Introduction
For decades, social and sustainability enterprises and entrepreneurship (SSEE) have been on the rise (Economist, 2009; Ganz, Kay & Spicer, 2018; Spicer, Kay & Ganz, 2019). Many SSEEs engage the principles of Fair Trade in their mission statements, business models, and/or marketing. Fair trade principles are thus moving far from their flagship sectors of coffee, tea, cocoa and handicrafts. Today, ‘Fair Tade’ is emerging in sectors as diverse as software (Ramautar, Overbeek & España, 2021; Were, Madeley & Munsell, 2020); mobile phones (Haucke, 2018; Wernink & Strahl, 2015); carbon trading (Howard, Tallontire, Stringer & Marchant, 2015; Howard, Tallontire, Stringer & Marchant, 2016); gold mining (Hilson & Kamlongera, 2012; Fisher & Childs, 2014; Hilson, Gillani & Kutaula, 2018; Sippl, 2020); and mineral production (Hilson, 2014).
Alongside the rise of SSEEs, there is a second trend emerging: a proliferation of attention to alternative frameworks for how to make trade and business more fair. Among these are: sustainable development (Tallontire & Anderson, 2020), direct trade (Gerard, Lopez & McCright, 2019), creating shared value (Porter & Kramer, 2011), ESG (environmental, social and governance; Louche, Delautre & Balvedi Pimentel, 2023), value chain profit sharing (Bennett & Grabs, 2024), conflict-free commodities (Kim & Davis, 2016) and organic or regenerative agriculture (Mook & Overdevest, 2021). Each of these frameworks has a different relationship to fairness and Fair Trade. For example, some address inclusive decision-making or long-term business relationships more directly or robustly than others.
For advocates of Fair Trade, these concurrent trends are both an opportunity and a challenge (Millard, 2021). On one hand, a greater number of SSEEs in new sectors means more opportunities for the Fair Trade movement to share its seventy-five years of best practices. There is tremendous potential for information dissemination and movement building. On the other hand, ‘ethical business’ is now a crowded field, in which fair trade faces the formidable challenge of distinguishing itself.
The research presented in this article addresses the question: To what extent do SSEEs in distant sectors engage the principles of Fair Trade?
‘Distant’ sectors
This article introduces the term ‘distant’ to describe sectors that are not closely networked with Fair Trade organizations, not sold by retailers that offer other Fair Trade products, and not purchased by institutions that sometimes privilege Fair Trade (e.g. universities), and/or have little in common with popular Fair Trade products. A sector may exhibit all, some, or none of these characteristics. A sector that exhibits all of these characteristics is extremely distant from the Fair Trade movement. A sector that exhibits only one of these characteristics is ‘closer’ to Fair Trade.
Some examples of distant sectors include software, mobile phones, carbon trading, gold and precious minerals. Software and mobile phones both seem to exhibit all four characteristics and are thus extremely distant from Fair Trade (Wernink & Strahl, 2015; Haucke, 2018; Were et al., 2020; Ramautar et al., 2021). In contrast, carbon trading, mining and minerals, each have some, but not all, of these characteristics, and are thus closer to Fair Trade. Fair trade carbon has been developed in close collaboration with Fair Trade organizations but has little in common with traditional Fair Trade products and would not be sold by retailers who offer other Fair Trade products (Howard et al., 2015; Howard et al., 2016). Fair Trade gold was similarly developed with Fair Trade collaboration, and may be available where Fair Trade jewellery is sold, but it is mined and thus distinct from the agricultural and manufacturing sectors typically associated with Fair Trade (Hilson & Kamlongera, 2012; Fisher & Childs, 2014; Hilson et al., 2018; Sippl, 2020). Finally, Fair Trade precious minerals and stones have not been closely networked with Fair Trade organizations and are mined like gold, yet they may be sold by shops offering Fair Trade jewellery (on rubies, see Hilson, 2014).
Cannabis as a ‘distant’ sector
This research examines how SSEEs engage in Fair Trade principles in distant sectors through a case study of legal cannabis in the United States. Cannabis is distant from Fair Trade because it exhibits all four of the aforementioned characteristics. First, cannabis is rarely engaged by Fair Trade organizations or companies because they want to avoid legal and/or reputational risk (Bennett, 2017a, 2019). It is thus ineligible for certifications that Fair Trade organizations make available to other products (Bennett, 2019). Second, cannabis is not sold by experienced Fair Trade retailers because it is only available in licensed dispensaries. Third, cannabis is not procured by governments, religious organizations or universities (Bennett, 2018, 2021). Fourth, there are several ways in which it is dissimilar from traditional Fair Trade products. For example, cannabis is not internationally traded, and is often compared to tobacco and pharmaceuticals, which have limited linkages to Fair Trade (Stoa, 2018; Kay, Jelsma & Bewley-Tayler, 2020; Otañez & Vergara, 2022; Wakefield, Glantz & Apollonio, 2022).
Despite these differences, cannabis is not as distant as other sectors because it shares some characteristics with traditional Fair Trade products. One similarity is that it is agricultural, which makes it similar to the core Fair Trade products of coffee, bananas, and tea. Additionally, it is sometimes compared to food (Bennett, 2017a; Coulter, 2022). Lastly, cannabis is at times compared to alcohol (Bennett, 2019), a sector that increasingly engages in sustainability and Fair Trade (on wine, see Staricco & Ponte, 2015; Herman, 2021). For these reasons, cannabis may be more likely to be ‘earmarked’ for Fair Trade (Bennett, 2017a, 2019), and thus slightly closer to Fair Trade than other distant sectors.
Outline
The article proceeds as follows: First, it introduces the Fair Trade movement and describes previous research on how SSEEs engage in Fair Trade in both close and distant sectors. Second, it introduces the cannabis sector and summarizes previous studies on how cannabis SSEEs engage in social and sustainability issues. Third, it describes the design of this empirical research, which draws on qualitative data from three sources: 1) advertisements from three cannabis magazines, 2) 18,000 words of fieldnotes from 19 public and industry events, and 3) 8,000 words of fieldnotes from structured visits to 85 cannabis dispensaries (a random sample of half of Portland’s legal retailers). Fourth, it offers the results of a mixed-method analysis of these data, revealing the ways in which cannabis SSEEs engage the principles of Fair Trade. Fifth, it examines which Fair Trade principles travelled to the distant sector of cannabis, and explains how these findings validate, challenge or extend extant research. The article concludes by presenting the overall argument, discussing what should be considered when generalizing these findings to other distant sectors, identifying questions for future research, and offering implications for the Fair Trade movement.
