Content uploaded by Cynthia Lawson Jaramillo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Cynthia Lawson Jaramillo on May 23, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND
Content may be subject to copyright.
[ 80 ] Enero de 2020. ISSN 2011-3188. E-ISSN 2215-969X. Bogotá, pp. 80-87. https://revistas.uniandes.edu.co/journal/dearq
dearq 26. CUMULUS: THE DESIGN AFTER
Artisans and Designers: Seeking
Fairness within Capitalism and the
Gig Economy
Artesanos y diseñadores: en búsqueda de justicia en el
capitalismo y la “Gig Economy”
Recieved: July 15, 2019. Accepted: September 24, 2019
Reflection paper
Cite this: Chappe, Raphaële, and Cynthia Lawson. 2020. «Artisans and Designers:
Seeking Fairness within Capitalism and the Gig Economy.» Dearq (26): 80-87.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18389/dearq26.2020.09
Abstract
The artisan sector is the second largest employer in the developing world and an estimated 34-
to-526 billion-dollar industry (Nest 2018). Why then are the majority of the world’s artisans living
in poverty? And what role have designers played in extracting money and value from these mar-
ginalized communities? Co-authored by an economist and a design educator, this paper posits
that a critical and productive way to get to the bottom of these questions is to analyze the artisan
sector as a member of the gig / on-demand economy. Most importantly, it proposes a fairer eco-
nomic and design architecture for this sector that achieves a better alignment of compensation
and value creation, particularly for those with the least economic resources (the artisans). Using
several designer-founded-and-run artisan enterprises as case studies, the paper questions the
key variables that determine the success of such a venture vis-a-vis artisan livelihoods. These
include scale, ownership models (cooperatives vs. outsourced labor), and various social justice
issues including power and privilege. A further concern is that, as they are submitted to the logic
of rational economic exchange rooted in a market economy, some artisan practices that were tra-
ditionally embedded in social and cultural institutions were transformed in ways that jeopardize
patrimony, traditions, and social fabric. The paper concludes by outlining economic principles for
a proposed collaboration methodology through which designer/founders can frame their future
work with an understanding of how they can strive to reach ventures that emphasize poverty al-
leviation, artisan empowerment, and the celebration/preservation of cultural heritage.
Keywords: artisan, capitalism, gig economy, inequality, design
Resumen
El sector artesanal es el segundo empleador más grande del mundo en los países en desarrollo y
cuenta con una industria estimada entre los 34.000 y los 526.000 millones de dólares (Nest, 2018).
¿Por qué entonces la mayoría de los artesanos del mundo viven en la pobreza? ¿Y qué papel han
jugado los diseñadores en la explotación de dinero y valor de estas comunidades marginadas?
En coautoría con un economista y un educador de diseño, este artículo plantea que una manera
crítica y productiva de llegar al fondo de estas preguntas es analizar al sector artesanal como
miembro de la “gig economy” / economía on-demand. Más importante aún, esto propone una
arquitectura económica y de diseño mucho más justa para este sector, logrando un mejor alinea-
miento de la compensación y la creación de valor, particularmente para aquellos con menos re-
cursos económicos (los artesanos). Utilizando como estudios de caso varias empresas artesana-
les fundadas y dirigidas por diseñadores, el artículo cuestiona las variables clave que determinan
el éxito de un emprendimiento de este tipo en relación con los medios de vida de los artesanos.
Estos incluyen escala, tipologías de propiedad (cooperativas vs. mano de obra subcontratada) y
varios temas de justicia social, incluyendo el poder y los privilegios. Otra preocupación es que, al
estar sometidas a la lógica del intercambio económico racional arraigado en una economía de
mercado, algunas prácticas artesanales que tradicionalmente estaban enraizadas en las institu-
ciones sociales y culturales se transformaron de tal forma que pusieron en peligro el patrimonio,
las tradiciones y el tejido social. El documento concluye esbozando los principios económicos
para una metodología de colaboración a través de la cual los diseñadores/fundadores pueden
enmarcar su trabajo futuro con una comprensión de cómo pueden esforzarse por alcanzar em-
prendimientos que enfaticen el alivio de la pobreza, el empoderamiento de los artesanos y la
celebración/preservación del patrimonio cultural.
