# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Greta Thunberg and George Monbiot make short film on the climate crisis

# data[].attributes.body
FASCISM & DATA

Why fascism is so tempting -- and how your data could power it | Yuval Noah Harari

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why fascism is so tempting -- and how your data could power it | Yuval Noah Harari

# data[].attributes.body
Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Learning Objectives

1. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of representative democracy.

2. Explain why authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are more unstable politically than democracies and monarchies.

Various states and governments obviously exist around the world. In this context, means the political unit within which power and authority reside. This unit can be a whole nation or a subdivision within a nation. Thus the nations of the world are sometimes referred to as states (or nation-states), as are subdivisions within a nation, such as California, New York, and Texas in the United States. Government means the group of persons who direct the political affairs of a state, but it can also mean the type of rule by which a state is run. Another term for this second meaning of government is political system , which we will use here along with government. The type of government under which people live has fundamental implications for their freedom, their welfare, and even their lives. Accordingly we briefly review the major political systems in the world today.

Democracy

The type of government with which we are most familiar is , or a political system in which citizens govern themselves either directly or indirectly. The term democracy comes from Greek and means "rule of the people." In Lincoln's stirring words from the Gettysburg Address, democracy is "government of the people, by the people, for the people." In direct (or pure) democracies, people make their own decisions about the policies and distribution of resources that affect them directly. An example of such a democracy in action is the New England town meeting, where the residents of a town meet once a year and vote on budgetary and other matters. However, such direct democracies are impractical when the number of people gets beyond a few hundred. Representative democracies are thus much more common. In these types of democracies, people elect officials to represent them in legislative votes on matters affecting the population.

Representative democracy is more practical than direct democracy in a society of any significant size, but political scientists cite another advantage of representative democracy. At least in theory, it ensures that the individuals who govern a society and in other ways help a society function are the individuals who have the appropriate talents, skills, and knowledge to do so. In this way of thinking, the masses of people are, overall, too uninformed, too uneducated, and too uninterested to run a society themselves. Representative democracy thus allows for "the cream to rise to the top" so that the people who actually govern a society are the most qualified to perform this essential task (Seward, 2010). Although this argument has much merit, it is also true that many of the individuals who do get elected to office turn out to be ineffective and/or corrupt. Regardless of our political orientations, Americans can think of many politicians to whom these labels apply, from presidents down to local officials. As we discuss in Chapter 14 "Politics and Government", Section 14.4 "Politics in the United States" in relation to political lobbying, elected officials may also be unduly influenced by campaign contributions from corporations and other special-interest groups. To the extent this influence occurs, representative democracy falls short of the ideals proclaimed by political theorists.

The defining feature of representative democracy is voting in elections. When the United States was established more than 230 years ago, most of the world's governments were monarchies or other authoritarian regimes (discussed shortly). Like the colonists, people in these nations chafed under arbitrary power. The example of the American Revolution and the stirring words of its Declaration of Independence helped inspire the French Revolution of 1789 and other revolutions since, as people around the world have died in order to win the right to vote and to have political freedom.

Democracies are certainly not perfect. Their decision-making process can be quite slow and inefficient; as just mentioned, decisions may be made for special interests and not "for the people"; and, as we have seen in earlier chapters, pervasive inequalities of social class, race and ethnicity, gender, and age can exist. Moreover, in not all democracies have all people enjoyed the right to vote. In the United States, for example, African Americans could not vote until after the Civil War, with the passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870, and women did not win the right to vote until 1920, with the passage of the 19th Amendment.

In addition to generally enjoying the right to vote, people in democracies also have more freedom than those in other types of governments. Figure 14.1 "Freedom Around the World (Based on Extent of Political Rights and Civil Liberties)" depicts the nations of the world according to the extent of their political rights and civil liberties. The freest nations are found in North America, Western Europe, and certain other parts of the world, while the least free lie in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

Monarchy

is a political system in which power resides in a single family that rules from one generation to the next generation. The power the family enjoys is traditional authority, and many monarchs command respect because their subjects bestow this type of authority on them. Other monarchs, however, have ensured respect through arbitrary power and even terror. Royal families still rule today, but their power has declined from centuries ago. Today the Queen of England holds a largely ceremonial position, but her predecessors on the throne wielded much more power.

This example reflects a historical change in types of monarchies from absolute monarchies to constitutional monarchies (Finer, 1997). In absolute monarchies, the royal family claims a divine right to rule and exercises considerable power over their kingdom. Absolute monarchies were common in both ancient (e.g., Egypt) and medieval (e.g., England and China) times. In reality, the power of many absolute monarchs was not totally absolute, as kings and queens had to keep in mind the needs and desires of other powerful parties, including the clergy and nobility. Over time, absolute monarchies gave way to constitutional monarchies. In these monarchies, the royal family serves a symbolic and ceremonial role and enjoys little, if any, real power. Instead the executive and legislative branches of government-the prime minister and parliament in several nations-run the government, even if the royal family continues to command admiration and respect. Constitutional monarchies exist today in several nations, including Denmark, Great Britain, Norway, Spain, and Sweden.

Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism

Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are general terms for nondemocratic political systems ruled by an individual or a group of individuals who are not freely elected by their populations and who often exercise arbitrary power. To be more specific, authoritarianism refers to political systems in which an individual or a group of individuals holds power, restricts or prohibits popular participation in governance, and represses dissent. Totalitarianism refers to political systems that include all the features of authoritarianism but are even more repressive as they try to regulate and control all aspects of citizens' lives and fortunes. People can be imprisoned for deviating from acceptable practices or may even be killed if they dissent in the mildest of ways. The purple nations in Figure 14.1 "Freedom Around the World (Based on Extent of Political Rights and Civil Liberties)" are mostly totalitarian regimes, and the orange ones are authoritarian regimes.

Compared to democracies and monarchies, authoritarian and totalitarian governments are more unstable politically. The major reason for this is that these governments enjoy no legitimate authority. Instead their power rests on fear and repression. The populations of these governments do not willingly lend their obedience to their leaders and realize that their leaders are treating them very poorly; for both these reasons, they are more likely than populations in democratic states to want to rebel. Sometimes they do rebel, and if the rebellion becomes sufficiently massive and widespread, a revolution occurs. In contrast, populations in democratic states usually perceive that they are treated more or less fairly and, further, that they can change things they do not like through the electoral process. Seeing no need for revolution, they do not revolt.

Since World War II, which helped make the United States an international power, the United States has opposed some authoritarian and totalitarian regimes while supporting others. The Cold War pitted the United States and its allies against Communist nations, primarily the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and North Korea. But at the same time the United States opposed these authoritarian governments, it supported many others, including those in Chile, Guatemala, and South Vietnam, that repressed and even murdered their own citizens who dared to engage in the kind of dissent constitutionally protected in the United States (Sullivan, 2008). Earlier in U.S. history, the federal and state governments repressed dissent by passing legislation that prohibited criticism of World War I and then by imprisoning citizens who criticized that war (Goldstein, 2001). During the 1960s and 1970s, the FBI, the CIA, and other federal agencies spied on tens of thousands of citizens who engaged in dissent protected by the First Amendment (Cunningham, 2004). While the United States remains a beacon of freedom and hope to much of the world's peoples, its own support for repression in the recent and more distant past suggests that eternal vigilance is needed to ensure that "liberty and justice for all" is not just an empty slogan.

Key Takeaways

The major types of political systems are democracies, monarchies, and authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.

Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are more unstable politically because their leaders do not enjoy legitimate authority and instead rule through fear.

For Your Review

1. Why are democracies generally more stable than authoritarian or totalitarian regimes?

2. Why is legitimate authority as Max Weber conceived it not a characteristic of authoritarian or totalitarian regimes?

References

Cunningham, D. (2004). There's something happening here: The new left, the Klan, and FBI counterintelligence. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Finer, S. E. (1997). The history of government from the earliest times. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Goldstein, R. J. (2001). Political repression in modern America from 1870 to 1976 (Rev. ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Seward, M. (2010). The representative claim. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Sullivan, M. (2008). American adventurism abroad: Invasions, interventions, and regime changes since World War II (Rev. and expanded ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of representative democracy. Explain why authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are more unstable politically than democracies and monarchies. Various states and governments obviously exist around the world. In this context, means the political unit within which power and authority reside.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Here's a rundown of the various forms of government, with definitions provided by "The World Factbook." Absolute monarchy - a form of government where the monarch rules unhindered, i.e., without any laws, constitution or legally organized opposition.

Anarchy - a condition of lawlessness or political disorder brought about by the absence of governmental authority.

Authoritarian - a form of government in which state authority is imposed onto many aspects of citizens' lives.

Commonwealth - a nation, state or other political entity founded on law and united by a compact of the people for the common good.

Communist - a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single -- often authoritarian -- party holds power; state controls are imposed with the elimination of private ownership of property or capital while claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people (i.e., a classless society).

Confederacy (Confederation) - a union by compact or treaty between states, provinces or territories that creates a central government with limited powers; the constituent entities retain supreme authority over all matters except those delegated to the central government.

Constitutional - a government by or operating under an authoritative document (constitution) that sets forth the system of fundamental laws and principles that determines the nature, functions and limits of that government.

Constitutional democracy - a form of government in which the sovereign power of the people is spelled out in a governing constitution.

Constitutional monarchy - a system of government in which a monarch is guided by a constitution whereby his/her rights, duties, and responsibilities are spelled out in written law or by custom.

Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.

Democratic republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

Dictatorship - a form of government in which a ruler or small clique wield absolute power (not restricted by a constitution or laws).

Ecclesiastical - a government administrated by a church.

Emirate - similar to a monarchy or sultanate, a government in which the supreme power is in the hands of an emir (the ruler of a Muslim state); the emir may be an absolute overlord or a sovereign with constitutionally limited authority.

