Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

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

  • P.H. Howard (a1) and P. Allen (a2)

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

Corresponding author
*Corresponding author:
Hide All
1 TransFair USA. 2005. Annual Report. Available at Web site
2 Allison M. 2006. Fair trade coffee begins to heat up mainstream market. The Seattle Times, 20 October 2006. Available at Web site
3 TransFair USA. 2007. Fair Trade Overview. Available at Web site
4 De Pelsmacker P., Driesen L., and Rayp G. 2005. Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair trade coffee. Journal of Consumer Affairs 39(2):363385.
5 McCluskey J.J. and Loureiro M.L. 2004. Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for food labeling: a discussion of empirical studies. Journal of Food Distribution Research 34(3):95102.
6 Allen P. 2004. Together at the Table: Sustainability and Sustenance in the American Agrifood System. Penn State University Press, University Park, PA.
7 Magaña C.G. and Hovey J.D. 2003. Psychosocial stressors associated with Mexican migrant farmworkers in the Midwest United States. Journal of Immigrant Health 5(2):7586.
8 Mehta K., Gabbard S.M., Barrat V., Lewis M., Carroll D., and Mines R. 2000. Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 1997–1998: A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States Farmworkers. Research Report No. 8. US Department of Labor, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy.
9 Van Riper T. 2007. America's most dangerous jobs. Forbes, 13 August 2007. Available at Web site
10 Compa L. 2004. Unfair Advantage: Workers' Freedom of Association in the United States under International Human Rights Standards. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
11 Bales K., Fletcher L., and Stover E. 2004. Hidden slaves: Forced labor in the United States. Berkeley Journal of International Law 23(1):47109.
12 Martin P. 2006. How we eat. Rural Migration News 13(3). University of California, Davis. Available at Web site
13 Elitzak H. 2002. Food Marketing and Price Spreads: USDA Market Basket. Available at Web site
14 Naysmith S. 2003. Fury as UK farmers eye Fairtrade logo; Soil Association argues for. The Sunday Herald, 30 March 2003.
15 Farmer Direct Cooperative. 2004. What is the Fair Deal? Available at Web site
16 Jaffee D., Kloppenburg J.R., and Monroy M.B. 2004. Bringing the ‘moral charge’ home: fair trade within the North and within the South. Rural Sociology 69(2):169196.
37 Wholesome Harvest. 2007. Domestic Fair Trade. Available at Web site
18 Local Fair Trade Network. 2007. Local Fair Trade Network. Available at Web site
19 Equal Exchange. 2007. What is Domestic Fair Trade? Available at Web site
20 Domestic Fair Trade Working Group. 2005. Principles of Domestic Fair Trade. Available at Web site
21 Friedland W.H. 1998. Review of Strawberry Fields: Politics, Class, and Work in California Agriculture, by Miriam J. Wells. Agriculture and Human Values 15(2):185188.
22 Mintz S. 1985. Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. Viking Press, New York.
23 Fadope C.M. 1997. Conflict in the strawberry fields. Multinational Monitor 18(3):2425.
24 Arcury T.A., Quandt S.A., Barr D.B., Hoppin J.A., McCauley L., Grzywacz J.G., and Robson M.G. 2006. Farmworker exposure to pesticides: methodologic issues for the collection of comparable data. Environmental Health Perspectives 114(6):923928.
25 Villarejo D. 1997. Five cents for fairness: the UFW strawberry campaign goes public. Rural California Report 5(1):1, 3. California Institute for Rural Studies, Davis, CA.
26 Rodebaugh D. 2001. UFW signs major contract. San Jose Mercury News, 9 March 2001.
27 Yiridoe E.K., Bonti-Ankomah S., and Martin R.C. 2005. Comparison of consumer perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: a review and update of the literature. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 20(4):193205.
28 Dillman D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley, New York.
29 Moon W. and Balasubramanian S.K. 2003. Willingness to pay for non-biotech foods in the U.S. and U.K. Journal of Consumer Affairs 37(2):317339.
30 Lusk J.L. and Hudson D. 2004. Willingness-to-pay estimates and their relevance to agribusiness decision making. Review of Agricultural Economics 26(2):152169.
31 Langford I.H., Bateman I.J., Jones A.P., Langford H.D., and Georgiou S. 1998. Improved estimation of willingness to pay in dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. Land Economics 74(1):6575.
32 Raudenbush S., Bryk A., and Congdon R. 2004. HLM 6.
33 Honaker J., King G., and Blackwell M. 2007. Amelia II v. 1.1.
34 US Census Bureau. 2007. USA Quickfacts. Available at Web site
35 Anderson B. 2006. Beyond Organic. Cooperative Grocer. Available at Web site
36 Organic Trade Association. 2006. The Organic Trade Association 2006 Manufacturer Survey Overview. Available at Web site
37 TransFair USA. 2007. The Fair Trade Beat. April. Available at Web site
38 Rothernberg D. 2000. With These Hands: The Hidden World of Migrant Farmworkers Today. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
39 Vogeler I. 1981. The Myth of the Family Farm: Agribusiness Dominance of U.S. Agriculture. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
40 Vermeier I. and Verbeke W. 2006. Sustainable food consumption: exploring the consumer ‘attitude–behavioral intention’ gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19(2):169194.
41 List J.A. and Gallet C.A. 2001. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environmental and Resource Economics 20(3):241254.
42 Krier J.-M. 2001. Fair Trade in Europe 2001: Facts and Figures on the Fair Trade sector in 18 European countries. EFTA, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
43 Allen P. and Kovach M. 2000. The capitalist composition of organic: the potential of markets in fulfilling the promise of sustainable agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 17(3):221232.
44 Guthman J. 2004. Agrarian Dreams: The Paradox of Organic Farming in California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
45 Lyon S. 2006. Evaluating fair trade consumption: politics, defetishization and producer participation. International Journal of Consumer Studies 30(5):452464.
46 Stevens-Garmon J., Huang C.L., and Lin B.-H. 2007. Organic demand: a profile of consumers in the fresh produce market. Choices 22(2):109116.
47 Jaffee D. 2007. Brewing Justice: Fair Trade Coffee, Sustainability, and Survival. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
48 Raynolds L.T., Murray D., and Taylor P.L. 2004. Fair trade coffee: building producer capacity via global networks. Journal of International Development 16(8):11091121.
49 Getz C. and Shreck A. 2006. What organic and Fair Trade labels do not tell us: towards a place-based understanding of certification. International Journal of Consumer Studies 30(5):490501.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems
  • ISSN: 1742-1705
  • EISSN: 1742-1713
  • URL: /core/journals/renewable-agriculture-and-food-systems
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 6
Total number of PDF views: 90 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 333 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 23rd October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.