Overall, this research raises the concern that distant sectors may not engage some of the principles that are at the heart of Fair Trade. These include transparency, accountability, honouring contracts, pre-payment, collaborative price-setting, inclusive governance, support for worker organizing and safeguarding against forced and child labour. At the same time, it points to several ways in which SSEEs do engage in Fair Trade principles (at least in rhetoric). SSEEs seem to be attentive to the environment and to ‘buy-cotting’ (privileging) small-scale producers, sustainable businesses and companies owned by marginalized groups. This research raises questions about how the Fair Trade movement can empower SSEEs in distant sectors to engage all principles of Fair Trade, especially those related to its core mission of justice in trade relationships.
Literature
The Fair Trade concept and movement
‘As a concept, Fair Trade refers to a critique of the historical inequalities inherent in international trade and to a belief that trade can be made more socially just’ (Raynolds & Bennett, 2015, p. 3). As an objective, Fair Trade puts social justice and sustainable development at the heart of trade relationships, business models and economic practices (Bennett, 2020). An economy marked by Fair Trade is one in which ‘everyone, through their work, can maintain a decent and dignified livelihood and develop their full human potential’ (WFTO/FI, 2009).
The global Fair Trade movement emerged in the wake of World War II, as individuals and civil society organizations took an interest in leveraging consumer power to support communities disadvantaged by trade injustice (Anderson, 2015; van Dam, 2015; Reed 2021). Although the early Fair Trade movement was closely tied to religious and political organizations, today it includes many other groups, including consumers, businesses, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), faith groups, consumer advocacy networks and others committed to putting these ideas into motion (Huybrechts, 2010; Jaffee & Howard, 2015; Fair Trade Movement, 2018).
Two of the largest and most influential Fair Trade organizations are Fairtrade International and the World Fair Trade Organization (WFTO). Fairtrade International creates standards for the certification of Fairtrade products such as coffee, cocoa and tea. The WFTO is a membership organization for Fair Trade enterprises. Its members complete self-assessment reports and pass audits to verify that they are ‘truly purpose driven and that Fair Trade practices are implemented in the supply chain and practices of the whole enterprise’ (WFTO, 2024). Its 409 members are located in 76 countries across the world (WFTO, 2022). Although its perspective is one of many (Bennett, 2012), the WFTO self-identifies as a ‘global authority’ and ‘guardian’ of Fair Trade values (WFTO, 2018).
Fair trade principles and practices
Fair trade organizations have generated many definitions, principles, best practices and criteria for evaluation (Howard et al., 2016). In 2009, the WFTO and Fairtrade International, in consultation with other actors, published a ‘charter’ describing the Fair Trade vision that has since become a common reference document for the Fair Trade movement (Fridell, Gross & McHugh, 2021; Raynolds & Bennett, 2015; WFTO/FI, 2009). Drawing on the charter and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (Tallontire & Anderson, 2020), the WFTO generated ‘10 principles of Fair Trade’.
The WFTO’s principles ‘specify the ways that Fair Trade Enterprises are set up and behave to ensure they put people and the planet first’ (WFTO, 2023, see Appendix A). The WFTO believes that
By embracing our Fair Trade principles, businesses become integral practitioners and pioneers in the collective effort to realise the SDGs and create positive, lasting impacts on a global scale.
(2023)
It not only aims to support existing Fair Trade SSEEs, but also ‘inspire the creation of entirely new ones’ (Fridell et al., 2021, p. 217). Fair Trade organizations disseminate Fair Trade principles by educating the public and providing guidance to SSEEs. The movement’s outreach initiatives include Fair Trade Towns, Fair Trade Universities, Fair Trade Faith Groups and Fair Trade Fortnight (Lamb, 2008; Lyon, 2014; Discetti & Anderson, 2022; Seagrave, Hughes & Regan, 2023).
SSEEs and the principles of Fair Trade
A robust literature examines how SSEEs in close sectors engage the principles of Fair Trade. Scholarship suggests that some SSEEs make modest changes to traditional business models while others take a more radical or innovative approach (Raynolds, Murray & Wilkinson, 2007; Balsiger, 2019); SSEEs navigate the paradoxes and competing logics inherent in combining profit with social mission (Mason & Doherty, 2015; Chell, Spence, Perrini & Harris, 2016; Nicholls & Huybrechts, 2016); SSEEs struggle to engage Fair Trade principles while competing against profit-oriented companies (Child, 2012; Brown, 2013); SSEEs challenge or reify traditional power dynamics, such as North/South dependency (Keahey & Murray, 2017); SSEEs benefit from the support of Fair Trade organizations (Davies, 2009); SSEEs market their engagement with FT principles in ways that can highlight innovation (Davies, Doherty & Knox, 2010) or overstate efficacy (fairwash) (Bennett, 2017b); and SSEEs innovate strategies for engaging specific Fair Trade principles, such as integrating smallholders into value chains in more inclusive ways (Doherty & Kittipanya-Ngam, 2021).
Research suggests that individual SSEEs may engage some principles of Fair Trade but not others, and that SSEEs (as a group) may engage some principles of Fair Trade more than others. For example, SSEEs may attend to environmental objectives more than social goals (Grabs, 2020); focus on traceability and transparency more than equitable distribution of profits (Borrella, Mataix & Carrasco-Gallego, 2015); or privilege issues of horizontal power dynamics (e.g. relations among smallholder farmers) over vertical equity (e.g. relations between smallholder farmers and traders) (Keahey & Murray, 2017). Extant studies also note that SSEEs may engage other guiding frameworks, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals, as substitutes or complements to the principles of Fair Trade (Tallontire & Anderson, 2020).
Although scholars highlight the importance of understanding which specific principles of Fair Trade or sustainable development SSEEs prioritize, they also identify this as a current gap in the literature (Seelos & Mair, 2005; Hojnik & Crnogaj, 2020; Cardella, Hernández-Sánchez, Monteiro & Sánchez-García, 2021).
SSEEs in distant sectors and the principles of Fair Trade
A small body of research examines how SSEEs in distant sectors engage the principles of Fair Trade. Most examine a single or small number of SSEEs, making it difficult to identify sector-level dynamics.
Two distant sectors that have been researched are software and mobile phones. Both have few connections to Fair Trade organizations, have few similarities with traditional Fair Trade products, are unlikely to be sold by Fair Trade retailers, and are unlikely to be procured by institutions that at times privilege Fair Trade. In the software sector, principles of Fair Trade are being engaged in relation to outsourcing. The social enterprise Fair Trade Software aims to not only create jobs for workers in the South, but also support capacity-building, knowledge sharing and skills transfer (Were et al., 2020; Ramautar et al., 2021). In the mobile phone sector, the social enterprise Fairphone engages principles of Fair Trade though sourcing conflict-free minerals, working with recycled materials, designing for sustainability, developing transparent supply chains and improving working conditions (Wernink & Strahal, 2015; Haucke, 2018).
