Article By Paul John Birch
Managing Director, Revolver World
Fairtrade Licensees and producers of Organic Fairtrade Cotton apparel

Conventionally produced cotton has always been associated with slavery and poverty. Today that translates into bonded workers and underemployment, defined by WHO (the World Health Organisation); as people working excessive hours, but struggling to make ends meet.

Pre-dating production in America’s southern states of Georgia and the Carolinas, Samuel Slater had left England under dubious circumstances, establishing himself in Rhode Island as the pioneer of cotton. Cotton was America’s principle industry until the civil war. But it moved south from the upper eastern sea board in search of cheaper labour, and the South had slaves!

Today, in India’s predominantly Christian South, people eke out a living picking cotton. The comparisons become more interesting when you factor-in, that deeply impoverished Christians in America’s black community worked in similar conditions to today’s cotton pickers and growers. Often entire families work side-by-side in temperatures exceeding 40degrees, to earn as little as £2.00 a day.
In a sense the humble T-Shirt, ubiquitous in its design and perception – sums-up, the plight of the cotton producers versus the High street. Lancashire can claim with some legitimacy ownership in the Cotton Industry, but whether Jerusalem was truly builded in this United Kingdom or not, those satanic mills soon became dark as the money and the power were separated by America’s civil war. Although the Union had not entered the war to free slaves, it fit Lincoln’s purpose to issue a Proclamation effectively emancipating black America in the (potentially unlikely) event of a confederate defeat. Britain and France were effectively powerless to intervene to help the South secede.

At a Public meeting, held at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester, 31^st December 1862, the Cotton-workers issued a decree supporting the Federal presidency. In memorial of events, there stands today a statue of Abraham Lincoln, in Manchester’s Lincoln Square, Brasenose Street. This act of selflessness by the impoverished cotton mill workers of Lancashire was greeted by Lincoln as an act like no other, writing that he “deeply deplored the suffering of the working people of Manchester”. He wrote; this is “…an instance of sublime Christian heroism, which has not been surpassed in any age or in any country”.

Here were the workers of England’s North West, totally reliant upon an America at war with itself, for its raw materials, without it they were destitute, but the workers were willing to set-aside their own needs and impoverishment, to set-free Richmond’s slaves. This egalitarian act was typical of England’s working-people, ennobled by an act of altruism. Today’s movement around fairtrade has its roots in the great cotton famine of England’s North West and Yorkshire’s west ridding. The principles of trade justice are enshrined in their desire for a better day to dawn!

Though, cheap Cotton is likely to go the way of cheap food as Corporate America replenishes its oil reserves converting cash-crops to ethanol production. It seems that in this modern-age there is competition for the moral high-ground. As America has come-off wheat, it will surely come-off cotton in its 24 cotton producing states. Its good news for the rest of the world as America subsides cotton production to the tune of $4billion per annum (according to Oxfam America, that’s three times the US annual aid budget to Africa).

Cotton is not only heavily subsidised in America, but the European Union penalises cotton producers in the sub-continent with tariffs of 9.6%, they effectively are a trade barrier to third world development. Britain makes no provision for fairtrade producers in the third world. It pays lip-service to trade justice and Parliament to its credit serves fairtrade coffee and tea throughout the Lords and Commons, but the third-world suffers in silence whilst our country sips sublimely, giving rise to a form of hypocrisy that can only be forgiven by ignorance.

Fairtrade cotton production is set at regional levels according to territory: West Africa, North Africa, South America, Egypt, sub-continent of India etc. this effectively allows the commodity to rise with market demand, but a soft landing at a price point of 0.42 Euro per kilo in the event of downward fluctuation. The rates are set by FLO cert the Fairtrade Labelling Organisation based in Germany. But is fairtrade, fair? It’s a reasonable question given Mark & Spencer’s are selling Fairtrade cotton T-shirts below £5.00 and Sainsbury for less than half that price for as low as only £2.25.

