Potential Solutions To Chocolate Slavery

The most common and therefore more critical issue in the manufacture of chocolate is the origin of the cocoa. Many plantations are owner run and managed on a small scale, mainly if not entirely by family members. If a growers' co-op gets a high premium over the open market price for cocoa, That would allow them to re-invest in the co-op and therefore the local infrastructure. In this way the growers are not solely at the mercy of the fluctuating and currently low world price for non-organic cocoa.

A manufacturer should be completely satisfied that their cocoa does not carry the mark of exploitation and that they do all in their power to ensure that remains the position. Many companies have stated that they cannot get cocoa of the quality they require which is branded "Fairtrade" or do not currently see the need to source such cocoa in view of the appropriate and ethical means they already use.

While the Fairtrade program plays a positive part in changing the current situation, it is exactly that, a portion of the solution not the sole and entire solution.  Why should it be necessary for growers in countries where exploitation and slavery is not endemic to be forced to sign up to organizations and trade marks that do nothing to further their cause? The growing of organic cocoa of the highest quality has helped their cause and finance far more than the use of the Fairtrade trademark ever could.

It is very well  to empower consumers to take responsibility for the role they play when they buy products from the third world, however simply trade-marking a product does little to assist the consumer to think broadly and thoughtfully about trading fairly, indeed it can have the opposite effect of making consumers apathetic and ill-informed about products they buy. Consumers should not simply assume the Fairtrade mark is the only solution or alternative.

Nelson Mandela has spoken on this issue and suggests that we should always consider the background, culture, economic situation and the options open to both the individual and the country concerned. He suggested that trading standards and positions should always consider these circumstances and not operate in isolation of real concerns on the ground.

Is it invariably right that closing down an exploitative plantation, by imposed standards, would benefit the individual and the community? In many cases this would not benefit the "exploited" worker who would have no job, no prospect of a job and no prospect of supporting a family. While there is no excuse for exploitation and slavery, we must not simply assume that buying labeled products, often on brands owned by large multinationals that have helped to create the current trading position, will necessarily solve or even help the situation.

Trading ethically and fairly should mean backing local issues in addition to global ones. We can all contribute to dealing with these issues, however small that contribution may be. Perhaps a philosophy should be looked at in terms of action on multiple issues and not the simple and easy option of single issue politics.

If the larger chocolate companies used their power to make a commitment to changing this problem, it would have a huge and immediate impact. Unfortunately, business does not come with a moral code of ethics. Those decisions are left to the individuals who run a company. When profits and the bottom line are the only considerations in the board room it is other people who ultimately suffer and pay the price for your 'innocent' pleasure. Chocolate companies should endeavor to trade fairly and appropriately and strive towards having a positive impact on issues of global, national and local concern. Capitalism, entrepreneurship and human concern should not be mutually exclusive to an active social and environmental conscience.

Following is a list of chocolate manufacturers and organizations that you can communicate with in order to share your concerns.