctoral thesis. Before I start the second major part of my PhD
dissertation - the one focused on empirical aspects, I will discuss used methodology in
Chapter IV.
129
CHAPTER IV - METHODOLOGY
Charles Wright Mills has famously stated that "the passionate curiosity about a great
problem, the sort of curiosity that compels the mind to travel anywhere and by any means, to
re-make itself if necessary, in order to find out" is at the heart of all research (2000 [1959],
p.105). I completely agree with him and many others who have pointed out that passion for
knowledge and inquisitiveness are the irreplaceable parts of every study, and that research
methods, although important, ultimately cannot replace them (Vennesson in Della Porta and
Keating 2008, p.239). However, I also agree with them pointing out that research methods are
useful tools for any researcher in her/his quest for knowledge (Ibid.). This chapter is about
the ones I chose for my doctoral research in order to aid me answering my underlying
research question and therefore, bridge the gaps and make the contributions to knowledge.
Before discussing in detail the research methods applied, a few clarifications are
appropriate. Firstly, in my opinion, methodological choices merit a separate chapter,
especially since one of the four contributions to knowledge I aim to make is an innovative
comparison. This is not always a case in doctoral theses, and often methodology is discussed
just in a section of the Introduction. However, I took a different approach.
Secondly, it is rather unusual for the methodology chapter to be in the middle of a
doctoral thesis. Conventionally, it is found at the beginning or, less often, at the end of a
thesis, but my reasons for my choice are threefold. Firstly, given the fact that most of it is
focused on explaining the methodological bases for empirical chapters V - VIII, I find that it
is an excellent introduction to the debate which will follow next. Secondly, the part of
Chapter IV referring to the methodological bases on which chapters II and III were founded
can be regarded as the final conclusion of these chapters in particular and of my theoretical
130
part of the thesis in general. In addition, due to these two reasons, I consider it a bridge and I
find it easier for readers to navigate through my PhD dissertation in this way.
4.1. General Methodological Overview
Bearing in mind that due to its complexity, nearly every research project involving
developmental issues in general and the questions in regard to the Fairtrade system in
particular is multidimensional, the methodology used in answering my underlying research
question will be similarly diverse. However, three qualitative methods will take the centre-
stage: critical analysis, case study and comparative method. Following Jaffee's
methodological approach (2007), which, as stated above, represents one of the most
analytically rigorous studies in the Fair Trade literature, I did not limit myself solely to one
"main" research method. This was due to the fact that I also consider that "the combination of
different methods allow[s]... to triangulate or cross-check key findings, enhancing the validity
of the results" (Ibid., p.278). This is also in line with how other experienced Fair Trade
researchers, such as Doherty and Tranchell conducted their joint study as well (2007).
I have already used critical analysis in order to review, evaluate and analyse the Fair
Trade literature in chapters II and III. This method aided me in construing my theoretical
framework and it helped me in finding an answer to the first part of the puzzle of my doctoral
research, the one regarding the internal normative and operational logic of the Fairtrade
system, which has been breached by the exclusion of the nine producer-excluded upper-
middle-income economies. The same method will be used as an important within-case
method as well, focusing on the vast literature on Mexican Fairtrade, on Serbian poor and
marginalised small-scale producers and on the UK (supported by Belgian), as well as Serbian
Fairtrade traders and consumers in chapters V - VIII.
131
Secondly, I will use three case studies. The first two will be illustrative, focusing on
Mexico and the United Kingdom, representing successful cases of firstly, Fairtrade producers'
and secondly, Fairtrade traders and consumers' countries, clearly showing the historical,
contemporary and future challenges for development of Fairtrade from all three perspectives.
Divided by themes and countries, the initial case studies, supported by the field research
conducted in both Mexico and the United Kingdom (which is enhanced with the fieldwork
findings from Belgium on the same topics, i.e. Fairtrade traders and consumers), will be the
comparative and lesson-drawing base for the main (third) case study, which will be focused
on Serbia and its Fairtrade potentials.
Given the fact that this is a country from the producer-excluded group of upper-
middle-income economies, which has never been fully explored by the Fair Trade literature
before, the findings from the previous two case studies focused on the three key referent
objects in the Fair Trade literature - Fairtrade producers, traders and consumers will be
employed using a comparative method based on lesson-drawing principles. They will also be
combined with original extensive data collection undertook during the field research in
Serbia. In addition, the two illustrative case studies, i.e. Mexico and the UK, can be employed
as a base for future research regarding other producer-excluded upper-middle-income
economies in particular and other upper-middle-income economies in general, using the same
methodology which I will below explain in detail.
Finally, the within-case methods are critical analysis and elite interviews, outlined
below. Before I continue, I would like to point out that my current methodological choices
evolved from methodological modules and IT training (see the section "Research Training",
p.xv), which I undertook at the University of Warwick and Université libre de Bruxelles.
Both aided me greatly in my research.
132
By using the above-stated methodology, I will again follow Jaffee's approach (2007,
p.xv) combining the larger-level critical analysis with close-up case studies, thereby
exploring the benefits, limits and contradictions of the Fairtrade system. In turn, this enables
comprehensive, structured and rigorous analysis, and answers my underlying and attendant
research questions, bridging the gaps in the literature and contributing to knowledge.
Time and Geographical Frameworks
Beginning with the time framework, the focus will be on the most recent, post-crises
period, up until the end of 2014. As mentioned, I started my doctoral research at a time when
Fairtrade trade and consumption were not present in Serbia. However, a major change
happened at the beginning of 2012 with the introduction of Delhaize Serbia's Fairtrade food
products and it significantly influenced my research. This change had both positive and
negative methodological impacts and I will now detail each in turn.
To begin with, it clearly proved that Fairtrade trade and consumption are possible in
Serbia and made my research even more ambitious, since now I wanted to know what the
next steps of Fairtrade trade and consumption in Serbia are. Secondly, I was able to conduct a
number of elite interviews with Serbian experts who were familiar with Fairtrade trade and
sales. In this way, I acquired information thus far undiscovered by the Fair Trade literature. In
addition, I now had clear referent objects for comparison, i.e. the Serbian Fairtrade traders
and consumers. They can be directly compared with their correspondents in the initial stages
of Fairtrade trade and consumption development in the UK (supported by the findings from
Belgium as well). Finally, and interconnected with the previous point, the in-between
development, the current moment and the future perspectives of the UK Fairtrade trade and
consumption were an excellent direct starting point, a true lesson-drawing base, for the field
133
research about the present state, next steps and future perspectives of Fairtrade trade and
consumption in Serbia.
On the other hand, the first challenge arose from the fact that I researched a moving
target and that I had to double-check all of my data again and again in order to be sure that
my findings reflect the most up-to-date situation on the ground. The second issue is
connected with the previous, i.e. the fact that I will not have the benefit of hindsight that
might otherwise allow me to see some of the practical developments taking place, but also to
wait for additional academic works to cover some of the peripheral topics important for my
research and therefore, enhance my findings. The ever-developing nature of the Fairtrade
system is the challenge that all Fair Trade scholars eventually face, and my research was not
unique in this aspect. I tried to amend it by limiting the scope of my research to December
2014, instead of September 2015, when I submitted my final work.
Regarding the geographical scope, the research took place across two continents and
four countries, beginning in the United Kingdom, where I spent the first year of my doctoral
studies (October 2011 - September 2012) at the University of Warwick, critically analysing
the theoretical bases of my doctoral research in general and the UK Fairtrade system in
particular and identifying my initial methodological choices.
It continued in Belgium, at the Université Libre de Bruxelles (which is a part of the
GEM PhD School and my second academic institution) where I initially spent five months
(October 2012 - February 2013). There, I was compiling data from the first fieldwork (the
United Kingdom), prepared for the third (Mexico), while at the same time using the
opportunity to interview relevant Fairtrade actors based in Brussels, focusing on questions
related to Fairtrade traders and consumers, thus conducting the second fieldwork and
compiling the data from it.
134
The doctoral research continued, firstly, with the third field research in Mexico
(March and April 2013), in cooperation with the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México
(which is a part of the GEM PhD School) where the data about the Mexican Fairtrade system
was gathered, focused on questions regarding Mexican Fairtrade producers. Furthermore, my
research advanced with the fourth field research, now in Serbia during the second half of the
academic year 2012-13 (April - September 2013), focusing on Serbian poor and marginalised
small-scale producers, Serbian Fairtrade traders and consumers, Serbian overall Fairtrade
potentials, and the possibility of creating a national Fairtrade-like system in Serbia.
The data from these two field trips were gathered, initially analysed and finally
processed during the third year (October 2013 - September 2014), when the first drafts of
chapters V, VI,VII and VIII were finished, and the first half of the fourth year (October 2014
- March 2015) when the first draft of the whole doctoral thesis was presented to my
supervisors. Apart from my writing endeavours, which ended in September 2015 when I
submitted my doctoral thesis, the third and the fourth year were spent on follow up field
research in the UK and Serbia.
Methodological Remarks
In this part, I will put forward some of my remarks regarding issues concerning the
methodology employed. Firstly, as a GEM PhD School's doctoral scholar, but also as a strong
supporter of the Fairtrade movement25, during my PhD research, I had to constantly balance
my academic detachment, with my practical engagement, in order to be able to present a
comprehensive and rigorous analysis. Similar issues were recognised by Berg (2001) and
Lofland (1995) as well, and Doherty and Tranchell (2007) put forward constant cross-
25
For example, I was one of the organisers of the Fairtrade Fortnight at the University of Warwick and a
conference on Fairtrade in 2012 and I also delivered two initial lectures about the Fairtrade system in Serbia in
2013.
135
checking of both the Fair Trade literature and Fairtrade practitioners' points as a solution, and
I followed their advice.
Apart from the tension between theory and practice, I often experienced a dilemma
between my general support for the Fairtrade system and its numerous benefits, and my
constructive, but strict critique aiming to explain the severe inconsistency between its
declarative internal normative and operational logic and its current contradictory praxis.
Therefore, I aimed to give suggestions for the next phases of the development of the Fairtrade
system by identifying some of the issues it has to tackle, one of which is certainly the
exclusion of producers from nine upper-middle-income economies from the Global North.
Thirdly, I fully recognised and acknowledged the critique identified by Jaffee (2007,
pp.3-4) that Fair Trade research so far is too often based on anecdotal information and not on
comprehensive and rigorous analysis. Therefore, I tried to follow his and other "best
practices" in the field (Nelson and Pound 2009, Murray and Raynolds 2007 and Nicholls and
Opal 2005, to state a few), which insist on systematic qualitative and/or quantitative research
of the Fairtrade system.
The most important practitioners' institution is the above-mentioned Fairtrade
International. Fairtrade International's global statistics and fundamental definitions stated in
their official documents, such as global Fairtrade sales figures, or internal definitions of a
Fairtrade producer, or a national Fairtrade organisations, represent a treasure trove for my
research. Similarly, nearly all authors mentioned in my PhD dissertation have written about
the Fair Trade movement in general and the Fairtrade system in particular using Fairtrade
International 's data as starting points.
That being said, whenever possible, I will critically analyse, double-check,
triangulate, and cross-check Fairtrade International's information with the findings from my
fieldwork. In addition, I have reduced to a minimum the direct use of Fairtrade International's
136
normative statements, agenda and arguments, taking into account the possible bias. Whenever
I did decide to use these, I will clearly communicate that and critically analyse, double-check,
triangulate, and cross-check this information as well.
A few technical remarks regarding the languages used, translating and proofreading
must be made at this stage as well. Firstly, the vast majority of the critically analysed
literature was in English. However, there was a smaller part in Serbian, and a few titles in
French as well. Whenever I have directly quoted or paraphrased from these titles, I have
translated them into English, always trying to convey the sense of the original. Given the fact
that English is my second language, in order to double-confirm the accuracy of my
translations, all of my direct quotes from Serbian papers (there were no direct quotes from
French ones) were, pro bono, additionally double-checked by another GEM PhD scholar
from Serbia. Finally, my thesis was pro bono proofread by a University of Warwick alumni,
who is a native speaker in English, as well as by a Serbian philologist, with proficiency in
English and years of experience in translation.
Regarding my two final methodological remarks, I will firstly follow Smith's lead
(1998, p.31) to caution that the works which I used in my thesis have their own distinct
agendas, beyond the concerns of my work, and that this by no means exhausts what they have
to say regarding the topic. Continuing from the previous point, I will also follow Gerring
(2007, p.x), and as he did, I will also pass my acknowledgment to scholars who have written
on the same subject that I am interested in before me and whose research was the starting
point for my own.
137
4.2. Critical Analysis
Critically analysing the relevant literature, the initial stages of my doctoral research
entailed work on the literature review, on the creation of my theoretical framework and on
writing chapters II and III. By applying the critical analysis to study the literature, defined as
the use of judgment, experience and observation, focused on evaluation of data, information
and knowledge (Matthews and Ross 2010, p.98, see also in Gerring 2007 and Hart 1998), my
research had a twofold focus. Firstly, on the Fair Trade literature and secondly, on the
broader context of a wider literature with which the Fair Trade literature is interconnected
and from which findings it takes its theoretical explanations and concepts.
In order to write chapters II and III, and to lay the foundations for the next phases of
the research focused on the three main referent objects, I followed a two-stage process of
critical analysis. The first test was one of the sources and purposes of the literature, while the
second was one of the ideas and information presented (Matthews and Ross 2010). While
critically evaluating the relevant literature, I followed the question matrix suggested by
Matthews and Ross (Ibid.) and tried to always ask myself the following five questions.
Firstly, whether the aims and objectives of the analysed research were clear.
Secondly, whether the hypotheses, research questions, underlying theories and operational
definitions were fully explained. Thirdly, whether a potential conflict of interests loomed,
especially regarding sponsorship of the research (this was crucial when analysing the
quantitative data and normative positions coming from Fairtrade International and many
other studies like the one from Nelson and Pound 2009, which was commissioned by the
Fairtrade Foundation for example). Moreover, I analysed whether the methodology is
appropriate and methods used adequate for answering the research question, and whether
138
their limits were discussed. Finally, whether the results were understandable and applicable
and the conclusion clear and suitable for generalisation.
Even though this question matrix was very helpful, I would like to point out that it
was impossible for me to always get all the answers to the above-stated five questions. This
shortfall is something that I recognise and acknowledge, accepting Matthews and Ross'
viewpoint that "even though it is not always possible to answer all of your questions from the
information that you have and some of your answers may not be satisfactory. This does not
mean that a particular source should not be used. Rather, it means that you should take care
when using information from the source and ensure that you refer to the limitations as well as
the value of the source within your review" (2010, p.100). This is something that I have
already tried, and will continue to do in the rest of my doctoral thesis.
4.3. Case Studies
According to John Gerring, Professor of Methodology at Boston University and one
of the most influential contemporary theorists on case studies, this research method can be
looked upon as the "first method of social science", if it is extended back to the "earliest
historical accounts or to mythic accounts of past events" (2007, p.x). With the works of
Frédéric Le Play and the Chicago school of sociology, it became a dominant research method
in the nineteenth and at the beginning of the twentieth century and today, it is experiencing a
renaissance (Della Porta and Keating 2008, Gerring 2007 and Ragin 2000). The case study is
considered to be "the most common form of social scientific inquiry" (Ragin 2000, p.67),
especially since there is "a movement in the social sciences away from a variable-centred
approach to causality and toward a case-based approach" (Gerring 2007, p.3). The case study
139
occupies a central position in many different bodies of work, starting with anthropology and
history, but also, in literature on global economics, politics and sociology (Ibid., p.2).
There are numerous definitions of what the case study as a research method is, and
they mostly agree on the following characteristics. According to Ragin, in essence, many
researches consider the case study to be an in-depth empirical investigation of one, or a few
cases employed in order to elucidate a larger class (2000). In line with his point is Gerring
(2007, p.20), stating that the case study can be defined as "the intensive study of a single case
where the purpose of that study is - at least in part - to shed light on a larger class of cases (a
population)" (Ibid.) Again in line with Ragin (2000), he added that the "[c]ase study research
may incorporate several cases, that is, multiple case studies" up until the point when it is still
possible to investigate selected cases intensively (Gerring 2007, p.20).
Following the works of Della Porta and Keating (2008), Gerring (2007), Bennett
(2004) and Ragin (2000), I chose the case study research, firstly, because its primary virtue is
the depth of analysis that it offers. Secondly, I selected it because my above-stated underlying
and attendant research questions, gaps and contributions to knowledge are oriented towards
hypothesising, rather than hypothesis-testing and because they prize analytical depth over
breadth.
Apart from these positive methodological aspects, which are crucial to my doctoral
research, case study research also suffers from well-documented limitations. The following
six, although present in all empirical research, cause particular problems in the context of the
case study work (Gerring 2007, p.68). They relate to: "evidence-gathering techniques, the
formulation of a hypothesis, degrees of fallibility, the tension between particularizing and
generalizing objectives in a case study, the identification of a population that the case study
purports to represent, and the importance of cross-level research" (Ibid.). Especially
apostrophised is the problem of representativeness, "because [case study research] includes,
140
by definition, only a small number of cases of some more general phenomenon" (Ibid., p.43).
I recognise all of these issues and I will address them in the same way as I tackle other
methodological challenges in my thesis, through double-checking of data, triangulation and
cross-checks.
Case Selection Process
After choosing the case study as a research method, the first challenge for every
researcher is the case selection process. To begin with, I will use Gerring's definition of "a
case" stating that it "connotes a spatially delimited phenomenon (a unit) observed at a single
point in time or over some period of time" (2007, p.19). Parts of that case that can be in the
research focus can be "quite varied" (Ragin 2000, p.68) and as I already stated, my focus will
be primarily on the three key referent objects in the Fair Trade literature: Fairtrade producers,
traders and consumers and on aspects related to them.
Furthermore, it is important to identify types of case study research and types of cases
on which they are based. Vennesson (in Della Porta and Keating 2008, pp.227-228) and
Gerring (2007, p.88) offer, firstly, a simpler fourfold and secondly, a more complex ninefold
classification. For Vennesson there are: 1) descriptive case studies (configurative-
idiographic), 2) interpretative case studies (disciplined configurative), 3) the hypothesis-
generating case study (heuristic) based on deviant cases and 4) theory-evaluating case studies
(in Della Porta and Keating 2008, pp.227-228). Gerring identifies: 1) typical (representative),
2) diverse, 3) extreme, 4) deviant, 5) influential, 6) crucial, 7) pathway, 8) most-similar and
9) most-different case study types (2007, pp.88-89).
Under both classifications, my two illustrative case studies focusing on Mexico and
the UK fall under the typical (representative) / interpretative case category, which
141
"exemplifies what is considered to be a typical set of values, given some general
understanding of a phenomenon. By construction, the typical case is also a representative
case" (Ibid., p.91). As mentioned, in terms of the Fairtrade system, they are
typical/representative cases of countries in which Fairtrade already flourishes, Mexico on
producers' and the UK on the traders and consumers' sides.
In addition, there is my original contribution, since I employ them as illustrative case
studies and lesson-drawing bases. Gerring calls similar types of cases, "peripheral cases"
(Ibid., p.22), stating that they are "surveyed through a quick reading of the secondary
literature or through a statistical analysis. Sometimes, the status of these informal cases is left
implicit (they are not theorized as part of the formal research design). This may be warranted
in circumstances where the relevant comparison or contrast between the formal case(s) under
intensive study and the peripheral cases is obvious" (Ibid.).
However, I consider them to be more than just "peripheral cases" for the following
reasons. Firstly, in my research, they are not presented based on quick readings, but on
thorough critical analysis and extensive field research. Secondly, their status is neither
informal, nor are they left implicit, since they are theorised as parts of the formal research
design. Moreover, the findings from these two case studies will be comparatively employed
as the lesson-drawing base in order to draw inferences from those countries for my main case
study of Serbia. In particular, I have identified four lessons in total, two from each case. From
the Mexican one, we can glean who is a Fairtrade producer and what the benefits of being a
Fairtrade producers are, which will be further discussed in Chapter V. From the UK one, how
Fairtrade mainstreaming and Fairtrade campaigning works, which will be further discussed in
Chapter VI. This is the additional point and a part of my original contribution and that is why
I consider their classification as "illustrative" more suitable.
142
My main case study focused on Serbia, according to the above-stated classifications,
is considered to be the deviant/hypothesis-generating (heuristic) case study based on a
deviant case, and I identify three reasons why I see it in this light. Firstly, "the deviant-case
method selects the case(s) that, by reference to some general understanding of a topic (either
a specific theory or common sense), demonstrates a surprising value" (Gerring 2007, p.105).
Serbia, as a member of the producer-excluded group of upper-middle-income economies
"deviate[s] from some cross-case relationship" (Ibid., p.89) and fits this description,
especially when compared to other upper-middle income countries.
Secondly, "[t]he purpose of a deviant-case analysis is usually to probe for new - but as
yet unspecified - explanations" (Ibid., p.106). Since my main case study will be used for
hypothesising (Ibid., p.89), it falls under the hypothesis-generating (heuristic) case study
category for this reason as well.
Finally, "the deviant-case method is an exploratory form of analysis. As soon as a
researcher's exploration of a particular case has identified a factor to explain that case, it is no
longer (by definition) deviant" (Ibid., p.107). This matches the aim of my research as well, as
my underlying research question aims to answer to what extent Serbia, as one of the
producer-excluded upper-middle-income economies, can partake in the Fairtrade system in
future, as a country where Fairtrade products are produced, traded and consumed. In other
words, to what extent it can become one of the "normal", i.e. producer included upper-
middle-income economies in the eyes of the contemporary Fairtrade system.
143
Within-Case Methods
Within-Case Critical Analysis
In line with a number of possible choices identified by Gerring (2007, pp.68-69), I
chose two within-case methods - critical analysis and elite interviews and I will present each
in turn. Critical analysis will study the three most important parts of the Fairtrade system, the
three key referent objects in the Fair Trade literature - Fairtrade producers, traders and in the
end, consumers.
I used this method in order to, firstly, critically analyse relevant literature on Mexican
Fairtrade poor and marginalised small-scale producers and their potential counterparts in two
Serbian underdeveloped regions - Jablanica and Pcinja districts. Secondly, the focus of my
analysis was on the UK (supported by Belgian data) and Serbian Fairtrade traders -
highlighting supermarkets in particular and consumers - focusing on the ones who are
campaigners as well from the UK (supported by Belgian findings) and Belgrade. Thirdly, I
researched the national Fairtrade organisation in the United Kingdom, the Fairtrade
Foundation with the aid of data collected through elite interviewing in Belgium, focusing on
their national Fairtrade organisation Max Havelaar and its most representative member
organisation, the Oxfam Magasins du Monde. Finally, my focus was on critical analysis of
the Mexican national Fairtrade institutional capabilities for developing a national Fairtrade-
like system and the possibilities of the development of its counterpart in Serbia.
In the case of the three key Fairtrade referent objects which are in the base of my case
studies, I again followed Matthews and Ross' question matrix (2010, p.99) and tackled the
same shortfalls (Ibid., p.100). Therefore, the critical analysis of the relevant literature on three
144
key referent objects was the first used within-case method, followed by elite interviewing,
which will be presented next.
Within-Case Elite Interviews
The initial research design which I prepared during my first year of doctoral studies in
the United Kingdom envisaged only around twenty elite interviews and allowed the
possibility for many of them to be informal. The reason for this approach was the simple fact
that, at first, elite interviews were not my main within-case study method and I did not
consider them as important as the critical analysis. This is why, during my first year in the
UK, I had informal meetings and I spoke with a number of Fair Trade experts from both
academia and practice, but never in a form of a formal elite interview. I considered critical
analysis, combined with the practical Fairtrade work, participation at Fair Trade/Fairtrade
yearly manifestations like the Fairtrade Fortnight and the World Fair Trade Day (2012 -
2015), Fairtrade supporter conferences (2011 - 2013) and the above-stated informal meetings
as more important for my research than formal elite interviews.
However, while sustaining my participation at Fair Trade conferences, manifestations
and informal meetings during the second, third and fourth year of my doctoral studies in the
UK, Belgium, Mexico and Serbia, I also focused on another research aspect. I began
conducting official, formal elite interviews with Fair Trade and agro-economic experts and
practitioners, realising that information received from these interviews helped me
tremendously in my research. Therefore, I now consider elite interviews to be as important a
within-case method as the critical analysis. Consequently, instead of envisaged twenty
interviews, I interviewed more than fifty interviewees across four countries - Belgium,
145
Mexico, Serbia and the UK in order to double-check, triangulate and cross-check information
which I gathered through critical analysis, practical Fairtrade work and informal meetings.
The findings of my elite interviews constitute the empirical base for debates in
chapters V - VIII, where they will be presented in detail. Here, I will just put forward a few
methodological remarks regarding the interviews themselves. Firstly, all the interviews were
semi-structured with prepared, open questions. I drafted them, revised them, tested them and
re-revised them with my first GEM supervisor before I finally used them in practice.
Secondly, I used a combination of uniformed questions, which were the same for practically
all interviewees, as well as questions tailored to the specific expertise, referent object and the
country where a specific interview was being conducted in (for example, in Mexico, I was
focused on questions regarding Fairtrade producers).
Furthermore, almost all of my interviews lasted between 30 and 90 minutes, with the
majority of them being around one hour long. A few lasted for more than two hours. Hence,
in total, this amounted to more than 50 hours of formal interviews, or more than 1,000 pages
of raw interview data. In addition, it is also necessary to add a similar number of informal
meetings with Fair Trade academics and practitioners on numerous above-stated Fair Trade
events that both preceded and followed the formal interviews.
Moreover, I audio recorded 95 percent of my interviews with just a few exceptions,
which I decided not to quote in the final doctoral thesis due to the fact that I would not be
able to double-check the quotes coming from them with 100 percent certainty. I personally
transcribed half of the recorded interviews and the rest was transcribed by professional
typists, who were paid the market price for their effort. Due to the fact that all of the
interviews in my doctoral thesis were audio recorded, all direct quotes from interviewees are
referenced with timing indicators. Although a few interviews were conducted with two or
three interviewees (see the section "List of Quoted Interviews"), due to the fact that they were
146
all audio recorded, I was able to pinpoint exactly who said the quoted sentences, and
therefore to quote interviewees directly. There is only one exception to this rule, the interview
with Vida, Opalic and Begenisic, which is the only one which I jointly quoted due to the fact
that I was unable to clearly pinpoint who exactly said the quoted sentences. Therefore, I
quoted it throughout my doctoral dissertation as "Vida, Opalic and Begenisic 2013,
interview".
In addition, similar to the comments regarding the analysed literature, interviews were
conducted in English and Serbian, with a few interviewees speaking French as well, however,
all the direct quotes and paraphrases in my doctoral thesis are translated into English, and I
have always tried to convey the sense of the original. Apart from the UK interviewees, all
other interviews were conducted with interviewees whose second language is English, and I
edited all grammatical errors for the purposes of legibility and presentation. I did the same
with pauses and hesitations in case of all interviews. Regarding the direct quotes from
interviews conducted in Serbian (there are no direct quotes from the ones conducted in
French), given the fact that English is my second language, again, all of them were
additionally double-checked by the same GEM PhD scholar from Serbia (again pro bono) in
order for the accuracy of my translations to be double-confirmed.
Finally, all the formal interviewees signed an elaborate consent form which was
created in accordance with the guidance received both from my Warwick supervisor and Dr.
Edward Page, the PAIS Research Ethics Officer (see Appendix 1). Finally, I listened to all
the interviews at least twice, and processed them with the aid of the NVivo 9, interview
processing software, for which I received a formal training at the University of Warwick.
Before I conclude this section, I will present the key advantages and disadvantages of
using elite interviews as within-case methods. The main advantage of elite interviews pointed
out by Emans (2004) and Gielissen and Graafland (2009) in their Fair Trade research is its
147
flexibility and the possibility to shed light on, otherwise, hardly answerable questions. For
these methodological advantages, elite interviewing is crucial for answering my underlying
research question and the reason why it is now my equally important within-case study
method. An additional reason why I used elite interviews is the fact that my research focus
was not on a single Fairtrade producer community or on a particular Fairtrade trader. Instead,
I was interested in the already established Mexican and UK Fairtrade systems, as well as in
the future prospective of Fairtrade in Serbia. Hence, I used elite interviews to cover all the
aspects important for answering my research questions, which I could not achieve with non-
elite interviews, a more focused surveys or smaller focus groups.
On the other hand, as with the critical analysis, there are at least two well-documented
shortfalls in this method as well (Tansey in Kuzmic 2012, p.10). The first is the selection
process, and my focus was on the elite interviews for reasons mentioned above. The second
issue is the inaccessibility of the interviewees, which I practically did not experience, since
almost all interviewees I wanted to interview were available and showed both a willingness to
help and a genuine interest in my research. In the end, all interviews proceeded without any
problems, in line with academic and ethical standards set by the University of Warwick and
Université libre de Bruxelles.
4.4. Comparative Method and Lesson-Drawing Process
Comparative Method
The final part of my chapter on methodology will discuss the comparative method
based on lesson-drawing principles, which will be used as the third main qualitative research
method in my doctoral thesis. To begin with, according to Della Porta and Keating, the
148
comparative method is another key research method of social sciences (2008, p.198). They
praise it for its ability to go "beyond descriptive statistical measures, towards an in-depth
understanding..." (Ibid., p.202). It is also common practice to combine this method with case
study research (Gerring 2007, p.27). It is not unusual "to combine several cases in a single
study. If the cases are comprised of large territorial units, then this combination may be
referred to as the "comparative" method... Thus, while a case is always singular, a case study
work or research design often refers to a study that includes several cases" (Ibid.). This type
of case study research will be my choice as well.
Furthermore, one of my contributions to knowledge is related to my use of two
illustrative case studies focused on Fairtrade producers in Mexico and Fairtrade traders and
consumers in the UK (supported by my field research in Belgium) and their comparative
employment as lesson-drawing bases for my main case study focused on Serbia.
Firstly, there is a possibility for such application because there are comparative
referent objects. Mexican poor and marginalised small-scale Fairtrade agricultural producers
and their counterparts in the form of Serbian poor and marginalised small-scale food
producers, as well as Fairtrade traders and consumers in the UK (supported by my field
research in Belgium) and their counterparts in Serbia. Finally, parts of an envisaged national
Fairtrade-like system (producers, traders and consumers) will be covered by the two cases,
but Mexico also serves as an excellent illustrative lesson-drawing case due to its institutional
foundation for development of a national Fairtrade-like system, having both the national
Fairtrade organisation and the Fairtrade producer organisations. This will be the base for
research of possibilities of developing a national Fairtrade-like system in Serbia as well and
will be further discussed in Chapters VII and VIII.
Before I continue with the next part of this section, I will address one of the possible
shortfalls regarding my use of the comparative method envisaged in this way, the one of
149
comparing apples and oranges. For example, how can research of Mexican poor and
marginalised small-scale coffee producers illuminate Serbian poor and marginalised small-
scale fruit and vegetable producers as potential Fairtrade producers? I resolved this issue in
bypassing the nature of the product, through my original notion of Fairtradeness which will
be presented next.
Notion of Fairtradeness
The "notion of Fairtradeness" is an important part of my methodological, as well as
theoretical and analytical framework, and I define it as a "degree of Fairtradeness", i.e. to
what extent someone who is a part of the Fairtrade system (a food producer, trader or
consumer), or something (a specific product, or the whole Fairtrade system) is Fairtrade.
This question is rarely raised by Fair Trade practitioners and academics. The reason
for this lie in the general understanding that if a product is certified Fairtrade, then it is
Fairtrade (FLO-CERT 2011), and all producers, traders and consumers of that product are a
part of the Fairtrade system, as Fairtrade producers, traders and consumers. However, more
and more academics in the Fair Trade literature identify differences between "how Fairtrade"
are, firstly, traders of Fairtrade products (Doherty et al. 2013, Davies 2009, Doherty and
Tranchell 2007 and Low and Davenport 2005a and 2005b). Secondly, consumers of Fairtrade
products (Doherty et al. 2013, Bondy and Talwar 2011, Alexander and Nicholls 2006,
Watson 2006, Moore et al. 2006 and Cowe and Williams 2000), and finally, Fairtrade global
value chains through which Fairtrade products are sourced (Doherty et al. 2013). Although all
of these papers show that there is a difference, none of them clearly define what that
difference is, or show different degrees of this difference, which I will do next.
150
In the case of the three referent objects, I identify the degree of their "Fairtradeness",
i.e. how Fairtrade they are, by applying two criteria: firstly, how important membership in the
Fairtrade system and its future are for them and secondly, how far they go for Fairtrade.
Therefore, my definition captures two distinct aspects of Fairtradeness, the first which I will
name "Fairtradeness by situation" (the aspect of need) and the second, "Fairtradeness by
practice" (the degree to which Fairtrade International's criteria are respected). In order to
explain this further, I will now give examples for all three key members of the Fairtrade
system.
In the case of poor and marginalised small-scale Fairtrade producers, I identify the
degree of their Fairtradeness (how Fairtrade they are) with regard to two criteria: firstly, how
much they initially need Fairtrade certification, i.e. how poor, marginalised and small-scale
they are and secondly, how strictly they comply with Fairtrade standards, i.e., can they
comply in the first place, and secondly, if they can, to what extent is this the case, and do they
undertake additional efforts. This understanding, in terms of methodology, solves the issue of
different types of production (coffee vs. fruit and vegetables for example), since I compare
the Fairtradeness of poor and marginalised small-scale producers, i.e. their need for Fairtrade
certification (the difficulty of their position - the extent of their poverty, marginalisation and
their size), as well as in the case of already included Fairtrade producers, their compliance
with Fairtrade standards and in the case of prospective Fairtrade producers, their potential for
compliance with Fairtrade rules and regulations.
When both aspects are combined, a Fairtrade producer who is in the worst situation in
terms of poverty, marginalisation and small-scaleness, and who is fulfilling her/his Fairtrade
certification obligations, but also "goes the extra mile" would be the one with higher
Fairtradeness.
151
The same goes for the next Fairtrade referent objects. To begin with, the Fairtrade
traders with higher Fairtradeness would be the ones for which the need for Fairtrade
certification is the highest, in that Fairtrade is their raison d'être and that they are fully
compliant with all Fairtrade standards, often going above and beyond. A typical example
would be a 100% Fair Trade company solely trading Fairtrade products. On the other hand,
Fairtrade traders with lower Fairtradeness would be the ones who have a low need for
Fairtrade. Fairtrade products represent a marginal part of their assortment and they try to
follow just the minimum Fairtrade rules and regulations, transferring all the Fairtrade
certification and compliance costs down the value chains.
Consequently, a Fairtrade trader whose whole palette is Fairtrade and therefore,
whose prospect completely depends on the future progress of the Fairtrade system, and who
goes beyond what is a threshold for certification has a higher degree of Fairtradeness. On the
other hand, Fairtrade traders, whose share of Fairtrade products in their offer is smaller and
whose compliance with the Fairtrade system's modus operandi is not always exemplar have
lower Fairtradeness.
Regarding the consumers of Fairtrade products, their degrees of Fairtradeness is
measured, firstly, before they enter the shop (connected with the how much they need
Fairtrade criterion), i.e. with the question if they came educated and knew why they are
buying Fairtrade products, or bought them because there were no non-Fairtrade alternatives.
Secondly, when they leave the shop, i.e. with the question if they are going to support the
Fairtrade movement further, by taking active participation in peer-to-peer promotion and
sales, in local and national Fairtrade support groups, Fairtrade Fortnight, World Fair Trade
Day celebrations or Fairtrade supporter conferences, or they will move on with their lives
(connected with the how far they go for Fairtrade criterion). Hence, a Fairtrade campaigner is
152
assigned a higher degree of Fairtradeness than a consumer of Fairtrade products from the
"do-what-I-can" group.
Consequently, a Fairtrade consumer who consciously and due to the fact that s/he is
educated about Fairtrade buys and then continues to support the Fairtrade system is the one
with higher Fairtradeness. On the other hand, a Fairtrade consumer who is not devoted to
Fairtrade purchases, and who finds himself unable or unwilling to invest time and effort in
future Fairtrade developments is accorded a correspondingly lower degree of Fairtradeness.
Finally, all three referent objects are connected through a Fairtrade product that they
produce, trade and consume, because the Fairtrade system is the product certification system
that certifies products rather than producers, traders or consumers. Therefore, the
Fairtradeness of a Fairtrade product depends on how much a producer, trader and consumer
of that product is "Fairtrade". This is all then connected with the type of the value chain
through which it came. The Fairtrade system aims for the preferable - relational type because,
in this envisaged scenario, it includes Fairtrade producers, traders and consumers with the
highest Fairtradeness. The more Fairtrade the different parts of the Fairtrade system, i.e.
Fairtrade producers, traders, consumers and consequently the Fairtrade products are, the
higher is the degree of Fairtradeness of the whole system.
Assigning every actor in the Fairtrade value chain a qualitative value proves that not
every Fairtrade transaction is the same, demonstrating that the degree of Fairtradeness is not
only important from the ethical perspective, which is my dominant viewpoint, but also from a
consequentialist/utilitarian perspective as well, since the most desirable scenario would
include producers, traders and consumers with the highest degree of Fairtradeness, and the
least between the ones with the lowest. This is significant because, as De Meulemeester
states, today, utilitarianism is the dominant philosophy that governs the reform agenda in
Europe and around the world (2011, p.17).
153
One final methodological remark, and one regarding the potential practical
implications of my notion of Fairtradeness is appropriate before I close. Ultimately, my goal
is to be able to use my Fairtradeness scale in purely ordinal terms, which allows me to say
that one product is more Fairtrade than another. I do not aim to assign the Fairtradeness of an
actor an exact value in comparison to others, hence, I will not use my Fairtradeness scale in
cardinal terms. This limits usage of my notion of Fairtradeness to comparisons of only a set
number of fixed case studies, which is not a problem for my doctoral thesis due to the fact
that it is envisaged in the manner as previously explained.
Secondly, my notion of Fairtradeness can also be a base for business practices that
distinguish different degrees of Fairtradeness of Fairtrade products focusing on the degree of
Fairtradeness of Fairtrade producers and traders. An idea which came from one of my
interviewees, Veillard, the Fair Trade expert at the Oxfam Magasins du Monde (2013,
interview) is a star-like classification system. In this envisaged scenario, a Fairtrade product
with higher Fairtradeness (i.e. whose Fairtrade producers and traders are more Fairtrade) will
have more stars, while the ones with lower Fairtradeness will have less. This will lead to clear
distinction between them and possibly, to a race to the top, which could also benefit the
Fairtradeness of the Fairtrade system as a whole.
Lesson-Drawing Process
Finally, regarding the question of lesson-drawing principles on which my comparison
is based, I will use the pioneer work of Strathclyde Professor Richard Rose (1991 and 1993).
Rose defined the lesson-drawing concept as one addressing "[u]nder what circumstances and
to what extent can a programme that is effective in one place transfer to another" (Rose 1991,
p.3). The lesson-drawing approach has already influenced the development of numerous
154
other approaches such as, for example, Dolowitz and Marsh's "policy transfer" (1996 and
2000).
Although it has raised a number of questions, its critics are far more focused on the
approaches that derived from it than on the initial concept itself (see in James and Lodge
2003). Even when the critiques are directed at the lesson-drawing itself, they are far more
connected with the question of it being different than "conventional rational accounts of
policymaking" (Ibid., p.181). At the same time, they recognise that their critique "is not based
on specifying alternative definitions to encompass empirical events or processes that the
concepts in some way fail to recognise. Nor does it assert an alternative abstract definition or
alternative explanatory model" (Ibid., p.180).
On the other hand, the proponents of this approach are numerous. Apart from the
above-stated Dolowitz and Marsh (1996 and 2000), it is important to point out that it is an
increasingly influential way of public policy research (Page 2000), and that it even presented
a theoretical base for the UK's Economic and Social Research Council's Future Governance
Programme (ESRC 2000). I will use the comparative method based on lesson-drawing
principles for four reasons, and I detail each in turn.
Firstly, although the lesson-drawing concept was initially focused on states,
governments and policy research, Rose claims it can be connected even more easily with
economic and business processes (Ibid., pp.9-10). Since my focus is not on policy research,
but mainly on developmental, economic and business aspects of the Fairtrade system it is
clear why this is the first reason for my selections.
Secondly, comparisons based on lesson-drawing process fundamentally differ from
conventional comparisons which, according to Dogan and Pelassy (1984), focus solely on a
posteriori explanations. "By avoiding the logical trap of generalizing from a single case
study, such studies can explain why a programme that worked in country X did not work in
155
country Y. But it is unusual for conventional social scientists to take the next logical step: to
predict whether a programme now in effect in country X would be effective if transferred to
country Y" (Rose 1991, p.8).
This is exactly the aim of my research, firstly, by asking the question regarding the
possibilities of the introduction of Fairtrade production in Serbia based on the findings from
Mexico. Secondly, by asking the questions about the future development of Serbian Fairtrade
trade and consumption based on explanations offered by UK research (supported by the
Belgian findings). Finally, by exploring the possibilities of establishing national Fairtrade-
like systems based both on the general findings from these two illustrative cases and on the
findings focused on the situation in the Mexican Fairtrade system, which has the already-
stated institutional bases for development of a national Fairtrade-like system.
Thirdly, according to Rose: "[l]essons belong to the world of Angewandte
Sozialwissenschaft (applied social science)" (Ibid., p.7), which is again important for my
research. Apart from contributing to knowledge, I also aim to be relevant for Fairtrade
practitioners and the future development of the Fairtrade system itself. Fourthly, the lesson-
drawing process allows "hybridization", i.e. for a researcher to "[c]ombine elements of
programmes from two different places" (Ibid., p.22), which is again crucial for my research.
My comparison based on lesson-drawing principles will follow Rose's five-step
lesson-drawing procedure. As he did, I will start with "[s]canning programmes elsewhere"
with the idea "not to become an expert about foreign experience, but to gain fresh ideas
relevant to a problem that one's [have]" (Ibid., p.19). Secondly, I will produce a conceptual
model. "The model should be accurate as description but its elements should be generic,
rather than labelled by their names in French or German" (Ibid., p.20), or in my case, based
on Mexican or UK observations. The third step is to compare foreign practices with the ones
in a researched country and it is followed by the fourth step, the creation of a new model.
156
"Lesson-drawing draws upon empirical evidence of programmes in effect elsewhere to create
a new programme for adoption at home. The formulation of a programme is best considered
as a creative act, rather than as a process of copying" (Ibid., p.21). The final stage is the
prospective evaluation (Ibid., p.22).
In the following four chapters (V - VIII), I will put forward analyses of the three
Fairtrade referent objects, i.e. producers, traders and consumers, and they will be primarily
examined through a prism of four lessons drawn from two illustrative case studies. From the
Mexican case, those lessons will identify the main characteristics of Fairtrade producers and
their indispensability for Fairtrade benefits, and the economic and non-economic advantages
that they can bring to table. From the UK case, those lessons will be Fairtrade mainstreaming
through supermarkets and Fairtrade campaigning, consisting of the most aware consumers of
Fairtrade products.
I started this chapter by presenting the critical analysis method which I used in order
to review, evaluate and analyse the Fair Trade literature in chapters II and III. This method
aided me in construing my theoretical framework, and it helped me find an answer to the first
part of the puzzle of my doctoral research, the one regarding the internal normative and
operational logic of the Fairtrade system, which has been breached in practice by the
exclusion of the nine producer-excluded upper-middle-income economies.
Furthermore, following the literature on methodology, I chose the case study research
method. The first two cases that I selected will be illustrative, focusing on Mexico and the
United Kingdom, representing successful cases of, firstly, Fairtrade producers' and secondly,
Fairtrade traders and consumers' countries, clearly showing the historical, contemporary and
157
future challenges for development of Fairtrade from all three perspectives. These cases are
envisaged as the comparative and lesson-drawing bases for the main (third) case study, which
will be focused on Serbia and its Fairtrade potentials.
In addition, I presented a smaller original point, the notion of Fairtradeness. I defined
it as a degree of Fairtradeness, i.e. to what extent someone who is a part of the Fairtrade
system (a food producer, trader or consumer), or something (a specific product, or the whole
Fairtrade system) is Fairtrade. In the case of the three referent objects, I identified the degree
of their Fairtradeness, in regard to how much they initially need Fairtrade and how far they
go in pursuit of Fairtrade, capturing the two distinct aspects of Fairtradeness - Fairtradeness
by situation, and by practice. Finally, all three referent objects are connected through a
Fairtrade product that they produce, trade and consume. This is also important because the
more Fairtrade the different parts of the Fairtrade system, i.e. Fairtrade producers, traders,
consumers and consequently the Fairtrade products are, the higher is the degree of
Fairtradeness of the whole system.
Therefore, in Chapter IV, I identified, outlined and explained the methodological
choices of my doctoral research that will aid me in answering my underlying research
question, thereby bridging the gaps and making the contributions to knowledge. In particular,
this chapter should be seen as the base for my third contribution to the literature focused on
making an innovative comparison based on two illustrative case studies which will be
presented in the following chapters V and VI, and the main case study, which is the most
important part of my dissertation, and which will be the topic of chapters VII and VIII
focused solely on Serbia. By concluding Chapter IV, I made a bridge between the theoretical
and the empirical parts of my doctoral thesis, concluding previous discussions and presenting
the case study and comparative research method based on lesson-drawing principles as the
introduction to the following chapters.
158
CHAPTER V - LESSONS FROM THE MEXICAN FAIRTRADE SYSTEM
Thus far, I have looked upon the Fairtrade system as a whole. In order to present my
theoretical framework, I had to analytically simplify the system, thereby considering it as
almost homogeneous. As a consequence, I regarded all three Fairtrade referent objects and
key links in Fairtrade global value chains, Fairtrade producers, traders and consumers as
practically the same in all countries, although I did explain how they differ in the sense of
their Fairtradeness. This was my position in particular regarding national Fairtrade producers'
and traders-consumers' structures and regimes, while in practice, this is not the case. Fully
recognising the complexity of the Fairtrade system, I agree with Doherty and his colleagues,
who summarise several Fair Trade debates by finding that "[b]oth the media and the vast
majority of literature treat fair trade as if it is one holistic movement... [while in fact]...
[m]any different forms of organisation compete within the fair trade market in many different
ways" (2013, p.168).
On the Fairtrade producers' side, there are three very different Fairtrade regional
producer networks (Fairtrade International 2014b) beginning with the smallest, Network of
Asia and Pacific Producers (NAPP), counting a membership of 182 Fairtrade producer
organisations. Furthermore, there is the fastest growing network, Fairtrade Africa, where
Kenya, a country with the highest number of Fairtrade producers and workers (295,400) can
be found (Ibid.). Finally, there is the oldest and the most developed Coordinadora
Latinoamericana y del Caribe de Pequeños Productores de Comercio Justo, the Coordinator
of Fairtrade Small Producers in Latin America and the Caribbean (CLAC), consisting of
more than a half of all Fairtrade producer organisations - 624 in total (Ibid.). There are huge
differences between their producer groups as well, from the passion fruit cooperative with
159
only seven members in Vietnam, to the one with over 60,000 Fairtrade coffee producers in
Tanzania (Fairtrade International 2013a, p.4).
Even in the same regional producer network, in CLAC for example, there are 21
significantly different national Fairtrade producer systems, focused on 14 diverse Fairtrade
products, among which, for instance, coffee is produced exclusively by small-scale
producers, while bananas are produced on plantations (CLAC 2014). In this way, national
Fairtrade systems like the coffee-based Mexico and banana-focused Ecuador differ
significantly in practice, although they are a part of the same global Fairtrade system as the
Fairtrade producer countries.
In Chapter V, I will therefore critically analyse one of the national Fairtrade systems,
Mexico, and its lesson-drawing potentials important for my main case study, Serbia. The
discussion will begin with the presentation of the system itself, focusing on my first referent
object, i.e. the first link in Fairtrade global value chains, Fairtrade producers. Following this
somewhat general discussion, given the fact that this chapter, as well as the next one on the
UK is an illustrative case study, the following two sections will present two lessons which
constitute the base for discussions regarding my main case study on Serbia.
Firstly, I will focus on identifying the main characteristics of Mexican Fairtrade
producers and their everyday realities in order to set a foundation from which the possibility
for finding potential Fairtrade small-scale producers in Serbia can be critically appreciated,
which will be further discussed in Chapter VII. In addition, the second focal point of this
chapter will contribute to this aim by debating to what extent Mexican Fairtrade producers
benefit from Fairtrade. Again, in order to put forward a base for identifying the necessity and
the possible advancements that Fairtrade can bring to Serbian poor and marginalised small-
scale producers, which will also be further discussed in Chapter VII.
160
The "Mexican Chapter" will, therefore, be the lesson-drawing base for answering the
first attendant research question - "To what extent can Serbian poor and marginalised small-
scale producers, currently excluded from the Fairtrade system partake in that system?", and
consequently, a base for answering a part of my underlying research question focused on
prospective Fairtrade producers in Serbia. This will enable me to establish an innovative
comparison that, together with the next chapter focused on the UK, will be the lesson-
drawing base for discussions regarding my main case study - Serbia, which will be presented
in chapters VII and VIII.
5.1. Fairtrade System in Mexico
The first Fair Trade labels that emerged from 1988 onwards were the foundation for
the creation of the Fairtrade Mark on which the Fairtrade system is based today. In this
regard, Mexico has a special place in the Fairtrade history, given the fact that the very first
labelled product - coffee, was imported from this country. Therefore, the Fairtrade system
considers, as its initial spark, the moment when the Dutch developmental organisation
Solidaridad launched the Max Havelaar label for coffee from the Mexican coffee cooperative
Unión de Comunidades Indígenas de la Región del Istmo (UCIRI) from Oaxaca, which is still
in the main focus of many Fair Trade researchers, including Silvia Celis, who I interviewed
during my field research in Mexico (2013, interview).
The history and the main stepping stones of the development of Fairtrade in Mexico
in general and the production of Mexican Fairtrade coffee in particular correspond to the
continuous state of crisis in which Mexican small-scale coffee producers found themselves
from the late 1980s onwards, with the peaks in 1989 and 1997 (Jaffee 2007, p.37). Therefore,
it can be said that the history of Fairtrade in Mexico is intertwined with the history of a
161
persistent coffee crisis affecting Mexican poor and marginalised small-scale coffee
producers, as well as with their reactions.
The contemporary situation is similar, firstly, given the fact that the Mexican
Fairtrade system is still, as it was in 1988, predominantly based on Fairtrade small-scale
coffee production. Moreover, since the current price for coffee on the market is again in
decline, according to Jeronimo Pruijn van Engelen (2013, interview), executive director of
Símbolo de Pequeños Productores - FUNDEPPO; former executive director of the Comercio
Justo México and secretary general of the CLAC and one of the most influential Fairtrade
practitioners in the world.
Accordingly, Mexican Fairtrade small-scale coffee producers were, and still are
constantly influenced by developments on the global coffee market, and they are currently
facing the following contemporary challenges. To begin with, the income of the small-scale
coffee producers in Mexico fell dramatically even when the crisis was considered overcome
(Jaffee 2007). From 2011 onwards, the coffee prices began to decline again (Perez Akaki
2013, interview). One of my interviewees predicted, rather gloomily, that perhaps the global
economic crisis on the coffee market has not fully borne out its effects, and that if the coffee
prices continue to decline this will certainly happen (Pruijn van Engelen 2013, interview).
Therefore, the global coffee price drop between 2011 - 2013 (Perez Akaki 2013, interview) is
an additional hindrance for 260,000 small-scale coffee producers in Mexico (Chadi 2013,
interview, Gielissen and Graafland 2009, Jaffee 2007, Low and Davenport 2006).
Unlike the explanation offered by the contemporary inclusive neoliberalism, the
collapse of the quota system, which happened in 1989, and the structural oversupply which
increased from 1997 are not the only factors significant for understanding the coffee crisis
during the last 25 years and corresponding drop in prices. After 1989, global coffee value
chains increasingly assumed the shape of an hourglass, with multinationals and supermarkets
162
as the "new gatekeepers", as theoretically explained in Chapter II (see pp.57, 71).
Consequently, "[b]oth the commodity crisis of falling prices for agricultural products and the
concentration of power by a few supermarket chains are general patterns in the agricultural
industry that are exacerbated in the coffee sector" (Schmelzer 2006, p.12).
An illustrative example is of the famous "Big Five" coffee corporations, i.e. Nestlé,
Sara Lee, Philip Morris, Procter and Gamble and Tchibo that share about 70% of the
combined global roasted and instant-coffee markets between them, which reported successive
record profits, especially from 1997 onward (Jaffee 2007, p.49). Osorio's points out that,
before 1989, coffee producers from developing countries received between $10 and $12
(€8.94-10.72, £6.5-7.8, RSD1,074.11-1,288.94) billion annually. By 2003, this figure had
dropped to $5.5 (€4.92, £3.57, RSD590.76) billion, while at the same time, coffee traders and
sellers from the Global North increased their retail sales volume from around $30 (€26.82,
£19.49, RSD3,222.34) billion before the crises, to $80 (€71.52, £52, RSD8,592.91) billion in
2003 (2004, p.2).
Moreover, both the literature (see for example Gielissen and Graafland 2009) and my
interviewees (especially Pruijn van Engelen 2013, interview) have warned that due to the
price drop and the rise of the non-Fairtrade and Fairtrade price differentials, the biggest
multinational companies and supermarkets can switch from the Fairtrade label to cheaper and
less demanding certification schemes.
Additional complications with the final link of the global Fairtrade coffee value
chains, Fairtrade consumers, are entirely conceivable. Pruijn van Engelen has commented
that "one of the reasons why there is an increase in Fairtrade sales is also the fact that the
price difference between non-Fairtrade and Fairtrade products is not so big at the moment -
especially in the simple global value chains... However, now with the global coffee prices
163
decline again we are going to see how committed Fairtrade traders and consumers really are
and how crisis-resistant Fairtrade really is" (Ibid. 10:05).
Current trends regarding Fairtrade traders' and consumers' involvement contradict
their predictions, confirming caring across spaces understanding which I presented in Chapter
II (see the section 2.3.). However, given the fact that warnings are coming from some of the
most experienced Fair Trade researchers and practitioners, I put them forward nonetheless.
The above-stated challenges are facing Fairtrade producers both globally and
particularly in Mexico, due to its coffee production base. Their consequences on Mexican
Fairtrade producers' lives and the Fairtrade benefits designed to tackle them will be the most
important topics discussed in the rest of this chapter26.
5.2. Lesson 1: Mexican Fairtrade Producers' Main Characteristics
In the following two sections, I will discuss two features I have identified as crucial
lesson-drawing bases for my main case study on Serbia. Here, I will present the main
characteristics of Mexican Fairtrade producers and their everyday realities in order to put
forward the base for questioning the possibility for finding potential Fairtrade small-scale
producers in Serbia. In the following section, the Fairtrade benefits that Mexican Fairtrade
producers are receiving will be analysed, again in order to put forward the base for
identifying the need for them and the possible advancements that Fairtrade can bring to
Serbian poor and marginalised small-scale producers. These two lessons will be the empirical
foundation upon which I will build my conclusions in Chapter VII, showing that in terms of
26
There are other challenges, like the ones identified by Perez Akaki putting forward environmental issues such
as a fungus which started to heavily affect the coffee production in Mexico and security problems connected
with drug production and transport to the US (2013, interview). Although certainly very significant in the case
of Mexico, these and similar challenges will not be in the focus of my analysis due to their tangential lesson-
drawing potential for my main case study - Serbia.
164
their Fairtradeness, Mexican Fairtrade producers are on a par with Serbian poor and
marginalised small-scale producers, who are currently forbidden from entering the Fairtrade
system and that their exclusion is therefore indefensible. In this way, the theoretical
foundations presented in chapters II and III supporting my position will be empirically
enhanced.
Mexican Small-Scale Coffee Producers
According to Luis Martínez Senties, agricultural advisor of the Ministry of
Agriculture of Mexico (SAGARPA) at the Representative Office for Europe at the Embassy
of Mexico in Belgium, Mexico, as a country, can be divided into two distinct agricultural
halves (2013, interview). The northern (including the central part) is dominated by large-scale
food producers, which are more industrialised and export oriented, while in the southern part,
small-scale producers prevail (Ibid.). Mexican coffee producers are situated in the latter part,
especially in the states of Oaxaca, Puebla, Veracruz and Chiapas (Perez Akaki 2013,
interview). Fairtrade production was also inaugurated here (Celis 2013, interview).
Map 1. Map of Mexico - States and State Capitals (Map of Mexico 2015).
165
This should not come as a surprise as all of these states, apart from being populated
by small-scale coffee growers are, at the same time, the most deprived among all Mexican
states by most developmental parameters (Perez Akaki 2013, interview and Wodon et al.
2003), alongside the slums of the big Mexican cities (Perez Akaki 2013, interview). In terms
of strict productivity, the small-scale Mexican coffee producers can hardly achieve the
efficiency of the large plantations, however, they are exceptionally effective in terms of local
and ecological sustainability (Jaffee 2007, p.40), which is equally or more important from
their perspective. Furthermore, the individual scale of production, which can be very low
(Perez Akaki 2013, interview) can be bypassed by the formation of producer cooperatives "in
order to accumulate production, and to put it forward in the market" (Martinez Senties 2013,
interview 17:08).
However, this method is not without its challenges, due to the issues connected with
the organisation of producer cooperatives. In Mexico, according to Jaffee, most Mexican
small-scale coffee producers now belong to a producer organisation, with Coordinadora
Nacional de Organizaciones Cefetaleras (CNOC) having around 70,000 members, i.e.
around 25 percent of the national total of affiliated members, alongside Confederación
Nacional Campesina (CNC)-affiliated organizations that syndicate a further 31 percent.
These organisations are "often criticized for their inefficiency and corruption" (2007, p.54).
The need for a more successful coffee production, for stronger small-scale producers
and more democratic and efficient cooperatives therefore persists. According to its
supporters, Fairtrade offers a partial or complete answer to these challenges facing Mexican
small-scale coffee producers in particular, and other poor and marginalised producers around
the world in general.
166
Mexican Fairtrade Producer Organisations
Mexican small-scale Fairtrade coffee producers are required to be members of larger
Fairtrade producer cooperatives, to gain access to the system, as already discussed in Chapter
III (see p.99). The Mexican small-scale coffee producers on which I am basing my research
are either highlighted by the most prominent works in the Fair Trade literature (for example,
Jaffee 2007, Lyon 2006, Milford 2004 and others) or are of research and practical concern to
my interviewees (Celis 2013, interview, Chadi 2013, interview, Perez Akaki 2013, interview,
Pocovi Garzon 2013, interview, Pruijn van Engelen 2013, interview and Quijano 2013,
interview).
The most famous among them are UCIRI (Celis 2013, interview), Michiza (Jaffee
2007), ISMAM (Milford 2004), La Selva (Cabañas 2002) and Unión de Cooperativas
Tosepan Titataniske (Perez Akaki 2013, interview). As already explained, the Union of
Indigenous Communities in the Isthmus Region (UCIRI) is the oldest Fairtrade cooperative
from Oaxaca. Yeni Navan (Permanent Sunrise) Michiza is another representative Fairtrade
cooperative from Oaxaca, which was at the heart of, thus far, one of the most prominent
research on Fairtrade in Mexico in the whole Fair Trade literature conducted by Jaffee
(2007). La Unión de Sociedades de la Selva is a coffee cooperative in the Lacandon jungle of
southern Mexico with around 2,000 small-scale indigenous members (Big Bend Coffee
Rosters 2007) and finally, Unión de Cooperativas Tosepan Titataniske is a very large
cooperative with 17,000 members consisting of coffee, but also pepper, citrus and honey
producers with the headquarters in Cuetzalan in the state of Puebla.
I will also use the data analysed and gathered on other Fairtrade producer
organisations from Oaxaca (Celis 2013, interview and Jaffee 2007), Chiapas (Chadi 2013,
interview, Pocovi Garzon 2013, interview, Pruijn van Engelen 2013, interview, Milford 2004,
167
Cabañas 2002 and Perezgrovas and Cervantes 2002) and Puebla (Perez Akaki 2013,
interview, and Quijano 2013, interview). The reason behind my decision is the fact that they
are the strongest regions in terms of Fairtrade production and sales (Martinez Senties 2013,
interview). All information in the rest of the chapter originates from the critical analysis of
the Fair Trade literature and from the data compiled from my field research regarding the
above-mentioned regions in general, and Fairtrade cooperatives and producers from them in
particular.
Mexican Fairtrade Producers
Following the explanation of the broader context in which Mexican Fairtrade
producers operate, I will now discuss in detail their general poverty levels, business
challenges, state of their local infrastructure, social services and programmes, as well as
availability of national subsidies and developmental aid and issues connected with migrations
and demography. In this way, I will discuss their main characteristics and everyday realities.
General Poverty Levels
Mexican Fairtrade producers originate from the group of poor and marginalised,
small-scale producers that are often of indigenous ancestry. They live in rural areas and often
work on communal land (Celis 2013, interview). As Martinez Senties has stated, where there
are small-scale producers, with little income, living in small communities, there is a fertile
ground for Fairtrade because they will be searching for this kind of instrument to have access
to market (2013, interview). Their views are in line with how I have defined poor and
168
marginalised small-scale producers who can enter the Fairtrade system as discussed in
Chapter II (see pp.61-62).
However, right from the start, it is important to point out that Mexican Fairtrade
producers do not arise from the poorest of the poor, the issue which was also discussed in the
theoretical part of my dissertation, as confirmed by Perez Akaki (2013, interview). Pocovi
Garzon supports his point by putting forward an example from Chiapas, where many poor
and marginalised small-scale producers simply do not have a budget for certification (2013,
interview).
Furthermore, even the poorest Mexican regions differ significantly from the ones in
the least developed, low or lower-middle income economies in Africa or Asia. "Of course, we
are not... a poor country like in Africa. This is a very different situation... In Mexico we have
very poor towns, very poor places, very poor families... [not] regions of poverty, but towns,
smaller scale... Family that is very poor, that hasn't enough resources for feeding their kids...
So this kind of inequality" (Perez Akaki 2013, interview 25:53, audio 1).
Therefore, in general, people are not starving (Ibid.) and "basic food security in
Mexico is not a problem" (Martinez Senties 2013, interview 32:55). For both Fairtrade and
non-Fairtrade producers, even in the poorest states like Oaxaca "[g]etting enough food is not
a problem... even for the very worst off, there is always fruit or tortilla with salt to fill the
stomach during the lean months" (Jaffee 2007, p.168). The difference between these two
groups is that Fairtrade producers and their families are eating more and better than their non-
Fairtrade neighbours (Ibid., p.180). O'Grada's prominent research (2007) points out that
today, even in the least developed countries, and Mexico is certainly not one of them as
thoroughly discussed above, "prolonged famine anywhere is conceivable only in contexts of
endemic warfare or blockade" (Ibid., p.31). However, the challenge lies in adequate nutrition.
The normal diet in Mexico, "even in good economic times, is deficient in protein and other
169
nutrients" (Jaffee 2007, p.168) and, at the other extreme, obesity prevails, especially in the
slums of larger cities (Perez Akaki 2013, interview).
Business Challenges
Mexican Fairtrade producers operate far more viable businesses than their non-
Fairtrade counterparts. Depending on the region, Mexican Fairtrade small-scale coffee
producer grow their production, on an average area of 2ha (Akaki 2013, interview), 3ha
(Celis 2013, interview), and up to 4.5ha of land (Jaffee 2007). When compared with other
small-scale producers around the globe, both in the Global South and in the Global North,
they are therefore not so small. I will go even further, by stating a problem thus far
unexplored by the academic literature on Fair Trade. According to one of my interviewees, an
agricultural researcher from Mexico City, Emiliano Quijano, it is true that Fairtrade
International certifies only cooperatives of small-scale coffee producers, however, it is also
true that some of them, in Puebla for example, have members with different farm sizes (2013,
interview). Without a doubt, the majority will have between two and three hectares.
However, there will be certain "small-scale" members with up to 20ha of their own and/or
rented land (Ibid.), which is a completely unimaginable for many poor and marginalised
small-scale producers around the world.
According to numerous Fair Trade scholars and my interviewees (Martinez Senties
2013, interview, Perez Akaki 2013, interview, Pocovi Garzon 2013, interview, Pruijn van
Engelen 2013, interview, Nelson and Pound 2009, Jaffee 2007, Schmelzer 2006, Milford
2004, Cabañas 2002 and Perezgrovas and Cervantes 2002) Mexican Fairtrade producers
enjoy numerous further advantages due to their Fairtrade membership. These include better
market access, more accurate market information, greater creditworthiness and access to
170
credits and insurance in comparison to their non-Fairtrade counterparts (Ibid.). They benefit,
moreover, from long-term relations with Fairtrade traders, experiencing production stability,
and have greater access to technological improvements. All of these benefits conferred by
Fairtrade membership, will be further discussed in the next section, as the second lesson to be
learned from the Mexican Fairtrade system.
Finally, an everyday experience for all non-Fairtrade growers is the constant dealing
with middlemen. As Perez Akaki points out, one of the biggest problems for any Mexican
small-scale coffee producer are intermediaries, coyotes, who force them "to sell their
products very cheaply" (2013, interview 23:25). By contrast, this is not an everyday reality
for a Fairtrade producer, who has a chance to sell even more than 80 percent of her/his
production under Fairtrade terms, even though s/he occasionally deals with coyotes (Jaffee
2007, p.95).
Local Infrastructure, Social Services and Programmes
Due to the Fairtrade premiums and their impact on infrastructure, Fairtrade producers
are not isolated anymore and they can now reach the nearest urban area in half the time
required before entering the Fairtrade system (Celis 2013, interview). Using the same
premiums, they were able to build schools and significantly improve their housing,
combining traditional building methods with contemporary floor and roofing solutions
(Ibid.). Their houses, for example have a separate kitchens, which is considered to be an
almost exclusively female space: "One lady said to her husband, I do not like my kitchen
anymore, and her husband had to build a new one for her, because this is her space" (Ibid.
28:30).
171
Furthermore, most of their houses have all appliances like refrigerators, TVs and
especially radios, which are, according to her, interestingly, more important for a Fairtrade
small-scale coffee producer because s/he listens to the program while working in the field
(Ibid.). Finally, as Martinez Senties stated, Fairtrade has brought electricity and sanitation to
many communities (2013, interview).
In addition, there are numerous governmental social programmes, which are more or
less available to Mexican Fairtrade producers although it is important to state right from the
start that some have enjoyed marginal success, were temporal in duration, or were simply
exploited for political purposes (Perez Akaki 2013, interview). Among the most important
are, firstly, Seguro Popular, which was envisaged as a public health programme. However, it
has a number of limitations in terms of entry requirements, quality, and coverage (Ibid.). "It is
only basic health care... without real access to specialists, or any type of complicated
surgeries... it is not complete... if you need a caesarean for example, you have to pay for
medicines" (Celis 2013, interview 40:00). Moreover, due to a lack of basic surgeries rurally,
an individual has to travel to a larger city for treatment. By contrast, a Fairtrade producer in
Chiapas, for example, where Fairtrade is present, has access to an ambulance, alongside other
auxiliary health programmes, due to Fairtrade premiums (Pocovi Garzon 2013, interview).
The next programme is 70 y Más, a system of state pensions worth around 45 dollars
(€41.3, £28.83, RSD4,967.55) per month. It was trialled in Mexico City, but subsequently
implemented in the whole country (Perez Akaki 2013, interview). The final programme is
Oportunidades, which started as Progresa changing names with the changes of governments
(Ibid.). This is a state scholarship programme worth at least $80 (€71.52, £52, RSD8,592.91)
per month per pupil and student (Ibid.). Given the fact that for every child, there is an
additional payment, many have criticised this programme for its vulnerability to exploitation,
because for some, children soon became the source of income (Celis 2013, interview).
172
Pruijn van Engelen states two general critiques of all the above-stated governmental
agricultural and social support programmes (2013, interview). Firstly, they are "consumption
oriented... sometimes contra-productive for production... introduced in order to keep people
occupied" (2013, interview 36:47). Secondly, government policies seldom encourage small-
scale producers and small-scale food production. They are "not favoured in general, since
both policies and pressure to prices are more supportive for big producers" (Ibid. 28:55).
On the other hand, Martinez Senties disagrees, arguing that not all above-mentioned,
together with other old and new, general and specific governmental agricultural and social
programmes are consumption based. On the contrary, he believes that some of them are able
to give an "incentive to all producers to have more yields and... new technology" (2013,
interview 31:07). Finally, it is also important to point out that none of my interviewees saw
the Mexican Fairtrade producers as better off without them.
National Subsidies and Developmental Aid
One of the strongest arguments against the classification of European upper-middle-
income economies as producer countries are their connections with, and the help they receive
from the EU. This argument was recounted in the Introduction and in Chapter III when the
Global North - Global South divide critique, and with it, the interconnected position of upper-
middle-income economies were discussed (see pp.28-32, 114-128). Now going into more
detail, firstly, this argument is based on a double-standard, because Fairtrade producers in
Mexico are actually encouraged to enter the Fairtrade producer groups, as these cooperatives
help them to apply for national agricultural support programmes. "Another reason producers
frequently give for joining producer organizations is to obtain access to apoyos (government
support programs) for small coffee producers. There are two main federal coffee-support
173
programs in place, which at the time of the survey were available only to producers who
belonged to organizations, either independent or CNC-affiliated" (Jaffee 2007, p.98).
In line with this is Nelson and Pound's meta-review stating that in "[s]even of the total
studies reviewed specifically highlight the effect of Fairtrade participation in enabling
Fairtrade co-operatives to access external sources of funding in the 'honeypot' effect, i.e. the
demonstration of an effective organisation convinces development agencies and governments
that the co-operatives are viable and are worth investing in and supporting" (2009, p.29).
Although the international development projects are far from perfect, and have raised
numerous critics (Easterly 2006, see also in Heron 2014 and Richardson-Ngwenya and
Richardson 2014), their presence in Mexico, and the fact that Fairtrade producers are
encouraged to participate, remains evident.
Migrations and Demographic Challenges
The final characteristics of a Mexican Fairtrade producer, important for comparison
with Serbian poor and marginalised small-scale producers, are connected to issues of
migration and demography. Firstly, Mexican Fairtrade producers can rely on an additional
support in the form of the social safety nets consisting of family and friends, which are very
strong in Mexico. "Mexicans are very well known as a family oriented society, so you will
never see abandoned parents or abandoned grandparents" (Martinez Senties 2013, interview
31:57).
Perez Akaki goes as far as saying that social ties are the reason why Mexico does not
experience revolutions (2013, interview). "The economy for many people is very tight, it is
very hard, and ties to the United States, migration to the United States has been like an
exhaust valve" (Ibid., 42:48). Actually, according to Jaffee, "the primary source of income for
174
rural communities is not agricultural production but remittances - payments sent home by
migrants in the United States... and a few remaining federal aid programs" (2007, p.166).
However, in order to send remittances and to help their families, Mexicans have to
first emigrate to the US, which is another big issue for the majority of small-scale producers
in all upper-middle-income economies, i.e. mass migration followed by the abandonment of
the countryside. In Mexico, migrations have a very long tradition, with half a million people
seeking a better life in the US every year (Perez Akaki 2013, interview). As a consequence,
"the position of small-scale producers is not getting better, on the contrary, and quite often,
more migration is the only option which further weakens the rural economies and the
countryside bringing additional loss of human capital and production capacities making it
even less efficient and more expensive" (Pruijn van Engelen 2013, interview 30:15),
subjecting small-scale production to a vicious, downward spiral.
This leads to another indirect negative consequence, unidentified by the Fair Trade
literature thus far. Due to the fact that people, when they leave their land, rent it to their
neighbours, the parcels become larger, which is not bad in itself. However, this leads to
almost exclusive establishment of monoculture cash crops on that land. This influences
biodiversity and ecological sustainability in general, and entails severe social implications as
well, changing the villages from locally oriented, sustainable peasant-producer communities
to export oriented producer operations (Pruijn van Engelen 2013, interview). There is a
specific reason why emigrants are not simply selling or just abandoning their lands in
Mexico, a theme that remains similarly unexplored by the Fair Trade literature. Again, one of
my interviewees explained that the very reason is because "if it is abandoned, they will not be
in the category to receiving certain subsidies. So, those subsidies are also a sort of incentive
for not abandoning the land" (Martinez Senties 2013, interview 27:20).
175
To conclude, in this section, I presented the main characteristics of Mexican Fairtrade
producers and their everyday experience, which I have identified as one of the most
important lesson-drawing bases for my Serbian case. By critically analysing the literature and
using the empirical data which I collected in my fieldwork, I put forward the base for the
argumentation which I will present in Chapter VII, demonstrating why, in most aspects, a
Mexican Fairtrade producer is not lagging terribly behind a Serbian poor and marginalised
small-scale producers, while in others s/he has a clear advantage, directly deriving from
Fairtrade. This is the first lesson out of four which will be drawn from my illustrative case
studies and used as a foundation for debates in Serbian chapters VII and VIII.
5.3. Lesson 2: Mexican Fairtrade Producers' Benefits
The next section focuses on the second most important feature of the Mexican
Fairtrade system I have identified as a lesson-drawing base for my Serbian case, namely the
Fairtrade benefits that Mexican Fairtrade producers enjoy. I define Fairtrade benefits in line
with Roche's understanding of what an "impact" is - a lasting or significant change (1999),
seen from a positive perspective. Hence, my focus is on the practical positive, lasting or
significant changes brought by the Fairtrade system to Mexican Fairtrade small-scale coffee
producers, which should be looked upon from the theoretical framework based on Fairtrade
principles and benefits discussed in Chapter III (see the section 3.1.). They were analysed in
order to identify possible advancements that Fairtrade can bring to Serbian poor and
marginalised small-scale producers once Fairtrade International's standards are changed and
to answer the question whether there is a real need for them. All this is done in order to
support my position, based on this chapter's conclusions and the further debate which will be
176
presented in Chapter VII that Mexican Fairtrade producers, in terms of their Fairtradeness are
on a par with Serbian poor and marginalised small-scale producers.
In this section, I will offer one of the most comprehensive summaries of the Fairtrade
benefits ever presented in the Fair Trade literature. I will base it, firstly, on analyses in the
form of a meta-review (Nelson and Pound 2009), comparative research (Arnould et al. 2006,
Kilian et al. 2004, Dankers 2003, Murray et al. 2003 and others) and Mexican case studies
(Jaffee 2007, Milford 2004, Renard 1999 and others). Secondly, I will base it on other
influential works (Doherty et al. 2013, Smith 2009, Lamb 2008, Murray and Raynolds 2007,
Barrientos and Smith 2007, Hayes 2006, Schmelzer 2006, Nicholls and Opal 2005 and
others). Finally, it will be founded on a number of Mexican elite interviews that I have
conducted (Celis 2013, interview, Chadi 2013, interview, Martinez Senties 2013, interview,
Perez Akaki 2013, interview, Pocovi Garzon 2013, interview, Pruijn van Engelen 2013,
interview, Renard 2013, interview and Quijano 2013, interview).
I identified twenty benefits, and unlike the majority of academic papers, I offer a
different classification dividing them into three groups. The first one is concentrated on
monetary benefits in the form of the Fairtrade minimum price and the Fairtrade premium.
The next thirteen Fairtrade benefits are categorised as the "non-monetary economic" group
and the final five are in the "non-economic"27 group of benefits. Finally, the analysis below is
one of the handful of comprehensive studies regarding this topic in the Fair Trade literature
which is based both on primary and secondary data.
27
It can be argued that even these benefits are connected with Fairtrade producers' future monetary and
economic advancements, however, they are predominantly from the non-economic spheres.
177
Groups Benefits
Monetary Benefits Fairtrade minimum price
Fairtrade premium
Non-monetary Access to market information
Economic Benefits Access to markets (domestic and export)
Pre-harvest/pre-production financing
Greater creditworthiness
Better risk perceptions
Long-term commitments which lead to increased quality
Increased credibility
Production stability
Technological improvements
Diversification of production which leads to environmental advancements
Sustainable organic production which leads to environmental advancements
Reduction (exclusion) of middlemen
Positive influence on conventional, non-Fairtrade markets
Non-economic Benefits Individual empowerment
Improvements in living conditions
Educational benefits for producers' children
Organisational advancements
Political and cultural strengthening of communities
Table 18. Three groups of Fairtrade Benefits.
Monetary Fairtrade Benefits
I will start with the two most famous and, at the same time, the most contested
Fairtrade benefits, the two monetary advantages that Fairtrade producers receive over their
non-Fairtrade counterparts, the Fairtrade minimum price and the Fairtrade premium. As
already theoretically discussed in Chapter III, according to Nicholls and Opal, the Fairtrade
minimum price is envisaged for Fairtrade producers to "cover their costs of production and
[to] provide for their families" (2005, p.41) and this benefit is especially important in the case
of Fairtrade coffee (Jaffee 2007, Renard 1999 and others).
The situation in Mexico follows this general trend, given the fact that researchers
found that Fairtrade small-scale coffee producers' revenues are up to two times higher than of
their non-Fairtrade neighbours, even after deduction of cooperative management, additional
labour and all other costs (Jaffee 2007, p.123). The income from coffee can represent more
than 80 percent of family income in a Fairtrade cooperative, such as in Chiapas, therefore, the
178
double income from the Fairtrade minimum price makes a significant difference (Perezgrovas
and Cervantes 2002).
Jaffee points out another very important and rarely mentioned aspect of the Fairtrade
minimum price. Unlike payments from coyotes, which are paid at the time of sale, payments
for Fairtrade producers from the Oaxacan Michiza cooperative, for example, are made
throughout the year, yielding the best price (2007, p.96). Even though there are cases where
the double income from Fairtrade is not the norm (Murray et al. 2003, p.6) and having in
mind the already presented critiques in Chapter III, many of the above-stated academics and
interviewees nevertheless hold that the Fairtrade minimum price functions like a life jacket
for Fairtrade producers, guarding them from future deterioration (Arnould et al. 2006).
The Fairtrade premium is the second monetary benefit, held by Utting-Chamorro for
example, to be more important than the Fairtrade minimum price (2005). These funds are
invested in "expanding the human and physical capital of both businesses and the wider
community" (Smith 2009, pp.466-467) as already explained in Chapter III.
In Mexico, these funds generate impressive results, which should not come as a
surprise in light of its Fairtrade production maturity and its subsequently long history of
Fairtrade premium supported development. Moreover, due to the contemporarily favourable
circumstances, the Fairtrade premium for coffee is currently "being raised to make fair trade
more attractive to producers" (Doherty et al. 2013, p.167). Martinez Senties cites basic
amenities, like electricity and sanitation, brought to many remote communities in Mexico
(2013, interview) as an example of development enabled by this benefit. The other example is
offered by Pocovi Garzon, who pointed out that in Chiapas, many Fairtrade producers have
easy access to ambulance and medical help for the first time due to the Fairtrade premium
payments (2013, interview).
179
Concluding the debate about the first group of benefits, it is also important to point
out that some academics consider that the non-monetary/non-economic Fairtrade benefits and
not the two monetary benefits, which always take centre stage in any Fairtrade debate, are
actually the more significant aspects of the Fairtrade system (Perez Akaki 2013, interview,
Murray and Raynolds 2007, Jaffee 2007 and Hayes 2006). I similarly consider the non-
monetary/non-economic benefits at least equally vital for poor and marginalised small-scale
producers as the Fairtrade minimum price and the Fairtrade premium, and they will be
discussed next.
Non-monetary Economic Fairtrade Benefits
The second group of Fairtrade benefits consists of thirteen different, interconnected
non-monetary economic advancements. According to Fairtrade supporters, the above-stated
academic analyses and my Mexican expert interviews, for many Fairtrade producers,
Fairtrade has improved access to market information, export markets and pre-harvest/pre-
production financing, it has refined risk perceptions, increased credibility and brought long
term commitments and production stability. In addition, it has enabled technological
improvements, the possibility to diversify production, with a special focus on organic farming
with significant ecological implications, it cut the middlemen, and finally, has positively
influenced conventional, non-Fairtrade markets.
Furthermore, by participating in the Fairtrade system, Fairtrade producers have
reduced the information asymmetry and received more accurate and timely market
information than ever before (Utting-Chamorro 2005 and Milford 2004). This benefit is
interconnected with the claim that Fairtrade has brought "tangible benefits to farmers by
connecting them to export markets" (Kasterine 2006, p.18). This is one of the benefits which
180
was often highlighted by my interviewees as well, especially by Pocovi Garzon stating that
Fairtrade is "a connection to European brokers" (2013, interview 06:49) and by Martinez
Senties identifying Fairtrade as "an instrument for more and more Mexican producers to
access the market" (2013, interview 03:16).
Furthermore, the Fairtrade system can facilitate Fairtrade producers' access to
pre‐harvest/pre‐production financing, improving their creditworthiness (Hayes 2006).
Consequently, the lack of rural credits, this "chronic problem for peasant farmers around the
world" (Jaffee 2007, p.110) is less evident in the case of Mexican Fairtrade producers. For
example, in an Oaxacan small-scale coffee community consisting of both Fairtrade and non-
Fairtrade producers, the former are in a far better position than the latter (Ibid. p.111).
The better pre‐harvest/pre‐production financing is interconnected with better risk
perception (Bacon 2004, p.506), longer-term commitments (Murray and Raynolds 2007, p.5),
that lead to increased credibility (Schmelzer 2006, p.22), and greater production stability
(Utting-Chamorro 2005, p.592 and Milford 2004, p.59). The security arising from the fact
that someone will buy their products and that they will continue operating is crucial for
Fairtrade producers, even if the direct monetary gains are modest (Pocovi Garzon 2013,
interview). To state this even more directly, as one of the most experienced Fairtraders in the
world, Pruijn van Engelen did in his interview, "Fairtrade is giving Fairtrade producers
stability, which is the most important" (2013, interview 43:50).
The above-presented non-monetary economic benefits allow Fairtrade producers to
make long-term decisions (Jaffee 2007), which, firstly, led to the incentive to increase the
quality of production for an old and trustworthy customer. Cumulatively, this enables
technological improvements in management, business practices, product quality and
equipment production (Nelson and Pound 2009, Lamb 2008 and Nicholls and Opal 2005). In
turn, this allowed, for example, La Selva, a coffee cooperative in Chiapas, to innovate and
181
start selling their coffee domestically (Cabañas 2002, p.30). It similarly enabled ISMAM,
another coffee cooperative from Chiapas, to buy a large roasting machine in order to offer
packaged coffee (Milford 2004, p.54). According to Perez Akaki, production and business
innovation and administration knowledge are among the most important Fairtrade benefits
(2013, interview). Even if the Fairtrade system fails completely in the future, this expertise
will certainly remain in place (Ibid.).
The following two non-monetary economic benefits are the possibilities to diversify
the production and to move to more lucrative and, at the same time, more ecologically
sustainable organic production (Nelson and Pound 2009, Lamb 2008 and Nicholls and Opal
2005). Particularly important is the latter, due to the already-stated big difference between
conventional and organic sales. Perezgrovas and Cervantes' research on Fairtrade coffee
production in Mexico (2002) showed that the Fairtrade organic coffee beans can be nearly
300 percent more expensive than the price fetched for conventional coffee offered by local
coyotes. In addition, the switch to organic production is especially important in today's
market due to the fact that "it is increasingly difficult to find buyers for nonorganic fair-trade
coffee" (Contreras Díaz in Jaffee 2007, p.148, also indicated by Chadi 2013, interview).
Finally, as already stated, the organic production is one of the most important ecological
Fairtrade benefits, given the fact that it helps producers to go from monoculture, i.e. cash
crop production, to production which simultaneously brings income while satisfying their
own needs for food security and ecological sustainability (Nelson and Pound 2009).
The penultimate non-monetary economic benefit is, at the same time, one of the main
goals of the Fairtrade system and a part of its internal normative and operational logic, which
aims to reshape global value chains by cutting out middlemen and re-connecting producers
with traders and consumers more directly, as discussed in the section 2.3. on caring across
spaces. It is important to restate that in Mexico, unlike their non-Fairtrade counterparts,
182
Fairtrade producers, still have the opportunity to sell, more than 80 percent of their
production under Fairtrade terms, even though they trade with coyotes from time to time.
Finally, due to other Fairtrade benefits, the Fairtrade system has a positive influence
on the conventional, non-Fairtrade markets as well. Firstly, in Mexico, the benefits attached
to both the Fairtrade minimum price, as well as Fairtrade premium supported local
developmental projects, spill over to entire communities, including non-Fairtrade producers
(Schmelzer 2006, p.23). Furthermore, market information, which the Fairtrade producers
receive due to their long-term and stable relations with other members of the Fairtrade
system, is shared with their neighbours in order to help them capture more value on the
conventional market. The same is true regarding information about access to new export
markets (Nelson and Pound 2009, pp.12-13).
Moreover, in Oaxaca, for example, Fairtrade families create extra days of waged
employment, above the conventional average, for other community members, putting
additional funds into the pockets of both Fairtrade and non-Fairtrade workers in particular,
and into the community's economy in general (Jaffee 2007). Finally, the presence of the
Fairtrade system forces all middlemen to correct their prices, which is beneficial for non-
Fairtrade producers as well (Milford 2004). Apart from the above-stated, significant
monetary and non-monetary economic Fairtrade benefits, there are also the non-economic
ones which can be equally important and which will be elaborated on below.
Non-economic Fairtrade Benefits
I previously identified five non-economic Fairtrade benefits: from individual
empowerment, everyday improvements in living conditions and educational benefits for
183
Fairtrade producers' children, to organisational advancements, and the political and cultural
strengthening of communities.
Apart from psychological benefits of enhanced self-esteem, on the individual level,
Murray and his colleagues have pointed out in their comprehensive comparative analysis of
Fairtrade coffee growers in Latin America, that these have a sense of greater control over the
global value chains and that by getting to know their Northern partners, they develop a
"renewed pride in coffee farming" (2003, p.8). In Mexico, Fairtrade producer Isaías Martínez
has stated "[t]he most important contribution of the Fairtrade Labelling system is in my eyes
that our 'dignity as a human being' is recovered" (in Schmelzer 2006, p.30). This goes in line
with the conclusions of Chadi, a Fair Trade researcher and a former Communications
Manager at the Símbolo de Pequeños Productores - FUNDEPPO, who claims that the biggest
contribution of Fairtrade for the small-scale coffee Fairtrade producers on the ground is the
fact that now "[s]omeone believes in them" (2013, interview 10:22).
Fairtrade producers' physical surroundings are as important to their wellbeing as their
state of mind. In the previous section, I already presented a comprehensive debate about the
improvements in everyday living conditions that Mexican Fairtrade producers experience,
unlike their non-Fairtrade neighbours. Here, I will just re-state the notable differences in
housing between Fairtrade and non-Fairtrade producers: cement floors instead of dirt floors
and wooden beds, gas cooking stoves, TV sets and CD players, which are often nonexistent
in non-Fairtrade producers' homes (Celis 2013, interview and Jaffee 2007).
The final individual/family benefit stems from the insistence of the Fairtrade system
on Fairtrade producers children's education. According to Jaffee's research in Oaxaca, for
example, Fairtrade producer families have three times more children enrolled in
postsecondary schools than the families who are outside of the Fairtrade system, which is in
line with Murray and his colleagues (2003) and Lyon's (2006) findings on this issue.
184
All of the above-mentioned individual empowerments are augmented by the fact that
a Fairtrade producer is, at the same time, a member of a Fairtrade cooperative (Nicholls and
Opal 2005). Renard, one of the most influential and most experienced Fair Trade researchers
in the world (2013, interview and 2010), has claimed that democratisation inside Fairtrade
cooperatives is one of the really noticeable Fairtrade benefits. Another of my interviewees,
Perez Akaki identified benefits from organisation as one of the main things that Fairtrade
producers are getting from Fairtrade (2013, interview).
Apart from the fact that it is the Fairtrade system's pre-requirement, organising small-
scale producers into cooperatives has numerous advantages in and of itself. To begin with,
they are, as in the case of the Unión de Cooperativas Tosepan Titataniske, learning centres
offering Fairtrade, business, production and organisational know-how (Perez Akaki 2013,
interview). Secondly, because the small-scale producers' strength lies in numbers, through
cooperatives they behave like a big producer and appear as strong players on the market
(Martinez Senties 2013, interview).
Furthermore, Fairtrade cooperatives are facilitators of exports, since most of the
Fairtrade producers are aiming for foreign markets because "they are getting a better price
abroad" (Pocovi Garzon 2013, interview 11:25). The main export markets for Mexican
Fairtrade goods are the US and the EU (Perez Akaki 2013, interview). They are
predominantly certified by Fairtrade International (Chadi 2013, interview) and not by other
initiatives in the broader Fair Trade movement, or the newly founded Fair Trade USA.
Mexican Fairtrade cooperatives also offer their producers a chance to diversify
production. As poor and marginalised small-scale producers, they have neither the
opportunity, nor the resources, nor the risk taking potential to achieve this independently. By
contrast, the ISMAM and UCIRI have gradually introduced cocoa and honey production
alongside their main activity, i.e., growing coffee, and have further developed ecotourism
185
projects (Fridell 2007 and Utting-Chamorro 2005) or a roasting and packaging operation
(Milford 2004), because they had a strong producer organisation. Another way in which
many improved their production apart from production diversification is a switch to organic
production. Michiza's impressive Fairtrade sales figures, which exceed 80 percent of their
whole coffee production, are, to a large extent, due to the fact that their coffee is of top
quality, but also organic (Jaffee 2007, p.95).
Pruijn van Engelen inverts the causal relationship among organisation and increased
profit margins, thereby challenging the wide-ranging consensus among both the Fair Trade
literature and my other interviewees. He notes that Fairtrade did not bring organisational
advancements to Fairtrade producers. Rather, because they were excellently organised in the
first place, Fairtrade was able to thrive. "Fairtrade is so successful because farmers were so
well organised, farmers are often actually organising other parts of the Fairtrade system!
...Fairtrade was set in cooperatives which were, to begin with, well organised, hence, because
of their internal processes of organisation and their will to do more and to grow and go higher
up on the global value chains' ladder, they took an initiative and actively built [the] Fairtrade
label" (2013, interview 41:25). With this position in mind, it is also important to point out
that neither the Fair Trade literature, nor any of my interviewees, have pointed out that
Fairtrade has had a negative impact on small-scale producers' organisations.
The final Fairtrade benefit is important at the community, regional and even national
level. Milford (2004) found that due to their newly won power deriving from participation in
the Fairtrade system and all its accompanying benefits, Mexican Fairtrade producers, for
example, were able to lobby not only for political and policy changes which had a direct
impact on their production, but also for positive improvements in the national non-Fairtrade
coffee market as well. In Mexican coffee cooperatives, "the members became politicized
through their participation in the assemblies" (Schmelzer 2006, p.23), which is, as already
186
stated, one of the most important Fairtrade benefits according to Perez Akaki (2013,
interview). He argues that collaboration among producers facilitates collaboration with the
government as well, thereby forming new social ties and networks and getting the most from
the government, because they are now organised and have the knowledge how to deal with
the government (Ibid.). In the end, Murray and his colleagues' research (2003) found that in
the Fairtrade coffee communities they studied, Fairtrade also contributed to the latter's
cultural revival, especially by supporting ancestral farming practices, preserving rural ways
of life and bringing them closer to indigenous heritage.
In order to conclude this section, I will repeat again that my aim was to trace the
Fairtrade benefits and their impacts on Mexican Fairtrade producers, which I will use as the
lesson-drawing basis for the discussion in Chapter VII. This was undertaken to argue that the
above-stated Fairtrade benefits can be identified as important, although in different degrees
and in different ways, to Serbian poor and marginalised small-scale producers, recognising
the need for, and the possible advancements that Fairtrade can bring to them once Fairtrade
International's standards are changed and they are allowed to accede. This is, therefore, the
second lesson out of four, which will be drawn from my illustrative case studies, and used as
a foundation for debates in Serbian chapters VII and VIII.
In Chapter V, I presented my first illustrative case study, focused on the Mexican
Fairtrade system in general and on Mexican Fairtrade producers in particular. The more
general debate was followed by a very specific discussion about two features which I
identified as crucial lessons for my main case study on Serbia. Firstly, I put forward a
detailed discussion about Mexican Fairtrade producers' general poverty levels, business
187
challenges, state of their local infrastructure, social services and programmes, as well as
availability of national subsidies and developmental aid and issues connected with migrations
and demography. In this way, I identified their main characteristics and everyday realities in
order to set the scene for questioning the possibility for finding potential Fairtrade small-scale
producers in Serbia, which will be further discussed in Chapter VII.
In addition, I discussed the benefits Mexican Fairtrade producers receive from
Fairtrade, offering one of the most comprehensive summarisations ever presented in the Fair
Trade literature, based on critical analysis of the literature and my field research. These
advancements were presented in the form of a debate about twenty Fairtrade benefits, divided
into three groups, covering monetary, non-monetary economic and non-economic aspects.
I started with the two most famous monetary advantages, the Fairtrade minimum price
and the Fairtrade premium. I continued with thirteen different interconnected non-monetary
economic advancements, including improved access to market information, export markets
and pre-harvest/pre-production financing, contribution to better risk perceptions, increased
credibility and long term commitments and production stability. In addition, I also put
forward the enabling of technological improvements, the possibility to diversify production,
with special focus on organic farming, cutting the middlemen and positive influence on
conventional, non-Fairtrade markets. Finally, I identified five non-economic Fairtrade
benefits - individual empowerment, improvements in living conditions, educational benefits
for Fairtrade producers' children, organisational advancements and political and cultural
strengthening of communities. I aim to use these conclusions as the basis for arguing that all
Fairtrade benefits available to Mexican Fairtrade producers are also important for Serbian
poor and marginalised small-scale producers, which will be further discussed in Chapter VII
as well.
188
Therefore, the Mexican Chapter is the lesson-drawing base for answering the first
attendant research question - "To what extent can Serbian poor and marginalised small-scale
producers, currently excluded from the Fairtrade system partake in that system?", hence, the
basis for answering a part of the underlying research question focused on prospective
Fairtrade producers in Serbia. In this way, it is the empirical starting point which should be
seen as a key lesson-drawing element of my innovative comparison, together with the next
chapter on the UK. They will be the lesson-drawing base for my main case study on Serbia,
which will be presented in chapters VII and VIII. Consequently, the empirical part of my
doctoral thesis started with Chapter V, and will continue throughout the following three
chapters.
189
CHAPTER VI - LESSONS FROM THE UK FAIRTRADE SYSTEM
Following the discussion about my first referent object, Fairtrade producers, and with
them connected two lessons I identified as crucial for my main case study on Serbia, the
second illustrative case study will be put forward in the following chapter. Therefore, by
applying my theoretical and methodological frameworks, in Chapter VI, I will present the
UK Fairtrade system. This analysis will focus on my second and third referent objects, the
next two key links in Fairtrade global value chains, Fairtrade traders and consumers,
highlighting two further lessons which can be learned from them: Fairtrade mainstreaming
through supermarkets and Fairtrade campaigning.
As in the case of the previous chapter, in which I elaborated on Fairtrade diversity
from the Fairtrade producers' perspective, the same is clearly evident from the Fairtrade
traders and consumers' side, even from a brief comparison of Fairtrade systems, say, in Italy,
Belgium and the United Kingdom. In Italy, the most dominant players are 100% FTOs like
CTM Altromercato and radical Fairtrade consumers, however, their annual sales are very low,
amounting to less than €50 ($55.93, £36.34, RSD6,006.98) million (Doherty et al. 2013,
p.169). Moreover, Belgium has a rather unique outside-Fairtrade supporter organisation, the
Belgian Development Agency, which is financed by the Belgian government, according to
Steven De Craen, fair and sustainable trade officer at the Trade for Development Centre of
Belgium - BTC (2013, interview) and his colleague Samuel Poos (2013, interview). In
addition, the Belgian Fairtrade system is also exceptional in a sense that it consists of two
quite different Fairtrade structures, one in Flanders, and the other in Wallonia, according to
Evi Coremans, communication and campaign officer at the BTC (2013, interview).
Finally, the UK is the global Fairtrade trade and consumption champion, as already
stated in Chapter III. UK Fairtrade mainstreaming, especially through supermarkets, is in full
190
swing, with non-radical consumers buying Fairtrade products as a part of their everyday
shopping, according to McGechie (2013, interview). In addition, according to Bentley (2013,
interview), it has some of the strongest Fairtrade campaigners in the world. These are the
main reasons why I chose it as the lesson-drawing base for my main case study on Serbia.
The discussion about the UK Fairtrade system will start with a presentation of the
system itself, focusing on my second and third referent objects and key links in Fairtrade
global value chains, Fairtrade traders and consumers. Since this chapter, as well as the
previous one is an illustrative case study, the following two sections will present two further
lessons which will be the basis for my main case study on Serbia.
Firstly, I will focus on Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets, which is one of
the trademarks of the UK Fairtrade system and one of the main reasons of its Fairtrade
successes. At the same time, a mainstream supermarket was the initial, and today is the
dominant Serbian Fairtrade trading and consuming channel, therefore, the arguments
presented in this chapter will be the foundation for further discussion in one of the "Serbian
chapters" - Chapter VIII. Secondly, I will present UK Fairtrade campaigners, consisting of
the most aware UK Fairtrade consumers, again in order to establish a lesson-drawing base for
Serbia and its current radical Fairtrade consumers and proto-Fairtrade campaigners, which
will be further discussed in Chapter VIII as well.
The findings from the fieldwork conducted in the UK will be enhanced by
information gathered during the field research conducted in Belgium, which was also focused
on Fairtrade traders and consumers and from which I acquired a number of general insights
regarding these two topics. Together with the critical analysis of the Fair Trade literature
concerning the UK Fairtrade system, this will lay the foundation for my conclusions
presented in this chapter.
191
Therefore, the "UK Chapter" will form the lesson-drawing base for answering the
second attendant research question - "What is the current situation and what are the potentials
for further development of Serbian Fairtrade trade and consumption?" and consequently, a
base for answering a part of my underlying research question focused on Fairtrade traders and
consumers in Serbia. In this way, this chapter should be seen as another key element of my
innovative comparison which, together with the previous chapter focused on Mexico, will be
the lesson-drawing base for discussions regarding my main case study, Serbia, which will be
presented in chapters VII and VIII.
6.1. Fairtrade System in the United Kingdom
The history of Fairtrade in the UK starts with the creation of the Fairtrade Foundation
in 1992. According to Fairtrade supporters, its avant-garde and progressive character
immediately came to the fore, given the fact that it was the first national Fairtrade
organisation to introduce a label (back then, the Fair Trade Mark) in April 1993, without
actually any product carrying it (Lamb 2008, p.58). Fairtrade consumers in the UK had to
wait for a whole year for the first Fairtrade product, Green & Black's Maya Gold Chocolate,
made with cocoa from Belize, to be labelled on March 7, 1994. The first Fairtrade tea by
Clipper Teas and Fairtrade coffee by Cafédirect soon followed (Ibid. pp. 60-61).
Cafédirect itself is a very important Fairtrade trader, not only as a Fairtrade coffee
pioneer, but also due to the fact that "[u]nlike other alternative trading organisations (ATOs),
Cafédirect aimed to compete directly with mainstream coffee suppliers and was run as a "for-
profit" company" (Alexander and Nicholls 2006, p.1242). This approach in itself is yet
another argument for the "existing together with and in order to change the market"
perspective that I promote. This is especially true when it is considered from the first aspect
192
of the framework, i.e. the necessity for any food business to grow in order to survive in the
medium and long run, as discussed in Chapter II (see p.53). Inseparable from this novel
approach to the sales of alternative and fairly traded products is the second early
characteristic of the UK Fairtrade system, i.e. immediate interest and support from the
mainstream retailers, chiefly from the Co-operative Food/Co-op (Bentley 2013, interview and
Doherty 2008) and Sainsbury's (Low and Davenport 2006, p.320).
Furthermore, during the years following the introduction of the first Fairtrade
products, no Fairtrade advancements would have been possible save for the proactive
involvement of Fairtrade campaigners and their continuous capacity building, lobbying,
campaigning and educational work (see more in Davies 2009, Hartlieb and Jones 2009,
Doherty and Tranchell 2007 and others). Therefore, all UK Fairtrade achievements are
largely due to the work of a group of committed individuals, many of which are a part of
what Alexander and Nicholls call the initial strongly ethical segment (2006). They comprise
around 5% of the population who are Fairtrade natural supporters, the radical Fairtrade
consumers (Ibid., p.1243).
From the 2000s onward, the Fairtrade system in the UK experienced the strongest
Fairtrade development, mainstreaming and campaigning. From a late starter, Fairtrade in the
UK evolved into the second largest global Fairtrade market, surpassing the US in 2008 to
become the global Fairtrade champion. During this phase, according to Alexander and
Nicholls (Ibid.), Fairtrade consumers from two further groups joined the Fairtrade system.
They originated, firstly, from the "'conscientious consumer'" segment... ...account[ing] for
about 18 per cent" (Ibid.) and secondly, from the "I do what I can" group, comprising nearly
50% of population (Ibid., pp.1244-1245).
Regarding Fairtrade traders, in 2004, another big supermarket, Marks & Spencer
entered into the Fairtrade system by switching to Fairtrade all coffee sold in their cafés, and
193
Tesco, which introduced a whole range of its own labelled Fairtrade products. Two years
later, again Marks & Spencer switched all of its coffee and tea to Fairtrade, "leading to a
jump of 18 per cent in national Fairtrade sales of coffee and 30 per cent in tea... without
raising prices - taking a hit on their margins but picking up extra overall sales of 6 per cent
since the switch" (Lamb 2008, pp.72-73).
Three additional events are crucial to the comprehension of the scale of Fairtrade
mainstreaming through supermarkets during this period. These are Sainsbury and Waitrose's
2007 switch to exclusive sales of Fairtrade bananas, the 2008 Co-op's grand switch of all of
their own-label hot beverages to Fairtrade, with Sainsbury's following suit with their own-
label roast and ground coffee in 2009. All of these developments led to the situation that
today supermarkets "'pull' Fair Trade products through the system whereas there was a
requirement in the early days to 'push' products to obtain listings" (Moore et al. 2006, p.338).
Consequently, for an imaginary Fairtrader, who would travel through time from the
year 1994 to the year 2014, the Fairtrade system in the UK would be unrecognisable. The
twenty-year-old, mature UK Fairtrade system is currently worth more than €2 billion in sales,
enjoying a steady 10-20% annual growth (Fairtrade International 2014a) and nearly 10,000
'mini marchers' including celebrities, who "went" to Parliament Square during Fairtrade
Fortnight 2013 (Mccann 2013). In absolute terms, both the real and the potential power and
influence of Fairtrade in the UK is considerable, an impression further confirmed when the
data is put in relative terms. According to the Fairtrade Foundation, for example, "one in
every three bananas sold in the UK is Fairtrade... 44 per cent of bagged sugar sold in the UK
is Fairtrade certified... [and] 25 per cent of all roast and ground retail coffee in the UK is
Fairtrade certified" (Fairtrade Foundation 2014a).
Moreover, the contemporary UK Fairtrade system consists of "380 companies
licensed to sell FT and 17 certified FT product categories available, which amounts to over
194
4,000 actual products" (Karjalainen and Moxham 2012, p.268). The second important part
are Fairtrade consumers, and in the UK, more than 90% of those consumers who recognise
the Fairtrade Mark have confidence in it, making it one of the most trustworthy ethical labels
in the UK (GlobeScan Survey in Fairtrade International 2013a, p.12), further evidencing that
care can be given a substance, as discussed in the section 2.3. on caring across spaces.
In addition, as a crucial part of the UK Fairtrade system, it is important to present the
Fairtrade Foundation, the UK's NFO, which functions simultaneously as the Fairtrade
authority in the UK (Doherty et al. 2013, p.163), as well as the UK Fairtrade campaigning
hub. Finally, there are Fairtrade campaigners who, according to Doherty and his colleagues,
have already achieved many of their promises, succeeding in educating Northern consumers
about commodity trading and unfair trade practices (Ibid., p.178). When all of this is taken
into account, it comes as no surprise that the UK is described as having "the most dynamic
Fairtrade market in the world" (Hartlieb and Jones 2009, p.584), and why this came to be the
case.
6.2. Lesson 3: Fairtrade Mainstreaming Through Supermarkets in the United Kingdom
Not only have past UK Fairtrade developments depended on the above-presented
bases, as do contemporary ones, but future Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets,
supported by the Fairtrade campaigners, remains, in my opinion, the way forward for both the
Fairtrade system in general and individual national Fairtrade systems in particular. Bentley
supports this idea in stating that "Fairtrade development depends on continuing support of
campaigners and supermarkets" (2013, interview 36:24). Consequently, these two topics will
be further discussed in this and the following section. They will be the lesson-drawing
foundation on which I will build my conclusions in Chapter VIII in regard to Serbian
195
Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets, as well as pioneering Serbian consumers and
proto-Fairtrade campaigners.
UK Fairtrade Traders
As already stated in Chapter III, Fairtrade products are sold to the Fairtrade certified
traders upon production. Among the group of Fairtrade traders, however, there is a number of
subgroups, with companies focused only on one segment of trade, or covering a number of
them. In addition, there is the already-discussed (see p.152) difference between their
commitment to Fairtrade, i.e. in the degree of their Fairtradeness. Again, given the fact that
my focus is on big supermarkets selling Fairtrade products in the UK, the general discussion
about Fairtrade traders in the UK will be brief.
Before I continue, I will state that the classification presented below is an
amalgamation consisting of the categorisations already presented in the Fair Trade literature
(see more in: Doherty et al. 2013, Davies 2009, Doherty and Tranchell 2007, Low and
Davenport 2005a and 2005b and others), but also, including an original addition: degrees of
Fairtradeness. Hence, I will mark Fairtrade traders with higher or lower Fairtradeness,
depending on their Fairtrade commitment.
The 100% Fairtrade traders were, and to a certain extent still are the foundation of
the UK Fairtrade system. They have the highest Fairtradeness, since their raison d'être is
Fairtrade. They base their business practices solely on Fairtrade principles and their range is
founded on Fairtrade products. In the UK, an exemplar is Cafédirect, a Fairtrade trader Smith
and Barrientos identified as one of "the most prominent" (2005, p.196). This is a company
that can be seen as market transformative (Low and Davenport 2006, p.324). Its partial
ownership by Fairtrade producers (Smith and Barrientos 2005, p.196), as well as a peak 60%
196
reinvestment of its profits through its "Producer Partnership Programme" (Smith 2010,
p.261), going beyond current Fairtrade standards and offering what many Fair Trade
practitioners call "Fairtrade+" (Fairtrade supporter conference 2013, 2012 and 2011), render
it even more so.
Therefore, under my classification, Cafédirect has the highest Fairtradeness. Although
not flawless (see more critiques in Davies 2009, p.122), as the Fairtrade system is neither,
together with other 100% Fairtrade traders, it remains a standard-bearer of the movement.
Hence, the 100% Fairtrade traders' ethics are not the main source of concern, but the "need to
identify further sources of growth, gain credibility with consumers through better quality
monitoring and find the balance between business and advocacy in their operations"
(Kasterine 2006, p.18), especially when confronted with other Fairtrade traders.
Following Davies' categorisation (2009, p.111), the next two subgroups of Fairtrade
traders are "fair trade adopters" like Clipper Teas, and "fair trade branders" like Nestlé.
Regarding the first subgroup, if concentrated only on the part related to Fairtrade products,
these Fairtrade traders stand side by side with 100% Fairtrade companies. However, given the
fact that they are seldom Fairtrade+, and since they often have a dominant non-Fairtrade
palette of products, under my classification, they will have lower Fairtradeness than the 100%
Fair Trade traders.
The situation becomes more complicated with the second subgroup, i.e. "fair trade
branders" like Nestlé. Nestlé's initial motivation to start using the Fairtrade certification was
quite radical, since in 2005 it was globally labelled as the "least responsible company"
(Schmelzer 2006, p.33). Their sales of Fairtrade products gravitate around 1% (Ibid.) and
Doherty and Tranchell have stated that their Partners Blend "makes up only 0.2 per cent of its
coffee range" (2007, p.698). The vast majority of the other Fairtrade sales go to Nestlé's
Fairtrade Kit Kat (Doherty et al. 2013, p.175).
197
Although Nestlé does not have a very high Fairtrade reputation (Renard 2013,
interview), and, at the moment, together with other "fair trade branders" can be seen as
having even lower Fairtradeness, it is important to say that like Cafédirect, for the above
stated products, it has to meet all Fairtrade International's standards in order to be certified.
As an argument for their further inclusion, Wouters, a stakeholder and policy manager at the
Fairtrade Max Havelaar Belgium, stated the following. Unlike many who will just say that
they do not want to work with big companies because of their previous and current bad
reputation and business practices, the Fairtrade system tries to include them and change them
from within (2013, interview), gradually raising their Fairtrade commitment. This is again in
line with my position of Fairtrade existing together with and in order to change the market,
now from the second and third aspect, Fairtrade mainstreaming and the relational nature of
Fairtrade global value chains, theoretically discussed in Chapter II.
Supermarkets as Fairtrade Traders in the UK
Although crucial for the initial development of the Fairtrade system in the United
Kingdom and very important for its future, the previously presented Fairtrade traders are less
significant for the current Fairtrade system in Serbia, although they offer valuable lessons for
its future development. Therefore, big UK supermarkets selling Fairtrade products, with
Fairtrade global value chains 2, 3 and 5 in the base of their Fairtrade business practices, are of
the utmost importance to my doctoral research, due to their lesson-drawing potential. They
were already theoretically discussed above, through Gereffi's global value chain analytical
framework applied by Doherty and his colleagues (Doherty et al. 2013, pp.170-171).
As in the case of the previous Fairtrade traders, according to Smith there is a
"considerable variation in UK supermarket approaches in terms of scale and scope of
198
commitment to Fairtrade and in the nature of relationships with Fairtrade suppliers. In some
cases, supermarket involvement has the potential both to expand and deepen the impact of
Fairtrade, whereas in others it threatens to undermine the ability of Fairtrade to support long-
term processes of development" (2010, p.257). Therefore, due to the different levels of their
commitment to Fairtrade, i.e. the degree of their Fairtradeness, the variety of this third
category of Fairtrade traders will be illustrated next.
I will present UK supermarkets selling Fairtrade products by referring to the exemplar
business practices and to ones which should be avoided. I will base my conclusion below,
firstly, on the work of a number of authors (Doherty et al. 2013, Smith 2010, Nicholls 2010,
Low and Davenport 2006, Renard 2003, Beder 2000 and others). Secondly, it will be based
on my numerous interviews (McGechie 2013, interview, Bentley 2013, interview, Wouters
2013, interview, Veillard 2013, interview, Pauwels 2013, interview, Perez Akaki 2013,
interview, Chadi 2013, interview, Quijano 2013, interview and Renard 2013, interview).
Before I continue, I will clearly define the concept of Fairtrade mainstreaming
through supermarkets, which is at the centre of discussion. I will follow the definition offered
by Hartlieb and Jones: "The unprecedented growth of labelling initiatives and the fact that
they are to a large extent driven by retailers is the core of the so-called 'mainstreaming'
phenomenon... Mainstreaming therefore describes the move of 'ethical' products, mainly
'organics' and fair trade, out of their alternative niche into mainstream distribution
channels - or, in other words, from farm, whole foods and independent 'ethical' retailers
onto the supermarket shelves" (2009, p.596).
199
Supermarket Practices to Look Up To
I have previously identified a number of positive impacts which Fairtrade
mainstreaming through supermarkets has ushered in, and I will now discuss them in detail,
presenting as well the standard-bearer among the UK supermarkets selling Fairtrade products,
Co-op.
To begin with, this approach can boost Fairtrade annual growth and consumers'
spending per capita, positively influencing overall Fairtrade sales. In line with my points are
numerous Fairtrade practitioners and academics like Pauwels (2013, interview), Smith
(2010), Doherty (2008), Teather (2006) and Krier (2005). "Much of the growth in Fairtrade
over the last decade is a result of supermarket retailing of both independent Fairtrade brands
and supermarket "own brand" goods. For example, a survey of Fairtrade sales in 25 European
countries found that 56,700 of the 78,900 "points of sale" were supermarkets (FINE 2005),
and just three retail chains accounted for approximately 43% of the UK's Fairtrade sales in
2006" (Smith 2010, p.257).
Secondly, according to Pauwels, supermarkets are not only a way of augmenting
Fairtrade sales, but also of initiating (2013, interview). In addition, according to Wouters,
mainstreaming leads to another positive impact on Fairtrade sales. "When a brand, for
example, a brand that you really like, one day becomes Fairtrade you will continue buying it.
You might not realise that it is Fairtrade, but you will continue buying it" (2013, interview
15:36, audio 1).
Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets can also lead to the development of
relational Fairtrade global value chains, and with this connected encouragement for
cooperation between Fairtrade producers and traders, as well as with consumers, genuinely
leading to "a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect" (Fairtrade
200
International and WFTO 2011, p.1). The above-stated examples of interconnections between
Fairtrade campaigners and supermarkets selling Fairtrade products are the first part of the
explanation, although, according to McGechie, the Fairtrade traders in general and especially
people working with Fairtrade in these companies want to have ethical business case as well
(2013, interview). An excellent example of a Fairtrade-prone employee is certainly Pauwels,
sustainable private brand manager at the Delhaize Group, who responded to my question
regarding seeing switches of entire product categories to Fairtrade with: "That is my dream!"
(2013, interview 22:45).
Moreover, this approach can offer a clear confirmation that Fairtrade is a serious
option for all mainstream food businesses by showing that it is a concept widely accepted by
consumers. Also, it is an excellent way to introduce Fairtrade to new consumers, and to
further educate them. "[S]upermarkets have a very important role in educating [consumers]...
and making them understand what is Fairtrade" (Ibid. 15:30).
In addition, with mainstreaming, Fairtrade can exit from more than one niche and
enter other sectors' mainstreams, most importantly, the media. The best example of how
important this is for the development of Fairtrade in any national setting is the negative
example of failed general mainstreaming in Mexico, which led to poor Fairtrade sales.
According to Perez Akaki, Comercio Justo México failed to win big supermarkets over, but it
also failed to communicate with mainstream media and other conventional business groups
(2013, interview).
Finally, Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets can lead to the possibility of
building even more recognisable and influential Fairtrade brands. This need not necessarily
have to come at additional costs to Fairtrade consumers, because, according to McGechie,
especially supermarkets can withstand hits to their gross margins (2013, interview).
201
Positive aspects of Fairtrade mainstreaming
1. Boosting Fairtrade sales
2. Introducing Fairtrade to new consumers
3. Developing relational Fairtrade global value chains
4. Confirming that Fairtrade is a serious option
5. Stronger media presence
6. Building more recognisable and influential Fairtrade brands
Table 19. Six positive aspects of Fairtrade mainstreaming.
Co-op
Following the detailed presentation of the general merits of Fairtrade mainstreaming
through supermarkets, I will present an exemplar UK supermarket in terms of its
Fairtradeness, Co-op. To begin with, in its 3,000 stores (Doherty 2008, p.205) it stocks a
range of 151 Fairtrade products. To put this number in relative perspective, in comparable
stores, Co-op stocks 50 Fairtrade products, unlike, for example, Tesco, which stocks 3 (Ibid.,
p.216). Furthermore, regarding the overall Fairtrade sales, Co-op ranks second £20.5 ($31.55,
€28.21, RSD3,388.56) million, compared to Sainsbury's £53 ($81.56, €72.92, RSD8,760.66)
million (Smith 2010, p.259). However, it is important to point out that these figures can be
misleading due to the fact that in relative terms they represent, in the case of Sainsbury's,
0.3% of its total retail sales, while in the case of Co-op, they represent 0.7% of their total
sales (Ibid.).
Smith also points out that another key indicator of a supermarket's devotion to
Fairtrade is the number of its own entire brand product categories converted to Fairtrade. The
reason for this is that "[i]f, for whatever reason, the source of that Fairtrade products dries up,
or the quality is unsatisfactory, it is relatively easy for the supermarket to replace it with an
alternative. In contrast, when a supermarket switches an entire product category to Fairtrade
it has to make a far greater investment in ensuring there will be a reliable source of supply
202
year round" (Ibid., p.260). In this respect Co-op was the pioneer and it is a contemporary
leader.
In addition, a number of Co-op's Fairtrade features strongly distinguish it from other
UK supermarkets. Firstly, it is the trailblazer of Fairtrade mainstreaming through
supermarkets, supporting the movement from the very start (Bentley 2013, interview), and
actually, already in 1998 deciding to "embark upon a strategy to take fair trade out of the
niche and into the mainstream" (Doherty 2008, p.206). In addition, it has a very Fairtrade
supportive society with over four million members (Ibid., p.212).
Furthermore, Co-op was the standard-bearer of the process of teaming up with 100%
Fairtrade traders, and their partnership with Divine Chocolate (formerly Day Chocolate) is
still the norm for the whole Fairtrade system (see more in Davies 2009, p.118). Co-op
accepted Divine Chocolate's additional, "Fairtrade+" development fee within the margin they
paid the latter (Doherty 2008, p.214), and agreed not to replace Divine Chocolate's Fairtrade
products with their own, thereby preventing the cannibalisation of their sales (Ibid.). Also, it
has "flexible payment terms at critical stock flow periods, shared promotional costs, no
requirement to pay listing fees and... invest[s]... in fair trade marketing communications...
[which] is in contrast to the practices highlighted by authors who are critical of the way
supermarkets treat suppliers" (Ibid.). Therefore, this partnership in particular shows that the
above-stated positive Fairtrade practices are possible. However, they are currently ignored by
most supermarkets in the UK and worldwide.
There are two final positive examples of the Co-operative's Fairtrade practices.
Firstly, it has appointed "a dedicated person called the fair trade work stream leader" (Ibid.,
p.217). Secondly, it helps Fairtrade promotion by "including producing campaigning
materials to enable Co-operative members to promote Fairtrade in their communities and
paying for Fairtrade producers to travel to the UK on promotional tours" (Smith 2010, p.260),
203
hence both educating and re-connecting different parts of the Fairtrade system, as
theoretically explained in the section 2.3. on caring across spaces.
Finally, although an exemplar Fairtrade trader, the Co-operative cannot, at present
attain the highest Fairtradeness. Neither is Fairtrade the Co-operative's raison d'être, nor does
the majority of its product palette comprise Fairtrade. Smith and Barrientos question the real
dedication of Fairtrade traders like the Co-operative with lower market shares who are always
"eager to differentiate themselves amongst more exacting consumers" (2005, p.196).
Nonetheless, due to the all above-mentioned positive aspects, in my opinion, the Co-
operative tends towards high Fairtradeness, especially if they keep their promise and in the
nearest future convert everything that can be Fairtrade to Fairtrade (Bentley 2013, interview).
Anti-Fairtrade Supermarket Practices
Although large mainstream supermarkets can attain higher Fairtradeness, both
Fairtrade practitioners and scholars (Bentley 2013, interview, Renard 2013, interview, Smith
2010, Blythman 2004, Lawrence 2004 and others) are equally right when warning about the
possible downsides of Fairtrade mainstreaming.
Supermarkets' most problematic anti-Fairtrade exercise, the circumvention of
Fairtrade rules and regulations, is a common practice worldwide, not excluding the UK. In
general, this does not imply a blatant breach of the Fairtrade standards, but creative ways of
sidestepping them. All supermarkets will follow the first monetary condition of the Fairtrade
system and pay the Fairtrade price. However, in doing so, they will, firstly, try to achieve
only the minimum Fairtrade price, arguing that it is already a sustainable price (a problem
widely identified at the Fairtrade Supporter Conference 2013 and by Chadi 2013, interview).
204
Furthermore, for the vast majority of Fairtrade products, supermarkets are not
Fairtrade licensed to begin with, while their suppliers are (Doherty 2008, p.210). On the one
side, this hands their suppliers a certain amount of bargaining power, however, at the same
time, it gives supermarkets far more freedom and manoeuvring space when negotiating with
their suppliers, be they Fairtrade traders or producers (Smith 2010, p.261).
The fact that long-term trade relations, which constitute the essence of Fairtrade, are
not compulsory for big supermarkets to maintain in a majority of their product categories, is
further indicative of this ambiguity. Regrettably for the Fairtrade system, which actually
allows this practice, Reed has unearthed a number of contracts lasting for one mere growing
season (2009). This is connected with Smith's observation that any type of long-term
commitment is out of the question for a number of big supermarkets (2010). This is
especially problematic in the view of Fairtrade campaigners, and as Bentley puts in her
interview, it is "very unsettling" (2013 06:26, audio 2).
The second major issue with Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets is the
question of final pricing. Even though it is true that the supermarkets have to respect the
Fairtrade minimum price, the Fairtrade rules and regulations are not preventing them from
raising their margins, and consequently, the final price as well, affording them room to
exploit their Fairtrade consumers. Fairtrade practitioners differ with scholars on this point,
with some of the former claiming that the supermarkets are taking hit on their margins
(McGechie 2013, interview and Lamb 2008), with latter pointing out that on every $2.74 cost
on six banana pack, for example, Sainsbury's is earning $2 (Schmelzer 2006, p.24). This
disparity may or may not exemplify a difference between earlier and current practices of the
supermarkets selling Fairtrade products, hence, both sides may be right simultaneously.
However, it represents a potential regression and is therefore subsequently mentioned here.
205
Thirdly, supermarkets' own-label Fairtrade products have the potential to cannibalise
and undercut the sales of other Fairtrade traders' brand, an issue most clearly identified by
Traidcraft's speakers at their Spring Roadshow and Campaigns Workshop (2012). My
interviewees showed the same concerns, when saying that this practice can lead to the
situation where supermarkets are closing 100% FTOs (Bentley 2013, interview) and pushing
them out of business (Veillard 2013, interview).
The next issue that the Fairtrade supporters are identifying as problematic is "silent"
de-listing. "De-listings occur when a supermarket decides that a product is no longer worth
the shelf-space it occupies and would be better employed stocking another product. These are
a regular feature of supermarket activity" (Moore et al. 2006, p.350). Hence, there is always
the possibility for a supermarket to de-list a Fairtrade product due to the inefficiency of a
particular Fairtrade global value chain (Schmelzer 2006).
From a Fairtrade campaigners' point of view, de-listing is especially problematic
when carried out without advance notice or with no notification at all, hence, "silently". For
example, Asda de-listed Cafédirect and replaced it with Rainforest Alliance own-labelled
coffee (Doherty et al. 2013, pp.175-176), and Marks & Spencer recently switched from
Fairtrade cotton, which was part of their Plan A (to which there is no alternative, according to
company statement). However, as Bentley has stated, it seems that now they have a Plan B, C
and D which are far less Fairtrade (2013, interview). Silent switches and de-listing pose a
severe challenge to Fairtrade in that they impede understanding as to what has been de-listed,
as well as finding an effective remedy when the actual degradation has been fully identified
(Ibid.). Such moves further induce the risk of causing a ripple effect, as supermarkets monitor
each others' activity closely (Ibid.).
The penultimate problem directly connected to Fairtrade mainstreaming through
supermarkets is the ability of supermarkets to capture all reputational gains by selling, for
206
example, Agrofair fruits as their own Fairtrade brands (Poos 2013, interview and Smith 2010,
p.258). Even though the majority of supermarket-labelled Fairtrade products are not their
own, they market themselves as "Fairtrade" in this way. Therefore, not changing their
business strategies, they are nevertheless identified as progressive (Renard 2003). In itself,
though very problematic for any Fairtrade supporter, this issue can lead to a far bigger
problem, again identified by Bentley, as supermarkets with a Fairtrade image can
subsequently de-list some Fairtrade products (2013, interview).
Finally, Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets may lead to increase in false
confidence that Fairtrade is everywhere and with it connected fall in interest for Fairtrade
campaigning.
Negative aspects of Fairtrade mainstreaming