Palabras claves: artesano, capitalismo, “gig economy”, desigualdad, diseño
Artisans and Designers: Seeking Fairness within Capitalism and the Gig Economy. Raphaële Chappe, Cynthia Lawson Jaramillo [ 81 ]
dearq 26. INVESTIGACIÓN TEMÁTICA
Raphaële Chappe
Fellow, Open Society Foundation
raphaele@thebrooklyninstitute.com
Cynthia Lawson Jaramillo
Integrated Design, Parsons School of Design, Estados Unidos.
cynthia@newschool.edu
Introduction
“Artisan”, “craftperson”, “handworker”: the terms
evolve, yet they each point to people who are now
involved in producing up to 60% of the worldwide
garment industry’s supply chain (Siegle 2011). For
the purposes of this paper, our interest lies in arti-
sans from emerging economies. The majority are
women (Nest 2018), and they work with a range
of hand crafts including weaving, ceramics, and
beading using techniques most often learned
from their elders. As defined by the Colombian
government organization Artesanías de Colom-
bia, the artisan sector can be classified into three
areas: “indigenous,” the craft produced by ethnic
groups that is learned and passed on generation
after generation; “traditional” including local cul-
tural groups and early colonizers, the trades of
which have also been passed on through genera-
tions; and “contemporary,” distinguished as work
that incorporates new technologies and/or new
aesthetic approaches (Artesanías de Colombia
S.A. 2014). What is key to our argument is not
necessarily about which of these three groups
we are discussing but the common and critical
characteristics regarding the artisans’ labor and
livelihoods: most often paid for by each piece
sold rather than by the hour (meaning they are
essentially as freelancers) (Bohrer and Lawson
2012). They live either in rural/ marginalized areas
or have been displaced to major urban areas, and
more often than not are lacking at least one basic
need (Strawn and Littrell 2006).
The Role of Designers
The critical role design can play in the artisan sec-
tor has to do with the “the production of goods
that provide income and generate wealth for
poor producers” (Thomas 2006). Based on the
research that one of the authors carried out for
more than ten years, this income-generating goal
seems to be aspirational and may instead need to
be more clearly framed as a “hope” or “desire”
and not fact. This is because it is just the top ar-
tisan elite (who participate in visible partnerships
and can afford the big gift/trade shows), who
are generating a sustainable income. Thomas
points out that the role of the external designer
is to bring knowledge of potential markets to the
artisans. These designers understand the
[capitalist!] systems within which the artisan-
produced goods will be sold, which include trends,
trade shows, and import/export regulations. The
challenge, however, is how to create and sustain
models between artisans and designers that do
not just reduce the former to cheap labor.
Many designers who have collaborated with, or
sourced from, artisans, are presented with con-
sistent challenges. They struggle to obtain the
quality they need for the particular market they
are reaching; find it difficult to maintain open
and fast communication channels with artisan
Figure 1. Source: Adapted from DEED Lab’s “Fair Craft” survey
of 120 companies (2012).
[ 82 ] Enero de 2020. ISSN 2011-3188. E-ISSN 2215-969X. Bogotá, pp. 80-87. https://revistas.uniandes.edu.co/journal/dearq
dearq 26. CUMULUS: THE DESIGN AFTER
groups; and experience great difficulty in meet-
ing the timing demands of their buyers (Wrig-
ley 2019). On the other hand, artisans know and
understand that the “industrialized framework”
from which designers come does not necessarily
match their [often-indigenous] culture in terms
of their life, labor, and craft. In fact, Wayuu arti-
san Maria Cristina Gomez asserts, “Asking us to
adapt and conform to those frameworks is like
asking us to jump into the void.” (Gomez 2019)
These challenges are, precisely, the backdrop
for the mission of organizations such as New
York-based Global Goods Partners (GGP). GGP
has a unique application process through which
artisan organizations are assessed to then be-
come “partners”. In addition to producing, mar-
keting, and selling their own products, GGP is a
resource for large retailers or designers looking
for artisans to create products. GGP invests much
of their time in ensuring artisans are actually
ready to deliver on large orders. They acknowl-
edge the challenges of starting up such collabora-
tions, and, therefore, maintain a valuable roster
of experienced artisan groups that can enter into
additional partnerships without the burden of
repeating the challenges outlined above.
Figure 3. Embroidered Mini Crossbody Bag in Pink, Orange
(2019). Source: ABURY.
