The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Who decides what is fair in fair trade? The agri-environmental governance of standards, access, and price
Open accessAbstract
The agri-environmental governance of value chains can favour a Polanyian double movement seeking social protection and control over price setting markets or it can advance a neoliberal logic that strives to overcome the few remaining civic and ecologic obstacles to full market dominance. Coupled with a typology that contrasts corporate social responsibility and social economy Fair Trade models, this theoretical framework elucidates positions in the current policy debates about the minimum coffee price standard. Many Southern smallholders consider Fair Trade's standards, which for coffee include direct market accesses for smallholder cooperatives, minimum prices, and environmental criteria, among the best deals available. The smallholder empowerment benefits are often better than competing eco-labels. However, this study finds that Fair Trade minimum prices lost 41 percent of their real value from 1988 to 2008. Despite objections from several ‘market driven’ firms and national labelling initiatives, smallholders' collective advocacy and this research contributed to the Fairtrade Labelling Organisations International's (FLO) decision to mandate a 7–11 percent minimum price increase. The price debates demonstrate that Fair Trade governance is neither purely neoliberal nor social movement led – it is a highly contested socially embedded practice. Voices without votes, North–South inequalities, and dwindling prices paid to its stated protagonists indicate the need for governance reform, cost of living price adjustments, and additional investment in the innovative alternative trade and hybrid models.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ribot, J. C., & Peluso, N. L. (2003) · Rural Sociology · doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x · Cited by 2,355
Cited by
Kremen, C., Iles, A., & Bacon, C. (2012) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-05103-170444 · Cited by 732
Self-citationTransparency and sustainability in global commodity supply chains
Gardner, T. A., Benzie, M., Börner, J., Dawkins, E., Fick, S., Garrett, R., Godar, J., Grimard, A., Lake, S., Larsen, R. K., et al. (2019) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.025 · Cited by 530
Weak Coffee: Certification and Co-Optation in the Fair Trade Movement
(2012) · Social Problems · doi:10.1525/sp.2012.59.1.94 · Cited by 188
Forests lost and found in tropical Latin America: The woodland ‘green revolution.
Hecht, S. B. (2014) · The Journal of Peasant Studies · doi:10.1080/03066150.2014.917371 · Cited by 109
Garrett, R. D., Carlson, K. M., Rueda, X., & Noojipady, P. (2016) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/045003 · Cited by 88
Metadata
- Authors
- Bacon, C. M.
- Venue
- The Journal of Peasant Studies
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2010-01
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 111-147
- ISSN
- 0306-6150 (ISSN-L)
- 1743-9361
- OpenAlex
- W2015858333
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 47.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Who decides what is fair in fair trade? The agri-environmental governance of standards, access, and price. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/03066150903498796
- The paper
- Bacon, C. M. (2010). Who decides what is fair in fair trade? The agri-environmental governance of standards, access, and price. The Journal of Peasant Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150903498796
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.