DISSERTATION QUOTATIONS & THEIR SOURCES GLOBALIZATION: THE HUMAN CONSEQUENCES By Zygmunt Bauman Baumaun, Z (1998), ‘Globalization: The Human Consequences’, Cambridge, Polity Press ‘It is often said that the consumer market seduces its customers. But in order to do so it needs customers who want to be seduced.’ (Z. Bauman, 1998, p. 83) ‘To act like this is for fully fledged, matured consumers a compulsion, a must; yet that ‘must’, that internalized pressure, that impossibility of living one’s life in any other way, reveals itself to them in the disguise of a free exercise of will. The market might have already selected them as consumers and so taken away their freedom to ignore it’s blandishments; but on every successive visit to a market- place consumers have every reason to feel that it is they- perhaps even they alone- who are in command. They are the judges, the critics and the choosers. They can, after all, refuse their allegiance to any one of the infinite choices on display. Except the choice of choosing between them, that is- but that choice does not appear to be a choice.’ (Bauman, Z, 1998, p.84) THE ETHICAL CONSUMER By Rob Harrison, Terry Newholm, & Deirdre Shaw Harrison, Newholm & Shaw (2005), ‘The Ethical Consumer’, London, SAGE Publications Ltd ‘In food retailing, substantial niche markets have been created, for example in organic foods, through the consideration of the votes of consumers’ (Harrison, Newholm & Shaw, 2005, p.27) ‘Despite the high level of concern expressed by the public on ethical issues in their relationships with companies, half of the British public (53 per cent) agree that they are ‘sympathetic to social and environmental issues but not active.’ In general terms, we find that the propensity for consumers to be concerned about these issues still far outsrips ethical consumer behaviour. This could be accounted for by the social desirability bias, with people likely to over-claim their ethical purchase behaviour, and the apparent discrepancy between attitudes and behaviour is such as to suggest that there may be other contributory factors at work…’ (Harrison, Newholm & Shaw, 2005, p.197) ‘Currently, the most effective method of communicating companies’ social contributions is largely through informal channels rather than through more conventional (and company-controlled) media. Among those aware of individual companies behaving responsibly or contributing to the community, this awareness is most commonly attributed to informal communication channels such as word of mouth (18 per cent), working for the company (17 per cent) or knowing family or friends that work there (11 per cent). Although the public does not always recall sources of information accurately, it seems that in this case informal advocacy of
companies based on their responsibility is fairly widespread… Therefore, in the communication of ethical issues to consumer, the influence of informal communication networks should not be underestimated. There is a propensity for customers, employees and other stakeholders to act as advocates of those companies they perceive as ethical, and conversely to act as saboteurs of those companies they perceive as unethical.’ (Harrison, Newholm & Shaw, 2005, p.202) ‘So what can corporations do when faced with such a business environment, where many consumers and other stakeholders seem to be demanding more in ethical terms, but at the same time, they are extremely quick to contest the brand image and denounce any efforts they deem to be hypocritical or insufficient? One way to respond could be through better communication to stakeholders. I think it is fair to say that the more risible attempts at corporate ‘greenwash’ are probably behind us now. The late 1980s and early 1990s were often characterised by researchers and corporate critics as a time when the communications environment was awash with misleading and over-hyped claims about ethical credentials and in particular about purported environmental concerns and benefits (Davis, 1992; National Consumer Council, 1996b)’. (Harrison, Newholm & Shaw, 2005, p.202) ANOTHER WORLD IS POSSIBLE: GLOBALIZATION & ANTI-CAPITALISM By David McNally McNally, D (2006), ‘Another World is Possible: Globalization & Anti- Capitalism’, Canada, Arbeiter Ring Publishing ‘From its beginnings, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, capitalism has sought to profit from the exploitation of peoples ad natural resources around the globe… Over 150 years ago, Karl Marx highlighted this in his dissection of modern capitalism. On the emerging capitalist class, or bourgeoisie, and its new economic system, he wrote: “The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East Indian and Chinese markets, the colonization of America, trade with the colonies… gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known… The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption In every country… All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed… by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn up from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every corner of the globe. The bourgeoisie… compels all nations, on pain of extinction to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to adopt what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image. (McNally, D, 2006, p.29) NO LOGO By Naomi Klein Klein, N (2005), ‘No Logo’, London, Harper Perennial