Another model is Abury, a Berlin-based com-
pany, which works with artisans in Morocco and
Ecuador. Their signature products “Berber Mini
Bags”, can be recognized as traditional Moroccan
bags that are imbued with design details (color,
scale, finishings, etc.) with which the Abury team
provides the artisans. They are very commit-
ted to ethics and sustainability, so much so, that
they will only work with brands who share their
commitment. “In the spirit of our Manifesto, we
have partnered only with Brands that can sign our
Code of Conduct to ensure transparency and the
upholding of our values.” Something else that is
Figure 2. Source: DEED Lab’s “Designers, artisans, and global markets” (2018).
Artisans and Designers: Seeking Fairness within Capitalism and the Gig Economy. Raphaële Chappe, Cynthia Lawson Jaramillo [ 83 ]
dearq 26. INVESTIGACIÓN TEMÁTICA
very positive is that they continually work with
the same artisan group. The downside is that all
of this is only possible thanks to their Foundation
arm. Though they are a for-profit, they acknowl-
edge that centering the artisan within a more just
model requires additional fundraising.
Duka is a fairly new brand, with co-founders
based in New York and Kenya, where they work
with artisans. Having two full-time staff and one
artisan community works quite effectively. What
distinguishes their model is their commitment to
employing a group of artisans week after week.
What remains to be seen is how sustainable this
model is, both in terms of time as well as scale.
It is known that the artisan sector is replete with
founders’ burnout because of the small financial
margins, the emotional labor required, and the
cross-cultural nature of the work.
Brooklyn and Guatemala-based nonprofit Mer-
cado Global has excelled in their long-term com-
mitment to specific groups of Mayan artisan
women in Guatemala. Founder and Executive Di-
rector Ruth DeGolia is extremely critical of one-off
projects (DeGolia 2018), intentionally does not take
on these kinds of collaborations, and instead, like
Duka and Abury, establishes an ongoing commit-
ment to specific artisan women (currently over
two hundred and with plans to scale up to eight
hundred) (Mercado Global 2018). Their mission is
poverty alleviation, and their 990 tax filing clearly
shows how much they have to fundraise to be
able to support their community development
initiatives (Department of the Treasury 2016).
Market and Gig Economies
Many artisans in the developing world work from
home and view themselves as perpetuating an-
cestral skills and practices; they are trained by
their community (peers and elders) and, there-
fore, are embedded in a social and cultural fabric.
The organizational structure of production in the
artisan sector is, in many ways, similar to that of
pre-industrial European societies. In that guild
system, the master would work directly along-
side apprentices, and hierarchy was linear (from
apprentice to journeyman and eventually master)
rather than pyramidal. Everyone in the hierarchy
was a producer (rather than a wage worker) who
generally retained full control of the production
process and the sale of the finished product.
Many artisans in the developing world are also
Figure 4. Source: Mercado Global 2017-2018 Annual Report (2018).
[ 84 ] Enero de 2020. ISSN 2011-3188. E-ISSN 2215-969X. Bogotá, pp. 80-87. https://revistas.uniandes.edu.co/journal/dearq
dearq 26. CUMULUS: THE DESIGN AFTER
independent producers (or freelancers) in that
they are, as mentioned before, paid by the piece,
and are not necessarily guaranteed a fixed num-
ber of paid weekly hours at a given hourly rate. A
significant difference is that in the guild system
there were no intermediaries between the work-
man and the market. Today many artisans in the
developing world are completely disconnected
from the markets for their finished product to the
extent that these are located in other countries
or because it is unclear to the artisan if a market
even exists short of a product re-design specifi-
cally targeting potential customers.
As Karl Polanyi argues in The Great Transforma-
tion (1944), central to the emergence of a capi-
talist market economy was that the use of the
factors of production (land and labor) would
no longer be governed by existing pre-modern
allocation mechanisms (such as tradition, re-
distribution, or reciprocity). Instead, labor (and
land) would be sold at market-determined prices.
During the Industrial Revolution, the increase in
wealth was achieved at the cost of complete re-
organization of labor and production—from the
guild system of pre-industrial European societies
to the mid-nineteenth century English factory.
In the transformation process of independent
producers into wage workers, workers became
the “proletariat” and lost their control over pro-
duction. The linear hierarchy of the guild system
was eventually replaced by the more centralized
hierarchical pyramid structure of the factory.
