Cynthia Peters

What

happens when corporations take on progressive social and political issues?

We’ve

all had the opportunity to roll our eyes at the marketers who co-opt feminist

principles in order to sell their products. "Take Control" hair gel

and "Stay Free" maxi pads have the women’s movement to thank for their

product names. The concepts of power and liberation resonate with women because

of hard-fought grassroots battles. The fact that they have nothing to do with

hair styling and period management doesn’t matter. The force and momentum of

those ideas can be used to propel products into people’s consciousnesses and

shopping carts, that’s all that matters.

Now

we are seeing a new level of corporate interest in the progressive agenda. In a

step that goes beyond product labeling, some corporations are selling themselves

to consumers as significant players in progressive issues.

Here

are some examples:

The

6-column headline in the Boston Globe describes, "The Greening of

McDonalds," and the ensuing article reports that this seller of a billion

burgers has been working closely with the Environmental Defense Fund to reduce

its negative environmental impact. Now thanks to shorter napkins, lighter

plastic serving trays, chlorine-free Happy Meal bags, and wider use of recycled

materials, McDonalds is creating less waste.

Benetton,

the Italian designer clothing company, recently unveiled its new multi-million

dollar advertising campaign featuring (and you thought you’d heard everything!)

death-row inmates. Starting at the end of January 2000, billboards and print

media across Europe and the United States, include a single image of a real U.S.

prisoner facing the death penalty, above a caption telling the name, birth date,

and crime of Benetton’s most brazen choice of models. The inmates aren’t wearing

Benetton clothes, mind you. They’re all dressed in prison garb. But that’s part

of the point: the simple startling image creates a lasting impression that

consumers will now associate with Benetton’s logo. Will the ad make you run out

and buy a Benetton sweater? Probably not. But the brand name will stick in your

mind as being associated with an important social/political issue that raises

deeply moral concerns that you care very much about. The advertisers hope that

they’ve hit upon a cutting edge issue that will stick in your memory. The next

time you’re at the mall and come across a Benetton store, you might wander in.

"Oh, aren’t these the people that did those death penalty ads?"

In

late 1999, Reebok and Mattel (among others) released independently produced

audits of their factories abroad. Because of anti-sweatshop campaigns in the

United States and elsewhere that brought attention to substandard conditions in

Third World sweatshops, these corporations want to clean up their image.

Producing "Codes of Conduct" that read like labor-rights primers,

these clothing manufacturers come out in support of all the things progressives

have been pushing for – the right to organize, clean and safe working

conditions, a decent wage, an end to sexual harassment etc. Reebok’s supposed

improvements in foreign factories won accolades from the likes of Medea

Benjamin, director of Global Exchange, a leader in that anti-sweatshop movement.

So

what’s a progressive person to do? Retire, of course. The corporations have

everything under control. They’ve taken up our issues and they’re doing a better

job than we are of raising public consciousness. Think of all the struggling

anti-death penalty workers and Mumia supporters who can take a break now that

Benetton has thrown its millions into the struggle, and given death-row inmates

a human face – more effectively, perhaps, than all our combined efforts, heroic

though they may have been.

The

fact is: the opposite is true. The more we see corporations taking on social

issues, the more vigilant we should be. Of course there are benefits to

McDonald’s creating less waste, to Benetton putting the death penalty in the

public eye, and to clothing manufacturers attempting to minimize their

exploitation of foreign labor. Improvements are good. But environmental

strategies, the question of capital punishment, and proper codes of conduct for

corporations should be debated in the public realm – not conjured up and

resolved in corporate offices. As Canadian writer Naomi Klein says, corporate

codes of conduct may "place some restrictions on corporate behaviour,"

but "giving multinationals the power to draft a new set of global labour

and human rights declarations actually hands them an unprecedented kind of power

– the power over rights which were once in the public domain."

When

Naomi Klein traveled around Indonesia and the Philippines interviewing sweatshop

workers, she found that many workers had never even heard of the codes of

conduct, and that those who had did not understand them. Poengky Indarti, a

lawyer at an Indonesian legal aid institute, interviewed workers at Reebok

factories, and discovered that although many knew of the codes and saw them

posted in the factory, they were too intimidated to read them because they felt

that security guards were keeping watch and would report their activity. Many

felt that they would be dismissed if they demanded that the codes be

implemented. Clearly, the codes are not meant for the workers. They are meant to

placate U.S. consumers who, in grassroots campaigns, have expressed outrage

about sweatshop conditions, and made it clear they care about exploitive labor

practices.

One

of the lessons we can take from seeing corporations move in on progressive

campaigns is that we are on the right track. Our issues and concerns matter to

people. They matter so much, in fact, that corporations want to at least portray

themselves as caring about our values. As Stephen Duncombe writes in his

excellent article in the December Z about corporate appropriation of zine

culture, the reason Nike produces a home-grown, countercultural basketball zine

is because they want to create an association between a brand and

"something cool [kids] can get into, that is, a genuine grass-roots

alternative culture." There are even trend-watchers, Duncombe reports, who

"track the movements among these progressive mind-sets and interpret them

into actionable opportunities for marketing…"

Another

lesson is that while winning improved conditions is better than not, altering

power relations is even better. We must make room for democratic voices to

resolve workplace issues, moral and political concerns, and environmental

stewardship. Corporations want control. Corporations do not want citizens to

participate in determining political outcomes. One way to achieve these aims is

to fill up public space and dominate public debate, thus squeezing out what

small forums people may have for participating in a democracy. Corporations want

more than to fill our shopping carts, they want to weaken democracy so that we

cannot bring our collective power to bear on them.

While

it is testament to our relevance that the trend-watchers are tracking

progressive movements, it’s also a reminder of just how dangerous democracy is

for capitalism.