‘Advertising and sponsorship have always been about using imagery to equate products with positive cultural and social experiences.’ (Klein, 2005, p.29) ‘When sponsorship took off as a stand-in for public funds in the mid-eighties, many corporations that had been experimenting with the practice ceased to see sponsorship as a hybrid of philanthropy and image promotion and began to treat it more purely as a marketing tool, and a highly effective one at that. As its promotional value grew- and as dependency on sponsorship revenue increased in the cultural industries- the delicate dynamic between sponsors and the sponsored began to shift, with many corporations becoming more ambitious in their demands for grander acknowledgements and control, even buying events outright.’ (Klein, 2005, p.34) ‘The cultural transformation these institutions have effected is familiar to everyone, but there are few helpful statistics available on the proliferation of franchises and chains, largely because most research on retailing lumps franchises in with independent businesses. A franchise is technically owned by the franchisee, even if every detail of the outlet- from the signs that hangs out front to the precise temperature of the coffee- is controlled by a head office hundreds or even thousands of miles away. Even without industry- wide figures, it’s undeniable that something very drastic has happened to the face of retail this decade. Take Starbucks, for instance. As recently as 1986, the coffee company was a strictly local phenomenon, with a handful of cafes around Seattle. By 1992, Starbucks had 165 stores with outlets in several U.S and Canadian cities. By 1993, that number had already gone up to 275, and in 1996, it reached 1,000. In early 1999, Starbucks hit 1,900 stores with outlets in twelve countries, from the U.K to Kuwait. (Klein, N, 2005, p. 131-132) KARL MARX SELECTED WRITINGS By David McLellan McLellan, D (1997), ‘Karl Marx Selected Writings’, New York, Oxford University Press ‘The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature; it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.’ (McLellan, D, 1997, p. 246) ‘The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere. The bourgeoisie has through it’s exploitation of the world- market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country… In place of the old wants, satisfied by the productions of the country, we find new wants requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes.’ (McLellan, D, 1997, p. 248)
‘The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalised, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The unceasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes.’ (McLellan, D, 1997, p. 252) ‘… Production which is founded on capital creates universal industry- i.e. surplus labour, value-producing labour; on the other hand it creates a system of general exploitation of natural human attributes, a system of general profitability…’ (McLellan, D, 1997, p. 398) THE VALUE OF NOTHING By Raj Patel Patel, R, (2009), ‘The Value of Nothing’, London, Portobello Books Ltd ‘In order for profits to be high, corporations organise workers, raw materials, capital equipment and rents so that their costs are as low as possible. Let’s take they hypothetical example of McDonald’s, and follow the route it takes to calculate these costs. As an institution with a mission to return profits, it’s keen to squeeze down what it pays for the things that go into making hamburgers, everything from beef to labour to rent to safety testing. The more it can drive down costs below those of its competitors, the more money it stands to make. If McDonald’s is able to cause the emission of pollutants like CO2 without having to pay for it, then the costs of the firm are not the same as the broader social cost. In modern economics, the term used for these social costs is “externalities”. These are the costs that somehow slip through the net of prices. It was the early twentieth-century English economist Arthur Pigou who coined the idea that markets often miss the wider implications of their behaviour because of a flaw in their very fabric- a fault that affects what is internal to prices and what is external.’ (Patel, R, 2009, p. 43) ‘…If some goods produce positive social and environmental benefits- as agroecological farming does- and if that’s reflected in their prices, the market can successfully use prices to allocate resources to their most efficient use. This shouldn’t be an optional “ethical consumer” choice for those who choose to buy products that don’t pollute the planet. If products do generate costs and benefits, then those need to be reflected in the price in order for the economic logic of markets to work properly.’ (Patel, R, 2009, p. 49) ‘When negative externalities are not paid for, the beneficiaries are in effect engaging in theft from those who bear the cost of their behaviour… Add up the health impacts from loosing the ozone layer, the loss of fish stocks and ecosystem services provided by trees, the contamination of water by industrial agriculture and the adjustment to a world with more floods and drought because of climate change, and you end up with quite a tab. If humanity had to pay for the