Tasks became so minute, repetitive, and special-
ized that workers no longer had a product to sell.
The capitalist would be the one aggregating all
separate components of production into a final
marketable product. Wage advances came to
provide workers some income stability but also
maintained them in a state of dependence. It was
arguably not until the beginning of the twentieth
century (through decades of labor activism) that
workers achieved significant improvements in la-
bor conditions and wage increases with benefits
(e.g. paid vacation).
In most cases, artisans in the developing world
are unable to make a living (earn a “living wage”)
through the sale of their craft. This raises two
issues. First, the issue of whether the current
compensation of artisans fairly remunerates their
contribution to the productive enterprise. In eco-
nomics, the traditional approach to “human capi-
tal” is that labor should be compensated for on
the basis of “marginal productivity”: a worker’s in-
dividual contribution to output (see Piketty 2014,
Ch. 9 for an overview). Productivity is, in turn,
determined by a worker’s skills and the supply
and demand for those skills in the marketplace.
The question remains: What is the proper value
split between those who help bring the product
to market and the artisans who are making the
products? Is economic rent (namely unwarranted
profit) being extracted from the supply chain at
the expense of artisans? A second issue relates to
the economic viability of the business model to
Figure 5. “Organization Chart of Tabulating Machine Co., 1917.” Tabulating Machine Co., December 1917. Source: Picture by
Marcin Wichary used under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license.
Artisans and Designers: Seeking Fairness within Capitalism and the Gig Economy. Raphaële Chappe, Cynthia Lawson Jaramillo [ 85 ]
dearq 26. INVESTIGACIÓN TEMÁTICA
begin with. It is possible that even if no economic
rent is being extracted, artisans will be unable to
earn a living. This could be because customers
are unwilling to pay a price which is commensu-
rate with the labor required to make the product
or because other costs associated with bringing
products to market (e.g. shipping and marketing)
are too high. In short, this could be because the
profit margins associated with the current model
are insufficient or cannot be scaled to include
more artisans in it.
Interestingly, it is the lack of access to the mar-
ketplace rather than the minute specialization
and division of labor that has effectively stripped
artisans in the developing world of some degree
of control over the production process. The ques-
tion is how to achieve a living wage without cre-
ating a proletarianization of artisans, which was
what happened at the beginning of the Industrial
Revolution. Can we use wage advances without
creating dependency? Does the adoption of
mechanized processes and the re-design of
pieces significantly alter work processes and
products so as artisans are alienated from their
product? And if artisans are able to make a decent
living through their craft, do we care that it may
be at the cost (down the line) of massive social
dislocation and uprooting of their cultural fabric?
As “independent contractors” without a steady
predictable income, artisans are somewhat simi-
larly situated as those working under alternative
work arrangements in the United States (U.S.).
There has been a shift in the nature of U.S. em-
ployment relationships in the past decade, with an
increase in the percentage of workers working as
temporary help agency workers, on-call workers,
contract company workers, and independent
contractors or freelancers. This is the so-called
“on demand” or “gig” economy. A recent paper by
Katz and Krueger (2018) says that the percentage
of such workers rose from 10.7% in February 2005
to up to 15.8% of workers in late 2015: a significant
increase. A neoliberal economic narrative praises
the gig economy as creating more opportunities
and flexibility for workers, customers, and com-
panies (such as Uber, Airbnb, TaskRabbit, Rappi,
etc.), for instance by reducing transaction costs
and promoting labor competition. However, as
highlighted by Frank Pasquale (2017), there is an
alternative economic narrative that sheds light
on deep issues such as whether the classification
of workers as “independent contractors” can be
used to reduce wages, avoid labor laws (such as
minimum wage and benefits), and overall main-
tain workers in a precarious economic (and even
psychological) state (Gullo 2018). There is now
more intense scrutiny on the potential of this
gig economy to exploit workers, as illustrated by
a recently settled six-year-long case with Uber
(Hawkins 2019).
The recent survey by Katz and Krueger showed
that there is mixed evidence in the U.S. as to
whether workers are benefiting from the gig
economy. Independent contractors typically do
earn a wage premium (presumably to compen-
sate for lower benefits and the need to pay self-
employment taxes) but also tend to earn less
than employees with similar characteristics be-
cause of lower weekly hours. Though more than
80% of independent contractors and freelancers
preferred their work arrangement to working for
someone else, temporary help agency workers,
on-call workers, and contract company workers
expressed that they would prefer more income
stability and work hours.
