Cuando examinamos el patio
trasero de corporaciones como Unilever no podemos dejar de preguntarnos
con asombro. ¿Es ésta Unilever la misma Unilever que piensa
finaciar el proyecto de la Turbine Hall de la Tate hasta el 2012 con un
presupuesto de 2.1 millones de libras para esos próximos 5 años? Nos
preguntamos: ¿ Es ésta la misma Unilever que promociona no bodegones por
desgracia o paisajes bucólicos o “arte de derecha” sino Arte Político,
comprometido hasta el borde mismo del peligro, obras con serio contenido
crítico, rechazo a la exclusión y al racismo? ¿Es ésta la misma
Unilever que alienta al público a través de ese Laboratorio de Toma de
Conciencia que ha devenido después de una larga lucha el Museo, a
superar al abismo entre capitalismo y miseria?
Es inevitable desear que todo ésto no sea más que un delirio, el
efecto de una noche de Rave londinense sin control y que en realidad
existan 2 Unilever diferentes y opuestas y que eso que en principio
parecia un nuevo acto heróico, una hazaña del Arte Social lo sea en
verdad. Y que la hipótesis de Chantal Mouffe de que existe un “arte de
izquierda” que no colabora con el sistema es tan cierta como que te
caiga una tonelada de piso de granito sobre la cabeza.
Carlos Salazar
Unilever
Corporate Crimes
- Promoting Consumerism
- Misleading marketing
- Market domination
- Procter&Gamble and Unilever reach agreement
- Pushing the neoliberal agenda and spreading false information
- Exploiting -relatively cheap- resources in the Third World
- Promoting unsustainable agriculture
- Environmental pollution
- 9. Using consumerism to ‘eradicate’ poverty
- Taking public space/barring imagination
- Collaboration with oppressive regimes
- Hypocritical Health Campaign induced by Self-Interest
- Excessive Pay Management
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
luxurious, western lifestyles (see also the paragraphs on ‘using
consumerism to eradicate poverty’). Flooding the world with ever more
(useless) products is a pretty immoral sales strategy. Only think of the
ecological costs that come along with it (processing of products,
packaging, waste processing, transport, etc. all involve high ecological
costs). If people in the South start consuming the same amount of
products and services as people in the North, the natural environment
will definitely not survive. The only real and sustainable solution to
environmental problems is less production and less consumption. Unilever
and other multinationals are main actors being responsible for the
ongoing trend in the opposite direction!! Besides, heavy advertising
generates psychological effects like feelings of inadequacy,
disorientation, mood disorders, and cynicism. In effect, advertising
involves tremendous non-value added costs, in other words, a tremendous
waste of resources.
Back to top
2. Misleading marketing
Rebranding the same or slightly changed products for sale can
legitimately be labeled misleading, likewise the introduction of new
products that supposedly improve the daily lives of consumers (‘you will
feel better starting the day with…’) or strengthen their self-image
(‘you are worth it, aren’t you?’). The UK Advertising Standards
Authority (ASA) has recently accused Unilever for false advertising. The
ASA ruled that Unilever misled British consumers in the way the company
presented the health benefits of its cholesterol-lowering margarine,
Flora pro-activ. According to ASA, Unilever’s Van den Bergh Foods unit
overstated the benefits of Flora pro-activ in one press advert that
claimed it could reduce LDL cholesterol by 10 to 15 percent. After the
ASA ruling, Unilever agreed to make the required changes and not
advertise in the same way again [54. (Sanctions against advertisers who
break codes of practice in Britain are ineffective. The ASA has no
statutory 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 world’s 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 Lipton’s and Brooke Bonds.
Consequently, it has major power over the tea price. In the mid 80′s,
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 P&G’s and Unilever’s business interests.’
(what about the consumers’ interests?) Pepper continues: ‘This agreement
(…) will not inhibit fair and vigorous competition in the marketplace’
[55. (with multinational corporations dominating the marketplace in
many, if not all sectors of the economy, one cannot speak of ‘fair
competition’).
5. Pushing the neoliberal agenda and spreading false information
Like all big multinationals, Unilever is a major advocate of economic
liberalisation and privatisation; processes that will enable
multinationals to take ever more advantage of business opportunities
worldwide. Recently, at a meeting of the Economic Club of Washington DC,
Unilever chairman Niall FitzGerald called upon his fellow CEOs to draw
together in support of a new round of global trade negotiations. Since
the WTO debacle in Seattle (September 1999), official trade negotiations
have held back. FitzGerald describes the growing resistance against the
WTO and ‘free-trade’ as an ‘emotional backlash of passionate naysayers
against globalisation’, ignoring the strong resistance and
fact-based/sound arguments coming from many developing countries, NGOs,
activist groups, scientists and well-informed people in general.