Federal (Federation) - a form of government in which sovereign power is formally divided -- usually by means of a constitution -- between a central authority and a number of constituent regions (states, colonies or provinces) so that each region retains some management of its internal affairs; differs from a confederacy in that the central government exerts influence directly upon both individuals as well as upon the regional units.

Federal republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.

Islamic republic - a particular form of government adopted by some Muslim states; although such a state is, in theory, a theocracy, it remains a republic, but its laws are required to be compatible with the laws of Islam.

Maoism - the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism developed in China by Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung), which states that a continuous revolution is necessary if the leaders of a communist state are to keep in touch with the people.

Marxism - the political, economic and social principles espoused by 19th century economist Karl Marx; he viewed the struggle of workers as a progression of historical forces that would proceed from a class struggle of the proletariat (workers) exploited by capitalists (business owners), to a socialist "dictatorship of the proletariat," to, finally, a classless society -- Communism.

Marxism-Leninism - an expanded form of communism developed by Vladimir Lenin from doctrines of Karl Marx; Lenin saw imperialism as the final stage of capitalism and shifted the focus of workers' struggle from developed to underdeveloped countries.

Monarchy - a government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a monarch who reigns over a state or territory, usually for life and by hereditary right; the monarch may be either a sole absolute ruler or a sovereign - such as a king, queen or prince - with constitutionally limited authority.

Oligarchy - a government in which control is exercised by a small group of individuals whose authority generally is based on wealth or power.

Parliamentary democracy - a political system in which the legislature (parliament) selects the government - a prime minister, premier or chancellor along with the cabinet ministers - according to party strength as expressed in elections; by this system, the government acquires a dual responsibility: to the people as well as to the parliament.

Parliamentary government (Cabinet-Parliamentary government) - a government in which members of an executive branch (the cabinet and its leader - a prime minister, premier or chancellor) are nominated to their positions by a legislature or parliament, and are directly responsible to it; this type of government can be dissolved at will by the parliament (legislature) by means of a no-confidence vote or the leader of the cabinet may dissolve the parliament if it can no longer function.

Parliamentary monarchy - a state headed by a monarch who is not actively involved in policy formation or implementation (i.e., the exercise of sovereign powers by a monarch in a ceremonial capacity); true governmental leadership is carried out by a cabinet and its head - a prime minister, premier or chancellor - who are drawn from a legislature (parliament).

Presidential - a system of government where the executive branch exists separately from a legislature (to which it is generally not accountable).

Republic - a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation.

Socialism - a government in which the means of planning, producing and distributing goods is controlled by a central government that theoretically seeks a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor; in actuality, most socialist governments have ended up being no more than dictatorships over workers by a ruling elite.

Sultanate - similar to a monarchy, a government in which the supreme power is in the hands of a sultan (the head of a Muslim state); the sultan may be an absolute ruler or a sovereign with constitutionally limited authority.

Theocracy - a form of government in which a Deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the Deity's laws are interpreted by ecclesiastical authorities (bishops, mullahs, etc.); a government subject to religious authority.

Totalitarian - a government that seeks to subordinate the individual to the state by controlling not only all political and economic matters, but also the attitudes, values and beliefs of its population.
Got a question? Send us an email and crack it. Follow Remy Melina on Twitter @RemyMelina

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Are the Different Types of Governments?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From absolute monarchy to totalitarianism, here's an alphabetical rundown of the various forms of government throughout the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A is any place where buyers and sellers meet to trade products. The market price is the amount customers are charged for items and depends on and .

is the amount of a product customers are prepared to buy at different prices. is the amount of a product businesses are prepared to sell at different prices.

There are many different types of market. The goods market is where everyday products such as DVDs are traded. The commodities market is where raw materials such as wheat are traded.

Market prices change when supply and demand patterns change.

An increase in demand following a successful advertising campaign usually causes an increase in price.

An increase in supply when a new business opens usually causes a fall in price.

Changing market prices affect a firm's costs. When the price of commodities such as oil and electricity increases, a business finds its own costs of production rise. Higher costs are either:

to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

by the firm. This leaves prices unchanged but means lower profit margins for the company.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supply and demand - Economy - GCSE Business Revision - Other - BBC Bitesize

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A is any place where buyers and sellers meet to trade products. The market price is the amount customers are charged for items and depends on and . is the amount of a product customers are prepared to buy at different prices. is the amount of a product businesses are prepared to sell at different prices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Role of government - Economy - GCSE Business Revision - Other - BBC Bitesize

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn and revise about supply and demand in business with BBC Bitesize GCSE Business Studies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Economic Systems and Macroeconomics: Crash Course Economics #3

# data[].attributes.body
THE MOST ADVANCED DIGITAL GOVERNMENT

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Most Advanced Digital Government in the World

# data[].attributes.body
WHAT ESTONIA'S DIGITAL GOVERNMENT LOOKS LIKE?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What a digital government looks like | Anna Piperal

# data[].attributes.body
BUSINESS & ETHICS

Design for difference
Humanitarian Design

# data[].attributes.body
BUSINESS & SUSTAINABILITY

Green Economy and Sustainable Growth in Africa

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Representatives of Sogea-Satom, the subsidiary of the French group Vinci, have just met the Kenyan authorities to discuss a project to supply drinking water from the Ruiru II dam near Nairobi. Sogea-Satom is developing the project as part of a public-private partnership (PPP) with its partner, the French company Egis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Representatives of Sogea-Satom, the subsidiary of the French group Vinci, have just met the Kenyan authorities to discuss a project to supply drinking water from the Ruiru II dam near Nairobi. Sogea-Satom is developing the project as part of a public-private partnership (PPP) with its partner, the French company Egis.

# data[].attributes.body
CIRCULAR ECONOMICS

Could circular economics fix the planet?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
My name's Kate Raworth. I'm a renegade economist, because I am passionate about rewriting economics so that it's fit for the 21st Century. UNDERSTANDING ECONOMICS VIA A HOSEPIPE. Here's the fascinating thing, I think we're living through a psychological drama, in terms of what business can be and do in the world. KATE RAWORTH, ECONOMIST. The 20th Century was dominated by one narrow business mindset that asked one overriding question how much financial value can we extract from this? But 21st Century business leaders, designers, city designers, they're asking a completely different question. "How many benefits can we generate in the way we design this? What else can it do for the community, for culture, for the living world? What else can it give back to the systems of which we're are part?" You see, 20th Century industry was degenerative by design. We would take Earth's materials, make them into things we want, use it for a while, and throw it away. This is a linear, degenerative economy, it cuts against the cycles of the living world. We need to bend that around so that resources are never used up, they're used again and again. So that we create an economy that runs on sunlight. That waste from one process is food for another. We work with and within the cycles of the living world. The thing is, business alone can't make this happen, creating a circular, regenerative economy. Imagine if every company said, "Send us that shirt on your back, that smartphone, that plastic bottle. Return it to us and we'll turn it back into something new." We'd have a loop here, we'd have another loop over here. We'd have a series of segmented loops. Nature would laugh at us. Nature doesn't turn a peacock back into a peacock, and a daffodil back into a daffodil. Nature creates an ecosystem of resource use. She turns things back into building blocks of oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, and builds them up again. Regenerating life again and again, from building blocks to an ecosystem. No one company can create an ecosystem. We need cities and we need states. We need the world to work together, to create ecosystems of plastics reuse, of textiles reuse, of metals reuse. So that we work with and within the cycles of the living world, we mimic nature, who's been thriving for 3.8 billion years. If we want to stick around, we'd be wise to learn from her. Well, I never travel without a bit of hosepipe. This came from my garden shed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Could circular economics fix the planet? - BBC Ideas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
My name's Kate Raworth. I'm a renegade economist, because I am passionate about rewriting economics so that it's fit for the 21st Century. UNDERSTANDING ECONOMICS VIA A HOSEPIPE. Here's the fascinating thing, I think we're living through a psychological drama, in terms of what business can be and do in the world.

# data[].attributes.body
FAST FASHION & HUMAN EXPLOITATION

# data[].attributes.headline
Zara uncovered: Inside the brand that changed fashion

# data[].attributes.subject
Zara uncovered: Inside the brand that changed fashion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I am seeing spots. More specifically polka dots, on a white maxi dress. Three women have walked by me - all wearing the same identical dress - in the half hour I've been sitting outside this café. I know it's from Zara, I've tried it on, and now I'm seeing those spots everywhere.

It is the dress of the summer, another viral Zara fashion statement, complete with a dedicated Instagram account set up by fans.

Just one sign of how the Spanish clothing giant is bucking the trend of many of its struggling High Street competitors and posting record sales.

Considering the success and size of the company, it might be thought of as a bit of an enigma. It doesn't advertise, it does little marketing and its boss, who was named best performing chief executive in the world by a business magazine last year, has not given any big interviews, until now.

Pablo Isla recently laid out plans for Zara's future and said it was all about a digital and sustainable transformation. But is it possible for a company to be sustainable, when the entire business is about getting shoppers to buy as much fashion as possible?

'No contradiction'

Speaking at their campus-like headquarters in northern Spain, Pablo Isla, the chairman of Zara and its parent company Inditex, tackled the sustainability issue.

"There is no contradiction at all between sustainability and profitability of the company," he says.

"In the next year, all our stores in the world will be efficient - this means their consumption of energy and water is significantly lower. If your energy consumption is 20% less, you have a return."

In fact some of the key ways in which the business works helps with its sustainability goal. Mr Isla explains that Zara works with a "low level of inventory".

This helps the retailer minimise waste and avoid discounting huge amounts of clothing.

On my tour of the headquarters, I walk past rows of desks where staff are analysing instant data from Zara's store managers.

They use this information to decide what to make each week - Zara's factories will only make what they know will sell. Most of Zara's clothes are manufactured at its sites in Spain or in nearby Portugal, Morocco and Turkey.