1. Circumvention of Fairtrade rules and regulations
2. Final overpricing
3. Cannibalisation of sales of 100% Fairtrade companies
4. Silent de-listing
5. Capturing of reputational gains
6. Increase in false confidence
Table 20. Six common risks of Fairtrade mainstreaming.
To conclude, Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets in the United Kingdom
was the third lesson out of four which will be drawn from my illustrative case studies. As the
previous two and the next one, it will be used as a foundation for debates in Serbian chapters
VII and VIII.
6.3. Lesson 4: Fairtrade Campaigning in the United Kingdom
Following the presentation of the UK Fairtrade traders in general, and the big UK
supermarkets selling Fairtrade products and the process of Fairtrade mainstreaming through
207
them in particular (both in terms of opportunities and risks), the third section will present the
UK Fairtrade consumers, with the special focus on the ones with the highest Fairtradeness,
i.e. the ones who are at the same time Fairtrade campaigners as well. As already explained,
these two topics will be discussed together due to the fact that Fairtrade campaigners are, at
the same time, Fairtrade consumers while conversely, in the UK, as well as in many other
Fairtrade markets, the first Fairtrade consumers were simultaneously the first Fairtrade
campaigners (Alexander and Nicholls 2006). This trend endures and the first Fairtrade
consumers and campaigners in Serbia are often depicted in the same person (Djuraskovic
2013, interview and Jovanic 2013, interview). This section will therefore offer the final
lesson-drawing base for my main case study, Serbia.
UK Fairtrade Consumers
In sections on caring across spaces and Fairtrade relational global value chains, I have
already demonstrated that the Fairtrade system's unique feature is the fact that the power over
its global value chains is also in the hands of Fairtrade consumers and campaigners
(Karjalainen and Moxham 2012). This has led some of the scholars to go as far as claiming
that the Fairtrade system is not a "consumer-led", but a "consumer-dependent" movement
(Lyon 2006, p.456 and Goodman 2004, p.901). This could be seen both as potentially
progressive or regressive. In either case, it underscores the importance of the final referent
object of my doctoral thesis and the final link in Fairtrade global value chains.
According to my findings (Pauwels 2013, interview, Veillard 2013, interview,
Wouters 2013, interview, Perez Akaki 2013, interview, for example), an average global
Fairtrade consumer resembles an average UK Fairtrade consumer in many respects
208
(McGechie 2013, interview, Bentley 2013, interview, Fairtrade Supporter Conferences 2013,
2012, 2011, Bondy and Talwar 2011 and Watson 2007 and 2006).
My interviewees indicate that both are motivated by ethical factors, especially
compassionate sensations regarding the poor and the marginalised, asking themselves about
the future of the world. In addition, s/he cares for others, across both geographical, but also
social and economic spaces, and sees differences as less important when compared with
similarities, as theoretically explored in Chapter II (see pp.81-85, sections "How Far Should
We Care for Others" and "Human Sameness and Difference"). On average, s/he is either
middle-aged with children, or an older person, exhibiting a wide range of educational
attainment, with a tendency towards medium and higher income categories (Ibid.). However,
although my empirical findings are analytically useful and presently, one of the most
updated, an average Fairtrade consumer as an analytical unit masks a more complex reality,
one that prevails particularly in the UK.
In line with my point are Bondy and Talwar (2011), Alexander and Nicholls (2006),
Moore and his colleagues (Moore et al. 2006), Schmelzer (2006) and Cowe and Williams
(2000) identifying three different groups of Fairtrade consumers. Firstly, the "radical"
Fairtraders, secondly, the "conscientious consumer", who are more "self-actualising" and
"lifestyle-oriented" and thirdly, the partially involved - "do-what-I-cans". All three groups are
analysed in the next section together with the fourth, which is my addition, and which
consists of consumers who are currently not buying Fairtrade products. Technically, this is
obviously not a group of Fairtrade consumers. However, their reasons for their lack of
involvement and of conscious purchase of Fairtrade products are interesting for my main case
study, thereby meriting discussion.
I will begin with the strongest supporters of Fairtrade, the radical Fairtraders
(Alexander and Nicholls 2006), which are a part of the "global watchdogs" and "ethical
209
hardliners" (Cowe and Williams 2000, p.32). They represent up to 5% of the UK population
(Alexander and Nicholls 2006, p.1243), they were the initial Fairtrade adopters and
campaigners (Bentley 2013, interview) and their Fairtradeness is the highest.
According to Watson, they represent consumers who entered the market for Fairtrade
product consciously and out of "altruistic desire to do the right thing by the distant stranger
who made the product" (2006, p. 445), consciously caring about the ones who are far from
them geographically, economically and socially, as theoretically explained in the section 2.3.
on caring across spaces. Moreover, Doherty and his colleagues stated that they mainly buy
Fairtrade products coming from the already discussed Fairtrade global value chain 1, hence,
buying through solidarity channels (Doherty and Davies et al. 2013, p.176). However, what
they do not mention is that this category regularly buy Fairtrade products in supermarkets as
well, especially if they come through relational Fairtrade global value chains 2 and 3 (Bentley
2013, interview) that are in my research focus.
In addition, the majority of the members of this group are "recession proof",
according to Bondy and Talwar's research (2011, p.376), given the fact that 92% of their
interviewees identified as "active" Fairtrade consumers indicated that during the recession the
"ethics has not decreased in importance. This implies that while price has likely increased in
importance over other product variables, such as quality and value, when ethical criteria are
present, such as when fair trade alternatives exist, ethical considerations maintain a dominant
role" (Ibid.).
The second group of Fairtrade consumers in the UK are the ones which Watson
identified as entrants with "some altruistic desire to do the right thing" (2006, p.445), ready to
pay more, but very reluctant to sacrifice product quality for an ethical feature (Auger et al.
2003). These are conscientious Fairtrade consumer and they are a part of the group which
"account for about 18 per cent of the population and clearly offered a significant opportunity
210
for market expansion" (Alexander and Nicholls 2006, p.1243), representing a more self-
actualising group, with a stronger lifestyle approach (Ibid.).
In addition, many of these, more "occasional" Fairtrade consumers are, according to
Bondy and Talwar, far less resistant to recession (2011, p.369), hence, prone to reduction of
Fairtrade consumption in times of crises, precisely in times when their support is most
needed. Empirical researchers point out that these consumers are also "buying themselves a
good conscience" (Varul and Wilson-Kovacs 2008, p.10).
However, in order not to limit the growth of the Fairtrade system in the UK, these
Fairtrade consumers have to be included as well. They were, and still are, important not only
to Fairtrade mainstreamers like supermarkets but also, maybe surprisingly, and contrary to
what the Fair Trade literature is saying, to the 100% Fairtrade companies as well. Veillard
confirmed this clearly during our interview when he said that Oxfam's world shops have to
evolve and to offer, apart from the strong ethics, high quality products and appealing
marketing in order to attract other, non-radical Fairtrade buyers (2013, interview). In
addition, they have to be further educated, because Fairtrade education is the precondition for
giving care a substance through the Fairtrade system (as stated in the section "The Role of
Education", see pp.85-86).
The final group of Fairtrade consumers in the UK identified by the literature, thus far,
represents a part of 50% of the UK population (Alexander and Nicholls 2006, pp.1244-1245),
which Cowe and Williams call the do-what-I-cans (2000), hence, the Fairtrade consumers
coming from this group are truly "occasional" Fairtrade consumers (Bondy and Talwar
2011).
They are almost exclusively buying Fairtrade products in mainstream businesses,
being either supermarkets or companies like Starbucks. Conversely, they almost never buy
through the Fairtrade global value chain one, and seldom through the Fairtrade global value
211
chains two and three, while not excluding any of the other, undesirable Fairtrade global value
chains (4-7) where propensity for co-optation, dilution or capture is the highest, as already
theoretically discussed in Chapter II. This is the reason why both radical and conscientious
Fairtraders "frown upon... [them] for having the wrong motives" (Bondy and Talwar 2011,
p.369) and why Doherty and his colleagues call them passive Fairtrade consumers (Doherty
et al. 2013, p.177).
That being said, it is important to remind ourselves again that even an average,
mainstream consumer is far from being completely passive (Leslie and Reimer 1999), as
already discussed in section focused on the key elements of the global food system (see
pp.65-67). Also, Fairtrade mainstreaming, especially through supermarkets has led to the
situation where now even a completely mainstream consumer can relate to Fairtrade
(McGechie 2013, interview). This has opened a substantial window of opportunity for the
growth of future Fairtrade sales, especially when supported by increased awareness and
Fairtrade education as already mentioned.
Following the presentation of all three groups of Fairtrade consumers, I will conclude
with the introduction of the final group of UK consumers (hence, coming from around 27%
of the population), which I will identify as potential Fairtrade consumers.
Through my critical analysis and fieldwork, I discovered numerous reasons why UK
consumers avoid buying Fairtrade products. I will start with disbelievers, who simply do not
trust the Fairtrade mark. Even one of the strongest Fairtrade academic supporters claims that
"consumers might be excused for being sceptical" (Jaffee 2007, p.202). Therefore, the only
way for these consumers to be included is for the Fairtrade campaigners to find new
approaches to assure them and for the Fairtrade system to deliver what it promises while
continuously evolving ethically (Fairtrade Supporter Conferences 2013, 2012 and 2011).
212
Moving on to the second subgroup, consisting of the local-supporters, who either find
that buying ethically is buying British (Adams and Raisborough 2010, p.267), or that the air
miles are simply ecologically unacceptable (Ibid., p.264). These consumers can be easily
included with the introduction of UK Fairtrade production.
I continue with those consumers interested in healthy eating who find that some of the
Fairtrade products, regardless of their ethical origin, are simply not particularly healthy to eat
or drink, like chocolate or coffee (Fairtrade Supporter Conferences 2013, 2012 and 2011).
Their involvement is not morally problematic, hence, if the Fairtrade system continues to
introduce new products, especially in the healthy eating category, their resistance will soften.
Finally, I will finish with the self-centred, "what is in it for me" consumers. From an
elite interview, Alexander and Nicholls found that "a more mainstream consumer who is
primarily interested in what's in it for me; it's got to be the quality and the price" (Sylvie Barr
in Alexander and Nicholls 2006, p.1243).
To maintain the radical Fairtraders' interest, to educate and raise awareness among
more or less mainstream and active Fairtrade consumers and to find the new ways of
inspiring the uninvolved are the future tasks of the Fairtrade system. The ones who will be at
the forefront trying to achieve them will be the Fairtrade campaigners.
UK Fairtrade Campaigners
Given the fact that I have identified the process of Fairtrade mainstreaming through
supermarkets as one of the ways forward, I informed my position by pointing out that it has
to be under the watchful eye of Fairtrade campaigners, which is what happened in the UK,
and what could happen in Serbia.
213
Therefore, the final discussion is focused on what Bentley identified as the crucial
part of the Fairtrade system, the Fairtrade campaigners (2013, interview) and their continuous
capacity building, lobbying, campaigning and educational work, "trying to explain to people
what the Fairtrade is and what difference it makes for poor small-scale producers" (Coremans
2013, interview 12:35). Especially their educational work should be highlighted due to the
fact that knowledge about the ways in which one does, and should, affect individuals and
groups s/he has never met, is the base for being able to care across spaces and give care a
substance as theoretically discussed in the section 2.3. on caring across spaces (see p.86).
The "primary goal of fair trade campaigners is to persuade consumers to use their
purchases less as a means of signalling their own social status and more as a means of
affirming the claims made on behalf of Third World producers for fair terms of exchange"
(Watson 2007, pp. 270-271), in order for them to move from identifying product quality
solely with its physical and economic characteristics (Ibid.).
As already stated, this topic is not only historically interesting, but also of current
import. In the words of Susan Bentley, the first chair of the Fairtrade Foundation's National
Campaigner Committee, and a person who can easily be called "the number one UK
Fairtrade campaigner", the main problem and her biggest fear, is that "many UK Fairtrade
campaigners might stop campaigning because they believe it is a done deal, which is far
from true" (2013, interview 03:05). She offers an excellent example when she took a group
of young scouts to a big supermarket and asked them to find Fairtrade products. Although
very knowledgeable about the Fairtrade mark and curious, as all children are, they were
unable to find but a few Fairtrade products, which led them to start questioning Fairtrade
availability. In turn, this reassured her that the perception of Fairtrade success is
sometimes bigger than the success itself and that the need for Fairtrade campaigning is far
from gone (2013, interview).
214
This is particularly important when it is known that the development of Fairtrade
campaigning in the UK led, firstly, to the UK's global leadership in Fairtrade trading, sales
and consumer awareness. "The ability to form and maintain a multitude of successful
relationships has been a key driving force behind the rapid growth of fair trade in the United
Kingdom" (Davies 2009, p.113).
Secondly, Fairtrade campaigners are an important practical force behind the
theoretical assumptions that Fairtrade global value chains can change and transform from one
type to another, i.e. from captive to relational, for example. As Alexander and Nicholls have
noted, the Fairtrade global value chains include Fairtrade producers, traders, consumers, of
which many are campaigners, entirely disconfirming the notions of the global value chains as
"solely retailer-generated, unidirectional and upstream" (2006, p.1239). Therefore, given the
fact that there is a possibility of moving from one type of the global value chain to another,
according to Gereffi's previously cited global food value chain analytical framework (Gereffi
et al. 2005), which I use as well (see pp.67-72), the Fairtrade campaigners are able to
influence the establishment of the Fairtrade global value chains two and three in mainstream
supermarkets. They are doing that in order to ensure adhesion (Doherty et al. 2013, p.180).
Therefore, I see Fairtrade campaigners as an important factor in achieving this and my
understanding is further supported, firstly, by the already reviewed literature stating that
"[e]xperience suggests that if supermarkets succumb to civil society pressure to fulfil their
commitments to ethical trade this would require a move to more relational governance"
(Smith and Barrientos 2005, p.195). Secondly, it is confirmed by my interviewees,
particularly by Bentley who notes that while Fairtrade campaigners in the UK have brought
Fairtrade to where it is at the moment, supermarkets and campaigners have to find novel
ways to coordinate and cooperate for Fairtrade to grow even further (2013, interview).
215
Fairtrade Campaigning Channels
In the next part of the section, I will present the most important Fairtrade campaigning
channels (according to Bentley 2013, interview and Wouters 2013, interview, for example),
i.e. the campaigners' synergy of the Fairtrade Foundation, its members and the National
Campaigner Committee, the Fairtrade universities, colleges and schools, Fairtrade towns and
finally, Fairtrade faith groups.
Fairtrade campaigning channels