Similar issues arise for artisans in the develop-
ing world. Are the current business models that
rely on artisan labor an economic opportunity for
artisans, or do they result in economic exploita-
tion doing little-to-nothing to alleviate economic
precarity and poverty? As with the gig economy,
these issues can be framed with two conflicting
economic narratives: one that emphasizes the
income generating economic opportunity for un-
der-employed artisans to be drawn into the labor
market (and the flexibility for artisans to produce
Figure 6. Source: DEED Lab’s “Rise in freelancers in the Unit-
ed States” (2018).
[ 86 ] Enero de 2020. ISSN 2011-3188. E-ISSN 2215-969X. Bogotá, pp. 80-87. https://revistas.uniandes.edu.co/journal/dearq
dearq 26. CUMULUS: THE DESIGN AFTER
and sell at their own pace); the other emphasizes
the low-paid nature of the work and the fact that
artisans would prefer stable long-term relation-
ships with designers and marketers as well as
more income stability and work hours. Ultimately,
the persistence of poverty is evidence that this
business model has not delivered significant eco-
nomic benefits to artisans.
Towards Fairness
How, then, can the artisan sector be fair for all
stakeholders? May the solution be adhering to
“Fair Trade” requirements? This now-globally-
known label has various organizations that super-
vise its certification process including the World
Fair Trade Organization, which has designed a
system for “Fair Trade Enterprises.” Their website
describes these as enterprises that “exist to put
people and planet first…they pioneer solutions to
broader issues like overuse of natural resources,
women’s empowerment, refugee livelihoods,
human rights, inequality and sustainable farming”
(World Fair Trade Organization 2019). And, specifi-
cally, on the matter of wages, the fourth (of ten)
fair trade principle requires “Fair Payment” (World
Fair Trade Organization 2017), which is described as
being made up of “Fair Prices, Fair Wages and Lo-
cal Living Wages.” They continue, “Fair Wage is an
equitable, freely negotiated and mutually agreed
wage, and presumes the payment of at least a Lo-
cal Living Wage.” Also, “Local Living Wage is re-
muneration received for a standard working week
(no more than 48 hours) by a Worker in a particular
place, sufficient to afford a decent standard of liv-
ing for the Worker and her or his family. Elements
of a decent standard of living include food, water,
housing, education, health care, transport, cloth-
ing, and other essential needs, including provision
for unexpected events.”
The stated solutions point to “fair trade en-
terprises” that serve as aspirations for those
committed to fairness. However, the definition
of “Fair Payment” is most likely not applicable to
the artisan sector. First, the suggestion that a fair
wage would be “freely negotiated and mutually
agreed” puts artisans, who often have little-to-
no math literacy, at a disadvantage as they may
not be well-versed in issues of wages and pricing.
Second, as has been discussed, artisans are,
for the most part, not wage workers. They are
being paid by each piece produced, and, due
to the inconsistencies relating to time and skill
across craftspeople, it is almost impossible to
reach an agreement about hours worked per
week and related compensation. Finally, it is
also critical to look at the literature that, in fact,
debunks the myth that workers are better off
working for fair trade organizations. The 2014
“Fairtrade, Employment and Poverty Reduction in
Ethiopia and Uganda” report asserts, “unambigu-
ously ... Fairtrade has made no positive difference
– relative to other forms of employment in the
production of the same crops – to wage workers.”
Conclusion
Regardless of trendy labels, achieving a sustain-
able living wage will require business models that
both properly value artisan labor (i.e. eliminate
economic rent) and are economically viable (and
sustainable). Is it possible to imagine compen-
sation models that account for the centuries of
time invested in learning and carrying forward
a craft technique? The challenges to eliminating
Figure 7. World Fair Trade Organization’s Ten Principles (2017). Source: DEED Lab.
