I found the Reluctant Entrepreneurs reading to be interesting because it explained why most of the poor remains the poor. It explained the Paradox of the poor and their businesses by stating, “They are energetic and resourceful and manage to make a lot out of very little. But most of this energy is spent on business that are too small and utterly undifferentiated from the many others around them. As a result, their operators have no chance to earn a reasonable living.” And on the same note, it explained, “the reason the poor do not grow their businesses is that, for most of them, it is too hard. They cannot borrow to cross the hump, and saving up to get there will take too long unless their business have extremely high overall returns,” like in the case of Xu Aihua.
This insight was interesting to me because it is such an obvious cycle that gets overlooked. Not only are there not enough microfinance loans available to these small businesses owners, but I think it seems they may lack the knowledge of how to properly grow their businesses to be profitable. Who is to say that money would answer their problems and get them out of the inbetween? That is why I thought the author’s point about having very little and using your ingenuity to create something out of nothing was really admirable because it sheds light of the idea of adding creativity to money making.
The Parable of the Black Sheep reading was really inspirational. The author’s opening line was really powerful in context with his life story. After he shared his poem that he wrote as a 12 year old, “I am poverty, I love you, And I cannot leave you because You live me even more,” he said, “I wrote what I felt-- I thought people were poor because they let themselves be.” He clearly fought that notion when he realized that he did not want to live in poverty.
I found that to be really powerful because he realized the necessary steps he needed to take to educate himself out of poverty--and from a young age! He realized that he needed to say no to the default action of letting “your environment and its social structure define how you are supposed to react to a situation” and that “the hierarchy defines the rules of the place.” He, as an entrepreneur, identified that he wanted to be in control of his jobs and money. I think that if more people had this sort of motivation to educate themselves to the best of their ability and then implement their knowledge, it would make such a positive impact because it would not only make money for the entrepreneur, but also create jobs for others in need. So this reading was really important to me because it talked about educating your way out of poverty, which is something that I really believe in.
The Blue Sweater excerpt we read was very interesting to read, as a student in the business school. I found Jaqueline Novogratz’s business aspirations to be similar to mine in the sense that I want to help social causes though a business perspective—which is why I want to be a social entrepreneur. I found it encouraging that there are people like her see the importance of social entrepreneurship and it is great that she is dedicated to raising money and funding entrepreneurs. Her mission to “reinvent” the idea of philanthropy and make nonprofits become more businesslike is something I also hold to be true and meaningful.
She stated, “My passion was using business models to create effective, sustainable systems where government or charity alone had failed poor people.” Novogratz saw the importance of structured business models that identify a cause and treat it like a working company. She saw trends of organizations and charities throughout America that were not being efficient, which essentially is wasting time, money and not solving any problems for those in need.
I admire the approach that Novogratz took. I think it is important that she saw that philanthropy was becoming a meaningless effort in which Americans were throwing their money into organizations that did not necessarily handle money properly or effectively. The donors themselves were not even really caring about the actual change—rather it was becoming a self-interest thing that made themselves feel better, which is quite ironic. I know from personal experience that the philanthropic culture in London is much different than America’s culture. Philanthropists in London care very much about all aspects of the charitable investments which drives a pressure for progress.
However, Novogratz brought up a good point when she noticed that many charities or entrepreneurs, when receiving money from donors, feel obligated to please the donors. A lot of the time the donor feels entitled to suggest how their money is used. When this happens, it puts pressure on the entrepreneurs or charity workers to comply with the person that is giving them money.
I can see how that situation becomes sticky. I do not disagree with either the donor or the receiver. That is why I think that Novogratz’s business is so impressive because she serves as the middle man. She adds cushioning between the borrower and the lender. And with the cushion, she is able to give the borrower (or charity or entrepreneur) more freedom to seek and develop their vision. That said, an important aspect of her company is also to work with lenders that understand that they are “investing in change.” I think that is a key concept because it allows certain people to realize the role that they play in change. If an investor can recognize that their money is of more value to a charity than their ideas, compared to a professional that has been working in the charity sector for years, the system of change becomes more efficient and therefore successful.
This reading, “Colonial Pasts and Fair Trade Futures: Changing Modes of Production and Regulation on Darjeeling Tea Plantations” was interesting because it was the first reading we have had that shed a negative light on Fair Trade.
The author, Sarah Besky, stated, “Fair Trade certification attracts owners because (1) Fair Trade standards are more flexible than labor law, and since there is minimal oversight, owners can often cut corners on labor practices and still keep Fair Trade certification.” This was the first time a fact has revealed that there are loophole-like infractions in the fair trade economic system.
I found this to be very disappointing because if a set-up system such as fair trade is unjust, then i question whether or not complete justice is ever fully possible. Fair trade is supposed to empower laborers and give them justice. However, when it turns out that owners are cutting corners on labor practices while still maintaining their Fair Trade certification, the certification itself loses integrity and because discouraging.
