Democratic structure isn’t the only requirement. Said coop (or grower’s association, which is essentially the same thing) must also, for example, employ only full-time laborers who reside on premises year-round. Many, many farms–small family farms most of all–financially depend on itinerant labor during harvest months, so this requirement alone excludes many of the poorest and/or the best growers from the equation, even if the temporary labor is paid fairly and working conditions for all workers is optimal.

-a

Also, from what I understand, the farmers could be part of a growers association or even a company owned by the farmers and not neccesarily form a coop in order to get Fair Trade certified. The only requirement is that the organization needs to be democratically run for their participants.

The stipulation encourages small independent farmers to band together either because a) they’ve arbitrarily decided that co-ops are the only agro structure where exploitation doesn’t exist, which is demonstrably untrue, or b) they know it’s the only way independent farmers can afford certification costs. In other words FT is trying to physically re-mold the coffee chain into something that can support FT.

I don’t think they’re specifically corrupt, I just think that they’re trying to compete as a brand in the marketplace. And that means using the same quasi-ethical tactics as big companies like Starbucks to build that brand and disparage viable alternatives.

-a

Is the reason for this stipulation good intention, to filter out some negative aspect? Or is it somehow just financially motivated?