Flowers Miles and Fairtrade

Published on January 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 16 | Comments: 0 | Views: 170
of 23
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

The Dilemma of ‘Flower’ Miles – examining the trade off between local sourcing and Fairtrade purchases
Diane Holt * (Queen’s University Belfast, UK) & Anna Watson (University of Surrey, UK) * Author for Correspondence Dr Diane Holt Lecturer in Management and Sustainability, Queen’s University Belfast, School of Management and Economics, 25 University Square, Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom BT7 1NN Email: [email protected] Dr Anna Watson Lecturer in Retailing, University of Surrey, School of Management, University of Surrey Guildford, Surrey United Kingdom GU2 7HX Email: [email protected] Abstract In an increasingly global retail environment there are consequences resulting from the drive towards a reduction in ‘food miles’ or indeed flower miles. Suppliers in less developed countries or those in economies with few export products may suffer significantly from the loss of even just one supermarket contract. This paper examines the debate surrounding the local versus international sourcing of retail products, particularly food and flowers. It begins by examining the cut flowers industry and the voluntary certification schemes available. The paper then examines the debate surrounding Fairtrade and Food Miles before concluding with a discussion of the trade off between local sourcing, the benefits of fair-trade products and the potential impact of removing trade from international suppliers.

Working Paper for the Business and Sustainability Conference, Portland Nov 1-2, 2007

Introduction Undoubtedly corporate social responsibility (CSR) is increasingly seen as being of strategic importance. Whilst it has been argued for many years that companies cannot ignore their wider responsibilities to society in recent years CSR appears to be high on boardroom agendas. It has been suggested that the key areas of CSR can be grouped into three areas: economy, the environment and society (Jones et al. 2005). The economy refers to the economic impact that corporations make, and includes issues such as wealth and job creation. Society refers to the social impacts of the firm, and includes employee issues, such as training and development, health and safety and inclusivity issues. However, it is naïve to assume that these three areas are necessarily mutually reinforcing. Indeed, it is argued here, using the case of the cut flower market that the focus of attention on one area may come at the expense of another. For Valentine’s Day this year UK supermarket Asda (owned by Wal-Mart) massively undercut other supermarkets chains to offer 12 Kenyan red roses at the bargain price of £2 (approximately $4). This decision was lambasted by critics who accused them of exploiting Kenyan workers and undervaluing their use of environmental resources (Poulter 2007). Whilst there are concerns as to the environmental impact of sourcing cut flowers from countries such as Kenya, it has been argued that it is in fact lower than sourcing more locally from Europe (Riungu 2007; Seager 2007; Williams 2007). There are clear independencies between consumption in the North and everyday life in the South (Shanahan and Carlsson-Kanyama 2005), with those in the North increasingly disconnected from their local resource base relying more on the goods traded in the global marketplace. These goods are often produced in shadow areas (after Borgström 1972) which are areas of the poorest parts of the world appropriated by rich consumers for the production of their consumptive goods. Driven by potential economic benefits these areas experience a flow of environmental goods to the North with no consideration of the associated negative environmental or social costs. The cut flower industry is a major foreign exchange earner for many developing countries and the principal employer for many local workers. Some estimates suggest the Kenyan flower industry employs 500,000 Kenyans directly, a million indirectly (Seager 2007) and brings more than $250million into the economy per year (KFC 2007i). Thus, producing and consuming ethically represents potentially complex and difficult choices to businesses and consumers alike, and is likely to result in trade-offs between different dimensions. Thus, the drive to reduce food mile (or in this case flower miles) may be at the expense of the economic development of poorer nations. It is these issues that this paper seeks to explore. It begins with a description of the cut flower market, and then considers the economic and social impact of global sourcing versus the desire to reduce the carbon footprint of consumption. The Cut Flower Market The worldwide market for cut flowers is estimated at $40 billion, with an average consumption of 10 million cut flowers per day in the United States alone (Stewart 2007a,b).

2

Whilst Valentine’s Day represents a peak in consumption, with over 175 million roses sold on Valentine’s Day alone (Stewart 2007a,b) the market is far from dominated by gift purchases with 60% of the annual £2.2 billion spent in the UK representing people purchasing flowers and plants for themselves. As the flower industry states ‘fresh flowers are a disposable item to be enjoyed and then discarded’ii. Social and Economic Issues associated with Cut Flowers The cut flower industry represents a potential source of substantial economic benefits. In the 1980s Non-Traditional Agricultural Exports (NATEs) such as flowers were seen as a way for countries such as Columbia to develop alternatives to cocaine production. Specific economic incentives were used to facilitate this process with over 95% of Columbia and Ecuador’s flowers entering the US duty free under the Andean Trade Preferences Act (US/Leap and ILRF 2007). This is arguably to the detriment of US growers especially in California (Castellanos 1998). Yet other sectors of the US economy have also benefited from the increased growth in Columbian trade especially Miami-based rose importers. Also notable is the substantial increase in foreign capital that results from trade in NATEs with indirect investment also occurring in infrastructure (Castellanos 1998) and a multiplier effect with increased employment opportunities in indirect industries such as packaging and transport (Thrupp 1995). The indirect employment multiplier varies from country to country but is substantial, with estimates of 8:3 in Ecuador and ranging from 6:5 (US/LEAP and ILRF 2007) to 8:5 in Columbia (Thrupp 1995). Flower farms offer smallholders in rural areas, especially women, an opportunity to grow a cash crop. Ferrer (1997) suggests that four out of five households that depend on the flower industry are headed by women (cited in Castellanos, 1998). Over 5500 women’s groups are active in the Nyeri region in Kenya with their own micro-finance fund and training programmes on aspects of production such as safe pesticide use (FAO 2002). One of these smallholders said ‘The export crops have changed our lives. We have new roofs, better homes and our children can go to school’. Nurturing embryonic socially responsible businesses, developing partnerships and targeted support are all identified in Kenya and Uganda as important aspects to support the development of smallholders (Kivuitu et al. 2005). However access to the supermarkets is difficult, they often have exacting specifications on packaging and production quality and many smaller organisations in the developing world lack market knowledge (International Trade Centre 2001). Indeed, arguably pressure by supermarkets on growers’ production costs has left them without the resources to improve working conditions. Exposés of the poverty and working conditions at flower farms have been produced by a number of NGOs including War on Want’s examination of workers in Columbia and Kenya (War on Want 2007), the US/Labor Education in the Americas Project and the International Labor Rights Fund study of Ecuador and Columbia (US/Leap and ILRF 2007), and a range of reports from the ILRP’s Fairness in Flowers campaigniii. Issues associated with the flower industry include: − Sexual harassment; − Forced pregnancy testing/ sterilization as condition of employment; − Severe occupational health and safety deficiencies, including long working hours, lack of training on safe chemical use, forced overtime, and lack of appropriate safety equipment;