Another fact that author Sarah Besky pointed out was that “a label has power...in this case to shift the perceptions of consumers about companies that are only marginally committed to the social and economic conditions of the agricultural communities.” This was yet another example of companies/owners misusing the Fair Trade label/certification.
I find this false marketing/advertising to truly be despicable because it is blatantly lying to consumers to attempt to maximize profits by acting as if their companies are socially or ethically responsible and instead being the opposite by taking advantage of their consumers. This false advertising is a ploy to maximize their profits which is one of the reasons why fair trade certification started in the first place--to empowerthe workers that are victims of corporations that take advantage of the workers as they try to capitalize to the best of their ability.
I found this reading to be beneficial because it discussed the various types and forms of power. The writing claimed these differences were: power over, power with, power to, and power within. Power over was said to be “a process by which a person, organization or group restricts the opinions, abilities and capacities of others through certain mechanisms.” Power with refers to “a process by which individual people, organizations and groups together create capacity in order to bring about certain objectives and processes that are collectively shared and beneficial”. Power to refers to “the performance of an action or actions through which individuals, groups and/or organizations gain new capacities, skills and abilities to trigger change.” Lastly, power within refers to “a unique psychological outlook and set of behaviours embodied in the game-player (an entrepreneur of norms).”
It was very interesting to see power broken down into different categories because it helped me see how it can be beneficial in some forms. This reading made me think about how our society creates structures, which in turn, create power (out of thin air). Power is a mental concept in which people allow be created as long as they agree with the goal. The structures are made to organize and delegate power to achieve something, often a change. Depending on the power exhibited by the ultimate leader, the system is efficient and therefore successful. However, when power is given to someone that is incapable of controlling the power, they fail. Few people are actually capable of managing the concept of good power. That is what makes good leaders so heroic.
It also discussed the difference between the “exercise of power” and power being an instrument of domination, which I typically viewed power as the latter. However, what struck me was when Foucault viewed power as “fundamentally positive or constitutive, whereby power and resistance ‘create conditions of possibility for each other.”
Before this reading, I had always viewed power as a negative thing. I liked seeing how power can be viewed in a positive light as well. Seeing as power is often associated with a person who wants to change something, or some aspect of society/the world, this reading made me realize how the person’s desire for power is often times the reason why power can be viewed negatively. It is the same concept with money. Money can often be viewed as a negative thing. However, it is actually the desire for money that can lead to greed that is actually the toxic element that is more often than not associated with money. Therefore, in terms of power, it is the person who desires power that has the decision of whether to do good with the power.
William Foote’s story behind his company, Root Capital was inspiring to hear. One of the main points that jumped out at me was when he said that Root Capital’s loan to Shiwahiade improved the quality of her coffee, which in turn, attracted buyers like Starbucks to purchase her coffee. Because of this, Shiwahiade was “able to double her income and reinvested part of her earnings in four cows, six goats, and a new chicken coop, with which she now runs her micro poultry business.” And because of her extra money, her children “no longer work on their farm because their mom can afford school fees, books and uniforms.”
Shiwahiade’s story is a perfect example of Root Capital’s efforts of growing small businesses in poverty-ridden areas and helping the owners develop their skills and stabilize their businesses. I think it is a genius effort on Foote’s part to be the link between large corporations looking for goods, and the struggling small business owners who need a bit of help and nudge in the right direction. My favorite aspect of Foote’s business is the fact that they educate the small business owners on various business topics to help maximize their profits.
Foote referred to the “power of enterprise” which struck me as well because it is reflected significantly through the response of his own company, Root Capital. Foote stated, “In 2011, we made more than 200 loans totalling nearly $130 million in disbursements to small and growing businesses representing more than 250,000 farm households. Over the past 10 years, we’ve made more than 1000 loans, totalling more than $350,000 in credit, and we maintain a 98% repayment rate from our borrowers and 100% repayment to our investors.”
This statement was very impressive to see the growth and success of Root Capital because the success of Foote’s company clearly reflects the extreme success of the small businesses in the third-world countries. It is very satisfying to see the good efforts of the investors in Root Capital and their good will they have towards the struggling business owners. This reminds me of the website, Kiva.org, which similarly allows people to invest a sum of money to business owners that promise to repay later, once their business is profitable.
After reading “A Brilliant Idea” from the book Fair Trade Revolution, I found some of the statistics to be particularly thought provoking.
One of the facts that jumped out most to me was that 1.4 billion are trying to survive at or below the World Bank’s poverty line and are living off of approximately $1.25 a day. Additionally, 2.6 billion, which is 40% of human is living under less than $2 a day.
It is simply astonishing to me that such a large amount of people are living in poverty, yet only a small percentage of people are trying to help and do something about it. I do not understand how such advanced societies, with advancements of all kinds being developed on the daily, can go on without serious consideration and desire to efficiently help these people in need. It is a reminder to me that society has generally been desensitized by the desire for money and power. That said, it was still good to see the statistic that said that there are 400 fair trade towns, 1500 fairtrade schools and 4000 fair trade groups which are all working to make a positive impact.