FitzGerald acknowledges that these people have ‘legitimate concerns’,
but he thinks providing these people with the right information will
take their concerns away. The bottom line is, according to FitzGerald,
that ‘free-trade’ will benefit all, including ‘the billions of people
struggling to improve their lives’. FitzGerald is eager to get a new
trade round going –and make it a success, so that ‘we can ensure that
increased global prosperity benefits all of us, and contributes to the
opportunity for billion of ordinary people to live with dignity and
aspire to their highest goals [56.
Back to top
6. Exploiting -relatively cheap- resources in the Third World
‘International by design, we have deep roots in many countries. By
the very nature of our business we are an integral part of the societies
in which we operate. Local companies are predominately run by local
people in tune with their communities and who understand their needs and
values – a truly multi-local multinational.’
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. Unilever’s
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 Unilever’s
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, let’s 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. It’s 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 somewhere, it tended to be interested in all manner of
businesses. A prime example was the fabled United Africa Company (UAC),
which William Hesketh Lever began building in 1910 when he bought W. B.
Maclver, a Liverpool trading company operating in Nigeria. In the next
nineteen years trading company after trading company in West Africa fell
into the hands of Lever Brothers, culminating on March 3, 1929, nine
months before the merger with the Margarine Union, in the amalgamation
of the Lever-controlled Niger Company with the African and Eastern Trade
Corporation. The formation of the new Lever subsidiary, United Africa
Company, was announced from the Savoy Hotel in London. Subsumed in UAC
were activities of more than a dozen trading companies, most of them of
British origin, one of whose histories went back three hundred years to
its days as a slave trader. UAC was basically a merchant business that
acted as a wholesaler, retailer, manufacturer, exporter, importer,
banker. You name it, and UAC did it. The company’s basic role was to
export the crops of African farmers and import manufactured goods from
Europe. When UAC was formed, it controlled 60 percent of the exports of
palm oil, 45 percent of palm kernel, 60 percent of peanuts, and 50
percent of cocoa from the four British colonies of West Africa -Nigeria,
Gold Coast (now Ghana), Gambia, and Sierra Leone. In addition, UAC had
extensive operations in other African countries, including the Belgian
Congo, Cameroon, and the Ivory Coast. In all, it had one thousand
locations on the African continent. For the next twenty years, from 1929
to 1949, Unilever’s UAC was unquestionably the largest and most
important company operating on the African continent. Nor was its
contribution to Unilever insignificant. In the years immediately
following World War II, UAC accounted for one fifth of Unilever’s
turnover and, if the contribution of the plantations was added, between
one third to one half of the profits. Independence movements swept
Britain, France, Belgium, and Portugal out of Africa in the post-World
War II years but not Unilever. As nationalist consciousness grew in
Africa, criticism of the company focused on both UAC’s dominant position
in domestic African economies and on its rate of profit and the easy
remittance of those profits overseas to its Anglo-Dutch parent.
Gradually, African governments/commercial classes took bigger stakes in
UAC. Unilever found its companies nationalized in more than a dozen
countries [‘This nationalization,’ the company once noted, ‘may be with
full compensation, as in Iraq; with deferred compensation, as in Burma;
or with partial, differed compensation, as in Egypt; or anything in
between.’ Its role has changed. It no longer controls the marketing of
West African crops. And it has been forced to sell manufacturing units
to governments, including a majority interest in its biggest subsidiary,
United Africa Company of Nigeria. In 1973, to adjust to these changing
political conditions, Unilever changed the name of United Africa Company
to UAC International and changed its charter as well. If it had its
way, Unilever would own 100 percent of its overseas subsidiaries. But as
a seasoned sailor in international waters, it knows how and when to
tack to the winds of change [57. To conclude, UAC played a key role in
developing commodity-based, export economies which many African
countries are grappling with today and Unilever, whatever name it uses,
remains positioned to direct and shape the markets to its own advantage
(see for a full story on Unilever and UAC: Multinational Monitor, issue
9, 1998).
Back to top
Central and Eastern Europe (CEE)
Unilever and Procter & Gamble are western companies that have
profited from the collapse of Central and Eastern European communist
regimes and the consequent opening-up of their economies. The food
corporations took advantage of the unequal playing field in Europe. They
have basically divided the CEE market for personal care products
between them, shutting down national companies in the process. Central
and Eastern Europe provide multinationals with an enormous supply
high-skilled, low-wage workers and some 150 million consumers. In ERT
Secretary-General Richardson’s view: ‘It is as we have discovered a new
South-east Asia on our doorstep.’ Multinationals are eager to
incorporate CEE into the EU and see the EU enlargement become a fact.