3

− − −

Use of toxic pesticides and fungicides causing health problems including skin rashes, respiratory problems, eye problems, and miscarriages- US/Leap and ILRF (2007) found that 66% of Columbian and Ecuadorian workers suffer from health related problems; Use of Child labour - with the ILO estimating that 20% of the 60,000 Ecuadorian flower workers are children (cited by Fairness in Flowers); and Lack of recognition of labour rights

As noted earlier, this industry has significant opportunities for employment for women, but this can also lead to significant abuse. For instance a study based in Ecuador found 55% of flower workers had suffered some kind of sexual harassment, 71% amongst 20-24 year olds, over 18% had been forced to have sex with a coworker or superior, 10% had been sexually attacked, women workers reported only 5% of sexual harassment incidents to superiors and when reported only 14% of cases resulted in sanctions (ILRP 2005). The Lake Naivasha region has the highest rate of child assaults or rapes than any other town in Kenya, which some believe is linked to women working very long hours at the flower plantations leaving their children in the care of others (Ogodo and Vidal 2007). The role of women in this industry is recognized by the Women Working Worldwide campaigniv whose Flower campaign was a factor in the recent establishment of the Kenyan Horticultural Ethical Business Initiative (Ethical Consumer 2005). Their current campaign focuses on the flower industry in Uganda where consumers can download a letter to send to their supermarkets to protest these working conditions. Figure 1: Women Working Worldwide Flower Campaign Ugandan workers online at http://www.poptel.org.u k/women-ww/

Whilst the flower miles associated with the transportation of flowers from the southern hemisphere represents a global environmental concern, the damage to local (to their production) ecosystems is also a significant issue. Environmental groups in Kenya have identified pesticides used at the 50+ flower farms in the Lake Naivasha region a threat to the water quality and resident hippo populations in this freshwater lake (FAO 2002). Conservationists suggest that Lake Naivasha may be lost within 10-15 years through excessive water abstraction (Ogodo and Vidal 2007). Encroachment of plantations into forests as land is cleared for production leads to a reduction in bio-diversity through the proliferation of the flower monocultures (Castellanos 1998). Pressure on these environmental resources is further enhanced by the associated increase in population. It is estimated that every job in the flower farms in Naivasha attracts nearly seven other people to the area (Ogodo and Vidal 2007). Correspondingly the demands upon the local infrastructure reflect this. The huge increase in population from 27,000 in 1969 to over 300,000 in the Lake Naivasha region has also placed demands not only on water consumption but all the social amenities such as rubbish collection, sanitation, schools, electricity,

4

hospitals, roads, electricity and local forests felled to provide 750,000 bags of charcoal per year. Flower farms have also been known to cause relocation and displacement of indigenous peoples. In 1994 the Okiek people in the Rift Valley Kenya forced out of the Tinet Forest of Olenguruone to make way for a flower farm (Hargreaves-Allen 2003). Currently there is little structured, empirical research on the full costs and benefits of the flower industry in Kenya or elsewhere in the world. Whilst specific issue based studies have taken place on aspects such as labour conditions the remainder of the literature on this industry is dominated by newspaper editorials. The well documented abuses within the flower industry have led to a number of specific campaigns such as the Fairness in Flowers campaign by the International Labour Rights Fund. Both NGOs and the flower industry have responded to criticism of their environmental and social impacts by developing a range of certification schemes, standards and labelling initiatives. Such initiatives hope to reassure consumers and their intermediaries of the social, environmental and economic legitimacy of the product. Legitimacy theory is arguably the pre-eminent explanatory theory used to explain environmental and social disclosures. Whereby, an assumption of a social contract between an organisation and society results in an agreement to operate within certain bounds imposed by society to enjoy continued access to product and resource markets (Campbell et al. 2003:559). Voluntary disclosures maybe used to build up legitimacy or repair it after public criticism. Dowling and Pfeffer (1975) argue that organisations exist within a ‘superordinate social system’ within which they achieve legitimacy as long as their activities are within the acceptably boundaries of this system (Campbell et al. 2003). We therefore suggest that certification to a voluntary standard or label is an expression of legitimacy. Organisations use this to bridge a perceived legitimacy gap or to maintain and assure stakeholders of their legitimacy within these limits. However the ‘acceptable limits’ of this superordinate social system are not necessarily static. In the same manner that corporation’s environmental policies may demonstrate punctuated equilibrium (after Romanelli and Tushman 1994) the same might be of true public opinion on environmental issues (after Baumgartner and Jones 1993). The ‘beyond compliance’ age of environmentalism (after Frankel 1998) is characterised by a society that is being constantly ‘educated’ through formal and informal mediums facilitated by technology. These acceptable limits may morph in response to external factors that influence consumer behaviour. Harrison et al. (2005) propose seven external factors that influence the growth of ethical consumer behaviours. − The globalisation of markets and the weakening of national governments − The rise of transnational corporations and brands − The rise of campaigning pressure groups − The social and environmental effects of technology advance − A shift in market power towards consumers − The effectiveness of market campaigning − The growth of a wider corporate responsibility movement

5

It is also characterised by consumption patterns that may consider higher order aspects such as Fairtrade or the wider concepts of ethical consumerism, as discussed in Harrison et al. 2005. Amongst the arguments they pose are that consumerism becomes a site of political debate as a result of increasing human-centric risk, that perhaps as our basic needs are met we turn to concerns of self image, the need to know and self actualisation and reflect these by our consumptive behaviour. However Barnett et al. (2005) expand on the moral debate between the ethics of consumption or ethical consumption. Whereby, the first concerns judgements of the morality of the whole system of capitalist commodity production and can be linked to movements such as voluntary simplicity and the slow food movement with an objective to reduce total consumption. Whereas, in the latter consumption is the medium for moral evaluation and choice and the focus is not necessarily on reducing consumption but on alternative consumption choices, reflected through consumer boycotts, ethical audits, responding to corporate social responsibility initiatives and Fairtrade. As a luxury item, purchasing cut flowers demonstrates a moral choice – to consume. The next decision on which particular product is selected is the one that the voluntary certification schemes hope to influence. The decision criteria that shape your purchase choice are influenced by your individual circumstances, product knowledge and your moral views. All lobbying campaigns such as Fairness in Flowers seek to either inform or shape your moral views and hence affect choice. However these judgements are rarely simplistic and isolated. Indeed, the plethora of certification programmes can only further complicate the decision process. The substance and veracity of social environmental standards is by no means uniform, but rather represent a spectre of different approaches. Of these, perhaps the Fairtrade programme is the most far reaching in terms of its social and economic ambitions. However, before discussing the Fairtrade movement, other certification programmes relevant to the sector will be examined. Certification programmes for flowers There are a number of legal requirements surrounding the importation of cut flowers and other agricultural products which tend to be applied at a country level and mostly relate to the importation of harmful organisms. Organisations may chose to follow some form of voluntary standard and it is these forms of certification we examine in this next section. Feedback related to an individual’s specific behaviour is identified as an important motivating trigger in changing everyday habits into more sustainable ones (Shanahan et al. 2003). One form of feedback that consumers can look for is some form of eco-label. The assumption by many consumers is that a ‘label’ assures the purchasers that the product has been produced in a way that is ‘better’ than it’s peer group. Certain labels are associated with very positive consumer choices such as the EU eco-label, fair-trade or organic label. In recognition of the power of a label to influence purchasers many companies have joined voluntary certification schemes. The universal standard SA8000 is an auditable, independent, international social standard based on the principles of thirteen international human rights conventions that aims to improve working conditions. Auditors visit every facility seeking certification and assess corporate practice on a wide range of social issues.v