Another fact that popped out at me was that the UK grocery market, which consisted of 140 billion pounds, has about 800 million pounds towards Fair trade products. That is less than 1 percent of total grocery sales.
While the figure “800 million pounds” sounds like a large number, when in comparison to the grand scheme, it is quite upsetting that it is less 1 percent. I almost feel greedy in this regard that it is just not enough. I struggle with the fact that I should be happy and appreciate what is being doing (in general about Fair trade) but at the same time, it can get extremely disappointing to see the lack of effort all around. Even more so to read information that companies become fair trade certified or socially responsible basically for marketing purposes. Where is the genuine human care for one another? If Starbucks in the UK is Fairtrade, why isn’t it 100% in the US? Did the UK Starbucks do it in an effort to stay relevant in the UK since Fairtrade is bigger there? So many questions.
I found our reading of “Fair Trade: a Human Journey” to be extremely impactful in its way of providing detailed personal accounts of people pertaining to the fair trade world, informative data about successful fair trade businesses and interesting statistics about growth rates, etc. With the combination of these factors, I found myself extremely impacted at times; however, the two most impactful moments of the reading were as follows:
I loved reading about the slogan, “Trade, not Aid,” which emerged from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). It is said that the slogan was created to, “send a message from disadvantaged countries that trade (preferably fair) is better than charity.”
I thought that this was such a good point because it plays into the idea of “give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” It is easy for people to think that money is the answer to third world country problems, because it will buy them food, clothes and shelter. However, that creates an extremely dependant society which in the long run, ends up hurting more than helping. To “trade” rather than “aid” is giving these people in need a purpose--a job, a steady income, a skill and more. While trade often encounters mistreatment and unfairness, it is important for people to see both the negatives of aid and the negatives of trade to fully understand the importance of fair trade. I found the information about the Prokrittee company to be very impressive because they said that “women receive two takas per bag as salary and two takas in savings. When they accumulate $5,000 takas, they can withdraw the total sum and start their own business.” This company is a perfect example of one that develops people’s artisan skills, gives them a steady job, and then allows them to go on and expand their business and employ others, etc.
Another thing I found to be extremely impactful was the quote, “I used to earn 300-400 takas ($5) per month from my embroidery work, but since I’ve been with Action Bag, I earn 10 times more and my daughters have been able to go back to school.”
I think that it is just shocking to a) think that a woman and her children were living off of $5 a month and b) that $50 allows her daughters to go to school and essentially have their life very much improved by just $45 extra dollars. That is practically 2 movie theater tickets in NYC. Its incredible to see that a company like Action Bags is making such a big impact and I found it to be very encouraging when I read this part because I had been feeling overwhelmed at the fact that there is just so much to do/that needs to be done to help so many people that are dying or starving or being mistreated and so on but the fact that a company like Action Bags is able to thrive off of the market of bag sales and provide disadvantaged people jobs and make a $45 difference in someone’s life that allows them to send their daughters to school--that is very encouraging to me.
I am also a student in Professor Combellick's Fair Trade: Entrepreneurship class at Fordham University in NY. The following paragraphs discuss my reaction to the "The Dark Side of Chocolate" documentary.
One of the most startling moments for me was when they mentioned that, “A child from Burkina Faso can be bought for 230 euros.” At that moment, I was really impacted by the realization that these innocent children were being exchanged for money like slave trade. Additionally, the tone in which the African man from the video casually discussed the exchange of a child being sold for 230 euros with the undercover filmer was rather appalling to witness. To see this encounter in comparison to the cocoa industry workers that were interviewed throughout the documentary and their “naivety” on the situation is even more disturbing because it appears to be an endless cycle of adults turning a blind-eye for money and their own self contentment.
Prior to watching this documentary, I was not aware of what human-trafficking and child labor actually entailed. I did know know that young and naive children were being tricked into a “paying job” which in reality meant kidnapping them, taking them away from their families, selling them, and making them works as slaves.
Another part of the film that impacted me was the Geneva interview, in which the ILO representative said, “It is a feeling of helplessness which overcomes you when you see something like that.” While it is most likely certain that any sensitized human would experience feelings of helplessness after watching the footage of the child labor and trafficking occurring in the Ivory Coast, the ILO representative was really the first to admit it in the video.
For me, his notion made me think about the grand scheme of the cocoa industry scandal. As stated in the beginning of the film, “3 million tons of chocolate are being sold each year” and after watching this documentary, I now know that at the root of that chocolate, a child slave was forced to harvest that cocoa. Child laborers play such a vital role in the chocolate industry that it is actually baffling to me that chocolate companies such as Nestle do not care about the most crucial part of their business. Perhaps if a decrease in chocolate sales were to be attributed to consumer’s distaste towards chocolate companies lack of care and responsibility, then maybe chocolate companies would make an effort to regulate and implement fair trade policies.
Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:43 am
Visitors
Board Statistics
