5 Percent 4 Farmers

Making meaningful differences in farmers' lives around the world

I think that this cost should be kept to an absolute minimum. Suggestions so far:


- $100 registration fee to ensure that only people who are reasonably serious sign up
- No ongoing fee


Why: the comment has been made on The Chocolate Life that Fair Trade etc isn't always fair for the people up the chain. Very low fees and simple compliance mean that it is easy for an organisation to use and benefit from the label without the system inflating their operating costs. Yet they get the marketing benefits from the label. It would be difficult to complain about it.

Views: 4

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

In an ideal world we'd be able to do this on a completely volunteer basis and everyone would donate everything the organization needs.

We don't live in an ideal world.

Licensing fees should be the first source of revenue to cover the operating costs of the organization. This reduces any need to go into the non-traceable fund to cover operating costs.

Ideally, we'd find a way to collaborate with an organization (or organizations) that support 5P4F by covering operating costs. This is done here in the US for the Lustgarten Pancreatic Cancer Foundation. They have corporate sponsors that covers 100% of the operating budget so that all monies donated go to research. I don't think that this will happen any time soon if ever for this organization.

I think that for any company whose gross income is under US$500,00 per year the licensing fee is a one-time payment of $100.

For companies with gross income between US$500,000 and US$1,000,000per year, the licensing fee is $100/yr. (When a company in the first category exceeds grows into the next category they start paying the annual fee.)

For companies over US$1,000,000 in gross income the annual fee is $1000.

If the member is a retail chain, the annual fee is whatever fee range they are in from above plus $100 per store that wants to display the logo.

While I understand your reasoning for this, the licensing fees are a way of "compensating" 5P4F for the value of the marketing benefits. It's really cheap PR for what it should return. I do agree that by keeping it very inexpensive for small companies we'll get a lot more grassroots support.

I think we should be dating the stickers that are handed out. Compliance in 2009 should be updated for 2010.
All sounds good Clay. I like the sliding scale. My main concern I guess was not driving away small companies (like organic certification can do). I will add these terms to my summary document.

Langdon
How about this for a summary:

- Any company whose gross income is under US$500,000 per year the licensing fee is a one-time payment of $100

- For companies with gross income between US$500,000 and US$1,000,000per year, the licensing fee is $500/yr

- For companies over US$1,000,000 in gross income the annual fee is $1000.

- If the member is a retail chain, they pay the standard fees set out above, plus $100 per store that wants to display the logo


Note the increase for the $500k to $1000k bracket. That makes the scale slide a little more smoothly. Sound reasonable?

Langdon

RSS

© 2017   Created by Clay Gordon.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service