'Long-term relations'

One of the key factories producing Zara's womenswear is just next to the head office. This way of working is all about speed, which allows Zara to get fresh trends into stores before their competitors.

But it hasn't always meant being able to keep a close eye on standards. Two years ago, some Zara customers in Turkey found notes in clothes from workers saying they hadn't been paid and asking for them to back calls for better working standards. When asked about it, Mr Isla says working with these suppliers was an "evolution".

He says "the most important thing is the idea of long-term relations with our suppliers" when it comes to keeping an eye on working conditions.

Fashion Revolution is an independent organisation which monitors where clothes come from and how ethical they are. They say Zara needs to provide more information about where their clothes are made to be held accountable for standards.

"Inditex, which owns Zara, remains one of the major fashion retailers that is dragging its feet on publishing a list of its manufacturers," says Fashion Revolution policy director Sarah Ditty.

"Other brands have published a list and proved that doing so doesn't hurt them competitively. "

Recycled plastics

Back at headquarters, I wander through the pilot store built on-site - a perfectly-kept Zara shop where everything is in place - but there are no shoppers. This is where Zara test how everything should look and feel, from lighting to displays.

They are aiming to reach zero waste in store - all packaging is made from recyclable cardboard and plastic. Recycling is a big theme for the clothes too.

They have been working with the renowned US university MIT to develop ways of making fabric from recycled plastics. I take the opportunity to feel the texture of some of the latest recycled plastic clothes from their sustainable line. The cloth feels silky to the touch.

Mr Isla has committed to 100% of the cotton, linen, and polyester used by Zara - and all of its sister companies - being organic, sustainable, or recycled by 2025.

Sarah Ditty from Fashion Revolution says that while it is great to see Zara taking steps to incorporate more sustainable material into its ranges, it is essential action that all brands should be taking.

However, she highlights that the real issue is all about the sheer volume of clothes they make.

Inditex reported putting over 1.5 billion products on the market in 2017 alone. Even with more environmentally-friendly materials, producing that many items each year is unsustainable for our living planet.

How much clothing we buy is a marker of just how much the industry has grown and changed in a short space of time. The UK has the highest rate of consumption in Europe, at 27.6kg per person per year.

Customer decisions

Indeed, Zara has an enormous turnaround, fashion influencer Jasmine Jonas tells me.

"I feel confident walking into a Zara, [being] able to find something that will look good, fit well, and that I can afford. But across the board, demand for eco-conscience clothing is rising."

It's not just Fashion Revolution - many campaigners say the only way to truly tackle sustainability in fashion is to make and sell less.

But how can that be a solution for Zara and Inditex if they want to keep those record-breaking sales?

"It's always the customers' decision of how much do they buy of each particular product," says Mr Isla.

"I think our responsibility as a company is taking care of manufacturing our products in a very sustainable way. Each customer, each person, is free to decide how much would he or she like to buy at any point in time, if this person wants to spend money going to a restaurant or buying clothes... this is the freedom that each person has."

"Should I, shouldn't I?" is the age-old changing room debate, but does it take on a new dimension if, as Pablo Isla says, it is ultimately in shoppers' hands to decide the crucial sustainability issue?

In the meantime, Zara says it will do what it can to keep the environmental conundrum for customers to a minimum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Zara uncovered: Inside the brand that changed fashion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I am seeing spots. More specifically polka dots, on a white maxi dress. Three women have walked by me - all wearing the same identical dress - in the half hour I've been sitting outside this café. I know it's from Zara, I've tried it on, and now I'm seeing those spots everywhere.

# data[].attributes.body
ETHICAL FASHION VS. FAST FASHION
Upcycling; Sustainability & Fashion

# data[].attributes.headline
The bizarre fabrics that fashion is betting on

# data[].attributes.subject
The bizarre fabrics that fashion is betting on

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Like many teenagers, Sarah King used to buy a new outfit every few weeks to try and keep up with the latest trends.

"When I was 16 or 17 I would buy a new outfit for a party and on every payday, stocking up on new outfits based on was trendy and popular, or what celebrities or my friends were wearing," she says.

In its sights is the growing waste and sustainability crisis prompted by the fashion industry.

Global climate protest movement Extinction Rebellion is asking for people not to buy any new clothes for a year as part of a "fashion boycott"

Turning to nature

So how can fashion lovers like Sarah get their fix in a way that has minimal impact on the environment?

A new crop of innovative bio materials may offer part of the solution, replacing wasteful textiles like cotton and leather,

While leather is a by-product of the meat industry, much of the hide is discarded, and large amounts of water and unpleasant chemicals are often used in its production. Meanwhile, faux leather alternatives often take hundreds of years to biodegrade.

Potential solutions to this include Piñatex, a leather-like substance made from discarded pineapple leaves, which has been used in collections by Hugo Boss and H&M.

As mushrooms are plentiful and don't need much looking after, the material can be grown into a fixed shape within a few days.

"I've noticed that consumers are now much more interested in seeking out a sustainable alternative," says Jamie Bainbridge, Bolt Threads' head of product development.

"The current alternatives to leather, like polyurethane, are very inexpensive. But they are often petroleum-based which, like raising livestock, isn't great for the environment."

As with many innovations, the biggest challenge Mylo faces is affordability - unlike PVC it costs a similar amount to real leather.

It also remains to be seen if production can be scaled up to a point where it can hit High Street shelves.

Cotton alternatives

As 40% of the world's clothing is made using cotton, finding an eco-friendly alternative is one of the main focuses for sustainable textile developers.

Tencel, also known as Lyocell, is one alternative that's been around for decades on the fringes of fashion.

It is made by extracting cellulose fibre from trees and its manufacture is thought to use 95% less water than cotton processing.

Very similar to cotton in feel, it forms a component of many High Street clothing items.

Austria's Lenzing Group says it is seeing "strong demand" for the fibre and is building the world's biggest Lyocell plant in Thailand.

"This expansion underscores Lenzing's commitment to improve the ecological footprint of the global textile industry," says chief executive Stefan Doboczky.

However, most manufacturers are likely to continue to use cotton as it remains cheaper.

Dr Richard Blackburn, a sustainable materials expert from Leeds School of Design, is a big fan of Tencel. He believes this extraction method could be extended to other high cellulose plant by-products like stalks, stems and leaves, to create different types of sustainable fibre.

But he adds that consumers need to act sustainably in every area of their lives.

"It's about trade-offs and there is no simple answer. It's not a case of, 'if we switched to one fabric all our environmental concerns would disappear'."

Buying better, buying less

While buying ethically is important, most in the sustainability field agree that consumers also need to buy fewer, higher quality items.

"I don't think you should consider buying any item of clothing unless you commit to 30 wears. Unless you can do that you're not even starting to be sustainable. You are creating a waste problem," says Dr Blackburn.

In recent years, shoppers have viewed clothes "as a disposable item" thanks to cheap prices and clever brand positioning, says Kate Elliot, sustainability expert at Rathbone Greenbank Investments.

But she believes they are now falling out of love with "buying an item of clothing, wearing it and then ending up chucking it in a bin".

"There have been issues around fast fashion for decades, but people have become much more aware of the environmental and social costs."

Blogger Sarah only bought seven items of clothing last year, combined with rentals for special events. She agrees a shift in perception is key to helping consumers change their ways.

"It's difficult, because you can get anything you want with fast fashion at the click of a button. Buying ethically takes more time, but it lasts, and I think that's what true fashion is."

Follow Technology of Business editor Ben Morris on Twitter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The bizarre fabrics that fashion is betting on

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Like many teenagers, Sarah King used to buy a new outfit every few weeks to try and keep up with the latest trends. "When I was 16 or 17 I would buy a new outfit for a party and on every payday, stocking up on new outfits based on was trendy and popular, or what celebrities or my friends were wearing," she says.

# data[].attributes.body
Making carbon-neutral clothes out of algae: the designers taking on fast fashion – video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The fashion industry is a fossil-fuel-guzzling operation as many of our clothes are made from petroleum-based textiles such as polyester. Even natural fibres such as cotton have a huge carbon footprint and require a large portion of the world's pesticides.

In a bid to solve this disastrous environmental equation, scientists and designers are creating completely new textiles from fast-growing, carbon-sucking organisms such as micro- and macro-algae, mycelium (elements of fungus), bacteria and fermented yeast. These new biotechnologies efficiently convert sunlight and CO2 into mass raw materials, suck carbon out of the atmosphere and pave the way to a carbon-negative wardrobe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Making carbon-neutral clothes out of algae: the designers taking on fast fashion - video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The fashion industry is a fossil-fuel-guzzling operation as many of our clothes are made from petroleum-based textiles such as polyester. Even natural fibres such as cotton have a huge carbon footprint and require a large portion of the world's pesticides.

# data[].attributes.body
TECHNOLOGY & THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Panel Discussion: Technology and the Future of Democracy

# data[].attributes.body
To grab a Group Pass, please visit nytimes.com/grouppass while connected to your school’s network. ( You can only activate your Pass while you are in the campus or via a proxy server)

If you have never registered with nytimes.com with your e-mail address, please do so.

If  you have already registered using  your e-mail address, just Log In.

If you have forgotten your password, just hit the “Forgot Password” link to the right of the Password box.

You may download NYTimes mobile apps at nytimes.com/mobile.

# data[].attributes.body
MONDRAGON COOPERATIVE BUSINESS, SPAIN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
COOPERATION

MONDRAGON is the outcome of a cooperative business project launched in 1956. Its mission is encapsulated in its Corporate Values: intercooperation, grassroots management, corporate social responsibility, innovation, democratic organisation, education and social transformation, among others.

intercooperation,
corporate social responsibility,
innovation,
education,
social transformation...

