So when we say that “Fair Trade is being given an undeserved monopoly status on ethical sourcing”, we’re speaking from a consumers’ perspective. Because that is the perspective of many consumers we have come across — i.e., that if it doesn’t say “Fair Trade”, it therefore must be “evil.” We have too many examples to reasonably/rationally itemize for you here.

You can choose not to see that. You can lead yourself to believe that what the “industry” knows matters only — and what the consumers who pay your salary believe is meaningless and inconsequential to you. Dismiss your customers as ignorant morons, if you wish. Particularly if they are too clueless to recognize the existence of, and similarities with, “Rainforest Alliance, Utz, IMO, IFAT, direct traders, Fair Trade Foundation,” etc. That’s your prerogative.

But ignore your customers’ beliefs at your own peril. That calls into question just how capable you are as a successful businessperson in the “industry”.

What do you know about the industry? You’re a guy who obsessively visits cafes and blogs about your experience at them. That’s it. You’re good at that part but you fail at the rest. Your supposed analysis of the industry is full of uninformed conjecture and on occasion, flat-out lies. Stick to what you do best-visiting cafes. Lay off the industry analysis because it makes you look like a complete idiot in the eyes of us who are in the business.

Prime example: Tully’s move to do 100% FTO espresso was engineered by a forward-thinking creative and production team that also started projects like using the eco-tainer cups, reducing energy costs in their stores through efficient lighting, and recycling/composting. That team and some top brass flew the coop when some unfortunate dealings around the IPO along with bad board decisions screwed them over. Tully’s no longer offers FTO espresso. Why? The company was taken over by a highly conservative franchisee who thought that a returned to flavored frappes was the way to go. Then the Green Mountain acquisition happened.

The claim that “Fair Trade is being given an undeserved monopoly status on ethical sourcing” is laughable. Apparently you don’t count Rainforest Alliance, Utz, IMO, IFAT, direct traders, Fair Trade Foundation, or the others as being “competition” for Fair Trade’s “monompoly.”

These days, great margins can be gained from selling brewed coffee. The product is cheap and the sale is expensive although not too expensive. I don’t mind at all if I have to pay more money to see the staff of the cafe smile (genuinely smile) because they are getting a piece of the pie and that the people in Asia, Africa or South America can live with dignity. Sadly, not everyone feels this way, yet.

I’m glad you informed me of the benefits US starcuck’s staff are entitled to. In Australia, it is not the norm that companies pay for health plans. Here the government takes care of that or citizens who can afford it, purchase plans on their own. Two capitalist counties, different benefits given by government and private sector.

A normal cappucino/flat white or cafe latte here in Australia costs about $3.30 which is about $2.65 USD.

But to suggest that Starbucks hasn’t done anything for their workers would also be unfair. They’ve offered health care benefits for thousands of employees in the U.S. who would not have such access at an equivalent job working for a similar company.

What almost bothers me more are customers who insist on good pay for coffee farmers, health insurance for company employees, etc., but then who show no willingness to pay extra for their cup of coffee to afford all these benefits. It’s one thing to complain about the high prices at a coffee shop. It’s another thing to complain that the coffee shop doesn’t pay Fair Trade prices or doesn’t offer their employees health dare benefits or a living wage. But to complain about both things makes the consumer part of the problem.

Unlike McDonalds, certain parts of the world had already been introduced to coffee and more often than not, the European notion of coffee beverages.

It seems that starbucks took a while to adopt (some) ethical standards.

Australian coffee enthusiasts did not receive their coffee (quality) very warmly. I think that the customers that frequented starbucks in oz where new-comers to espresso coffee in general. I was awfully surprised when I learned that their smallest cup size was called “tall”. The extra mild taste didn’t impress the Australian consumers who are more aquainted with the Italian style (and much stronger) coffee.

On a different note, in the above comment you mention that fair trade does little to promote or incentive quality coffee. The same can be said for “slave” coffee where the main objective is to create a profit. I agree that the current model leaves out a lot of honest farmers and this should be improved. But it is a start and being such a significant international commodity, I think it is important to create awareness of the conditions endured by people involved in the coffee making process. It is ironic that the best coffee from around the world comes from third world countries.

If starbucks was so worried about being a good social citizen they could start with focussing on the rights and conditions they give to their staff in the US. It seems they have embarked on anti-union efforts which do nothing more than disappoint consumers. So much money being generated and so little gratitude for the workforce that facilitate the creation of this wealth?

Starbucks closed 61 stores in Australia last year. If they do decide to come back one day, I hope they spend some r&d time on the Australian market and try to cater for the standards that were in place here long before they showed up.

This says nothing of those who point out how FT creates an unsustainable and artificial economic system where farmers are given no incentives to grow better coffee, etc.

On a different note, Greg, can you fire off an email to me at coffeekid over at gmail?