There have also been some studies of sectors that are engaged with Fair Trade organizations but distant from the Fair Trade movement in other ways. This research tends to focus on the relationships between Fair Trade organizations and sector-specific actors (Howard et al., 2015; Hilson et al., 2018; Sippl, 2020). Research on the ruby sector suggests that without Fair Trade organization guidance, SSEEs are likely to engage the Fair Trade principles promoted by alternative frameworks, such as the anti-corruption and traceability priorities of the global mining development agenda (Hilson, 2014). Research on artisanal and small-scale gold mining similarly suggests that SSEEs are likely to address the Fair Trade principles most pressing for the sector, such as amalgam leaching in gold mines (Sippl, 2020), and less likely to engage the principle of including the most vulnerable and/or marginalized groups (Hilson et al., 2018). Finally, research on fair carbon (for carbon-trading schemes) shows how SSEEs may engage some Fair Trade principles more broadly in rhetoric than action (Howard et al., 2016) as is the case with land security (Howard et al., 2015)
Overall, extant research suggests that some SSEEs in distant sectors engage in some principles of Fair Trade. It also points to three factors that may influence which Fair Trade principles are engaged: support from Fair Trade organizations (Sippl, 2020; Howard et al., 2016); priorities of alternative guiding frameworks (Hilson, 2014); and sectoral and community dynamics where principles are implemented (Fisher & Childs, 2014).
Context
The global cannabis market
Cannabis is the most widely supplied and commonly demanded illicit substance in the world. It is grown and/or sold in almost every country, with an estimated 2.5% of the global population consuming it (WHO, 2024). At the same time, cannabis remains an internationally ‘controlled’ substance, meaning it is illegal under international law, with exceptions for medicine and science. Beginning in the 1990s, several countries and subnational regions (e.g. states or provinces) complicated the legal status of cannabis by relaxing restrictions. Initially, the new regulations aimed to facilitate access for medical purposes. More recently, however, they aim to facilitate broader access for non-specified purposes. This is commonly referred to as the legal ‘adult-use’ or ‘recreational’ market. Today, at least two dozen countries have loosened regulations at the national or subnational level, and two countries (Canada and Uruguay) have moved toward full national legalization (MBD, 2018; Glass & Robinson, 2022).
The US legal adult-use cannabis sector
In the United States, where the research for this study took place, the legal cannabis market is large and growing. As of 2024, 23 states, two territories and the national capital have legalized the adult-use cannabis market (NCSL, 2023). In 2022, annual US legal cannabis sales reached USD 30 billion (Reiman, Morrissey, Mann & Watkins, 2023). They are projected to exceed USD 70 billion by 2030 (Reiman et al., 2023). For comparison, organic food sales in the US reached 60 billion for the first time in 2022 (OTA, 2023).
Cannabis regulations differ by state. In the state of Oregon, growing operations, processing facilities and retail stores are all privately owned and licensed by the state. Growers are permitted to cultivate cannabis indoors or outdoors, and must test their product at licensed laboratories to verify content claims (e.g. THC and CBD) and screen for pesticide residue. In this context, the degree to which supply chains are vertically integrated varies greatly. Figure 1 presents several possibilities, showing how some are more integrated than others.
Social and sustainability issues in cannabis
The US legal cannabis sector interfaces with many social and sustainability issues (Corva & Meisel, 2022). It not only faces the market pressures and perverse incentives that impact all sectors, but also distinctive problems generated by the legacies of prohibition and shortcomings of re-regulation. For example, many are acutely aware of racial injustice caused by the racially charged US War on Drugs (Hudack, 2016; Polson, 2022a); social, economic and environmental injustices caused by disrupting prohibition-era markets and community systems (Polson & Bodwitch, 2021; Kay, 2022; Polson 2022a); and environmental injustices and damages caused by both legal and illegal production under unsustainable regulations (Wartenberg et al., 2021; Mills, 2022; Kay, 2022; Hsu, 2023).
A growing literature on social and sustainability issues in the US legal cannabis sector details challenges related to the environment, socio-economics and fair business. Environmental issues include land use (Parker-Shames, Bodwitch, Brashares & Butsic, 2023); water use (Dillis, Butsic, Georgakakos, Portugal & Grantham, 2023); energy use (Mills, 2012, 2021; Kay, 2022); wildlife (Parker-Shames et al., 2020); pesticides (Smith McCann, 2022); pollution (Polson, 2019); aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity (Parker-Shames et al., 2021); and recycling and waste management (Kay, 2022). Socio-economic issues include environmental justice (Kay, 2022); racial justice (Kaufman Rogers, 2022; Polson, 2022b; Reiman, 2022), land rights (Polson, 2013), worker health and safety (Schenker & Langer, 2022; Smith McCann, 2022), unfair wages (Smith McCann, 2022), gender (Kaufman Rogers, 2022); and labour exploitation (Otañez, 2022), especially of migrant workers (Polson, 2022a). Finally, fair business issues include competition between small, local, family farms and large, investor-owned businesses (Stoa, 2018; Bodwitch et al., 2019), as well as challenges with intellectual property rights (Stoa, 2018).
These challenges are not unique to the United States. Social and sustainability issues in cannabis have also been examined in the Caribbean (Kay, 2022; Wanke, Sandberg, Macit, & Gülerce, 2022); South Africa (Moore, 2023); Morocco (Kay, 2022); Canada (Hathaway & Smith, 2022); Denmark (Avila, 2021); and countries throughout Latin America (Pereira, 2022). Across contexts, the cannabis sector is marked by both the social and sustainability problems typical of any agricultural sector as well as issues related to prohibition, legalization, and drug culture (Moore, 2023).
Public policies and mandatory regulations have the potential, of course, to support social goals and sustainable outcomes in cannabis. The US State of New Jersey, for example, aims to ‘help repair the damage done to people and neighbourhoods that were marginalized and subjected to mass criminalization during cannabis prohibition’. It does so by prioritizing businesses owned by people in economically disadvantaged areas or convicted of cannabis-related offences in the cannabis business licensing process (Carr, 2023). At the same time, it is clear that the existing regulatory framework is not sufficient to bring the sector into alignment with desirable social and sustainability outcomes (Mills, 2022).