1. The Fairtrade Foundation, its member organisations and the National Campaigner Committee
2. Fairtrade universities, colleges and schools
3. Fairtrade towns
4. Fairtrade faith groups
Table 21. Four main Fairtrade campaigning channels.
The most important Fairtrade campaigning channel, greatly responsible for the
previous, current and future development of Fairtrade in the UK, is a synergy of the Fairtrade
Foundation, its members and Fairtrade campaigners (Bentley 2013, interview), which was
officially institutionalised for the first time in 2014 through the National Campaigner
Committee (NCC), the UK Fairtrade campaigning hub. Before discussing the NCC in detail, I
will firstly, briefly present the Fairtrade Foundation and its significance.
Doherty and his colleagues define Fairtrade authorities as "organisations that oversee
fair trade and audit the competitors and/or producers, often awarding licences to carry marks
of certification" (2013, p.163). Following their definition, as already explained, the United
Kingdom's Fairtrade history begins with the establishment of the Fairtrade Foundation in
1992, by, initially, six British development organisations: CAFOD, Christian Aid, Oxfam,
Traidcraft, the World Development Movement and the National Federation of Women's
Institutes (Lamb 2008, p.60). Over the years, its membership has grown and it now includes:
216
Banana Link, Methodist Relief and Development Fund, National Campaigner Committee,
Nicaragua Solidarity Campaign, People & Planet, Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund,
Shared Interest Foundation, Soroptimist International, Tearfund and Commitment to Life /
United Reformed Church, bringing their total number to fifteen (Fairtrade Foundation
2015b).
This growth in numbers was caused by an expansion of the Fairtrade Foundation's
activities. Currently, there are four key areas of action. The Fairtrade Foundation: "provid[es]
an independent certification of the trade chain for products... licensing use of the
FAIRTRADE Mark on products as a consumer guarantee" (Ibid., p.1). It also, "help[s] in
growing demand for Fairtrade products and empower[s] producers to sell to traders and
retailers; [w]ork[s] with... partners to support producer organisations and their networks;
[and] [r]ais[es] awareness of the need for Fairtrade in the public and the significant role of the
FAIRTRADE Mark in making trade fair" (Ibid.). According to Hartlieb and Jones, the
Fairtrade Foundation "highlights the significance of close links with other civil society
organisations and their networks of volunteers. The mobilisation of these networks can help
to overcome other limitations like financial resources, or also a lack of interest and
motivation of consumers to change" (2009, p.597).
A window into the reverse situation, one in which Fairtrade campaigning failed, may
serve to substantiate this claim. More specifically, Mexican Fairtraders have failed to mimic
the UK Fairtrade system's successes. According to Perez Akaki, this was mainly because the
Mexican national Fairtrade organisation, Comercio Justo México limited itself to only 10 - 15
people (2013, interview). They were unsuccessful in attracting volunteers and communicating
with other interested parties coming from academia, consumers' organisations, media and
mainstream business. Consequently, Comercio Justo México effectively disregarded Fairtrade
campaigning and failed to initiate Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets (Ibid.). This
217
was also one of the key reasons why, despite the institutional foundation, a national Fairtrade-
like system has not fully emerged in Mexico to date. Therefore, without the Fairtrade
campaigning not only is there no future development of the Fairtrade trade and especially
sales in the UK, but also in other parts of the world, as the Mexican case clearly showed
(Ibid.).
Regarding the NCC itself, it is responsible for: "Ensuring Fairtrade supporters can
better feed into the work of the Fairtrade Foundation and hold it to account. Advising on the
development and implementation of projects and activities directly involving grassroots
supporters. Recommending improvements to existing support for campaigners in addition to
new materials, resources and training opportunities. Advising on developments to existing
Fairtrade schemes including renewal processes, goals and communications; advising on new
campaign areas and activities. Offering experience and advice around Fairtrade campaigns
and campaigners to other teams within the Fairtrade Foundation" (Fairtrade Foundation
2014b, p.1). Finally, it "helps to mould the direction of the Fairtrade Foundation, represents
campaigners at a governance level and also feeds into the development of Fairtrade
campaigns and resources" (Ibid.).
The NCC is the crown of the Fairtrade Foundation's two decades of successful
cooperation and collaboration with its member organisations and UK Fairtrade campaigners,
which is one of the main reasons for its pre-eminence among national Fairtrade organisations
globally. Additionally, it sets a clear example of the possibilities of Fairtrade campaigning
evolution, from modest beginnings back in 1992, to the most developed Fairtrade
campaigning system in the world to date (Fairtrade Supporter Conferences 2013, 2012 and
2011).
218
Chart 3. National Campaigner Committee (Fairtrade Foundation 2014b).
There are numerous practical manifestations of this cluster of Fairtrade campaigners'
activities, and I will just recall the Fairtrade Fortnight celebrations that started in 1995, and
which now feature as both the national and international annual Fairtrade celebrations (Poos
2013, interview and Coremans 2013, interview), alongside annual Fairtrade Supporter
Conferences. Both represent Fairtrade campaigners' annual high water marks in terms of
capacity building, lobbying, campaigning and educational activities (Fairtrade Supporter
Conferences 2013, 2012 and 2011).
Finally, this group of Fairtrade campaigners is the most important for my main case
study. As Fairtrade International's standards stipulate, if a country does not have an NFO or
an FMO, as is the case in Serbia, then the promotion of Fairtrade is the responsibility of the
Fairtrade campaigners from local pro-Fairtrade non-governmental organisations, informal
grassroots groups, and movements (Fairtrade International and WFTO 2011, p.1).
The following three Fairtrade campaigning channels, although very important for the
UK Fairtrade development, are of lesser importance for understanding the current Fairtrade
219
campaigning processes in Serbia due to the infancy of the Serbian Fairtrade market. Hence,
they will be just briefly presented next.
A big group of Fairtrade campaigners are Fairtrade universities, colleges and schools.
The Fairtrade Universities and Colleges scheme was launched in 2003, pioneered by Oxford
Brookes University, followed by the University of Birmingham. Only when one of the
Fairtrade Foundation's member organisation, People & Planet, however, got involved, did the
initiative truly gain traction. The movement grew, and now, there are 170 Fairtrade
Universities and Colleges in the UK. This number is dwarfed by the number of Fairtrade
schools, currently 1,000 and counting, whose development and rise in numbers came as the
direct result of Fairtrade campaigning (Davies 2009) and which is the base for the next
generation of Fairtraders (Fairtrade Supporter Conferences 2013, 2012 and 2011).
The penultimate Fairtrade campaigning channel is under the Fairtrade towns banner,
started as a grassroots initiative in 2000 (De Craen 2013, interview, Poos 2013, interview,
Coremans 2013, interview and Bentley 2013, interview). A Fairtrade town is a "town, city,
village, island, borough, county, zone, district or region... [that has made] a commitment to
supporting Fairtrade and using licensed products with the FAIRTRADE Mark" (Fairtrade
Foundation 2015c, p.1). Currently, there are over 600 of them in the UK (Ibid.), with many
more aspiring candidates (Taplin 2009).
This initiative, in the words of its founder, Bruce Crowther was driven by the desire to
merge the local and Fairtrade social connections, releasing more Fairtrade potential and
achieving higher Fairtrade goals (in Alexander and Nicholls 2006, p.1245). It was the basis
for the development of many other Fairtrade campaigning advancements, including Wales'
inauguration as the first Fairtrade nation in 2008.
The final Fairtrade campaigners, which nearly all other Fair Trade academics use as
their analytical point of departure, are the Fairtrade faith groups (see, for example Nicholls
220
and Opal 2005). Their history, in the form of the alternative and fairly trading supporters
predates the emergence of the UK Fairtrade system, and lies at the heart of its development as
well. Even today, faith groups like the ones in Luton (Fairtrade Supporter Conferences 2013,
2012 and 2011) and churches like Chichester Cathedral, which became the "world's first
public building to display Fairtrade and Fairmined certified gold in 2011" (Diocese of
Durham 2013, p.1), continue to be the strongest Fairtrade supporters in the UK.
Finally, I will reiterate Bentley's warning that Fairtrade campaigners, while crucial,
are not omnipotent (2013, interview). This warning is important because, although they are
the Fairtrade standard-bearers, they cannot develop the Fairtrade system on their own and
need the help and involvement of all other Fairtrade actors.
As this whole section has presented the final referent object of my doctoral thesis, the
Fairtrade consumers, focusing on the Fairtrade campaigners, this was the final, fourth lesson
to be drawn from my illustrative case studies. Together with the previous three, it will be
employed as an empirical foundation for the debates on Serbian circumstances in chapters
VII and VIII.
In Chapter VI, I put forward an empirical debate regarding the second and the third
referent objects of my doctoral research, Fairtrade traders, accentuating supermarkets selling
Fairtrade products, and Fairtrade consumers, focusing on Fairtrade campaigners. With the
help of this part, I also dealt with some of the most important features of the initial, current
and future phases of Fairtrade development in the UK, i.e. Fairtrade mainstreaming through
supermarkets and Fairtrade campaigning.
221
Following the general discussion about the UK Fairtrade traders, I focused on
Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets and comprehensively debated its positive and
negative sides. Regarding the former, I identified: boosting of Fairtrade sales, introducing
Fairtrade to new consumers, developing relational Fairtrade global value chains, confirming
Fairtrade as a serious option, enhancing media presence and building more recognisable and
influential Fairtrade brands. Regarding the latter, I identified: circumvention of Fairtrade
rules and regulations, final overpricing, cannibalisation of sales of 100% Fairtrade
companies, silent de-listing, capturing of reputational gains and increase in false confidence.
Finally, I also presented the exemplar UK supermarket in terms of its Fairtradeness, Co-op.
Concerning Fairtrade campaigning, I firstly presented the Fairtrade consumers,
focusing on the ones with the highest Fairtradeness who are, at the same time, Fairtrade
campaigners as well. I identified them as the crucial part of the Fairtrade system, due to their
continuous capacity building, lobbying, campaigning and educational work and the fact that
they are one of the most important practical forces behind the Fairtrade global value chains'
changes and transformations from one type to another.
Hence, the UK Chapter constitutes the lesson-drawing base for answering the second
attendant research question - "What is the current situation and what are the potentials for
further development of Serbian Fairtrade trade and consumption?" and consequently, a base
for answering a part of my underlying research question focused on Fairtrade traders and
consumers in Serbia. In it, the third and the fourth lessons important for understanding the
current and future Fairtrade developments in Serbia were identified. In this way, this chapter
should be seen as another key element of my innovative comparison which will be, together
with the previous chapter focused on Mexico, the lesson-drawing foundation for discussions
regarding my main case study, Serbia. By concluding this chapter, I completed all the
222
preparatory work for the most important part of my doctoral thesis, the discussion which will
be presented in "Serbian Chapters" VII and VIII.
223
CHAPTER VII - THE SERBIAN FAIRTRADE SYSTEM AND
PROSPECTIVE FAIRTRADE PRODUCERS FROM SERBIA
By choosing two specific national Fairtrade systems to be my illustrative case
studies and lesson-drawing bases, Mexico from the Fairtrade producers' and the UK from
the Fairtrade traders and consumers' side, I found four important features of the initial,
current and future phases of their development significant for my main case study. In the
case of Mexico, I identified the main characteristics of Fairtrade producers, as well as the
benefits Fairtrade affords them. Regarding the other two referent objects, i.e. traders and
consumers of Fairtrade products analysed in Chapter VI, I evaluated Fairtrade
mainstreaming through supermarkets and Fairtrade campaigning. These four topics will
be in the centre of attention of the following two chapters as well, now through Serbian
Fairtrade lenses, in order to show the current moment and potentials for future Fairtrade
developments in Serbia.
Chapter VII itself is divided into two main parts. I will begin with the discussion
about the history and the contemporary structure of the Serbian Fairtrade system.
Secondly, applying my theoretical framework presented in chapters II and III, I will
analyse the first Fairtrade referent object, the first link in a Fairtrade global value chain -
prospective Serbian Fairtrade producers. They will be observed through the prism of the
first two lessons drawn from the first Mexican illustrative case study. Therefore, in
Chapter VII, by using the lessons drawn from Chapter V as points of departure, combined
with the original extensive primary data collected during my field research in Serbia, I
will discuss the history, current development and future potentials and challenges of
Fairtrade in Serbia in general, and with regard to prospective Serbian Fairtrade producers
in particular.
224
In this way, I will fully answer my first attendant research question - "To what
extent can Serbian poor and marginalised small-scale producers, currently excluded from
the Fairtrade system partake in that system?" and therefore, the first part of my underlying
research question focused on the extent to which Serbian poor and marginalised small-
scale producers can partake in the Fairtrade system in future.
Following the same theoretical matrix, the debate will continue in Chapter VIII,
focusing on the second and the third key links in Fairtrade global value chains, i.e.
Fairtrade traders and consumers, now from the Serbian perspective. They will be
considered through the prism of the following two lessons drawn from the second
illustrative case study on the UK. As a result, I will fully answer the second attendant
research question - "What is the current situation and what are the potentials for further
development of Serbian Fairtrade trade and consumption?", and therefore, the second part
of my underlying research question connected with the extent to which Serbian Fairtrade
traders and consumers are, and will be able to partake in the Fairtrade system in future.
In addition, I will conclude Chapter VIII by discussing possibilities for developing
Serbian national Fairtrade-like system. This debate will give the full answer to my third
attendant research question - "To what extent it is possible to establish a national
Fairtrade-like system in Serbia and in that case, is the whole greater than the sum of its
parts?" and consequently, the final part of my underlying research question, holistically
looking on the potentials for Serbian Fairtrade production, trade and consumption.
By giving the final answers to my three attendant research questions and
consequently, to my underlying research question - "To what extent can Serbia, as one of
the producer-excluded upper-middle-income economies, partake in the Fairtrade system
in the future, as a country where Fairtrade products are produced, traded and consumed?",
225
in the following two chapters, I will make all four contributions to knowledge as intended
above.
Firstly, following the theoretical examination of my new topic presented in
chapters II and III, in the following two chapters, I will put forward empirical findings
contributing to the Fair Trade literature. Secondly, by putting forward new primary data in
the following two chapters, I will present the first full empirical research on Serbian
prospective Fairtrade producers and current and future Fairtrade traders and consumers. In
addition, following the debate which started in Chapter IV on methodology and continued
in illustrative case studies' chapters V and VI, in the next two chapters, I will put forward
the final part of my innovative comparison focused on my main case study - Serbia.
Finally, in these two chapters, the disconfirmatory empirics based on my original field
research in Serbia will be presented, stating arguments why the current exclusion is
indefensible in practice as well, leading to my fourth contribution to the literature.
7.1. The Fairtrade System in Serbia
The Serbian food system represents one of the country's most important sectors
(Bogdanov 2007 and Bogdanov et al. 2000 and 2012). This comes as no surprise, as 85
percent of the Serbian territory is defined as rural (Bozic et al. 2011, p.244) and a quarter
of Serbian households being involved in agriculture (Statistical Office of the Republic of
Serbia 2013b). Finally, it is one of the strongest export sectors, representing around 20
percent of Serbian exports and earning the country over a billion dollars worth of foreign
trade surplus every year (Ibid.).
At the same time, during the last five years, both Serbia in general and its food
system in particular have experienced numerous challenges and difficulties, which is,
226
historically, not a novel situation as explained in the Introduction (see pp.9-17) and
Chapter III (see pp.117-122 in particular). That being said, it is also important to
recognise that the global food and economic crises hit hard both the developed and
developing countries, and one of the economies particularly affected by them was Serbia
and its food sector. Despite implying all three key players in its national food value
chains, i.e. on Serbian food producers, traders and consumers, the crises affected them in
different ways, and, within each group, to various degrees. One of the means which could
aid Serbian food system's advancements can be the Fairtrade system, which can also
benefit from the fact that Serbia can become an even stronger part of the Fairtrade market.
As already stated in the section explaining my timeframe (see pp.133-134), when I
started my doctoral research in October 2011, Serbia was completely outside the Fairtrade
system. Its poor and marginalised small-scale producers in primary production were, and
still are unable to join the system. Neither were any Fairtrade traders and consequently,
there were no Fairtrade products for Serbian consumers to buy.
These were the assumptions initially guiding my doctoral research, however, a
major change occurred at the beginning of 2012, significantly influencing my research,
bringing the already-discussed opportunities and challenges. Back then, Delhaize Serbia,
the biggest Serbian supermarket chain and a part of the Belgian Delhaize Group,
introduced the first Fairtrade products (Kosanovic 2013, interview). In the next couple of
months, sequentially, five products were introduced: two types of cereals, chocolate
cream, chocolate biscuits and green tea with lemon, all imported from Belgium as
Fairtrade products, with Fairtrade ingredients which were not produced in Serbia (Ibid.).
In the next two years the following new Fairtrade products were introduced on the
Serbian market. Firstly, by the end of 2012, two types of Marks & Spencer's t-shirts made
from Fairtrade cotton were sold at the biggest shopping mall in Serbia, "Usce". In 2013,
227
six Oriflame's cosmetic products made from Fairtrade ingredients became available
through catalogue shopping. At the beginning of 2014, Fairtrade Kit Kat chocolate bars
were introduced by Delhaize Serbia, together with rooibos and Earl Grey Fairtrade teas,
and by mid-2014, a new Oriflame Fairtrade beauty product found its way into stores.
These developments clearly show that the Fairtrade movement in Serbia is growing, with
traders creating demand for Fairtrade products and consumers supporting it with their
purchases.
At the same time, the introduction of trade and consumption of Fairtrade products
in Serbia immediately raised two questions with Fairtrade supporters, according to Mitar
Djuraskovic, Serbian national anti-trafficking coordinator and one of the initiators of
Fairtrade campaigning in Serbia (2013, interview). Tatjana Jovanic, Professor of Law at
the University of Belgrade and another Serbian Fairtrade pioneer, holds similar views
(2013, interview). Firstly, it begged the question why Serbian poor and marginalised
small-scale producers cannot enter the system as primary producers. Secondly, it further
brought to light that Serbian food traders are not producing Fairtrade products as
secondary producers (for example, chocolates from Fairtrade ingredients).
Since Fairtrade trade and consumption continues to develop as in other upper-
middle-income economies, this development raises the question why Serbian poor and
marginalised small-scale producers cannot access the Fairtrade market, since others can.
The list of what Serbian small-scale producers could produce as Fairtrade is very long and
I will just cursorily mention fresh fruits, vegetables, different types of nuts, honey, wine,
herbs, herbal teas and flowers, although, the primary focus of my research will be on
fruits and vegetables. The first question will be further discussed in the next part of this
chapter focused on Serbian Fairtrade producers, while the second will be reviewed in the
following chapter on Serbian Fairtrade traders and consumers.
228
7.2. Prospective Fairtrade Producers from Serbia
The focus of my research is on South Serbia and the two underdeveloped districts
of Jablanica and Pcinja. According to the Centre for Development of Jablanica and Pcinja
Districts (CDJPD), these two districts cover 6,289 km2, i.e. around 7 percent of the
territory of the Republic of Serbia. In them, 468,613 inhabitants live in 699 settlements
(CDJPD 2013, p.32).
Map 2. Map of Serbia with Jablanica District (red) (Wikipedia 2014a).
Map 3. Map of Serbia with Pcinja District (red) (Wikipedia 2014b).
229
They are administratively divided into two cities and eleven municipalities. Two cities
constitute district centres: Leskovac in Jablanica District and Vranje in Pcinja District. In
addition, Jablanica District has five municipalities: Bojnik, Crna Trava, Lebane, Medvedja
and Vlasotince. Finally, Pcinja District has six: Bosilegrad, Bujanovac, Presevo, Surdulica,
Trgoviste and Vladicin Han.
Map 4. Map of Jablanica (dark) and Pcinja (light blue) districts' municipalities (PBILD 2015).
Jablanica and Pcinja districts