We are a dedicated group of people with a cooperative identity forming a business group that is profitable, competitive and enterprising, capable of successfully operating in global markets. Our organisation uses democratic methods in its corporate organisation, and its aims are employment, the personal and professional advancement of its workers, and the development of its community.

Organisationally, MONDRAGON is divided into four areas: Finance, Industry, Retail and Knowledge. It currently consists of 96 separate, self-governing cooperatives, more than 81,000 people and 14 R&D centres, forming the leading business group in the Basque Country and the tenth in Spain.

1 st BASQUE
BUSINESS GROUP

SALES IN MORE THAN

COUNTRIES

WORLDWIDE

MONDRAGON is the leading business group in the Basque Country and one of the largest corporations in Spain. It operates throughout the world, with 141 production plants in 37 countries, commercial business in 53, and sales in more than 150.

DIFFERENT

People in cooperation

MONDRAGON is a cooperative group and always has been. This hallmark is one of its strengths and one of the reasons for its success. One of MONDRAGON's specific traits has been its collective approach, combining the benefits of consensus with the cooperatives' human dimension, creating a robust and supportive cooperative group.

Mission

A socioeconomic business project deeply rooted in Basque culture, created by and for people.

Committed to a sustainable society, greater competitiveness and customer satisfaction, with the remit to create wealth and transform society through business development and employment.

It is driven by a commitment to solidarity, applying democratic methods in its organisation and management.

It boosts people's engagement and involvement in the management, performance and ownership of its companies.

Vision

MONDRAGON is Cooperation A cooperative socioeconomic project, with dedicated people working in global companies that are profitable, competitive and enterprising, acknowledged for their human values, social impact and competitiveness.

Values

Cooperation: Owners and protagonists.

Participation: Grassroots management.

Corporate Social Responsibility: Fair distribution of wealth.

Innovation: Continuous renewal

Furthermore, based on the Cooperative Principles and its own experience, MONDRAGON nurtures the values of self-motivation and shared responsibility, intercooperation, social transformation and good corporate governance practices.

FUTURE

A future that we built starting from our history. Let us now travel back through our Experience's major milestones. A year-by-year chronicle of the main corporate events that have shaped the MONDRAGON project.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Introduction, MONDRAGON Corporation | MONDRAGON Corporation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MONDRAGON is the outcome of a cooperative business project launched in 1956. Its mission is encapsulated in its Corporate Values: intercooperation, grassroots management, corporate social responsibility, innovation, democratic organisation, education and social transformation, among others. We are a dedicated group of people with a cooperative identity forming a business group that is profitable, competitive and enterprising, capable of successfully operating in global markets.

# data[].attributes.body
EMILIA-ROMAGNA COOPERATIVES, ITALY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Italian region where 30% of GDP comes from cooperatives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Emilia-Romagna’s 4.5m citizens enjoy the highest median income in Italy

# data[].attributes.body
SUPPLY CHAIN: COCAO & CHILD EXPLOITATION

# data[].attributes.body
SUPPLY CHAIN- ETHICAL BUSINESS PRACTICES

Is Nutella made with nuts picked by children?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nearly three-quarters of the world's hazelnuts come from Turkey and the biggest buyer is Ferrero, maker of Nutella, the chocolate and hazelnut spread. But the nuts are picked mainly by migrants, including children, who work long hours for very low pay. What is Ferrero doing to ensure its products do not depend on child labour?

"When we say 'hazelnut', in my understanding it means misery: tough work, being a worker," says Mehmet Kelekci as he hauls a 35kg sack of freshly-picked nuts on to his back.

Around him, high on a Turkish mountainside, a family of fellow Kurdish migrant workers is moving slowly among the hazel trees. The father is using a wooden crook to shake the branches above his head; his wife and children bend double or squat as they reach down to pick the clusters of nuts in their pale green husks that cascade to the ground.

It's exhausting work, for about 10 hours a day, on slopes so steep that it's easy to lose your footing.

And two of the pickers, Mustafa and Mohammed, are working illegally. They're aged just 12 and 10, well below Turkey's minimum working age.

This is a typical scene in August, when the harvest is brought in along the Black Sea coast of Turkey, origin of 70% of the world's hazelnut supplies.

Most of the pickers are seasonal migrants from the poverty-stricken south and east of Turkey, mainly Kurds.

The official wage rate set by local authorities is 95 lira (£13; $16; €15) a day. Worked out on an hourly basis, this is less than the official Turkish minimum net wage of 2,020 lira a month for a 40 or 45-hour week.

But this family will receive even less - a maximum of 65 lira a day each, and possibly as little as 50 - after they've paid a 10% commission to the labour contractor who brings them, and the fare to and from their home town of Sanliurfa, and living expenses while they're away.

Find out more

Listen to The Bitter Song of the Hazelnut on Crossing Continents, on Radio 4, at 11:00 on Thursday 19 September

Or catch up later online

Download the Crossing Continents podcast here

Kazim Yaman, co-owner of the orchard, says he is against child labour. "They are making their children work like machines. They think: 'How many children, how much profit?'"

But he says most other farmers accept it - and that he has no option but to pay the children, because their parents insist that they work.

"I am trying not to make them work, but then they say they are leaving," he says. "The mother and father want them to work - and to be paid."

He adds: "This chain has to be broken."

But how? Turkey has about 400,000 family-owned hazelnut orchards. Most, like Kazim's, are tiny, just a few acres. Many growers, like him, don't know where their nuts end up.

At the far end of the often complex supply chain, are well-known Turkish and international confectionery brands including Ferrero - the Italian family-owned firm that manufactures Nutella, Ferrero Rocher and Kinder chocolates. Ferrero buys about a third of the entire Turkish crop. It has to. The amount of Nutella it makes each year weighs the same as the Empire State Building, about 365,000 tonnes.

On its website, Ferrero, which does not grow or trade nuts itself, says, "Traceability is essential to ensure the quality standards of production and products."

The company aims to make its hazelnuts 100% traceable by 2020. Currently, though, according to its latest report, to be published shortly, it has achieved only 39% traceability.

How the world went nuts for a hazelnut spread

Nutella riots spread across French supermarkets (2018)

Christmas chocolate boxes: up to half of weight is packaging

If you follow the buying chain, it's clear how far there is to go.

Enginay Akcay, based in Ordu, a Black Sea town dependent on hazelnuts, is one of thousands of small independent nut traders, known as manavs. Farmers deliver their produce in sacks and he pays them according to quality - the all-important weight ratio of shells to kernels - before selling on to cracking factories, or direct to exporters including Ferrero.

But he says that Ferrero doesn't ask him which particular farmers the nuts come from, or about working conditions on those farms.

"It has nothing to do with us, child labour. The control and the monitoring belongs to the state and the security forces."

Next up the chain are brokers such as Osman Cakmak. He buys from traders and sells to Ferrero and other exporters and manufacturers.

He also says Ferrero does not ask him which individual farmers grew the nuts he is selling.

"I buy, I sell. At that moment, it's impossible for the tons of hazelnuts to be monitored," he says.

As for Ferrero, he adds: "If they don't have their own farming value projects, it's not possible to know which producer they're coming from."

Ferrero's flagship Farming Values Programme, launched in Turkey in 2012, offers free training to hazelnut growers in more efficient cultivation techniques, to help them raise their incomes - though they remain free to sell their nuts to whomever they want.

On one of the model farms developed by Ferrero, company agronomist Gokhan Arikoglu shows how - with better pruning, irrigation, and pest control - a hazel tree can produce clusters of up to 21 nuts. On traditionally-run farms, four in a cluster is more typical.

Working in part with NGOs and other agencies, Ferrero also trains growers, farm labourers, labour contractors, traders, brokers and others in the community, such as village heads, to be aware of how the sector can be made more sustainable. That includes training on workers' rights, in particular on avoiding child labour. The company makes an effort to involve women, including women farmers, in its training programmes.

Ferrero says the programme has so far reached more than 42,000 farmers. That's about a 10th of the 400,000 in Turkey.

So how sure can the company be that its hazelnuts are not picked by children?

In a rare interview by one of the company's executives, Bamsi Akin, general manager of Ferrero Hazelnut Company in Turkey, says: "If we determine a product which is produced with unethical practices, we would not touch it. We are doing our role to improve social practices with trainings... But is the system completely clean? I think no-one can say that at this moment."

Asked about the trader and broker who told the BBC that Ferrero does not ask them about the exact source of nuts, Akin says: "We are not asking questions, but we have the tools to monitor from a different perspective... Before the season started, we have talked to them [the traders], and we have demonstrated our social practice requirements."

He says Ferrero has the names of the middlemen it buys from, and can provide a list, "apart from the trade secret side". But he adds: "I cannot guarantee the full names of the farmers."

As to whether the claims of traceability on the company's website are honest, he says: "Ferrero is always honest on the consumer side."

On the roadside below his orchard overlooking the Black Sea, farmer Kazim Yaman watches 12-year-old Mustafa empty another heavy sack of nuts.

He says regretfully: "The other day I saw the father put a sack, a very heavy sack, on the shoulders of the child. I said: 'What are you doing?' And he said: 'Let him get used to it.'"

Yaman says Ferrero invited him to participate in its Farming Values Programme, but he refused. Like many other growers, he belongs to an older generation - he's in his 60s - that is mistrustful of change.

He says: "The chain cannot be broken with the efforts of one or two people, but in time maybe, it will be broken, that chain."

Meanwhile, another family of Kurdish pickers is moving into the tiny wooden shack without electricity that will be home to six people - mother, grown-up son, two grown-up daughters and two smaller children - for the next month.

I ask the mother, Ayse, how often she eats chocolate with hazelnuts.

"I personally don't like it," she replies with a laugh. "The suffering and misery I have with this product, I don't want to see it."