Social and sustainability issues in the (potential) global cannabis market
The recent trend toward legalization has raised attention to the possibility that international law may at some point permit international trade in cannabis (e.g. Gilchrist, 2023). Globally, most cannabis is cultivated illegally, outdoors and in the South (Kay, 2022). Similar to other agricultural sectors, this type of small-scale sustenance production has limited adverse impacts on sustainable development. As Kay (2022) describes, in the South, small growers cultivating for local, traditional, medicinal and ceremonial use typically engage in cultivation methods that are well-adapted to local climatological conditions and have ‘hardly any environmental impacts’ (Kay, 2022, p. 35). In the North, however, both legal and illegal production is shifting to indoor facilities with mechanized lights and humidity control, which consume energy and produce waste (Kay, 2022). A transition to a global market may not only incentivize these less-sustainable practices, but also create market pressures that privilege larger and/or investor-owned businesses over small-scale, sustainable farmers (Decorte & Potter, 2015; Kay et al., 2020). For these reasons, it seems likely that a globalized cannabis market would bring the concept of Fair Trade to the fore (Mills, 2022, p. 4)
Cannabis SSEEs and the principles of Fair Trade
A modest body of scholarship has emerged on the topic of cannabis and Fair Trade. A series of publications by Kay, Jelsma and Bewley-Taylor explore how Fair Trade principles may apply to a global cannabis market, should international trade become legal. As summarized in Figure 2, they show how Fair Trade in cannabis would centre on the socio-economic needs and interests of small and/or traditional growers from producing countries in the Global South (Jelsma, Kay & Bewley-Taylor, 2019; Bewley-Taylor, Jelsma & Kay, 2020; Kay et al., 2020). They also argue that these principles could be applied to domestic cannabis markets by empowering ethnic minorities who have been ‘disproportionately affected by drug law enforcement’ such as Black and Latinx communities in the United States (Bewley-Taylor et al., 2020, p. 112).
Application of Fair Trade principles to the potential future, legal global cannabis market
*These first-order principles first appeared in Jelsma, Martin, Sylvia Kay, & David Bewley-Taylor. 2019. ‘Fair(Er) trade options for the cannabis market’. Policy Paper 1, Cannabis Innovate (Swansea University and Equinox International).
Figure reproduced, with permission, from Kay, Sylvia, Martin Jelsma, & David Bewley-Taylor. 2020. ‘Fair trade cannabis: A road map for meeting the socio-economic needs and interests of small and traditional growers’. Journal of Fair Trade, 2(1), 27. doi: 10.13169/jfairtrade.2.1.0027
Several studies find that SSEEs and others are already applying the concept of Fair Trade to cannabis. In the Caribbean, Kay (2022) describes how cannabis growers in six countries organized the 2019 ‘Fair Trade Cannabis Working Group’ to advocate for policies that promote sustainability, climate change, environmental stewardship, social equity, and environmental justice. In Canada, Coulter (2022) describes how Fair Trade principles have emerged alongside principles of seasonal, regenerative, organic and slow food. In Mendocino County (California), Stoa (2018) describes how appellations (akin to the wine industry) emerged to protect and promote small-scale farmers in micro-regions, as Fair Trade initiatives aim to do.
In Portland, Oregon, where this research took place, previous research found that cannabis SSEEs commonly engaged in issues related to the environment, organic production, small growers and local supply chains. Most retailers offered products that they deemed to be more socially just or environmentally friendly than what is mandated by law. However, far fewer SSEEs engaged in social issues. When they did, ‘social’ was almost always vaguely defined and occasionally referenced working conditions or fair pay. Retailers were less aware of SSEEs’ engagement with social issues than environmental problems, even though most sold products labelled as ‘sustainable’. Some SSEEs reported more resistance to addressing social issues than environmental problems (Bennett, 2017a).
Studies of cannabis sustainability certifications in the United States similarly show that SSEEs developing sustainability standards give more attention to environmental issues than social issues. Almost all focus on soil, energy, and water. Additionally some examine carbon footprint, pesticide testing, and waste management. Only a few focus on social issues, social justice, or worker health/safety. All of the standards aimed to support sustainable business, build community, and educate consumers. The standards for environmental issues were more rigorous, better enforced, and faced less resistance from growers (Bennett, 2019, 2021).
Research on CSR among large cannabis companies similarly finds some engagement with Fair Trade principles. In a study of CSR among large, publicly traded cannabis companies in the US and Canada, Wakefield and colleagues (2022) found engagement with sustainability, job training, worker organizing, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) (Wakefield et al., 2022). In a study of CSR in two large US cannabis companies, Otañez and Vergara (2022) found engagement with environmental issues, labour rights, living wages, unionization, sustainability and advocacy for pro-labour public policy (Otañez & Vergara, 2022). They also interview a CSR consultant for cannabis who reports on sustainability and decent work (as well as other issues). Interestingly, in a study of ESG investing in cannabis, Mills (2022) found that some investors considered the sector antithetical to Fair Trade principles, classifying cannabis companies as ‘sin stocks’ or including them in ‘anti-ESG’ funds focused on gambling, alcohol, and pharmaceuticals (Mills, 2022).
Overall, the literature suggests that when SSEEs and other actors in cannabis engage the name, concept, or principles of Fair Trade, they focus on prioritizing marginalized groups and small-scale producers, addressing injustice and inequality, supporting workers’ rights, and encouraging sustainable production. This study builds on and furthers this body of research by systematically enumerating the principles of Fair Trade and evaluating the extent to which each is engaged by SSEEs in Fair Trade.
Cannabis as distinct from other distant sectors
As described above and summarized in Table 1, the cannabis sector has many features that may distinguish it from other distant sectors. Some features may increase the likelihood that cannabis SSEEs will engage with specific principles of Fair Trade. These include the sector’s emergence from a justice-oriented social movement (Bennett, 2018), its foundation of strong community ties and resilience (Polson & Bodwitch, 2021), and its history of injustice and marginalization (Himmelstein, 2020). Additionally, since cannabis is sold at retail shops where consumers must talk to employees to place an order, it may be easier for SSEEs to engage in the educational principles of Fair Trade (Bennett, 2019).
On one hand, some features specific to cannabis may decrease the likelihood that cannabis SSEEs will engage with the principles of Fair Trade. Legal cannabis is new and many people are not yet well-informed (Kay et al., 2020, p. 33), so efforts to educate consumers may crowd out efforts to connect to Fair Trade principles. Cannabis is highly regulated (Bennett, 2017a; Fertig, 2019), so efforts to navigate mandatory standards may crowd out initiatives to engage Fair Trade standards. Cannabis is sometimes stigmatized as antithetical to ethics or values (Bennett, 2017a, 2019; Mills, 2022), making it more challenging to develop linkages with Fair Trade principles (Bennett, 2017a, 2018). Cannabis regulations vary greatly among states and local jurisdictions, so it may be more challenging to develop widely applicable best practices or disseminate ideas to new places (Otañez & Vergara, 2022). Finally, cannabis is at times compared to tobacco and alcohol, which also have strong cultures of marketing and complex relationships with ethics, so it may reflect the dynamics of those sectors in addition to Fair Trade principles (Wakefield et al., 2022).
Fair trade in the United States
Most people in the United States are aware of Fair Trade, though product sales lag compared to Europe (Pavlovskaia & Kara, 2022). Fair Trade certification organizations estimate that 59% are aware of Fair Trade-certified products (FTUSA, 2016) and 61% recognize the Fairtrade mark (Fairtrade America, 2023). At the same time, studies suggest that very few people can define Fair Trade, relate it to other concepts or describe how it works (Bennett, 2023). As one researcher argues, even those who purchase Fair Trade coffee ‘know little to nothing about Fair Trade’ (Brown, 2013, p. 27). In the United States, sustainability is often excluded from higher education (Augustine & King, 2019) and most university students report that they do not learn about Fair Trade in the classroom (Lyon, Ailshire & Sehon, 2014).
