other publications
Naomi Klein's NO LOGO: Chapter 17,18 and Conclusion
Susan Burron
Chapter 17: Local Foreign Policy: Students and Communities Join the Fray
In chapter 17, Klein illustrates various examples of how universities and other civic institutions have hosted a backlash against exclusive corporate branding within their institutions. The reason for this backlash is articulated best in these points:
As brands entangle with our culture and identity, the wrong they do to the environment, to human beings and the environment becomes personal. (335)
While we may not expect morality in the mall, we expect it from our public institutions. [It] is different than the individual's interaction with a corporation as an individual shopper. (400)
In a climate of mounting concern about corporate ethics, students are finding out that a great way to grab the attention of aloof multi-nationals is to kick up a fuss about the extra-curricular activities of their university's official brand. (401)
Bulk institutional purchases and sponsorship deals are the most sought after in the market place; here we see a distinct intersection between civic life and corporate profit-making motive. Once activated to engage the multinationals, public institutions can also use their buying power to exert real public interest pressure on the otherwise free-wheeling corporations.
However, Klein notes that "there can be an unanticipated downside for these (corporate and public) partnerships--students are using their buying power to retaliate and engage the sponsorships in debate on issues that concern them."
These issues include:
- Unfair labour conditions
- Trading with dictators
- Suppression of dissent
- Murder
- Environmental degradation.
Klein cites several examples of schools that are successfully challenging multi-nationals about these issues in a range of ways. Sweatshop fashion shows aimed at making students think about the labour conditions attached to their labels is one such way to raise awareness. Klein writes about participating at St. Mary's School in Pickering, Ontario in front of 2,000 highschool students. She was heartened to discover that although the students cheered as their peers walked onto the stage modeling clothes from corporations such as Nike, their sentiment soon grew concerned as they were educated about the process behind the making of the branded merchandise.
In 1993, students from Carleton University challenged Pepsi regarding their involvement with the dictatorship in Myanmar (formerly Burma). They formed their own Public Interest Research Group and developed and distributed campus action kits to the networks of other public interest research groups. As a result of the information they distributed about Pepsi, Harvard University rejected Pepsi when they made a sponsorship bid. Media attention increased and Pepsi was "put in the center of a debate it did not want to be part of...and was put under siege from its own target."
Similarly, the city of Berkeley, California is an example of how local levels of government have stepped up with Selective Purchasing Agreements. In 1995, Berkeley passed a resolution barring the purchase of goods and services affiliated with Myanmar investment. Eventually, Pepsi withdrew its operations from Myanmar, but located itself behind the hard-to-access borders of China.
NGO's have waged multi-lateral campaigns at other corporations that purchase from known human rights and environmental abusing corporations. An example of this is how GreenPeace and the Rainforest Action Network targeted companies that buy products derived from old growth timber. As grassroots activists blockaded on the frontline of Clayoquot Sound logging roads, companies signed on and made a public commitment in a full page ad of the New York Times that they would no longer support the use of old growth timber. As a result of both these levels of activism, the government was forced to re-examine this logging issue, and ultimately a significantly higher percentage of the Clayoquot watershed was left intact.
Beyond the Brand: Chapter 18
In Chapter 18, Klein begins by asking why activists only single out Nike, Shell or Pepsi when the conduct of the multi-nationals is a by-product of a broader global economic system. She recognizes that "[i]f companies are doing business with brutal dictators and treating workers horribly, it's because there is nothing in international trading rules to prevent them." However, she makes the distinction that the multi-nationals most often under assault are the "celebrity face of Global Capitalization."
Klein quotes Guatemalan coffee activist Steve Crats: "You have to start somewhere, [so] you start with one company." The theory goes that if you teach one company a lesson, others too will learn. Undoubtedly, "unbranded" companies are getting off the hook. In this spotlight phenomenon of activism, we have passing moments of illumination on the unethical activities of a particular corporation, while the vast and unaccountable majority of multi-nationals are still committing atrocities.
Klein also raises the question of who should be in charge of monitoring the human rights abuses that occur in factories. Should it be the people's own democratically-elected representatives, the global corporations themselves, or third-party monitoring? She notes a number of reasons why the corporations should not be left to monitor themselves. The very fact that a corporation is driven to make money above all is the main factor that puts it in a conflict of interest while developing sustainable labour and environmental policies.
Klein impresses on her readers that the key to successfully shifting the way our goods and services are manufactured is to empower the workers who produce them. As the corporations scramble to manage their public relations scandals, real change must be consistently demanded by the workers who are exploited. That is the way of history. The corporations--i.e. the oppressors in this dynamic--will not voluntarily give up their domination and profits without a fight.
The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and other labour treaties are constantly being opposed and not adhered to by the multi-nationals. In their own damage control efforts, they are trying to draft their own codes of conduct. But, as Klein notes, even if such codes are drafted, the employees are rarely made aware of their existence.
Klein ends this chapter stating, "If the public will is there, the bar can be raised further still, taking these issues away from corporate control and forcing them into the public domain."
Consumerism versus Citizenship
In the conclusion, Klein addresses the "fight for the global commons." She clarifies these points:
- The basic principle of citizenship is self-determination. People should govern themselves.
- Branded companies such as Shell, Nike, and WalMart represent a "global economic system gone awry" and have made themselves vulnerable to attack by the very people who their encroaching logos seek loyalty from.
- Organizations such as NAFTA, GATT, APEC, WTO, IMF and the G-8 are secretive in their dealings and do not promote true democracy.
She once again argues that activism is reclaiming the public domain from the grips of corporate control and offers this vision of hope:
The claustrophobic sense of despair that has so often accompanied the colonization of the public space...begins to lift when one starts to think about possibilities for a truly globally-minded society, one that would include not just economics and capital, but global citizens, global rights and global responsibilities as well. (442)
She was certain at the time of writing this book that there was a strong resistance swelling up on this new international arena. Culture jamming, reclaiming the street parties, anti-corporate campaigns, protests, and boycotts were all ways that citizens were confronting the ruling class. She was also inspired by the Net, and credits it as a great tool for the global activist who seeks to inform, network and motivate others.
Conclusion: Anti-War Activism
I have myself been witness to an uprising of citizen concern that has spanned the globe. During the waging of the war against "terrorism" and the subsequent war against Iraq, there was an unprecedented coordinated global response, with millions of concerned citizens simultaneously staging protest marches in cities around the globe. This large cry of public conviction was heeded by specific countries and was perhaps instrumental in their choice not to join the "coalition of the willing." People flooded into the streets, demanding that the collective message of their voices be heard. This collective response creates a powerful medium of resistance, and continues to spark change on a government level.
The challenge still remains, however, in this "spotlight phenomenon" for us as global citizens, to demand political structures that promote and ensure human rights and environmental protection on a global level. While it is essential for the vitality of each community to shop local and be involved in local issues, the "global village" is a state we cannot deny. The exchange of goods, services, information, and people between borders has long been established, but the time is ripe upon us now to demand and embody that our participation in this global village does not leave the blood of exploitation on our hands.
© Susan Burron 2004
Fair Use Dealing Applies.