Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Nearly 400,000 people have written to P&G's CEO, Alan G. Lafley, demanding
that the company immediately commit to No Deforestation. However, in the
eight months since Greenpeace confronted P&G over its weak sourcing
policies, the company has failed to respond with an adequate policy.
Indonesia's forests are disappearing at a rate of more than nine Olympic
swimming pools each minute, with palm oil being the biggest driver of forest
destruction.
1. Promoting consumerism
Unilever spends a lot of energy and money on marketing and
commercialisation of consumer products all over the world (Paint the World
Yellow the Lipton marketing campaign which provide everything with the
Lipton Logo, from surfboards to Chevrolets?was a tremendous success,
according to Unilever. It created a much bigger Lipton Logo awareness
amongst consumers.) Since the Northern consumer market is saturated (so
not much room left for expansion of market shares) Unilever aims at
maximising the processing of food, which means adding value to improve
products and then charge more for these products. Unilever changes the
product only slightly (e.g. strawberry toothpaste), or just changes the visual
language in order to sell exactly the same product. Naturally this process
involves heavy advertising. Many of the improved products are basically
useless, and there is no demand for them (the demand is being
manufactured by the multinationals themselves). In short, Unilever tries to
bring as many products as possible to the market without asking itself the
question is there a real need for the products we produce?
Since the majority of people in the South still go hungry every day, there is
much more room for growth in these countries. If the income of the poor
rises, there is a big change they will spend the money on food products.
Unilever is in a unique position to exploit this. They have expanded market
share in the South, and in Central and Eastern Europe through heavy
advertising and the introduction of new products. Products from the west
(like cigarettes, watches) are often very popular in the South, because of
their supposed high quality and because they can be associated with
powers. It can report persistent offenders to the Office of Fair Trading, but it
is reluctant to use this deterrent (Monbiot, 2001)
Back to top
3. Market domination
Multinational corporations evidently have tremendous market power. They
can decide what products are to be manufactured, what crops are to be
grown, and above all, they can dictate prices. Local businesses and jobs are
destroyed along the way, because that is the law of the jungle. For example,
take tea. Unilever is the worlds largest tea company, and owns 18,000
hectares of plantations in Kenya, Tanzania and India. It controls 20% of the
market (most likely these 1999 figures have changed), through its ownership
of the Brands Liptons and Brooke Bonds. Consequently, it has major power
over the tea price. In the mid 80s, when the Indian tea price started to rise,
Unilever and other corporations acted to bring it down by temporarily
boycotting Indian tea. When the Indian government tried to set a minimum
export price, the multinationals collectively withdrew from the market,
forcing the government to retreat, and slash the price.
Corporate Control of Agriculture -the case of the Netherlands- Two or three
suppliers are controlling nearly all sectors in agriculture. Take for example the dairy
sector, which is being dominated by Friesland Coberco and Campina Melkunie. Or take
the pig sector, which is being controlled by Numico and Dumeco. These companies
supply the farmers with the animals (in this case, the pigs) provide the animal feed,
and finally, they slaughter and process the pigs in the meantime the farmer
temporarily looks after them. The arable sector is structured along the same lines.
Potatoes, cauliflower, onions, carrots: two, at most three, companies supply the seeds
and bring the crops to the retailers. Two big supermarket chains Ahold and Laurus,
are controlling the retail business. However, food corporation Unilever is positioned at
the top of the pyramid.
Reference: Volkskrant Magazine, 16.06.2001
Back to top
4. Procter&Gamble and Unilever reach agreement
While creating the image of tough competition, big corporations often
cooperate in order to divide markets among themselves. Unilever and
Procter&Gamble (P&G) have recently (6 September 2001) reached an
agreement to settle all issues related to disclosure of competitive business
information. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed (how surprising!).
P&G chairman John E. Pepper said, We believe the agreement protects both
Unilever Statement
Unilever has strong ties to the Third World thanks to the operation of
plantations and the agricultural experiments it has carried out on the behest
of, or in co-operation with, national governments. Unilevers Third World
operations often have higher profit margins than its European and North
American operations, not surprisingly of course, since capital-rich
multinationals can easily enforce access to cheap raw materials, land and
low-paid workers in the South. Many of Unilevers consumer products
originate in the South, e.g. tea (see paragraph on market domination).
Multinational corporations usually take the major part of the profit-cake, and
leave the crumbs for the small producers/farmers in the Third World. It is of
course the latter that are providing the real core value of a product (although
in this age of commercialisation and commodification off all things, including
ideas and images, brands are increasingly being considered as the core
value of a product).
