Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T11:17:11.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumer willingness to pay for domestic ‘fair trade’: Evidence from the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2008

P.H. Howard  and
P. Allen
P.H. Howard*
Affiliation:
Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
P. Allen
Affiliation:
Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The success of fair trade labels for food products imported from the Global South has attracted interest from producers and activists in the Global North. Efforts are under way to develop domestic versions of fair trade in regions that include the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Fair trade, which is based on price premiums to support agricultural producers and workers in the Global South, has enjoyed tremendous sales growth in the past decade. Will consumers also pay a price premium to improve the conditions of those engaged in agriculture closer to home? To address this question, consumer willingness to pay for food embodying a living wage and safe working conditions for farmworkers was assessed with a national survey in the United States. The question format was a discrete choice (yes/no) response to one of four randomly selected price premiums, as applied to a hypothetical example of a pint of strawberries. Multilevel regression models indicated that respondents were willing to pay a median of 68% more for these criteria, with frequent organic consumers and those who consider the environment when making purchases most willing to pay higher amounts. Although the results should be interpreted with caution, given the well-known gap between expressed attitudes and actual behaviors, we conclude that there is a strong potential market opportunity for domestic fair trade.

Keywords

fair tradedomesticwillingness to payconsumersecolabels
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , September 2008 , pp. 235 - 242
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 TransFair USA. 2005. Annual Report. Available at Web site http://transfairusa.org/content/Downloads/AnnualReport2005.pdfGoogle Scholar
2 Allison, M. 2006. Fair trade coffee begins to heat up mainstream market. The Seattle Times, 20 October 2006. Available at Web site http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003313490_fairtrade20.htmlGoogle Scholar
3 TransFair USA. 2007. Fair Trade Overview. Available at Web site http://transfairusa.org/content/about/overview.phpGoogle Scholar
4 De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L., and Rayp, G. 2005. Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair trade coffee. Journal of Consumer Affairs 39(2):363–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 McCluskey, J.J. and Loureiro, M.L. 2004. Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for food labeling: a discussion of empirical studies. Journal of Food Distribution Research 34(3):95–102.Google Scholar
6 Allen, P. 2004. Together at the Table: Sustainability and Sustenance in the American Agrifood System. Penn State University Press, University Park, PA.Google Scholar
7 Magaña, C.G. and Hovey, J.D. 2003. Psychosocial stressors associated with Mexican migrant farmworkers in the Midwest United States. Journal of Immigrant Health 5(2):75–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8 Mehta, K., Gabbard, S.M., Barrat, V., Lewis, M., Carroll, D., and Mines, R. 2000. Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 1997–1998: A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States Farmworkers. Research Report No. 8. US Department of Labor, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy.Google Scholar
9 Van Riper, T. 2007. America's most dangerous jobs. Forbes, 13 August 2007. Available at Web site http://www.forbes.com/2007/08/13/dangerous-jobs-fishing-lead-careers-cx_tvr_0813danger.htmlGoogle Scholar
10 Compa, L. 2004. Unfair Advantage: Workers' Freedom of Association in the United States under International Human Rights Standards. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
11 Bales, K., Fletcher, L., and Stover, E. 2004. Hidden slaves: Forced labor in the United States. Berkeley Journal of International Law 23(1):47–109.Google Scholar
12 Martin, P. 2006. How we eat. Rural Migration News 13(3). University of California, Davis. Available at Web site http://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/more.php?id=1229_0_5_0Google Scholar
13 Elitzak, H. 2002. Food Marketing and Price Spreads: USDA Market Basket. Available at Web site http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodPriceSpreads/basket/table1.htmGoogle Scholar
14 Naysmith, S. 2003. Fury as UK farmers eye Fairtrade logo; Soil Association argues for. The Sunday Herald, 30 March 2003.Google Scholar
15 Farmer Direct Cooperative. 2004. What is the Fair Deal? Available at Web site http://www.farmerdirect.ca/HtmlPages/FairDeal.htmlGoogle Scholar
16 Jaffee, D., Kloppenburg, J.R., and Monroy, M.B. 2004. Bringing the ‘moral charge’ home: fair trade within the North and within the South. Rural Sociology 69(2):169–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37 Wholesome Harvest. 2007. Domestic Fair Trade. Available at Web site http://www.wholesomeharvest.com/servlet/the-template/domesticfairtrade/PageGoogle Scholar