6

Many of the cut flower producers and importers that have chosen to certify to a standard or label have chosen one of the industry specific programmes detailed in Table 2 rather than SA8000. However there are strong similarities between SA8000 and the International Code of Conduct for Cut Flowers (ICC), the Ethical Trading Initiative base code and the Dutch Milieu Programma Sierteelt (MPS) standards. The major difference between SA8000 and ICC is the requirement to integrate the standard into their management systems and practices in the former and the inclusion of environmental criteria in the latter. The ICC code is detailed in Table 1. Table 1: Extracts from the International Code of Conduct for the production of cut flowers
vi vii

Freedom of association and collective bargaining – the rights of workers to form an join unions Equality of Treatment – access to jobs and training on equal terms irrespective of gender, age, ethnic origin, colour, marital status, sexual orientation, political opinion, religion or social origin. Living wages – wages meet at least the legal and industry minimum standards and are sufficient to meet basic need of workers and families and still provide some discretionary income. Working hours – applicable to law and industry standards and not required to work more than 48 hours per week on a regular basis. Overtime is voluntary, paid at a premium rate and no more than 12 hours per week Health and Safety – companies provide free appropriate safety clothing. Regular monitoring, training provided and comply with international health and safety standards. Pesticides and Chemicals - company assesses risk of chemicals and apply measures to protect workers. No banned, highly toxic or carcinogenic pesticide and chemical to be use. Pesticides and chemicals managed by trained staff with specialized equipment Security of Employment – work that is not seasonal or temporary is done by staff on permanent contracts. Non permanent staff treated no less favourable than permanent and all staff have a copy of their contract Protection of the Environment - companies make every effort to protect the environment, avoid pollution and implement sustainable practice Child labour not used – no workers under 15 years or the school leaving age (whichever is highest) with no child under 18 working in hazardous conditions. No forced labour – includes bonded or involuntary prison labour. No worker required to handover deposits or identify papers with the employer The ILO conventions are the basis for the ICC code and ICC is the basis for some of the other industry standards (such as FFP and FLP). The key facets of most of these are the participation of unions, NGOs and workers; independent monitoring and the voluntary nature of the agreements. The voluntary programmes for the cut flower industry are detailed in Table 2.

7

Table 2: Certification programmes available for the cut flower and potted plants industry Demeter Biodynamic based in the USA certifies that flowers are grown according to biodynamic principles, which include organic growing techniques, wildlife diversity, crop rotation, treating the farm as a complete ecosystem and finding farm-based solutions to pest, disease and fertility problems. http://www.demeter-usa.org/ EuepGAP is a private sector body that sets voluntary standards for the certification of agricultural products around the globe. It started in 1997 as an initiative by British retailers in conjunction with supermarkets in continental Europe to respond to consumers concerns with product safety, environmental and labour standards and management of the supply chain. It is a partnership of agricultural producers and retailers which want to establish common certification standards and procedures for Good Agricultural Practices. The standards are pre-farm-gate, which means the certificate covers the process of the certified product from before the seed is planted until it leaves the farm. Therefore it is a business-to-business label and is not directly visible to consumers. It uses a set of normative documents which include a protocol for flower and ornamentals. http://www.eurepgap.org Fair Flowers Fair Plants (FFP) is a new initiative funded by the European Community and the Horticultural Commodity Board. The focus is to stimulate the production and sales of flowers and plants cultivated in a sustainable manner. The certification is based on the International Code of Conduct (ICC) for the Production of Cut Flower proposed by the International Union of Food and Agricultural Workers. http://www.fairflowersfairplants.com/ Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (FLO)., FLO (established in 1997) uses 20 Labelling Initiatives to promote and market the Fairtrade Certification Mark in different countries http://www.fairtrade.net/home.html Fairtrade (USA) Flowers are certified in the USA through the non-profit organization TransFair USA. Emphasis is placed upon labour protections and economic development programmes directly controlled by and benefiting workers. Farming methods should be environmentally sensitive, though not necessarily organic. www.transfairusa.org. Fairtrade is the UK based arm of the FLO and certifies Kenyan roses and other varieties for UK retailers such as: Asda, Sainsburys, Somerfield, Wm Morrison, John Lewis, Waitrose and Tesco. http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/ Florverde. Certification programme set up by the Association of Columbian Flower Exporters (Asocoflores). The stated aim of the certification is to ensure all flowers grown and harvested in Colombia meet specific social and environmental standards. Their website states that independent verification has been provided by the SGS Group. However a recent report by War on Want (2007) has suggested that many of the elements of the standard were routinely not met. http://www.florverde.org/ Flower Label Program (FLP). Based in Germany with offices in Ecuador the Flower Label Program (FLP) certification is based on the International Code of Conduct (ICC) for the Production of Cut Flowers. FLP-certified farms have to fulfil the following criteria: living wages ; freedom of association; non-discrimination; a ban on child labour and forced labour health care; a ban on toxic pesticides; and responsible handling of natural resources http://www.fairflowers.de/ International Flower Campaign and the International Code of Conduct for the production of cut flowers (ICC). A Dutch co-operation between two NGOs and a trade
8