consequences of a degraded ecosystem, the bill could, according to one recent study, run to about $47 trillion.’ (Patel, R, 2009, p. 49) ‘It’s important, then, not to lay the blame entirely at consumers’ doors and to consider how we become consumers in the first place. We may have been seduced by the flood of cheap goods whose real costs are either deferred or paid by others, but this doesn’t explain why we want the goods themselves. There’s a subtle process at work here, a social construction in which we learn how to consume, and how to value our time, our happiness and each other.’ (Patel, R, 2009, p. 50) COOL BRANDS: AN INSIGHT INTO SOME OF BRITAIN’S COOLEST BRANDS 2006/07 By Laura Hill Hill, L, (2006), ‘Cool Brands: An Insight Into Some of Britain’s Coolest Brands’, Rev Ed Edition, Superbrands Ltd. ‘Sustainability is big business at innocent: whether it’s sourcing ethical fruit suppliers, planting forests is deprived urban areas across the UK, having carbon neutral offices or giving away excess stock to the homeless; every stage of production is monitored for it’s environmental impact. innocent is the first smoothie company to use biodegradeable polylactic acid bottles- made from cornstarch- that can be thrown onto the compost heap. It also gives 10% of all profits annually to the innocent foundation- a charity that works with Non Government Organisations in the countries where its fruit is sourced.’ (Hill, L, 2006, p. 95) HOW THEY STARTED: HOW 30 GOOD IDEAS BECAME GREAT BUSINESSES By David Lester Lester, D, (2007), ‘How They Started: How 30 Good Ideas Became Great Businesses’, Great Britain, Crimson Publishing ‘Innocent Drinks, which almost single handedly introduced the smoothie to Britain, is now one of the fastest growing drinks brands in Europe, with revenues of £78 million in 2006. The company, started by three friends, has amazed the business world by successfully launching a preservative- free healthy fruit drinks and maintaining its ethical principles, despite its founders having no real experience in the sector. Innocent now employs more than 180 staff and has five offices across Europe. The company’s offices are among the most friendly and relaxed in the world and its staff are extremely well treated, with perks ranging from free snowboarding trips to bonuses for having children.’ (Lester, D, 2007, p. 22) ‘The now famous logo was produced by a startup design agency called Deepend in return for a stake in the business. However, the company went out of business before Innocent went into production, so they never had to give up any of their shares.’ (Lester, D, 2007, p. 24) -
GOOD: AN INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS IN GRAPHIC DESIGN By Lucienne Roberts Roberts, L (2006), ‘Good: An Introduction to Ethics in Graphic Design’, Switzerland, AVA Publishing SA ‘Graphic design is a potent tool for good or bad, as we can see in war propaganda or political promotion.’ (Roberts, L, 2006, p.29) ‘What does a client do, faced with a quote from printer A, who uses recycled paper and waterless or alcohol-free printing processes, but is ten per cent more expensive? Then there’s printer B, based in Britain, but a print broker. You get value for money but have no knowledge of who the printer actually is, and therefore no idea about processes used or labour conditions. Then what about printer C, in China and cheaper than A and B? It’s a developing economy, but you know nothing about the environmental circumstances or the labour relations. The repercussions? One is that the British print industry will cease to exist… and that’s just the placing of one print job.’ (Roberts, L, 2006, p. 38) Discussion with Simon Esterson, a self-taught designer with a career at the Architects’ Journal before co-founding Blueprint magazine INNOCENT By John Simmons Simmons, J (2011), ‘Innocent’, London, Marshall Cavendish Business ‘Will Awdry is a renowned figure In advertising who has observed their progress. He heads the creative work at DDB, which has not worked with Innocent, and is now moving on to another advertising giant, Ogilvy, so he has no need to look at Innocent through rose-tinted glasses. His views are considered… “Innocent was born eloquent. It is a brand that- genuinely- talks with its customers not to, or at them. This is a reflection of the mastery of great writing. Like those nurses who talk to mute patients and yet who keep it conversational, Innocent’s approach to customers has a two-way element. It balances transmit and receive (both tonally and in reality). The conversation is funny, engaging, entertaining without being clever. (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 113) Growth Figure Sales (£) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
400k 1.6m 4.1m 6.8m 10.7m 17.0m 38.0m 76.0m 115.0m (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 116)
‘The figures tell the story that is expressed in words as “the UK’s fastest frowing food and drinks business”. They also show a story of regular growth, without any of the blips that even the best companies are prone to. From these sales figures they have made regular profits that they have used to drive further growth- and to help favourite charities, important if they were to create a business to be proud of.’ (Simmon, J, 2011, p. 117) ‘In seven years they have gained a 61 per cent share of the UK smoothie market, which is valued at £85m. The reality is that they have virtually created the market because the UK consumer had shown little awareness of smoothies before Innocent’s arrival. Now more than 150,000 Innocent smoothies are consumed every day in the UK, and you can buy them in Ireland, Holland, Belgium, France, Alpine (Austria/Switzerland), Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and (soon) Norway. They are setting sights towards “the Earth’s favourite little food company.” (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 118) ‘Innocent certainly respect Pepsi, and it is now the company that they compete most fiercely with. In 2005, Pepsi bought PJs, a UK smoothie brand that had been around a little longer than Innocent. During Innocent’s existence, seven or eight new juice companies have started up but failed. PJs was the one that lasted, and its owners sold the company to Pepsi for a tidy sum. Innocent have been expecting a strong assault as a result, but the battle lines are clear. Innocent thinks the competition will keep them on their toes and reinforce their belied in their own product and in the little details that matter to them… But the difference between the two brands should be obvious. As Richard puts it: “In reality we’re being taken on by Pepsi, but there’s room for products at the higher and lower end. PJs will be the lower end, and that’s fine. We’ll be Number 1 through quality, taste, innovation and ethics.” (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 127 - 128) ‘One disadvantage of getting bigger is that people start seeing you in a different light. They start watching for mistakes to be made. To many people it seemed that Innocent had made a big mistake when, in Spring 2007, it was announced that McDonald’s would be selling Innocent kids’ smoothies in its Happy Meals. It would be a pilot scheme in one region of England, the north- east and would last six months. “It’s all about money and you won’t be getting any more of mine,” wrote one blogger on the Innocent website. That kind of comment seemed typical at first: many Innocent drinkers reacted as if the company had just sold its business to the US corporation. People assumed that McDonald’s was after an Innocent halo effect. No one imagined that association with McDonald’s would add any lustre to the Innocent brand- only sales volume.’ (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 135 – 136) Richard “Obviously, we expected to get a kicking from some of our drinkers for going into McDonald’s but when a company slated for selling unhealthy food asks to start selling healthy food, it felt more irresponsible to say no than yes. And our strategy has always been to do what we think is right not what we think sounds right. And we weren’t going to change from that philosophy now, even though we knew we would get some flak.” (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 136)
‘By working with the Rainforest Alliance, Innocent reassures itself (and others) that its products and supplies reach agreed standards. This stringent system, involving commercial expert organisation, is built on top of the practice that has evolved over the previous seven years.’ (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 149) ‘Each year, 10 per cent of profits get paid into the Innocent Foundation, a separate registered charity. The foundation is run by Linda, who brings a career-long experience of working with Oxfam and NGOs. Innocent is proud to use 10 per cent for what it sees as good causes, but equally proud to use the 90 per cent to grow its own business. Innocent’s continuing growth, and increasing profits, will fundthe foundation. The Innocent Foundation was set up in July 2004. It was designed to bring cohesion and strategy to a whole series of good works and good causes that Innocent had supported since its founding days… The foundation now works in partnership with community based projects and NGOs in the countries that supply the largest amount of Innocent’s fruit and have the greatest need (identified in the UN Development Need Index). These countries are India, Colombia, Ecuador and Costa Rica in 2006. But the foundation also supports projects in countries with real need, even if Innocent does not currently buy fruit from these countries.’ (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 155 - 156) ‘Being nice to people is Innocent’s gift to a cynical world. Business leaders will try to convince you that the way to the top is by being selfishly decisive and ruthlessly focused. Innocent shows that there is another way, and perhaps this other way works better. It involves being sensitive, considerate and aware of wider responsibilities to everyone whose lives you touch in any small way. And it means being all those things while displaying a natural sense of humour that disarms criticism.’ (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 169) Richard “Up till Sprint 2008 everything had been going our way. Then we hit a perfect storm. Tropicana (owned by Pepsi) launched aggressively against us. They used the same distribution channels as us- but they did that overnight whereas it had taken eight years’ slog for us to build those channels. They reduced our revenue by a third, our market share by a third- and the total market shrank at the same time. Fruit was at its highest price ever with countries like China and India importing fruit for their own consumers. The exchange rate collapsed. We lost more money in one year than we had made previously.” (Simmons, J, 2011, p.177) ‘…They needed cash. So they went out to the market seeking investment funds. On the same day, Lehman Brothers collapsed. And financial institutions started crashing all over the world. The timing could not have been worse. Serious contingency plans were drawn up that would have involved the closure of Innocent’s international businesses (in Europe) and the shedding of half the staff.’ (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 177 – 178) ‘The surprising possibility emerged that Coca-Cola might be the one, the real thing. From the first dealings, Coke had been ‘completely honest’. They were interested in Innocent because they liked the brand, and they valued its philosophy. They recognised that these were crucial to Innocent’s success, and so were the three founders. It was a flattering message to hear- ‘We think you’re the best people to