Research Design
Concepts and empirical indicators
This research studies how SSEEs engage with Fair Trade principles. ‘SSEEs’ are individuals or organizations oriented around social and/or sustainability objectives, or supplying products oriented around social and/or sustainability objectives. Examples of SSEEs in the cannabis industry include a small cannabis grower practising permaculture, a large cannabis chocolatier sourcing Fair Trade cocoa and sugar, and a worker-owned cannabis retailer practising cooperative management. In this study, ‘engagement’ refers to actions or discourse related to Fair Trade principles. It includes: taking action or talking about their own and others’ actions aimed at making business more fair; recognizing opportunities that they (or others) have to make business more fair; registering the ways in which they (or others) contribute to making business unfair; and identifying gaps between their own (or others’) claims to make business more fair and actions to put those claims into practice. Here, ‘Fair Trade principles’ refers to the Fair Trade movement’s commitments and objectives. This research draws on the WFTO’s description of its ‘10 principles of Fair Trade’ (Appendix A) to develop 29 empirical indicators, as displayed in Table 2.
Data
To assess SSEEs’ engagement with the 29 indicators of Fair Trade, this study analyzed their discourse at industry and public events, the packaging and marketing of their products, their advertisements in magazines 1 and retailers’ accounts of their products and practices. As Otañez and Vergara (2022) suggest, the complexity of the cannabis regulatory environment creates such diverse approaches to business, in general, that any assessment of corporate social responsibility in this context should engage multiple sources of data and multiple methods of analysis. Data for this project were collected in collaboration with four research assistants in Portland, Oregon, in May 2019, three years after legal cannabis sales began. Researchers attended 15 industry-facing events and four public-facing events that appeared likely to attract SSEEs and/or focus on Fair Trade principles. About 18,000 words of fieldnotes were recorded. Researchers also reviewed three cannabis magazines for advertisements relating to Fair Trade principles. Thirty-three advertisements were identified. Finally, researchers visited a random sample of half of Portland’s 178 cannabis retailers, conducting a structured interview with an employee and taking note of branding and marketing materials related to Fair Trade principles. Around 8,000 words of fieldnotes were recorded. (Additional details about data sources and collection methods are provided in Appendix B.)
Methods of analysis
The three data sets (events, advertisements, and visits) were provisionally coded using the 29 indicators of Fair Trade principles. Drawing on insights from this process, the codes were revised and organized into four themes: A) the environment; B) social and economic justice; C) fair business; and D) public education and mobilization. Codes in the ‘social and economic justice’ theme were additionally sorted into three sub-topics: building an inclusive economy, facilitating decent work, and safeguarding the well-being of workers and suppliers (Table 3). At this stage, new coding guidelines were also developed (Appendix C) and the data were re-coded to improve reliability and refine analysis. Quantitative methods were used to evaluate the extent to which entrepreneurs engaged each empirical indicator. Qualitative methods were used to draw out the ways in which entrepreneurs engaged each indicator. Results are presented in the following section.
Limitations and shortcomings
This research design has several shortcomings. First, it evaluates SSEEs’ engagement with Fair Trade principles by analyzing what SSEEs market and advertise (what they say about themselves), and what journalists and others in the industry report about them. These data may be less reliable than first-hand observations (e.g. growers’ environmental practices) or documents (e.g. worker wages on payroll documents) and are likely to overestimate engagement. Second, the validity of data from retail visits may be compromised by dispensary workers’ limited knowledge of cannabis and/or Fair Trade, motivation to sell products, or feelings about discussing these topics with customers (Bennett, 2017a, 2019). Reliability of these data may be hampered by researchers’ limited memories when recording fieldnotes. Third, events were excluded from the study if they seemed unlikely to engage principles of Fair Trade, which may result in an underestimate of engagement. Finally, the sample size of magazines is small and may also result in an underestimate of engagement.
Case Study
The results of this research are summarized in Table 4. The table is organized by the four themes: environment, social and economic justice, public education and mobilization, and fair business. It shows what advertisements, events and retailers suggest about the extent to which SSEEs engage with each empirical indicator of the Fair Trade principles. As described above, ‘engagement’ refers to actions or discourse about Fair Trade principles. It does not mean success in achieving Fair Trade objectives. The table shows that entrepreneurs engaged in environmental issues more than social and economic justice, fair business practices, or public education, although all four themes were engaged to some extent. These results, complemented by findings of the qualitative analysis, are presented in more detail below.
Theme A: Principles related to the environment
26. Adopts practices (and supports other entities that adopt practices) that conserve natural resources, protect biodiversity and/or reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Almost every advertisement and retailer and about two-thirds of events engaged with environmental issues.
Of the 33 advertisements relevant to Fair Trade principles, 31 (94%) communicated a commitment to the environment. The advertisements most commonly focused on ‘organic’ (15 advertisements, or 48%), followed by ‘Clean Green’ or ‘Certified Kind’ certified (7 advertisements, or 23%). These are voluntary sustainability certification programmes that aim to apply National Organic Program standards to cannabis, since the US Department of Agriculture cannot issue standards for illicit crops. 2 While both non-governmental certifications have social criteria, they are not as strong or as well enforced as the environmental criteria (Bennett, 2019). At an event, one certification founder reported that the Fair Trade movement would not endorse their certification for this reason. Other claims include ‘sun-grown’, ‘sustainable’, ‘biodynamic’, ‘eco-friendly’ (or -conscious, or -sensitive), ‘minimal environmental impacts’, ‘hyper-organic’, ‘carbon neutral’, ‘vegan’ and ‘veganic’.
Of the 13 events relevant to Fair Trade principles, eight (62%) communicated a commitment to the environment. Several growers described adopting practices related to clean energy, permaculture, organic inputs, and waste management and use. A chocolate company and a retailer both described their commitment to sourcing from environmentally oriented growers, and an entrepreneur developed an online marketplace for products certified as sustainable. One company was certified as a B-Corp, which includes environmental commitments, and two companies used USDA organic-certified hemp.
Of the 85 retailers visited, all but three were aware of products or companies that adopted practices aimed at improving the cannabis sector’s environmental impact. For those 82 retailers (96%), the most common theme was ‘organic’ (35 retailers). Other common themes included: pesticides, soil health, sun/energy, vegan and reusable/biodegradable/recycled packaging. Many retailers made vague claims such as ‘sustainable’ or ‘environmentally friendly’. Certifications were mentioned by 67 of the 85 retailers (79%), with 60 retailers (71% of 85) referring to ‘Clean Green’ and/or ‘Certified Kind’, and three inaccurately asserting that Oregon State certifies all legal cannabis as organic.
