October 2012

  Campaigners can wield great power by working with rather than against the companies they want to influence. But they must always stay in control, says Brendan May. WWF explores the fine line NGOs must tread when engaging with big companies. WWF is not alone in finding itself attacked by those who believe the conservation movement is at risk of ‘selling out’ to the extent that it will no longer be effective. Big global NGOs are particularly vulnerable here, as Conservation International discovered when one of its admittedly junior representatives was taped being rather too cosy with journalists posing as executives from an arms firm. As with so many things, much of the debate boils down to money. It isn’t engagement per se that bothers critics, it’s the financial transaction that can come with it. Not to mention the apparent endorsement that can be ‘bought’, often in exchange for little fundamental change in business practices. This is one of the strongest arguments for independent certification programmes. Although many dissenters of eco-labels refuse to accept it, you cannot buy a Rainforest Alliance or Marine Stewardship Council logo, because certification is an arm’s length assessment process, with practice measured against robust standards. The NGO has no say in the outcome, maddening though that can be. Yet even certification systems must be careful not to be seen to be piecemeal, allowing a logo on one product line while the rest of a business carries on pillaging as usual. Can NGOs ever be effective engagers of business without taking the corporate shilling? The Greenpeace experience suggests they can. Some of the most significant sectoral changes have come about through Greenpeace campaigns. Soy and cattle in the Amazon, tuna companies raising their game and palm oil progress in south-east Asia are but a few. And […]

   There are still too many regulatory loopholes that allow labour abuses in big brand supply chains, argues Jon Entine Are global corporations cleaning up their supply chains? Trying to answer that question is like wrestling an octopus into a shoebox: no matter how hard you try, something dangles out somewhere. The debate over the abysmally low wages paid to workers in emerging economies illustrates the difficulty. There are two conflicting narratives, both tied to China. One is that wages are going up because of internal pressures, mostly an improving standard of living, and external pressures from public interest groups. The other is that because of widespread corruption, with global corporations in on the scheme, workers are getting screwed. Both narratives are partly correct. China is the manufacturing centre of world capitalism. In response to lagging wages and unrest among its poorest workers, numerous cities have upped their minimum wage, with the boom-town of Shenzhen raising its starting monthly salary 14% to $238. The rising wages have accelerated capitalist hopscotch, with some companies abandoning China. Women’s retailer New York & Co moved its operations to Vietnam two years ago. According to Charming Shoppes, after the Chinese new year holiday, 60% of its employees at one factory didn’t return and instead found jobs closer to their homes. The company says it’s also in the process of moving to Vietnam and Indonesia. “The garment business always moves around the developing world,” says Neal Black, chief executive of Jos A Banks Clothiers, calling this efficient capitalism. “It brings jobs, those people become skilled and then move on to products like electronics.” Southeast Asia has positioned itself as an alternative for companies trying to escape rising labour costs. But wage hikes in China have set off a chain reaction throughout the region. Better educated […]