Ethical Consumer awards Fairtrade certification positively in our cocoa rating, because – although it’s not widely adopted in the chocolate industry – where it is adopted it genuinely ensures slightly fairer pay for some farmers.
But there are many flaws with Fairtrade.
Juan Andres Santelices sets out some of those flaws in an opinion piece.
Opinion piece: ‘Fairtrade has failed to deliver justice for farmers’
For more than three decades, Fairtrade certification has promised consumers a way to enjoy chocolate with a clean conscience. By paying a little extra, we are told, farmers in the Global South receive a fairer deal. Yet beneath the familiar logo lies a system that has failed to deliver real justice for the farmers who grow cacao.
The Fairtrade mark was designed to guarantee smallholders a minimum price and improved working conditions. But has this reality been achieved? Despite its popularity in the Global North, many cacao farmers remain trapped in poverty, while child labour and deforestation linked to cocoa cultivation continue to be a significant problem. The chocolate industry is worth billions, but less than 8% of that wealth reaches the farmers.
Who Really Benefits?
Over the past few decades, the price paid for a tonne of cacao beans has generally been in decline (with the exception of the last two years). The Fairtrade Minimum Price (FMP) has typically been only marginally higher – by about 5% to 10% – yet now, even as the market price of cacao has risen sharply, the FMP has not been adjusted accordingly. This is despite the fact that farmers’ costs have increased dramatically since 2020.
Cacao buyers want to pay the same or less for cacao beans to increase profits and not pass on costs to consumers who want to pay the same price for their chocolate. Fairtrade has not been able to address this issue. Meanwhile, the farmers are putting in the same amount or more resources every year and even FMP may have not been able to offer a living minimum wage.
Fairtrade has launched a new Fairtrade Income Reference Price, but experts including organisations such as Solidaridad have said that this “does not reflect the right of cocoa farmers to earn a living income.”
Furthermore, certification also comes at a cost. Fairtrade farmers must pay steep fees to maintain their status, while multinationals such as Nestlé face relatively few compliance demands. They can continue sourcing cacao unethically, while selling Fairtrade chocolate on the side. For farmers unable to afford certification, exclusion from the market is the only option. This creates a two-tier system that locks out the very people Fairtrade claims to support. Why should the organisations (whether that’s farming co-operatives or VAS chocolate companies) who are more ethical, have to pay extra for certifications to show they are, whereas the ones abusing and destroying our planet and communities do not have to pay anything at all?
What emerges is a troubling picture: Fairtrade certification is not dismantling global inequalities but helping to socialise colonialism.
Cacao only grows in the South but the processing, branding and profits remain concentrated in the importing countries of Europe and North America.
This means they capture the wealth and prestige and can offer their chocolate as Swiss, Belgium or ‘made in the UK’.
All the fees made from the certification process are retained by national Fairtrade Organisations who are also in the North and not in countries of origin. This is not liberation: it is the rebranding of a colonial trade model for the ethical consumer era.