run the business’- but it also seemed genuine. Certainly, from a commercial viewpoint, it was realistic. Innocent’s recent troubles were not of their own making, and the people who had achieved growth for ten years would be the best people to achieve growth for the next ten years. The negotiations were headed by James Quincey, head of Coca- Cola in the UK and north- western Europle…Richard admits that Innocent were ‘cheeky’. He, Adam and Jon made demands that would have tested the patience of other corporations. They were determined to retain control of the business and to have a mechanism inserted in the legal agreement. They asked for, and got the following: An Investor Board meets quarterly to decide the direction of the business. The Board has four named members: Richard Reed (chairman), Adam Balon, Jon Wright and James Quincey. Decisions are taken by the majority of the Board, so Coca- Cola is outnumbered three-to-one. James Quincey’s roles is linked to him personally rather than to his role in Coca- Cola. So, as long as Richard, Adam and Jon remain at Innocent and as long as they continue to agree (and remain friends), the control of Innocent remains firmly with the founders. (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 178 – 179) ‘Another interesting aspect of the deal is that Coca- Cola agreed to support Innocent and not to launch any other juice products in Europe. This is an enormous statement of faith in the Innocent brand.’ (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 179) ‘We’re still in control. Coke came in first to buy 18% then increased their share to 58%. They gave us the money to do all the things we needed to do, including allowing Maurice Pinto to make his exit.’ (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 180) ‘Richard agrees that the uproar over McDonald’s was ten times worse than anything Innocent had to suffer over the Coke deal. He still can’t quite understand it. “It seems a form of corporate racism. It was so personal to McDonald’s. After all, we’ve always sold our drinks to big businesses- Dunkin’ Donuts, Starbucks, Tescosbut they aroused no animosity. With McDonald’s it seemed like prejudice.’ (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 180 – 181) A BOOK ABOUT INNOCENT: OUR STORY & SOME THINGS WE’VE LEARNED By Dan Germain Germain, D, (2009), ‘A Book About Innocent: Our Story & Some Things We’ve Learned’, London, Penguin Group ‘One of our favourite things at innocent that originally started small is our Big Knit campaign, where we put little woolly hats on our bottles to raise money for charity… In the first year New Adam got over 3000 hats knitted by grannies up and down the country. By year two this increased to 20,000, then 80,000, and in 2008, with Sainsbury’s helping out and asking their staff and customers to help knit, over 500,000 little woolly hats were knitted…’ (Germain, D, 2009, p. 32) ‘Most people, the majority of our drinkers included, thought the Coke deal was a smart move. But a small vocal minority were upset with us…About 300 people complained.’ (Germain, D, 2009, p. 67)
‘With no money for advertising, choosing the right brand name is important; the name itself must communicate the brand promise and what you stand for…Ultimately we got the name “innocent” in a dull and geeky way. It came from looking in the thesaurus in the reference library… we slept on it for a couple of days, and everything it suggested- pure, natural, unadulterated- was what we were all about…” (Germain, D, 2009, p. 112) ‘Harnessing the power of digital media is a brilliant way to establish a brand… Nowadays we also have a blog, films on YouTube, plenty of Flickr groups, Facebook fans, Twitter feeds and whatever else we can have a go at… Basically, if there’s a new way in which our drinkers want to communicate with us, then we’ll get involved.” (Germain, D, 2009, p. 129) ‘We now judge decisions, ideas and our choice of words against whether they feel ‘innocent’ or not. It has become an adjective to describe whether something adds to, or subtracts from, the brand.’ (Germain, D, 2009, p. 129) ‘The epic influence of capitalism, and its agent- the corporation- causes some to resent business. But to be anti- business ignores the fundamental contribution the world of commerce makes in the way we live… That said, capitalism does have its flaws, and they’re big ones. The financial meltdown of 2008 showed the failability of the system. The industrialisation of the world’s modern economies had resulted in unprecedented environmental consequences…on Planet Earth today, there are people dying from having too much while others die from having too little… We believe that while capitalism had helped create this mess, it can, and must, help clean it up. We need businesses to first and foremost create wealth and fund the progress of our societies…’ (Germain, D, 2009, p. 164 – 165)