union who are signatories to and co-owners of the ICC. Their main objective is to improve labour conditions for workers in the cut flower industry and to promote more sustainable production of cut flowers worldwide. Many international certification schemes have used the ICC as a basis for their certification. www.flowercampaign.org Kenya Flower Council (KFC) was established in 1996 to bring together independent growers and exporters under one roof to ensure implementation of acceptable local and international standards. Their stated objectives are: To foster responsible and safe production of cut flowers and related products with due regard to the interest of the community and of the environment; To promote safe working environment for all farm staff; To ensure that business is carried out in accordance with the laws of Kenya; and to operate to the highest level of accountability and transparency. They are working closely with Milieu Programma Sierteelt (MPS) to seek mutual recognition of the KFC code with other international flower labels. www.kenyaflowers.co.ke Milieu Programma Sierteelt (MPS). This is an international certification organisation from Holland, which owns and develops certificates for the horticulture sector (floriculture, bulb, nursery stock and vegetables sector). They certify the following schemes: MPSFlorimark is a certificate that is awarded upon certification for the following modules: MPS-A (environmental certification); MPS-GAP (certification for compliance with demands made by the retail sector);MPS-Quality or MPS-QualiTree (quality care certificate); and MPS-SQ (Socially Qualified: certificate for social aspects, such as safety, health and working conditions); and ISO 9001:2000. http://www.my-mps.com/ The Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) is a worldwide alliance of companies, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and trade union organisations. They exist to promote and improve the implementation of corporate codes of practice which cover supply chain working conditions, with an ultimate goal of ensuring that the working conditions of workers producing for the UK market meet or exceed international labour standards. When they join ETI corporate members commit to implementing the ETI Base Code in their supply chains and reporting annually on their progress in doing so. www.ethicaltrade.org USDA National Organic Program (USA) A USDA-approved certifier must visit the farm to ensure that flowers are grown according to a set of organic farming standards. www.ams.usda.gov/NOP Veriflora is a sustainability certification program for fresh cut flowers and potted plants based in the USA. Veriflora certified flowers must be grown in accordance with a set of sustainable agricultural, environmental and labour standards, as verified the independent auditors SCS. Farms that are not already organic must develop plans to transfer to organic farming over time The Veriflora certification standard has been incorporated into the Draft American National Standard for Trial Use for Sustainable Agriculture (SCS-001). www.veriflora.com However, War on Want (2007) recently stated that these voluntary standards are failing to protect workers in the cut flower industry. They cite the absence of unions pressurising companies to adhere to the standards, lack of independent auditing and confusion over which standards to adhere to as the primary causes. This raises concerns over the nature of some of these programmes and their perceived and actual legitimacy.

9

Fairtrade ‘The aim of Fairtrade is to offer the most disadvantaged producers in developing countries the opportunity to move out of extreme poverty through creating market access (typically to Northern consumers) under beneficial rather than exploitive terms’ (Nicholls and Opal 2005:6) This buyer-supplier relationship focuses on developing an equitable partnership that empowers the producer. Nicholls and Opal defined Fairtrade’s key practices as: − Agreed minimum prices usually set ahead of the market minimum; − Focus on development and technical assistance via the payment to suppliers of an agreed social premium (usually 10%+ and distributed through a co-operative); − Direct purchasing from producers; − Transparent and long term trading partnerships; − Co-operative not competitive dealings; − Provision of credit when requested; − Provision of market information to producers; − Farmers and workers are organised democratically; − Sustainable production is practiced; and − No labour abuses occurred during the production process. There are strong similarities between these key practices and the ICC code (Table 1) and many of the other voluntary certification programmes detailed in Table 2. The roots of Fairtrade lie in the contribution of charities such as Oxfam to the economic reconstruction of post-war Eastern Europe and the Mennonite Central Committee in the USA who focused on supporting the Puerto Rican embroidery smallholders by developing a self help trade craft organisation, now known as Ten Thousand Villages (Nicholls and Opal, 2005). From this early start Fairtrade state that there are now 548 certified producer organisations, representing almost 650 traders, and over 800,000 families of farmers and workers (who support approximately 5 million people), from over 58 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. There are over 2000 Fairtrade products for sale in the UK with estimated sales figures of over £195 million in 2005viii. The market has failed many small scale producers in the developing world. Without access to finance, market intelligence or alternative buyers and in a weak legislative environment with lack of enforcement many farmers have had no choice but to sell to a monopolistic buyer at below market prices. This is where the influence of the Fairtrade system can be so positive. By offering access to markets and paying a fair market price. Kofi Annan (2001) stated ‘trade rather than aid’ is the best route out of long term patterns of poverty. The impact of Fairtrade goes well beyond commercial aspects. Producers raise their standards as international traders, it preserves their dignity of their labour, and it generates significant social capital (Putman 2000) and addresses significant structural changes in trade markets (Nicholls and Opal 2005). Growth in Fairtrade products has been substantial, demonstrating ‘double digit’ annual growth rates for more than five years (cited in Nicholls and Opal 2005) and has moved from a retail activity in small specialist stores to clearly designated sections in national supermarkets chains. These products are more abundant in stores located in affluent, middle class regions
10

but there are examples in most food retail chains in the UK, USA and other developed nations. Nicholls and Opal (2005:57) believe that there is a ‘growing sense connectivity’ between consumers in the North and producers in the South as the human effects of global trade are better understood, with 69% of British consumers agreeing that poverty in the developing world is a moral issue for them and 46% believing that buying Fairtrade would assist in alleviating poverty (DFID 2002 cited in Nicholls and Opal 2005). This perhaps reflects the disconnection from the local resource base noted by Shanahan and Carlsson-Kanyama (2005) but is probably also a result of the process of globalisation generally. The marketing strategy of Fairtrade is intrinsically linked to reducing the perceived distance between producers and consumers regardless of the actual physical distance. Yet whilst consumers express positive purchase choices through Fairtrade, these alternatives account for less than 1% of most of their individual product markets (Cowe and Williams 2000). Factors that account for this discrepancy include: − Difficulties in communicating sustainability to the consumer; − Obstacles in getting Fairtrade products into retail outlets; − Perceptions of lower quality related to the early history of ‘green’ products; − Lack of consumer commitment to Fairtrade purchasing; and − The influence of other purchase decision factors (Strong 1997; Nicholls 2002, 2004). The larger UK supermarkets have realised the consumer value in stocking Fairtrade products with Sainsbury’s recently announcing that all of their bananas would be Fairtrade. All of Marks and Spenser tea and coffee are now also Fairtrade but with no change in price - “we’ll never increase our margins on a product where we do not offer a choice….. we’ll take a hit on the margin but expect there will be an increase in sales” (Benjamin 2006). This adoption by the mainstream retail markets also carries dangers of devaluing the Fairtrade concept and confusing consumers. Supermarkets in particular have been heavily criticised for their contribution to the negative aspects of the global retail trade (Blythman 2005; Lawrence 2004). Cotton has seen a threefold increase in Fairtrade sales since its launch in 2005 with more than 560 items now carrying the label. Fashion ranges carrying the Fairtrade cotton logo are carried by large UK retailers such as Topshop, Sainsburys, Monsoon, and Marks and Spenser. However this standard refers to the production of cotton not it’s subsequent manufacture and cannot guarantee working conditions during this stage. These high street items are also not priced at a higher premium and this reflect the cross subsidisation from uncertified product ranges. However Safia Minney founder of the ethical clothing company People Tree believes this mark has affected the clothing industry and there is evidence of some form of trickledown effect where factories are being asked by buyers about social compliance standards (Martin 2006). Nicholls and Opal (2005) classify ethical products into four types as illustrated in Figure 2. They note that some retailers are positioning their marketing of fashion items to move them up this classification into the Fairtrade category. Arguably the same is true of the market for cut flowers. As previously discussed flowers are a lifestyle choice and most are bought for personal consumption rather than for gifts although there are seasonal peaks where proportionally this ratio changes, such as Valentine’s Day.

