CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 188Global trade, sustainability, and social impactManagement and Organizational StudiesOrganic Food and Agriculture

Weak Coffee: Certification and Co-Optation in the Fair Trade Movement

Open access
Daniel Jaffee·2012·Social Problems
DOI 10.1525/sp.2012.59.1.94
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The sociological literature on social movement organizations (SMOs) has come to recognize that under neoliberal globalization many SMOs have moved from an emphasis on the state as the locus of change toward a focus on corpo-rations as targets. This shift has led some SMOs to turn to forms of market-based private regulatory action. The use of one such tactic—voluntary, third-party product certification—has grown substantially, as SMOs seek ways to hold stateless firms accountable. This article explores the case of the international fair trade movement, which aims to change the inequitable terms of global trade in commodities for small farmers, artisans, and waged laborers. Drawing from interviews with a range of fair trade participants, document analysis, and media coverage, the article describes fair trade’s growing relationship with multinational coffee firms, particularly Starbucks and Nestlé. It explores intra-movement conflicts over the terms for and the effects of corporate participation in fair trade, and illuminates tensions between conceptualizations of fair trade as movement, market, and system. The article makes two arguments. First, while fair trade has succeeded partially in reembedding market exchange within systems of social and moral rela-tions, it has also proved susceptible to the power of corporate actors to disembed the alternative through a process of movement co-optation. Second, it argues that co-optation takes a unique form in the context of social movements whose principal tools to achieve social change are certification and labeling: it occurs primarily on the terrain of standards, in the form of weakening or dilution. Keywords: social movements; co-optation; certification; fair trade;

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1525/sp.2012.59.1.94

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Sociological research has established that multinationals like Starbucks and Nestlé effectively co-opted the notion of fair trade.

    “Sociological research has established that this resulted in these multinationals effectively co-opting the notion of fair trade.”

    From Rethinking open source generative AI: open washing and the EU AI Act (2024) · cites this paper as [26]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Friedland, William H. 1994. "The New Globalization: The Case of Fresh Produce." Pp. 210-231 in From Columbus to ConAgra: The Globalization of Food and Agriculture, edited by A. Bonanno, et. al. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
  2. Fung, Archon, Dara O'Rourke, and Charles Sabel. 2001. Can We Put an End to Sweatshops? Boston: Beacon Press.
  3. Starbucks and Transfair USA. 2000. Starbucks and TransFair USA Enter into Breakthrough Alliance to Promote Fair Trade Certified Coffee. Press Release. Oakland, CA and Seattle, WA, April 10.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Jaffee, D.
Corresponding author
Daniel Jaffee
ORCID
Daniel Jaffee
Venue
Social Problems
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2012-02
Volume
59
Issue
1
Pages
94-116
ISSN
  • 0037-7791 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-8533
DOI
10.1525/sp.2012.59.1.94
OpenAlex
W2274736359
Cited by
188
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 2
FWCI
37.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Social Problems (publishedVersion)
  • PDXScholar (Portland State University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Global trade, sustainability, and social impact
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Organic Food and Agriculture
Keywords
fair trade movement, co-optation, social movement organizations, Starbucks, Nestlé, coffee industry, neoliberal globalization, market-based regulation, smallholder farmers, commodity trade

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