Region Population Size (km2)
Jablanica District
- Leskovac (city) 144,206 1,025
- Bojnik (municipality) 11,104 265
- Crna Trava (municipality) 1,663 312
- Lebane (municipality) 22,000 337
- Medvedja (municipality) 7,438 524
- Vlasotince (municipality) 20,871 308
Pcinja District
- Vranje (city) 83,524 860
- Bosilegrad (municipality) 8,129 571
- Bujanovac (municipality) 18,067 461
- Presevo (municipality) 3,080 264
- Surdulica (municipality) 20,319 628
- Trgoviste (municipality) 5,091 370
- Vladicin Han (municipality) 20,871 366
Table 22. Jablanica and Pcinja districts - cities and municipalities (CDJPD 2015)28.
28
The data for municipalities Bujanovac and Presevo have to be taken with reserve due to the census boycotts of
the Albanian minority living in these two municipalities.
230
In terms of small-scale agricultural production, the situation in Jablanica and Pcinja
districts is even more complex than on the national level. To begin with, unlike the 5.4 ha on
the national level, the average size of utilised agricultural land in Jablanica and Pcinja
districts is around 2 ha, divided on average, from 4 up into 14 separate lots in some
municipalities like Bosilegrad in Pcinja District (Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia
2013b, pp.14, 133). Moreover, the importance of agriculture for Jablanica and Pcinja is
evident as it contributes 26 percent to the gross product in these two districts (CDJPD 2013,
p.6). In spite of the above-stated, and many other difficulties which will be discussed below,
Nenad Jovanovic, the director of the Office for Local Economic Development of the
Municipality of Lebane in Jablanica District, holds that "agriculture is the only mainstay. It is
a chance for survival..." (2013, interview 30:37).
In line with his position is the CDJPD's data stating that this region has a number of
agricultural potentials, important both for its conventional and possible Fairtrade
developments, which I will briefly put forward here and elaborate upon in the rest of the
chapter. First and foremost, the CDJPD points out natural characteristics of the soil, climate
and water resources and potentials for high quality and organic food production (2013).
Moreover, the workforce is highly experienced (Ibid.). In addition, the potential of the soil
lies in highly labour-intensive fruit and vegetable production, and in the development of
certification systems such as, for example, organic or protected geographical status, since this
area is famous for a number of its agricultural products in light of their quality (Ibid.). "The
potentials... are there. I believe that small-scale producers would be able to live [decently]
from their work if they organise themselves... Each village according to their circumstances"
(Djordjevic 2013, interview 51:30, audio 4). Unsurprisingly, I will also add Fairtrade
labelling to these opportunities.
231
Prospective Fairtrade Products from Jablanica and Pcinja Districts
Before going into a detailed discussion about prospective Serbian Fairtrade producers,
I will present the potential products that they can offer. Coffee was the first Fairtrade product
and remains the icon of Fairtrade (Perez Akaki 2013, interview). However, due to its climate,
Serbia is unable to produce it, as well as many other "typical" Fairtrade products such as
cocoa or bananas, for example. That being said, there is a number of other product categories
for which Serbian agriculture is renowned. For them, there are already Fairtrade
International's standards (SPO Fresh Fruits 2011g, SPO Vegetables 2011h, SPO Honey
2011i, SPO Spices, Herbs and Herbal Teas 2011j, SPO Nuts 2011k and HP Flowers 2011l,
for example), some that could be applied with minor adjustments.
In order to explain Serbian Fairtrade capacities further, I will now present the
products that can be produced as potentially Fairtrade by poor and marginalised small-scale
producers from Jablanica and Pcinja districts. Given the fact that I am primarily interested in
fresh fruits and vegetables, and that Jablanica and Pcinja districts are well-known for this
(Nikolic 2013a, interview, Djordjevic 2013, interview, Vuckovic 2013, interview,
Radosavljevic 2013, interview, CDJPD 2013 and others), I will predominantly focus on these
two product categories. However, I will also briefly present the other product categories as
well, which can be seen both as prospective additional and primary products.
Regarding fresh fruit production, I will start with four fruits for which the changes in
Fairtrade standards would be minimal in order to incorporate prospective Serbian small-scale
producers. These are cherries, apples, plums and pears, and corresponding standards already
exist (Fairtrade International SPO Fresh Fruit Standard 2011g, p.4).
A number of my interviewees recognised cherries as the key fruit for Jablanica and
Pcinja districts and for small-scale producers in particular (Stojanovic 2013c, interview,
232
Smiljkovic 2013, interview, Fotiric Aksic 2013, interview, Savic 2013, interview, Vuckovic
2013, interview, Radivojevic 2013, interview, Zegarac Milenkovic 2013, interview and
Nikolic 2013a, interview). The "Oblacina Cherry" variety was particularly praised and
singled out as the best (Fotiric Aksic 2013 interview, Smiljkovic 2013, interview and Nikolic
2013a, interview). What is also significant to state is that there is already organic cherry
production and strong potentials for its future development according to Bozidar Vuckovic,
the leading organic producer in South Serbia (2013, interview).
Similarly important for this area are apples (Colovic 2013, interview, Smiljkovic
2013, interview and Nikolic 2013a, interview), especially varieties like "Golden Delicious",
"Yellow Delicious" and "Idared" (Smiljkovic 2013, interview). In addition, there are also
autochthonous apple varieties, with great potentials (Zegarac Milenkovic 2013, interview).
Fotiric Aksic goes as far as to say that autochthonous varieties are among Serbia's greatest
treasures (2013, interview).
Plums are the national fruit of Serbia and therefore, their popularity in Jablanica and
Pcinja districts comes as no surprise (Smiljkovic 2013, interview, Djordjevic 2013, interview,
Zegarac Milenkovic 2013, interview and Nikolic 2013a, interview). Smiljkovic highlighted
the "Cacak Fruitful" variety (2013, interview). As in the case of apples, due to the long
history of its production, the autochthonous plum varieties of the highest quality are also
widely available (Djordjevic 2013, interview). Finally, my interviewees from Pcinja district
recognised pears as important fruit for the region as well (Zegarac Milenkovic 2013,
interview and Nikolic 2013a, interview).
Following the presentation of the four Serbian fruits which could be easily introduced
to the Fairtrade system, I will now put forward a few others produced by small-scale
producers in Jablanica and Pcinja districts which would require more significant adaptation in
Fairtrade certification. Potentials for production and popularity of some of these fruits are not
233
at the same level as in other parts of Serbia, however, they are increasingly grown in
Jablanica and Pcinja districts.
Among them the most popular are blueberries, especially of the "American" variety
(Vuckovic 2013, interview), strawberries (Radivojevic 2013, interview, Zegarac Milenkovic
2013, interview and Nikolic 2013a, interview), and raspberries (Vuckovic 2013, interview,
Zegarac Milenkovic 2013, interview and Nikolic 2013a, interview). As with cherries, for all
of these products, an organic production or future potentials for this are already in place
(Vuckovic 2013, interview). These products are part of the future of Fairtrade, irrespective of
the Serbian position in the system, due to their positive health impacts and the need for a
healthier Fairtrade product palette identified by many consumers, as explained in Chapter VI
when the future Fairtrade consumers were discussed (see p.213).
In the current Fairtrade system, the importance of vegetable production is secondary
to that of fresh fruits. Jablanica and Pcinja districts, however, are actually even more famous
for their vegetables than for their fruits, particularly for their peppers (Colovic 2013,
interview, Stojanovic 2013c, interview and Murati 2013, interview) and tomatoes (Murati
2013, interview and Savic 2013, interview). By extension, the same rationale as for harder-to-
include fruits applies to them as well.
On the other hand, one vegetable for which the Fairtrade certification changes would
be minimal, since there is already a corresponding standard (Fairtrade International SPO
Vegetables Standard 2011h) is potato, and a number of my interviewees recognised its
production potentials in Jablanica and Pcinja districts as well (Murati 2013, interview,
Stojanovic 2013b, interview and Djordjevic 2013, interview). What is particularly important
is that poor and marginalised small-scale potato producers are truly among the most deprived
in the whole area and come from the least developed municipalities like Medvedja in
Jablanica district (Djordjevic 2013, interview) or Presevo in Pcinja district (Murati 2013,
234
interview). "Potatoes from these parts [(Medvedja)] are of high quality... incomparably higher
than the ones around the City of Leskovac [(which is traditionally one of the Serbian
strongest centres of vegetable production)]" (Djordjevic 2013, interview 19:57, audio 4).
Therefore, fresh fruits and vegetables already put Serbia strongly on the Fairtrade
map, but as stated above, there is much more that Serbia can offer, and some of the following
could be considered either as future primary or additional products. I will discuss them just
briefly since my focus will stay on the above-stated two product categories for the rest of this
chapter.
I will begin with honey, for which there is a corresponding Fairtrade standard
(Fairtrade International SPO Honey Standard 2011i) and its production potentials in Jablanica
and Pcinja districts are recognised by a number of my interviewees (Miletic 2013, interview,
Radosavljevic 2013, interview, Djordjevic 2013, interview, Kosanovic 2013, interview and
Nikolic 2013a, interview).
Furthermore, spices and herbs, such as mint, camomile, thyme, St. John's wort, or
milfoil for example, for all of which there is a corresponding Fairtrade standard (Fairtrade
International SPO Spices, Herbs and Herbal Teas 2011j) could be grown in South Serbia as
well (Kosanovic 2013, interview, Santai 2013, interview, Savic 2013, interview, Vuckovic
2013, interview, Blagojevic 2013, interview and Smiljkovic 2013, interview). In addition, as I
stated, Serbian herbal teas are famous even without the Fairtrade mark and as Kosanovic
explained, in his opinion, it would be absurd to buy a Fairtrade camomile tea coming from
abroad, almost certainly of lower quality, and at higher price (2013, interview).
Moreover, Serbia could join the production of roses and other flowers, as well as nuts
production (Djuraskovic 2013, interview). Although there are corresponding Fairtrade
standards, they would have to be significantly changed (Fairtrade International SPO Nuts
Standard 2011k and Fairtrade International HL Flower Standard 2011l).
235
In addition, growing wine grapes and accompanying wine production in Jablanica and
Pcinja districts can be revitalised through Fairtrade as well, because there are clear potentials
(Kosanovic 2013, interview, Colovic 2013, interview, Murati 2013, interview and Fotiric
Aksic 2013, interview). However, corresponding Fairtrade standards would have to be
changed as well to accommodate Serbian production (Fairtrade International SPO Fresh
Fruits Standard 2011g, for example).
Finally, there are forest gathering activities of wild strawberries, wild blueberries,
wild blackberries, hawthorn, drains, rosehips, black currant and mushrooms (Santai 2013,
interview, Fotiric Aksic 2013, interview, Blagojevic 2013, interview and Smiljkovic 2013,
interview). This activity is very developed in South Serbia, especially among the poorest and
the most marginalised small-scale producers. Therefore, this is again an area, currently
almost completely undeveloped by the Fairtrade system, where Serbia could emerge as a
future Fairtrade leader, having in mind the popularity, health characteristics and quality of
these products, their very high market price and potentials for being completely organic.
Serbian Fairtrade production potentials

Region Fairtrade standards Fruits Vegetables Other products
Jablanica Smaller adjustments Cherries Potatoes Honey
and Apples Herbs
Pcinja Plums Herbal teas
Districts Pears Spices
Considerable changes Blueberries Peppers Wine grapes and wines
Strawberries Tomatoes Nuts
Raspberries Flowers
Forest gathering
Table 23. Serbian Fairtrade production potentials.
In this part, I shown that there are numerous fruits and vegetables which could, with
minor or more significant changes be included in the Fairtrade system, as well as a number of
other products which can be certified Fairtrade as well. Kosanovic sums up this best in stating
that "[i]n our palette we have all of these products [(stated above)] as a private brand. We
236
even have a line [of products] which is called "From our country" which contains most of
these articles... they were envisaged as [coming from] local [producers], and through them
[(the articles)] we strengthen local producers... so if they could satisfy Fairtrade standards...
they could easily be [Fairtrade]" (2013, interview 42:01).
7.3. Main Characteristics of Prospective Serbian Fairtrade Producers
In Chapter V, I presented the main characteristics of Mexican Fairtrade producers and
their everyday realities, which I identified as the first important lesson-drawing base (see the
corresponding section on pp.168-181). These conclusions are the foundation for the position
that I will put forward next, showing that a Mexican Fairtrade producer is not lagging terribly
behind a poor and marginalised small-scale producer from Serbia. In other aspects, however,
the former enjoy a clear advantage, as a direct result of the membership in the Fairtrade
system. In order to strengthen my arguments, in this section, I will present the Serbian poor
and marginalised small-scale producers and their everyday realities.
General Poverty Levels
Starting with their income levels, I asked a number of my interviewees if poor and
marginalised small-scale producers can live only from their agricultural production. The
answers ranged from a direct "(almost) impossible" in municipalities like Crna Trava,
Trgoviste and Presevo, to "very hard" in Lebane and Medvedja, and "to a certain extent" in
the best areas around the City of Leskovac.
For example, Smiljkovic, agricultural adviser at the Municipality of Trgoviste stated
that if producers were to live only from agricultural production, "they would not be able to do
237
so" (2013, interview 05:14). She further explains that all such small-scale producers
economically sustain themselves by producing for self consumption, by generating small
surpluses sold on local markets or through middlemen, full or part time work in what has
remained of industry, or by drawing on agricultural pensions of one or more members of the
household (2013, interview). Smiljkovic goes on to explain that in Trgoviste, a household
with two to three members can often expect to earn from agriculture as little as 100 Euros
($111.85, £72.68, RSD12,013.96) per calendar month, meaning that, when this income is
divided between two or three members of the household29, they are earning less than their
Mexican counterparts and live significantly under $4 dollars per day. This data directly
questions the preconceived ideas of the Fairtrade system already theoretically discussed in
Chapter III (see the section 3.4.).
Certainly, there are regions in Jablanica and Pcinja districts, like the villages on the
outskirts of the City of Leskovac - Stajkovce, for example, which are very prosperous and
which have evolved their output significantly, however, many others are in a difficult
situation. In many cases, the only way for them to advance is to leave agricultural production
altogether and move (Radosavljevic 2013, interview).
29
On the national level, the average agricultural household has 3.3 members (Bozic et al. 2011, p.271), however,
in Jablanica and Pcinja districts the average number is between 2 and 3 (Smiljkovic 2013, interview).
238
Photos 1-3. Examples of intensive food production in Jablanica and Pcinja districts (Brkovic 2013b).
I will conclude the discussion about the income side of poverty by reminding the
reader that, beyond agriculture, the socioeconomic situation is equally pressing, as
summarised by Senaje Agusi, the director of the Office for Local Economic Development of
the Municipality of Presevo: "[t]he key problem is unemployment" (2013, interview 09:03).
Moreover, according to the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia in the rest of the
country, the situation is not better either, with a quarter of the Serbian population, i.e. around
1,800,000 people, living below or just above the poverty line (Politika 2015).
The second issue I identified in Chapter V (see pp.169-170) is the food security and
the general diet of small-scale producers. In Mexico, the population are not starving,
however, adequate nutrition is a problem. In Serbia, poor and marginalised small-scale
producers' diet is likewise far from adequate, chronically lacking important vitamins and
micronutrients, which causes severe impediments to their health (Djordjevic 2013 interview,
Bozic et al. 2011, pp.254-256).
239
Map 5. Food Security Risk Map (Maplecroft 2013).
Following the theoretical explanation of what I considered to be a poor, marginalised
and small-scale producer presented in Chapter II (see pp.61-62), I will now put forward data
regarding poor and marginalised producers' small-scaleness. According to Djordjevic, in the
districts of Jablanica and Pcinja "small producers are up to 1.5 - 2 hectares. Total land is
divided into smaller plots which can be as little as 1 ares [(0.01 hectare)]. Over 2 hectares are
medium, while everyone over 5 hectares is considered to be a big producer" (2013, interview
01:30, audio 4).
However, even these 2ha are far from real for many small-scale producers in this area.
As Milos Radosavljevic, agricultural adviser at the Municipality of Vlasotince, states, they
often register 0.5 ha (2013, interview) even in Vlasotince, the region's comparatively most
developed municipality. For the ones which are in the worst situation, as in the Municipality
of Trgoviste, the majority of small-scale producers have only one hectare at their disposal
(Smiljkovic 2013, interview). They therefore equal their Fairtrade counterparts in Mexico as
already discussed, and often hold much less land (see p.170).
240
The magnitude of the problem becomes clear when it is also known that even these, in
the best scenario 2ha are rarely in a single plot, even in some of the most developed
municipalities in the region, like Surdulica, according to Ankica Zegarac Milenkovic, the
director of the Office for Local Economic Development of the Municipality of Surdulica
(2013, interview). The reason for this particular problem are unresolved property issues, since
plots may be owned by 5, 10 or even more people (Ibid.). The most drastic example I
encountered during my field research was put forward by Smiljkovic who participated in the
division of a small plot of land in 128 different parts (2013, interview). This is an issue of
Serbian land legislation, but also an indicator of the poverty levels of the landowners and
their inability to enclose their plots.
Region Average size of Average number

utilised agricultural land of separate lots
per agricultural holding in hectares per agricultural holding
Serbia 5.4 6
Jablanica District (total) 2.35 8
- Leskovac 1.98 8
- Bojnik 3.01 7
- Crna Trava 8.61 9
- Lebane 3.23 8
- Medvedja 3.79 7
- Vlasotince 1.60 8
Table 24. Average size of utilised agricultural land and average number of separate lots per agricultural holding
in Jablanica District (Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia 2013b, pp.52, 133).
Region Average size of Average number