11

High Worthy Products poor quality indifferent design part of a ‘token’ ethical gesture e.g. charity shops Fair Trade Products Genuine ethical credentials Unique as quality purchases Certification mark or Fair Trade aligned brand name Product values: exoticness, exclusivity and premium quality e.g. bananas, tea, coffee, local crafts

Ethical Value Commodity Products Low involvement commodity products e.g. household goods or fast moving commodity goods

Fashion Products Goods that engage emotions and connect with lifestyle choices

Low

Consumer Satisfaction

High

Figure 2: Ethical classification of products (adapted from Nicholls and Opal 2005) The Fairtrade logo is the most visible mechanism to prove this ethical status however the certification schemes in Table 2 are all designed to act as a legitimising label. Fairtrade flowers first went on sale in February 2004 and 2005 saw sales of over 18 millions Fairtrade stems with a retail value of over £4m in the UK alone (Fairtrade 2007). Currently Kenya appears to be the only location sourcing Fairtrade flowers (Table 3). There are seven Fairtrade farms listed but a total of 52 farms mentioned as members of the Kenyan Flower Council. Currently 95% of all Kenyan flowers are exported, with 15% going to the UK (Fairtrade 2006). Table 3: Supplier, Buyers and Growers of Kenyan Fairtrade Flowers (Fairtrade 2007) Suppliers Retailers Farms World Flowers, Sunking Flowers Ltd and Intergreen BV, Moyses Stevens and Flower Direct Asda, Sainsburys, Wm Morrison, John Lewis, Waitrose, Tescos More than 10 including: Finlay Flowers, (Kericho), Oserian Development Company Naivasha), Liki River Farm, Longonot Horticulture (Naivasha) Shalimar Flowers (Naivasha), Eldama Ravine, Panda Flowers (Naivasha)

Specific concerns have been aired over purchasing Kenyan Fairtrade roses suggesting that the Fairtrade ethos of supporting small rural farmers is not applicable in Kenya (Lawrence 2005). Criticism focuses on the fact that these ‘Fairtrade’ farms are very large and may be constrained by the market demands of the supermarkets which may mean seasonal excessive overtime especially around Valentine’s Day. The Fairtrade response made the point that the maximum working hours for Fairtrade certification are actually more favourable than the local
12

Kenyan laws (Fairtrade 2005) and that both farms mentioned by Lawrence have made improvements to address working conditions. These are the same farms mentioned by Ethical Consumer (2005) as the subject of part of the Women Working Worldwide campaign. Fairtrade also make the point that whilst their most well known priority work is with smallholders their mission is to improve the position of all disadvantaged people in developing countries (Fairtrade 2005). Another Kenyan initiative is the Horticultural Ethical Business Initiative (HEBI) set up in response to concerns that social ethical business practices were not being followed in the flower industry despite there being voluntary systems of self-regulation in placeix. This initiative was in part as response to the Flower Campaign by Women Working Worldwide who presented a report to the ETI on violations in the base code some of the farms were supposedly certified to. Ethical consumer (2005) states that representatives of the supermarkets visited Kenya and that employers on farms supplying Tesco, Sainsbury, Morrisons, Asda, the Co-op and Marks and Spencer have set about addressing at least some of the workers’ complaints, with massive investment in both staff training and facilities. However they also raised questions about the contribution these farms make to the long term development of Kenya. This is an area that future research should examine as part of a systematic evaluation of a cost benefit analysis of this industry. It is clear that approximately one fifth of Kenyan farms may have certified to Fairtrade and that some of the total 50+ farms may be using alternative voluntary initiatives. World Flowers states that all their farms have a minimum standard of the ETI base code and once they reach this are then audited against the MPS standards. Finally once these standards are met then they may be audited for Fairtrade status. This suggests that some of the principle requirements of Fairtrade may be met on the other farms and that some element of ‘working up’ through various certification levels is apparent. This is another area of enquiry that is deserving of future research. The environmental impact of the global shipment of consumables and associated carbon footprint is receiving increasing attention. It might be argued that global warming is an issue that will force a punctuated shift in equilibrium, and has already done so in the policy arena. Thus consumers may need to make a moral choice between a product that has a lower carbon footprint to address a global environmental problem, or a product that helps to alleviate a global social problem – that of lack of economic self sufficiency of communities in the less industrialised world. This is where the dilemma of the trade off between ‘food’ miles and Fairtrade becomes morally problematic and this is compounded when we are discussing an item that is a ‘luxury’ choice. Food Miles / Flower Miles ‘Food Miles’ was a term first coined by the SAFE Alliance, now Sustain, in 1994 and represents the distance travelled from where an item was grown to the consumer. Although arguably this phrase has now become synonymous in a wider sense to the impact of the global shipment of retail products. Food Miles (FM) =∑ Distance travelled in Km x weight in tonnes per product The UK Government’s report on Food Miles notes the dramatic changes in food production and its supply chain associated with: − Globalisation, increase in food trade and wider sourcing both in the UK and overseas;

13

− − − −

Concentration of food supply base into fewer, larger suppliers especially to meet year long supply of uniform produce; Major changes in delivery pattern, routing through delivery centres using Heavy Goods Vehicles (HVGs); Intensification of agriculture and increase in processing and packaging of food; and Centralisation and concentration of food shopping into weekly shops at supermarkets (AEA Technology 2005).

A study by Farmers Weekly (Gairdner 2006) as part of the ‘Local Food is Miles Betterx’ campaign found that 52% of their 1000+ respondents would buy less imported food if they knew the distance it had travelled, but 46% said they would not. At present one third buy locally produced food less than once a month, never or did not know and 61% thought local food was more expensive. Purchase rates might be improved through labelling as 82% stated that they would buy more local food if it was more cleared labelled. There was a clear lack of understanding about where food comes from and when it is produced. Especially marked was the difference between generational groups suggesting disconnection and/or disinterest amongst the younger groups. The findings from this report suggest that some consumers would be unaware of the locations and conditions that some products might need for growth, perhaps not realising the need for greenhouse environments for some products if grown in the UK, or when a particular product is in season. This perhaps casts doubts on consumers’ abilities to make judgemental choices between different products if a misleading or simplistic label is used. For instance if an airplane symbol indicates that the tomatoes a customer is buying in December were flown in from South Africa and next to them were tomatoes from Europe grown in greenhouses the study by Gairdner (2006) suggests that some groups may be oblivious to the differences between these. The Defra special report ‘Sausages and Mash’ examines initiatives to improve public sector meals (Purvis 2005: 9) and suggests that local sourcing of fresh, unprocessed, preferably organic food is key. Lang and Pretty (cited by BBC 2005) have suggested that if all farms in the UK were to turn organic £1.1bn of environmental costs would be saved. There are reports of increased use of farmers markets and farm shops and examples of small scale producers thriving in local markets (Davey 2007). However the majority of consumers still use the supermarkets for the bulk of their shopping. It is not just as simplistic as how far food, or flowers, travels to reach the retail outlets and promoting the use of local markets. The environmental impact of food miles can be described as: Environmental Impact = ∑ Food Miles / transportation type x factor representing each mode of transportation It is the impact of transportation mode that has received the most attention of late, specifically with the recent upsurge of focus on carbon emissions. Some reports have suggested that whilst choosing to buy organic has value, the hidden ‘costs’ of shopping increase substantial when road miles are factored in – perhaps even more so than air miles. If all food in the UK was sourced from within 20km of where it was consumed environmental and congestion costs would fall from £2.3bn to £230m (BBC 2005). The New Economies Foundation has calculated that every £10 spent on local food generates £25 for the local economy (cited in Purvis 2005).