It begs the question, how can they do it at that price? The answer; they can’t! Sainsbury and Mark’s are playing by the rules, they are importing the cotton, not necessarily into the United Kingdom, they could for instance be importing cotton into Turkey and the commodity could end up in sweatshops. After all what’s the real difference between Sainsbury’s fairtrade cotton T-shirts and Primark, when Primark’s products, already discredited for allegedly using child labour are actually more expensive than Sainsbury’s fairtrade t-shirts?

The reality is that by only certifying the cotton, the entire process is bought into disrepute. These major high street retailers have cynically distorted the values of the fairtrade movement. A movement with its routes in Britain and America’s civil rights struggle, which is today greater than the fairtrade organisation’s with their blue and yellow logos on an increasing number of high street produce. Traidcraft say Britain’s retailers are fast asleep. Many think they are dealing with manufacturers when in point of fact they are trading with middle-men. Few retailers, even those that are circumspect can avoid using bonded-workers, as peonage encompasses entire families that struggle to pay debt through labour, sometimes continuing for generations. As the media focuses on child-labour, it neglects the circumstances that return the children back to the factory after the inspectors have left. Is this need for cheap cotton really worth it?

Business school’s teach there are only three generic corporate strategies; differentiation, market share leadership and sustainable competitive cost advantage. Little wonder then, given their can be only one market leader per sector, that companies opt for competitive cost advantage. That’s cost advantage, not price advantage; simply put – buy cheap – sell dear.

By contrast the small cotton licensees show a full lineage of licensed suppliers in the production of cotton garments. The work-around is to import raw or spun cotton perhaps through a third country avoiding EU tariffs. Small cotton licensees have no option other than to turn to differentiation as a strategy. But as home labels play out against brands in the Mall’s Wal-Mart, K-Marts and Quickie marts, corporate America’s favourite sound will remain the ringing of the tills!

Unlike with Coffee’s Max Havelaar in the Netherlands and Café direct in Britain, who were able to establish themselves as brands long before Tesco and Waitrose introduced their home labels to rival the brands on their shelves, regrettably, cotton has not had that luxury. The home labels were faster to disintermediate the market than the fledgling brands and are often thought of as brands. But if you are looking for a definition, a brand can be sold in any competing store or channel, whilst a home label is only sold in the store with its name above the door; Next, M&S, etc.

At Sainsbury’s then, whilst they may have a choice of fairtrade coffee or chocolate by brand compared to their home label, with cotton they offer no choice other than their own. Proving all commodities are not equal. Fairtrade consumers care, and maybe its cool to care, in an age when conscious consumers (and by that I don’t mean they have survived being knocked out), are alert to excessive packaging, ability to recycle, anxious about food miles and want organic.

They are right to want organic, though here it’s the Soil Associations accreditation that has most traction. Organic is important in clothing, not only does cotton attract a lot of subsidy (in America at least), it also attract over 100 agrochemicals. Astra Zeneca and Monsanto have a lot to answer for. Not only are these chemicals allegedly causing cancer in workers close to the harvest, there is also concern that crop yields are declining. As if that wasn’t bad enough, non-organic cotton is often coloured using dyes containing heavy metals like formaldehyde and cadmium-b. We wonder why in the West we suffer cancers at an alarmingly increasing rate.

Whilst organic yields increase after the third year, not every country or region can switch to organic. South America is almost entirely organic in its production, whilst Cameroon for instance is unlikely to be able to switch, as organic crops need more water and Cameroon like much of Africa has no irrigation, we are told there is simply not enough water.

Part of the challenge is the language used by media, politicians and government agencies. The over deployment into the moral message utilises previously inert terms such as; strategy, sustainability and community. It does so with a cynical box ticking attitude that undermines effective debate. The use of key words in polite conversation are indicators we are switched-on to modern ideas, but they fail to communicate effective meaning and they sum-up a society that’s at war with itself over a number of social issues and values; is there a dawn of a new age? FLO cert GMBH promises that cotton garments will move to full certification. Perhaps then we can be convinced that when it says fairtrade, we can be sure the entire channel is cool and cares!

Acknowledgements:
| Library of Congress | Oxfam America | Fairtrade Foundation | Traidcraft | FLO cert GMBH |

• Previous Entry: Revolver goes to a Tea Dance and meets some Dragons
• Next Entry: Revolver World: Aiding people with learning disability