utilised agricultural land of separate lots
per agricultural holding in hectares per agricultural holding
Serbia 5.4 6
Pcinja District (total) 2.37 7
- Vranje 2.42 8
- Bosilegrad 3.73 14
- Bujanovac 2.28 6
- Presevo 1.83 4
- Surdulica 2.31 7
- Trgoviste 3.94 8
- Vladicin Han 1.77 8
Table 25. Average size of utilised agricultural land and average number of separate lots per agricultural holding
in Pcinja District (Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia 2013b, pp.52, 133).
241
Finally, regarding the state of agricultural technology in Jablanica and Pcinja districts,
I will illustrate machinery and irrigation systems in a few examples. Firstly, the poor and
marginalised small-scale producers who own machinery, like a tractor, are few and far
between, and the ones that do, work with machines which are, on average, between 25 and 30
years old (Nikolic 2013a, interview). The ones without machinery often pay people to do the
work for them, though this is very expensive. Murati quoted in his interview an average rate
of 150 Euros ($167.78, £109.02, RSD18,020.95) per hectare for ploughing for example
(2013). There are other examples as well, where producers are using oxen to plough,
especially in the mountainous regions, and horse carriage to transport their products
(Radosavljevic 2013, interview). On irrigation, the following data is self-explanatory.
According to the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, "[i]n agricultural year
2011/2012, the share of 12% of all holdings applied irrigation on 3% of utilized agricultural
area" (2013b, p.148).
242
Photos 4-7. Producer villages in Jablanica and Pcinja districts (Brkovic 2013b).
Business Challenges
Following the presentation of the poor and marginalised small-scale producers'
general poverty levels, in this section, I spell out the main business obstacles hindering their
development. My interviewees identified a number of them, however, they put forward the
following as the most significant.
243
At the top of the list is the issue of finding and accessing markets (Radosavljevic
2013, interview), which should not come as surprise when the WEF's data is recalled and the
fact that Serbia is the third worst ranked country in terms of the extent of market dominance
restated. According to Goran Radivojevic, agricultural adviser at the Municipality Bojnik,
this is the main problem (2013, interview), while Murati sees it as one of the three key issues,
beside their small-scaleness and the lack of seed capital (2013, interview). Bogdanov states
that this issue is one that all small-scale producers share in Jablanica and Pcinja districts,
theme reoccurring throughout her research (2013, interview).
Price uncertainty constitutes a second barrier to entry. As Tojaga explains, the price
for small-scale producers' produce is completely unrelated to any of the official market
prices. "The biggest problem for the last 50 years is that agricultural producers want to know
for whom they are producing and to know what is the price of the product. They never knew
that, and unfortunately, they never will" (2013, interview 01:39).
The third barrier recognised by my interviewees is the nonexistence of long-term
relationships and contracts (Radivojevic 2013, interview and Tojaga 2013, interview).
Accompanied with the issue of market access and price uncertainty, this leads to a situation
where small-scale producers cannot plan (Radivojevic 2013, interview). The above-stated
issues are already sufficient in themselves to explain why poor and marginalised small-scale
producers are big risk takers in Serbian food value chains, but the next two related to bank
loans and insurance access will put forward argumentation why they are some of the biggest.
Beginning with, but not limited to bank loans, it is important to sense the
powerlessness that poor and marginalised small-scale producers feel when going out of their
land, their comfort zone. "A small-scale producer is the master of his farm, as well as [the
master] of his village, but if he goes to the municipality... or to a bank, he gets scared"
(Nikolic 2013a, interview 47:35). From the outset, the relationship is not a business
244
partnership, but that between a weak petitioner and a far more powerful benefactor.
Furthermore, the regular loans offered by the banks with high interest rates are hardly
affordable and profitable even for the biggest food producers in Serbia (Biznis i Finansije
2014). Recognising this issue, the government, from time to time, subsidises bank loans.
However, just a handful of producers are able to benefit from this in general and almost none
of them is a poor and marginalised small-scale producer.
When interviewed, senior bank manager Elvis Colovic, rejoined me that, although
meeting the conditions can be challenging, banks, in general, gladly give loans to agricultural
producers, above all because in the vast majority of cases, they honour their commitments,
and the smallest among them are the most honest (2013, interview). However, even if they
manage to get a loan it would not be enough for any serious investments and developments
(Ivanovic 2013, interview), especially since as Djordjevic remarked, "if there is no market,
every loan is unfavourable" (2013, interview 39:40, audio 4).
Unfortunately for the small-scale producers, the void between the highly demanding
and hardly satisfactory offers from the banks and their real need for rural credits is filled by
loan sharks, who lend without any real risk assessments, but with very high interest rates
(Nikolic 2013a, interview). This is another reason why Serbia scored 100th and 105th out of
144 countries in term of its affordability of financial services and ease of access to loans
(WEF 2013).
Access to insurance is even more precarious than with the rural credits. As Jovanovic
notes, small-scale producers do not use rural credits, and they "insure even less" (Jovanovic
2013, interview 22:42). As in the case of bank loans, the first problem is related to the three
above-identified issues because "[s]ince you do not have a constant production and a stable
price, you will not pay to insure something that you will not be able to sell... Here [(in
245
Jablanica and Pcinja districts)] people cannot afford even pension insurance, let alone to
insure their land" (Djordjevic 2013, interview 38:16, audio 4).
On the other hand, the need for agricultural insurance is enormous, since, in tandem
with crises and market distortions, the weather conditions were anything but perfect, with
droughts, like the one in 2012 (Colovic 2013, interview), hail which in 2013 hit Pcinja
District a record number of times (Milovanovic 2013, interview), and floods, which in 2013
hit the same district as well (Ibid.).
The risks that the poor and marginalised small-scale producers face, as stated above,
suffice to be considered as the biggest risk takers, and the last illustrative example is just a
coup de grâce. When asked to explain why he had to postpone his organic cherry production,
Vuckovic answered "[w]e did not do it because we wanted to, but because in just one week,
over 2,500 of our cherry trees were dug out and stolen" (2013, interview 04:45).
Local Infrastructure, Social Services and Programmes
As already stated, the infrastructure of Jablanica and Pcinja districts is characterised
as one of the least developed in Serbia (CDJPD 2013, p.14), which is particularly problematic
for small-scale producers' development (Bogdanov 2013, interview). This is confirmed by a
number of my interviewees from both districts. Tijana Milovanovic, senior adviser at the
Agency for Local Economic Development of the City of Vranje in Pcinja District states that
the infrastructure "in South Serbia is generally bad" (2013, interview 11:23). Villages closer
to cities tend to have better infrastructure than those which are situated more remotely (Ibid.).
Therefore, Serbian poor and marginalised small-scale producers are, in some parts of
the two regions that I researched, in a better position in terms of general infrastructural
developmental parameters, but in others, they are not far from their Fairtrade counterparts in
246
Mexico, especially since the ones from Mexico managed to significantly improve their
infrastructure with Fairtrade premiums. Again, this should not come as a surprise when the
WEF's scores of Serbia and Mexico in terms of the quality of overall infrastructure, the
quality of roads and the quality of the educational system are compared. The former scored
120th, 122nd and 111th respectively, while the latter scored 65th, 50th and 100th (WEF
2013).
I will now analyse in detail different infrastructural aspects in Jablanica and Pcinja
districts. I will again start with some of the least developed municipalities in Serbia entire,
Crna Trava, and Vatroslav Slavkovic, the director of their Office for Local Economic
Development, who stated that out of more than 100 km of roads around the municipality,
only 7 km are asphalted, which, together with its geographical position leads to the situation
where the small-scale producers are mostly isolated (2013, interview).
The situation is no different in the municipalities of Bojnik, or Lebane, which,
although geographically better positioned around the City of Leskovac, are infrastructurally
challenged, especially outside the plains (Ivanovic 2013, interview and Radivojevic 2013,
interview). In one of the least developed municipalities in Pcinja District, the same situation
prevails. On my direct question regarding the state of infrastructure in Trgoviste, Smiljkovic
responded even more directly by stating "Roads - zero!" (2013, interview 27:23), further
explaining that a number of villages are far away from asphalted roads and accessible only by
off-road vehicles (Ibid.).
There are other municipalities in which the situation is better, like the municipality of
Medvedja, where, the biggest problems arise from roads which should be maintained by the
state, yet are in a worse condition than the ones looked after by the municipality according to
Dejan Simic, the director of the Office for Local Economic Development of the Municipality
of Medvedja (2013, interview). However, even this good example has a string attached, as
247
Simic explains. "Each village has an asphalted road and conditions have been brought to a
normal state for life. However, this came too late. In the 1970s, the municipality had 30,000
inhabitants, but a large number of people moved away because they did not have elementary
living conditions" (Ibid., 01:37). The 2011 census data supports his claims in that it
determines the current population in Medvedja at around 7,000 (CDJPD 2015).
Photos 8-11. Examples of road infrastructure in Jablanica and Pcinja Districts (Brkovic 2013b).
In elementary and especially secondary education, the villages' location (closer or
further away from the main roads), combined with migrations and demography, have
decreased the number of children living in many areas (Radosavljevic 2013, interview and
Ivanovic 2013, interview). The poorest Serbian pupils and students are, on average supported
more comprehensively by the government than their Mexican counterparts discussed in
Chapter V (see p.172). In Serbia, educational sponsorship is granted through scholarships or
the reimbursement of transportation costs, for example, but also through a system of state led
248
high schools and students' dorms and canteens (Ivanovic 2013, interview, Radosavljevic
2013, interview, Blagojevic 2013, interview and Smiljkovic 2013, interview).
However, education in Jablanica and Pcinja districts is troubled both
demographically, and due to migration issues. Smiljkovic notes that pupils leave the
municipalities for high school, never to return (2013, interview). In addition, Bogdanov
identifies another growing negative trend. "There is data indicating the growth of premature
exclusion from education of rural children. There are numerous factors responsible, whether
it is all about poverty, [since] some research suggests that it is primarily about the loss of
motivation, which is always much harder to tackle than poverty" (2013, interview 35:15).
Regarding access to institutional health care, the situation is similarly complex.
Again, there is a difference between the parts of municipalities located in plains where access
is good, and from mountainous regions, where the ease of access ranges from adequate to
very problematic. This is the case even in the most developed municipalities, like Vlasotince,
since in remote villages, ambulances are open only one day a week (Radosavljevic 2013,
interview). The same applies in the Municipality of Lebane, for example (Ivanovic 2013,
interview). Moreover, in some municipalities, like Lebane, there are areas lacking both
mobile network coverage and land lines, leaving local residents unable to contact a doctor in
a case of emergency (2013, interview).
What is unusual is the fact that in some of the least developed municipalities, like
Crna Trava, the situation is the best and access is described as good (Blagojevic 2013,
interview). Again, as with many seemingly positive examples, there are demographic strings
attached. In this particular case, the whole municipality has around 1,500 people, mostly
living around the centre of the municipality, facilitating provision of health care.
Moving from the physical medical infrastructure coverage to the general state of
health care, it can be said that the Serbian national health system largely surpasses Mexican
249
Seguro Popular discussed in Chapter V (see p.172), given the fact that it is envisaged as
universal and all-encompassing (Vukojicic Obradovic 2012), and, in theory, it is. However,
in practice, the model experiences a number of difficulties. In order to access national
medical care, a Serbian citizen has to have a valid medical card and according to information
from the Serbian National Health Insurance Fund stated by Vukojicic Obradovic "around one
million people in Serbia do not have the valid medical card... meaning that one in every seven
people cannot use the health care system properly" (Ibid., p.5). Access to medical registration
requires employment, or registration as unemployed, since private payment is very expensive
(Djordjevic 2013, interview, Nikolic 2013a, interview and Smiljkovic 2013, interview).
I will continue this section by discussing the Serbian pension system, which generally
surpasses the Mexican one, given the fact that 70 y Más is worth an unsatisfactory $45 per
month (see Chapter V). Therefore, Mexican pensioners receive less than what retired
producers in Serbia can expect. However, Serbian agricultural pensions can be as low as
RSD6,000 ($55.86, €49.94, £36.3) per calendar month (Djordjevic 2013, interview). While
the majority of poor and marginalised small-scale producers in Jablanica and Pcinja districts
can generally expect an agricultural pension of around RSD10,000 ($93.1, €83.24, £60.5) per
calendar month, this is still under the poverty line ($3.01 per day).
Finally, regarding social security, the situation for people who are not working is very
difficult, because the social security for a three-member family with a child is around
RSD12,000 ($111.72, €99.88, £72.6) per month, which cannot cover even a half of the
minimal corresponding basket of goods and services at RSD30,580 ($284.7, €254.54, £185)
per month (Vukojicic Obradovic 2012).
To conclude, public welfare programmes in Serbia generally surpass their Mexican
counterparts. However, while the latter are improving in terms of their accessibility, quality
250
and coverage, Serbian performance in these indicators is declining in light of its general
macroeconomic circumstances.
National Subsidies and Developmental Aid
One of the Fairtrade system's strongest arguments for the exclusion of producers from
the Global North is their implication in subsidy regimes. I have already noted that this
argument clearly exhibits a double standard, since Mexican producers are actually
encouraged to enter Fairtrade producer organisations, because these cooperatives help them
to apply for support programmes.
In the case of Serbia, from 2007, Serbian agricultural support programmes, as in many
countries around the world, moved towards directly subsidising land ownership (based on
hectares) or livestock (based on their numbers) and on agro-production inputs, such as
fertilisers and petrol (Bozic et al. 2011, p.292, Djordjevic 2013, interview, Radivojevic 2013,
interview and Nikolic 2013a, interview).
In addition, from time to time, the government supports agricultural modernisation
through subsidised rural credits, as already discussed above (Radivojevic 2013, interview and
Bozic et al. 2011, p.292). Furthermore, there are different one-off calls for applications, for
"land development, the consolidation of farmland and for free-of-charge chemical analysis of
soil" (Djordjevic 2013, interview 48:35, audio 4). In addition, the government supports
organic production as well (Fotiric Aksic 2013, interview). This non-exhaustive list of
irregular subsidies changes from one minister of agriculture to another, depending on their
agro-political viewpoints, but also on the current challenges facing the Serbian agricultural
sector (Nikolic 2013a, interview). There is little doubt that those food producers who have
251
received governmental subsidies are, at least to a certain extent, better off with them, than
without them. At the same time, these support programmes come with their own issues.
To begin with, the Serbian system of subsidies operates top-down, not taking into
consideration the specific needs of local communities, which Stojanovic particularly
emphasizes as problematic (2013b, interview). Furthermore, most of the poor and
marginalised agricultural households are not registered, and therefore, they cannot apply for
any type of help from the government (Bozic et al. 2011, p.300). More precariously, being
registered is not a guarantee either, since in 2010 for example, only 16.6 percent of registered
agricultural households received subsidies (Ibid.).
Moving from these general issues with governmental agricultural programmes to
more specific ones, Tojaga, firstly, pointed out that we "subsidise the richest [and the
biggest], and certainly not the poorest" (2013, interview 03:35). He offers an illustrative
example regarding livestock. In South Serbia, agricultural households, "on average, have 1-3
heads of livestock and subsidies start from the fourth" (Ibid. 03:41). In addition, there is the
issue of conditions for receiving subsidies and it is twofold.
As I have already pointed out, the small-scaleness and property rights are the key
reasons for exclusion, yet the application process for subsidies is also far from
straightforward. Fotiric Aksic states that "[i]t almost looks like the Ministry of Agriculture is
looking for mistakes and cannot wait to find them in order to disqualify you... I believe that is
not fair... They should put on their website how the forms should be filled in correctly"
(2013, interview 10:02). This point is again in line with the fact that Serbia is ranked among
the twenty worst countries in terms of the favouritism in decisions of its government officials
and the burden of government regulation (WEF 2013).
Even if all of the above difficulties are surpassed, a small-scale producer faces
probably the most important issue, and that is the fact that the subsidies themselves are
252
insufficient (Radivojevic 2013, interview, Milovanovic 2013, interview and Colovic 2013,
interview). Vitosevic has calculated that, on average, every registered producer in Serbia is
entitled to around 85 Euros ($95.07, £61.78, RSD10,211.87) worth of governmental subsides
per hectare, per year (in Biznis i Finansije 2014). In this scenario, poor and marginalised
small-scale producers from Jablanica and Pcinja districts can expect up to 170 Euros
($190.15 £123.56 RSD20,423.74) per year for their two hectares, or, if divided by two
(because the subsidies are per agricultural holding and not per member/producer and there are
two to three members per agricultural holding), they receive $7.67 per month.
In response to my straightforward question whether the governmental agricultural
support programmes have any real local impact in Jablanica and Pcinja districts, Ivanovic
could not answer more directly: "Absolutely no effect on local [level]!" (2013, interview
03:34). This situation is partially remedied by the work of local city and municipal
governments that, in some areas, are practically the only providers of help and subsidies for
poor and marginalised small-scale producers. However, the programmes themselves are
heavily dependent on the strength of local governments themselves, hence, the poorest can
offer the least, despite the needs of their poor and marginalised small-scale producers being
the greatest.
Although Serbia's proximity to the EU offers clear advantages, it presents a challenge
as well, and I will now put forward the ones most often identified by the literature, and by my
interviewees. Firstly, given the fact that Serbia has signed the Interim Agreement on Trade
and Trade Related Matters with the EU, it cannot effectively protect its own food sector
anymore (Biznis i Finansije 2014). In addition, Serbia does not benefit from the Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP), which only applies to the EU member states (Bozic et al. 2011,
p.42). The final issue is identified by Professor Jasna Savic from the Faculty of Agriculture of
the University of Belgrade, who actively participated in a number of the EU and other
253
international donors' aid programmes in South Serbia, stating that they failed to deliver the
results intended. "Ten years have passed. [(Jablanica and Pcinja districts)] are still the least
developed" (2013, interview 10:06). This question is particularly complex and important due
to the fact that Jablanica and Pcinja districts, as Nikolic stated, have a privileged status in the
eyes of the EU, UN and other developmental programmes (2013a, interview).
In the following sections, I limit my observations to EU programmes, since the EU is
the biggest donor in Serbia (CDJPD 2013). A number of beneficial projects were conducted,
which helped, among other things, the development of the poor and marginalised small-scale
producers (Simic 2013, interview, Murati 2013, interview and Milovanovic 2013, interview,
for example). The importance of the EU help is also clearly visible when it is known that the
Census on Agriculture itself, which will be the base for all future Serbian agricultural
development strategies in years to come, would not be possible without 9 million Euros
worth of the EU donation towards its completion (Novosti 2012). In other words, it would be
misleading to say that the developmental aid, both from the EU and other donors, has no
positive impact on Jablanica and Pcinja districts. At the same time, they deliver mixed
outcomes, for several reasons.
Although funds are available, Jablanica and Pcinja districts are often unable to use
them, since their procedures and the implementation are frequently too complex and beyond
the capacities of small NGOs or local governments (Simic 2013, interview). Secondly, the
inadequacy of the top-down approach of many developmental programmes persists (Easterly
2006), particularly in recognising local priorities, i.e. what is identified as a necessity by
donors and what by the people (Bogdanov 2013, interview). Murati, moreover illustrates
technical issues emanating from this approach on the basis of one educational programme.
"During the summer period... people are in their fields... and they have to attend lectures three
254
days in a row. This is the question of organisation. So, this issue has halved the rest of people
[who were able to attend]" (2013, interview 36:34).
While third-sector developmental projects are well-intended and yield certain positive
results, like their public counterparts, "it seems that all of this is not enough to keep the youth
[here]" (Radivojevic 2013, interview 10:25). Therefore, they cannot be seen as hindering
Serbian Fairtrade inclusion in comparison to other "producer-included" upper-middle-income
economies, as theoretically discussed in Chapter III (see pp.114-128).
Migrations and Demographic Challenges
The penultimate characteristic identified in Chapter V are mass migrations followed
by the abandonment of the countryside. This issue is actually far worse in Serbia with
countless completely deserted villages, or the ones in which the average age of inhabitants is
more than 60 years, with no young couples or children under the age of 18 (Blagojevic 2013,
interview and SADS 2005, p.25).
One of the regions subject to critical migratory patterns is South Serbia, both for
internal (national) and external (international) migrations (Djuraskovic 2013, interview).
Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the migration of population is identified as one of the
main challenges facing Jablanica and Pcinja districts (Stojanovic 2013a, interview, Murati
2013, interview, Zegarac Milenkovic 2013, interview, Nikolic 2013a, interview and
Milenkovic 2013, interview, for example).
Differences on the ground distinguish villages in plains from their mountainous
counterparts. For example, the Municipality of Vladicin Han has "50 villages, out of which
85 percent of villages are in mountainous regions and only 15 percents are located in plains.
All the villages in the plains are currently recording population growth because all the people
255
from the mountainous villages are moving there, and the mountainous villages die out"
(Nikolic 2013a, interview 04:45).
However, even the people from the plains are leaving the municipality, which is again
confirmed by Nikolic stating that "[t]he municipality of Vladicin Han has a trend of
population decline. For the past 10 years we have lost 1,000 people [(5 percent)]" (Ibid.,
05:08). Surdulica similarly lost 10 percent of the population over the past decade (Zegarac
Milenkovic 2013, interview). Milenkovic puts forward another specific example from the
Municipality of Bosilegrad, which borders Bulgaria, stating that a number of people move
towards Sofia before transiting further into the EU (2013, interview).
As already stated, this may result in a rural exodus in the Serbian regions (Biznis i
Finansije 2014). As a consequence, Serbia will lose its food security by becoming dependant
on food imports, further requiring foreign labour to work in these deserted regions (Ibid.),
some of which could even become weekend holiday destinations instead of municipalities, as
Veselin Jovasevic, agricultural adviser at the Municipality of Crna Trava, warns (2013,
interview). Finally, it will remain one of the worst ranked countries in terms of brain drain
(WEF 2013).
An accompanying issue is of the changed demographic picture, because younger
people are the ones who most often migrate. Therefore, villages which have not already been
deserted entirely, especially in mountainous regions, are most likely to be populated by older
people, without a real chance for independent future revival (Jovasevic 2013, interview,
Jovanovic 2013, interview and Slavkovic 2013, interview, for example).
The problem of senior, small-scale producers is also identified on the national level by
the Serbian Agricultural Development Strategy (2005, p.25), however, the local realities in
Jablanica and Pcinja districts are particularly troublesome. Here, the percentage of
agricultural non-commercial households (predominantly households with older people who
256
hardly yield any produce, let alone for the market) is 63 percent, which is two and a half
times higher than the national average of 25 percent (CDJPD 2013). This actually means that
only a third of agricultural households are actually food producers, who lie at the centre of
my research interest. This particular fact is one of the best indicators of a very difficult
demographic situation in these two districts.
In the Municipality of Crna Trava, which already has merely around 1,500
inhabitants, the situation is the most precarious. However, the following information from
Slavoljub Blagojevic, the president of the municipality himself is even more alarming. "The
data is devastating. This year, not a single child was born and around thirty people died
already. Between the two censuses [(at an interval of ten years)], we have lost over 30 percent
of the population... Without new immigration, Crna Trava cannot survive" (2013, interview
01:32). In other municipalities the situation is no better. Smiljkovic states that in the
Municipality of Trgoviste, apart from a few, more successful potato producing villages, all
the others are populated exclusively with older people. "One or two [per household]
remained. Nothing is being produced. All the youth have left" (2013, interview 05:34).
In Medvedja, the situation is a little bit better, however, still, in many villages,
especially in mountainous regions, the vast majority are households of older people, since
"[t]he youth mainly emigrated" (Djordjevic 2013, interview 09:02, audio 4). In the
Municipality of Vladicin Han, the situation does not only manifest in the fact that, like in the
above-mentioned municipalities, the villages in the mountains are populated by older
households, but the average age of people in the municipality as a whole is 55-56 years
(Nikolic 2013a, interview).
Throughout the region, the situation is similar, which should not come as a surprise
when it is known that Serbia has one of the oldest populations in the world. "With the
average age of the population of 40.5 years, Serbia is now among the ten demographically
257
oldest countries in the world" (Politika 2014, p.1). What is even more worrying is the fact
that in Serbia "the average age of holders of family agricultural holdings is 59 years"
(Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia 2013b, p.14). Therefore, Fairtrade, if it ever
comes, will come too late for many areas in Serbia where the small-scale producer
community once thrived.
7.4. Necessity for and Advantages that Fairtrade Benefits Can Bring
Following the presentation of the main characteristics of the Serbian poor and
marginalised small-scale fruit and vegetables producers from Jablanica and Pcinja districts, I
will now focus on Fairtrade benefits as the second most important feature which I identified
in the Mexican case study as the lesson-drawing base (see corresponding section on pp.181-
192), analysing them now from the Serbian perspective. I will carry on the debate above by
detailing Serbian poor and marginalised small-scale producers' requirement of Fairtrade
benefits, and by putting forward their potential impact, in order to identify subsequent
potential for progress. My aim is to further reinforce my position towards their inclusion in
the Fairtrade system, as well as to point out that if that does not happen, they will be
potentially at risk of becoming double-losers, excluded from both conventional trade and
Fairtrade.
Based on the critical analysis of the literature, and on my fieldwork presented in
chapters II, III and V respectively, I have identified twenty benefits covering monetary, non-
monetary economic and non-economic aspects, and I will present them in the Serbian
context. In doing so, I aim to continue the discussion in Chapter V and offer further
arguments that all Fairtrade benefits which are available to Mexican Fairtrade producers are
258
important, although in different degrees and in different ways, for poor and marginalised
small-scale Serbian producers as well.
Monetary Fairtrade Benefits
As in Chapter V (see pp.178-180), I will begin with the Fairtrade minimum price and
Fairtrade premium. Regarding poor and marginalised small-scale Serbian producers,
currently, they do not have anything comparable to the "monetary life jacket", as Arnould and
his colleagues described the Fairtrade minimum price. In the previous section, I put forward
evidence that Nicholls and Opal's idea of sufficient coverage of living and production costs is
far from reality for a number of Jablanica and Pcinja districts' producers (Tojaga 2013,
interview, Slavkovic 2013, interview, Smiljkovic 2013, interview and Murati 2013,
interview). I will now put forward some additional points on how the price for their
agricultural products is formed and then, a few further illustrative examples why it is not
sufficient.
When asked how the global market prices are reflected in the middlemen's prices,
Stojanovic responded "[t]hey are absolutely not interested" (2013c, interview 06:57).
Although there is a national price information channel, the Agricultural Market Information
System of Serbia, which small-scale producers can use as a reference (Murati 2013,
interview), these prices are far from what they get when selling on local markets or through
middlemen.
Tojaga gives an example in the case of apples. He stated that middlemen are often
taking 20 - 30 percent of the price, so in a good year, small-scale producers can have up to
RSD40 ($0.37, €0.33, £0.24) per kilogram (2013, interview). However, the price fluctuates
severely and as an example, he puts forward more than a 100 percent discrepancy between
259
the 2011 and 2012 prices for second-class apples (RSD7-9 and RDS17-22 per kilogram,
respectively) (Ibid.).
A very similar situation can be observed in vegetable production, where the
magnitude of the price drop, after the peak of the food crises for example, is best described
by Vuckovic stating that in 2008, tomatoes fetched RSD120 ($1.12, €1, £0.73) per kilogram,
and just a year after, this price had imploded to RSD3 ($0.027, €0.025, £0.018) per kilogram
(2013, interview). Therefore, because they are neither organised nor protected by any kind of
minimum price which would guarantee sustainability, small-scale producers "mostly depend
on the current offer of goods in the region" (Ivanovic 2013, interview 24:38).
Furthermore, as already explained, the infrastructure of Jablanica and Pcinja districts
is characterised as one of the least developed in Serbia (CDJPD 2013), which is particularly
problematic for small-scale producers' development (Bogdanov 2013, interview). Therefore,
Serbian poor and marginalised producers, in many parts of the two regions that I researched,
are on a par with their counterparts in Mexico, and in a worse situation when compared with
Fairtrade producing communities who managed to significantly improve their infrastructure
due to Fairtrade premiums.
All of these areas are important for Serbian small producers as well, due to already
explained state of, firstly, roads (Slavkovic 2013, interview, Ivanovic 2013, interview,
Radivojevic 2013, interview and Smiljkovic 2013, interview). Secondly, due the issues with
access to schools and education in general (Radosavljevic 2013, interview and Ivanovic 2013,
interview). According to the newest national research, Lebane in Jablanica District is one of
the five municipalities in Serbia where the rate of elementary school dropouts is the highest
and the Municipality of Bujanovac in Pcinja District is among the top five regarding dropouts
from high schools (Report on the Work of the National Education Council in Gucijan 2014).
260
Finally, they are important due to the declining state of the health institutions' access and the
health care in general (Radosavljevic 2013, interview and Ivanovic 2013, interview).
Due to all above-stated issues, public services in Serbia are declining in terms of
accessibility, quality and coverage. According to Bogdanov, many poor and marginalised
small-scale producers do not have access to basic social services and programmes guaranteed
by the state, such as education or health care (2013, interview). Even when they manage
access them, "their quality, which is equally important, is significantly lower" (Bogdanov
2013, interview 34:22).
Therefore, the consequence is that the Fairtrade premium, which was envisaged as
developmental funding, is necessary for poor and marginalised small-scale producers in
Serbia as well, especially given the fact that inadequate infrastructure represents one of the
dominant problems in everyday life of people (Milenkovic 2013, interview).
Non-Monetary Economic Fairtrade Benefits
The second group of Fairtrade benefits consists of thirteen interconnected non-
monetary economic advancements. According to Fairtrade supporters, the above-stated
academic analyses, as well as my fieldwork put forward in chapters II and III, and V
respectively, Fairtrade has improved accesses to market information, to markets themselves
and to pre-harvest/pre-production financing for many Fairtrade producers. In addition, it has
improved creditworthiness, risk perception and credibility, and has brought long-term
commitments and production stability. Finally, it has enabled technological improvements,
diversified production, particularly into organic farming, cut out the middlemen and
positively influenced conventional, non-Fairtrade markets. I will now discuss all of these
aspects from the Serbian perspective.
261
According to Milford (2004) and Utting-Chamorro (2005), by participating in the
Fairtrade system, Fairtrade producers reduced information asymmetry and received more
accurate and timely market information. In Serbia, it can be said that because there is the
Agricultural Market Information System of Serbia, small-scale producers can use it as a
referent starting point (Murati 2013, interview), because it shows the current selling prices of
agricultural goods in the biggest cities in Serbia. However, the problem is that a number of
them, firstly, do not have the access to the Internet, but also the fact that this is not the
referent price for middlemen and local farmers markets.
For them, the price is "...formed that day at the [local] market... [and] if they are not
able to access the [local] market, they are forced to sell at their own farm [to middlemen]. In
that case, the price is [minimum] 50-60 percent less than on the market in Leskovac [(which
is the regional centre)]. The main reason is the impossibility to access the market... which is
exploited by middlemen" (Milenkovic 2013, interview 29:34).
Furthermore, unlike in the case of Fairtrade producers, to whom Fairtrade has brought
"tangible benefits... by connecting them to export markets" (Kasterine 2006, p.18), in Serbia,
the situation is different because poor and marginalised small-scale producers would be
greatly aided if they would be able to sell their products nationally. Therefore, it comes as no
surprise why market access is identified as the biggest problem (Bogdanov 2013, interview,
Radosavljevic 2013, interview, Radivojevic 2013, interview and Murati 2013, interview).
Bogdanov states that this issue is one that all food producers share in Jablanica and Pcinja
districts according to all of her research (2013, interview).
Milovanovic illustrates the severity of the situation compared to all other "usual"
production issues of quality, quantity and continuity, which are, in fact, a challenge for many
established Fairtrade producers (see Davies and Ryals 2010 and Diniz and Fabbe-Costes
2007). She notes that for a group of small-scale vegetable producers from Pcinja District,
262
market access for their goods is enough for them to do all the necessary improvements in
order not to jeopardise it (2013, interview). Unlike many Fairtrade producer organisations
that cannot, for one reason or the other, regularly meet the standards of quality and taste, the
evidence from the field suggests that poor and marginalised small-scale producers in
Jablanica and Pcinja districts would be able to, if offered a chance.
In addition, the regular loans offered by banks with high interest rates are hardly
affordable and profitable even for the biggest food producers in Serbia (Biznis i Finansije
2014), let alone for the poorest, while subsidised government loans seldom, if ever, reach
small-scale producers in Jablanica and Pcinja districts (Jovanovic 2013, interview). Hence,
their inherent creditworthiness explained by Colovic (2013, interview) meets the reality in
which they either cannot meet banks' requirements (Jovanovic 2013, interview), or, whenever
they succeed, the loans themselves are simply insufficient to facilitate any serious investment
and developments (Ivanovic 2013, interview). This is the reason why in Serbia, according to
Serbian Agriculture Development Strategy, "the rural credit market hardly exists" (2005,
p.10), which could not be further away from the 60 to 100 percent pre-harvest/pre-production
loans guaranteed for Fairtrade producers.
This better pre‐harvest/pre‐production financing and greater creditworthiness is
interconnected with a better risk perception (Bacon 2005, p.506). In the case of Serbia, as
stated above, in terms of agricultural insurance, for example, the situation is even worse than
with rural credits (Jovanovic 2013, interview, Djordjevic 2013, interview, Radosavljevic
2013, interview, Colovic 2013, interview, Ivanovic 2013, interview and Zegarac Milenkovic
2013, interview) and the need for it is enormous. The biggest obstacle is poverty (Nikolic
2013a, interview) and the membership in the Fairtrade system could tackle this issue both
directly through monetary, and indirectly through non-monetary economic and non-economic
benefits.
263
All of the above-stated economic non-monetary Fairtrade benefits also lead to longer-
term commitments (Murray and Raynolds 2007, p.5), increased credibility (Schmelzer 2006,
p.22), and to an incentive to increase the quality of production for an old and trustworthy
customer, consequently leading to greater production stability (Milford 2004, p.59 and
Utting-Chamorro 2005, p.592). As explained above, in Serbia, an almost complete lack of
long-term contracts is accompanied by the fact that relational global value chains are virtually
non-existent, with merely a few exceptions. Apart from theoretical viewpoints presented in
chapters II and III, this is also recognised as one of the biggest issues in practice (Radivojevic
2013, interview and Tojaga 2013, interview).
Two increasingly significant non-monetary economic Fairtrade benefits are the
possibility to diversify production and especially, to transition to more lucrative, and at the
same time, more ecologically sustainable organic production (Nelson and Pound 2009, Lamb
2008 and Nicholls and Opal 2005). The latter is particularly important, firstly, due to the fact
that cash crop, monoculture production does not pertain to poor and marginalised small-scale
producers in Serbia as it does to others. Moreover, organic production is one of the key
potentials of Jablanica and Pcinja districts, and one of the few remaining channels for small-
scale producers advancements.
Fotiric Aksic explains that both domestic and foreign certification companies carry
out organic certification in Serbia, and that currently, between 0.3 and 0.5 percent of total
utilised agricultural land in Serbia is converted to such production (2013, interview). She
further remarks that between 80 and 90 percent of all organic products produced in Serbia are
for export, due to the fact that organic producers "will achieve higher profits by exporting
than by selling here" (Ibid. 07:49). What is particularly important for my research is the fact
that according to Bogdanov, in Serbia "[t]oday, organic producers... are from the group of
small-scale [producers], because the big ones do not have any interest whatsoever in such
264
production. ...Those [small-scale] producers... started with organic production very early,
already at the beginning of the 1990s" (2013, interview 44:34). Finally, their potential
competitiveness is best depicted by Djordjevic who states that "[w]e cannot produce 20 tons
of raspberries per hectare like Poland, but we can produce it [in a] healthy [way]" (2013,
interview 33:48, audio 4).
In response to my question whether there is a future for organic production in
Jablanica and Pcinja districts, I received univocally positive answer (Vuckovic 2013,
interview, Radivojevic 2013, interview, Zegarac Milenkovic 2013, interview, Smiljkovic
2013, interview, Milovanovic 2013, interview, Tojaga 2013, interview, Nikolic 2013a,
interview, Santai 2013 interview, Miletic 2013, interview, Slavkovic 2013, interview,
Stojanovic 2013b, interview and others). "[(Jablanica and Pcinja districts)] are exceptionally
unpolluted. Look at Cemernik [(a mountainous region on the border between two districts)],
in all ecological maps, it is marked green" (Vuckovic 2013, interview 12:58). In line with this
position is Radivojevic who answered "[a]bsolutely! Unpolluted environment. We do not
have factories, [and on the other hand] we have the altitude and the soil quality" (2013,
interview 33:52).
The best confirmation of how big the organic potentials of the region are can be found
in the words of Murati (2013, interview), Fotiric Aksic (2013, interview) and Vuckovic
(2013, interview) stating that even without any additional conversion changes, a great amount
of agricultural land in Jablanica and Pcinja district could be used right away for organic
production, since it is passively organic. "There are opportunities here [for organic
production] as the land was at rest. If there was an analysis, 50 percent [of the land] would be
good [(passively organic)]" (Murati 2013, interview 29:27).
265
266
Photos 12-15. Jablanica and Pcinja districts' landscapes (Brkovic 2013b).
Since the current number of organic producers in Jablanica and Pcinja districts is very
small, inter alia, these potentials are not immediately realised (Santai 2013, interview,
Milovanovic 2013, interview and others). Above all, at around 300 Euros ($335.55, £218.05,
RSD36,041.89) per hectare, per year (Fotiric Aksic 2013, interview and Jovanic 2013,
interview), the cost of certification is considerably higher than for the Fairtrade certification.
"Certification is very expensive. There is no organic production without 300 Euros per year,
no matter how small you are" (Jovanic 2013, interview 25:07, audio 2). However, the Centre
for Development of Jablanica and Pcinja Districts is a pioneer in organic production support
and training, and through their projects, currently more than twenty producers are converting
their production to organic according to Ljubinka Santai, the team leader for organic food
production support in South Serbia at the Centre for Development of Jablanica and Pcinja
Districts (2013, interview). Nonetheless, although recognising the enthusiasm of the newly
devoted organic producers, Santai, in her interview asked herself "[w]hat will happen when
the time comes to sell their products? We shall see" (Ibid. 01:07:10), again confirming the
267
priority of the market access issue, which could be greatly remedied through the Fairtrade
system.
The penultimate non-monetary economic benefit is, at the same time, one of the main
goals of the Fairtrade system, which aims to reshape global value chains by cutting out
middlemen. The situation for poor and marginalised small-scale producers in Serbia on the
local level is very similar to that of non-Fairtrade producers.
To begin with, regarding their numbers, Stojanovic has stated that in Serbia, a lot of
middlemen can be found (2013c, interview). Regarding their trading methods, according to
Djordjevic, in the case of plums for example, they work for a minimum 10 percent gross
margin, and will not bother for less (2013, interview). Tojaga goes even further, noting that in
the case of early fruits and the fruits which can easily go bad off, the local middleman gross
margin can be up to 100 percent (2013, interview). In Lebane, Ivanovic states that the
middlemen gross margins are around 30 percent, while producers cannot expect the same
return (2013, interview).
In the most remote places, middlemen have their own middlemen (Tojaga 2013,
interview). Smiljkovic explains the situation in Trgoviste. "There are many hands. There are
more and more middlemen. [One] obtains a license... and he divides it to ten others. They do
not have a license [themselves], but they have a permission [from the first middlemen] as
purchasing places" (2013 interview 43:10). The situation is not much better even if small-
scale producers can physically come to the local farmers markets because, as Jovanovic
explained, "more than 90 percent of the sellers [at the local market place] are not small-scale
producers, but local middleman" (2013, interview 14:42).
As if the issues of difficult market access and middleman gross margins were not
enough, the final local "phenomenon", as Milenkovic calls it, is the situation that the food
products bought by middlemen are simply not paid in the end (2013, interview). This is not
268
an isolated case, since the same is recognised by many of my interviewees, for example, by
Djordjevic, who noted that "middlemen... often take goods without paying" (2013, interview
30:24, audio 4), or by Ivanovic pointing out that even organised export can be misused, since
"[i]t is a common practice not to pay for all the goods" (2013, interview 13:12). "People have
been cheated many times. There is no security" (Ibid. 12:53). Hence, even the poor and unfair
payment is not always guaranteed when doing business with coyotes. Therefore, it comes as
no surprise why the inclusion in the Fairtrade system would be such a big step forward for
Serbian poor and marginalised small-scale producers.
Finally, due to other Fairtrade benefits, the Fairtrade system, where present, positively
influences conventional, non-Fairtrade markets as well. This would be equally important in
the Serbian context, due to the poverty levels explained in the previous section. Furthermore,
market information, which the Fairtrade producers receive due to their long-term and stable
relations with other members of the Fairtrade system, is shared with their neighbours in order
to help them capture more value in the conventional market and the same is true regarding
information about access to new export markets (Nelson and Pound 2009, pp.12-13).
Obviously, in Serbia, firstly some of the producers will have to be able to enter the system in
order to share their knowledge, however, as the example of the vegetable producer
organisation near the city of Vranje shows, in established cooperatives, people are open for
collaboration (Milovanovic 2013, interview).
In Oaxaca for example, the Fairtrade families create extra days of waged employment,
above the conventional average, for other community members, putting additional funds into
the pockets of both Fairtrade and non-Fairtrade workers in particular and into the community
economy in general (Jaffee 2007). This is probably the most important Fairtrade to non-
Fairtrade transferring benefit in the Serbian context due to the problem of unemployment
(Agusi 2013, interview). Finally, the presence of the Fairtrade system forces all middlemen to
269
correct their prices, which is also beneficial for non-Fairtrade producers as well (Milford
2004), an improvement desperately needed in Jablanica and Pcinja districts, as just explained.
Non-economic Fairtrade Benefits
The final part of the debate about Fairtrade benefits will revolve around the five non-
economic ones: individual empowerment, everyday improvements in living conditions,
educational benefits for Fairtrade producers' children, organisational advancements and
political and cultural strengthening of producers' communities already discussed from the
Mexican perspective in Chapter V.
On the individual level, in Mexico, a Fairtrade producer Isaías Martínez has stated
that "[t]he most important contribution of the Fairtrade Labelling system is in my eyes that
our 'dignity as a human being' is recovered" (in Schmelzer 2006, p.30). In the case of Serbia,
as I have already explained, the Serbian poor and marginalised small-scale producer is the
master of her/his farm (Nikolic 2013a, interview). However, beyond it, s/he is often cheated
by middlemen (Nikolic 2013a, interview), who sometimes pay nothing at all (Milenkovic
2013, interview), frightened by the banks (Nikolic 2013a, interview) and discouraged by the
complicated governmental agricultural support programmes' procedures (Ivanovic 2013,
interview).
Even my most optimistic interviewees, when asked about what will happen in the next
five to ten years, had to encourage themselves by saying "I do not want to be a pessimist"
(Nikolic 2013a, interview 58:27), and those are the people who devoted their time trying to
change the difficult reality in their municipalities. Naturally, the poor and marginalised small-
scale producers are, in general, far less optimistic. Many actors are simply apathetic and they
do not want to initiate anything (Murati 2013, interview). The Centre for Development of
270
Jablanica and Pcinja Districts and local governments are trying and in many different ways
succeeding in helping them, however, these are not business initiatives and they cannot give
them what they really need and what the Fairtrade system, as a trade-not-aid initiative, in fact,
could.
Together with the psychological dimension, which is equally important for a Fairtrade
producer, are the improvements of her/his physical surroundings. In Chapter V, I already
presented a comprehensive debate about the improvements in everyday living conditions that
Mexican Fairtrade producers experience unlike their non-Fairtrade neighbours.
In the case of Serbia, the poor and marginalised small-scale producers seldom make
this a priority. Firstly, they have to invest everything back into production, in order to ensure
that they will be able to start a new cycle (Tojaga 2013, interview), and secondly, because of
their pride. Dejan Nikolic explains: "We have a Centre for Social Work [in Vladicin Han],
which administers who will receive social help. However, in these parts, people are, let's say,
proud and they do not use social help. They do not want to ask for it. They are embarrassed to
go to the Centre for Social Work and say - I do not have, please give me something. They
will more likely suffer [and work] rather than ask [for help]" (2013a, interview 22:39).
The final individual/family benefit results from the insistence of the Fairtrade system
on Fairtrade producers' children education. Again, it is important to state that the poorest
Serbian pupils and students are supported by the government more comprehensively than in
Mexico. However, it is also important to remember that in Jablanica and Pcinja districts,
some of the municipalities are at the top of the lists regarding elementary and high school
dropouts, and that up to 30 percent of children in Serbia are at risk of poverty, according to
the latest data presented by the national Institute for Social Security (BETA 2014).
All the above stated individual empowerment measures are augmented by the fact that
a Fairtrade producer is, at the same time, a member of the Fairtrade cooperative. Serbia has a
271
very long tradition of producer organisations, i.e. cooperatives which are called zadruge in
Serbian, dating back from the second half of the 19th century (SADS 2005, p.16). Their
contemporary importance is clearly recognised on the local level, by the Centre for
Development of Jablanica and Pcinja Districts stating in their main developmental
documents that the cooperation between producers, starting with neighbours and spreading
through villages and whole areas, is especially important for cheaper inputs, production
development, better sales and protection of their rights (CDJPD 2013). In addition, local
governments strongly encourage the development of their local cooperatives through
education, and business, administrative and technical support (Ibid.).
It is therefore clear that their importance is recognised and appreciated, however, the
current moment of their development shows a more complex picture. Regarding Jablanica
and Pcinja districts' cooperatives, nearly all of my interviewees from Serbia had a lot to say
about them, both about the past and the present, both in terms of positive and negative
experiences. Colovic stated that people are realising more and more the importance of
economies of scale, and that they are joining forces in order to advance their procurement of
inputs and sales, allowing them to fetch better prices and better conditions (2013, interview).
Djordjevic is in line with this point, stating that more people realise that "they are left alone,
and that no one can help them if they do not help themselves" (2013, interview 26:49, audio
4).
How big the need for them in some municipalities can be is best described by Sasa
Dodic, the director of the Office for Local Economic Development of the Municipality of
Bojnik, who commented that in Bojnik, for example, there are practically no agricultural
cooperatives, which he sees as a big issue (2013, interview). The same situation is, for
example, in Presevo and Trgoviste (Murati 2013, interview and Smiljkovic 2013, interview).
272
Apart from the fact that it is a Fairtrade prerequisite, organising small-scale producers
into cooperatives in itself has numerous advantages. As in the case of Mexico, I have also
identified corresponding benefits in Serbia, in terms of strength in numbers, easier market
access, technological and production diversification.
Tojaga highlights an excellent case of cooperation. In a number of the most developed
villages around the City of Leskovac, small-scale producers have united their land and
together with the Serbian government and the World Bank have changed their petrol
generators, which they used for food production in glasshouses and poly-tunnels, using
electricity from the national grid, which lowered their costs of production significantly (2013,
interview).
Regarding their educational potentials, Milovanovic confirms this point by stating that
when a cooperative is working well, agricultural producers want to advance their knowledge
and therefore, they follow the new agricultural developments and go to seminars (2013,
interview). Moreover, when enough people, with sufficient know-how are put in a
collaborative surrounding of a cooperative, the following improvements are rarely absent.
Firstly, cooperatives provide continuous market access, entailing initiatives to become even
more competitive, which often leads to technological developments and consequently, higher
quality and larger quantities leading to the achievement of good prices (Stojanovic 2013b,
interview). The latter were particularly successful in changing the small-scale producers'
mind about joining forces again and starting to work together in cooperatives. When small-
scale producers "realise the advantages, they slowly start to accept the concept of
cooperatives" (Milovanovic 2013, interview 07:20).
In addition, cooperative membership can lead to a parallel strengthening of the
quality, quantity and continuity of primary production, but also to diversification, into, for
example, beekeeping or organic production, which can become the ground for further
273
cooperation, now through, for instance, specialist honey or organic producer organisations
(Miletic 2013, interview, Radosavljevic 2013, interview and Vuckovic 2013, interview).
The final Fairtrade benefit is focused on producers' political and cultural
empowerment. Milford (2004) found that due to their newly won power coming from
participation in the Fairtrade system and all accompanying benefits, Mexican Fairtrade
producers were able to lobby not only for the political and policy changes which had a direct
impact on their production, but also for positive improvements in national non-Fairtrade
coffee market as well. The current situation in Serbia regarding these issues is best depicted
by Sevarlic who notes that "[f]or several election cycles, in the Serbian parliament there are
practically no relevant representatives of this group [(food producers)]" (in Biznis i Finansije
2014, p.3). Therefore, the necessity for this benefit is certainly present and on the local level,
the Centre for Development of Jablanica and Pcinja Districts states that the cooperation
between producers is paramount to protect their rights and lobbying positions (CDJPD
2013).
Murray and his colleagues' research (2003) found that in the Fairtrade coffee
communities they studied, Fairtrade also contributed to their cultural revival, especially by
supporting ancestral farming practices and preserving rural ways of life. One aspect of the
palette of challenges that small-scale producers in Mexico are facing which does not bear
upon Serbia is the predominantly indigenous character of Mexican Fairtrade producers. That
being said, it is also important to point out that cultural specificities are certainly present in
South Serbia. In addition, a number of municipalities are multicultural, with Albanian,
Bulgarian and Macedonian minorities, among others, who share the same issues of poverty
and marginalisation, particularly if they are small-scale producers. They would benefit
equally from entering the Fairtrade system, but would further be able to preserve their
particular ancestral ways of production.
274
To conclude, all of the Fairtrade benefits stated above can be identified as important
for poor and marginalised small-scale Serbian producers, recognising the possible
advancements that Fairtrade can bring to them once Fairtrade International's standards are
changed. Consequently, I can affirm that there is a real need for the above-stated Fairtrade
benefits in the case of Serbian small-scale producers, and that they can indeed bring
development.
7.5. Future of Serbian Fairtrade Production
Which first steps of Fairtrade production need to be made in Serbia? They are,
essentially, the same as with all other, "producer-included" countries, and Harriet Lamb
already has a blueprint to offer: "First, we check if Fairtrade can make a difference to the
producers, if it can stimulate development and bring greater justice into the trade, and if so
how will it have to be framed and adapted? We look at which communities could be
interested and which traders. We have to ask: Will it work in the market? What level should
the price be set at? Do we need additional rules for this particular product?" (Ibid., p.170).
None of these stages would be insurmountable in the Serbian context, and in practice,
Djuraskovic proposes the creation of a pilot Fairtrade cooperative, because if just one starts to
function as an example of good practice "...then it will become known and people will start to
apply these principles in their communities" (2013, interview 38:19).
Furthermore, as Kosanovic stated, in order for Fairtrade to come to life in Serbia, not
only would the inclusion of Serbian poor and marginalised small-scale producers be a moral
pre-requirement, but also, Serbs will have to be able to buy the products that they really love,
for example, the famous peppers, tomatoes, or cherries from South Serbian producers, now
under Fairtrade conditions (2013, interview). Moreover, obvious examples of the future
275
Fairtrade products, which could be easily supplied through relational value chains, are the
ones from Serbia, especially due to the fact that the Fairtrade precondition of middlemen
exclusion will be welcomed by supermarkets, which is recognised even by Serbian
supermarkets currently not participating in the Fairtrade system at the moment (Nikolic
2013b, interview). These topics will be further discussed in the next chapter.
In terms of the prospective Serbian Fairtrade producers themselves, according to my
interviewees, firstly, there are glimmers of, demographical, and therefore, pro-Fairtrade hope.
Asked whether there is any chance for younger small-scale food producers to remain rather
than emigrating, I received a number of positive answers, from all municipalities.
I will start with the least developed. In Crna Trava, Blagojevic stated that if there
were fresh investments, the remaining workforce would be able to begin production, and not
long after, others would join (2013, interview). In Trgoviste for example, Smiljkovic stated
that "the ones who stayed, see the potential in fruit production" (2013, interview 13:28).
Moreover, in Medvedja, Djordjevic said that the problem is not in the willingness to work,
know-how or production capacities, and that many will gladly come back if they would know
what to do with the products and where to sell them (2013, interview). Milisav Miletic, the
president of the local beekeepers society, from the same municipality confirmed this
impression in his observation that honey production among the young is on the rise, due to
excellent natural preconditions, and at the moment, a stable market access and a good price
(2013, interview).
Therefore, there are people who will be interested, but their agricultural education,
certification knowledge and business know-how are equally important. In these respects, a
considerable number of small-scale producers would be able to follow demanding Fairtrade
rules and regulations. Savic frames the younger generation as prone to learning (2013,
interview). "They are learning non-stop" (Ibid. 33:45). In addition, Radivojevic identified the
276
senior producers as equally ready to enhance their knowledge though workshops and
seminars (2013, interview).
Goran Milenkovic, who is one of the most experienced trainers at the Centre for
Development of Jablanica and Pcinja Districts, expressed his satisfaction at the recurring
answer he now receives to his question as to whether his clients prefer equipment,
agricultural mechanisation or knowledge; "[m]any opted for knowledge" (2013, interview
59:22). Even in the least developed municipalities like Presevo or Trgoviste, when directly
asked if poor and marginalised small-scale producers will be able to follow the rules and
regulations in terms of quality, quantity and continuity if the sustainable partnership is
guaranteed they responded "[a]bsolutely" (Murati 2013, interview 41:18) and that "[t]his is
not a problem [even for organic production]" (Smiljkovic 2013, interview 25:29).
Both small and large farms prioritise certification and quality controls, hence, Serbian
food producers will not regard the Fairtrade certification logic and requirements as a novelty,
particularly because many small-scale producers see these initiatives as the only way to
develop. Furthermore, the certification schemes currently available to poor and marginalised
small-scale producers in Serbia are many times more expensive than Fairtrade certification
and therefore completely unavailable to them. In addition, from the perspective of both
Fairtrade International's general and FLO-CERT's particular costs-benefit analyses, it is
cheaper to conduct audits for these product categories in closer countries like Serbia. Finally,
Serbian poor and marginalised small-scale producers have already showed that they will be
able to follow rules and regulations. "I think that it should just be explained to people what it
is about. What are their obligations... I think that this is not a problem" (Zegarac Milenkovic
2013 interview 27:23).
Additional facilitators of Fairtrade entrance in Jablanica and Pcinja districts are local
governments in general, and their offices for local economic development and their
277
agricultural advisers in particular, as well as the Centre for Development of Jablanica and
Pcinja Districts. As someone who had the opportunity to visit and speak with most of them, I
can confirm from my personal experience the highest level of cooperation which I
experienced during my field research and their expertise and dedicated work focused on local
agricultural support programmes, the cooperation with foreign donor agencies, the
educational activities and the general effort to bring development to Jablanica and Pcinja
districts.
There are certainly immediate difficulties connected with their inclusion recognised
by numerous Fairtraders (Fairtrade Supporter Conference 2013, 2012 and 2011 and Woodger
2012, for example), in addition to the above-presented local challenges. Recognising the
resource limitations of the Fairtrade system and its self-evident inability to develop
simultaneously in all directions, my position based on my critical analyses of both academic
Fair Trade literature and Fairtrade International's standards, as well as on my fieldwork in
Serbia is that these problems are surmountable. Therefore, I see the future of some Serbian
poor and marginalised small-scale producers in the Fairtrade system.
The Same Fairtradeness?
The arguments presented from the Serbian perspective regarding the characteristics
and everyday realities of the poor and marginalised, small-scale fruit and vegetables
producers in Jablanica and Pcinja districts strengthen my claims that Mexican Fairtrade
producers are not lagging terribly behind them, while in some aspects, they would enjoy a
clear advantage, resulting from Fairtrade membership. Consequently, there is a real need for
Fairtrade benefits and Fairtrade would have a clear positive impact on their development.
Finally, based on their previous certification, and their experiences in achieving quality,
278
quantity and continuity, Serbian prospective Fairtrade producers will be able to follow
Fairtrade rules and regulations, as discussed above.
In the case of Mexican Fairtrade producers and poor and marginalised Serbian small-
scale producers, I put forward arguments that, regarding the degree of their Fairtradeness,
they are matchable. Firstly, since according to how much they need Fairtrade certification,
i.e. how poor, marginalised and small-scale they are criterion, a poor and marginalised small-
scale fruit and vegetable producer from Jablanica and Pcinja districts is on a par and therefore
has the same degree of Fairtradeness, as one in Mexico who is already a member of the
Fairtrade system.
Secondly, Fairtradeness assesses how strictly producers comply with Fairtrade
standards. Compliance is considered in three questions. Can they comply? If they can, to
what extent? Will they go an extra mile? In this context, I again put forward arguments to
support my claim that a poor and marginalised small-scale fruit and vegetable producer from
Jablanica and Pcinja districts has the same degree of Fairtradeness as one in Mexico who
already happen to be part of the Fairtrade system. Therefore, I find that, ceteris paribus, they
have the same degree of Fairtradeness.
Finally, if all arguments above are disregarded and if nothing changes, I find that,
firstly, from the perspective of the Fairtrade system, this would represent a failure on its part
to adhere to its own internal normative and operational logic and its own Vision and Mission,
as theoretically discussed in Chapter III (see pp.123-128 and the section "Question of
Fairtrade System's Raison d'Etre"). As already stated, this can have potentially catastrophic
consequences for its future development. Simply put, if the Fairtrade system cannot back its
proclamations up with action, its entire credibility is at stake. Moreover, both Serbian, and
Fairtrade traders and consumers around the world, will be unable to fully care across
geographical, social and economic spaces through the Fairtrade system as long as this
279
exclusion exists (as discussed in the section "Fairtrade System and Caring Across Spaces").
Finally, from the position of the poor and marginalised small-scale producers in Jablanica and
Pcinja districts, I find that without the possibility to join initiatives like Fairtrade, they are at
the imminent risk of becoming double-losers, excluded from both the non-Fairtrade and the
Fairtrade systems.
I began Chapter VII by discussing the history and the contemporary structure of
the Serbian Fairtrade system. By showing the recent developments, from 2012 onward, I
argued that the Fairtrade movement in Serbia is growing, with traders creating demand for
Fairtrade products and consumers supporting it with their purchases.
Following this overall introduction to both this and the next chapter, applying my
theoretical framework, I put forward a comprehensive debate about the first Fairtrade
referent object, the first link in Fairtrade global value chains - prospective Serbian
Fairtrade producers. The discussion presented was based on lessons one and two learned
from my first illustrative case study on Mexico concerning the main characteristics of
Fairtrade producers and benefits that they receive from the Fairtrade system.
Consequently, I presented the main characteristics and everyday realities of poor
and marginalised small-scale producers in Jablanica and Pcinja districts. By discussing
their general poverty levels, business challenges, state of local infrastructure, social
services and programmes, national subsidies and developmental aid, as well as migrations
and demographic challenges, I demonstrated that they are not more developed than their
Mexican Fairtrade counterparts. On the contrary, in some aspects, Mexican Fairtrade
280
producers enjoy clear advantages over them, and these directly result from being a part of
the Fairtrade system.
Following the presentation of the main characteristics of the Serbian poor and
marginalised small-scale fruit and vegetables producers from Jablanica and Pcinja districts, in
the following section, I focused on the second most important feature which I identified in the
Mexican case study as the lesson-drawing base - the Fairtrade benefits. Here, I analysed them
from a Serbian perspective. I continued the discussion about Serbian poor and marginalised
small-scale producers' difficult position, hence, their need for Fairtrade benefits by putting
forward their potential impacts, in order to identify possible advancements that Fairtrade can
bring. I again discussed twenty benefits covering monetary, non-monetary economic and
non-economic aspects, now presenting them in the Serbian context. By opening this debate, I
aimed to offer further arguments that all Fairtrade benefits available to Mexican Fairtrade
producers are similarly important, though in different degrees and in different ways, for poor
and marginalised small-scale Serbian producers. I thereby reinforced my position supporting
their inclusion in the Fairtrade system, arguing that if this does not happen, they will be
potentially at risk of becoming double-losers excluded from both conventional trade and
Fairtrade.
Combining the above-presented argumentation with an additional discussion focused
solely on who will be the prospective Fairtrade producers from Serbia, I thereby answered
my first attendant research question - "To what extent can Serbian poor and marginalised
small-scale producers, currently excluded from the Fairtrade system partake in that system?"
and subsequently, the first part of my underlying research question focused on the extent to
which Serbian poor and marginalised small-scale producers can partake in the Fairtrade
system in future.
281
Therefore, in Chapter VII, by using the lessons drawn from Chapter V as points of
departure, combined with my original extensive field research in Serbia, I discussed
prospective Serbian Fairtrade production. In the second "Serbian Chapter", the discussion
regarding the following two Fairtrade referent objects of my doctoral thesis - Fairtrade traders
and consumers, now in the Serbian context, as well as concerning potentials for creating
Serbian national Fairtrade-like system will be put forward.
282
CHAPTER VIII - SERBIAN PRESENT AND FUTURE FAIRTRADE TRADERS AND
CONSUMERS AND SERBIAN NATIONAL FAIRTRADE-LIKE SYSTEM
Chapter VIII will continue the debate in Chapter VII, but shift its focus towards
Fairtrade traders and consumers as the second and the third key links in Fairtrade global
value chains, now from the Serbian perspective. They will be examined through the prism of
the following two lessons drawn from the second illustrative case study on the UK.
Firstly, I will focus on Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets that initially
sparked Serbian Fairtrade development, and still is the dominant Serbian Fairtrade trading
and consuming channel today. Secondly, I will discuss Serbian Fairtrade consumers in
general, highlighting the ones with the highest Fairtradeness who are, at the same time,
Fairtrade campaigners as well. Therefore, Serbian proto-Fairtrade campaigners will be in the
focus of the second section of this chapter.
By concluding these two debates, I will fully answer the second attendant research
question - "What is the current situation and what are the potentials for further development
of Serbian Fairtrade trade and consumption?", thereby answering the second part of my
underlying research question connected with the question of the extent to which Serbian
Fairtrade traders and consumers are and will be able to partake in the Fairtrade system in the
future.
In addition, following the completion of separate presentations of all three referent
objects of my doctoral thesis, in the final part of this chapter, the debate focused on
possibilities for developing Serbian national Fairtrade-like system will further enhance the
discussion. This will give the final answer to the third attendant research question - "To what
extent it is possible to establish a national Fairtrade-like system in Serbia and in that case, is
the whole greater than the sum of its parts?", which in turn will answer the final part of my
283
underlying research question holistically looking on the potentials for Serbian Fairtrade
production, trade and consumption.
8.1. Current and Future Fairtrade Traders in Serbia
Continuing the debate focused on the key parts of Serbian Fairtrade value chains, in
this section, I will analyse Fairtrade traders as the second Fairtrade referent object, now from
the Serbian perspective. They will be analysed through the prism of the first lesson drawn
from the UK illustrative case study, i.e. Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets. The
utility of this approach rests on the observation that supermarkets are the dominant Serbian
Fairtrade food trading and consuming channel, as discussed below.
Before I analyse supermarkets as Fairtrade traders, I will briefly present other Serbian
Fairtrade traders, given the fact that, beyond Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets, I
am also interested in the general future potential of Serbian Fairtrade trade. As mentioned, I
am using my concept of Fairtradeness in order to classify Fairtrade traders. According to my
classification, Fairtrade traders with the highest Fairtradeness are the ones who fully follow
the spirit of Fairtrade, i.e. the 100% Fair Trade companies, while the ones with lower
Fairtradeness range from the best examples of "fair trade adopters", to far less dedicated "fair
trade branders", as well as supermarkets selling Fairtrade products, where almost all levels of
Fairtrade devotion can be found.
In the Serbian context, 100% Fair Trade companies like the UK's Cafédirect, do not
currently exist, hence, there are neither foreign nor domestic companies, whose raison d'être
is Fairtrade. Similarly, regarding the "fair trade adopters", like the UK's Clipper Teas, there
are no corresponding Serbian companies. Similarly, no domestic companies in Serbia are
willing to subject themselves to the Fairtrade business logic in the same way as "fair trade
284
branders" like Nestlé. Regarding the foreign ones, firstly, there are Oriflame's seven cosmetic
products made from Fairtrade ingredients. Secondly, Marks & Spencer's garment department
is represented by their Fairtrade cotton t-shirts and Djuraskovic points out that the prices for
the equivalent Fairtrade and non-Fairtrade t-shirts in Serbia are the same (2013, interview). In
addition, Nestlé is represented with their Fairtrade Kit Kat bars.
However, concerning Serbian fair trade branders, although they represent an
important part of the initial Fairtrade trade development in Serbia, they are not at the centre
of my research attention due to the fact that two out of three are not focused on food and
finally, given the fact that I will look Nestlé's Fairtrade Kit Kat bars through their trade and
consumption channels - Tempo hypermarkets, which are parts of Delhaize Serbia.
Hence, although crucial for the initial development of the Fairtrade system in the most
important Fairtrade trade markets, such as the UK, for example, and very important for its
future, the previously presented Fairtrade traders are less significant for the current Fairtrade
system in Serbia, although, they are certainly important for its future development
(Djuraskovic 2013, interview). Currently, global value chains one, four, six and seven, the
ones predominantly used by the above-presented categories of Fairtrade traders as discussed
in Chapter II (see pp.76-77 and the section "Fairtrade Relational Global Value Chains",
particularly Table 11), are practically nonexistent in Serbia at the time of writing of this
dissertation.
As already stated, the Fairtrade global value chains "in the middle" are dominant, and
according to my interviewees, the majority of the Serbian Fairtrade market will be based on
them in foreseeable future as well (Kosanovic 2013, interview and Seslija 2013, interview).
The Fairtrade global value chains two, three and five perfectly fit the Fairtrade
mainstreaming-through-supermarkets process as already explained theoretical in chapters II
and III and empirically in Chapter VI, since they are either facilitated or commenced by
285
mainstream supermarkets. Therefore, the Serbian Fairtrade trader, which has the above-stated
Fairtrade global value chains in the base of its Fairtrade business practices, is of the utmost
importance for my doctoral research. That is Delhaize Serbia, a part of the Delhaize Group
where, at the moment, eight Fairtrade products can be bought: two types of cereals, chocolate
cream, chocolate biscuits, Fairtrade Kit Kat bars, and three types of tea - green tea with
lemon, rooibos and Earl Grey.
There are other big supermarkets in Serbia, like Croatian Idea, which recently bought
Slovenian Mercator (which had under its umbrella the Roda chain of supermarkets as well).
According to Kosanovic, they are Delhaize's most serious competitors (2013, interview). I
will also introduce Super Vero supermarkets, which are part of the Greek Veropoulos chain
(Veropoulos 2015). Finally, there are DIS and Univerexport, which are the least developed
out of the big five, but are Serbian domestic supermarkets (DIS 2015 and Univerexport
2015). Finally, I will mention Primanova, which, although significantly smaller than all the
above-mentioned supermarket chains, is the biggest local food trading company in Jablanica
and Pcinja districts, and opened the first hypermarket in South Serbia (Nikolic 2013b,
interview).
However, my focus will be on Delhaize Serbia, firstly, because it is, according to
consultancy company Archicom, the largest supermarket operator in Serbia (2011), as
confirmed by the most recent research by Cakic (2014) and Marinkovic (2014). The Delhaize
Group notes that "[w]ith a total of 387 stores, Delhaize Group is the leading food retailer in
Serbia" (2015, p.1). Delhaize Serbia retails through four different types of shop formats. The
"Shop&Go" corner stores, "Maxi", large supermarkets inside metropolitan areas, "Tempo" -
hypermarkets located on cities' outskirts and "Tempo Express", a chain of small discount
stores (Ibid.).
286
Delhaize Serbia's stores from December 31, 2014
Delhaize Serbia Shop&Go Maxi Tempo Tempo Express
Stores 190 170 12 15
Surface range (sq. m.) up to 130 600 4400 780
Number of products 2600 6600 21300 4200
Table 26. Delhaize Serbia's different store formats (Delhaize Group 2015).
Map 6. Delhaize Serbia's national coverage Graph 3. Delhaize Serbia's total number of employees
(Delhaize Group 2015). (Delhaize Group 2015).
Even more importantly, Delhaize Serbia is the only company that trades with
Fairtrade products, even though all other supermarket chains are potential Serbian Fairtrade
traders30. Therefore, my focus will be on its current Fairtrade strengths, weaknesses and
finally, on its future potential.
8.2. The Role of Fairtrade Mainstreaming through Supermarkets in Serbia
Based on the theoretical and empirical analyses of supermarkets and Fairtrade
mainstreaming presented in chapters II and VI (see pp.64-65 and 195-207), I will now present
Delhaize Serbia's most important Fairtrade trading characteristics, using the data gathered
through critical analysis of the literature and my fieldwork.
30
Recently, in a few DIS' stores, a contingent of pineapples and bananas with Fairtrade mark was identified by
Serbian Fairtrade campaigners from the Facebook group "Fairtrade Serbia". However, on the shelves they were
not identified as Fairtrade, they were just a part of the regular offer of pineapples and bananas, and finally, they
were gone just as they came. This was due to the fact that they were bought through category managers who did
not identify them as Fairtrade, but as regular pineapples and bananas offered by wholesalers.
287
Delhaize Serbia is the Fairtrade pioneer in Serbia, since it introduced the first
Fairtrade products in 2012 (Kosanovic 2013, interview) making Serbia one of the first
countries from the producer-excluded group of upper-middle-income economies where
Fairtrade products were sold. This change testifies to Delhaize Serbia's Fairtrade leadership,
and challenges the already stated Becchetti and Huybrechts identification of supermarkets as
Fairtrade "second movers" (2008). Although it is true that Fairtrade products only represent a
small portion of Delhaize Serbia's assortment (Kosanovic 2013, interview), it is also true that
it introduced Fairtrade products before the existence of any 100% Serbian Fair Trade
company and without any pressure from Serbian Fairtrade campaigners.
A number of scholars have also identified supermarkets' involvement as, above all,
commercial and far less ethically motivated (Smith 2010, Smith and Barrientos 2005 and
Tallontire and Vorley 2005). Conversely, I will quote Kosanovic who, when asked about the
current state of Fairtrade sales in Delhaize Serbia, started his response with "unfortunately",
continuing "in Serbia we only have a few products on our shelves and sales started at the end
of last year" (2013, interview 00:55). Given the fact that he was almost apologising because
there are no more Fairtrade products, this certainly shows the commitment and the wish for
them to be included on larger scale.
Furthermore, as already discussed in chapters II and III, supermarkets market
themselves towards the above-stated three different groups of consumers, the "radical",
"conscientious" and "do what I can" group (Alexander and Nicholls 2006). However, they
must also show their shareholders and other stakeholders that their corporate social
responsibility is sincere. In Serbia, this is the case, firstly, because Delhaize Serbia aims for a
wider audience. The global Delhaize Group's 2020 sustainability strategy, which includes
Fairtrade trading and which is followed by Delhaize Serbia, serves as a further catalyst for the
Serbian branch's effort. This strategy was introduced, to a certain extent, in order to satisfy all
288
shareholders and show how Delhaize Group maintains the same high sustainability standards
across borders. Although this strategy is a direction setter, Delhaize Serbia is not forced to
meet the same deadlines and targets (Kosanovic 2013, interview). For this reason, the latter's
Fairtrade pioneer work is even more praiseworthy.
In addition, in the UK, Nicholls and Opal understood that Tesco's participation,
although often criticised as the least involved, can have a decisive effect on Fairtrade sales in
the future, since it is the UK's largest grocery retailer (2005, pp.183-185). In Serbia, a
corresponding situation prevails, in which Delhaize Serbia portraits itself as both the biggest
and the most progressive supermarket chain and their current, and especially future
involvement will be very important for Serbian Fairtrade development.
Finally, what is especially interesting in terms of Delhaize Serbia's relation to
Fairtrade is, firstly, their readiness to work with future Fairtrade campaigners. "[W]hen it
comes to social responsibility, we have a collaboration with external partners and regarding
whether we would cooperate with Fairtrade, why not. If we were recognised by someone who
wants to work together on this... There is no reason why we should not do it" (Kosanovic
2013, interview 50:50). Secondly, very important for their future development is their
recognition of Fairtrade as one of the strongest labels. "[Fairtrade] ...is something that is
definitely a part of the whole [sustainability] strategy, so the Fairtrade mark, for me, perhaps
means more than these other purely biological or healthy eating marks" (Ibid. 47:24).
Now that the general characteristics of Delhaize Serbia as a Serbian Fairtrade trader
have been outlined, I will now discuss its Fairtrade practices to look up to, as well as its anti-
Fairtrade conducts following the analytical matrix presented in Chapter VI (see pp.200-207).
289
Supermarket Fairtrade Practices to Look Up To in Serbia
On the upside, in general, Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets can boost
consumers' spending per capita and Fairtrade annual growth, consequently positively
influencing overall Fairtrade sales. Secondly, it is an excellent way to introduce Fairtrade to
new consumers, and to educate them. Thirdly, it can lead to development of Fairtrade global
relational value chains, and encourage cooperation between Fairtrade producers and traders,
as well as with consumers. Moreover, it can clearly confirm that Fairtrade is a serious option
for all mainstream food businesses, by showing that it is a concept widely accepted by
consumers, who willingly agree to pay often more, recognising Fairtradeness as an additional
product quality. In addition, with mainstreaming, Fairtrade can emerge from more than one
niche and enter other sectors' mainstreams, most importantly the media, which, finally, leads
to the possibility of building even more recognisable and influential Fairtrade brands. Based
on my critical analysis and fieldwork, I will now analyse each positive result of Fairtrade
mainstreaming through supermarkets, from Delhaize Serbia's perspective.
As already stated, Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets potentially boosts
Fairtrade annual growth and consumers' spending per capita, positively influencing overall
Fairtrade sales. Delhaize Serbia started with two, continued with five and now has eight
Fairtrade products on their shelves, which is about a half of all Fairtrade products available in