14

A further £100m of environmental costs might be further saved by selecting public transport or walking/cycling to the shops (BBC 2005). Sustain (2001) calculated that a 5 mile journey by car to collect food emits the same amount of CO2 as shifting the same food 23 miles by air, or 600 miles by truck (cited in Murray 2007). The use of centralised supply depots means that an item produced ‘locally’ may be shipped out by road to a central site and then returned to within miles of its original location (Lawrence 2005, Murray 2007). Asda has recently trialled a scheme whereby growers deliver straight to the local stores in their country rather than a central depot (Anon 2006). Flowers imported to a wholesaler in the Netherlands from Kenya are considered to have come from Europe for subsequent labelling purposes (Hickman 2006) and if transported by road from the warehouse to the UK have both the carbon footprint of air freight and road transport but appear on the packaging to have come from a more ‘local’ source. Thus making a choice between those labelled air freighted and those considered ‘local’ more problematic. Another consideration is the carbon footprint of production, rather than just transportation. Food grown in European greenhouses may produce less carbon during transit but when the total life cycle is taken into account the option that has the lowest total carbon generation maybe the product shipped in from overseas. This total life cycle approach was taken in a recent report by Williams (2007) who compared production and delivery of roses from Kenya and Holland. Relative carbon emissions were 5.8 times larger in the Dutch operation, reflecting the carbon cost of the highly energy demanding greenhouse environments in which the roses were grown. These findings led to a flurry of publicity both in the UK and Kenya (Foster 2007; Riungu 2007; Seager 2007) and crystallize the debate around the trade off between sourcing from a country where natural conditions are more conducive to production than more locally based sources. This contradiction is not just restricted to flowers – most tomatoes sold in the UK are from Europe specifically Spain where they are grown under plastic polytunnels requiring huge amounts of water. An alternative might be tomatoes grown in the temperate climate of South Africa (Hardie 2007). “Food miles are a complex issue that must be considered in the context of a host of other indicators of sustainability… when all activities in a food chain are considered there are often differences that involve trade-offs between various environmental, social and economic effects… it is not clear whether a decrease in food transport would necessarily lead to an increase in sustainability” (AEA technology 2005:3)” The key findings from the DEFRA report on ‘Food Miles as an Indictor for Sustainability’ stress that a single indicator based on total food kilometres travelled would not be valid as it would not represent the complexity of trade offs between different factors. They advocate a suite of indicators that reflect the key adverse impacts of food transport such as congestion, accidents and pollution: urban food km; HGV km; Air food km; and total CO2 emissions (AEA Technology 2007). However wider economic and social issues are not addressed by this indicator set and in essence it becomes a carbon footprint that whilst useful fails to incorporate any trade off’s with development goals. MacGregor and Vorley (2006) believe that decisions of consumers, policy makers and businesses needs to be based on good information. If environmental impact is to be traded against development benefits then:

15

− − −

The degree of harm must be quantified and put into context of other choices; Put into context against total ecological space/emissions per capita in Africa; and The degree of development gain quantified.

Plans by Tesco and Marks and Spenser to place airplane symbols on air-freighted items worry the Kenyan growers, especially in light of the comparative carbon study of Dutch and Kenyan roses (Riungu 2007). The International Institute for Environment and Development notes that the livelihoods of more than one million Africans are supported by the British consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables and this accounts for less that 0.1 % of the UK’s total carbon emissions (MacGregor and Vorley 2007; Murray 2007). MacGregor and Vorley (2006) suggest that we should be looking at the ecological space that each individual has, translated into per capita right to emit carbon dioxid. Figure 3 illustrates the suggested individual equitable ecological space of 1.8 based on the Kyoto protocol and the current African per capita emissions of 1.0. It is clear that disproportionate use is made of this ecological space by the North yet it is the South, especially sub-Saharan Africa whose trade will suffer from decreased air freight of export produce. Others have suggested that reducing carbon emissions would be better served by the West turning off TVs at night and using energy efficiency light bulbs than any initiatives to reduce African air-freight (Seager 2007).
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Africa Kyoto Global UK

Tesco recently announced plans to go even further and place carbon labels on all it’s products in the same way it does fat and salt content. They stated that they would not place a ban on flying in goods from all suppliers due to the impact on the poorest but would reduce the total amount from the current 3% to 1% (Finch and Vidal 2007). Post publication of their Food Mile report (AEA Technology 2005) plans for a carbon footprint label based on the ‘traffic light’ system have also been unveiled by UK government. This label will be devised by DEFRA in association with the BSI British Standards authority and it has been suggested that this label scheme might find that carnations from Africa grown in the winter months might have a lower footprint than those grown in Britain in a heated greenhouse (Waugh 2007). The footprint label may mark down certain products such as electrical products with only standby mode and this suggests that there is some scope to add in ‘marking’ criteria that might assess the social impact of the product through supporting local farmers or through Fairtrade criteria. If this was factored in then two products (one local and one Fairtrade) would be assessed purely on carbon impact rather than distance travelled as the local produce and that sourced ethically would have equal ‘bonus’ points.

tonnes carbon emissions

Figure 3: A comparison of per capita carbon dioxide emissions (adapted from MacGregor and Vorley 2006)