Retailers almost always mentioned products’ environmental attributes, but almost never mentioned their engagement with social issues. For example, one retail employee offered to share researchers’ request for ‘organic, environmentally friendly’ products with management, but did not acknowledge the request for socially responsible products.
The data do not suggest that SSEEs engage with this principle.
Theme B: Principles related to social justice and economic viability
27. Adopts practices (and supports other entities that adopt practices) that are socially just and/or economically viable
Of the 33 advertisements that engaged Fair Trade principles, seven (21%) demonstrated principles of social justice and/or economic viability by identifying the business as sustainable, equitable, or socially conscious; or identifying it with one of the sub-topics described below. Of the 13 events that engaged Fair Trade principles, seven (54%) included discourse on principles of social justice or economic viability. Most of the entrepreneurs’ engagement relates to one of the sub-topics and is described below. One exception is a company identifying as a B-Corp, which requires some socially oriented practices. Additionally, at one event, the representative of a sustainability certification said that ‘growers want to do social justice work but do not know what to do’. Of the 85 retailers visited, 18 (21%) described companies or products that relate to social justice or economic viability. In addition to engaging the sub-topics below, two referred to ‘socially responsible’ practices and five identified growers who ‘treat workers well’ or farms where people ‘are happy’.
Social and economic justice: Building an inclusive economy
One advertisement identified a company as ‘ worker-owned’. Event data revealed a confectioner who supports women-ownership, an entrepreneur who teaches growers to use cannabis technologies for sustenance food farming, and a network to support minority business ownership. Two retailers supported women-owned farms.
Results for this principle overlap with the previous one: a confectioner sourcing from women growers, an entrepreneur incubating minority-owned businesses, and five retailers supporting or suggesting that consumers support women-owned farms.
At an event, a grower reported that their certification is exclusively available to small growers, and the founder of a business incubator reported that they aim to support small start-ups. Two retailers said they support small businesses or ‘mom-and-pop farms’. The term ‘small’ was never qualified.
28. Adopts practices (and supports other entities that adopt practices) that conserve indigenous territories and strengthen cultural landscapes
One retailer reported that one of the certifications prohibits people who are not Native Americans from cultivating cannabis on land that was previously inhabited by Native Americans. However, a review of the written standard and conversation with the certification’s founder revealed that although the certification prohibits it in principle, it does not prohibit it in practice. Although the standard prohibits cultivation on native land, the standard itself is not verified by auditors and there are no sanctions for non-compliance.
Social and economic justice: Safeguarding the wellbeing of workers and suppliers
Event data revealed several growers use their profits to educate other growers: an organization offers business education for women of colour, a network of cannabis companies support each other in their dedication to ‘people, place, planet and plant’, and a staffing agency trains workers and employers in health, safety, and diversity. Retail visit data identified a retailer who requires that employees visit growers to learn about sustainability issues, and a grower that offers sustainability seminars for retail employees or industry members.
At an event, a staffing agency described its practices for preventing wage theft.
At an event, a staffing agency reported that it informs workers about their right to a healthy and safe working environment.
In a magazine, a company advertised that it is 50% female and 25% people of colour. In a retail visit, an employee identified an ‘all-girl farm’.
A retailer reported that a certifier verifies payment of a living wage. A review of the certification’s standards revealed this was not accurate.
Social and economic justice: Facilitating decent work
19. Ensures a healthy and safe working environment (conditions and hours) – including for homeworkers
At an event, a staffing agency reported that it purchases heaters and masks for workers, responds to complaints about health and safety, and addresses workplace harassment.
As stated above, a company advertised in a magazine that it is 50% female and 25% people of colour.
14. Confirms (directly or indirectly) no forced labour
15. Confirms (directly or indirectly) no child labour
18. Respects and enables collective bargaining and freedom of association
The data do not suggest that SSEEs engage these principles.
Theme D: Principles related to public education and mobilization
This study does not aim to evaluate the credibility of ethical claims. Instead, it endeavours to reveal how entrepreneurs engage with honesty in advertising and marketing. For example, on a panel titled ‘Economic justice: What’s the hold-up?’ an attorney described and criticized ‘performative social equity’. At other events, two entrepreneurs reported eschewing cannabis certification programmes because of a lack of credibility. The founder of one certification programme reported that ‘Fair Tade’ would not endorse it because its social standards were not well developed. On the positive side, the founder of an online marketplace for organic cannabis reported verifying each farm personally to ensure credibility. During retail visits, 14% of employees expressed scepticism of ethical claims, including dubious certifications, unreliable standards for organic production, auditor fraud, corruption of judges in cannabis competitions, and pesticide misuse. In one retail worker’s words: ‘A lot of people bullshit in this industry. Nothing is organic’. Although many retailers recommended products from growers they ‘trust’, few seemed to have enough information or experience to verify the claims.
In almost half of the events attended, entrepreneurs discussed the need for greater social and/or economic justice in cannabis, including worker protections, indigenous rights to intellectual property, pathways to ownership for minority groups, support for small growers, opportunities for women, right to a living income, solidarity economies, education, jobs and reinvestment of profits in the producing communities. One retailer mentioned the need for migrant worker justice.
At two events, entrepreneurs described efforts to disseminate information about practices related to Fair Trade principles. A grower reported conducting research about microbes in soil and publishing their findings online. A retailer hired a ‘director of education’ whose position includes facilitating public workshops, such as ‘Navigating the dispensary experience: Shopping 101’. In this workshop, the facilitator provided information about environmentally friendly products. At another event, however, a chocolatier reported its chocolate wrappers do not highlight the company’s ethical sourcing practices because providing basic information about cannabis is more important. Retail visit data show that 13 retailers (15%) provided ‘good’ information. 3 Another retailer, who did not provide ‘good’ information, reported that their employees receive extensive training, including how to answer questions about sustainability. Another retailer reported that there is a grower who provides seminars for individuals and companies on sustainable production methods.
In three events, entrepreneurs advocated for ethical consumerism. The founder of a business network encouraged businesses and consumers to:
support what you believe in! It’s not that hard to find companies you vibe with and understand. If you’re a consumer going to dispensaries, ask questions: what companies owned by people of colour do you carry, what women's businesses do you support? Use your dollar and power to empower those you believe in. Be vocal and ask questions!
An intellectual property rights attorney similarly asserted that ‘your voice is so powerful as a producer and as a consumer … work with and support companies that support what you believe in’. A chocolate entrepreneur advocated that other edibles companies consider, when sourcing, growers’ production methods, attitude, and labour practices. During retail visits, one worker reported that there are ‘a handful of Fair Trade products’ on the market. Six retailers named chocolate bar brands that use Fair Trade ingredients, according to their packaging. Another, however, reported that there is no Fair Trade because all legally available cannabis is grown in Oregon, inferring that Fair Trade can only be applied in sectors that are internationally traded.