Serbia, representing almost all Fairtrade food products in the Serbian market. In addition, the
case of Fairtrade Kit Kat bar sales in Tempo is just what Wouters was referring to when
saying that when "a brand that you really like... one day becomes Fairtrade, you continue to
buy it" (2013, interview 15:36, audio 1). This is particularly true since they are not sold at
price premium compared to their non-Fairtrade equivalents.
290
I will put forward two of their practices, as additionally beneficial for Fairtrade
development. The first one is the general perspective explained by Kosanovic stating that for
their consumers, there are no Fairtrade limits, since "...all products can be Fairtrade" (2013,
interview 42:52). Secondly, they strongly support the development of Serbian Fairtrade
production. Prompted as to how would they see Serbian Fairtrade fruit, vegetables, honey,
herbal teas and wine, Kosanovic responded: "it would be interesting... to sell a local product,
locally, from local producer who is Fairtrade... That would be more interesting [for us], then
to start with a Belgian range that no one will recognize in the next ten years" (Ibid. 44:35).
The next advantage of Fairtrade mainstreaming is the fact that this approach can be an
excellent way to introduce Fairtrade to new consumers and secondly, to educate them.
Regarding Delhaize Serbia's consumer attracting and educating role, which is crucial in the
early stages of any Fairtrade market development, firstly, there is a critique stated by
Djuraskovic saying that Delhaize Serbia promotes Fairtrade to a lesser extent than himself. "I
advertise [Fairtrade] more than Delhaize advertises Fairtrade, which is not normal" (2013,
interview 47:21). "When you enter one of their supermarkets, you cannot separately see
Fairtrade. It is not emphasised in any way" (Ibid. 48:03). However, this is actually a common
practice in almost all supermarkets worldwide selling Fairtrade products, even in the UK,
apart from Co-op.
However, Kosanovic's response to this critique shows a more complex picture. He
sets out by stating that the Fairtrade education, so important for giving care a substance as
explained in Chapter II (see p.86, and the section 2.3. Fairtrade System and Caring Across
Spaces), begins before consumers enter the store. "When a consumer walks into a shop where
does he look? Even if you write a huge poster that says "Buy Fairtrade, because of this and
that", he will not read it. Many people do not read the in-store messages but just chase the
lowest prices, and this is the fact from which we cannot escape. So the communication in the
291
store is something that is already a fait accompli. ...the communication has to happen outside
the store. Before [a consumer enters] the store actually" (2013 interview 48:44). This
assessment, one I share, underscores the significance of Fairtrade campaigners, to be
discussed below.
Secondly, Delhaize Serbia trains its employees internally in order to familiarise them
with the concept of Fairtrade. Dusanka Seslija, sustainability assistant at Delhaize Serbia,
who has delivered some of these workshops, explains that "[t]hose 1,000 people [who
attended the lectures] will certainly learn from us what Fairtrade is and maybe... [some] will
like the story and will spread the word" (2013, interview 29:25). Therefore, Delhaize Serbia
recognises the importance of education. However, the manner in which it should be
conducted is different from the in-store tactics of some of the established Fairtrade traders,
like Co-op.
Kosanovic and Seslija both offer further evidence of the way that Delhaize Serbia
highly regards Fairtrade education. Firstly, when asked if the price of Fairtrade products, or
Fairtrade education is the main issue, Seslija opted for the latter, as the vast majority of
current Fairtrade consumers in Serbia purchase Fairtrade products not because of their
Fairtrade status, but because of their other characteristics. She has offered an example of
Fairtrade cereals. On my question whether for a majority of people these cereals are the same
as any other, and therefore, people look for them either for the taste, or the price, or the
chocolate toppings, not realising they are Fairtrade, she responded positively (2013,
interview). Education is so important that actually, it is identified as one of the only two real
issues hindering the future of Serbian Fairtrade growth (Kosanovic 2013, interview), the
other being the question of the certainty of their continuous Fairtrade involvement, which will
be discussed in the section on negative aspects of Fairtrade mainstreaming through
supermarkets.
292
Finally, even current non-Fairtrade traders like Primanova, when asked whether they
believe that certain categories of consumers will buy Fairtrade products if properly informed
about Fairtrade said: "[y]es, certainly", adding "[b]ut you have to work on that" (Nikolic
2013b, interview 45:12).
Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets can lead to the development of
relational Fairtrade global value chains, and can subsequently encourage cooperation between
Fairtrade producers, traders and consumers, leading to a true trading partnership based on
dialogue, transparency and respect. Delhaize Serbia's current business model, even in their
Fairtrade sector, is facing challenges in manifesting this advantage. Prompted directly
whether they deal directly with producers in any of their Fairtrade global value chains,
Kosanovic declined (2013, interview). He further explained that all of the company's
Fairtrade products actually originate from what is called Fairtrade internal export, since they
are all imported from Belgium (Ibid.).
Although the company, at present actually does not have many products suitable for
direct trading with Fairtrade producers, it is important to point out that in the future, when
they do introduce them, the prospective Serbian Fairtrade campaigners will have to advocate
for the possibility of moving from one type of the global value chain to another, achieving
more relational value chains. An obvious example of the future Fairtrade products, which
could be easily supplied through relational value chains, are the ones from Serbia, especially
due to the fact that the Fairtrade precondition of middlemen exclusion will be welcomed by
supermarkets, since the entrance price is crucial for them (Nikolic 2013b, interview).
The next advantage of Fairtrade mainstreaming is its promise of confirming clearly
that Fairtrade is a serious option for all mainstream food businesses due to its wide
acceptance by consumers. In Serbia, this is again not straightforward as with some previous
advantages. Firstly, it is too early for Fairtrade to position itself as a serious option for all
293
mainstream food businesses in Serbia. However, Delhaize Serbia's current work is certainly a
step in that direction, especially due to their current Fairtrade practice identified by
Djuraskovic, that its Fairtrade products are not only present in the biggest and the most
equipped hypermarkets, but also in smaller shops as well (2013, interview). This also shows
that Delhaize Serbia aims to introduce Fairtrade products to wider audience and not merely to
Fairtrade radicals, or the wealthiest consumers.
With supermarket mainstreaming, Fairtrade can emerge from more than one niche and
enter other sectors' mainstreams, most importantly, the media. Due to the market infancy,
Serbia resembles Mexico in this respect, given the fact that Serbian Fairtrade campaigners do
not currently have a chance to access mainstream media to promote Fairtrade independently,
or by lobbying Delhaize Serbia to do so. However, there are already numerous campaigns in
place which will be discussed below, as well as the already stated willingness of Delhaize
Serbia to participate in future ones (Kosanovic 2013, interview). Upon request to elaborate
how he envisions the future cooperation between Delhaize and Fairtrade campaigners,
Kosanovic stated the following. "If we could organise volunteering and public lectures
together, and if Delhaize would be able to present their [Fairtrade] products and to introduce
what that actually means and why these products are different from others, why not. This
may look like a Sisyphean task, but I think it would bring some results" (2013 interview
53:28).
Finally, Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets can lead to the possibility of
building even more recognisable and influential Fairtrade brands. Regarding this point, it is
important to repeat the fact that already in the case of Fairtrade Kit Kat bars, Delhaize Serbia
is selling them at the same price compare to their non-Fairtrade counterparts. Moreover,
when asked about who would be their partners in the future general Fairtrade development,
apart from the Fairtrade campaigners Kosanovic recognised "that the cooperation with other
294
retailers is crucial" (2013, interview 57:30). Although he recognised Idea as the other key
player in Serbian market, he also believes that the entrance of international supermarkets like
Lidl and Carrefour, who already have experience with Fairtrade, could be even more
beneficial for the Serbian general Fairtrade development (2013, interview).
Anti-Fairtrade Supermarket Practices in Serbia
Apart from positive aspects, in a corresponding section of Chapter VI (see pp.204-
207), I identified a number of negative potentials resulting from Fairtrade mainstreaming
through supermarkets. There are again six main ones: circumvention of Fairtrade rules and
regulations, final overpricing, cannibalisation of other Fairtrade traders' sales, silent de-
listing, capturing the reputational gains and finally, increase in false confidence that Fairtrade
is everywhere and with it connected fall in interest for Fairtrade campaigning.
Some of the negative aspects are already present in Serbia. Following the presentation
of Delhaize Serbia's exemplar Fairtrade practices, I will now analyse the ones potentially
hindering the future Serbian Fairtrade development. Before detailing each in turn, I will put
forward the general issues of importance facing Delhaize Serbia's Fairtrade involvement so
far.
The first Fairtrade product introduced to Serbian market was not launched because it
was Fairtrade, but because it was organic (Kosanovic 2013, interview), seriously questioning
Delhaize's initial motivation and early Fairtrade knowledge. Maybe even more worrisome is
their current position regarding the future of Fairtrade sales. Prompted whether their wish is
to develop the Fairtrade palette, because it is Fairtrade, or because it is a part of the broader
sustainability package, Kosanovic gives an ambiguous answer.
295
"For now, I cannot say that this [(constant Delhaize Serbia's Fairtrade growth)] will be
certain... introducing Fairtrade for Fairtrade's sake, I cannot say. But for the new Fairtrade
products to come... there is a great possibility for that. Because a part of our strategy of
sustainable, local, private brand is to increase the sales of all products that have any logo that
consumers can recognise as sustainable. And, among others, there is Fairtrade. So they
[(Fairtrade products)] will come this way for sure, but for us to stand for Fairtrade, as such, it
is less certain" (2013, interview 07:07). In his sentence the whole critique of Fairtrade
mainstreaming resonates, showing once again that the process is an ambiguous one.
I will now analyse in detail Delhaize's anti-Fairtrade mainstreaming practices by
discussing, firstly, the circumvention of Fairtrade rules and regulations, which is common
worldwide, not excluding the UK, as explained in Chapter VI. This issue in the case of
Delhaize Serbia is intertwined with the practices of the global Delhaize Group, due to the fact
that all Fairtrade products offered on Serbian shelves are imported from Belgium. However,
with the potential growth of their Fairtrade offer, as well as the prospective inclusion of
Fairtrade products from Serbia, both in noncontroversial secondary and controversial primary
production, this question will become more pertinent. Again, it is up to Delhaize Serbia,
encouraged by Serbian Fairtrade campaigners or on its own accord, to find the ways in which
it can work fully in line with Fairtrade rules and regulations.
One of the ways of showing Fairtrade commitment in this sense is to transition
internal supermarkets' outlet catering from conventional to Fairtrade. Asked whether such a
step is currently being undertaken in Delhaize Serbia, Kosanovic responded negatively (2013,
interview). His answer to my succeeding question about the future potential of introducing a
coffee machine with Fairtrade coffee, for example, was more encouraging, however.
"Absolutely, there's room for a deal and for coffee machines to have... Fairtrade coffee. Why
296
not. I see no problem with that. Except that currently it is not recognised as relevant. And it
could be" (Ibid. 35:47).
The second major issue with Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets is the
question of final pricing. Even though it is true that supermarkets have to respect the
Fairtrade minimum price, the Fairtrade rules and regulations do not prevent them from raising
their margins, consequently increasing the final price as well, exploiting their Fairtrade
consumers.
In Serbia, the troublesome situation with gross margins in conventional trade was
already recognised as one of the main ways in which supermarkets often use their gatekeeper
position. In this sense, the biggest Serbian food traders are no different than the ones around
the world as theoretically illustrated in Chapter II (see pp.63-65 and the section on the global
food system and its hourglass structure).
What is surprising is that in terms of their Fairtrade products, Delhaize Serbia has
actually taken a rather different approach. To begin with, for Fairtrade Kit Kat bars, there is
no price premium in comparison to the non-Fairtrade counterparts. Furthermore, all three
Fairtrade teas are significantly cheaper than comparable, imported, non-bio, specialist brands
like Milford or Teekanne. "For example, that [Fairtrade] bio green tea with lemon costs 165
dinars in Serbia and it costs less than some of the Milford or Teekanne [teas] that cost more
than 200 RSD" (Kosanovic 2013, interview 09:45). Rooibos and Earl Grey teas are even
cheaper. Other Fairtrade products are also comparable with their imported equivalents, or
cheaper.
Seslija explains that through their internal seminars they are communicating that a
Fairtrade product does not have to be more expensive (2013, interview) and Kosanovic goes
even further in highlighting again the importance of education. "I think that if we put
Fairtrade products with no margin at all, just to make them cheaper, this would not make any
297
difference whether people will buy it. They will buy it because it's cheaper and not because it
says Fairtrade, which brings us back to education" (2013, interview 32:30).
The rationale behind these positions is, on the one hand, the Delhaize Group's general
modus operandi, which aims toward greater sustainability, and Delhaize Serbia's corporate
social responsibility practices, both intending to cut their margins on Fairtrade products.
However, on the other hand, this is also induced by the supermarkets' price and gross margins
distortions connected with their gatekeepers position. This in turn, led to the situation that
non-Fairtrade products can be so expensive, that Fairtrade products actually become cheap,
especially due to the infancy of the Serbian Fairtrade market. What is finally important to
state is that both Kosanovic from Delhaize, but also Nikolic from Primanova, said that their
future stronger or initial Fairtrade involvement heavily depends on their commercial validity
(Kosanovic 2013, interview and Nikolic 2013b, interview).
Thirdly, supermarkets' own-label Fairtrade products are at risk of cannibalising those
of other Fairtrader traders. Due to the infancy of the Fairtrade market in Serbia, this issue has
not been recognised. Nevertheless, there are bases for Fairtrade optimism, especially when
Kosanovic answered in the affirmative my question about the possibilities for products from
other, even 100% Fair Trade companies to hit their shelves (2013, interview).
Moreover, the next issue Fairtrade supporters identify as problematic is silent de-
listing. In the case of Delhaize Serbia, the vulnerability of the Fairtrade sales is evident when
the following data is put forward. As already stated, even the smallest store format has 5,000
articles and in total there are only 8 Fairtrade products, hence, it can be said that once de-
listed, apart from Serbian Fairtrade campaigners, no one else will even see that they are gone.
Furthermore, in response to my direct question about the share of Fairtrade products in the
whole Delhaize Serbia's sales, Kosanovic stated that it is "a very small part" (Kosanovic
2013, interview 06:23), certainly representing less than 1‰ of their sales.
298
However, when I challenged him by stating that then Fairtrade sales in Delhaize
Serbia might justifiably be called insignificant, Kosanovic disagreed, noting that their sales,
although small are going well (2013, interview). Even though it is true that supermarkets look
to one another in conducting anti-Fairtrade practices, it is also true that if one exhibits
Fairtrade developments, the others will follow, as already stated above. This position is
further strengthened by Kosanovic, who stated that Delhaize is using the fact that it is the
biggest retailer on the market and that others can look up to it in order to continue its
pioneering work (Ibid.). Finally, thus far, the company has not de-listed any of its Fairtrade
products, although due to the fact that they sell half of all Serbian Fairtrade products, such
practices could spell severe implications for Serbian Fairtrade trading and consumption.
The penultimate problem directly connected with Fairtrade mainstreaming through
supermarkets is the ability of supermarkets to capture all the reputational gains by selling
other Fairtrade producers' and traders' products as their own Fairtrade brands (Poos 2013,
interview). In Serbia, this will increasingly become an issue, if the current practice of internal
Fairtrade exports from Belgium continues. According to Kosanovic, this is Delhaize Serbia's
intention for the company's future Fairtrade development (2013, interview).
Finally, as already explained, Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets may
lead to an increase in false confidence that Fairtrade is everywhere, and that this might entail
a decline in Fairtrade campaigning. At present, however, Fairtrade interest, which concerns
both Fairtrade traders and campaigners most, is currently on the rise.
Delhaize's Fairtradeness
Chapter VI found that not all supermarkets are the same regarding their Fairtradeness.
As Fairtrade is not part of their raison d'être, I concluded in the same chapter that mainstream
299
supermarkets can never have the highest Fairtradeness. Nevertheless, they can still aspire to
high Fairtradeness, like the most persistent Fairtrade trader among supermarkets, Co-op.
When held to this standard, Delhaize Serbia has not yet fully exploited its potential.
However, there is a room for optimism for Fairtrade campaigners, as the company exhibits
some of good general characteristics, as well as employing positive practices. Above all,
Delhaize Serbia sees itself as a Serbian Fairtrade pioneer and aims to continue to have this
position in the future (Kosanovic 2013, interview).
That being said, currently, Delhaize Serbia's Fairtrade sales are less than 1‰ of total
revenue, gravitating around only eight Fairtrade products, without a single complete product
category switch, and without a clear Fairtrade future strategy, and therefore, it does not have
high Fairtradeness. On the other hand, the company has pioneered and raised the profile of
Fairtrade in Serbia with no external pressure, and its commitment has not deteriorated, hence,
it does not have low Fairtradeness either. Therefore, its current Fairtradeness could rightly be
described as average, with a potential to go both up and down.
8.3. Current and Future Fairtrade Consumers and Campaigners in Serbia
Serbian Fairtrade Consumers are the final part of the Serbian Fairtrade system and
Fairtrade value chains, and the third Fairtrade referent object to be analysed from the Serbian
perspective. This discussion will focus on the ones with the highest Fairtradeness, i.e., the
first Serbian Fairtrade campaigners, viewed through the prism of the last lesson on Fairtrade
campaigning drawn from the UK case study.
These two topics will be discussed jointly due to the fact that, firstly, Fairtrade
campaigners comprise a large part of radical Fairtrade consumers worldwide, and secondly,
since in many, now developed Fairtrade markets, the first Fairtrade consumers were, at the
300
same time, the first Fairtrade campaigners (Alexander and Nicholls 2006). This trend
continues in Serbia, where the first Serbian Fairtrade consumers and campaigners are often
depicted in the same person (Djuraskovic 2013, interview and Jovanic 2013, interview).
In Serbia, a majority of food consumers share the post-crises destiny of numerous
Serbian food producers and traders. "From 2009, the negative trend can be truly felt... An
average consumer looks only not to be hungry, and [he does] not [seek] to have a healthy,
organic [diet]... So, using less money, he literally tries to provide for himself and his family a
meal where everyone will be fed. He does not look for it to be diverse at all. He prefers to
buy spaghetti, because that will certainly make them nourished, rather than spending the
same amount of money on buying meat or vegetables, simply because... they look to buy as
much products for less money. The crisis really took its toll" (Vida, Opalic and Begenisic
2013, interview 25:27). The situation which describes the general situation in the country is
the same in South Serbia, where Nikolic stated that since they opened the first hypermarket in
Leskovac, they can compare the pre- and post-2009 data and they can observe "how big the
negative changes are" (2013b, interview 07:35).
From 2011 to 2012 alone (which were seen as the years of the recovery globally), the
purchasing power in Serbia fell by 30 percent (Tanjug 2012). This lead to the situation that
average daily food expenses are RSD270 ($2.51, €2.25, £1.63), according to Vojislav
Stankovic at the Serbian Chamber of Commerce, and further increases in food prices "will
lead consumers to the brink of survival" (Tanjug 2012). "The social picture is even worse if
we take into account the high unemployment rate that has exceeded 25 percent, low pensions,
and also the delays in payments of employees' salaries" (Ibid.). Consequently, the general
standard of citizens of Serbia as food consumers is low (Bogdanov 2013, interview), and the
same situation can be observed in Jablanica and Pcinja districts (Nikolic 2013b interview and
Murati 2013, interview, for example).
301
In many markets around the world, this might represent a major drawback for the
development of Fairtrade sales, but in Serbia this is not necessarily the case, for two reasons.
Firstly, Fairtrade products are not necessarily more expensive than their non-Fairtrade
counterparts, although that does not quite make them the cheapest items in the same product
categories either. Domestic products can be several times cheaper (although it is also fair to
say that, at the moment, there are no domestic, Serbian Fairtrade products). Secondly, due to
the already stated Kosanovic (2013, interview) and Seslija (2013, interview) highlight that
price is not the primary driver of Fairtrade sales. Despite immediate and serious challenges
due to the overall economic situation in Serbia, which no research interested in consumption
choices could escape, a rising Serbian Fairtrade consumer base is clearly identifiable, to be
discussed next.
8.4. Fairtrade Consumers in Serbia
Chapter III has largely agreed with Hayes' point of view of Fairtrade consumers,
seeing them as the ones who support Fairtrade by "purchase, investment, donation or
activism" (2006, p.449). However, I informed this position by identifying four different
categories of Fairtrade consumers, ranging from radical Fairtraders to prospective ones as
discussed in Chapter VI. In Serbia, their role is also recognised as one of the most important
for the future development of Serbian Fairtrade. This poses no dilemma to Jovanic, who
identified the most significant Fairtrade stakeholders, crucial for development of Fairtrade in
Serbia as "[n]umber one, consumers" (2013, interview 08:20, audio 5).
Following the matrix established in Chapter VI (see p.209), I will now deal with the
question what an average Serbian Fairtrade consumer looks like and how different s/he is
from what I identified as the average global/UK Fairtrade consumer. I will base my findings
302
on numerous interviews (Djuraskovic 2013, interview, Jovanic 2013, interview, Kosanovic
2013, interview, Seslija 2013, interview, Pauwels 2013, interview, Veillard 2013, interview,
Wouters 2013, interview, McGechie 2013, interview, Bentley 2013, interview and many
others).
To begin with, a global Fairtrade consumer is motivated by ethical factors (Pauwels
2013, interview, McGechie 2013, interview and Bentley 2013, interview), shows solidarity
with the ones who are poor and marginalised (Veillard 2013, interview and McGechie 2013,
interview) and is concerned about the future of the world (Fairtrade Supporter Conferences
2013, 2012 and 2011). In particular, regarding the widening gap between rich and poor, and
whether small decisions, like buying Fairtrade products can enact change (Wouters 2013,
interview and Fairtrade Supporter Conferences 2013, 2012 and 2011).
In Serbia, ethical factors both benefit and hinder the development of Fairtrade
consumption. Based on the Focus Balkans research (2012), Stojanovic explains that their
findings are the following. "[E]thical principles are not recognised at all. They are on the
bottom of the list. That tells you enough about how much our consumer, not only in Serbia,
but also in the Western Balkans is ready to use this type of label when deciding to buy"
(2013c, interview 33:45).
However, this in itself does not disqualify Serbian consumers' ethical motivations for
their purchases. Rather, it merely illustrates that they do not comprehend the availability of
ethical labels. Kosanovic (2013, interview) and Seslija (2013, interview) agree, noting that an
average consumer does not recognise an ethical label like Fairtrade at all. Vida, Opalic and
Begenisic confirm that even if an average Serbian consumer examines declarations on a
product, s/he would only be interested in the "best before" date (2013, interview). Vera Vida
said that even this sporadic and often insufficient interest is something that, just a few years
ago, did not exist at all. She contends that consumer organisation partially succeeded in
303
educating consumers about the importance of looking at the declarations (2013, interview).
Together with Fairtrade campaigners, they can continue educating the general public and
move on to labels in general and the Fairtrade mark in particular in the future, which will be
discussed below.
On the other hand, firstly, the Centre for Development of Jablanica and Pcinja
Districts has recognised that recent consumer interest in labelled products, is on the rise in
Serbia (CDJPD 2013). Furthermore, when asked about the potential for Fairtrade consumers,
especially among certain categories of their customers, Nikolic affirmed "Yes, certainly. But
you have to work on it. People need to be presented with the advantages" (2013b, interview
45:13).
Kosanovic sees future consumers' involvement in Fairtrade on an even broader scale.
He notes that since Serbia is an underdeveloped country, many people might be able to
identify with the struggle of Fairtrade producers (2013, interview). Bogdanov qualifies this
opinion, adding that these poor and marginalised producers have to, firstly come from Serbia
(2013, interview). On my direct question if consumers would then be sensitised on these
products, she responded that they would (Ibid.).
Jovanic states that the 1990s trauma of waiting in line for bread and milk is a factor
which can cause Serbian consumers to ask themselves how can they help someone if they
themselves are jeopardised, i.e. how s/he could be the same Fairtrade consumer as, for
example, Swiss individual with a twenty-fold income (2013, interview). The current
existence of social enterprises delivering organic food to home addresses, with regular
customers, is also interesting for future Fairtrade consumption (Stojanovic 2013c, interview),
and supports Bogdanov's claim. Therefore, there are already consumers who are buying both
non-Fairtrade social enterprises' and Fairtrade products due to their ethical and moral
worldviews.
304
Demographic data on Serbian consumers, as it relates to the second, third and fourth
characteristics, currently remains inconclusive. However, some general trends are already
visible. To begin with, women and men are equally part of the Fairtrade Serbia Facebook
group. The main administrators of the group, as well as those activists which could be
considered the founders and initiators of Fairtrade in Serbia are similarly both women and
men (Djuraskovic 2013, interview, Jovanic 2013, interview and Kosanovic 2013, interview).
Secondly, the group tends towards the younger and middle-aged population. Due to the lack
of Fairtrade education, especially in elementary and high schools, children in Serbia are not
recognised as a separate Fairtrade consumer group. In this respect, Serbia differs from
developed Fairtrade markets. Finally, regarding the educational levels of Fairtrade consumers
in Serbia, the data is not conclusive, but individuals with higher educational attainment are
the ones who are currently the most interested in the future of Fairtrade in Serbia
(Djuraskovic 2013, interview, Jovanic 2013, interview and Kosanovic 2013, interview),
although, that can be changed with the growth of the movement.
Finally, in terms of income, a significant minority of 1990s/pre-crises middle-class
consumers persists. Some are, indeed, far better-off, particularly in the capital, Belgrade, but
also in regional city centres, not excluding South Serbia's Leskovac or Vranje, who are the
first targets for Fairtrade sales. I will put forward three examples to support this position in
regard to general food consumption.
Firstly, Delhaize Serbia offers a whole range of the high quality/high price products
which are recording a steady growth in sales (Kosanovic 2013, interview). In addition,
consumers in Serbia are buying more and more organic food products, which always come
with a price premium of up to 300 percent (Fotiric Aksic 2013, interview). Finally, Nikolic,
senior manager at Primanova states that the well-off consumers are one of the reasons why
they have a palette of 15,000 different products (2013b, interview). Therefore, it can be
305
concluded that a number of Serbian consumers remain more than capable to freely express
their shopping preferences, in spite of the crises.
In terms of their potential to be Fairtrade consumers as well, there is, firstly, the
higher possibility for them to be willing to educate themselves and start buying Fairtrade.
Jovanic states that in Belgrade, there are more than enough current, but especially prospective
middle-class and well-off Fairtrade consumers. In her opinion, there are people who are well-
off and who are at the higher level of consciousness (2013, interview), adding that in order
for them to be further included, an educational campaign should be conducted and the
marketing of the Fairtrade products will be very important (Ibid.).
Finally, although my empirical findings regarding average global and Serbian
Fairtrade consumer are analytically useful and today, one of the most up-to-date (and in the
Serbian case the only one), this analytical unit in itself masks the difference between groups
of Fairtrade consumers according to their Fairtradeness, equally important for illuminating
the current and future development of Fairtrade in Serbia.
Again, as in the corresponding section in Chapter VI, I will present the fourfold
classification of the most important groups of Fairtrade consumers in regard to their Fairtrade
consumption, now from the Serbian perspective. Before I continue, it is important to
remember that, unlike, for example, in the UK, where a vast majority of consumers recognise
and trust the Fairtrade Mark (Fairtrade International 2013a), the situation in Serbia regarding
both is still on the most elementary level (Kosanovic 2013, interview). This is important to
point out, in order to state, right from the start, that any type of conclusive discussion about
these groups and especially the percentage ratio of their members in the Serbian context, is
impossible at present. However, as with some of the other previously analysed points, the
general trends are already identifiable and given the fact that this is the first comprehensive
306
academic study of Fairtrade in Serbia, these points should be seen as the base for an initial
understandings and future research.
I will again start with the strongest supporters of Fairtrade, the radical Fairtraders.
These consumers can be found in all emerging Fairtrade markets and currently, they
constitute the base of informed Fairtrade purchases in Serbia as well (Djuraskovic 2013,
interview and Jovanic 2013, interview). Djuraskovic nicely summarised the identity of, above
all, the group of the current and future Serbian radical Fairtrade consumers, when he
remarked that today, good people around the world strongly promote Fairtrade and that our
society in general and many people in particular belong to that part of humanity (2013,
interview).
Therefore, the radical Fairtrade consumers, who coincide most often with Fairtrade
campaigners, are already present in Serbia. Other sustainable development-related labels are
experiencing a similar increase in sales, sustaining their morale. Kosanovic states that
"definitely, the whole gamut of sustainable products makes a certain part of our product
range, which is not insignificant.. since this is now recognised as a priority, it will be
monitored and it will grow" (2013, interview 26:40).
The second group of Fairtrade consumers are conscientious Fairtraders. Nikolic
unreservedly recognised this consumer segment as capable of becoming Fairtrade consumers.
"Consumers who have higher purchasing power select products of higher quality, and we also
have this target group... [For those consumers], it is somehow easier to opt for a new product
[(due to being well-off)], which is very important. They are usually open to suggestions...
They can easily opt for the purchase, as opposed to others who come for specific products
and for whom there is no spontaneity" (2013b, interview 26:42). She continues by stating that
a high quality Fairtrade product, with "an explanation in a nice package results in a good
sale" (Ibid. 45:27).
307
The final group of Fairtrade consumers identified are the do-what-I-cans. Work on the
inclusion of this group of Fairtrade consumers is evident in Serbia as well. Firstly, Delhaize
Serbia's current Fairtrade strategy, identified by Djuraskovic, is to place their Fairtrade
products not only in the biggest and the most equipped hypermarkets, but also in smaller ones
(2013, interview). This also shows that Delhaize Serbia aims to introduce Fairtrade products
to a wider audience, and not only to Fairtrade radicals or the wealthiest, conscientious
Fairtrade consumers.
Secondly, Kit-Kat Fairtrade bars are bought predominantly by consumers who do not
know anything about Fairtrade, but just like the bar. Although, this is a nightmare scenario
for a number of Fairtrade radicals, this simultaneously implies a bias in favour of an already
developed Fairtrade market. In an embryonic Fairtrade market like the one in Serbia, the
mainstreaming and the share availability of Fairtrade products, ought to progress in step with
consumer awareness in order to achieve sustainable sales levels.
For this reason, Fairtrade radicals in Serbia do not frown on anyone who buys
Fairtrade products. On the contrary, when they see anyone buying them, or when offering
someone Fairtrade tea, they consider this as an opportunity for Fairtrade education.
Djuraskovic, who always has Fairtrade products in his office, which he offers to people with
whom he has meetings, is certainly the standard-bearer of this approach.
Finally, given the fact that, as Kosanovic (2013, interview) and Seslija (2013,
interview) stated, an average consumer does not recognise a Fairtrade label, the majority of
Fairtrade consumers currently in Serbia are the ones who are not buying Fairtrade products
because they are Fairtrade, but for other reasons. Although this is not an issue from utilitarian
perspective, it is from an ethical one, which is my starting point as explained in chapters II
and III, and this awareness in Serbia is crucial to the future of Fairtrade in Serbia.
308
Following the presentation of all three groups of Fairtrade consumers, I will conclude
by introducing the final group, the potential Fairtrade consumers, and their rationale why they
are not buying Fairtrade products at the moment. Regarding the situation in Serbia, I will
begin by putting forward an interesting point from Kosanovic, who contended that, in Serbia,
consumers will not have a problem if all the products were labelled Fairtrade (2013,
interview). His optimism probably arises from the infancy of the Serbian Fairtrade market,
and from the fact that consumers have yet to learn how to support Fairtrade before it could be
opposed. However, there are already ways in which the already-presented four subgroups
could be prevented from emerging (see pp.211-212).
Firstly, it is true that Serbian consumers prefer domestic products, for two reasons.
They have more trust in them (Bogdanov 2013, interview), and they are most often cheaper
than their imported counterparts (Vida 2013, interview). The most obvious solution to this
would be to include Fairtrade products from Serbia coming from both primary and secondary
production. If this occurs, other challenges mentioned before would be pre-empted as well.
Bogdanov clearly states: "Just try to put forward... Fairtrade trade [(as the one between the
global North and South)]... You will only enrage him [(an average Serbian consumer)]. It will
come to: why I'm helping Africans, South Americans... Where are my [producers]?" (2013,
interview 55:02). However, when asked the same question when Fairtrade producers from
Serbia are factored in, she responded that this would then pose no problem at all (Ibid.). In
this way both the local supporting views and "what is there for me" points would be satisfied,
and the route for truly global Fairtrade consumption open.
In addition, all Fairtrade products from Serbia in primary production that I have
analysed, especially the fruits and vegetables at the centre of my research, are part of the
healthy eating category, hence, this issue would be prevented as well. Moreover, since they
309
can be sourced locally, the air miles would not be an issue either. Finally, the fact that most
of the products are potentially organic presents consumers with an additional bonus.
8.5. Fairtrade Campaigning in Serbia
Following the general presentation of Fairtrade consumers, in the rest of this section, I
will focus on the ones with the highest Fairtradeness, i.e. Fairtrade campaigners. Fairtrade
International's rules, regulations and standards state that whenever a country does not have a
national Fairtrade organisation or a Fairtrade marketing organisation, which is the case in
Serbia, then the promotion of Fairtrade is the responsibility of the local pro-Fairtrade non-
governmental organisations and informal grassroots groups and movements (Fairtrade
International and WFTO 2011, p.1). Therefore, the final section centres on what Bentley
identified as a "crucial part" of the Fairtrade system (2013, interview), now from the Serbian
perspective.
The historical and contemporary global significance and successes of Fairtrade
campaigners were presented in the corresponding section in Chapter VI (see pp.213-221).
They are suitably summarised by Doherty and his colleagues who have pointed out that they
have already achieved many of their promises, globally speaking (2013, p.178). By
comparison, a small number of Fairtrade campaigners from the public, private and
educational sectors are currently present in Serbia (Djuraskovic 2013, interview, Jovanic
2013, interview and Kosanovic 2013, interview). Furthermore, two NGOs have helped raise
the profile of Fairtrade in Serbia. Atina, an organisation combating human trafficking, which
organised the first Fairtrade tea parties, and a small Fairtrade supporting and campaigning
developmental NGO, the Balkan Centre for Development Studies. Together, they represent
the proto-Fairtrade campaigning in Serbia. Their initial Fairtrade activities and successes are
310
modest, but comparable with the ones achieved during the initial steps made by the above-
stated UK Fairtrade campaigners.
Fairtrade Education
Above all, Serbian Fairtrade campaigners follow the lead of their more experienced
counterparts in the UK, prioritising education of the general public about Fairtrade. I have
already discussed this above, and will now go into greater detail, with examples of their
practical achievements. Nikolic immediately identifies the overall lack of awareness about
sustainable development in general and Fairtrade in particular, stating that there is no
education about it, that now something is being taught in schools, but that older generations
have a different mindset (2013b, interview). Jovanic stated that for the next phase of Fairtrade
development to occur and to involve more Fairtrade consumers, which are, according to her,
the most important stakeholders, an educational campaign has to be conducted (2013,
interview).
In line with this point are both Kosanovic and Seslija. As already discussed, when
asked if the price of Fairtrade products, or Fairtrade education is the main issue, they stated
the latter. In addition, Kosanovic identified stronger Fairtrade education as one of only two
real issues which can hinder the future of Serbian Fairtrade growth (2013, interview) also
stating that the education has to happen before consumers enter the shop (Ibid.).
Serbian Fairtrade campaigners are currently achieving this most important goal,
firstly, through social media, particularly through the Facebook group "Fairtrade Serbia",
whose membership has grown to around five hundred members. It is now used as the
gathering and information sharing hub.
311
Furthermore, the education is conducted through public lecturers, and I personally had
the opportunity to deliver, together with Mitar Djuraskovic, Serbian national anti-trafficking
coordinator, the first public lecture on Fairtrade in Serbia, which was organised by the Balkan
Centre for Development Studies, the Serbian Ministry of Interior and the American Corner in
September 2012. Moreover, I lectured at the Social Dimensions of Human Trafficking in the
Western Balkans summer school on "Fairtrade in the Balkans" in 2012, organised by German
development agencies GIZ and DAAD, Serbian Ministry of Interior and the Faculty of Law
at the University of Belgrade.
In addition, Delhaize Serbia conducts internal Fairtrade trainings, opening the
possibility for some of the participants to be inspired and to take action (Seslija 2013,
interview). Finally, there are NGO Atina's traditional Fairtrade tea parties, which are the main
way Fairtrade Fortnights and Global Fair Trade Days are celebrated in Serbia, and the general
public further involved and educated.
Fairtrade Campaigning and Mainstreaming Through Supermarkets
The constant growth of a number of Fairtrade products which are offered in Serbia,
especially as a part of Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets also leads to the
situation in which more and more consumers are exposed to, and able to learn about Fairtrade
through their everyday shopping. However, as already explained above, this process is not
without challenges. There are three potential points of contention between Serbian
supermarkets selling Fairtrade products vis-a-vis Serbian Fairtrade campaigners.
The first one is the issue of Fairtrade global value chains through which the Fairtrade
products come to Serbia. Around the world, Fairtrade campaigners are an important practical
force behind the theoretical assumptions that the Fairtrade global value chains can change
312
and transform from one type to another, i.e. from captive to relational, for example.
Therefore, Fairtrade campaigning is an important factor in achieving this goal. In the case of
Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets, particularly important are their efforts to help
the development of the relational Fairtrade global value chains two and three as thoroughly
discussed above.
At present, Delhaize Serbia does not have many products which could be suitable for
direct trading with Fairtrade producers, because it imports all of their Fairtrade products from
Belgium. When the company does introduce them, Serbian Fairtrade campaigners will have
to advocate for achieving a more relational value chain governance. An obvious example of
future Fairtrade products, which could be easily supplied through these value chains, are the
ones from Serbia. Finally, the current situation does not preclude Serbian Fairtrade
campaigners from immediately raising the question why Delhaize Serbia is merely importing
Fairtrade products, as a part of the Delhaize Group's global agenda, and instead begins to
develop their own Fairtrade supply chains, through which they can show how they treat
Fairtrade products.
The second issue that will have to be tackled by Fairtrade campaigners in Serbia is the
development of long-term trade relations, which is the essence of Fairtrade, and which are
currently not obligatory for big supermarkets in the majority of their product categories. In
the case of Delhaize Serbia, this is intertwined with its membership in the global Delhaize
Group. However, with the potential growth of their Fairtrade offer, as well as the prospective
inclusion of Fairtrade products both from primary and secondary production in Serbia, this
question will be more and more important. Again, it is up to Delhaize Serbia alone, or
through encouragement by Serbian Fairtrade campaigners, to find the ways in which it can
work fully in line with Fairtrade rules and regulations, offering long-term contracts, which
are the precondition for any production stability.
313
Finally, there is the issue of silent de-listing of Fairtrade products. Kosanovic's
position that Delhaize Serbia sees itself as a Serbian Fairtrade trade pioneer (2013,
interview), is evidenced by the fact that they did not de-list any of their Fairtrade products so
far and their plans to introduce many more are the reasons for Fairtrade optimism. However,
they are not excuses for Serbian Fairtrade campaigners to stop monitoring. Given the infancy
of the Serbian Fairtrade market, any setbacks can be far more damaging in Serbia than for a
more developed Fairtrade market, such is the one in the UK, for example.
Although a future confrontation between Delhaize Serbia and Serbian Fairtrade
campaigners are probably inevitable, their joint activities are crucial for Fairtrade to develop
and thrive in Serbia. Unlike in many other parts of the world, for example in Mexico, where
Fairtrade mainstreaming is not present precisely because the confrontation has overpowered
the cooperation, in Serbia the situation is already different.
Firstly, it is important to repeat that Delhaize Serbia introduced Fairtrade products
before the existence of any 100% Serbian Fair Trade company and without any pressure from
Serbian Fairtrade campaigners. Secondly, Delhaize Serbia is ready to work with Fairtrade
campaigners (Kosanovic 2013, interview). Assessing future cooperation between Delhaize
Serbia and Fairtrade campaigners, Kosanovic stated that he is looking forward to organising
joint volunteering and public lectures, since they will increase Fairtrade education and sales
and he, as well as Fairtrade campaigners like Djuraskovic, thinks it would bring results
(Kosanovic 2013 interview and Djuraskovic 2013, interview).
In addition, it is important to point out that Delhaize Serbia will aim to cooperate with
other supermarkets on Fairtrade development, since, as Kosanovic stated, this cooperation is
crucial (2013, interview). All of this is done in order to achieve the following overall
Fairtrade developmental goal which is shared in Serbia by both Fairtrade campaigners and
the supermarket selling Fairtrade products, clearly defined by Kosanovic: "We will have to
314
accelerate the maturing of [Serbian] society and to work in order for society to realise more
quickly why it is better to buy sustainable products" (2013, interview 54:14).
Supermarkets are not the only avenues of mainstreaming and as I have already stated,
the future involvement of other prospective Serbian Fairtrade traders, and especially food
manufacturers and processors, heavily depends on Fairtrade campaigners and their ability to
raise the question why they are not producing Fairtrade products as secondary producers
(Djuraskovic 2013, interview and Jovanic 2013, interview).
Their current campaigning results regarding this matter are weak as Djuraskovic
explains: "Here, only two companies import cocoa. Import is from the Ivory Coast, which is
problematic and from Indonesia. This could be [Fairtrade] certified" (2013 interview 57:17).
When I asked him how did they react to his question whether their cocoa is a product of slave
labour, he responded. "They said it isn't, or we do not know, or we will ask suppliers, and so
on" (Ibid. 58:19). I continued asking if they were concerned at all, especially since he is the
national anti-trafficking coordinator, and he replied "they did not seem concerned at all. They
said that they are importing from Switzerland [(not revealing the production country)]"
(Ibid.58:27).
The same scenario played out when he asked a company about its cotton sourcing.
The company referred him from one place to another and did ultimately not respond (Ibid.).
This is now unthinkable in countries like the UK, however, in Serbia it is currently common
practice. With the stronger involvement of Fairtrade campaigners, the same changes that
happened in the UK can happen in Serbia as well. Djuraskovic shares this optimism when he
advocates food manufacturers certifying some of their products as Fairtrade (Ibid.).
Finally, one of the greatest achievements of Serbian Fairtrade campaigners, which
came even before comparable successes in the UK, is the fact that the former Prime Minister
of Serbia, Ivica Dacic, publicly recognised Fairtrade products as ethically produced and
315
forced-labour-free products, during the celebration of the International day against human
trafficking in 2012.
Other Serbian Fairtrade Campaigning Channels
The above-stated accomplishments are the achievement of Serbian proto-Fairtrade
campaigners. Currently, this is the dominant campaigning channel, due to the fact that other
channels, present in the UK for example, do not exist in Serbia.
As already explained in Chapter VI, the second big Fairtrade campaigning channel is
the one consisting of Fairtrade universities, colleges and schools. Although very important in
the UK setting, this is of lesser importance for the current Fairtrade campaigning context in
Serbia, due to the fact that there are no Serbian Fairtrade universities, colleges or schools.
While this is also the case with the following two groups which will be presented next, this
channel is the one which can be formed most easily in Serbia in future, far ahead Fairtrade
towns and Fairtrade faith groups.
The issue with the Fairtrade towns campaign is the current phase of Serbian Fairtrade
development and the differences between, for example, the UK and Serbia. That being said, it
is also important to point out that Fairtrade towns are now a global phenomenon. They are
present in 23 countries, predominantly in the Global North (Taplin 2009). Hence, there is
certainly a potential for future development in Serbia as well.
Regarding the next campaigning channel that most Fair Trade academics begin their
analysis with - the Fairtrade faith groups, in my doctoral research, it is hardly treated at all,
because the Serbian Orthodox Church, as the dominant confession in Serbia, is very rarely
connected with any commercial activity, which does not immediately facilitate religious
practices or management of its assets.
316
Regarding coverage, Serbian Fairtrade campaigners presently have little access to
mass media and therefore promote Fairtrade either by themselves, or by pushing other
Fairtrade traders, like Delhaize Serbia to do so. This presents a very serious obstacle, as this
campaigning channel is crucial for any future mainstreaming. Vida, Opalic and Begenisic
explain: "[T]he media is the main source of information, especially in Serbia. Whether
information is accurate or inaccurate. A consumer will hardly inform himself, on his own,
about his rights, or God forbid, to read the law, but he will hear... in press, on TV, on radio"
(2013, interview 09:13).
Finally, consumer organisations could take on a role in Fairtrade campaigning, due to
Serbian Fairtrade market infancy. Marija Vida, Ana Opalic, Ana Begenisic, advisors and
consultants in the already mentioned Consumer Centre of Serbia state the following. "[T]he
awareness that you, as a consumer, have some sort of protection is a new idea in our society.
But it certainly grows... [Hence, consumers] will be more and more aware of their rights and
how to achieve them" (Ibid., 04:22). The three of them can already see that this is taking
place. The Consumer Centre of Serbia runs a counselling office, and there is "a tendency that
more and more people are calling in order to exercise their rights, if they believe they were
deceived " (Ibid. 04:12).
Hence, consumer organisations are truly some of the first and often the only places to
turn to. However, there are inherent issues with them as well. The consumer organisations, or
at least, some of the best among them, like the Consumer Centre of Serbia, have the ability to
self-reflect and critically evaluate their current situation, by realising that they are relatively
new, that they still only have a counselling role, and that they still have to learn how to lobby
(Vida, Opalic and Begenisic 2013, interview).
As the general future development direction, I will first quote Jovanic, who is also a
member of the group officially working on changes of the current Consumer Protection Act,
317
who stated the following: "You cannot do it overnight. There has to be a transitional period"
(2013, interview 10:24, audio 6). In addition, what is especially important for Fairtrade is
what Vida has said, stating that even these sporadic and often insufficient developments are
something which, just a few years ago did not exist at all (2013, interview). Hence, these
organisations, together with Fairtrade campaigners can move consumers' attention to ethical
labels and finally, to the Fairtrade mark in the future.
8.6. Serbian National Fairtrade-like System
The preceding sections drew four lessons on producers, highlighting poor and
marginalised small-scale ones, traders, accentuating supermarkets, and consumers, together
with campaigners in the Fairtrade system, and related them to prospective Serbian Fairtrade
production, and current and future Serbian Fairtrade trade and consumption. In the final
section of this chapter, I will widen the debate about the future of the Serbian Fairtrade
system in order to encompass the possibility for developing a national Fairtrade-like system,
envisaged as an interconnection of Serbian Fairtrade producers, traders and consumers.
Before I continue, it is important to point out that this part of my thesis will be the
most speculative, the reasons for which are straightforward. At the moment, Serbian Fairtrade
producers are not allowed to enter based on current Fairtrade standards, the Serbian Fairtrade
traders and consumers are just emerging, and the Serbian Fairtrade campaigners have not
founded a national Fairtrade organisation yet. As a consequence, no Serbian national
Fairtrade-like system worth the title exists at present. Not only that, but even in a Fairtrade
system where there are institutional bases for its development, as in Mexico, this has not yet
occurred. However, there are calls for its development in Serbia, rationales why it is
important and understandings how one element of the system can positively enhance the
318
growth of others, all leading to the intention of creating a system which is greater than the
sum of its parts (Djuraskovic 2013, interview and Jovanic 2013, interview). Therefore, this
will be the topic of discussions to follow below.
My thesis is the first that aims to marshal the evidence for the possibility of
incorporating one of the countries from the group of the producer-excluded upper-middle-
income economies into the Fairtrade system on both sides of the commodity exchange
relation, and consequently, the possibility of creating a national Fairtrade-like system in these
countries. In terms of the Fair Trade literature, this is the third gap I have identified - the lack
of research about the topic itself, but also about the possible positive influences of one part's
development to another.
Therefore, by focusing on possibilities for developing a Serbian national Fairtrade-
like system I will answer my third attendant research question - "To what extent it is possible
to establish a national Fairtrade-like system in Serbia and in that case, is the whole greater
than the sum of its parts?" and consequently, the final part of my underlying research
question, holistically looking on the potentials for Serbian Fairtrade production, trade and
consumption.
National Fairtrade-like System and Prospective Serbian Fairtrade Producers
The national Fairtrade-like system has the same raison d'être as the global Fairtrade
system, on the national level. However, Fairtrade International's current complete focus on
Fairtrade producers from the Global South, almost complete focus on Fairtrade traders and
consumers in the Global North and the unsupportive attitude towards the creation of national
Fairtrade-like systems is keeping all countries, but especially the upper-middle-income
319
economies, both producer-included and producer-excluded, from greater integration in the
Fairtrade system.
A number of Fair Trade researchers have acknowledged aspects of this problem.
Wilkinson and Mascarenhas, for example, have "outline[d] the engagement of diverse
Southern actors in shaping Fair Trade and their particular concerns related to increasing
participation in Northern markets, developing Fair Trade markets in the Global South, and
adapting FLO policies to a shifting multilateral context" (in Murray and Raynolds 2007,
p.12).
Even Harriet Lamb in her book puts forward an idea of the development of a national
Fairtrade-like system in India. "In 2006... I attended the launch meeting of an initiative,
backed by Traidcraft, to develop the Fairtrade label in India. Their research showed the huge
potential of harnessing the rapidly raising consumer spending power of the middle class
together with India's long involvement with Fairtrade" (2008, p.176). She concludes by
commenting that, "[o]f course, the major obstacles to developing Fairtrade in a country like
India... cannot be underestimated, but building local and regional sales will be lynchpins of
the future" (Ibid., p.177).
That the whole will be greater than the sum of its parts is where a national Fairtrade
system adds particular value, since the development of one link in Fairtrade value chains,
leads to developments of the others. Regarding prospective Serbian Fairtrade producers, their
enclosure will be seen by other parts of the Fairtrade system as crucial for their own growth.
Their inclusion are already called for by Serbian Fairtrade trading pioneer Delhaize Serbia
(Kosanovic 2013, interview and Seslija 2013, interview), by consumers (Bogdanov 2013,
interview, Djuraskovic 2013, interview and Jovanic 2013, interview) and above all, by
Fairtrade campaigners (Djuraskovic 2013, interview and Jovanic 2013, interview).
320
From the point of view of Fairtrade traders, it would be easier, firstly, to promote a
mark not discriminatory to Serbian poor and marginalised small-scale producers.
Furthermore, they would be able to offer products that they already source from small-scale
producers now re-branded under the Fairtrade mark. This would, simultaneously, positively
influence the sales of their everyday, local, healthy and ecologically sustainable product
categories, especially if the products are both Fairtrade and organic. As Fairtrade certification
excises middlemen, who are present in Serbia as discussed above, this will be another benefit
for future Serbian Fairtrade traders as well.
Regarding Fairtrade consumers, they will be in the situation to care both across
geographic, and economic and social spaces in their own country. Furthermore, they will be
able to purchase local, healthy and ecologically sound products that they love, with
confidence that they are coming through Fairtrade value chains.
Finally, from Serbian Fairtrade campaigners' perspective, without the inclusion of
poor and marginalised small-scale producers, it will be very hard to explain both to Serbian
food traders and consumers why to participate in a system which excludes their own
producers. This is particularly the case when considering that they exhibit, as argued above,
the same degree of Fairtradeness as the ones who are already included. On the other hand,
with their inclusion, Fairtrade campaigners will be able to campaign synergistically which in
turn opens up three strategic opportunities to them. It allows them to focus on local, on poor
and marginalised small-scale producers coming from abroad, while also educating traders and
consumers that they can, at the same time, buy local, global, healthy, ecologically sound and
fair traded food, all under the same Fairtrade mark.
Not only that this will avoid confusion, contrary to what some of the Fairtrade
practitioners are constantly saying (Fairtrade supporter conferences 2013, 2012 and 2011), it
will actually make the consumer choice easier. Particularly due to the fact that Serbia is an
321
infant brand and label market, hence, consumers will be able to connect themselves early on
with the Fairtrade mark.
Global vs. Local?
Before I continue, I will clarify a few terms in order to further discuss and explain the
global and local dynamics present particularly when talking about a national Fairtrade-like
system. To begin with, the reason why I believe that the current Fairtrade mark, which was
thus far international, can be used nationally as well, instead of developing separate national
Fairtrade labels in every country, is because this will reduce the likelihood of confusion.
Developing a separate Fairtrade mark in every country would be a costly process. More
gravely, it would not be able to draw its credibility from the Fairtrade system, which is now,
after a few decades of development, perceived as one of the most trustworthy in the world. In
addition, Fairtrade certification is already developed, and at the same time, it is one of the
biggest certification systems in the world with constant, very high growth rates. Therefore, it
is not only one of the most influential systems of the kind at the moment, but it is one of the
most promising as well.
A new, national label would need to mature first, earning its place and credibility.
Secondly, it would not be able to certify products that do not originate from a particular
country (in this case, Serbia). Finally, it will actually bring more confusion to the label
market.
Furthermore, as already explained in the theoretical part of my doctoral thesis, the
best way for the Fairtrade system to overcome its Global North - Global South divide is to
diversify its production, trade and consumption. In this way, it will show that Fairtrade
322
producers, traders and consumers are all those who fit the description and meet the standards,
irrespective of where they live and work.
Moreover, as already explained, the national Fairtrade-like system is not only there to
be a stronger base for the international Fairtrade system, but it is also appropriating the
aspects of global Fairtrade. Thus far, the national was going global, however, with the
development of the national Fairtrade-like systems, the global is becoming national. The
rationale behind this states that in this case, geographically close producers, traders and
consumers, who are economically and socially distant, will be able to reconnect as
thoroughly explained in the section "Fairtrade System and Caring Across Spaces".
Although the discussion in the doctoral thesis is focused on Serbia, like almost all
countries in the world, it is a part of the global economy and its already stated import (coffee,
citrus fruits, bananas, rice and cotton) and export (fresh fruits, dried fruits, fruit juices,
vegetables, maize and wheat) product categories are either already Fairtrade product
categories, or will be thus in the foreseeable future.
Finally, national Fairtrade-like system might hypothetically be questioned in
principle. Why can producers, traders and consumers not simply follow the Fairtrade
principles without being Fairtrade-certified? My answer is that they certainly can. However,
this is not what is happening at the moment. This is why Fairtrade emerged in the first place,
and this is the essence of its existing together with and in order to change the market logic
discussed in detail in the section "In or Against or Existing Together With and in Order to
Change the Market?".
My research cannot give a full answer to the question how that system would work in
practice because it does not exist at present. However, I believe that, firstly putting forward
the idea of its existence, explaining why it is needed, and finally, how the development of one
part will positively influence the developments of the others, rendering the whole greater than
323
the sum of its parts, is a good base for further research on this topic. Therefore, the Fairtrade
mark is necessary, and it actually can emerge as a truly global label, encompassing both the
international and national Fairtrade trade.
National Fairtrade-like System and Serbian Fairtrade Traders
Following the specific discussion about Fairtrade traders in Serbia, in this part, I will
again broaden the debate, now discussing the future of Fairtrade trading and its position in the
prospective Serbian national Fairtrade-like system. Before discussing Serbian Fairtrade
traders' potential developments, it is again important to point out that the infancy of the
Serbian Fairtrade market precludes any definitive assessments, particularly as the research in
this thesis is groundbreaking in this respect. However, there are already some advantageous
and disadvantageous trends, as well as trading channels with their strengths, weaknesses and
future potential.
For example, Fairtrade campaigners already raise the question why Serbian food
manufacturers and processors are not producing Fairtrade products in secondary production,
such as chocolates from Fairtrade ingredients (Djuraskovic 2013, interview and Jovanic
2013, interview). Djuraskovic explains that Serbia has a very successful, internationally
recognised confectionery industry, with brands like "Stark", "Jaffa" and "Bambi" (2013,
interview). All of these are strongly marketable in Europe and beyond, and Fairtrade
certification could be the next logical step. He holds the same for major Serbian juice
producers (Ibid.). Switching to Fairtrade may reasonably open up new domestic and export
possibilities in this perspective.
A number of my interviewees recognised education and future growth of Fairtrade
sales as two dominant, and I will add, interconnected challenges to supermarkets' Fairtrade
324
future (Kosanovic 2013, interview, Seslija 2013, interview, Djuraskovic 2013, interview and
Nikolic 2013b, interview). Kosanovic states that, in his opinion, it could take up to ten years
before people may easily recognise Fairtrade products and make informed purchases (2013,
interview). On my next question, whether he sees ways in which this period could be
shortened, he responded in the affirmative, again identifying education (Ibid.), as well as
introduction of Fairtrade producers from Serbia, as crucial (Ibid.). Once these preconditions
are met, Kosanovic considers the growth in Fairtrade sales as almost inevitable (2013,
interview). There is certainly reason for optimism, since other certified products, like organic
ones, are experiencing continuous growth in sales volume (Kosanovic 2013, interview and
Fotiric Aksic 2013, interview), and since some of the most enthusiastic supporters of
Fairtrade in Serbia currently work for Delhaize Serbia.
In order for the Serbian national Fairtrade-like system to evolve, the Fairtrade trade in
Serbia requires evolution. As mentioned, numerous traders are capable of incorporating
Fairtrade products in their palette. In addition, the fact that supermarkets in Serbia already
experiment with Fairtrade and ethical products, even when missing sales targets,
demonstrates potential for future developments as well. Delhaize Serbia is a Fairtrade pioneer
important for the future of Fairtrade in Serbia in particular, as it recognises Fairtrade as one
of the strongest labels (Kosanovic 2013, interview).
Finally, in terms of persuading other parts of the national system, Fairtrade traders are
equally important and Kosanovic sees Delhaize Serbia's broader role as following: "This is a
part of our story, strengthening local producers, and if they were [Fairtrade] certified, that
would be even better. This is our power to potentially put forward a local producer in a large
system, such as ours, and to make him sustainable in the market and to contribute to the
overall story of sustainable development in the whole country and not just regarding us as a
retailer" (2013, interview 16:05).
325
National Fairtrade-like System and Serbian Fairtrade Consumers and Campaigners
Before concluding this section, we should remind ourselves that without Fairtrade
campaigning there is no future development of Fairtrade sales. Secondly, I will also restate
Bentley's warning that Fairtrade campaigners, although crucial, are still not omnipotent
(2013, interview). This advice is important because, although they are the Fairtrade standard-
bearers, the Fairtrade campaigners cannot develop the Fairtrade system on their own and need
the help and involvement from all other Fairtrade actors, most certainly from other Fairtrade
consumers.
The crucial step on the road to development will be the foundation of the Serbian
national Fairtrade organisation, "Fairtrade Serbia". Jovanic states the most important reasons
why the Serbian NFO should be founded. Firstly, in order for it to be able to register and
license Fairtrade traders, and to monitor their sales and secondly, its foundation will have an
impact on two other Fairtrade referent objects in Serbia (2013, interview). It will be able to
help in formulating specific Fairtrade standards for prospective Serbian Fairtrade producers
(Ibid.). Moreover, together with other (consumer) organisations, it could also lead to the
stronger involvement of Fairtrade consumers, although Jovanic warns that not all
organisations are equally suitable for cooperation (Ibid.). According to her, recognising this is
of significance because the worst case would be for NGOs with other agendas to adopt the
Fairtrade project and exploit it for their short term goals, discarding it when it is of no further
use for them (Ibid.). She warns: "simply put, be very careful, because they will ruin the whole
concept" (Ibid. 16:06).
In addition, Fairtrade Serbia would be an institutionalised Fairtrade campaigning hub,
as in the UK, inter alia. This will be even more the case when it begins receiving small, but
326
steady fee income from all Fairtrade licensees in Serbia, which all NFOs use to further boost
Fairtrade sales, especially through Fairtrade educational campaigns.
Regarding the current state of the development of Fairtrade Serbia, I can personally
confirm that, together with Jovanic and Djuraskovic, we have already initiated its creation,
and that its inception is scheduled for 2016. The establishment of Fairtrade Serbia will
certainly be a major development for the Serbian Fairtrade system. Moreover, it will be the
base for both the augmentation of the individual parts of the system, since it will be able to
lobby for the inclusion of Serbian Fairtrade producers, help Fairtrade traders and encourage
Fairtrade consumers, but also, because it will constitute one of the crucial parts of
development of a national Fairtrade-like system in Serbia.
Summing up the debate, Chapter VIII was divided into three main parts. Firstly, I
analysed Fairtrade traders through the process of Fairtrade mainstreaming through
supermarkets, which is the dominant Serbian Fairtrade trading and consuming channel,
particularly focusing on Serbian Fairtrade pioneer, Delhaize Serbia and its past, current and
future Fairtrade developments. Before I analysed the supermarkets as Fairtrade traders, I
briefly presented other Serbian Fairtrade traders, since apart from Fairtrade mainstreaming
through supermarkets, I was also interested in the general future potential of Serbian
Fairtrade trade.
Concerning the supermarkets, my focus was on Delhaize Serbia and the process of
Fairtrade mainstreaming initiated and conducted through it. Based on findings in Chapter VI,
in this chapter I also analysed six positive and an equal number of negative aspects of this
process. Therefore, I argued that the boost of consumers' spending, educational potentials,
327
development of relational Fairtrade value chains, possibilities of portraying Fairtrade as a
serious option for all mainstream food businesses, media entrance and building of more
recognisable and influential Fairtrade brands, are advancements from the Serbian perspective
as well. In addition, I also identified the possible pitfalls, e.g. circumvention of Fairtrade rules
and regulations, final overpricing, cannibalisation of other Fairtrade traders' sales, silent de-
listing, capturing the reputational gains and finally, a false increase in confidence that
Fairtrade is everywhere, and connected with it, declining interest in Fairtrade campaigning,
some of which are already present in Serbia.
Serbian Fairtrade campaigning groups, comprising the most alert Fairtrade
consumers, which are today in their making, were the focus of the second part. In particular, I
discussed Serbian Fairtrade campaigners' educational capacities and their present and future
contributions to the process of Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets. This
discussion was preceded by a more general debate about a statistical average, and different
groups of Serbian Fairtrade consumers.
Therefore, in the second "Serbian Chapter", by using the lessons drawn from Chapter
VI as points of departure, combined with my original extensive field research in Serbia, I
discussed two further Fairtrade referent objects of my doctoral thesis - Fairtrade traders,
accentuating supermarkets and consumers, highlighting campaigners, now in the Serbian
context. In this way, I gave the final answer to the second attendant research question - "What
is the current situation and what are the potentials for further development of Serbian
Fairtrade trade and consumption?", thereby answering the second part of my underlying
research question connected with the question of the extent to which Serbian Fairtrade traders
and consumers are and will be able to partake in the Fairtrade system in the future.
The final part, focused on the potential emergence of a Serbian national Fairtrade-like
system, enhanced the discussion. This section answered my third attendant research question
328
- "To what extent it is possible to establish a national Fairtrade-like system in Serbia and in
that case, is the whole greater than the sum of its parts?", which in turn answered the final
part of my underlying research question holistically looking on the potentials for Serbian
Fairtrade production, trade and consumption.
By giving the final answers to my three attendant, and therefore, to my underlying
research question - "To what extent can Serbia, as one of the producer-excluded upper-
middle-income economies, partake in the Fairtrade system in the future, as a country where
Fairtrade products are produced, traded and consumed?", by concluding the discussions in the
last two, "Serbian chapters", I finished the empirical part of my doctoral thesis and I made all
four contributions to knowledge.
Firstly, following the theoretical examination of my new topic in chapters II and III, I
now put forward empirical findings, making the full contribution to the Fair Trade literature.
Secondly, by putting forward new primary data in chapters VII and VIII, I presented full and
ground-breaking empirical research on Serbian prospective Fairtrade producers and current,
as well as future Fairtrade traders and consumers. Following the debate commenced in
Chapter IV on methodology and continued through illustrative case studies' chapters V and
VI, in the last two chapters, I put forward the final part of my innovative comparison, centred
on Serbia as my main case study. Finally, the disconfirmatory empirics based on my original
field research in Serbia were presented, stating arguments as to why the current exclusion of
Serbia from Fairtrade producing countries is indefensible in practice as well, leading to my
fourth contribution to the literature.
329
CHAPTER IX - THE CONCLUSION
Recapitulation of Major Findings
My doctoral thesis began with a story about mankind's most recent astronomical
successes in its cosmological quest for knowledge. I wanted to contrast our stellar
achievements with humanity's struggle to bring development and alleviate poverty on our
own planet. In this respect, the relative progress in recent decades has not only been
insufficient, but additionally hindered by recent global food and economic crises. Many
people around the world in both developing and developed economies were hit particularly
hard. Chang (2011) notes that many of them will never be a part of the economic mainstream
again. These people, losers of both the global food and economic crises, living below poverty
lines and in one or more conditions which I identified in the broadened Stewart and Wang's
definition of poverty (2003) can be found both in the Global South and in the Global North,
as the UNDP's report showed (2013), thus showing that there is also "south" in the Global
North.
Given the fact that I believe that all poor people, irrespective of where they live
deserve special kindness and similar attention, I focused my research on the ones from one
upper-middle-income economy from the Global North - Serbia, firstly showing the need for
viewpoint repositioning in terms of its developmental realities. Therefore, I began discussing
my main case study already in the Introduction, and continued it throughout my doctoral
thesis, presenting its economic parameters, its food system and key links in its food value
chains. However, above all, I focused on its current and future Fairtrade potentials for
inclusion in the Fairtrade system, both through prisms of production, as well as trade and
consumption. Although I do not think that the Fairtrade system is a panacea and that it can (or
330
should) give all the answers to the questions regarding global development, the overall
rationale behind my doctoral research was that it is one of the most successful trade-not-aid
initiatives and that it can give certain positive contributions.
As discussed, the development potentials that the Fairtrade system has are well
documented. Consequently, at present, 1.4 million producers who are members of the
Fairtrade system (Fairtrade International 2014a) benefit from its numerous advantages.
Although it can be said that this is just a fraction of the people helped by national subsidies or
international aid programmes, it is also important to restate the two overall arguments in
favour of Fairtrade. Firstly, as mentioned above, it is a trade-not-aid initiative and many
scholars are seeing it as therefore more sustainable in the long run. Secondly, as also
discussed, it does not cost anything out of the public purse, so in effect, it is a "free"
initiative, based solely on the willingness of Fairtrade producers, traders and consumers to
participate.
However, in order for the Fairtrade system to be able to positively influence Serbia,
through my research I found that it has to change its exclusion practices, thus far unidentified
by the Fair Trade literature. From this starting point, I identified three underexplored areas,
three gaps in the literature, and I dedicated my doctoral thesis to bridging them.
Firstly, I unearthed a group of producer-excluded upper-middle-income economies,
whose poor and marginalised small-scale food producers were never studied by the Fair
Trade literature before, and in practice, are forbidden from producing Fairtrade products in
primary production. Consequently, they are under a direct threat of becoming double-losers,
expelled from both Fairtrade and non-Fairtrade economies. Secondly, I found that Fairtrade
traders and consumers from the same group of economies are largely analytically unexplored
as well. Finally, I questioned the potentials of countries from this group to create national
Fairtrade-like systems, by firstly equally developing all three Fairtrade aspects, i.e. Fairtrade
331
production, trade and consumption, and secondly, by showing how the whole is greater than
the sum of its parts, which still remains completely undiscovered by the same literature.
In order to bridge these gaps, I focused my research on one producer-excluded upper-
middle income economy, Serbia. I presented the most in-depth analysis ever conducted in
any of the nine producer-excluded upper-middle income economies about its full Fairtrade
potentials, with the original primary data collected about all three prospective and current
Fairtrade referent objects, i.e. Fairtrade producers, traders and consumers. Hence, I explored
the possibilities for the Fairtrade system's change from its current focus, which is almost
exclusively on connecting Fairtrade producers from the Global South and Fairtrade traders
and consumers from the Global North. In order to achieve this, I needed to introduce new
prospective Serbian Fairtrade producers, and current Serbian traders and consumers into the
Fair Trade literature, thus laying a foundation for the change of discourse that may lead, in
practice, to their future stronger inclusion in the Fairtrade system.
My research was led by one main research question, from which three attendant
research questions were derived, in order for me to be able to break down my complex
research puzzle into more manageable parts. Hence, answering all three of them, I
consequently answered the main research question as well.
My research was guided by the underlying research question: "To what extent can
Serbia, as one of the producer-excluded upper-middle-income economies, partake in the
Fairtrade system in future, as a country where Fairtrade products are produced, traded and
consumed?".
This was underpinned by three attendant research questions:
1. "To what extent can Serbian poor and marginalised small-scale producers, currently
excluded from the Fairtrade system partake in that system?";
332
2. "What is the current situation and what are the potentials for further development of
Serbian Fairtrade trade and consumption?";
3. "To what extent it is possible to establish a national Fairtrade-like system in Serbia
and in that case, is the whole greater than the sum of its parts?".
These questions were addressed from different theoretical, methodological and
empirical positions throughout my doctoral thesis and especially in the final two chapters
focused on Serbia where they were fully answered. By answering the underlying research
question, I made four contributions to the Fair Trade literature.
In order to achieve this, in theoretical chapters II and III, I firstly had to present the
literature review and theoretical framework of my doctoral thesis, reviewing and critically
analysing the Fair Trade literature, especially titles which are based on research coming from
the development studies, global food system, and caring across space bodies of work.
In doing so, firstly, in Chapter II I showed a shift towards more inclusive liberalism
and identified private governance in general and third-party certification schemes, including
the Fairtrade system, in particular, as one of the answers to its shortfalls. Secondly, I
discussed my novel approach which sees the Fairtrade system as existing together with and in
order to change the market.
Furthermore, I argued that the Fairtrade system is also a part of the global food
system. However, I immediately showed that its value chains are different, striving towards
the relational ideal type, following Gereffi's analytical framework widely applied in the Fair
Trade literature. Moreover, I asked three questions: how far we should care for others, how
human sameness and difference is perceived and finally, how important education about
unfair practices is, concluding that the Fairtrade system represents a vehicle for giving care a
substance. This gave a theoretical foundation for understanding Fairtrade system's internal
333
normative and operational logic of care, re-connection and inclusion, and is the base for the
critique of its current exclusion practices.
In addition, in Chapter III, I presented the contemporary Fairtrade system, focusing,
firstly, on its principles and monetary benefits and secondly, on the three key referent objects,
i.e. Fairtrade producers, traders and consumers emphasising campaigners as well. By
explaining how Fairtrade system works, I put forward the base for understanding the
empirical debates in chapters V - VIII.
Finally, I presented the Global North - Global South divide critique and upper-
middle-income economies' position within the system, identifying disparity between theory
and practice. In this way, I set the theoretical foundations, firstly, for making my first
contribution to knowledge regarding the examination of a new topic and in more general
terms, the direction of the debate through the rest of my thesis.
Before moving to the empirical part of my thesis and showing how the theory met the
practice, I presented a bridge between these two parts of my thesis in the form of
methodological Chapter IV. Therefore, by discussing critical analysis as my first method, I
concluded the previous discussion. By subsequently presenting the case study and the
comparative research method based on lesson-drawing principles, I introduced chapters V -
VIII.
An additional theoretical and methodological strength of my doctoral thesis came
from the fact that as a GEM PhD scholar, I benefited from having two supervisors coming
from different academic backgrounds - one from a politics department and the other from a
business school. Therefore, I had a privilege to be equally well-guided when I was accessing
both pools of knowledge. This is particularly important because both previous and future
research on the Fairtrade system was, and will be, interdisciplinary. Consequently, the above-
presented discussion would not be as rich if this was not the case.
334
Hence, in Chapter IV, I identified, outlined and explained the methodological choices
of my doctoral research that aided me in answering my underlying research question and in
contributing to knowledge. In addition, this chapter underpins my third contribution to the
literature focused on innovative comparison, which is based on two illustrative case studies
which were presented in the following chapters V and VI, and the main one, which was the
topic of chapters VII and VIII focused on Serbia.
I started the empirical part of my doctoral thesis by presenting my first illustrative
case study in Chapter V. The more general debate about the Mexican Fairtrade system itself
was followed by a very specific discussion about two features which I identified as crucial
lesson-drawing bases for my main case study on Serbia. Firstly, I focused on identifying the
main characteristics of Mexican Fairtrade producers and their everyday circumstances.
Secondly, I focused on benefits that Mexican Fairtrade producers receive from Fairtrade.
Consequently, the Mexican Chapter was the lesson-drawing basis for answering the first
attendant research question, which tackled this question in particular and hence, the basis for
answering a part of my underlying research question focused on prospective Serbian
Fairtrade producers.
I continued the search for the lessons that can be drawn for my main case study in
Chapter VI where I presented my second illustrative case study. Following a cursory
discussion of the UK Fairtrade system in general, I put forward an empirical debate regarding
the second and third referent objects of my doctoral research. These are Fairtrade traders and
consumers respectively, and further two lessons regarding Fairtrade mainstreaming through
supermarkets and Fairtrade campaigning. Therefore, the UK Chapter was the lesson-drawing
base for answering the second attendant research question, which addresses these two
referent objects in particular, and consequently, a base for answering a part of my underlying
research question focused on current and future Serbian Fairtrade traders and consumers.
335
The extensive chapters VII and VIII, dealt exclusively with Serbia. In the former, I
firstly discussed the history and the contemporary structure of the Serbian Fairtrade system, a
discussion that served as an introduction to both chapters simultaneously. Applying my
theoretical framework, I put forward a comprehensive debate about the first Fairtrade referent