16

However this raises the issues of what is classed as local. How far can a product travel and still be classed as local? Another facet is where people live and their access to retail outlets. For instance Tesco has outlets all over the UK but little suggests that every product range will have a customised label based on the specific UK postcode location. There are options to purchase carbon offsets and this might be an option for flower producers in places like Kenya. However this may further disadvantage suppliers in these regions. One aspect that has not been discussed in the previous literature is the seasonality of flowers. Some organic box schemes stock imported produce, but only when local alternatives are not available (Allen 2005). A similar approach could be used for flowers whereby only those that were in season and not grown in artificial conditions would be traded off against the imports of Fairtrade flowers. There may be some capacity to build in a form of targeted selection through ‘ecological triage’ (after Holt and Viney 2001), where season and species played a key role. In Kenya and Zambia there are few incentives in the domestic market to adopt ‘prodevelopment’ practices without a clear business case and even pressures from export markets are described as patchy (Kivuitu et al. 2006). Thus external requirements, such as those promoted by a labelling system are likely to push some organisations into responding. There proliferation of current flower certification schemes reflects this. However none of these are currently fit for purpose if the criteria in use are to include carbon footprinting although some have some basic environmental criteria. Future research should examine these codes in more detail and identify opportunities to incorporate criteria that address this emerging agenda of ‘miles’ and carbon footprint. In light of the lack of current guidance for flower producers the industry themselves are trying to respond. Foster (2007) notes that flower companies are drawing up eco-friendly guidelines to address mounting consumer concern over flower miles and Interflora are consulting with organisations such as the Carbon Neutral Company. Little information as yet exists on the make up of any of these future schemes and given that there are already multiple flower certification schemes in place this suggests developing a uniform consensus may be problematic. It remains to be seen how the trade off between promotion of Fairtrade principles and a more protectionist approach to sourcing locally will be fought out on the supermarket shelves. A study by Cowe and Williams (2000) of 2000 people in the UK identified five consumer segments, with three offering potential markets to Fairtrade products. Their evidence suggests up to 30% of the sample was particularly motivated to buy ethical goods but this accounted for 1-3% of individual markets which they named the 30:3 syndrome. How this is affected by the overlapping concerns of the ‘environmental’ movement and whether this will cause sub-segmentation remains an area for future enquiry. Their ‘Global Watchdogs’ segment (5% of the total) who were ethical hardliners, affluent professionals, typically 33-55 years old, well-educated, metropolitan and mainly based in the South East are also arguably one of the key target market for most initiatives to reduce ‘food miles’ purchasing. The largest segment (49%) named ‘Do what I can’ had a weak ethical motivation but it was still present and were typically older, home owners and based outside London. The question for the food miles campaigners is can they engage this segment effectively when the Fairtrade movement has been unable to make large scale advances here.

17

Few studies have examined the symbiosis or divergence between ethical consumers and those that consider environmental criteria, with the exception of Codron et al. (2006). Their study poses three key questions: − Do consumers who buy products of organic or integrated agriculture share common values with those consumers who buy products having an ethical/fair-trade dimension? − Is the relation between the concerns/values and the purchasing behavior of consumers similar between the environmental and ethical/fair-trade domains? − Do consumers buying environmentally friendly goods perceive the problem that such an action addresses with the same sense of immediacy and urgency as do those buying ethical/fair-trade products? Their work focuses on an initial exploration of these questions as part of an agenda for future research. However their classification of ‘environmental’ is focused on organic products and those that consider integrated agriculture (rational chemical use, sustainable technologies and integrated pest management) rather than any measure of carbon impact. The questions they pose are extremely valid to subject of this paper and are crucial in the debate surrounding the tradeoffs that are likely to occur in the market place when consumers consider a decision between food/flower miles and Fairtrade. There is a danger that much of the focus on food miles is a knee jerk reaction to concerns over global warming that may cause more harm to some of the most vulnerable parts of the world. Through expediency supermarkets may choose simplistic labelling standards, such as the picture of an airplane, without the consumer understanding the relative carbon impact. Even if carbon alone is the only measure taken, then one that fully quantified the carbon footprint including the whole life cycle may address some of the imbalances. However if carbon offsetting is used then businesses in the developed world have more capacity to afford to purchase these than those in the South. This paper has raised a number of avenues of future enquiry. − It is clear that fully understanding the impact of the flower industry on development is necessary. This requires a systematic evaluation of the costs and benefits of this industry in a range of case study regions. − The current certification schemes need to be reviewed in light of the new imperative on carbon impact. An analysis of the overlap between these codes of conduct, their uptake and how they can be adapted is necessary − There is some evidence of using different certification standards as a ‘ladder’ of progress - an examination of farms level of certification and whether there are patterns and implications to this would be a fruitful research area. − Alternatives to reduce the 91% of emissions from air transport of Kenya flowers should be examined. − Alternative product options (such as dried flowers) could be explored alongside an analysis of other markets within the region. − It is crucial that we explore the relationship, and trade offs, between the consumer’s ethical values and environmental motivations. In some ways examining ‘flower’ miles is an example of the kind of issues that will need resolution when the food miles debate extends beyond basic consumables into luxury, nonessential items like flowers. However, we may already be at this point as arguably the choice to enjoy asparagus or green beans is also a ‘luxury’ choice rather than one of physical necessity.
18

Ironically it is not just the developed world that has raised concerns about local sourcing. In Zambia the South African supermarket chain Shoprite has been under increasing pressure to source more of its horticultural produce locally from Zambian smallholders rather than directly from South Africa and has entered into partnerships with a number to do so (Kivuitu et al. 2006). It is clear that the drive to reduce the impact of the global transportation of food may have the potential to significantly impact some of the most vulnerable parts of the world. Consumers, businesses and governments are faced with competing priorities within the social responsibility agenda and this may lead to prioritisation of one more so than another. This is the dilemma that lies at the heart of the flower miles debate.

19

References AEA Technology 2005. The validity of food miles as an indicator of sustainable development. Final report produced for DEFRA Issue 7 July. Department of Food and Rural Affairs: London. Annan K. 2001. A route out of poverty. The Financial Times 5 March pp. 12 Anon. 2006. Asda trials supplier delivery scheme to reduce food miles. Marketing Week 17 August p. 4. Barnett C, Cafaro P, Newholm T. 2005. Philosophy and Ethical Consumption. In The Ethical Consumer, Harrison R, Newholm T, Shaw D (eds.). Sage: London. pp. 11-24. Baumgartner FR, Jones BD. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL. BBC. 2005. Local food greener than organic. BBC News 2 March Benjamin A. 2006. Potential banana skin? Guardian Newspaper Fairtrade supplement Blythman J. 2005. Shopped: The Shocking Power of British Supermarkets. Harper Perennial: London Borgström G. 1972. The Hungry Planet: The Modern World at the Edge of Famine. Collier Books: New York. Campbell D, Craven B, Shrives P. 2003. Voluntary social reporting in three FTSE sectors: a comment on perception and legitimacy. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 16:4: pp. 558-581. Castellanos J. 1998. Roses, Colombia, Exports, Trade Disputes and Drugs. TED Case Studies 8(1) Case 431 Online journal at http://www.american.edu/ted/class/all.htm Codron JM, Siriex L, Reardon T. 2006. Social and environmental attributes of food products in an emerging mass market: Challenges of signalling and consumer perception, with European illustrations. Agriculture and Human Values 23(3): pp 283-297. Cowe R, Williams S. 2000. Who are the ethical consumers? Co-operative Bank/MORI: Manchester Davey J. 2007. Food fear boosts farm shops. The Sunday Times 28 January p. 11. DFID. 2002. British Attitudes Consumer Survey. Department for International Development Dowling J, Pfeffer J. 1975. Organisational legitimacy: social values and organizational behaviour. Pacific Sociological Review 18(2) pp. 122-36. Ethical Consumer. 2005. Good news for Kenyan flower workers. Ethical Consumer Magazine July/August Fairtrade. 2005. Fairtrade supports Kenyan flower workers http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/downloads/pdf/guardian_response.pdf [20 May 2007] Fairtrade. 2006. Fairtrade Roses Q & A http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/downloads/pdf/Fairtrade_roses_q_and_a.pdf [10 June 2007] Fairtrade. 2007. http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/products_roses.htm [10 June 2007]