You may also be interested in:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Nutella made with nuts picked by children?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nearly three-quarters of the world's hazelnuts come from Turkey and the biggest buyer is Ferrero, maker of Nutella, the chocolate and hazelnut spread. But the nuts are picked mainly by migrants, including children, who work long hours for very low pay. What is Ferrero doing to ensure its products do not depend on child labour?

# data[].attributes.body
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM

'The Nordic Model'
Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Norway & Finland

# data[].attributes.body
LARGE COOPERATIONS & CLIMATE CHANGE

Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Just 100 companies have been the source of more than 70% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions since 1988, according to a new report.

The Carbon Majors Report (pdf) "pinpoints how a relatively small set of fossil fuel producers may hold the key to systemic change on carbon emissions," says Pedro Faria, technical director at environmental non-profit CDP, which published the report in collaboration with the Climate Accountability Institute.

Traditionally, large scale greenhouse gas emissions data is collected at a national level but this report focuses on fossil fuel producers. Compiled from a database of publicly available emissions figures, it is intended as the first in a series of publications to highlight the role companies and their investors could play in tackling climate change.

The report found that more than half of global industrial emissions since 1988 - the year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established - can be traced to just 25 corporate and state-owned entities. The scale of historical emissions associated with these fossil fuel producers is large enough to have contributed significantly to climate change, according to the report.

ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Chevron are identified as among the highest emitting investor-owned companies since 1988. If fossil fuels continue to be extracted at the same rate over the next 28 years as they were between 1988 and 2017, says the report, global average temperatures would be on course to rise by 4C by the end of the century. This is likely to have catastrophic consequences including substantial species extinction and global food scarcity risks.

While companies have a huge role to play in driving climate change, says Faria, the barrier is the "absolute tension" between short-term profitability and the urgent need to reduce emissions.

A Carbon Tracker study in 2015 found that fossil fuel companies risked wasting more than $2tn over the coming decade by pursuing coal, oil and gas projects that could be worthless in the face of international action on climate change and advances in renewables - in turn posing substantial threats to investor returns.

CDP says its aims with the carbon majors project are both to improve transparency among fossil fuel producers and to help investors understand the emissions associated with their fossil fuel holdings.

A fifth of global industrial greenhouse gas emissions are backed by public investment, according to the report. "That puts a significant responsibility on those investors to engage with carbon majors and urge them to disclose climate risk," says Faria.

Investors should move out of fossil fuels, says Michael Brune, executive director of US environmental organisation the Sierra Club. "Not only is it morally risky, it's economically risky. The world is moving away from fossil fuels towards clean energy and is doing so at an accelerated pace. Those left holding investments in fossil fuel companies will find their investments becoming more and more risky over time."

There is a "growing wave of companies that are acting in the opposite manner to the companies in this report," says Brune. Nearly 100 companies including Apple, Facebook, Google and Ikea have committed to 100% renewable power under the RE100 initiative. Volvo recently announced that all its cars would be electric or hybrid from 2019.

And oil and gas companies are also embarking on green investments. Shell set up a renewables arm in 2015 with a $1.7bn investment attached and a spokesperson for Chevron says it's "committed to managing its [greenhouse gas] emissions" and is investing in two of the world's largest carbon dioxide injection projects to capture and store carbon. A BP spokesperson says its "determined to be part of the solution" for climate change and is "investing in renewables and low-carbon innovation." And ExxonMobil, which has faced heavy criticism for its environmental record, has been exploring carbon capture and storage.

But for many the sums involved and pace of change are nowhere near enough. A research paper published last year by Paul Stevens, an academic at think tank Chatham House, said international oil companies were no longer fit for purpose and warned these multinationals that they faced a "nasty, brutish and short" end within the next 10 years if they did not completely change their business models.

Investors now have a choice, according to Charlie Kronick, senior programme advisor at Greenpeace UK. "The future of the oil industry has already been written: the choice is will its decline be managed, returning capital to shareholders to be reinvested in the genuine industries of the future, or will they hold on, hoping not be the last one standing when the music stops?"

Top 100 producers and their cumulative greenhouse gas emissions from 1988-2015

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A relatively small number of fossil fuel producers and their investors could hold the key to tackling climate change

# data[].attributes.body
AMAZON & WORKING CONDITIONS

‘I'm not a robot’: Amazon workers condemn unsafe, grueling conditions at warehouse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ina Cummings has worked three 12-hour shifts every week at Amazon's gargantuan New York City warehouse, called JFK8, on Staten Island since it first began operations in late 2018. As a sorter on the outbound ship dock, her job is to inspect and scan a mandated rate of 1,800 Amazon packages an hour - 30 per minute - that are sent through a chute and transported on a conveyor belt before leaving the facility for delivery.

Workers such as Cummings helped Amazon achieve its best ever Christmas this year. Faster shipping drove Amazon's revenues to $87bn for fourth quarter of 2019, adding another $12.8bn to founder Jeff Bezos's $128.9bn fortune. Amazon has just signed a deal to take another 450,000 sq ft of warehouse space on the island to speed delivery to its New York-area consumers.

But while New York customers, and Amazon's shareholders, may be happy, some workers are not. In November, as the holiday rush got into full swing, Cummings was one of 600 workers at the Amazon warehouse who signed and delivered a petition to management calling on Amazon to improve working conditions.

The petition called on Amazon to consolidate workers' two 15-minute breaks into a 30-minute one. Workers say it can take up to 15 minutes just to walk to and from the warehouse break room. Workers also called for Amazon to provide more reliable public transit services to the warehouse. They also called attention to reports of high injury rates at the facility there, which were found to be three times the national average for warehouses, based on the company's injury reports to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Cummings first became involved with Amazon worker organizing efforts after witnessing several cases where, she claims, her colleagues were treated unfairly - and the safety concerns she works through during her own shifts at Amazon.

A worker sorts through items and places orders at the Amazon fulfillment center on Staten Island. Photograph: Kathy Willens/AP

"There are days I say I'm just at the mercy of God," said Cummings. She said the only changes Amazon implemented after the high injury report was published was to install video monitors around the warehouse that tell workers safety is the company's number one priority.

"There has been no real change. There are still injuries. They were saying the report is not accurate, but it's just a way for them to avoid responsibility," she said.

Cummings said injuries are common among her colleagues, and she often experiences close calls. A few weeks ago, a pin sticking out of the conveyor belt tore off one of her work gloves, almost taking her hand with it. She also said some packages that drop on to her conveyor belt from the chute are either too large to be on it or improperly packaged, so the package's contents burst open on the belt, which she said recently injured one of her colleagues.

When packages, especially envelopes with liquid, burst on the conveyor belt, Cummings often has to stop the belt to clean up the mess, but is still expected to hit her hourly rate. She's been written up once for missing her rate because several of these incidents happened in the same week.

"People get fired regularly," she said. "It just takes two or three write-ups, depending on the severity. You can get fired for anything."

Cummings has impaired vision and is required by law to receive disability accommodations for her job. But she said new managers consistently try to place her in other departments she is unable to do the work in.

"I had a manager ask me: are you sure you can't see?" said Cummings. Her mobility counselor sent Amazon a detailed email with suggestions on safety improvements, such as painting safety lines in the warehouse brighter colors and installing yellow safety strips on all stairs. But Cummings said all the suggestions were ignored.

An Amazon spokesperson said the company has a comprehensive medical accommodations process.

Raymond Velez worked as a packer at the Amazon JFK8 warehouse from October 2018 to November 2019. He was required to pack at a rate of 700 items per hour. He said workers are regularly fired for missing rates.

"That's all they care about. They don't care about their employees," Velez added. "They care more about the robots than they care about the employees. I've been to Amcare [the company's on-site medical unit] a couple times for not feeling well, and you'd get an aspirin and sent back to work."

Juan Espinoza, who worked as a picker at the Amazon Staten Island warehouse, quit because of the grueling working conditions.

'They don't care about their employees. They care more about the robots than they care about the employees.' Photograph: Johannes Eisele/AFP/Getty Images

"I was a picker and we were expected to always pick 400 units within the hour in seven seconds of each item we picked," said Espinoza. "I couldn't handle it. I'm a human being, not a robot."

Ilya Geller, who worked as a stower, told of the pressure workers face from being surveilled by computers to ensure productivity rates are met.

"You're being tracked by a computer the entire time you're there. You don't get reported or written up by managers. You get written up by an algorithm," said Geller. "You're keenly aware there is an algorithm keeping track of you, making sure you keep going as fast as you can, because if there is too much time lapsed between items, the computer will know this, will write you up, and you will get fired."

An Amazon spokesperson told the Guardian in an email: "Like most companies, we have performance expectations for every Amazonian and we measure actual performance against those expectations."

The spokesperson said coaching is provided to under-performing workers.

Jimpat Lacewell started working at Amazon in Staten Island in November as a sorter, but quit after three days because it reminded him of prison - not least because of the 20-minute wait to get through security in and out of the facility.

"I would rather go back to a state correctional facility and work for 18 cents an hour than do that job," Lacewell said. "I'm sure Mr Bezos couldn't do a full shift at that place as an undercover boss."

Other Amazon workers at the New York City warehouse were reluctant to speak on the record for fear of retaliation, but also reported unaddressed safety concerns and frequent worker injuries.

"I've been out of work twice in the past year due to knee pain," said an Amazon order picker. They explained their second injury was a result of their manager ignoring medical restrictions from surgery on his right foot.

Another order picker said they are constantly dealing with chronic lower back pain and knee pain due to the job.

"I take Tylenol or Aleve two to three times a week," the worker said. "Almost every night when I wake up, I have really bad, sharp, needle-like lower back pain. I've had to use my paid time off a lot just to recover or work half days."

An Amazon associate who transferred to the New York City warehouse to help train the new workers said they transferred to a different warehouse because their safety concerns and suggestions were repeatedly ignored by upper level managers.

"It has terrible safety for powered industrial truck (PIT) operators and pedestrian traffic, which is why I left," said the worker.