object, now from the Serbian perspective, by evaluating prospective Serbian Fairtrade
producers. The discussion presented was based on two lessons learned from my first
illustrative case study on Mexico - the main characteristics of Fairtrade producers, and
benefits they receive from the Fairtrade system.
Using these lessons as points of departure, combined with my original extensive field
research in Serbia, I discussed prospective Serbian Fairtrade production. In this way, I give
the final answer to the first attendant research question focused on Serbian prospective
Fairtrade producers. Consequently, I answered the first part of my underlying research
question focused on the extent to which Serbian poor and marginalised small-scale producers
can partake in the Fairtrade system in the future.
The debate continued in Chapter VIII, where, I presented the second and the third key
links in Fairtrade global value chains Fairtrade traders and consumer, now from the Serbian
Fairtrade perspective. The discussion was based on the third and the fourth lesson drawn
from my second illustrative case study, combined with my original extensive field research in
Serbia. I analysed Fairtrade traders with a view of Fairtrade mainstreaming through
supermarkets, which is the dominant Serbian Fairtrade trading and consuming channel,
particularly focusing on Serbian Fairtrade pioneer, Delhaize Serbia and its past, current and
future Fairtrade developments.
In addition, currently emerging Serbian Fairtrade campaigning groups, consisting of
the most aware Fairtrade consumers, were the focus of the second section, together with a
more general debate about an average, and different groups of Serbian Fairtrade consumers.
336
By concluding the discussions in these two sections I gave the final answer to the second
attendant research question, thereby answering the second part of my underlying research
question connected with the question of the extent to which Serbian Fairtrade traders and
consumers are and will be able to partake in the Fairtrade system in the future.
The debate in Chapter VIII was augmented in the final part by the discussion focused
on possibilities for developing Serbian national Fairtrade-like system which answered the
third attendant research question focused on this issue. Consequently, it offered an answer to
the final part of my underlying research question that holistically looks at the potential for
Serbian Fairtrade production, trade and consumption from a Fairtrade production point of
view.
By giving the final answers to my first, second and third attendant research
questions and consequently, to my underlying research question, through debates
presented in chapters VII and VIII, I made all four contributions to knowledge. I
examined a new topic, put forward new primary data, made an innovative comparison and
presented disconfirmatory empirics.
Future Research
Following Gerring's previously quoted advice (2007) that no research in general, and
especially that based on case studies should every be concluded without at least an idea of
how they fit in the broader research universe, and what the future research avenues would
look like, I will now present the potentials of my doctoral research.
It was envisaged as a starting point for future study, firstly on other producer-
excluded upper-middle-income economies. That being said, it is important to restate that my
doctoral thesis was about Serbia and its Fairtrade potentials. Therefore, discussions about
337
other eight producer-excluded upper-middle-income economies were left for future research.
However, it is not hard to presume that other countries from that group are in a somewhat
similar situation.
This position is strengthened, firstly by the fact that three of them are ex-Yugoslav
countries, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, FYR and Montenegro. To a large extent,
they share the history and the fate of Serbia and some of them, like Bosnia and Herzegovina,
actually felt the full tragedy of the country's dissolution due to the strongest war destructions.
Three further economies, Albania, Bulgaria and Romania, are Serbia's neighbours.
Many historians would argue that they have an even worst pre-1990s history than
Yugoslavia. Today, two of them, Bulgaria and Romania, are EU member states and, as also
clearly stated, it would be unfair to claim that they are not in a better position than the rest of
the group due to all developmental advantages that the EU membership brings. However, it is
also important to point out that they are the poorest and the least developed EU member
states, which also speaks volumes.
Belarus is actually the country which is the least similar to the rest of the group due to
its post World War II history and current geo-political developments, but its developmental
challenges are numerous as well. Finally, Turkey is the strongest member of the group. If it
continues to develop at the current pace, it will certainly enter the group of high-income
economies before any of the above-stated economies. That being said, Turkey also faces a
number of developmental challenges and similar to Belarus, its geographical surroundings are
among the least stable in the world.
Finally, in spite of all the challenges, all eight countries have a developing group of
increasingly enlightened traders and consumers who can become the kingpins of new demand
for Fairtraded products. In turn, this can also lead to the developments of future national
338
Fairtrade-like systems in these countries. These and many other questions are to be discussed
in future Fairtrade research.
Secondly, my study can also be seen as the starting point for future research on other
producer-included upper-middle-income economies. In particular, about their capacities to
be, besides Fairtrade producers, also Fairtrade traders and consumers of Fairtrade products
and to develop national Fairtrade-like systems.
This is a logical furtherance, but now I will go a step further by suggesting that my
research can be used for future research on new Fairtrade markets in general, irrespective of
whether they are focused on low or lower-middle-income economies or even high income
ones in the future. Particularly due to the fact that I presented a lesson-drawing comparative
method that was not used in the Fair Trade literature before, that future researchers can adjust
to their particular research needs.
Secondly, my research can be seen as a basis for future research into stronger
development of Fairtrade traders and consumers from the Global South in particular and in
general, for researchers focused on bridging the Global North - Global South divide in the
Fairtrade system. As already discussed, there are numerous calls for research from the most
esteemed Fair Trade scholars like Nicholls and Opal (2005) and Jaffee (2007) and from a
number of my interviewees. Ignoring these appeals will become increasingly untenable,
especially due to the above-presented data from one of the last UNDP's reports, suitable
named: "The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World" (2013). As Murray and
Raynolds have stated, only then will we have a truly global Fairtrade system, which will be
able to use fully the potential coming from both the Global North and the Global South.
Finally, my research could serve as a foundation for future research interested in the
development of national Fairtrade-like systems, since in the case of Serbia, I clearly
339
identified that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts due to the positive influence that
the development of one part of the system can have on the progress of the other two.
Practical Implications
In the last part of my Conclusion, I will discuss the effects that my research can
have regarding the Fairtrade system's praxis. Before I start, I would like to point out again
that I am both a Fair Trade researcher and a campaigner and that, after thorough research,
I found that the Fairtrade system can have positive effects on poor and marginalised
small-scale producers around the world due to all Fairtrade benefits discussed above.
Hence, while writing the final draft of my doctoral dissertation my aim was not only to
contribute to knowledge, but also for my research to be read by Fairtrade practitioners and
used for practical Fairtrade developments.
In that sense, I will recall the anecdotes from my Introduction, summing them up
in two sentences: firstly, there are less and less practical arguments supporting the
exclusion of Fairtrade producers from the Global North, especially from nine identified
upper-middle-income economies; secondly, there are more and more proponents of the
inclusion of poor and marginalised small-scale producers from the Global North.
Consequently, the greater integration of all upper-middle-income economies may
in practice lead to the creation of a more global Fairtrade system. In this envisioned state,
firstly, the poor and marginalised small-scale producers and workers from
underdeveloped regions of nine excluded upper-middle-income economies will gain a
new perspective to develop and thrive by being included in the Fairtrade system more
strongly. Secondly, more poor and marginalised small-scale producers and workers from
other regions of the world will gain stronger access to new markets of upper-middle-
340
income economies, once their producers stop being discriminated. This is again the
logical furtherance, but my research could also be seen as the basis for practical
arguments for including poor and marginalised small-scale producers from high-income
economies as well.
This can be even more important at present, due to the following development. In
her recent blog post, Barbara Crowther, the director of policy and public affairs for the
Fairtrade Foundation, restated the position that the Fairtrade certification for northern
small-scale producers is out of the question (2015). In this way, she again went against
numerous Fairtrade traders and consumers who are asking for it to happen (in this
particular case, for the UK small-scale milk producers). Therefore, the opposition is still
strong and influential. However, in my opinion, a position held by 94% of readers polled
in a recent survey conducted by Metro who stated that they "would like to see fair trade
milk" (Ibid., p.2) will prevail in the years to come.
Secondly, my research can be regarded as a base for market research interested in
the development of new Fairtrade markets. This is a process that is already happening and
for example, the new Fairtrade marketing organisations are now present in the Global
South as well, in Brazil, India and Kenya for example. That being said, it is also important
to point out FMOs in the Global South are still in the minority, since four of them are in
high-income economies from the Global North (Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Slovakia
and South Korea). Secondly, these are all FMOs and not national Fairtrade organisations,
which are far more influential. Hence, the development of new markets is still based on
the old, developed Global North - underdeveloped Global South divide modus operandi
and my research is a strong argument why this should be changed. The consequences
could be twofold. Firstly, with the development of NFOs in the Global South they will
341
have a stronger voice in the whole Fairtrade system. Secondly, this will be another strong
foundation for the development of national Fairtrade-like systems.
Moreover, I will put forward a country currently almost completely under the Fair
Trade radar and that is China, which is a producer-included upper middle income
economy, but its Fairtrade development is rudimentary. Based on numerous informal
conversations with Chinese Fair Trade researchers and practitioners, given the China's
ascent in the global economy, as well as the fact that it has both poor and rich citizens and
that its internal market is big, I believe that a better place for implementation of a national
Fairtrade-like system cannot be found at present.
In addition, perhaps the most important immediate practical advancement which
can be derived from my doctoral thesis and the research inspired by it can be the change
of the Fairtrade International's Geographical Scope Policy of Producer Certification. Due
to this standard, at present, the exclusion is carved in stone. However, as discussed above,
the changes in it would be perceived as a clear incentive for other parts of the Fairtrade
system to continue to develop Fairtrade as a truly global system.
The final practical reason, which was at the same time one of the strongest
motivators to write my doctoral dissertation, is to create a conceptual foundation for the
change of Fairtrade system's exclusion practices leading to the situation where poor and
marginalised small-scale producers from the country I hail from will be able to enter the
system. I hope for this practical development to occur, firstly, because Serbian
prospective Fairtrade producers can truly contribute to the development of the whole
movement with their high quality products, some of which cannot be sourced from the
Global South, as discussed above. Secondly, and far more importantly, if this does not
occur, some of them will become double-losers, excluded from both non-Fairtrade and
Fairtrade economy.
342
REFERENCES
1. Abdelrahman, M., 22 February 2010. Globalization and the Anti-capitalist movement.
Lecture. University of Cambridge, Development Studies, Paper 3 - Sociology and
Politics of Development.
2. Adams, M. and Raisborough, J. 2010. Making a difference: ethical consumption and
the everyday. The British Journal of Sociology, 61 (2), 256-274.
3. Alexander, A. and Nicholls, A., 2006. Rediscovering consumer-producer involvement:
A network perspective on fair trade marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 40
(11/12), 1236-1253.
4. Alvey, J.E., 1999. A Short History of Economics As a Moral Science. Journal of
Markets and Morality, 2 (1), 53-73.
5. Amaeshi, K., Onyeka, K. and Nnodim, P., 2008. Corporate Social Responsibility in
Supply Chains of Global Brands: A Boundaryless Responsibility? Clarifications,
exceptions and implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 81 (1), 223-234.
6. Annan, K., 2001. A route out of poverty. The Financial Times, 5 March.
7. Archicom, 2014. Delhaize Serbia (RS) Logistics Concept, Warehouse Design, Program
of Requirements [online]. Available from:
http://www.archicom.nl/media/projectbladen%20PDF/DelhaizeServie_UK.pdf
[Accessed 9 June 2015].
8. Ariztia, T., Kleine, D., Brightwell, G., Agloni, N. and Afonso, R., 2012. Ethical
consumption in Brazil and Chile: Institutional context and path of developments.
At: Global Research Forum on Sustainable Consumption and Production, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, June 13-15, 1-12.
343
9. Arnould, E., Plastina, A., and Ball, D., 2006. Market Disintermediation and Producer
Value Capture: The Case of Fairtrade Coffee in Nicaragua, Peru and Guatemala.
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Marketing Department Faculty Publications, Paper 11
[online]. Available from:
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=marketingfa
cpub [Accessed 30 August 2013].
10. Auger, P., Burke, T., Devinney, M. and Louviere, J.J., 2003. What Will Consumers Pay
for Social Product Features?. Journal of Business Ethics, 42 (3), 281-304.
11. Auroi, C., 2003. Improving Sustainable Chain Management through Fair Trade.
Greener Management International, 43, 25-35.
12. Bacon, C., 2004. Confronting the Coffee Crisis: Can Fair Trade, Organic, and Specialty
Coffees Reduce Small-Scale Farmer Vulnerability in Northern Nicaragua? World
Development, 33 (3), 497-511.
13. Barham, E., 2003. Translating terroir: the global challenge of French AOC labeling.
Journal of Rural Studies, 19, 127-138.
14. Barratt Brown, M., 1993. Fair trade: Reform and Realities in the International Trading
System. London: Zed Books.
15. Barrientos, S. and Smith. S., 2007. Mainstreaming Fair Trade in global production
networks : own brand fruit and chocolate in UK supermarkets. In: L.T. Raynolds, D.L.
Murray and J. Wilkinson, eds. Fair Trade: The challenges of transforming
globalization. London: Routledge.
16. Barry, B., 1995. Justice as Impartiality: A Treatise on Social Justice. Vol. 2. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
344
17. Bartley, T., 2003. Certifying Forests and Factories: States, Social Movements, and the
Rise of Private Regulation in the Apparel and Forest Product Fields. Politics and
Society, 31 (3), 433-464.
18. Bastian, H., 2006. Keeping Fair Trade Fair in Mexico. NACLA Report on the Americas,
39 (6), 1-6.
19. BBC, 2013. Voyager probe 'leaves Solar System'. BBC [online], 12 September.
Available from: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24026153 [Accessed 6
July 2015].
20. BBC, 2012a. Nasa's Curiosity rover successfully lands on Mars. BBC [online], 6
August. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19144464
[Accessed 10 January 2013].
21. BBC, 2012b. Nasa selects InSight Mars mission after Curiosity rover. BBC [online], 20
August. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19327286
[Accessed 9 April 2013].
22. BBC, 2011. Kepler 22-b: Earth-like planet confirmed. BBC [online], 5 December.
Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16040655 [Accessed
17 April 2012].
23. Becchetti, L. and Huybrechts, B., 2008. The Dynamics of Fair Trade as a Mixed-form
Market. Journal of Business Ethics, 81 (4), 733-750.
24. Beder, S., 2000. Global spin: The corporate assault on environmentalism. New York:
Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
25. Bennett, A., 2004. Case study Methods: Design, Use, and Comparative Advantages. In:
D.E. Sprinz, and Y. Nahmias-Wolinsky. Models, Numbers, and Cases: Methods for
Studying International Relations. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 19-55.
345
26. Berg, L.B., 2001. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. US: Pearson
Education Inc.
27. Berndt, C., 2007. Is Fairtrade in Coffee Production Fair and Useful? Evidence from
Costa Rica and Guatemala and Implications for Policy. Mercatus Policy Series, Policy
Comment No. 11, June.
28. BETA, 2014. Ne vide ekonomsko nasilje nad decom. In: B92 [online], 23 April.
Available from:
http://www.b92.net/biz/vesti/srbija.php?yyyy=2014&mm=04&dd=23&nav_id=839783
[Accessed 25 July 2015].
29. BHcrafts, 2015. Certifications and Recognitions [online]. Available from:
http://www.bhcrafts.org/Certification.html [Accessed 8 May 2015].
30. Idyllwild Coffee Roasters, 2015. Mexican Organic Chiapas City+ Roast [online].
Available from: http://idyllwildcoffeeroasters.com/shop/cityroast/mexican-organic-
chiapas-city-roast-2/ [Accessed 9 June 2015].
31. Biznis i Finansije, 2014. Da li će Srbija morati da uvozi radnu snagu u svoja sela?. In:
B92 [online], 24 March. Available from:
http://www.b92.net/biz/fokus/analiza.php?yyyy=2014&mm=03&nav_id=830154
[Accessed 8 May 2015].
32. Blythman J., 2004. Shopped: the Shocking Power of British Supermarkets. London:
Fourth Estate.
33. Bogdanov, N., 2007. Mala ruralna domacinstva u Srbiji i ruralna nepoljoprivredna
ekonomija [online]. Belgrade, UNDP Serbia. Available from:
http://ruralinfoserbia.rs/publikacije/undp_mala_ruralna_domacinstva.pdf [Accessed 18
May 2015].
346
34. Bogdanov, N., Ceranic, S., and Rankovic, R., 2000. Changing of intensity in Serbian
agricultural production. At: Nyugat-magyarországi egyetem mezögazdaságtudományi
kar mosonmagyaróvár, XXVIII óvári tudományos napok, az elemiszergazdaság
fejlesztesenek lehetosegei, Agrárökonómiai szekció, IV kötet, Mosonmagyaróvár,
Hungary, 131-139.
35. Bogdanov, N., Rodic, V. and Vittuari, M., 2012. Structural Change in Transitional
Agriculture: Evidence from Serbia. At: 132nd Seminar of the EAAE - "Is transition in
European agriculture really over?" New dimensions and challenges of transition and
post-transition processes in agriculture and food sectors in the European Union and
EU acceding and neighbouring countries, Skopje, 25-27 October [online]. Available
from: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/139490/2/Bogdanov.pdf [Accessed 18
May 2015].
36. Bondy, T. and Talwar, V., 2011. Through thick and thin: How fair trade consumers
have reacted to the global economic recession. Journal of Business Ethics, 101 (3),
365-383.
37. Booth, P., 2011. Fair trade is neither fair nor good for trade. The Telegraph [online], 28
February. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8353361/Fair-
trade-is-neither-fair-nor-good-for-trade.html [Accessed 17 April 2012].
38. Booth, P., 2004. Is Trade Justice Just? Is Fair Trade Fair?. Institute of Economic
Affairs, Discussion Paper No. 10. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.
39. Bozic G.D., Bogdanov Lj.N. and Sevarlic M.M., 2011. Ekonomika poljoprivrede.
Beograd: Poljoprivredni Fakultet (Novi Sad: Mala Knjiga).
40. Brkovic, F., 2013a. Fairtrade Sistem i Republika Srbija - Aktuelni Trenutak, Potencijali
i Izazovi. Politički Život: Časopis za Analizu Politike [online], 35-44. Available from:
347
http://stari.fpn.bg.ac.rs/wp-content/uploads/politicki-zivot-7-za-stampu1.pdf [Accessed
10 March 2013].
41. Brkovic, F., 2013b. Photos taken during field research in Jablanica and Pcinja
districts. Serbia.
42. Brkovic, F., 2012. Savremeni Fairtrade sistem. Tim za socijalno ukljucivanje i
smanjenje siromastva, blog o socijalnom ukljucivanju [online], 10 October. Available
from: http://www.socijalnoukljucivanje.gov.rs/blog/?p=1401 [Accessed 7 May 2015].
43. Brkovic, F., 2009. Global Civil Society - Global Development Institutions: a
Dichotomy?. Thesis (MPhil). University of Cambridge.
44. Brown, O., 2005. Supermarket Buying Power, Global Commodity Chains and
Smallholder Farmers in the Developing World. Human Development Report Office
Occasional Paper. New York: United Nations Development Program.
45. Buttel, F.H., and Gould, K.A., 2004. Global Social Movement(s) at the Crossroads:
Some Observations on the Trajectory of the Anti-Corporate Globalization Movement.
Journal of World Systems Research [online], 10 (1), 36-66. Available from:
http://www.jwsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/jwsr-v10n1-buttelgould.pdf
46. Cabañas, A.A.G., 2002. Evaluation of the current and potential poverty alleviation
benefits of participation in the Fair Trade market: The case of Unión La Selva,
Chiapas, Mexico [online]. Available from: http://cfat.colostate.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2009/09/Case-Study-Uni%C3%B3n-La-Selva-Chiapas-Mexico.pdf
[Accessed 12 June2015].
47. Cakic, M., 2014. Trendovi u prehrambenoj maloprodaji u Srbiji. Biznis i Finansije
[online], 3 April. Available from: http://bif.rs/2014/04/trendovi-u-prehrambenoj-
maloprodaji-u-srbiji/ [Accessed 23 July 2015].
348
48. Canterbery, E.R., 1995. The Literate Economist: A Brief History of Economics. New
York: Harper Collins.
49. Cashore, B., Auld, G. and Newsom, D., 2004. Governing Through Markets: Forest
Certification and the Emergence of Non-State Authority. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
50. Castree, N., 2004: The geographical lives of commodities: problems of analysis and
critique. Social and Cultural Geography, 5 (1), 21-35.
51. Centre for Development of Jablanica and Pcinja Districts (CDJPD), 2015. Home Page
[online]. Available from: http://www.centarzarazvoj.org/ [Accessed 9 June 2015].
52. Centre for Development of Jablanica and Pcinja Districts (CDJPD), 2013. Regional
Strategy of Rural Development of Jablanica and Pcinja Districts 2013‐2017. Leskovac:
Centre for Development of Jablanica and Pcinja Districts.
53. Cerny, P.G., 2010. Rethinking World Politics: A Theory of Transnational Pluralism.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
54. Chang, H-J., 2011. 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism. New York:
Bloomsbury Press.
55. Chang, H-J., 2009. Introductory Lecture, October. University of Cambridge,
Development Studies, Paper 1, Development economics.
56. Chang, H-J., 2007. Bad Samaritans - Rich Nations, Poor Policies, and the Threat to the
Developing World. London: Random House.
57. Chang, H-J., 2005a. Why Developing Countries Need Tariffs - How WTO NAMA
Negotiations Could Deny Developing Countries' Right to a Future [online]. Oxfam and
South Centre. Available from:
http://www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/document/0708/DOC21370.pdf [Accessed 15 May
2010].
349
58. Chang, H-J., 2005b. Policy Space in Historical Perspective - with special reference to
Trade and Industrial Policies. At: Queen Elizabeth House 50th Anniversary Conference:
The Development Threats and Promises, 4-5 July [online]. University of Oxford.
Available from: http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/about_us/leontief/Chang_remarks.pdf
59. Chang, H-J., 2002. Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical
Perspective. London: Anthem Press.
60. Chang, H-J. and Grabel, I.J., 2004. Reclaiming development from the Washington
consensus. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 27 (2), 273-291.
61. Cigna, G.P., Risser, D. and Sami, H., 2014. Corporate Governance of Banks in
Transition Countries. In: S., Boubaker and D., Khuong Nguyen, eds. Corporate
Governance in Emerging Markets: Theories, Practices and Cases. London: Springer.
62. Clement, C., 1996: Care, Autonomy, and Justice: Feminism and the Ethic of Care.
Oxford: Westview Press.
63. Consumers International, 2014. Consumer Rights [online]. Available from:
http://www.consumersinternational.org/who-we-are/consumer-rights/ [Accessed 9 June
2015].
64. Cook, I., Crang, P. and Thorpe, M., 2004. Tropics of consumption: 'getting with the
fetish' of 'exotic' fruit? In: A. Hughes and S. Reimer, ed. Geographies of commodity
chains. London: Routledge, 173-192.
65. Coordinadora Latinoamericana y del Caribe de Pequeños Productores de Comercio
Justo (CLAC), 2014. 2014 Annual Report. San Salvador: CLAC.
66. Cowe, R. and Williams, S., 2000. Who are the ethical consumers? Co-operative
Bank/MORI Survey. Manchester: Co-operative Bank/MORI.
350
67. Crowther, B., 2015. Is it time for Fairtrade milk (again?) [online]. London, The
Fairtrade Foundation. Available from: http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/en/media-
centre/blog/2015/august/is-it-time-for-fairtrade-milk [Accessed 1 September 2015].
68. Dankers, C., 2003. Environmental and Social Standards, Certification and Labelling
for Cash Crops. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.
69. Davidson, R., 2004. Affluenza - the epidemic. New Consumer, November/December,
12-15.
70. Davies, I. 2009. Alliances and networks: Creating success in the UK Fair Trade
market. Journal of Business Ethics, 86 (1), 109-126.
71. Davies, I. and Ryals, L., 2010. The role of social capital in the success of fair trade.
Journal of Business Ethics, 96 (2), 317-338.
72. Daviron, B. and Ponte S., 2005. The Coffee Paradox: Global markets, commodity trade
and the elusive promise of development. London: Zed Books.
73. De Meulemeester, J.L., 2011. Reforming higher education systems in Europe since the
80s: between utilitarism and justice. CEB Working Paper No. 11/058. Brussels: Solvay
Brussels School of Economics and Management - Centre Emile Bernheim.
74. De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L., and Rayp, G., 2005. Do Consumers Care about Ethics?
Willingness to Pay for Fair-Trade Coffee. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39 (2),
363-385.
75. Delhaize Group, 2015. Serbia - Overview, Tabs: 1, 3 and 4 [online]. Available from:
http://www.delhaizegroup.com/en/Home/OurMarkets.aspx [Accessed 9 June 2015].
76. Della Porta, D. and Keating, M., 2008. Approaches and methodologies in the social
sciences. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
77. Department for International Development (DFID), 2000. Fair Trade: overview, impact
challenges - Study to Inform DFID's Support to Fair Trade [online]. London, Oxford
351
Policy Management and Sustainable Markets Group. Available from:
http://portals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/ppme/ACF3C8C.pdf [Accessed 12 June 2015].
78. Diniz, J.D.A.S. and Fabbe-Costes, N., 2007. Supply Chain Management and Supply
Chain Orientation: key factors for sustainable development projects in developing
countries?. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 10 (3), 235-
250.
79. Diocese of Durham, 2013. 2013 Fairtrade facts [online]. Available from:
http://www.durham.anglican.org/news-and-events/news-article.aspx?id=403 [Accessed
24 July 2015].
80. DIS, 2015. Posao [online]. Available from: http://www.dismarket.rs/posao.php
81. Dogan, M. and Pélassy, D., 1984. How to compare nations: Strategies in Comparative
Politics. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House Publishers.
82. Doherty, B. 2008. A Truly Co-operative Venture: The Case Study of Co-operative
Food, a Retailer Response to Fair Trade. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 16 (3), 205-
221.
83. Doherty, B. and Tranchell, S., 2007. “Radical mainstreaming” of fairtrade: the case of
The Day Chocolate Company. Equal Opportunities International, 26 (7), 693-711.
84. Doherty, B., Davies, I. and Tranchell, S. 2013. Where now for fair trade?. Business
History, 55 (2), 161-189.
85. Dolan, C., 2007. Market Affections: Moral Encounters with Kenyan Fairtrade Flowers.
Ethnos. Oxford, UK: University of Oxford.
86. Dolan, C. and Humphrey, J., 2004. Changing governance patterns in the trade in fresh
vegetables between Africa and the United Kingdom. Environment and Planning, 36 (3),
491-509.
352
87. Dolan, P., 2002. The Sustainability of 'Sustainable Consumption'. Journal of
Macromarketing 22 (2), 170-181.
88. Dolowitz, D. and Marsh, D., 2000. Learning from Abroad: the Role of Policy Transfer in
Contemporary Policy-Making. Governance, 13 (1), 5-24.
89. Dolowitz, D. and Marsh, D., 1996. Who Learns What from Whom: a Review of the
Policy Transfer Literature. Political Studies, 44, 343-357.
90. Drakopoulos, S.A., 1997. Origins and Development of the Trend Towards Value-Free
Economics. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 19 (2), 286.
91. Easterly, W., 2006. The white man's burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest
Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. New York: Penguin Press.
92. Emans, B., 2004. Interviewing: Theory, techniques and training. Groningen: Stenfert
Kroese.
93. Engelmann, D. and Strobel., M., 2004. Inequality Aversion, Efficiency, and Maximin
Preferences in Simple Distribution Experiments. American Economic Review, 94 (4),
857-869.
94. Evans, M., Sinclair, R., Fusimalohi, C., Laiva'a, V. and Freeman, M., 2003.
Consumption of traditional versus imported foods in Tonga: implications for programs
designed to reduce diet-related non-communicable diseases in developing countries.
Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 42 (2), 153-176.
95. Fair Trade Institute (FTI), 2014. Fair Trade Institute [online]. Switzerland, Fair Trade
Institute. Available from: http://www.fairtrade-institute.org/ [Accessed 1 March 2014].
96. Fairtrade Foundation, 2015a. Map of Fairtrade producers [online]. London, The
Fairtrade Foundation. Available from: http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/en/what-is-
fairtrade/producer-map [Accessed 9 July 2015].
353
97. Fairtrade Foundation, 2015b. Who we are? [online]. London, The Fairtrade Foundation.
Available from: http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/en/what-is-fairtrade/who-we-are [Accessed
9 June 2015].
98. Fairtrade Foundation, 2015c. Towns. [online]. London, The Fairtrade Foundation.
Available from: http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/en/get-involved/in-your-community/towns
99. Fairtrade Foundation, 2014a. Celebrating 20 years of the FAIRTRADE Mark in the UK.
[online]. London, The Fairtrade Foundation. Available from:
http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/en/media-centre/news/january-2014/celebrating-20-years-
of-the-fairtrade-mark-in-the-uk [Accessed 21 July 2015].
100. Fairtrade Foundation, 2014b. National Campaigner Committee [online]. London, The
Fairtrade Foundation. Available from: http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/en/get-involved/in-
your-community/national-campaigner-committee [Accessed 9 June 2015].
101. Fairtrade Foundation, 2012. Why doesn't the FAIRTRADE Mark apply to UK farmers?
http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/what_is_fairtrade/faqs.aspx [Accessed 17 April 2012].
102. Fairtrade International and WFTO, 2011. Fair Trade Glossary [online]. Bonn, Fairtrade
Labelling Organizations International and Netherlands, World Fair Trade Organization.
Available from:
http://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/about_fairtrade/Fair_Trad
e_Glossary.pdf [Accessed 17 April 2012].
103. Fairtrade International, 2015a. Cocoa [online]. Bonn, Fairtrade Labelling Organizations
International. Available from: http://www.fairtrade.net/cocoa.html [Accessed 3
September 2015].
354
104. Fairtrade International, 2015b. Coffee [online]. Bonn, Fairtrade Labelling Organizations
International. Available from: http://www.fairtrade.net/coffee.html [Accessed 3
September 2015].
105. Fairtrade International, 2015c. Fairtrade near you [online]. Bonn, Fairtrade Labelling
Organizations International. Available from: http://www.fairtrade.net/fairtrade-near-
you.html [Accessed 9 June 2015].
106. Fairtrade International, 2014a. Strong Producers, Strong Future - Annual Report 2013-
14 [online]. Bonn, Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International. Available from:
http://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/resources/2013-
14_AnnualReport_FairtradeIntl_web.pdf [Accessed 9 July 2015].
107. Fairtrade International, 2014b. Fairtrade by the numbers. Bonn: Fairtrade Labelling
Organizations International.
108. Fairtrade International, 2013a. Unlocking The Power - Annual Report 2012-13 [online].
Bonn, Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International. Available from:
13_AnnualReport_FairtradeIntl_web.pdf [Accessed 9 July 2015].
109. Fairtrade International, 2013b. Farmers to have equal say in Fairtrade, 10 June
[online]. Bonn, Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International. Available from:
http://www.fairtrade.net/single-view+M50737c7f5ba.html [Accessed 9 June 2015].
110. Fairtrade International, 2012a. History of Fair Trade [online]. Bonn, Fairtrade
Labelling Organizations International. Available from:
http://www.fairtrade.net/history_of_fairtrade.html [Accessed 17 April 2012].
111. Fairtrade International, 2012b. Fairtrade Minimum Price and Fairtrade Premium Table
http://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/standards/documents/201
355
2-04-02_EN_Fairtrade_Minimum_Price_and_Premium_table.pdf [Accessed 17 April
2012].
112. Fairtrade International, 2012c. For Producers, With Producers - Annual Report 2011-
12 [online]. Bonn, Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International. Available from:
12_AnnualReport_web_version_small_FairtradeInternational.pdf [Accessed 10 July
2015].
113. Fairtrade International, 2012d. National Fairtrade Organizations [online]. Bonn,
Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International. Available from:
http://www.fairtrade.net/labelling_initiatives1.html [Accessed 17 April 2012].
114. Fairtrade International, 2012e. Product standards for small producer organizations
http://www.fairtrade.net/product_standards_smallproducers.html?&L=0 [Accessed 17
April 2012].
115. Fairtrade International, 2011a. Standard Operating Procedure Development of
Fairtrade Minimum Prices and Premiums [online]. Bonn, Fairtrade Labelling
Organizations International. Available from:
http://www.share4dev.info/kb/documents/5098.pdf [Accessed 17 April 2012].
116. Fairtrade International, 2011b. Geographical Scope policy of Producer Certification for
Fairtrade International [online]. Bonn, Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International.
Available from:
www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/standards/documents/2011-07-
01_Geographical_Scope_policy_EN.pdf [Accessed 17 April 2012].
117. Fairtrade International, 2011c. Fairtrade Standard for Small Producer Organizations
356
http://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2011-12-
27_SPO_EN_FINAL.pdf [Accessed 17 April 2012].
118. Fairtrade International, 2011d. Fairtrade Standard for Hired Labour [online]. Bonn,
Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International. Available from:
http://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2011-12-29-HL_EN.pdf
119. Fairtrade International, 2011e. Fairtrade Standard for Contract Production [online].
Bonn, Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International. Available from:
http://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2011-12-29_CP_EN.pdf
120. Fairtrade International, 2011f. Fairtrade Trade Standard [online]. Bonn, Fairtrade
Labelling Organizations International. Available from:
http://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2011-12-29_GTS_EN.pdf
121. Fairtrade International, 2011g. Fairtrade Standard for Fresh Fruit for Small Producer
Organizations [online]. Bonn, Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International.
Available from:
4-05-01_EN_SPO_FreshFruit_v.1.3.pdf [Accessed 8 May 2015].
122. Fairtrade International, 2011h. Fairtrade Standard for Vegetables for Small Producer
Available from:
2-05-09_EN_SPO_Vegetables.pdf [Accessed 8 May 2015].
357
123. Fairtrade International, 2011i. Fairtrade Standard for Honey for Small Producer
Available from:
1-08-12_SPO_Honey_EB.pdf [Accessed 8 May 2015].
124. Fairtrade International, 2011j. Fairtrade Standard for Herbs, Herbal Teas & Spices for
Small Producer Organizations [online]. Bonn, Fairtrade Labelling Organizations
International. Available from:
2-07-24_EN_SPO_HerbsHerbalTeasSpices.pdf [Accessed 8 May 2015].
125. Fairtrade International, 2011k. Fairtrade Standard for Nuts for Small Producer
Available from:
3-01-15_EN_SPO_Nuts.pdf [Accessed 8 May 2015].
126. Fairtrade International, 2011l. Fairtrade Standard for Flowers and Plants for Hired
Labour [online]. Bonn, Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International. Available
from:
http://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/standards/documents/gen
eric-standards/2014-05-01_EN_Flowers_and_Plants_HL_FINAL.pdf [Accessed 13
May 2015].
127. Fairtrade Supporter Conference, 2013. The Fairtrade Foundation. London: Kensington
& Chelsea Town Hall, 5 October.
128. Fairtrade Supporter Conference, 2012. The Fairtrade Foundation. London: Mermaid
Conference Centre, 6 October.
358
129. Fairtrade Supporter Conference, 2011. The Fairtrade Foundation. Birmingham: Aston
University, 15 October.
130. FairValley Farmworkers Association, 2015. What is Fairtrade? [online]. South Africa,
FairValley Farmworkers Association. Available from:
http://www.fairvalley.co.za/content.php?id=2129&title=What+is+Fairtrade? [Accessed
9 July 2015].
131. FINE, 2001. Fair Trade Definitions and Principles [online]. Available from:
http://www.fair-trade-hub.com/support-files/fair-trade-definition.pdf [Accessed 21
January 2015].
132. Fisher, E., 1997. Beekeepers in the global 'fair trade' market: a case from Tabora region,
Tanzania. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food [online], 6, 109-
159. Available from: http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/31823/ [Accessed 18 May 2015].
133. FLO-CERT, 2015. Fee System Small Producer Organization [online]. Bonn, FLO-
CERT. Available from: http://www.flocert.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/PC-
FeeSysSPO-ED-26-en1.pdf [Accessed 10 Sep. 2015].
134. FLO-CERT, 2011. Quality Manual [online]. Bonn, FLO-CERT. Available from:
http://www.flo-cert.net/flo-
cert/fileadmin/user_upload/quality/QM_QualityManual_ED_52_en.pdf [Accessed 16
June 2013].
135. Focus Balkans, 2012. Project results [online]. Available from: http://www.focus-
balkans.org/?p=69#Project_results [Accessed 9 June 2015].
136. Fontaine, L., 2008. L'économie morale: pauvreté, crédit et confiance dans l'Europe
préindustrielle. Paris: Gallimard.
137. Fortin, E. and Richardson, B., 2013. Certification Schemes and the Governance of
Land: Enforcing Standards or Enabling Scrutiny?. Globalizations, 10 (1), 141-159.
359
138. Fridell, G., 2007. Fair Trade Coffee: The Prospects and Pitfalls of Market-Driven
Social Justice. Canada: University of Toronto Press Inc.
139. Fridell, G., 2003. Fair Trade and the International Moral Economy: Within and
Against the Market [online]. CERLAC Working Paper Series. USA, York University.
Available from: http://www.yorku.ca/cerlac/documents/Fridell.pdf [Accessed 17 April
2012].
140. Friedberg, S., 2004. The ethical complex of corporate food power. Environment and
Planning: Society and Space, 22, 513-31.
141. Friedberg, S., 2003. Cleaning up down South: supermarkets, ethical trade and African
horticulture. Social and Cultural Geography 4 (1), 27-43.
142. Gallagher, J.K., 2008. The Future of the WTO. Issues in Brief [online], 1. Boston,
Boston University - The Frederick S. Pardee Centre for the Study of the Longer-Range
Future. Available from: http://www.bu.edu/pardee/publications/policy-001-wto/
143. Galbraith, J.K., 1998. History of Economics: The Past as the Present. London: Penguin
Books.
144. Gallagher, J.K., ed., 2005. Putting Development First: The Importance of Policy Space
in the WTO and IFIs. London: Zed Press.
145. Gereffi, G., 1994. The Organization of Buyer-Driven Global Commodity Chains: How
U.S. Retailers Shape Overseas Production Networks. In: G. Gereffi and M.
Korzeniewicz, eds. Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism. Westport: Praeger, 95-
122.
146. Gereffi, G. and Fernandez-Stark, K., 2011. Global Value Chain Analysis: A Primer.
USA, Center on Globalization, Governance & Competitiveness (CGGC), Duke
University.
360
147. Gereffi, G., Garcia-Johnson, R. and Sasser, E., 2009. The NGO-Industrial Complex.
Foreign Policy [online], 17 November. Available from:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/11/17/the-ngo-industrial-complex/ [Accessed 19 May
2015].
148. Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J. and Sturgeon, T., 2005. The governance of global value
chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12 (1), 78-104.
149. Gerring, J., 2007. Case Study Research, Principles and Practices. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
150. Gibbon, P. and Ponte, S., 2005. Trading Down: Africa, value chains, and the global
economy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
151. Gielissen, R. and Graafland, J., 2009. Concepts of price fairness: empirical research
into the Dutch coffee market. Business Ethics: A European Review, 18 (2), April, 165-
178.
152. Giovannucci, D. and Koekoek, F.J., 2003. State of Sustainable Coffee: A Study of
twelve major markets. Switzerland: IISD, the International Coffee Organization and the
United Nations.
153. Giovannucci, D. and Ponte, S., 2005. Standards as a new form of social contract?
Sustainability initiatives in the coffee industry. Food Policy, 30 (3), 284-301.
154. Goldberg, P.K. and Pavcnik, N., 2007. Distributional Effects of Globalization in
Developing Countries. Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic
Association, 45 (1), 39-82.
155. Goodman, D. and Goodman, M., 2001. Sustaining Foods: Organic Consumption and
the Socio-Ecological Imaginary. In: M. Cohen and J. Murphy, eds. Exploring
Sustainable Consumption: Environmental Policy and the Social Sciences. Oxford:
Elsevier Science, 97-119.
361
156. Goodman, M.K., 2004. Reading fair trade: political ecological imaginary and the moral
economy of fair trade foods. Political Geography 23 (7), 891-915.
157. Government of the Republic of Serbia, 2005. Serbian Agricultural Development
Strategy (SADS). Belgrade: Government of the Republic of Serbia.
158. Gucijan, S., 2014. Srednju školu najčešće napuštaju mladi iz Sopota. Politika [online],
8 August. Available from: http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/Drustvo/Srednju-skolu-
najcesce-napustaju-mladi-iz-Sopota.lt.html [Accessed 10 June 2015].
159. Guthman, J., 2004. Back to the land: the paradox of organic food standards.
Environment and Planning, 36, 511-528.
160. Hale, A. and Opondo, M., 2005. Humanising the Cut Flower Chain: Confronting the
Realities of Flower Production for Workers in Kenya. Antipode, 37 (2), 301-323.
161. Halweil, B., 2000. Where Have all the Farmers Gone?. World-Watch, 13 (5), 1-5.
162. Hart, C., 1998. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research
Imagination. Buckingham: Oxford University Press.
163. Hart, G., 2001. Development critiques in the 1990s: culs de sac and promising
paths. Progress in Human Geography, 25 (4), 649-658.
164. Hartlieb, S. and Jones, B., 2009. Humanising business through ethical labelling:
Progress and paradoxes in the UK. Journal of Business Ethics, 88 (3), 583-600.
165. Haufler, V., 2003. New Forms of Governance: Certification Regimes as Social
Regulations of the Global Market. In: E. Meidinger, C. Elliott and G. Oesten, eds.
Social and Political Dimensions of Forest Certification. Remagen-Oberwinter: Kessel,
237-247.
166. Hayes, M., 2006. On The Efficiency Of Fair Trade. Review Of Social Economy, 64 (4),
447-468.
362
167. Held, V., 1993. Feminist Morality: Transforming Culture, Society, and Politics.
Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
168. Henderson, J., Dicken, P., Hess, M., Coe, N. and Yeung H.W-C., 2002. Global
production networks and the analysis of economic development. Review of International
Political Economy, 9 (3), 436-464.
169. Heron, T., 2014. Trading in development: norms and institutions in the
making/unmaking of European Union-African, Caribbean and Pacific trade and
development cooperation. Contemporary Politics, 20 (1), 10-22.
170. Hockerts, K., 2005. The Fair Trade Story [online]. Fontainebleau, INSEAD. Available
from:
http://www.fairtrade.at/fileadmin/user_upload/PDFs/Fuer_Studierende/oikos_winner2_
2005.pdf [Accessed 17 April 2012].
171. Hughes, A., 2004. Accounting for ethical trade: global commodity networks, virtualism
and the audit industry. In: A. Hughes and S. Reimer, eds. Geographies of commodity
chains, London: Routledge, 215-232.
172. Hughes, A., 2001. Multi‐stakeholder approaches to ethical trade: towards a
reorganisation of UK retailers' global supply chains?. Journal of Economic Geography,
1 (4), 421-437.
173. Hughes, A., 2000. Retailers, knowledges and changing commodity networks: the case of
the cut flower trade. Geoforum, 31 (2), 175-190.
174. Hume, D., 1988 [1740]. A Treatise of Human Nature. 2nd edition with text revised and
notes by P.H. Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
175. ILO, 1981. C155 Occupational Safety and Health Convention [online]. Geneva,
International Labour Organization. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-
lex/convde.pl?C155 [Accessed 17 April 2012].
363
176. ILO, 1973. C138 Minimum Age Convention [online]. Geneva, International Labour
Organization. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C138
177. ILO, 1958. C111 Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention [online].
Geneva, International Labour Organization. Available from:
http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C111 [Accessed 17 April 2012].
178. ILO, 1957. C105 Abolition of Forced Labour Convention [online]. Geneva,
International Labour Organization. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-
179. ILO, 1951. C100 Equal Remuneration Convention [online]. Geneva, International
Labour Organization. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-
180. ILO, 1949. C098 Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention [online].
Geneva, International Labour Organization. Available from:
181. ILO, 1948. Co87 Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise
Convention [online]. Geneva, International Labour Organization. Available from:
182. ILO, 1930. C029 Forced Labour Convention [online]. Geneva, International Labour
Organization. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C029
183. Jackson, K., 2008. Natural law, human rights and corporate reputational capital in
global governance. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in
Society, 8 (4), 440-455.
364
184. Jaffee, D., 2007. Brewing Justice: Fair trade coffee, sustainability, and survival.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
185. James, O. and Lodge, M., 2003. The Limitations of 'Policy Transfer' and 'Lesson
Drawing' for Public Policy Research. Political Studies Review, 1, 179-193.
186. Jiang, B., Baker, R.C. and Frazier, G.V., 2009. An analysis of job dissatisfaction and
turnover to reduce global supply chain risk: Evidence from China. Journal of
Operations Management, 27 (2), 169-184.
187. Johnston, J., 2002. Consuming Global Justice: Fair Trade Shopping and Alternative
Development. In: J. Goodman, ed. Protest and Globalisation: Prospects for
Transnational Solidarity. Annandale: Pluto Press, 38-56.
188. Jones, L., 2004. How fair trade hit the mainstream. BBC [online], 2 March. Available
from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3522059.stm [Accessed 13 May 2015].
189. Karjalainen, K. and Moxham, C., 2012. Focus on Fairtrade: Propositions for Integrating
Fairtrade and Supply Chain Management Research. Journal of Business Ethics, 116 (2),
267-282.
190. Kasterine, A. 2006. Fair Trade Has Limits as Model for Development. International Trade
Forum Magazine, 2, 1.
191. Khor, M., 2000. Globalization and the South: Some Critical Issues [online]. Discussion
Paper No. 147. Geneva, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
Available from: http://unctad.org/en/Docs/dp_147.en.pdf [Accessed 17 April 2012].
192. Kilian, B., Pratt, L., Jones, C. and Villalobos, A., 2004. Can the Private Sector be
Competitive and Contribute to Development through Sustainable Agricultural
Business? A Case Study of Coffee in Latin America. International Food and
Agribusiness Management Review, 7 (3), 21-45.
365
193. Krier, J.M., 2005. Fair Trade in Europe: Facts and Figures on Fair Trade in 25
European Countries. Brussels: FLO, IFAT, NEWS!, EFTA.
194. Kuzmic, K., 2012. An Assessment of Possibilities for the Use of the Concept of Positive
Securitization in Alleviation of Extreme Poverty Least Developed Countries as Positive
Securitizing Actors and the United Nations as Global Positive Functional Actor. PhD
Research Proposal. GEM PhD School - University of Warwick.
195. Lamb, H., 2011. Opening Speech. Video. Fairtrade Supporter Conference, 15 October
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wHJNnhxp5Y (Part 1);
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l3BfPpL47Q (Part 2);
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wWJbRILV0U (Part 3) [Accessed 17 May 2012].
196. Lamb, H., 2008. Fighting the Banana Wars and Other Fairtrade Battles - How We
Took on the Corporate Giants to Change the World. London: Rider.
197. Lang, T., 2010. Crisis? What Crisis? The Normality of the Current Food Crisis. Journal
of Agrarian Change, 10 (1), 87-97.
198. Lawrence, F., 2004. Not on the label: What Really Goes into the Food on Your Plate.
London: Penguin Books.
199. LeClair, M., 2002. Fighting the Tide: Alternative Trade Organizations in the Era of
Global Free Trade. World Development, 30, 949-958.
200. Leslie, D. and Reimer, S., 1999. Spatializing commodity chains. Progress in Human
Geography, 23 (3), 401-420.
201. Lewin B., Giovannucci D. and Varangis P., 2004. Coffee Markets: New Paradigms in
Global Supply and Demand. Discussion Paper 3. Washington: The International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development.
366
202. Lindsey, B., 2004. Job Losses and Trade: A Reality Check [online]. Washington, Cato
Institute. Available from: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tbp-019.pdf
[Accessed 30 August 2013].
203. Lofland, J., 1995. Analytic Ethnography: Features, Failings, and Futures. Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography, 24 (1), 30-67.
204. Low, W. and Davenport, E., 2006. Mainstreaming fair trade: adoption, assimilation,
appropriation. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 14 (4), 315-327.
205. Low, W. and Davenport, E., 2005a. Postcards from the Edge: Maintaining the
'Alternative' Character of Fair Trade. Sustainable Development, 13 (3), 143-153.
206. Low, W. and Davenport, E., 2005b. Has the medium (roast) become the message?: The
ethics of marketing fair trade in the mainstream. International Marketing Review, 22
(5), 494-511.
207. Lukovic, B., 2014. Pravedniji sistem trgovine: fair trade [online]. Available from:
https://uperiprstom.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/pravedniji-sistem-trgovine-fair-trade/
208. Lyon, S., 2006. Evaluating fair trade consumption: politics, defetishization and
producer participation. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30 (5), 452-464.
209. MacGillivray, A., 2000. The Fair Share: The Growing Market Share of Green and
Ethical Products. London: New Economics Foundation.
210. Mair, J., Robinson, J. and Hockerts, K., 2006. Social Entrepreneurship. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
211. Maloni, M. and Brown, M., 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Supply Chain:
An Application in the Food Industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 68 (1), 35-52.
367
212. Map of Mexico, 2015. Colorful map of Mexico, showing Mexican States and State
Capitals [online]. Available from: http://www.map-of-mexico.org/about.htm [Accessed
24 July 2015].
213. Maplecroft, 2013. Food Security Risk Index Map 2013 [online]. Bath, Maplecroft.
Available from:
https://maplecroft.com/about/news/food_security_risk_index_2013.html [Accessed 1
September 2015].
214. Marinkovic, D., 2014. Srpskim trgovinama gazduju dva "igrača". Vecernje Novosti
[online], 10 October. Available from:
http://www.novosti.rs/vesti/naslovna/ekonomija/aktuelno.239.html:514058-Srpskim-
trgovinama-gazduju-dva-igraca [Accessed 23 July 2015].
215. Marsden, T., Banks, J. and Bristow, G., 2000. Food Supply Chain Approaches:
Exploring their Role in Rural Development. Sociologia Ruralis, 40 (4), 424-438.
216. Maseland, R. and Vaal, A., 2002. How fair is fair trade? De Economist, 150 (3), 251-
273.
217. Matthews, B. and Ross, L., 2010. Research methods. Harlow: Pearson Education.
218. Mccann, J., 2013. The mini marchers! Thousands of cardboard characters are placed
outside the House of Parliament in fair trade protest. Daily Mail [online], 4 March.
Available from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287909/The-mini-marchers-
Thousands-cardboard-characters-placed-outside-House-Parliament-fair-trade-
protest.html#ixzz3cYrRUoLn [Accessed 9 June 2015].
219. Mendez, V.E., 2002. Fair Trade Networks in Two Coffee Cooperatives of Western El
Salvador: An Analysis of Insertion Through a Second Level Organization [online]. A
Case Study for the Project on Poverty Alleviation Through Participation in Fair Trade
Coffee Networks: An Assessment of Current Benefits and Future Potential. USA,
368
Colorado State University, DESAL and Ford Foundation. Available from:
http://cfat.colostate.edu/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Case-Study1-El-Salvador.pdf
220. Micheletti, M., 2003. Political Virtue and Shopping: Individuals, Consumerism and
Collective Action. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
221. Milford, A., 2004. Coffee, Co-operatives and Competition: The Impact of fair-trade.
Norway: CMI.
222. Milis, J., 2012. Conference Presentation. At: Fairtrade Fortnight Conference.
Coventry, 2 March.
223. Mittal, A., 2009. The 2008 Food Price Crisis: Rethinking Food Security Policies. G-24
Discussion Paper Series No. 56, June. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development.
224. Moberg, M., 2005. Fair trade and Eastern Caribbean Banana Farmers: Rhetoric and
Reality in the Anti-Globalization Movement. Human Organization, 64 (1), 4-16.
225. Moore, G.A., Gibbon, J. and Slack, R., 2006. The mainstreaming of Fair Trade: a
macromarketing perspective. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 14 (4), 329-352.
226. Murdoch, J., Marsden, T. and Banks, J., 2000. Quality, Nature, and Embeddedness:
Some Theoretical Considerations in the Context of the Food Sector. Economic
Geography, 76 (2), 107-125.
227. Murray, D.L. and Raynolds, L.T., 2007. Globalization and its antinomies: Negotiating a
Fair Trade movement. In: L.T. Raynolds, D.L. Murray and J. Wilkinson, eds. Fair
Trade: The Challenges of Transforming Globalization. London: Routledge, 3-14.
228. Murray, D.L. and Raynolds, L.T., 2000. Alternative trade in bananas: Obstacles and
opportunities for progressive social change in the global economy. Agriculture and
Human Values, 17 (1), 65-74.
369
229. Murray, D.L., Raynolds, L.T. and Taylor, P.L., 2003. One Cup at a Time: Poverty
Alleviation and Fair Trade in Latin America [online]. USA, Colorado State University.
Available from:
http://www.fairtrade.net/uploads/media/Colorado_State_U_Study__Fairtrade_and_Pov
erty.pdf_05.pdf [Accessed 30 August 2013].
230. Mutersbaugh, T., 2005a. Fighting standards with standards: harmonization, rents, and
social accountability in certified agrofood networks. Environment and Planning, 37
(11), 2033-2051.
231. Mutersbaugh, T., 2005b. Just-in-space: Certified rural products, labor of quality, and
regulatory spaces. Journal of Rural Studies, 21 (4), 389-402.
232. Narayan, D., Patel, P., Schafft, K., Rademacher, A. and Koch-Schulte, S., 2000. Voices
of the Poor: Can Anyone Hear Us? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
233. Nelson, V. and Pound, B., 2009. The Last Ten Years: A Comprehensive Review of the
Literature on the Impact of Fairtrade [online]. 1st ed. [eBook]. London, Natural
Resources Institute (NRI). Available from:
http://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/about_us/2010_03_NRI_
Full_Literature_Review.pdf [Accessed 15 June 2013].
234. Nesovic, B., 2013. Assessing the potential of Fair Trade for reducing inter-ethnic
tensions - Case Study: Kosovo. Thesis (MPhil). University of Cambridge.
235. Nicholls A. and Opal, C., 2005. Fair Trade Market-Driven Ethical Consumption.
London: Sage.
236. Nicholls, A., 2010. Fair Trade: Towards an Economics Of Virtue. Journal of Business
Ethics, 92 (S2), 241-255.
237. Nicholls, A., 2004. Fair trade new product development. Service Industries Journal, 24
(2), 102-117.
370
238. Nicholls, A., 2002. Strategic options in fair trade retailing. International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management. 30 (1), 6-17.
239. Novosti, 2012. Počeo popis poljoprivrede. Novosti [online], 1 October. Available from:
http://www.novosti.rs/vesti/naslovna/aktuelno.290.html:399272-Poceo-popis-
poljoprivrede [Accessed 10 June 2015].
240. Odeh, L.E., 2010. A Comparative Analysis of Global North and Global South
Economies. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 12 (3), 338-348.
241. O'Grada, C., 2007. Making Famine History. Journal of Economic Literature, American
Economic Association, 45 (1), 5-38.
242. O'Kane, G., 2012. What is the real cost of our food? Implications for the environment,
society and public health nutrition. Public Health Nutrition, 15 (2), 268-276.
243. O'Neill, O., 1996. Toward justice and virtue: A constructive account of practical
reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
244. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2015. List of
OECD Member countries - Ratification of the Convention on the OECD [online]. Paris,
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available from:
http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/list-oecd-member-countries.htm
245. Osorio, N., 2004. Lessons from the world coffee crisis: A serious problem for
sustainable development. London: International Coffee Organization.
246. Park-Poaps, H. and Rees, K., 2010. Stakeholder Forces of Socially Responsible Supply
Chain Management Orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 92 (2), 305-322.
247. Parrish, B.D., Luzadis, V.A. and Bentley, W.R., 2005. What Tanzania's Coffee Farmers
Can Teach the World: A Performance-Based Look at the Fair Trade-Free Trade Debate.
Sustainable Development 13 (3), 177-189.
371
248. Paunovic, J., 2014. Праведно пословање (Fair trade) као модел будућности
пословања. Thesis (MA). Singidunum University.
249. Peacebuilding and Inclusive Local Development (PBILD), 2015. Where we work
[online]. Serbia, Peacebuilding and Inclusive Local Development. Available from:
http://rs.one.un.org/pbild/where-we-work/ [Accessed 24 July 2015].
250. Peet, R., 2003. Unholy Trinity: The IMF, World Bank and WTO. London: Zed Books.
251. Perezgrovas Garza, V., and Cervantes Trejo, E., 2002. Poverty Alleviation through
Participation in Fair Trade Coffee Networks: The Case of Unión Majomut, Chiapas,
Mexico [online]. Available from: http://cfat.colostate.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2009/09/Case-Study-Uni%C3%B3n-Majomut-Chiapas-Mexico.pdf
252. Phillips, L., 2006. Food and Globalization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35, 37-57.
253. Politika, 2015. Na granici siromaštva 25,6 odsto građana. Politika [online], 31 March.
Available from: http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/Ekonomija/Na-granici-siromastva-256-
odsto-gradjana.lt.html [Accessed 25 July 2015].
254. Politika, 2014. Srbija postaje društvo staraca. Politika [online], 11 August. Available
from: http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/Drustvo/t45299.lt.html [Accessed 10 June 2015].
255. Ponte, S., 2004. The Politics of Ownership: Tanzanian Coffee Policy in the Age of
Liberal Reformism. African Affairs, 103 (413), 615-633.
256. Poos, S., 2013. Portraits of pioneers - Fair Trade in Eastern Europe [online]. Brussels,
Trade for Development Centre of Belgium. Available from:
http://www.befair.be/sites/default/files/all-files/brochure/oost-europa%20-
%20English%20version.pdf [Accessed 23 July 2015].
257. Popke, J., 2006. Geography and ethics: everyday mediations through care and
consumption. Progress in Human Geography, 30 (4), 504-512.
372
258. Porter, D. and Craig, D., 2004. The third way and the third world: poverty reduction
and social inclusion in the rise of 'inclusive' liberalism. Review of International
Political Economy, 11 (2), 387-423.
259. Prospect, 2013. World Thinkers 2013. Prospect [online], 24 April. Available from:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/world-thinkers-2013/#.UgVIspIweSq
260. Ragin, C.C., 2000. Fuzzy Set - Social Science. USA: University of Chicago Press.
261. Ramone, J., 2011. Postcolonial Theories. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillan.
262. Ransom, D., 2001. The No-Nonsense Guide to Fair Trade. Oxford: New
Internationalist Publications.
263. Raynolds, L.T. and Murray, D., 1998. Yes, We Have No Bananas: Re-Regulating
Global and Regional Trade. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and
Food, 7, 7-44.
264. Raynolds, L.T. and Wilkinson, J., 2007. Fair Trade in the agriculture and food sector:
Analytical dimensions. In: L.T. Raynolds, D.L. Murray and J. Wilkinson, eds. Fair
Trade: the challenges of transforming globalization. London: Routledge, 33-48.
265. Raynolds, L.T., 2004. The Globalization of Organic Agro-Food Networks. World
Development, 32 (5), 725-743.
266. Raynolds, L.T., 2002a. Consumer/Producer Links in Fair Trade Coffee Networks.
Sociologia Ruralis 42 (4), 404-424.
267. Raynolds, L.T., 2002b. Wages for Wives: Renegotiating Gender and Production
Relations in Contract Farming in the Dominican Republic. World Development 30 (5),
783-798.
373
268. Raynolds, L.T., 2000. Re-embedding global agriculture: The international organic and
fair trade movements. Agriculture and Human Values, 17 (3), 297-309.
269. Raynolds, L.T., Murray D.L. and Wilkinson, J., eds. 2007. Fair trade: The challenges
of transforming globalization. London: Routledge.
270. Reed, D., 2009. What do Corporations have to do with Fair Trade? Positive and
Normative Analysis from a Value Chain Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 86
(Supplement 1), 3-26.
271. Renard, M-C., 2003. Fair Trade: quality, markets and conventions. Journal of Rural
Studies 19 (1), 87-96.
272. Renard, M-C., 1999. The Interstices of Globalization: The Example of Fair Trade
Coffee. Sociologica Ruralis 39 (4), 484-500.
273. Reuters, 2013. UPDATE 2-Serbian writedown pushes Delhaize to surprise loss. Reuters
[online], 7 November. Available from:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/07/delhaize-earnings-
idUSL5N0IS0IT20131107 [Accessed 10 June 2015].
274. Richardson-Ngwenya, P. and Richardson, B., 2014. Aid for Trade and African
agriculture: the bittersweet case of Swazi sugar. Review of African Political Economy,
41 (140), 201-215.
275. Roche, C., 1999. Impact Assessment for Development Agencies. UK: Oxfam GB.
276. Rodrik, D., 2001. The Global Governance of Trade. As If Development Really Mattered
[online]. New York, United Nations Development Programme. Available from:
http://www.giszpenc.com/globalciv/rodrik1.pdf [Accessed 17 April 2012].
277. Ronchi, L., 2006. Fairtrade and Market Failures in Agricultural Commodity Markets.
Policy Research Working Paper Series No. 4011. Washington: World Bank.
374
278. Ronchi, L., 2002a. The Impact of Fairtrade on Producers and their Organisations.
A Case Study with COOCAFE in Costa Rica. PRUS Working Paper, 11. UK:
University of Sussex - Poverty Research Unit.
279. Ronchi, L., 2002b. Monitoring Impact of Fairtrade Initiatives: A Case Study of
Kuapa Kokoo and the Day Chocolate Company. London: Twin and Twin Trading
Ltd.
280. Roosevelt, M., 2004. The Coffee Clash. Time Magazine [online], 1 March. Available
from: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,596156-3,00.html [Accessed
30 August 2013].
281. Rose, R., 1993. Lesson-Drawing in Public Policy. Chatham: Chatham House.
282. Rose, R., 1991. What is Lesson-Drawing?. Journal of Public Policy, 11 (1), 3-30.
283. Rothschild, K.W., 1993. Ethics and Economic Theory: Ideas – Models - Dilemmas.
UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Company.
284. Roubini, N., 2013. The Global Economy on the Fly. Project Syndicate [online], 1 April.
Available from: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/surveying-the-world-
economy-s-myriad-problems-by-nouriel-roubini [Accessed 17 June 2013].
285. Ruben, P., Fort, R. and Zuniga, G., 2008. Summary of the Final Report: Fair Trade
programme evaluation - Impact Assessment of Fairtrade Programs for Coffee and
Bananas in Peru, Costa Rica and Ghana [online]. Netherlands, Study Assignment by
Solidaridad, coordinated by the Centre for International Development Issues (CIDIN),
Radboud University Nijmegen. Available from:
http://www.fairtrade.at/fileadmin/user_upload/PDFs/Fuer_Studierende/summary_finalr
eport_ft_08.pdf [Accessed 10 June 2015].
286. Ruse, M., 1991. The significance of evolution. In: P. Singer, ed. A companion to ethics.
Oxford: Blackwell, 500-510.
375
287. Sassatelli, R., 2006. Virtue, Responsibility and Consumer Choice: Framing Critical
Consumerism. In: J. Brewer and F. Trentmann, eds. Consuming Cultures, Global
perspectives: Historical Trajectories. Oxford: Berg, 219-251.
288. Schmelzer, M., 2006. In or Against the Market: Is Fair Trade a neoliberal solution to
market failures or a practical challenge to neoliberal trade and the free market regime in
general? Research Paper for Sociology 190 - Peter Evans: Globalization. USA: UC
Berkeley.
289. Sen, A., 1999. Development As Freedom. New York: Random House.
290. Shah, A, 2013. Poverty Facts and Stats. Global Issues [online], 7 January. Available
from: http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats [Accessed 10 June
2015].
291. Shaw, D., and Shiu, E., 2002. An assessment of ethical obligation and self-identity in
ethical consumer decision-making: a structural equation modelling approach.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 26 (4), 286-293.
292. Shreck, A., 2002. Just Bananas? Fair Trade Banana Production in the Dominican
Republic. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture, 10 (2), 13-23.
293. Sidwell, M., 2008. Unfair Trade [online]. London, Adam Smith Institute. Available
from: http://www.adamsmith.org/sites/default/files/images/pdf/unfair_trade.pdf
294. Singer, P., 1972. Famine, Affluence and Morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1,
229-243. Reprinted in: P. Laslett and J. Fishkin, eds. Philosophy, politics and society.
5th series. Oxford: Blackwell, 21-35.
295. Smith, A.M., 2009. Fair Trade, Diversification and Structural Change: Towards a
broader theoretical framework of analysis: Commentary. Oxford Development Studies,
37 (4), 457-478.
376
296. Smith, D.M., 1998. How far should we care? On the spatial scope of beneficence.
Progress in Human Geography, 22 (1), 15-38.
297. Smith, G., 2009. Interaction of Public and Private Standards in the Food Chain. Food,
Agriculture and Fisheries Working Papers, No. 15. Paris: OECD.
298. Smith, S. and Barrientos, S. 2005. Fair Trade and Ethical Trade: Are There Moves
Towards Convergence?. Sustainable Development, 13 (3), 190-198.
299. Smith, S., 2010. For Love or Money? Fairtrade Business Models in the UK
Supermarket Sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 92 (2), 257-266.
300. Staritz, C., Gereffi, G. and Cattaneo, O., 2011. Shifting end markets and upgrading
prospects in global value chains. International Journal of Technological Learning,
Innovation and Development, special issue.
301. Starr, A. and Adams, J., 2003. Anti-globalization: The Global Fight for Local
Autonomy. New Political Science, 25 (1), 19-43.
302. Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, 2013a. Statistical Office of the Republic of
Serbia - Data [online]. Belgrade, Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. Available
from: http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/Public/PageView.aspx?pKey=2 [Accessed 30
August 2013].
303. Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, 2013b. Census of Agriculture 2012.
Belgrade: Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia.
304. Stewart, F. and Wang, M., 2003. Do PRSPs Empower Poor Countries and Disempower
the World Bank, or is it the Other Way Round? [online]. QEH Working Paper Series -
QEHWPS108, October. Oxford, Queen Elizabeth House. Available from:
http://ideas.repec.org/p/qeh/qehwps/qehwps108.html [Accessed 17 April 2013].
305. Stiglitz, J.E. and Charlton, A., 2007. Fair Trade for All - How Trade Can Promote
Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
377
306. Stiglitz, J.E., 2006. Making Globalization Works. London: W.W. Norton & Company.
307. Strong, C., 1996. Features contributing to the growth of ethical consumerism - a
preliminary investigation. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 14 (5), 5-13.
308. Tallontire, A. and Vorley, B., 2005. Achieving fairness in trading between
supermarkets and their agrifood supply chains. Briefing Paper. London: UK Food
Group.
309. Tanjug, 2012. Kupovna moć je 30 % manja nego lane. In: B92 [online], 16 September.
Available from:
http://www.b92.net/biz/vesti/srbija.php?yyyy=2012&mm=09&dd=16&nav_id=643509
310. Tansey, G. and Rajotte, T., 2008. The Future Control of Food. London: Earthscan.
311. Tansey, G. and Worsley, T., 1995. The Food System: A Guide. London: Earthscan.
312. Taplin, L., 2009. Report Summary - We're part of something huge! How Fairtrade
Towns in Europe are a uniquely powerful movement for local change and global
sustainable development [online]. London, The Fairtrade Foundation. Available from:
http://fairtradetowns.gn.apc.org/wp-content/uploads/executive-summary-may-09.pdf
313. Taylor, P.L., 2005. In the Market But Not of It: Fair Trade Coffee and Forest
Stewardship Council Certification as Market-Based Social Change. World
Development, 33 (1), 129-147.
314. Taylor, P.L., Murray, D.L. and Raynolds, L.T., 2005. Keeping Trade Fair: Governance
Challenges in the Fair Trade Coffee Initiative. Sustainable Development, 13 (3), 199-
208.
315. Teather, D., 2006. Big retailers help raise Fairtrade sales by third. The Guardian, 28
June, p.24.
378
316. The Economist, 2014. On the edge of recession. The Economist [online], 4 October.
Available from: http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21621877-wests-sanctions-
are-hitting-contracting-economy-edge-recession [Accessed 9 June 2015].
317. The Fund for Peace, 2015. Fragile States Index 2015 [online]. Washington, The Fund
for Peace. Available from: http://fsi.fundforpeace.org/rankings-2015 [Accessed 24 July
2015].
318. Thompson, E.P., 1991. Customs in Common: Studies in Traditional Popular Culture.
London: Merlin Press.
319. Toler, S., Briggeman, B.C., Lusk, J.L. and Adams, D.C., 2009. Fairness, Farmers
Markets, and Local Production. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91 (5),
1272-1278.
320. Traidcraft Spring Roadshow and Campaigns Workshop, 2012. UK, Traidcraft. London:
St Pauls Church, 4 February.
321. Tronto, J., 1993. Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care.
London: Routledge.
322. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2015. Table 1: Human
Development Index and its components [online]. New York, United Nations
Development Programme. Available from: http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/table-1-
human-development-index-and-its-components [Accessed 23 July 2015].
323. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2014. Human Development Report
2014 - Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience
[online]. New York: United Nations Development Programme. Available from:
http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr14-report-en-1.pdf [Accessed 9 Sepember
2015].
379
2013 - The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World. New York: United
Nations Development Programme.
- International Cooperation at a crossroads: Aid, trade and security in an unequal world
http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/266/hdr05_complete.pdf [Accessed 23
July 2013].
326. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2004. Forging a Global South
http://www.ctc-health.org.cn/file/2012060807.pdf [Accessed 14 September 2015].
- Human Development to Eradicate Human Poverty [online]. New York, United
Nations Development Programme. Available from:
http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/258/hdr_1997_en_complete_nostats.pdf
http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/219/hdr_1990_en_complete_nostats.pdf
329. Univerexport, 2015. Istorijat [online]. Srbija, Univerexport. Available from:
http://www.univerexport.rs/istorijat.php [Accessed 25 July 2015].
330. Utting, P., 2005. Rethinking Business Regulation [online]. Geneva, United Nations
Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD). Available from:
380
http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/%28httpAuxPages%29/F02AC3DB0ED4
06E0C12570A10029BEC8/$file/utting.pdf [Accessed 19 May 2015].
331. Utting-Chamorro, K., 2005. Does fair trade make a difference? The case of small coffee
producers in Nicaragua. Development in Practice, 15 (3 and 4), June 2005.
332. Vander Hoff, F., 2002. Poverty Alleviation through Participation in Fair Trade Coffee
Networks: The Case of UCIRI, Oaxaca, Mexico. USA: Fair Trade Research Working
Group.
333. Varul, M.Z. and Wilson-Kovacs, D., 2008. Fair Trade Consumerism as an Everyday
Ethical Practice - A Comparative Perspective. UK: University of Exeter.
334. Vennesson, P., 2008. Case studies and process tracing: theories and practices. In: D.
Della Porta and M. Keating, eds. Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
335. Veropoulos, 2015. Stores [online]. Serbia, Veropoulos. Available from:
http://www.veropoulos.gr/en/business-group/καταστήματα/ [Accessed 10 June 2015].
336. Vukojicic Obradovic, S., 2012. Socio-ekonomska prava u Srbiji. EurActiv.rs [online], 1
August. Available from: http://www.euractiv.rs/ljudska-prava/4515-socio-ekonomska-
prava-u-srbiji [Accessed 10 June 2014].
337. Wallop, H., 2007. £1 in every seven now spent in Tesco. The Telegraph [online], 16
April. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1548742/1-in-every-
seven-now-spent-in-Tesco.html [Accessed 10 June 2015].
338. Watson, M., 2007. Trade Justice and Individual Consumption Choices: Adam Smith's
Spectator Theory and the Moral Constitution of the Fair Trade Consumer. European
Journal of International Relations, 13 (2), 263-288.
339. Watson, M., 2006. Towards a Polanyian Perspective on Fair Trade: Market-based
Relationships and the Act of Ethical Consumption. Global Society, 20 (4), 435-451.
381
340. Weinberger, K. and Lumpkin, T.A., 2007. Diversification into Horticulture and Poverty
Reduction: A Research Agenda. World Development 35 (8), 1464-1480.
341. Weisbrot, M., Baker, D., Naiman, R. and Neta G., 2001. Growth May Be Good for the
Poor - But are IMF and World Bank Policies Good for Growth? [online]. London:
CEPR. Available from:
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/econ_growth_2001_05.pdf [Accessed 17
April 2012].
342. Whatmore, S. and Thorne, L., 1997. Nourishing Networks: Alternative Geographies of
Food. In: D. Goodman and M. Watts, eds. Globalising Food: Agrarian Questions and
Global Restructuring. London: Routledge, 287-304.
343. Whysall, P., 1995. Ethics in Retailing. Business Ethics: A European Review, 4 (3), 150-
156.
344. Wikipedia, 2014a. Map of Serbia with Jablanica District [online]. San Francisco,
Wikipedia. Available from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jablanica_District#/media/File:Jablanica_in_Serbia.svg
345. Wikipedia, 2014b. Map of Serbia with Pcinja District [online]. San Francisco,
Wikipedia. Available from:
sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пчињски_управни_округ#/media/File:Pcinja_in_Serbia.svg
346. Wilkinson, J., 2002. Genetically modified organisms, organics, and the contested
construction of demand in the agrofood system. International Journal of Sociology of
Agriculture and Food, 10 (2), 1-8.
347. Winch, D., 1996. Riches and Poverty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
382
348. Winters, A.L., 2003. Trade Policy as Development Policy. In: J.F.J. Toye, ed. Trade
and Development: Directions for the 21st Century. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, Chapter
IV.
349. Winters, A.L, McCulloch, N. and McKay, A., 2004. Trade Liberalization and Poverty:
The Evidence So Far. Journal of Economic Literature, 42, 72-115.
350. Wodon, Q., Lopez-Acevedo, G. and Siaens, C., 2003. Poverty in Mexico's Southern
States [online]. MPRA Paper No. 10578, November. Washington, World Bank.
Available from: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/10578/1/MPRA_paper_10578.pdf
351. Wolf, M., 2001. What the world needs from the multilateral trading system. In: G.P.
Sampson, ed. The Role of the World Trade Organisation in Global Governance.
Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 183-208.
352. Woodger, L. 2012. Supply chain imbalance - a growing problem. Trade Journals -
Poultry World, 166 (10), 1-2.
353. World Bank, 2015a. Country and Lending Groups [online]. Washington, World Bank.
Available from: http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-and-lending-
groups#Low_income [Accessed 9 July 2015].
354. World Bank, 2015b. GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) [online]. Washington,
World Bank. Available from: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD
355. World Bank, 2015c. GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) - Graph [online].
Washington, World Bank. Available from:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD/countries/RS-MX-1W-AR-
CL?display=graph [Accessed 10 June 2015].
383
356. World Bank, 2014. Total Population [online]. Washington, World Bank. Available
from:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?order=wbapi_data_value_2013+wb
api_data_value&sort=asc [Accessed 10 September 2015].
357. World Bank, 2013. World Development Report 2014 - Risk and Opportunity:
Managing Risk for Development [online] Washington, DC: International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. Available at:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTNWDR2013/Resources/8258024-
1352909193861/8936935-1356011448215/8986901-1380046989056/WDR-
2014_Complete_Report.pdf [Accessed 9 Sep. 2015].
358. World Bank, 2008. World Development Indicators 2008 Poverty Data [online].
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/WDI08supplement1
216.pdf [Accessed 17 July 2015].
359. World Bank, 2000. Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries [online].
http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/GEP/GEParchives/GEP2000/multi
_page.pdf [Accessed 23 July 2015].
360. World Economic Forum (WEF), 2013. The Global Competitiveness Report 2012-2013
[online]. Geneva, World Economic Forum. Available from:
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2012-13.pdf
[Accessed 30 August 2013].
361. World Fair Trade Organization (WFTO), 2015. Standard & Guarantee System [online].
Netherlands, World Fair Trade Organization. Available from: http://wfto.com/standard-
and-guarantee-system [Accessed 8 May 2015].
384
362. World Health Organization, 2015. Millennium Development Goals [online]. Geneva,
World Health Organization. Available from:
http://www.who.int/topics/millennium_development_goals/en/ [Accessed 6 July 2015].
363. World Trade Organization (WTO), 2013. Trade to remain subdued in 2013 after
sluggish growth in 2012 as European economies continue to struggle [online]. Geneva,
World Trade Organization. Available from:
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres13_e/pr688_e.htm [Accessed 23 July 2015].
364. World Trade Organization (WTO), 2012. International Trade Statistics 2012 -
Merchandise trade [online]. Geneva, World Trade Organization. Available from:
http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2012_e/its12_merch_trade_product_e.htm
[Accessed 9 February 2013].
365. Wright Mills, C., 2000 [1959]. The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford
University Press.
366. Yeats, A., 2001. Just How Big is Global Production Sharing?. In: S. Arndt and H.
Kierzkowski, eds. Fragmentation: New Production Patterns in the World Economy.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 108-143.
385
LIST OF QUOTED INTERVIEWS
Individual Interviews
1. Bentley, S., 14 November 2013. Interview with the first chair of the UK National
Fairtrade Campaigner Committee (in person, London).
2. Blagojevic, S., 6 June 2013. Interview with the president of the Municipality of Crna
Trava (in person, Crna Trava).
3. Bogdanov, N., 21 May 2013. Interview with Professor and the director of the
Department of Agriculture Economics at the University of Belgrade - Faculty of
Agriculture (in person, Belgrade).
4. Celis, S., 18 March 2013. Interview with Oaxacan Fair Trade researcher (Skype
interview).
5. Colovic, E., 27 May 2013. Interview with senior agriculture credit and risk advisers at
the Sberbank (in person, Belgrade).
6. Djordjevic, B., 4 June 2013. Interview with agricultural adviser at the Municipality of
Medvedja (in person, Medvedja).
7. Djuraskovic, M., 15 May 2013. Interview with Serbian national anti-trafficking
coordinator at the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia and one of the
initiators of the Fairtrade movement in Serbia (in person, Belgrade).
8. Fotiric Aksic, M., 22 May 2013. Interview with Professor at the Institute of Fruit
Science and Viticulture - Department of Horticulture at the University of Belgrade -
Faculty of Agriculture (in person, Belgrade).
9. Ivanovic, B., 5 June 2013. Interview with agricultural adviser at the Municipality of
Lebane (in person, Lebane).
386
10. Jovanic, T., 20 May 2013. Interview with Professor at the University of Belgrade -
Faculty of Law and one of the initiators of the Fairtrade movement in Serbia (in
person, Belgrade).
11. Jovanovic, N., 5 June 2013. Interview with the director of the Office for Local
Economic Development of the Municipality of Lebane (in person, Lebane).
12. Martinez Senties, L., 27 February 2013. Interview with agriculture counsellor at the
Ministry of Agriculture of Mexico (SAGARPA), Representative Office for Europe at the
Embassy of Mexico (in person, Brussels).
13. McGechie, C., 4 November 2013. Interview with the director of public engagement at
the Fairtrade Foundation (in person, London).
14. Miletic, M., 4 June 2013. Interview with honey producer and the president of the local
beekeepers society in the Municipality of Medvedja (in person, Medvedja).
15. Milovanovic, T., 14 June 2013. Interview with a senior adviser at the Agency for Local
Economic Development of the City of Vranje (in person, Vranje).
16. Nikolic, D., 12 June 2013a. Interview with the former director of the Office for Local
Economic Development of the Municipality of Vladicin Han (in person, Vladicin Han).
17. Nikolic, D., 12 June 2013b. Interview with the director of sales in Primanova (in
person, Leskovac).
18. Pauwels, A., 27 February 2013. Interview with sustainable private brand manager at
Delhaize Group S.A./N.V (telephone interview).
19. Perez Akaki, P., 15 March 2013. Interview with Professor and Fair Trade researcher at
the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México - La Facultad de Estudios Superiores
Acatlán (in person, Mexico City).
387
20. Pocovi Garzon, P., 15 March 2013. Interview with Professor of global marketing and
Fair Trade researcher at the ITESO - Universidad Jesuita de Guadalajara (Skype
interview).
21. Pruijn van Engelen, J., 27 March 2013. Interview with the executive director of the
Símbolo de Pequeños Productores - FUNDEPPO and former executive director of the
Comercio Justo México and secretary general of the Coordinadora Latinoamericana y
del Caribe de Pequeños Productores de Comercio Justo (CLAC) (Skype interview).
22. Radosavljevic, M., 6 June 2013. Interview with agricultural adviser at the Municipality
of Vlasotince in Jablanica District (in person, Vlasotince).
23. Renard, M-C., 28 March 2013. Interview with Professor at the Universidad Autónoma
Chapingo (in person, Mexico City).
24. Savic, J., 29 May 2013. Interview with Professor at the Institute of Crop Science -
Department of Crop Science at the University of Belgrade - Faculty of Agriculture (in
person, Belgrade).
25. Simic, D., 4 June 2013. Interview with the director of the Office for Local Economic
Development of the Municipality of Medvedja (in person, Medvedja).
26. Smiljkovic, D., 13 June 2013. Interview with agricultural adviser at the Municipality
Trgoviste (in person, Trgoviste).
27. Stojanovic, M., 4 June 2013a. Interview with local small-scale manufacturer of
agricultural machinery (in person, Medvedja).
28. Stojanovic, N., 6 June 2013b. Interview with the president of the Municipality
Vlasotince (in person, Vlasotince).
29. Stojanovic, Z., 27 May 2013c. Interview with Professor of agricultural economics, a
vice-dean at the University of Belgrade - Faculty of Economics and a leading agro-
marketing researcher in Serbia (in person, Belgrade).
388
30. Tojaga, B., 3 June 2013. Interview with the director of the Agency for Local Economic
Development of the City of Leskovac (in person, Leskovac).
31. Veillard, P., 18 February 2013. Interview with Fair Trade expert at the Oxfam
Magasins du Monde (Skype interview).
32. Vida, V., 28 May 2013. Interview with the director of the Consumer Centre of Serbia -
CEPS (in person, Belgrade).
33. Vuckovic, B., 5 June 2013. Interview with leading organic producer in South Serbia (in
person, Leskovac).
34. Wouters, K., 15 February 2013. Interview with a stakeholder and policy manager at the
Fairtrade Max Havelaar Belgium (in person, Brussels).
35. Zegarac Milenkovic, A., 12 June 2013. Interview with the director of the Office for
Local Economic Development of the Municipality of Surdulica (in person, Surdulica).
Interviews with Two Interviewees
36. Agusi, S., 14 June 2013. Interview with the director of the Office for Local Economic
Development of the Municipality of Presevo (in person, Presevo).
and
37. Murati, N., 14 June 2013. Interview with agricultural adviser at the Municipality of
Presevo (in person, Presevo).
389
38. Chadi, I., 18 March 2013. Interview with Fair Trade researcher and a former
Communications Manager at the Símbolo de Pequeños Productores - FUNDEPPO (in
person, Mexico City).
and
39. Quijano, E., 18 March 2013. Interview with an agricultural researcher from Mexico
City (in person, Mexico City).
40. Dodic, S., 10 June 2013. Interview with the director of the Office for Local Economic
Development of the Municipality of Bojnik (in person, Bojnik).
and
41. Radivojevic, G., 10 June 2013. Interview with agricultural adviser at the Municipality
Bojnik (in person, Bojnik).
42. Jovasevic, V., 6 June 2013. Interview with agricultural adviser at the Municipality of
Crna Trava (in person, Crna Trava).
and
43. Slavkovic, V., 6 June 2013. Interview with the director of the Office for Local
Economic Development of the Municipality of Crna Trava (in person, Crna Trava).
44. Kosanovic, R., 20 May 2013. Interview with sustainability officer at Delhaize Serbia in
charge with the regional line of Delhaize Fairtrade products and one of the initiators of
the Fairtrade movement in Serbia (in person, Belgrade).
and
45. Seslija, D., 20 May 2013. Interview with sustainability assistant at Delhaize Serbia (in
person, Belgrade).
390
46. Milenkovic, G., 3 June 2013. Interview with rural development and agriculture project
manager at the Centre for Development of Jablanica and Pcinja Districts (in person,
Leskovac).
and
47. Santai, Lj., 3 June 2013. Interview with team leader for organic food production
support in South Serbia at the Centre for Development of Jablanica and Pcinja
Districts (in person, Leskovac).
Group Interviews
48. Coremans, E., 13 February 2013. Interview with communication and campaign officer
at the Trade for Development Centre of Belgium (in person, Brussels).
and
49. De Craen, S., 13 February 2013. Interview with fair and sustainable trade officer at the
Trade for Development Centre of Belgium (in person, Brussels).
and
50. Poos, S. 13 February 2013. Interview with coordinator at the Trade for Development
Centre of Belgium (in person, Brussels).
51. Vida, M., Opalic A. and Begenisic, A., 28 May 2013. Group interview with Marija
Vida, senior adviser, Ana Opalic, counsellor and Ana Begenisic, legal adviser at the
Consumer Centre of Serbia - CEPS (in person, Belgrade).
391
APPENDIX 1 - INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM
Interview Consent Form
Title of the PhD Research:

