This is an essay I fumbled into a degree of readability a couple of years ago. It really could and should have a rewrite, although the fundamental premise remains (and if anything are more relevant than two or three years ago). Globalisation and the flows associated with it impact on vast areas of the globe. This can be witnessed through the expansion of manufacturing outlets into the developing world, the increase in the power and use of technology, the movement of peoples across the Earth and the ecological footprint left on the environment and associated repercussions. All of the aforementioned topics have proximity (or lack of it) as a common denominator. Recognising the Earth spanning nature of globalisation, this essay will, by concentrating on Corporate activity, consider how proximity relates to responsibility. In doing so, the essay will seek to establish that despite geographic remoteness, the results of living in an ever more free-market driven, globalised world necessitate a need for more responsibility, in particular by those who occupy powerful and/or influential positions.
One of the single most contentious areas of globalisation has been the concerns generated what is perceived to be the increasingly powerful and decreasingly accountable corporations that drive the free-market economic system (see table below).
A table demonstrating the amount of financial power wielded by the top 200 corporations and the amount of sales as a percentage of world GDP. It is this economic might that concerns many people, in particular with relation to the lack of accountability to the general public. Image reproduced from the Top 200 report produced by the Institute for Policy Studies.
Rome 2007: A demonstrator smashes the glass of a bank window during demonstrations against a visit by President Bush. Violence erupted when a police directive was ignored by demonstrators resulting in police use of tear gas. It should be noted that President Bush is viewed by many as a figurehead for some of the greater excesses of Free Market enterprise. Photo: AP/Gregorio Borgia.
Violent demonstrations (as shown above), and vigorous campaigning by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have been gaining momentum and publicity as a response to corporate power and responsibility. Concerns about markets operating without restraint have a historical tradition. Modern free-trade economic systems can trace their foundation to early business enterprises such as the East India Tea Company and the Dutch East India Company. The companies through trade networks linked previously remote areas such as India, the continent of Africa, the Americas and Europe. In doing so they drew together diverse communities into closer proximity. Notably, even those early experiments in capitalist enterprise, drew questions from some quarters about the lack of responsibility practiced by the companies. In particular Edmund Burke denounced the East India Tea Company for trampling on its Indian subjects with the sole intent of furthering its own financial ends.
Modern corporations stand accused of similar dispassionate practices. Businesses have recognised the economic benefits of outsourcing their production practices to developing nations, primarily due to tax incentives and lower wages of indigenous work forces. The production of an item is likely to have passed through numerous people, including those who source and prepare materials, those who complete assembly and those who shift the final product. The image below demonstrates the complex nature of manufacturing processes.
The above diagram demonstrates the interdependencies of diverse groups of people in the production of a garment. It should be noted that the sourcing, construction, cutting and other stages of manufacture are likely to occur within geographically remote areas of the globe. (Source: Oxfam International).
This system, known as subcontracting, is extremely divisive. Proximity is created in a network of trade and proponents argue that this interdependency generates wealth, creating a route out of poverty and ultimately leading to the development of viable, powerful economies such Hong Kong(13). Some neo-liberals take this a stage further, pointing out that responsibility is the concern of governments and not corporations. Ultimately, they argue, the purpose of a corporation is to maximise profits and any responsibility is to their stockholders. Opponents of sub-contracting point to the conditions of the sweatshops, the crackdown on trade union membership and the environmental damage being caused by corporate indifference. Further criticism is directed towards the circuitous, complex nature of the sub-contracting system, with arguments that the convoluted route from source, through manufacture up to sale, maintains distance between consumer and those individuals involved in manufacture. Remoteness of consumers from the assembly line means that purchasers, through a lack of awareness and/or proximity are unable to adopt a more ethical or principled approach when shopping, that is, they don’t feel responsible for the conditions that the item was constructed in. To combat this, NGOs have utilised a wide range of campaigning techniques in an effort to deconstruct the sub-contracting system and bring the issue into the homes of consumers. Possibly the most effective approach has been through the media. Documentaries are regularly shown and news coverage is extensive. Websites detailing the callousness and lack of responsibility shown by business have also proliferated. In tandem with these approaches has been an increase in advocates of ethically produced items. Consumers in the developed world are through the breakdown of subcontracting procedures, brought into closer proximity to the source of the items that they wish to purchase leaving with them less recourse to claims of ignorance. The closer proximity and better understanding of outsourcing provides them with an ethical choice and therefore a degree of responsibility.
Corporations, through economic might and political influence, wield enormous power. As mentioned above, the use of media can be profoundly important in creating a connection between an audience and specific event. However, the value of these institutions can be questioned when stories that are presented are incomplete, possibly due to budgetary restrictions or the need for a photo-opportunity. More disconcerting is monopolisation of media outlets by a few businesses as shown in the graph below. The response of an audience to a event can be stymied due to the news agency targeting a specific political demographic and thus a distance is created. The impact of big business is exemplified by the pressure exerted by Monsanto on Fox News. This was regarding a story that was to be aired, attacking the use of hormones in pasteurised milk production and the health effects associated with it. Bowing to pressure from Monsanto, the reporters were dismissed and the original story not screened. This raises the issue of responsibility. Fox News in not screening the story, failed to alert the wider public of a viable health concern (failing to create a sense of proximity), and thus must share some degree of accountability for any ailments that resulted from consumption of the milk.