Again, lets take tea as an example (see also the paragraphs on market
domination). Almost all tea is grown on plantations, where workers (mainly
women) are dependent on the plantation for jobs and completely powerless
to improve their situation. Wages are generally extremely low and living
conditions appalling. Meanwhile companies, like Unilever, which do the
blending, packaging and marketing of the tea (in the consumer countries)
cream off 30-50% of the retail price. Its obviously very convenient for
Unilever to be involved in the entire process that results in a consumer
product, in other words, to vertically control the food chain. Unilever and
other food corporations control virtually every step of the food production
and distribution system, at the cost of food security and agricultural diversity
in various countries. Multinationals like Unilever direct and shape agricultural
and economic systems to their own profit driven needs (see paragraphs on
unsustainable agriculture).
Back to top
Africa
The Unilever companies originally moved into overseas territories for two
reasons: They wanted to sell their products everywhere and they wanted to
secure raw material bases. However, once a unit was established
out small farmers, cut down tropical rainforests and displaced indigenous
people in the process. Also, processing factories for palm oil caused severe
water pollution.
Unilever started using GMOs in its food products in a very early stage, even
before proper regulation (e.g. on labeling) got off the ground, let alone a
public debate (proper regulation is still not in place). Unilever took a leading
role in the promotion of genetically engineered food (Unilever introduced
Bachelors Beanfeast into the UK, one of the first food products containing
GMOs). After the quick introduction of GMOs in its foodstuffs, Unilever could
claim there was no turning back. It would be impossible to separate GMOs
from GM-free organisms. Zoe Elford of the Genetic Engineering Network once
(1998) put it like this: Unilever is basically forcing genefoods down
consumers throats. The company knows most people cannot stomach the
idea of genefoods. Unilever is willfully abusing its customer brand loyalty.
However, as consumer resistance mounted up, Unilever miraculously
seemed to be able to produce GM-free foodstuffs. The company takes a
country to country position on the subject of GMOs (adjusting its strategy to
GM sensitivities in local markets). Unilever recently declared it was moving to
a new system in Europe where hardly any GMO ingredients will be used.
This statement clearly is very vague, and leaves much room for continuous
use of GMOs.
Back to top
8. Environmental pollution
Unilever claims to be concerned for the safety of its operations and the
environment but this attitude clearly does not stretch to India. Unilever has
recently been accused by Greenpeace of double standards and shameful
negligence for allowing its Indian subsidiary, Hindustan Lever, to dump
several tonnes of highly toxic mercury waste in the densely populated tourist
resort of Kodaikanal and the surrounding protected nature reserve of Pambar
Shola, in Tamilnadu, Southern India.
Greenpeace activists and concerned residents cordoned off a contaminated
dump site in the centre of Kodaikanal to protect people from the mercury
wastes that have been recklessly discarded in open or torn sacks by
Hindustan Lever which manufactures mercury thermometers for export,
mainly to the United States. According to Hindustan Lever, from there, the
thermometers are sold to Germany, UK, Spain, USA, Australia and Canada.
The factory, set up in 1977, was a second-hand plant imported from the
United States, after the US factory was shutdown for unknown reasons.
Unilever states that its policy is to "exercise the same concern for the
environment wherever (it) operate(s)", "ensure the safety of its products and
operations for the environment" and "provide whatever information and
advice is necessary on the safe use and disposal of (its) products". Yet
workers at the Indian factory are offered no protection from the mercury
spills and several workers have complained of health problems which, they
allege, is caused by their exposure to mercury in the workplace. Mercury is
highly poisonous and exposure to even the small amount through air, water
or skin, exerts severe effects on the central nervous system (brain) and
kidneys. Foetuses and young children are particularly vulnerable to poisoning
by mercury [62].
Not wanting to play down the various violations of environmental acts by
Unilevers subsidiaries, the promotion of consumerism (and excessive use of
packaging materials, transportation of products worldwide, etc.) should be
ranked highest on the companys environmental criminal record. Taking the
ecologically destructive effects of consumerism aggressively promoted by
multinationals like Unilever- into account, all efforts of these companies to
save the environment can only be regarded as greenwash practices.
Back to top
9. Using consumerism to eradicate poverty
By some this is perceived as a good thing and the only way out of misery for
poor people. The UN has sent a message to global corporations, urging them
to recognise the potential of the worlds poor as consumers. The Financial
Times reports (30 April 2001) that Unilever is one of the few companies that
have already taken the initiative, reformulating some of its products to make
them accessible and affordable to poor in India. Detergent (e.g. Omo) and
shampoo, for example, are now available in small sachets that sell for as
little as half a rupee in India (speaking of excessive packaging!). This
apparently made good quality products available to the poor, but begs the