"An Assessment of Possibilities for Inclusion of Upper-middle-income Economies in the Fairtrade
System - Case Study Serbia"
Summary of the PhD Research:

During the last two decades of the Fairtrade history, its two important aspects were understudied.
Firstly, progressive potentials of a number of upper-middle-income economies were not fully realized
and remain underexplored. Their greater integration may lead to the creation of a more global
Fairtrade system and in this envisioned state, more producers from the poorest regions of the world
would gain additional access to new markets and the underdeveloped regions of the upper-middle-
income economies a new prospect to develop and thrive. This is the first gap that the doctoral research
aims to start to bridge, by focusing on one of the underexplored upper-middle-income economies,
currently almost completely outside of the Fairtrade system - Serbia. This debate is directly connected
with the second largely understudied aspect (gap) - the possibility of creating a national Fairtrade-like
system by connecting Fairtrade producers, sellers and buyers within one country more closely. The
doctoral research aims to explore this possibility further, again in Serbia.
Underlying PhD Research Question:

"To what extent can Serbia, as an upper-middle-income economy, currently almost completely
outside of the Fairtrade system, partake in that system in future, as a country where Fairtrade products
are both produced and sold?"
Please tick the appropriate boxes Yes No
1. I have been given a copy of the consent form for future reference  
2. I have read and understood the title, summary and main question of the research  
3. I have been given the opportunity to ask questions about the research  
4. I agree to take part in the research and to be interviewed  
5. I agree to have my interview recorded  
6. I agree to allow for my words to be quoted in the PhD and related research outputs  
7. I understand that my taking part is voluntary and I can withdraw freely at any time  
_________________________ _ ___________________ _____________

Name of Participant [printed] Signature Date
Filip Brkovic______________ ___________________ _____________

PhD Researcher Signature Date
University of Warwick - ULB
GEM PhD School
392

Doctoral TH GEMPh DSchool Filip Brkovic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doctoral TH GEMPh DSchool Filip Brkovic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doctoral TH GEMPh DSchool Filip Brkovic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Assessment of Possibilities for Stronger Inclusion

of Upper-middle-income Economies in the Fairtrade System - Case Study Serbia

MPhil Development Studies [University of Cambridge]

MA Political Analytics and Management [University of Belgrade]

BA Political Science - International Relations [University of Belgrade]

Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for

the double degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Politics and International Studies

at the Department of Politics and International Studies - University of Warwick

and at the Institut d'Etudes Européennes - Université libre de Bruxelles

Professor Matthew Watson (University of Warwick)

Professor Jean Luc De Meulemeester (Université libre de Bruxelles)

Library Declaration and Deposit Agreement

Title Page .................................................................................................................................. i

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... iii

List of Charts, Graphs, Figures, Maps, Photos and Tables ..................................................... vi

Declaration ............................................................................................................................. xii

Abstract ................................................................................................................................. xiii

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ xiv

Research Training ................................................................................................................... xv

CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1

1.1. From Kepler 22-b down to Earth .......................................................................... 1

1.4. Gaps in Fair Trade Literature - Voices of the Excluded ..................................... 27

1.5. Research Questions and Contributions to Fair Trade Literature ......................... 36

1.6. Thesis Structure ................................................................................................... 38

1.7. Concluding Remarks ........................................................................................... 40

CHAPTER II - FAIRTRADE SYSTEM IN THEORY .................................................... 41

2.1. Shortfalls of and Answers to "Inclusive" Neoliberalism ..................................... 41

Analytical Framework ............................................................................................... 58

2.3. Fairtrade System and Caring Across Spaces ....................................................... 80

2.4. Concluding Remarks ........................................................................................... 86

3.1. Fairtrade Principles and Monetary Benefits ........................................................ 89

3.2. Structure of Fairtrade System .............................................................................. 99

3.4. Fairtrade System and Upper-middle-income Economies .................................. 114

3.5. Concluding Remarks ......................................................................................... 128

CHAPTER IV - METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 130

4.1. General Methodological Overview ................................................................... 131

4.2. Critical Analysis ................................................................................................ 138

4.3. Case Studies ...................................................................................................... 139

4.4. Comparative Method and Lesson-Drawing Process ......................................... 148

4.5. Concluding Remarks ......................................................................................... 157

CHAPTER V - LESSONS FROM THE MEXICAN FAIRTRADE SYSTEM ............ 159

5.1. Fairtrade System in Mexico .............................................................................. 161

5.2. Lesson 1: Mexican Fairtrade Producers' Main Characteristics ......................... 164

5.3. Lesson 2: Mexican Fairtrade Producers' Benefits ............................................. 176

5.4. Concluding Remarks ......................................................................................... 187

CHAPTER VI - LESSONS FROM THE UK FAIRTRADE SYSTEM ........................ 190

6.1. Fairtrade System in the United Kingdom .......................................................... 192

6.2. Lesson 3: Fairtrade Mainstreaming Through Supermarkets in the United

Kingdom ................................................................................................................... 195

6.3. Lesson 4: Fairtrade Campaigning in the United Kingdom ................................ 207

6.4. Concluding Remarks ......................................................................................... 221

FAIRTRADE PRODUCERS FROM SERBIA ............................................................... 224

7.1. The Fairtrade System in Serbia ......................................................................... 226

7.2. Prospective Fairtrade Producers from Serbia .................................................... 229

7.3. Main Characteristics of Prospective Serbian Fairtrade Producers .................... 237

7.5. Future of Serbian Fairtrade Production ............................................................. 275

7.6. Concluding Remarks ......................................................................................... 280

CHAPTER VIII - SERBIAN PRESENT AND FUTURE FAIRTRADE TRADERS AND

CONSUMERS AND SERBIAN NATIONAL FAIRTRADE-LIKE SYSTEM ............ 283