Attached.

Corporate Social Responsibility - Outline
1. Fair Trade
Thesis Statement: Fair trade intends to benefit small farmers but ends up benefiting middle
farmers who are skilled or does not bring tangible benefits due to the structure of the system.
I. Introduction
II. Benefits
A. Price floor
B. Higher product prices
III. Limitations
A. Regulation
B. Market flooding
IV. Conclusion

2. Coercion versus voluntary initiatives
Thesis Statement: Regulation or coercion forces companies to adopt green initiatives but the
most prosperous companies adopt such initiatives voluntarily.
I. Introduction
II. Article research
III. Institutional theory
A. Concept
B. Relation between VGI and coercion
IV. Resource-based theory
A. Concept
B. Relation between VGI and coercion
V. Conclusion


Running head: CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Corporate Social Responsibility
Name
Institution

1

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

2

Corporate Social Responsibility
1. Fair Trade
Fair trade is the concept advanced to improve the living conditions of the producers of
agricultural products especially tea and coffee in the developing countries. The movement aims
to promote sustainable farming in developing countries by targeting products that are exported to
developed countries but also consumed in the local markets. Dragusanu et al. explain that fair
trade benefits the farmers in the developing countries. The authors argue that it is indeed evident
that fair trade products were accorded higher prices than regular prices. The fair trade products
bring benefits to farmers through the setting of floor prices which are the minimum prices set
way above the minimum of non-fair trade goods (Dragusanu et al., 2014). Further research into
the essence of fair trade discovers that the benefits are not real. Fair trade intends to benefit small
farmers but ends up benefiting middle farmers who are skilled or does not bring tangible benefits
due to the structure of the system.
The benefits of fair trade, according to Chandler are that the working poor in the
developing countries gets to enjoy the benefits of higher prices and better living conditions
(Chandler, 2017). The argument of the author is that the bottom line of the initiative is that the
price that the farmers sell to the exporters eventually rise above the non-fair trade farmers. Also,
the conditions of living improve in that the developing areas take away the need to rely on child
labor. Eventually, the living conditions of the developing countries benefit from the controlled
use of certain harmful chemicals in the growing of the crops.
A different argument of the topic opposes the view that fair trade benefits the developing
countries and their farmers. According to Krasnozhon et al. (2015), the system of fair trade is
flawed hence it undermines its credibility in the long run. The research the author presents

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

3

concludes that when the prices of world coffee fall (promoting the benefits to the fair-trade
farmers) many borrowers seek to obtain the fair-trade certification hence flooding the trade.
Essentially, the volumes which the farmers are allowed to sell under free-trade reduce and the
financial benefit is zero. The question of whether the poor farmers are the ones who benefit from
fair trade is addressed in the research by Dragusanu et al. (2013). The findings were that the
benefactors of the fair trade were not the poorest farmers but the skilled ones who could afford
the input required for the fair trade certification.
The arguments presented by the various researchers present two sides of fair trade. One
of the sides is the intentions of the trade, and it is closely opposed to the real impact of the fair
trade. The intention of fair trade is to empower poor farmers in the production developing
countries. However, while effort and certification regulations have been put in place to do so, the
results are not as rewarding. The flooding of the production by borrowers due to falling global
prices undermines the trade. Also, the poorest farmers do not get the certification due to lack of
input and relevant skill. Therefore, their lifestyle does not improve. It is, therefore, safe to
conclude that while fair trade was designed to benefit poor farmers in developing countries, it is
not helping the small farmers.
2. Coercion versus voluntary initiatives
The drive to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a trendin...