They see this as a win-win situation for both Eastern and Western
Europe. However, dependency on foreign investments has already had
negative impacts on employment and environment in CEE societies [58. In
Hungary, for instance, multinationals currently account for up to 30% of
GDP. Local companies throughout the region struggle –often
unsuccessfully- to compete with large corporations, which benefit from
enormous advantage of scale, access to cheaper capital, superior
technology and massive advertising budgets. That multinationals are able
to produce greater quantities at less expense and with fewer employees
gives them a distinct advantage, but creates the legacy of increased
unemployment [59. By 1992, significant sectors of the Hungarian economy,
including brewing, cement, glass, bread, vegetable oil, sugar
confectionery, paper and refrigerators were in the hands of foreign
multinational corporations. In 1991, nine of the largest ten
privatisations went to Western multinational corporations. Eighty-five
percent of privatization proceeds came from foreign investors.
Multinationals including Electrolux, Unilever, and General Electric have
plucked attractive state enterprises.[60
Back to top
7. Promoting unsustainable agriculture
Corporations control virtually every step of the food production and
distribution system, which is riddled with ecologically unsustainable
practices. E.g., just 20 chemical companies account for the sales of
over 90 percent of all the world’s pesticides. These agricultural
chemicals are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths, and at least a
million more farm worker poisonings every year. Global giants such as
Phillip Morris, United Fruit, Pepsico, Cargill, Unilever and Nestle
oversee vast portions of international agricultural production and
trade. In fact, multinationals either directly or indirectly command 80
percent of the land around the world that is cultivated for export crops
such as bananas, tobacco and cotton. Such agro-export “development”
patterns regularly displace farmers producing food for local
consumption, pushing them into situations where they must overexploit
the environment to survive. Unilever claims to be ‘among the world’s
largest users of agricultural raw materials, such as tea, vegetables and
vegetable oils.’ It thus has a huge impact on the shaping of global
agriculture. Unilever claims to be open to different alternatives (‘all
agricultural systems have something to offer and we want to find out
what works best under differing circumstances’), but the company
believes it is the market mechanisms that will decide what system works
best. ‘Our belief is that market mechanisms stimulate performance
improvement and efficiency along the supply chain and raise quality
standards to meet consumer needs and expectations.’ ‘Ultimately, we want
the market to work for sustainable development and to encourage fully
sustainable agricultural systems’, says Jeroen Bordewijk, Chairman
Unilever Sustainable Agriculture Steering Group. Why do you think
Unilever considers sustainable agriculture so important? ‘Because’, as
the company claims, ‘we have a clear obligation to our shareholders and
consumers to ensure that we continue to have access to supplies of
natural raw materials’. High-input, industrial agriculture is the way
forward. In its publication on sustainable agriculture Unilever sums up
the blessings of the Green Revolution. It mentions briefly that the
success of the Green Revolution came at a cost (but let’s not elaborate
on that, is what Unilever probably thought), but plays them down
immediately (‘such costs are not new in the history of agriculture’).
‘Many leading experts and institutions still argue strongly in favour of
the high-input method that characterized the green revolution’ [61. But
of course no mentioning of the many experts who claim small-scale
agriculture is much more productive and sustainable. Large-scale,
industrialized, high-input agriculture fits in nicely in the corporate
project of increasing corporate control of agriculture. Chemical giants
such as Shell, Monsanto, Mitsubishi and Sandoz now control many of the
world’s genetic seed stocks (through patents), as well as much of the
agricultural biotech industry – which presents a new series of potential
environmental problems, and undermines subsistence farming. Unilever
strongly supports the use of biotechnology in agriculture (see section
three above). Biotechnology is used as a tool to create uniform,
standardized crops convenient for industrial processing, or crops with a
long shelf life. Unilever tried to create genetically uniform palm
trees through tissue culture. The company wanted to expand its palm oil
operations (palm trees are grown for the oil in their seeds; the seeds
are used for snack foods and industrial lubricants), but the trees were
too variable in size to be industrialized. Unilever created large
plantations of genetically identical palms -and bought 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
consumer’s 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 Unilever’s subsidiaries, the promotion of
consumerism (and excessive use of packaging materials, transportation of
products worldwide, etc.) should be ranked highest on the company’s
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 world’s 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 question ‘why aren’t local businesses able to provide consumers with
products?’