Theme C: Principles related to fair business
At an event, a confectioner reported sourcing exclusively from a single grower who they want to support because of the grower’s fair labour and environmental practices. Four retailers reported buying exclusively from growers who are certified or meet specific criteria related to social and/or environmental practices.
At an event, a chocolate bar company founder reported inquiring about working conditions when sourcing. Although many retailers reported knowing their growers, only one discussed efforts to build trust and develop transparent communication with growers.
4. Conducts business transparently with trading partners
5. Makes decisions inclusively with stakeholders (e.g. employees)
6. Creates systems of accountability with stakeholders
8. Honours contracts (e.g. by compensating late delivery, late payment or order cancellation)
9. Offers partial pre-payment with low/no interest
12. Sets prices through dialogue
The data do not suggest that SSEEs engage with these principles.
Discussion
Which Fair Trade principles travelled to the distant sector of cannabis?
Table 5 categorizes the 29 empirical indicators of the 10 WFTO principles according to the level of evidence uncovered in the study.
Which principles of fair trade did SSEEs most and least engage?
+These figures include, but are not limited to, the social/economic justice sub-topics marked by a single asterisk (*)
A colour version is available online where the themes are as follows: Yellow = social/economic; Green = environment/climate; Blue = public education; Orange = fair business.
SSEEs are most engaged with the environment (especially organics, but not climate adaptation)
This research suggests that cannabis SSEEs are much more likely to engage in environmental stewardship (including conservation of natural resources, protection of biodiversity, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) than any other Fair Trade principle. They engaged the topic of organic agriculture most often, and never engaged climate adaptation or resilience.
SSEEs engaged environmental issues significantly more than social or economic justice, fair business, public education or climate adaptation or resilience. Retailers and magazine advertisements engaged with environmental issues five times more than social or economic issues. Likewise, data from events suggested SSEEs engaged with environmental principles twice as often as topics related to fair business. At retail visits, although we requested environmentally friendly and socially responsible products (and repeated the request for socially responsible products if not initially addressed), most never engaged the ‘social responsibility’ aspect of the question, while almost all retailers identified an environmentally friendly product or brand. Retailers commented on SSEEs’ engagement of environmental issues 16 times more often than fair business.
It is important to remember that this research uses the term ‘engage’ to refer to both discourse and action. It does not verify claims or assess impact. Thus, the results do not suggest that cannabis SSEEs have a greater impact on environmental issues than social problems, or even that they take more actions related to environmental claims. Instead, the data simply suggest that when SSEEs self-report or when others comment on SSEEs, they focus on environmental issues much more often than other principles of Fair Trade.
The finding that cannabis SSEEs prioritize environmental issues and focus on organic agriculture reflects previous findings (Bennett, 2017a, 2019, 2021). The trend of prioritizing environmental issues is also well-documented in sectors that are ‘close’ to Fair Trade, such as fruit and coffee (Guthman & Brown, 2016; Grabs, 2020). This pattern is not unique to Fair Trade but also found in the organic movement (Obach, 2015).
This research also offers the new insight that cannabis SSEEs are not engaged with the issues of climate change adaptation and resilience. This extends previous understanding and is surprising given the increased attention to the ways in which Fair Trade, sustainable business models, and sustainability standards may support climate adaptation and resilience (e.g. Firl, 2021; Günther, Kristin & Afroz, 2022; Schleifer & Sun, 2020; Bacon et al., 2023).
SSEEs engage with principles of education and mobilization, especially buycotts and promoting Fair Trade products
This research suggests that cannabis SSEEs are moderately engaged with each of the Fair Trade principles related to public education and mobilization. These include honest advertising, awareness raising, advocating for the objectives of Fair Trade and information sharing.
SSEEs’ engagement with honest advertising focused on concerns about greenwashing. This reflects previous research on the topic, which suggests that many people are concerned about credible claims (Bennett, 2017a). This is consistent with existing research on close sectors, which suggests that scepticism about specific sustainability certifications or labelling in general can spill over to other claims (Harbaugh, Maxwell & Roussillon, 2011). SSEEs’ engagement with awareness raising was centred on the cannabis sector’s unique history of prohibition and re-regulation.
Awareness raising was common at events, rare at retailers, and absent from advertisements. This diverged from previous studies, which found cannabis sector actors reticent to highlight the sector’s shortcomings (Bennett, 2018). Extant scholarship hypothesized that this was because these actors wanted to increase public acceptance of a previously stigmatized sector by minimizing its problems. Thus, it may be the case that awareness raising was initially stunted by efforts to gain public acceptance and, several years later, is now beginning to reflect the open dialogues which occur in less stigmatized sectors.
This study found that people advocated for Fair Trade in two ways. First, by advocating for buycotts, or the use of purchasing power to privilege ethical businesses or businesses owned by marginalized groups. Second, by promoting cannabis chocolate bars made with certified Fair Trade ingredients. These findings reflect extant research on how the cannabis sector engages ethical consumerism (Bennett, 2017a, 2018, 2021). They also extend an understanding of Fair Trade in the cannabis sector by showing how its connection to a common Fair Trade product (e.g. cocoa) brings the sector closer to Fair Trade. Finally, they support the idea that some products are more strongly earmarked for Fair Trade than others (Zelizer, 1997; Wheale & Hinton, 2007) and further evidences the important role of chocolate in promoting Fair Trade (Barrientos, 2016).
SSEEs engage principles related to ownership, empowerment and capacity-building
This research suggests that cannabis SSEEs are moderately engaged with social and economic justice when defined broadly to include 14 sub-topics. The two themes they most often engaged were: supporting employees’ skill development (especially related to sustainability) and promoting businesses owned by small and/or marginalized producers (e.g. people of colour and women). SSEEs also engage modestly with principles related to doing business with ethical partners and, in a limited way, with fostering long-term business relationships based on solidarity, trust and mutual respect.
These findings validate extant research suggesting that a significant portion of ethical consumerism in cannabis aims to use purchasing power to support small producers and ethical business partners (Bennett, 2017a). This research also adds fresh insight by showing how SSEEs focus on their own employees and prioritize businesses owned by minority groups.
SSEEs do not engage most principles of fair business or social/economic justice in the workplace
This research suggests that cannabis SSEEs do not engage with most principles of fair business, including transparency, stakeholder engagement, inclusive price-setting, stakeholder accountability, honouring contracts, forward financing, collective bargaining, freedom of association, and prevention of forced and child labour. It also finds limited engagement with workplace-oriented principles of social and economic justice, including health and safety, conditions and hours, exploitation, gender equality, non-discrimination, indigenous rights, and living wages.
These findings validate previous scholarship on cannabis which showed limited engagement with innovative business models or worker empowerment (Bennett, 2017a, 2019). It also extends this research, which took place immediately following legalization, by suggesting that these limitations were not addressed over time. In this way, cannabis reflects research on fair business in other sectors, which suggests that working conditions and horizontal equity are often prioritized over fair remuneration or vertical equity (LeBaron, 2021; Bennett, 2024).