18 Local Fair Trade Network. 2007. Local Fair Trade Network. Available at Web site http://www.localfairtrade.org/Google Scholar
19 Equal Exchange. 2007. What is Domestic Fair Trade? Available at Web site http://www.equalexchange.com/what-is-domestic-fairtradeGoogle Scholar
20 Domestic Fair Trade Working Group. 2005. Principles of Domestic Fair Trade. Available at Web site http://www.rafiusa.org/programs/DFT.principles.12.05.pdfGoogle Scholar
21 Friedland, W.H. 1998. Review of Strawberry Fields: Politics, Class, and Work in California Agriculture, by Miriam J. Wells. Agriculture and Human Values 15(2):185–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 Mintz, S. 1985. Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. Viking Press, New York.Google Scholar
23 Fadope, C.M. 1997. Conflict in the strawberry fields. Multinational Monitor 18(3):24–25.Google Scholar
24 Arcury, T.A., Quandt, S.A., Barr, D.B., Hoppin, J.A., McCauley, L., Grzywacz, J.G., and Robson, M.G. 2006. Farmworker exposure to pesticides: methodologic issues for the collection of comparable data. Environmental Health Perspectives 114(6):923–928.Google Scholar
25 Villarejo, D. 1997. Five cents for fairness: the UFW strawberry campaign goes public. Rural California Report 5(1):1, 3. California Institute for Rural Studies, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
26 Rodebaugh, D. 2001. UFW signs major contract. San Jose Mercury News, 9 March 2001.Google Scholar
27 Yiridoe, E.K., Bonti-Ankomah, S., and Martin, R.C. 2005. Comparison of consumer perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: a review and update of the literature. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 20(4):193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28 Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
29 Moon, W. and Balasubramanian, S.K. 2003. Willingness to pay for non-biotech foods in the U.S. and U.K. Journal of Consumer Affairs 37(2):317–339.Google Scholar
30 Lusk, J.L. and Hudson, D. 2004. Willingness-to-pay estimates and their relevance to agribusiness decision making. Review of Agricultural Economics 26(2):152–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 Langford, I.H., Bateman, I.J., Jones, A.P., Langford, H.D., and Georgiou, S. 1998. Improved estimation of willingness to pay in dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. Land Economics 74(1):65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32 Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., and Congdon, R. 2004. HLM 6.Google Scholar
33 Honaker, J., King, G., and Blackwell, M. 2007. Amelia II v. 1.1.Google Scholar
34 US Census Bureau. 2007. USA Quickfacts. Available at Web sitehttp://quickfacts.census.govGoogle Scholar
35 Anderson, B. 2006. Beyond Organic. Cooperative Grocer. Available at Web site http://www.cooperativegrocer.coop/articles/index.php?id=699Google Scholar
36 Organic Trade Association. 2006. The Organic Trade Association 2006 Manufacturer Survey Overview. Available at Web site http://www.ota.com/pics/documents/short%20overview%20MMS.pdfGoogle Scholar
37 TransFair USA. 2007. The Fair Trade Beat. April. Available at Web site http://www.transfairusa.org/content/email/ftbeat_april_07.htmlGoogle Scholar
38 Rothernberg, D. 2000. With These Hands: The Hidden World of Migrant Farmworkers Today. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
39 Vogeler, I. 1981. The Myth of the Family Farm: Agribusiness Dominance of U.S. Agriculture. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
40 Vermeier, I. and Verbeke, W. 2006. Sustainable food consumption: exploring the consumer ‘attitude–behavioral intention’ gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19(2):169–194.Google Scholar
41 List, J.A. and Gallet, C.A. 2001. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environmental and Resource Economics 20(3):241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42 Krier, J.-M. 2001. Fair Trade in Europe 2001: Facts and Figures on the Fair Trade sector in 18 European countries. EFTA, Maastricht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
43 Allen, P. and Kovach, M. 2000. The capitalist composition of organic: the potential of markets in fulfilling the promise of sustainable agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 17(3):221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44 Guthman, J. 2004. Agrarian Dreams: The Paradox of Organic Farming in California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
45 Lyon, S. 2006. Evaluating fair trade consumption: politics, defetishization and producer participation. International Journal of Consumer Studies 30(5):452–464.Google Scholar
46 Stevens-Garmon, J., Huang, C.L., and Lin, B.-H. 2007. Organic demand: a profile of consumers in the fresh produce market. Choices 22(2):109–116.Google Scholar
47 Jaffee, D. 2007. Brewing Justice: Fair Trade Coffee, Sustainability, and Survival. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
48 Raynolds, L.T., Murray, D., and Taylor, P.L. 2004. Fair trade coffee: building producer capacity via global networks. Journal of International Development 16(8):1109–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49 Getz, C. and Shreck, A. 2006. What organic and Fair Trade labels do not tell us: towards a place-based understanding of certification. International Journal of Consumer Studies 30(5):490–501.Google Scholar