Artisans and Designers: Seeking Fairness within Capitalism and the Gig Economy. Raphaële Chappe, Cynthia Lawson Jaramillo [ 87 ]
dearq 26. INVESTIGACIÓN TEMÁTICA
economic rent are the poor bargaining power of
artisans, their disconnection from the end mar-
kets for their product, and the fact that, short of
labor laws that ensure a minimum wage, wage
advances can be used to maintain workers in a
state of dependency as a source of cheap labor
(i.e. the proletarianization of the workforce). As
discussed, we do not see that the “Fair Trade”
requirements have made any significant dent
in tackling these issues. The current challenges
posed by the gig economy in developed econo-
mies illustrate that the logic of capital accumula-
tion continues to put pressure on workers in new
ways (the innovative technologies of the digital
economy) and suggest that that these are very
much ongoing concerns associated with capital-
ist development.
Creating viable economic models for the artisan
sector will ultimately depend on whether the
market for produced goods generates profit mar-
gins that can support proper valorization of arti-
san labor and is large enough to achieve any sig-
nificant systemic positive impact on poverty. One
historical lesson that should be drawn from the
Industrial Revolution is that, ultimately, poverty
alleviation was achieved through a complete re-
organization of labor and production; the long-
term cost was social and cultural dislocation. Is a
different path possible for artisan communities in
the developing world? And, if not, is this the price
to pay for lifting communities out of poverty?
References
1. Artesanías de Colombia S.A. 2014. “La Artesanía
y Su Clasificación.” Retrieved from http://www.
artesaniasdecolombia.com.co/PortalAC/C_sector/
la-artesania-y-su-clasificacion_82
2. Bohrer, Nicole, and Lawson, Cynthia. 2012. “#Fair-
Craft paper.” Retrieved from https://thenewschool-
collaboratory.org/2018/07/05/fair-craft-study/
3. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue
Service. 2016. “Form 990.” Retrieved from https://
pdf.guidestar.org/PDF_Images/2017/201/348/2017-
201348926-0ec2265b-9.pdf
4. Freelancers Union & Upwork 2018. “Freelancing
in America.” Retrieved from https://www.upwork.
com/i/freelancing-in-america/2018/
5. Gullo, Emiliano. 2018. “Fenómeno Rappi: Capi-
talismo Con Tracción a Sangre.” Revista Anfibia.
Retrieved from http://revistaanfibia.com/cronica/
capitalismo-traccion-sangre/
6. Hawkins, Andrew. 2019. “Uber settles driv-
er classification lawsuit for $20 million.” The
Verge. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.
com/2019/3/12/18261755/uber-driver-classifica-
tion-lawsuit-settlement-20-million
7. Katz, Lawrence F. and Krueger, Alan B. 2018.
“The Rise and Nature of Alternative Work Ar-
rangements in the United States, 1995–2015.”
ILR Review, 72 (2): 382–416. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0019793918820008
8. Marglin, Stephen A. 1974. “What Do Bosses Do?
The Origins and Functions of Hierarchy in Capitalist
Production, Part I.” The Review of Radical Political
Economics, 6(2): 60-112.
9. Mercado Global. 2018. “2017-2018 Mercado Global
Annual Report.” Retrieved from https://www.mer-
cadoglobal.org/pages/annual-reports
10. Nest. 2018. “The State of the Handworker Econo-
my 2018.” Retrieved from https://www.buildanest.
org/shereport/
11. Pasquale, Frank. 2017. “Two Narratives of Platform
Capitalism.” Yale Law & Policy Review, 35(1), 309-319.
12. Piketty, Thomas. 2014. Capital in the 21st Century.
Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University
Press.
13. Polanyi, Karl. 2001. The Great Transformation: The
Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston,
MA: Beacon Press.
14. Siegle, Lucy. 2011. To Die For: Is Fashion Wearing
Out the World? Place: Fourth Estate.
15. Strawn, Susan and Littrell, Mary A. 2006. “Beyond
Capabilities: A Case Study of Three Artisan Enter-
prises in India.” International Textile and Apparel As-
sociation, 24(3), 207-213.
16. Tabulating Machine Co. 1917. “Organization Chart
of Tabulating Machine Co.” Retrieved from https://
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tabulating_Ma-
chine_Co_Organization_Chart.jpg
17. Thomas, Angharad. 2006. “Design, Poverty, and
Sustainable Development.” Design Issues, 22(4),
54-65.
18. World Fair Trade Organization. 2019. “What We
Do.” Retrieved from https://wfto.com/what-we-do
19. World Fair Trade Organization. 2017. “10 Principles
of Fair Trade.” Retrieved from https://wfto.com/
who-we-are#10-principles-of-fair-trade