10. Taking public space/barring imagination
‘We are proud of our project of voluntary activities for the benefit
of society. Worldwide Unilever companies have donated more than 50
million euro* on voluntary activities. In co-operation with others we
support projects that improve health care, rise levels of education, and
stimulate local economic and cultural activities.’ (Unilever Statement)
[63. • Incidentally this amounts to less than 0,1% of total turnover
Multinationals are increasingly penetrating the lives of people by
taking public space, first of all by advertisements. Unilever does not
perceive this as a problem at all and proudly states: ‘On the way to
work, in town or at home, consumers come across advertisements for our
brands in all areas of their daily lives – on television, radio and the
internet, in print, posters and direct mail and through sponsorship and
public relations campaigns.’ Unilever also bombard us through
sponsorship and the interference with education and science
(partnerships between universities and the private sector are
mushrooming). Sponsoring sport events and art projects seems to be among
the latest trends, though art should energize people’s imagination and
should be free from commercial interests. Unilever does not see
contradiction in the mix of art and business interests, because it is
good for a company to be ‘associated with creativity’ (in the words of
FitzGerald) and to enlarge its visibility in the public domain. Around
the world, Unilever companies invest some £25 million in community
involvement projects, including education and arts sponsorship. On May
13th, 1999, Unilever chairman Niall FitzGerald announced a £1.25 million
sponsorship agreement with the new Tate Gallery of Modern Art in
London. The funds would enable the gallery, which opened in May 2000, to
commission and exhibit large-scale work (known as the Unilever Series)
each year for the coming five years. It was the first major sponsorship
of the new gallery’s programme. (Unilever is committing £250,000 a year
until 2004 to enable the Tate to commission new works of art.) At the
end of the summer (2000), Unilever claims enthusiastically, two thousand
people from Europe headed off for Ibiza (!) where Unilever organized a
big dance party (in a converted zoo) in order to introduce a new product
(a new variant of Axe personal care) [64.
Back to top
11. Collaboration with oppressive regimes
Margarine Unie brought major interests in Nazi Germany. One source
remarked that Adolf Hitler “had decided to leave the management of
tropical colonies and enterprises (after his presumed victory) to the
Dutch, who, he said,… ‘would do it better than we could hope to’. What
had evoked his respect? “The incredible efficiency of one firm…” More
recently, Unilever was one of the companies which successfully lobbied
the European Commission to begin legal proceedings at the World Trade
Organisation to challenge US state Massachusetts’ refusal to award
public contracts to companies that do business with or in Burma (on
grounds of Burma’s appalling human rights record) [65. Unilever grilled
on bribery, human rights and environmental practice by BBC (21 August
2001) Unilever CEO FitzGerald has admitted that local management in some
of the 90 countries where the company operates accept “sweeteners” or
“facilitating payments” to seal business deals [66.
12. Hypocritical Health Campaign induced by Self-Interest
In an effort to avoid tobacco-style lawsuits, food giants including
Unilever, Procter & Gamble and Heinz are to use internet, TV and
press ads to warn consumers that eating too much fast food will make
them fat. Food companies are worried if the problem continues they could
face the threat of similar lawsuits to those being brought against
tobacco firms. There is also concern governments may try to crack down
on fast food advertising or impose mandatory health warnings. Other
companies involved are Kraft Foods, one of America’s biggest makers of
snack foods, Pepsi, Monsanto, Coca-Cola and McDonalds. All companies at
the forefront of promoting unhealthy food worldwide [ready-made
microwave meals (instead of fresh, whole foods), genetically engineered
crops (as opposed to organic crops), etc. and in the process shaping
agriculture to suit industrial needs (as opposed to the needs of
farmers, local communities, the environment, or consumers).
13. Excessive Pay Management
Unilever is likely to end the year 2002 with one of the highest paid
boards of any company in the index of Britain’s 100 largest companies,
with six of its top executives being paid more than £1m in 2001.
Back to top
[54 Financial Times, 04/7/2001
[55
http://just-food.com/news_detail.asp?art=41057&dm=yes&c=1 (source:
just-food.com editorial team, date viewed: 18/9/01)
[56 Washington, Business Wire, press release 14.06.2001
[57 The Global Market Place, 1987
[58 Belen Balanya…[et al. (2000) ‘Europe Inc., Regional & Global
Restructuring and the Rise of Corporate Power’, Pluto Press, London, pg.
29
[59 Ibidem
[60
www.transnationale.org (source: transnationale, date viewed: 09/8/01)
[61 Unilever Jaaroverzicht 2000, en verkorte jaarrekening (Unilever publication, Dutch version)
[62 Greenpeace press release, March 7, 2001 // see also: Multinational Monitor, April 2001, pg. 6-7
[63 Unilever Jaaroverzicht 2000, en verkorte jaarrekening (Unilever publication, Dutch version)
[64 Ibidem
[65 Corporate Watch, CW Magazine, Autumn 1998
[66
http://just-food.com/news_detail.asp?art=39902&dm=yes&c=1 (source:
just-food.com editorial team, date viewed: 18/
![[ CHAINSAW LOGO ]](http://www.mcspotlight.org/beyond/beyond_pix/environment.gif)
![[ mcspot logo small ]](http://www.mcspotlight.org/campaigns/campaigns_pix/mcspot.gif)