h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

being a cynic I'd have to say that the consumers who really thought that the increase in their cup of tea represented what was being sent to the workers, were, in a word, suckers...

Amen to that - a fine message for the festive season!

Sippers, surely Blues.

that's a terrible simulpost - my Amen was to the message before that...

- alas for cynicism, but here's to transparent company accounting which helps us see if the money *does* go to the right place...


...didn't someone around here once say something about changing th world by degrees?

I see your point, and to a certain extent agree with it, but my difficulty is that i cvan very demonstarbly see how much more a cup of tea costs me, and also how the grinding poverty of the third world has continued unabated.

But, yes, any advance is worth celebrating.

I just want to come back on some points that have cropped up in the backlog, regarding justification for Nestle's actions.

Nestle's official justification for its claim is that it is "clearly in the interest of continued flows of foreign direct investment that such conflicts are resolved according to international law. A successful resolution will re-establish the confidence of international investors, which will be to the benefit of the Ethiopian government."

There is a belief amongst arrogant multi-national corporations that anything they do will be to the benefit of the community, and that if a country gets a reputation for defaulting on debts that no-one will want to invest in it. This is not a fact, it is merely a matter of opinion. There are many ways to invest in a country and there are many ways to manage the risks inherent in this activity.

The other fallacy is that it is 'right' for a company's utmost duty to be maximising the profits for its shareholders. Again, this is a matter of opinion. If that is really your duty, then obviously the first thing to do is not to pay your workers anything. There are technical reasons why companies cannot actually do this, but plenty of them attempt to pay their workers as little as possible, make them work long hours, cut back on health and safety measures and so on. Just because there's a law that says they can get away with this, does that mean it is right? Does that mean that we must throw up our hands and say,"Well, that's ok then"?

Who makes these laws anyway? Not the people working in the sweatshops, that's for sure!

There are plenty of people around who do not think that the 'shareholder' argument is right and have proposed different ways of conducting business in a capitalist society (c.f. Will Hutton's book 'The State We're In').

What I am trying to say is that just because there are laws and conventions about the way we do business, it doesn't mean it is right or good.

The main reason why large corporations are backing down, or hurriedly drafting ethical policies is because of consumer protest. Which just goes to show that when there's a danger that people won't like a company any more, suddenly 'international law' becomes less important.

Some good points. The one I liked most is the one about consumer protest. But in order to do that consumers have to be informed. As we have seen, programmes like World in Action have bitten the dust to be replaced by pap like PopStars and Who wants to be a Millionaire

Well, its good in a way that years of protest from consumers, and abstaining from certain products, such as nestle, has seemed at last, to pay off a bit...

Actually consumer protest has leapt up again due to...you guessed it...the internet!!!

The spirit of liberalism will never die!!!!

While I happily buy fair trade products when I can, I do have to buy Nestle breakfast cereals. And I mean *have* to.

The day that kellogs stop putting milk into their breakfast cereals I can change this!

Demanding money like that from the world's poorest country during a famine is utterly despicable.

Can someone list Nestle products so I, and others, can stop buying them until Nestle changes it's mind?

Thankyou.

"Nestle's official justification for its claim is that it is "clearly in the interest of continued flows of foreign direct investment that such conflicts are resolved according to international law. A successful resolution will re-establish the confidence of international investors, which will be to the benefit of the Ethiopian government.""

And then there's the Reality. The country is poor and suffering a famine. You are demanding a huge monetary payment from it when you are not poor. You can take your mealy-mouthed ideological crap and stick it back up your a**e where it came from.

"yesterday Nestle, which bought the firm's German parent company in 1986, was standing by its demand, insisting it was a "matter of principle"."

Principle?! Just what "principles" do these amoral little f**ks have?

I'm angry about this, you might have guessed

Zagreb: I posted it earlier in this conversation at: F19585?thread=Zagreb: I posted it earlier in this conversation at: F19585?thread=Zagreb: I posted it earlier in this conversation at: F19585?thread=Zagreb: I posted it earlier in this conversation at: F19585?thread=Zagreb: I posted it earlier in this conversation at: A905195. This posting is being written by Cloviscat at 4.42pm on Monday 23 December, to replace the original, now moderated text, which stood here.

That's a shame, I *like* Alta Rica coffee

Instead of boycotting it at the shop, how about going one step up the chain and cutting off distribution. Crack teams of joyriders could hang around at service stations and steal Nestlé lorries while the drivers are having a nice cup of tea (ingredients paid for by slave labour, no doubt.) Then push them off cliffs, or maybe even drive them into parks or forests and set them on fire.

...or turn the lorries round, drive them to the 3rd world and provide food (or far too much caffeine) for the hungry?

No - poor taste, and I'm sure Unicef wouldn't condone a diet of Branston and Quality Street

This post has been removed.

Exactly what court is going to here this case?
There is no, to my knowledge international civil crimes court.
So, ethiopean court - they're hardly going to award damages.