"I reported several violations to safety there - only to get brushed off and pushed aside."

They characterized the PIT lane as a highway for equipment such as forklifts and electric pallet jacks.

An Amazon spokesperson said the company recently installed guard rails across the dock at JFK8 to eliminate all pedestrian interaction with the PIT lane.

The spokesperson added: "It's inaccurate to say that our FCs are unsafe and any effort to paint our workplaces as such based on the number of injury recordings is misleading given the size of our workforce. While many companies under-record safety incidents in order to keep their rates low, Amazon does the opposite - we take an aggressive stance on recording injuries no matter how big or small.

"We believe so strongly in the environment provided for fulfillment center employees, including our safety culture, that we offer public tours where anyone can come see for themselves one of our sites and its working conditions first-hand."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'I'm not a robot': Amazon workers condemn unsafe, grueling conditions at warehouse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ina Cummings has worked three 12-hour shifts every week at Amazon's gargantuan New York City warehouse, called JFK8, on Staten Island since it first began operations in late 2018.

# data[].attributes.body
CORPORATIONS & WORKERS RIGHTS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Author and Page information

This page: https://www.globalissues.org/article/57/corporations-and-workers-rights.

To print all information (e.g. expanded side notes, shows alternative links), use the print version:

Structural Adjustment programs of the IMF and World Bank have led to a race to the bottom, where standards of living are continuously reduced. Labor, as one example of this, gets cheaper and cheaper which benefits the multinational companies, but not the workers themselves. Various international trade agreements that large corporations are able to strongly lobby favorable conditions in, are often designed in part to make resources (including work forces) cheaper.

As some corporations and industries become increasingly globalized, they effect more and more people. Take for example the situation in Massachusetts - they were trying to put laws in place to prevent or restrict corporations doing business with regimes that violate certain rights of people in some way - they were pressured by a coalition of 600 major corporations in that State, saying that this is unconstitutional. The judges agreed.

Famous brands like Nike, the Coca-Cola Company, and many others all do this. In some respect it is a cycle of competition driving each other to such measures to keep up and to maximize profits. Nike, for example use cheap labor in South East Asia, where they can get away from the tighter enforcement and regulations of USA and Europe. In fact, they have been exposed for using child labor, as well. Coca Cola for example, have been accused of intimidating workers around the world, even hiring (often indirectly, through intermediaries) paramilitaries to intimidate or kill union leaders.

The apparel industry has often been strongly criticized for the use of sweat shop-like conditions in its east Asian factories. In May 1998, for example, a panel of experts on international law condemned the violation of workers rights in the garments and sportswear industries; twelve witnesses from ten developing countries had testified on actual working conditions in the industry, pointing out seven leading transnationals: sportswear manufacturers Nike and Addidas, clothing traders H&M, Levi Strauss, C&A and Walt Disney, and the world's biggest mail order company, Otto-Verstand.

Harsh labor conditions in the toy industry for people in third world countries such as China have also led to much criticism, showing hidden costs to popular toys such as those based on Harry Potter, Star Wars, Pokemon, Barbie, etc.

It is interesting to note that while globalization has led to the opening up of borders for increased trade the same is not true for people. Yet, people all over the world seem be losing their national identity due to the current model of globalization. The introduction of flexibility, while good for businesses, can hurt workers, as the International Labor Organization (ILO) has shown.

The famous McLibel action against McDonald's came about because of various abuses of its power and threats of legal action for any criticism about them. While individuals have tried to present some facts about various aspects of the way McDonald's do business, some media companies have been prevented them doing so. These media corporations themselves are worried about publishing and broadcasting certain information that could lead to threats of legal action and other forms of corporate punishment even when the claims are fair and justified. (See the McLibel site for lots more information about McDonald's and other multinational corporations abusing their power.)

Human Rights Watch have criticized the labor situation in the United States. In general, the USA provides a better standard of living, opportunities etc. than most countries. However, that does not mean that it is free from problems as well. The following quote summarizes it quite well:

Without diminishing the seriousness of the obstacles and violations confronted by workers in the United States, a balanced perspective must be maintained. U.S. workers generally do not confront gross human rights violations where death squads assassinate trade union organizers or collective bargaining and strikes are outlawed. But the absence of systematic government repression does not mean that workers in the United States have effective exercise of the right to freedom of association. On the contrary, workers' freedom of association is under sustained attack in the United States, and the government is often failing its responsibility under international human rights standards to deter such attacks and protect workers' rights.

Unfair Adfvantage; Workers' Freedom of Association in the United States under International Human Rights Standards, Human Rights Watch, August 2000

They go on to show that while the US has many provisions in its laws to protect workers, there are many aspects of the laws which undermine such rights and that there is often very little done to uphold fundamental rights to the freedom of associations etc.

Moving On.

When the going gets tough, the tough get going-elsewhere.

A meeting in Oslo suggests that the current model of the Markets and Globalization may not be the way to go. This is because when it comes to a country trying to impose some environmental or societal considerations and legislation on multinational corporations, they just move to a country where the rules and regulations aren't as strict.

One reason that this situation arises is because of the flawed structural adjustment programs which force developing nations to continuously cut back in order to export more at a cheaper rate and race to the bottom.

Take the following as examples (by no means exhaustive!):

Coca Cola in Zambia.They have closed their operations there due to disagreements about tax exemptions.

Another example is how the tobacco industry is now moving on to Asia as sales in USA and Europe decline and the US settlements do nothing to prevent this. India is one example where there is tremendous increase in smoking, and smoking related illnesses and death. (This link also provides some information and statistics about this issue.)

Nike, as mentioned above, as well as many other retail companies, use cheap labor in South East Asia, where they can get away from the tighter enforcement and regulations of USA and Europe.

Phillips-Van-Huesen have been criticized for closing a factory in Guatemala because the workers tried to form a union to protect their basic rights. A report by three human rights organizations revealed the details. It reveals how the company closed a factory in order to destroy the union and profit from lower wages by sweatshop contractors in Guatemala. You can see the full report at the Americas.org web site linked to from here.

In April 2002, as Alternet.org reports, Levi Strauss & Company, a brand practically synonymous with the U.S.A., decided to shutter virtually all domestic production and shift its manufacturing overseas. Earlier, in 1992, the Washington Post had exposed Levi's exploitation of Chinese prison labor to make jeans and throughout the 90s, various apparel companies had been accused of various forms of exploitation and sweatshop labor in poorer countries. Levis tried to introduce a code of standards, but it seems that Levis too has been feeling the competition pressure and in order to maximize profits and reduce costs, now also feels compelled to join the herd, so to speak, and go for cheaper labor costs.

Even baby foods have an impact on poorer countries. Multinational companies, such as Nestle, that create breast milk substitutes promote their use very heavily in many developing countries, as a replacement for breast feeding altogether. This is shown to have negative health effects on babies. UNICEF in their 1995 State of the World's Children report describe how millions of children needlessly died due to not being exclusively breast-fed for the first six months. UNICEF, the World Health Organisation and others came up with a code of conduct to ensure responsible advertising and promotion of substitute products. 118 governments accepted. Only the United States didn't. However, John Madeley described the reaction that Nestle and others had, as a result:

Nestle and other babyfoods companies have put pressure on governments not to introduce strong codes. Gabon, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Uganda, Uruguay and Zimbabwe came under pressure in 1997 and 1998. In Zimbabwe, Nestle reportedly threatened to disinvest from the country if strong measures were introduced, alleged Baby Milk Action.

John Madeley, Big Business Poor Peoples; The Impact of Transnational Corporations on the World's Poor, (Zed Books, 1999) p.63

(See for example, the International Baby Food Action Network for more on this issue.)

Even in Germany, United States etc, the government is at the whim of the larger more powerful corporations as this quote provides an example of:

In Germany, where revenue from corporate taxes has fallen by 50 per cent over the past 20 years, despite a rise in corporate profits of 90 per cent, a group of companies, including Deutsche Bank, BMW, Daimler-Benz and RWE, the German energy and industrial group, thwarted in 1999 Finance Minister Oskar Lafontaine's attempt to raise the tax burden on German firms, threatening to move investment or factories to other countries if government policy did not suit them. It's a question of at least 14,000 jobs, threatened Dieter Schweer, a spokesman for RWE. If the investment position is no longer attractive, we will examine every possibility of switching our investments abroad. Daimler-Benz proposed relocating to the US; other companies threatened to stop buying government bonds and investing in the German economy.

In view of the power these corporations wield their threats were taken seriously. Within a few months Germany was planning corporate tax cuts which would reduce tax on German companies below US rates. As one of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder's senior advisers in Washington commented at the time, Deutsche Bank and industrial giants like Mercedes are too strong for the elected government in Berlin.

Noreena Hertz, Why we must stay silent no longer, The Guardian/Observer, April 8, 2001

Some of the tax fiddling and avoidance that some large corporations are able to legally perform are at enormous costs to the public, as shown in the corporate evasion section on this web site.

And it is difficult for whichever political party may be in power, to try and make a change, due to this very threat of moving on. Hence, whether it is industrialized countries, or developing countries, a convergence to similar policies is apparent. (And, hence, for example, criticism that UK's New Labor of Tony Blair being just the same as the Old Tories of Margaret Thatcher, or the similarities between Al Gore and George Bush policies with the only real difference being how to carry them out!) John Bunzl of the The Simultaneous Policy Organization, or Simpol, highlights this well:

In exploiting countries in this way [threatening to move elsewhere if regulations and standards impact their competitive advantage], TNCs [transnational corporations] can obtain both free government subsidies at tax payers' expense and can, either directly or through the auspices of the World Trade Organisation, deter or prevent governments from imposing stricter employment conditions or environmental regulations this securing ever-higher profits for their shareholders. They can also draw trade unions in to playing their game which unions willingly do, if somewhat uneasily, in order to safeguard their members' interest. This adds a false but compelling air of legitimacy to the case put by the corporations. With governments fearing a loss of votes, unions fearing a loss of membership and employees fearing for their continued employment it all amounts to a neat trick that governments of whatever party can ill afford to question for fear of the corporation concerned moving production elsewhere. Their willingness to acquiesce in this game is understandable, for with other nations only too ready to welcome any corporation ready to set up a new factory, not to play would be self-defeating and would lay governments open to the charge of not acting in the national interest. (Emphasis added).

