# data[].attributes.body
Ok.Let's move onto the 4th part.However, Klein fears that big brands don't essentially have the influence of' homogenising'.

Why? Because The theory of ‘glocalisation’ suggests that that local cultures tend to alter brands more than the other way around. In order to sell in different countries, brands need to cultivate local appeal, and while these brands can still be identified by certain homogenised features of global culture, this tends to be integrated with local cultural aspects. And as proof of that, Japan has absorbed aspects of western culture through big brands but has still remained distinctly Japanese.What's more, these branches sell traditional Japanese foods alongside the ubiquitous Big Macs and fries .

What's more , there's often many big brands have a charitable arm intended to preserve the local communities of the countries in which they operate. Why? Well, for instance, food companies, such as Ben and Jerry’s, may pledge to only use ingredients locally sourced from the country in which they are sold, and local workers employed to source these are given stakeholder representation (Edmondson, 2014). Take toys for example .Did you know the farming and manufacturing techniques may move away from traditional practices, it can be argued that local employees are able to influence the direction of the company and ensure that the preservation of local culture remains a priority? So, I think rather than an ‘evil’ force that destroys local culture, big brands may become a part of this local culture.

Therefore, It's abovisly that big brands become a part of this  local culture instead of an ' evil force which destroys local culture,right?

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Full moon on the evening of Tuesday, 14th June, 2022

# data[].attributes.body
OK, on the other hand, it’s not likely to find the big evidence of the fears of exploitation. And Let’s take a look at some advantages of using local labor, and I’ll also give responding examples to elaborate these points.

The first advantage of large corporations I want to mention is that it reduces unemployment and creates non-skilled work. Why? Well... for one thing, with the presence of large corporations, a person with limited education can also get a job offer, so the economy of a developing country will be improved. Meanwhile, what needs to be paid more attention is that developing countries themselves often compete for contracts from large corporations. Take China, India, and Mexico for example! Do you know that these developing countries have incredible economic growth because of the investment by large multinational corporations? Even though we cannot neglect the drawback that large corporations have exploited workers in these countries, we should admit that the corporations make valuable contributions to economics which bring long-term benefits to workers.

Secondly, because of the relevance of a positive corporate image, it is possible for international corporations to ‘police’ big brands and reduce their most destructive influences. If necessary, large corporations they will take swift action to save the business... Well, there are two examples for you all. One example is professors points out their manufacturing processes and their products are ethical validity .And It is far more difficult to police local companies who also exploit workers without the same international pressures. Another example is that some of the worst exploitation in Thailand is carried out by Thai companies rather than multinationals.

So we can clearly see that, big brands benefit developing countries more than small local companies in different aspects, like creating jobs and growing economy.

# data[].attributes.body
However，there is no basis for these fears of exploitation from big brands in developing countrires. Because actually big brands has several irreplaceable advantages.
Well, I’d like to first look at two of merits of big brands that reduce unemployment and created non-skilled work. Why does it have this advantage?  Because big brands provide opportunities for people with limited education, so big brands contribute to the economy of a developing country.
As many people may konw, developing countries sometimes may compete for contracts from large corporation. And the reason is that big brands will drive the economic growth of countries. So the second crucial factor is that big brands can boost economy of developing country. In fact, many countries such as China, India and Mexico, have seen significant economic growth as a result of the investment by large multinational corporations.
Some people might be concerned about that large corporations have exploited workers in developing countries. Dialectically speaking, those transnational corporations have contributed to their economies in the long run, which definitely have hungely beneficial to workers.
In that case, it is possible to ‘police’ big brands and mitigate their most destructive influences as international corporations are reliant on a positive corporate image. Let us think about the scenario. If large corporations feel they are losing business as a result of bad publicity, they will take swift action to remedythe situation.
For instance, both Gap and Nike have taken steps to ensure their products are not produced by sweatshop labour and offer assurances on the ethical validity of their manufacturing processes.
It is undeniable that policing local companies who also exploit workers is very diffcult. Because those companies are not subject to the same international pressures. Even then, some of the worst exploitation in Thailand is carried out by Thai companies rather than multinationals. Therefore, it seems clear that big brands generally benefit workers in developing countries, boosting the employment sector and often having stronger workers’ protections than smaller, local companies.

# data[].attributes.headline
Room3(Yeqi Mao Meichen Yang Yiling Xie Jin Wenqi)

# data[].attributes.subject
Room3(Yeqi Mao Meichen Yang Yiling Xie Jin Wenqi)

# data[].attributes.body
Well, another reason I suppose is that big brands being regarded as ‘evil’ cuz their global spread is claimed to have led to mass ‘Americanisation’, spoiling traditional cultures, as you know.

To be more specific, that is to say, big brands will lead to 'homogenisation' and the world will finally be consumed by American culture and values as well as American brands. And for instance， where the arrival of multinational brands has resulted in smaller, local businesses closing. Ritzer explains that some local
towns have fought against the invasion of fast-food chains such as McDonald'. Right, take the 'McCafe' for example,it was about to open while the Union of Vienna Coffee Houses was afraid that McCafe would have an impact on local coffee houses and their lifestyle.

Ok, so we can clearly notice that because of the concern about and antipathy towards the perceived ‘Americanisation’ of
the culture represented by some big brands, leading them to be defined as ‘evil’.

# data[].attributes.body
Actually, contrary to these concerns, there is evidence that  big brands do not necessarily have the ‘homogenising’ impact that Klein fears.

However, as we know, the fact is that these local cultures are often respected by large corporations, which in most cases try to make their products fit into those local cultures. For example, Craig and Zeynap's 2004 study confirms that because large companies know they need to be sufficiently attractive - and often need their products to fit the characteristics of the local culture - they will try to make their products fit the local culture and respect them. A typical example is that although there are over 4000 mcDonald's in Japan, if you go there, you will find that mcDonald's in Japan does not just offer "traditional" American fast food, they also offer traditional Japanese food. If they didn't do that, they would lose their competitiveness in Japan - where there are a lot of local companies competing with them.

Some BBs will make efforts to preserve local cultures, first of all some charitable organizations are effective means of protecting local communities. Secondly, local employees influence the directions of the whole company, and in this atmosphere, companies tend to prioritize the protection of local culture. For example, Ben & Jerry's is a representative of local raw materials and stakeholders (Edmondson, 2014)

So, it is not difficult to see that big brands becomes a part of this local culture rather than an ‘evil’ force that destroys local culture, I think. How do you see it?

# data[].attributes.body
Let us move on to Another reason for big brands being regarded as ‘evil’ is that their global spread is claimed to have led to mass ‘Americanisation’, spoiling traditional cultures.

So, what do I mean exactly when I say ‘Americanisation'? Well, Klein express her view in 1999 that big brands will lead to ‘homogenisation’ and the world will ultimately be consumed by American culture and values as well as .for example, some local towns have fought against the invasion of fast food chains such as McDonalds. Another example was seen in Vienna, where the Union of Vienna Coffee Houses protested when a ‘McCafe’ was about to open as they were afraid of the impact it would have on local coffee houses and on their lifestyle.

So in conclusion,this clearly demonstrates the concern about and antipathy towards the perceived ‘Americanisation’ of culture represented by some big brands which has led them to be defined as ‘evil’.