A graph detailing the increase in monopolisation of media within the United States. Concerns have been raised as to the lack of accountability that the corporations have and the possibility of unbiased dissemination of news stories being decreased, if deemed counter to the news agencies interests, creating a sense of distance between event and audience. Image reproduced from the Media Reform Information Website.
Debates about the environment, in particular global warming and decreasing biodiversity have achieved prominence through recognition by the general public that at some level they have a responsibility. Despite concerns about the media, it is undeniable that images of deforestation, whale hunting, oil spills and varied weather conditions have struck a chord. The drawing together of remote peoples through imagery and reportage, has led to flourishing campaigns. In particular the industrialised world has realised that they have some responsibility to stop the carnage occurring worldwide. Deforestation within Brazil is particularly illustrative (see picture below). Huge swathes of land have been cleared in order to meet demand from the more affluent countries for meat from cattle that have been fed soy-based foodstuffs. Ironically, the demand for soy became more prevalent after the, heavily reported, BSE scare several years earlier. This demonstrates that proximity was developed between consumer and producer. The latter eventually, after much protest from the general public, were required by law to take responsibility for feeding their cattle and change existing practices. However, their still remains the problem of distance between consumers of beef and those involved in both soy production and cattle feed manufacture, leading to increased deforestation.
The above image shows an area cleared for deforestation in the Mato Grosso area of Brazil in 2004. The forest has been illegally cleared for soy production, in response to demand from the developed world for meat from cows fed on soy-based products. Campaigns with images such as these by Greenpeace, have reduced the distance of their audience and brought the problems of environmental damage into the home. The responsibility to prevent this remains an illusive issue. Image reproduced from Greenpeace.
A pivotal notion in discussion about globalisation is how flows (of people, goods, information) work with or against territories, such as communities or nation states. Corporations have been accused of riding roughshod over the concept of territories, with neo-liberals arguing that a decrease in borders will allow for proliferation of trade and by default, wealth. The wealth generated by globalisation has allowed a comparatively small minority to exploit the rest of the Earth, this has led to depletion of resources and environmental pollution. This is particularly true of the demand for oil, where, for example, the ongoing war in Iraq (an invasion of a sovereign territory) has been regarded in certain quarters as merely an overt attempt to control the flow of reserves there. This has happened with no regard to the occupants of the country. More optimistically, many projects abound now where the concepts of proximity and responsibility have included indigenous people. The globally based Project Sea Horse is a case in point. Increased spending power by practitioners of Chinese Medicine had led to increased demand for seahorses and by the early 1990s studies demonstrated that over-exploitation was damaging populations. The decrease in population was also having a knock-on effect on marine ecosystems as well as on those who made a living from harvesting seahorses. The project, originally based in the Philippines, established a management system allowing for harvesting of seahorses in a sustainable manner. The project has spread from its original base to now include other local villages. Project seahorse evinces the connection that proximity and responsibility have with each other. Although initiated by an external source, the management of the project is undertaken by indigenous peoples local to the area. In doing so they have responsibility (and a vested interest) in maintaining the farming and supply of their resource and thus secure a future for themselves.
The idea that proximity is an important concept when discussing responsibility in a globalised world is a valid one. Free flow of trade is a lynchpin of modern globalised thought and the exploitation of the resources (whether people or materials) must surely demand accountability. Sub-contracting practices are not only the responsibility of corporations. Consumers cannot claim to be unaware of the issues surrounding such places, and ultimately, through spending power can exercise responsibility by choosing to shop elsewhere. The outcry and collapse in beef sales during the BSE crisis created proximity between supplier and consumer, and a more responsibility by the former.
Although inherently global in nature, globalisation can and must consider local communities or states. Project Seahorse demonstrated that geographic proximity can lead to more responsible approaches being adopted. The outcome of this was to maintain supply to meet the global demand for an endangered species which through responsible farming has started to recover. The distance of the consumers was reduced, the proximity of the fishermen utilised and a global responsibility initiated.
Further Reading:
1) Barnett, C., Robinson, J., and Rose, G., (2006) A Demanding World, DD205, The Open University Press, Milton Keynes.
2) Pagden, A. (2001). Peoples And Empires: Europeans And The Rest Of The World, From Antiquity To The Present. (In particular: Chapter 7 – Empires Of Liberty, Empires Of Trade). Phoenix Press. London
3) Clark, N., Massey, D., Sarre, P. (eds) (2006). DD205 – Book 2, Living In A Globalised World. A World In the Making. Open University. Milton Keynes