...

Once in power, therefore, politicians of whatever party effectively have no choice but to remain confined within the policy parameters dictated by global markets and competition. Now subject to pseudo-democracy, the simple conclusion we must reach is that it no longer matters much for which party we vote. This predicament and resulting voter ambivalence consequently presents our political parties with a distinct problem: how to make themselves and their policies different from those of other parties when in fact the markets allow no such differentiation. How can they maintain to the electorate the illusion that they have the power to improve society, or preserve what is best in society, when the markets preclude such value judgements? In a vain and desparate attempt, they are forced to employ increasingly elaborate rhetorical tricks and stunts commonly known as spin. Hence the rise to prominence of Spin Doctors. For centre-left governments, attempting to reconcile their traditional social democratic values with free-market realities is resulting in the most pathetic exercises in rhetorical hair-splitting in an attempt to distract traditional left-of-centre supporters from the reality of having to submit to the liberal dictates of world markets. (Emphasis added).

The Simultaneous Policy; An Insider's Guide to Saving Humanity and the Planet, John M. Bunzl(New European Publications, 1999), pp. 19 - 21

Prize-winning author and activist from India, Arundhati Roy, also captures this in an article that made front page of the Indian daily, The Hindu:

No individual nation can stand up to the project of Corporate Globalisation on its own. Time and again we have seen that when it comes to the neo-liberal project, the heroes of our times are suddenly diminished. Extraordinary, charismatic men, giants in Opposition, when they seize power and become Heads of State, they become powerless on the global stage. I'm thinking here of President Lula of Brazil. Lula was the hero of the World Social Forum last year. This year he's busy implementing IMF guidelines, reducing pension benefits and purging radicals from the Workers' Party. I'm thinking also of ex-President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela. Within two years of taking office in 1994, his government genuflected with hardly a caveat to the Market God. It instituted a massive programme of privatisation and structural adjustment, which has left millions of people homeless, jobless and without water and electricity.

Why does this happen? There's little point in beating our breasts and feeling betrayed. Lula and Mandela are, by any reckoning, magnificent men. But the moment they cross the floor from the Opposition into Government they become hostage to a spectrum of threats - most malevolent among them the threat of capital flight, which can destroy any government overnight. To imagine that a leader's personal charisma and a c.v. of struggle will dent the Corporate Cartel is to have no understanding of how Capitalism works, or for that matter, how power works.

Arundhati Roy, Do turkeys enjoy thanksgiving?, The Hindu, January 18, 2004

For more on this perspective, see this site's section on criticisms of free trade and its effects on political parties.

Problems of paying fair wages

The Seattle WTO Ministerial Conference in 1999, most remembered for the enormous protest, raised another interesting perspective.

Seattle saw President Clinton and others suggest that the WTO include core labor rights and sanctions and so forth if these were violated. At first glance, this seemed like a remarkably enlightened suggestion, especially for all those activists who have been campaigning on these things for years. However, a question of why the US would want to do such a thing is natural, given that past records on economics and trade do not suggest that there are many humanitarian concerns!

In fact, many in the developing countries saw this as reeking of protectionism and that it would be too costly for the poorer nations to be able to afford such dramatic changes given the poverty and dependency they are in. It would also make it look as though the poor countries are the culprits and not hold any accountability to the foreign multinationals who demand these conditions before investing in that nation. As we see in the structural adjustment section on this site, the conditions are such that capital can pick up and go elsewhere if there are such conditions.

While in the mainstream media's eyes the developing countries were looked at negatively for their incomprehensible reaction, a number of commentators in developed and developing countries did raise better perspectives, and a couple are quoted here as an example:

What about labor rights and support for U.S. laws banning imports of goods made by child labor or slave labor? Are such laws really protectionism in disguise?
Such laws, as well as provisions about labor and environmental standards in WTO treaties given how the WTO operates, can become new vehicles for protectionism and imperial manipulation. Suppose only violations of labor or environmental standards are recognized grounds for trade sanctions under new WTO rules. Effectively, only third world countries would be subject to complaints. Worse, third world countries would have waived their rights to retaliation when subjected to protectionist measures disguised as protections of labor or environmental standards. It is important that first world labor unions and environmental organizations recognize that our third world counterparts have good reason to worry that such provisions can easily become the new rationale for protectionism at their expense and for punishing regimes resistant to U.S. imperial policies. The AFL-CIO was oblivious to this legitimate concern going into Seattle and angered third world allies in the anti-globalization coalition as a result. While they did not abandon their call for labor standards in trade treaties, fortunately the AFL-CIO rethought the issue and passed some important resolutions reaching out to third world workers at its Executive Council Meeting February 16-17, 2000 in New Orleans.

Of course it would be a good thing if labor rights were made more secure and labor standards were improved anywhere in the world. The issue, however, is whether progressives in the U.S. should pressure the U.S. government to pass and enforce laws against imports from offending countries or to insist on such provisions in WTO treaties. I believe there are more effective and less dangerous ways to achieve this goal and to protect American workers from competition with third world workers who are even more exploited.

Many third world unions and grassroots organizations appreciate help from first world progressives in their campaigns for labor rights and standards. They would like us to help publicize abuses-particularly when our multinational corporations are the perpetrators. They like any financial or organizational aid we can provide-with no strings attached. Sometimes they like us to organize consumer boycotts-when they ask for them. Occasionally, when their struggle is at a crucial stage, third world movements for human, political, and labor rights ask us to pressure our governments and/or international organizations to take up economic sanctions, as was the case in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa and is now the case in the struggle for democracy in Burma. But there is a difference between responding to requests for international solidarity and promoting measures many of our third world allies oppose.

Moreover, precisely because third world workers are terribly exploited, their employers will pass on much of the cost of improvements in labor standards achieved through international trade treaties to their employees in the form of lower wages. Since the primary concern of the AFL-CIO is to arrest the race to the bottom effect of trade liberalization, they can more effectively protect their interests by supporting programs that improve the bargaining power of third world workers more than international labor standards do. For example, campaigns supporting land reform and cessation of U.S. military aid to totalitarian regimes are far more likely to reduce the race to the bottom effect of international trade. The crucial question is not whether the initiative for standards or sanctions comes from capitalist politicians or from the U.S. human rights/labor/left communities. The crucial question is whether the initiative comes as a request from those we want to help in third world countries. If so, we should be as responsive as possible.

Robin Hahnel, Imperialism, Human Rights, and Protectionism; A question and answer session on globalization, ZNet, February 2001

And from the South Centre:

[A]ttempts to enforce labour standards through trade sanctions are likely to cause economic harm to most exporting developing countries, at least in the short to medium term, while doing little or nothing to improve their labour standards. Indeed, under wholly plausible circumstances, this approach could be seriously counterproductive and reduce standards overall. What is more, any cut-back in developing country exports due to sanctions will not provide protection to labour and industry in the advanced countries for long (if that were the objective). This is because the most severe competition for advanced countries comes from the small number of newly industrializing countries (NICs) whose productivity growth rate is much faster than that of advanced countries.

[W]hat cannot be gained regarding labour standards through multilateral channels such as the WTO, where consensus is required, is now being pursued though bilateral and regional agreements ... The current initiatives of advanced countries intended to make core labour standards in effect compulsory by threatening sanctions are regarded by developing countries as being protectionist. They question why a country like the US, which has not ratified many of the core ILO conventions and whose own degree of unionization is barely above the average for developing countries, should push so hard for using trade measures as a weapon to enforce labour standards including the right to unionize.

Ajit Singh and Ann Zammit, The global labor standards controversy: critical issues for developing countries, South Centre, October 2000

But there are also deeper issues at hand as well.

In an Economist article, Globalisation and its critics, September 27 2001, the following is offered in discussion of the issue of quest for profits, regulation, fair wages, etc:

For example, suppose that in the remorseless search for profit, multinationals pay sweatshop wages to their workers in developing countries. Regulation forcing them to pay higher wages is demanded. The biggest western firms concede there might be merit in the idea. But justice and efficiency require a level playing-field. The NGOs, the reformed multinationals and enlightened rich-country governments propose tough rules on third-world factory wages, backed up by trade barriers to keep out imports from countries that do not comply. Shoppers in the West pay more-but willingly, because they know it is in a good cause. The NGOs declare another victory. The companies, having shafted [British slang for something like betrayed] their third-world competition and protected their domestic markets, count their bigger profits (higher wage costs notwithstanding). And the third-world workers displaced from locally owned factories explain to their children why the West's new deal for the victims of capitalism requires them to starve.

What is wrong with this? The answer depends on how you look at it. From one perspective, the economist is right; if we do manage to get fair wages for the exploited, then we risk affecting everyone due to passing on these extra costs to consumers. But, does that suggest we should therefore resign ourselves to continue this exploitation? After all, it does pay those people, even if it is a small amount.

Well, in short, NO! Yet, that is what the Economist and possibly extreme versions of the liberalism ideology seem to hint (although it may be politically incorrect to actually ever say it explicitly).

So how can this seemingly be right and seemingly be wrong? Well, it is the range of discourse within which a point is made that affects how you view this. That is, the assumptions, etc affect perspectives:

If we talk about these wages within the confines of the current implementation of the globalization system, this is perhaps how it has to be.