20

FAO. 2002. A thorn on every rose for Kenya's flower industry. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations Newsroom 18 April 2002 online at http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/news/2002/3789-en.html. Ferrer Y. 1997. Women and Agriculture: Colombia's Roses Proves a Thorny Issue. International Press Service Bogota Columbia 24 August. Finch J, Vidal J. 2007. You’ve checked the price and the calorie count now here’s the carbon cost. Guardian Newspaper 19 January Foster P. 2007. Why roses from Kenya are greener than the flowers from Amsterdam. Times Newspaper 10 February Frankel C. 1998. In Earth’s Company. New Society: Canada. Gairdner J. 2006. Local food is miles better. Farmers Weekly Hardie A. 2007. When buying local to cut food miles can do more harm than good. The Scotsman 16 January Hargreaves-Allen V. 2003. Say it without flowers. The Ecologist 1st October. Harrison R, Newholm T, Shaw, D. (eds.). 2005. The Ethical Consumer. Sage: London. Hickman L. 2006. Is it OK to buy cut flowers? The Guardian 14th February. Holt D, Viney H. 2001. Targeting Environmental Improvements through Ecological Triage. EcoManagement and Auditing 8(3): pp.154-164 International Trade Centre. 2001. Product Profile: Cut Flowers and Foliage Discussion Document Third United Nations Conference on The Least Developed Countries Business Sector Round Table Brussels 16 May 2001. Jones P, Comfort D, Hillier D. 2005. Corporate social responsibility and the UK's top ten retailers. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 33(12): pp. 882892 Kivuitu M, Yambayamba K, Fox T. 2005. How can Corporate Social Responsibility deliver in Africa? Insights from Kenya and Zambia. Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Environment 3: July. International Institute for Environment and Development, London Lawrence F. 2004. Not on the Label: What Really Goes into the Food on Your Plate. Penguin Books: London Lawrence F. 2005. Why I won’t be giving my mother Fairtrade flowers. Guardian Newspaper 5 March MacGregor J, Vorley B. 2006. Fair miles? The concept of "food miles" through a sustainable development lens. Sustainable Development Opinion Papers International Institute for Environment and Development: London. Martin W. 2006. High street begins to cotton on. Guardian Newspaper Fairtrade supplement McKie R. 2007. Ban considered on organic food brought in by air. The Observer 27th May. Mena N, Proaño S. 2005. Sexual Harassment in the workplace: the cut flower industry case study Northern Sierra of Ecuador. International Labor Rights Fund April. Morser A, McRae S. 2007. Growing pains the human cost of cut flowers. War on Want: London. Murray S. 2007. Moveable feats the incredible journey of the things we eat. Aurum: London.
21

Nicholls A, Opal C. 2005. Fairtrade Market- Driven Ethical Consumption. Sage: London. Nicholls A. (2004) New Product Development in Fairtrade retailing. Service Industries Journal 24(2): 102-117. Nicholls A. 2002. Strategic options in Fairtrade retailing. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 30(1): pp. 6-17 Ogodo O, Vidal J. 2007. Drained of Life. Guardian Newspaper, 14th February. Petitjean MF. 2006. Taking Responsibility. Floraculture International September/October. Poulter S. 2007. Supermarkets under fire over roses at £2 for 12. Daily Mail 14th February p.11. Purvis A. 2005. Sausage, mash and sustainability. Green Futures Supplement in association with DEFRA, Compass Group and MLC November/December. Putman R. 2000. Bowling Alone. Simon and Schuster: New York Riungu C. 2007. Flower exports flourish despite odds. The East African 1st May. Romanelli E, Tushman ML. 1994. Organisational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: an empirical test. Academy of Management Journal 37(5): pp. 1141-1161. Schlosser E. 2001. Fast Food Nation the Dark Side of the All-American Meal. Penguin Press: London Seager A. 2007. Air-freight flowers greener than Dutch hothouses, say Kenyans. Guardian Newspaper 14th February. Shanahan H, Carlsson-Kanyama A, Ekstrom P. 2003. Exploring opportunities for eco-sound food habits households and researchers in partnership. Kappa Omicron FORUM 14: pp. 1-15. Shanahan H, Carlsson-Kanyama A. 2005. Interdependence between consumption in the North and sustainable communities in the South. International Journal of Consumer Studies 29(4): pp. 298-307. Stewart A. 2007a. Flower Confidential: The Good, the Bad, and the Beautiful in the Business of Flowers. Algonquin Books: Chapel Hill. Stewart A. 2007b. In flowers, too, green is the new red. San Francisco Chronicle Special to The Chronicle Special 7th February. Strong C. 1997. The problems of translating Fairtrade principles into consumer purchase behaviour. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 15(1): pp. 32-37. Tasker G. 2007. Flower business no bed of roses. Miami Herald 4th February Thrupp LA. 1995. Bittersweet harvests for global supermarkets: challenges in Latin America's agricultural export boom. World Resources Institute. US/LEAP and ILRF. 2007. A Valentine’s Day Report: Worker justice and basic rights on flower plantations in Columbia and Ecuador. The U.S./Labor in the Americas project and The International Labor Rights Fund 13 February. War on Want. 2007. Growing pains the human cost of cut flowers in British supermarkets. War on Want: London. Waugh P. 2007. Green labels for shoppers. Evening Standard 30th May pp. 1-2.

22

Williams A. 2007. Comparative study of cut roses for the British market produced in Kenya and the Netherlands. Precis Report for World Flowers 12th February 2007. National Resources Institute: Cranfield Universityxi.

Endnotes
i ii

Kenyan Flower Council http://www.kenyaflowers.co.ke/industryinfo/flori.php

Flowers and Plants Association http://www.flowers.org.uk/industry/uk-market.htm [ 29 May 2007] International Labor Rights Fund http://www.laborrights.org/projects/flowers_index.htm [10 June 2007]
iv v vi iii

Women Working Worldwide http://www.poptel.org.uk/women-ww/ [12 June 2007] Social Accountability International http://www.sa-intl.org

International Code of Conduct for the Production of Cut Flowers http://www.bothends.org/strategic/ICC-eng.pdf [25 May 2007]
vii

International Labour Organisation http://www.ilo.org/dyn/basi/docs/F273/GUIDE-E.DOC [25 May 2007] Fairtrade http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/about_sales.htm [10 June 2007]

viii ix

Horticultural Ethical Business Initiative http://www.hebi.or.ke/hebi-profile.htm [10 June 2007] Farmers Weekly http://www.fwi.co.uk/gr/foodmiles/index.html

x xi

World Flowers http://www.worldflowers.co.uk/12news/Comparative%20Study%20of%20Cut%20Roses%20Final %20Report%20Precis%2012%20Febv4.pdf

23

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close