From the Millennium Report.
…
The backlash to Globalization.
Clearly, not everyone is happy about globalization. Many people don't like globalization because it allows rich and powerful outside business interests to intrude into a local culture, overrides local traditions, and threatens a way of life. There were many who cheered for a French farmer who vandalized a McDonald's. Starbucks coffee shops have been favorite targets for people protesting globalization.
In more traditional societies, globalization threatens the cultural and religious underpinnings of society. In both industrialized and developing countries, many people feel threatened—and are threatened—by the globalization process. A globalized economy presents a myriad of challenges, from protecting local cultures to protecting the environment to protecting local jobs.
The backlash is very real. During the failed World Trade Organization talks in Seattle that were intended to further expand trading opportunities last December, thousands of demonstrators who agree on little else aside from a common dislike for globalization, caused major disruptions.
Labor Unions protested, fearing that a new trade agreement would provide an incentive for companies to move their jobs abroad. Environmentalists protested, fearing that global trade agreements would undercut domestic environmental safeguards. And there were nationalists, who feared that further globalization would diminish national sovereignty, and possibly lead to a loss of freedom, liberty or rights.
Whether it is viewed as an ominous juggernaut that crushes everything in its path, or whether it holds the promise of a better future, globalization is a phenomenon that is with us. Like the weather, it is, and will be, a source for endless discussion, but little can be done about it. But also like the weather, it is a force to which people can adapt.
…
The role and Responsibility of Corporations.
With their world-wide operations succeeding in maximizing profits, corporations have assumed extraordinary power, often far surpassing that of governments. With virtually no global rules or regulations, corporations have been able to operate with a free hand in the international marketplace, moving factories where labor costs are low and where resources are cheap.
But corporations themselves are finding out that there are limitations, even in this wild-west theatre of operations. With either a spark of conscience or a heads-up look at the bottom line, many corporations have learned that there are indeed limitations to what they can, and that there are responsibilities they must assume.
- Some corporations have learned this the hard way. Union Carbide learned this when its chemical plant in Bhopal, India, spewed poisonous gases that killed 6,000 people. And Exxon learned this when its tanker, the Exxon Valdez, spilled 11 barrels of oil over the Gulf of Alaska, which caused the company’s sales to fall from U.S. $9.9 billion a year to US $.4.8 billion eight years later, plus an addition billion in clean-up costs.
Catastrophic incidents such as these are well-known and relatively rare. Yet there are growing networks of non-governmental organizations who have made it their business to publicize other corporate transgressions, such as poor environmental, labor, or human rights violations. To limit exposure to bad publicity which can severely limit profits, or in some cases, just to do the right thing, many companies themselves have adopted various codes of conduct in their global dealings.
To engage business and corporations in a dialogue on corporate social responsibility, the UN Secretary-General has proposed a nine-principle code of conduct for business—the Global Compact -- which is drawn from existing international agreements on the environment, human rights and worker rights. A wide range of corporations have pledged that they will adhere to these principles, some that have been extensively criticized for their past practices. One of those companies is the sneaker company Nike, which has been singled out for criticism on its labor practices in developing countries.
- Philip Knight, the founder of Nike and its Chief Executive Officer said at a recent meeting at the UN on the Global Compact, "When we started the company that would eventually become Nike, I never dreamed that a small Oregon business selling sneakers from the trunk of an old Valiant would become a symbol of globalization. But it has."
He added, "In many ways Nike has become a fitting symbol for what is right - and what needs fixing - in an increasingly interdependent economy. We are small by multinational standards but manufacture in 50 countries. In each there are distinctly different legal, social, financial and economic systems. That means Nike, and thousands of other companies, have a monumental task: defining what our global responsibility is, and how to act on it, in many host countries."