However, let's just take a tiny step outside and just ask some simple questions such as: why do these corporations have to go outside their own region? why should the poor produce sneakers or other products mostly for export? What good is that going to do them to earn so little money? What good is that money going to do when there is not much else to buy? And so on. We start hitting a major difference in perspective that is at the heart of this.

That is, when we start asking things like why the poor don't create their own industries, rather than be an extension of multinational's, then we start to hit a key issue. For example:

The poor countries ideally have to build their own industries, with their own internal markets etc.

With that, they will have their own distribution networks. Right now, they are a source of cheap resources (such as all those cash crops, the export-oriented economies-or mostly resource export-oriented, etc). With poorer nations selling resources and commodities elsewhere such as to wealthy nations, while buying from them the finished products made from those resources and commodities means the poor pay more than what they got! If products can be easily produced within the same region, it leads to better growth in those regions due to multiplying and circulation of wealth. It is worth quoting J.W Smith, again, on what was mentioned on this site's structural adjustment page:

[I]f a society spends one hundred dollars to manufacture a product within its borders, the money that is used to pay for materials, labor and, other costs moves through the economy as each recipient spends it. Due to this multiplier effect, a hundred dollars worth of primary production can add several hundred dollars to the Gross National Product (GNP) of that country. If money is spent in another country, circulation of that money is within the exporting country. This is the reason an industrialized product-exporting/commodity-importing country is wealthy and an undeveloped product-importing/commodity-exporting country is poor. (Emphasis Added)

Developed countries grow rich by selling capital-intensive (thus cheap) products for a high price and buying labor-intensive (thus expensive) products for a low price. This imbalance of trade expands the gap between rich and poor. The wealthy sell products to be consumed, not tools to produce. This maintains the monopolization of the tools of production, and assures a continued market for the product. [Such control of tools of production is a strategy of a mercantilist process. That control often requires military might.]

J.W. Smith, The World's Wasted Wealth 2, (Institute for Economic Democracy, 1994), pp. 127, 139.

A multiplier effect of their money would be created as it circulates around their economy, not around someone else's (i.e. the TNCs, and other countries)

Wealth in the poor country would be created more rapidly.

Much of the production and distribution we now see are wasteful of resources, capital and labor in this way because they are largely owned by foreign investors, or influenced heavily by foreign actors. Poorer countries are dependent on export-oriented economies, and much of the production flows to the wealthier regions. (And the effort that goes into maintaining these disparities and keeping real competition from the poor countries at bay is also wasteful.)

Addressing this could eliminate much in terms of environmental degradation from distribution (although perhaps be offset by new local (national or regional) industries, which must be countered with alternative/sustainable/less wasteful use of resources, etc.)

Free-but somewhat managed-trade between like nations, within regions etc would be beneficial to all involved. Free trade in its current form between unequal nations is itself unequal and continues inequality as a result.

Furthermore, the freeing up of labor in wealthy countries through elimination of wasted distribution and wasted capital, combined with efficient job-destroying technologies that we have today, means there would be more unemployment-but that should be used to society's advantage: we should share remaining productive jobs-that would reduce the workweek for all. This is detailed much more in this web site's section behind consumption and consumerism.

Of course, other issues will arise and the above glosses over numerous other issues (which links below will address in more detail, or point to sources with much more detail.) Local populations will have to continue to demand fairness and just actions from the new capitalists in the poor countries-such as demanding wages are fair, that environmental and other social standards and concerns are observed and respected, there is no concentration of ownership in land, technology, money and so on, like there currently is in the global sense (which also needs to be addressed).

Some might fear these suggestions, thinking they are communist or something, but they are not. These are all capitalist theories. There is nothing anti-capitalist about this. Instead, it is addressing a key issue of enhancing rights (economic rights) to all. Of course, this is not saying that there should be no international trade whatsoever, but that at least for the development of the current third world, the international setting should be something along the lines of the first world assisting by trading tools that help create industry (what some call tools of production) in those countries. Adam Smith, Henry George and others have all pointed to aspects of this. Of course, politics has meant that some of these theories have been distorted from original intent, or there may even be problems within the original theories. J.W. Smith for example, highlights well that philosophically much of this is possible:

Elimination of poverty is simple:

The impoverishment of the developing world is understandable once one learns how plunder by trade locks the world into violence and war.

Eliminating poverty is not philosophically complicated; Eliminate the monopolization of land, technology, and finance capital and equalize pay for equally productive work, both within internal economies and between trading nations. Once all nations and all people have access to technology and their labor is paid equally for equally productive work, the buying power of labor in different nations, and within nations, will equalize. Eliminating those monopolies will instantly distribute a share of the wealth to all members of society even as economic efficiency increases and produces more wealth. This is a more cooperative and democratic capitalism that will assure all rights for all people.

J.W. Smith, Institute for Economic Democracy

(J.W. Smith quote above, describes in detail over 800 years of history of plunder by trade that is mentioned above, and how at the world level, the subtle monopolization of land, technology, capital etc have all come about, including the waste of wars and other factors to maintain such systems. Furthermore, he provides details on how society has unwittingly supported what has amounted to plunder of the poorer regions of the world.)

(For more about the waste aspect, also see the latter parts of this site's section on behind consumption and consumerism, especially the page on waste.)

So, one might naturally ask, if it is this simple why haven't the poor done this? There is in some respects, a simple answer but one that demands a lot of explanation! The simple answer to this can be found in in things like politics, greed, dominance-politics, etc. For example, international economic institutions like the World Bank and IMF, with the influence of economically and politically powerful nations, have been able to push through policies, which are known to be destructive (as even admitted by former Chief Economist of the World Bank and Nobel prize winner. (See this web site's section on Structural Adjustment Policies or SAPs, for more including links to article from Joseph Stiglitz (that former Chief Economist) and others on how SAPs creates poverty and destroys any real chance of developing one's own nation.)

In fact, instead, things like SAPs open up poor countries economy for Foreign Direct Investment, for constructive engagement etc. But these are often constructive for the multinationals, not always for the host country, because there is investment to create sweatshops, constructive engagement to extract resources, and so on. There is little constructive investment in helping these countries build their own industries. So, such investments might look like they create jobs in the poor countries, but compared to the real potential of what the poor countries could achieve, this is very little, and much potential for poverty alleviation instead is lost. And while some mainstream commentators may not like to talk about it, the effects of colonialism etc are still felt-the same countries are still poor; their resources are still plundered away (instead of through force it is now largely through unequal trade). (See also this site's section on corporations and human rights for more on this issue of constructive engagement.)

Furthermore, the above argument from the Economist lends well to corporations who do not actually wish to engage in competition that will threaten their current success:

Because people everywhere are pretty much equally productive, then factors like access to industry, technology, education etc can enhance that productivity.

Structural Adjustment is almost an assault on such things, and the poor are not only poorly paid for the work they already do, but are denied technology, industry, education, health etc, to build their own industries and economies.

Furthermore, you get companies closing off in the first world and establishing in the third world, where they can say they are being constructive because they bring technology, know-how etc. However, this is a con; it is not to really and effectively help the poor build their own industries, their own buying power, and their own wealth. Instead, it is a way for companies to reduce costs but with social effects on all sides-the workers of the wealthy country lose out, while workers of the poor get exploited. Because on both sides then ordinary people lose out, and the poor cannot build their own industries etc, as a result, the threat of real competition leads to what J.W. Smith describes aptly as capital destroying capital.

In fact, Adam Smith, who criticizes both big government and concentrated big corporations in his 1776 classic The Wealth of Nations, what some regard as the free trade/capitalism bible, is worth quoting here:

Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their good both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book I, (Everyman's Library, Sixth Printing, 1991), pp. 87-88

There are numerous other political factors, and geopolitical/military factors as well, related to the historic struggle and control for resources, and the wars that have revolved around that to maintain such disparities. (The poverty section on this web site introduces many of these angles, with many links to other sites and sources.)

The Economist article doesn't really consider political aspects in this, and instead uses only some aspects of these capitalist theories, which, contrary to what seems to be popular belief, are not magical or natural forces without alternatives! Regardless of whether or not the theories themselves are sound, or not, or partially, (which is a huge topic unto itself!), they are heavily manipulated by political interests as has always happened throughout history. Hence, while in theory there may be many good points, in reality politics (power play) leads to supporting only those aspects of those theories that fit one's interests and so rhetoric and reality are far apart.

(See also, for example, this link, to an interview with Noam Chomsky who discusses labor issues with regards to NAFTA.)

Where next?

Related articles

1. The Rise of Corporations

2. Corporations and Human Rights

3. Tax Avoidance and Tax Havens; Undermining Democracy

4. Pharmaceutical Corporations and Medical Research

5. Pharmaceutical Corporations and AIDS

6. Corporations and the Environment

7. Corporate Social Responsibility

8. Corporate Influence on Children

9. Corporations and Worker's Rights

10. Influence at the World Trade Organization

See more related articles

Author and Page Information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Labor and capital have often been at odds in recent centuries. Labor costs can be very high for companies who look to minimize costs wherever possible. However, in poorer countries in particular, local and multinational companies often flaunt human rights and labor standards.

# data[].attributes.body
ADAM SMITH & WHY WE STILL NEED HIS IDEAS

# data[].attributes.body
KARL MARX & HIS ANTIDOTE TO CAPITALIST PROBLEMS

# data[].attributes.body
JOHN KEYNES & WHY HE'S STILL RELEVANT TODAY

# data[].attributes.body
20 COMMON FORMS OF GOVERNMENT

# data[].attributes.body
Encyclopedia Britannica's List of History's Most Known Leaders of Government

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
People Known for: history and society - government

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Browse Britannica biographies by category

# data[].attributes.body
BLOCKCHAIN & THE ECONOMY

How the blockchain will radically transform the economy | Bettina Warburg

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the blockchain will radically transform the economy | Bettina Warburg