This study also found that sustainability certifications were by far the most common strategy for communicating claims about social and sustainable business practices, which reflects both previous studies on cannabis (Bennett, 2017a, 2018, 2019, 2021) and broader trends in global supply chains (International Trade Center, 2024).
Cannabis is a distant sector with some distinct features
This research supports the classification of cannabis as a distant sector (see Table 1). The data verify extant research by finding that Fair Trade retailers do not sell cannabis and there is no evidence of institutions purchasing cannabis. The data also validate that the only connection between cannabis and Fair Trade organizations is that some cannabis chocolate companies use Fair Trade-certified ingredients. This study also supports a mixed assessment of whether cannabis is a product that is similar to popular Fair Trade products. On one hand, it shows that people compare it to food (which brings it closer to Fair Trade). On the other hand, it is sometimes compared to medicine, and one retailer identified it as incompatible with Fair Trade because it is not internationally traded. These features make it more distant from Fair Trade.
Extant scholarship identified several features of cannabis that distinguish it from other distant sectors and may influence its engagement with the principles of Fair Trade. This study provides further evidence to suggest that the sector’s history of injustice, community resilience, and movement support, as well as its required interactions with retailers, may increase engagement with Fair Trade principles. At the same time, it provides further evidence to support that the sector’s cumbersome regulations and the public’s need for basic education may potentially decrease its engagement with Fair Trade principles. This research does not find evidence to suggest that stigma, regulations that vary greatly by jurisdiction, and similarity to tobacco are shaping its engagement with Fair Trade principles, as previous research would suggest. This raises the question of whether stigma, uneven regulations, and the shadow of tobacco play less of a role in shaping the sector now than they did immediately following legalization.
Conclusion
Overall research contribution: How cannabis SSEEs engage the principles of Fair Trade
This research examined how cannabis SSEEs engage principles of Fair Trade.
Some findings validate what extant scholarship on ethical consumerism in cannabis would suggest:
SSEEs engage principles related to the environment more than principles related to social and/or economic justice;
SSEEs’ engagement with environmental principles focuses on organic agriculture;
SSEEs’ engagement of social and economic justice focuses on empowering small producers; and
SSEEs’ engagement with fair business practices focuses on retailers trusting producers and producers using sustainability certifications to communicate claims.
Other findings offer fresh insights that extend or challenge extant research:
SSEEs focus on public education and mobilization more than fair business practices;
SSEEs’ engagement with mobilization focuses on buycotts to support sustainable businesses and/or marginalized groups;
SSEEs’ engagement with social and economic justice focuses on supporting minoritized business owners and increasing employees’ skillsets;
SSEEs do not engage with climate adaptation or resilience; and
SSEEs do not engage most fair business practices, including transparency, accountability, contract integrity, pre-payments, collaborative price-setting, inclusive governance, guarding against forced or child labour, or supporting worker organizing.
Generalizing to SSEEs in other distant sectors
This research both validated that cannabis is ‘distant’ from the Fair Trade movement, and offers the new insight that the sector’s use of Fair Trade ingredients connected it to Fair Trade. Thus, some sectors may be even more distant from Fair Trade than cannabis, and may differ in their engagement with the principles of Fair Trade.
There are some features of the cannabis sector that may influence its engagement with fair trade in ways that are not similar to other sectors. As described in Table 6, some of these features may make cannabis more likely to engage fair trade than other sectors, while other features may result in cannabis being less likely to engage fair trade than other sectors. Cannabis may engage fair trade more than other distant sectors because it emerged from a justice-oriented social movement; is founded up on community support and resilience; is marked by injustice and marginalization; and requires consumers to engage with retail workers verbally, increasing opportunities for information sharing about ethical products. Cannabis may engage fair trade less than other distant sectors because it is: new and marked by misinformation and highly regulated. Although previous studies suggest that cannabis may engage less with ethical consumer movements because it is stigmatized as unethical, regulations are diverse across jurisdictions, and it is similar to tobacco, which is a sector distant from fair trade, this study neither confirmed nor challenged those propositions. Thus, the extent to which the cannabis sector’s engagement with fair trade is likely to be similar to other distant sectors, which do not share these features, is unclear.
Extant scholarship suggests that engagement with Fair Trade varies greatly by country and region (Huybrechts & Reed, 2010; Koos, 2021; Keahey, 2024). This research took place in a country with a robust history of Fair Trade (Bennett, 2021) and a city with a reputation for ethical consumerism (Bennett, 2017b). Thus, the findings of this study may differ from research in places that do not share these features.
Questions for future research
This study has put forth a theoretical account of SSEEs’ engagement of Fair Trade principles based on an in-depth study of a single case. As is typical for inductive research, the next step is to develop testable propositions and evaluate their efficacy in explaining other cases. As described in the literature review, other distant sectors include software, mobile phones, carbon, rubies, and gold.
Future research may also apply this methodological framework to other sets of guiding principles, such as the SDGs, ESG or BCorps, to understand how SSEEs engage alternative frameworks. A comparative analysis may evaluate SSEEs’ engagement of other frameworks relative to Fair Trade. Further research may aim to understand how SSEEs understand and navigate choices among frameworks. Extant scholarship points to entrepreneurs’ personal experiences (Scuotto, Lemaire, Magni & Maalaoui, 2022), the influence of profit-oriented industry actors (Wakefield et al., 2022), and strategic considerations related to competitive advantage (Muñoz & Kimmitt, 2019), as three factors that may influence their engagement with various guiding frameworks.
Future research may also aim to understand how SSEEs learn about the principles of Fair Trade and which factors most influence their engagement with them. Although extant scholarship suggests that few people are knowledgeable about Fair Trade and that it is rarely taught in schools, little else is known about teaching and learning (Ma, Littrell & Niehm, 2012; Lyon et al., 2014; Augustine & King, 2019; Bennett, 2023), as most research focuses on consumers (e.g. Pavlovskaia & Kara, 2022).
Conclusion and implications for Fair Trade
The contemporary landscape of social and sustainability enterprise is marked by a flood of alternative guiding frameworks and expansion into new sectors. The research presented in this article suggests that many of the core Fair Trade principles may be left behind.
This conclusion has several implications for the Fair Trade movement. First, Fair Trade may consider whether and how to increase SSEEs’ engagement with principles related to fair business practices, since they are minimized relative to environmental issues, yet central to the movement. Second, Fair Trade may evaluate whether some of its core values – such as pre-financing and price-setting through dialogue – are distinct from alternative guiding frameworks. They may want to consider whether this puts them at risk of being marginalized by SSEEs aiming to align with multiple frameworks simultaneously. Finally, the Fair Trade movement may examine the potential to re-frame Fair Trade such that it is more inclusive of distant sectors. The movement could clarify that unusual features, such as not being internationally traded, do not make sectors incompatible with Fair Trade.