| < Company Profiles / Food & Supermarkets / Tesco Stores Plc. |
19.11.01
|
|
Tesco Stores Plc.
Corporate crimes Greenwash This is important to discuss because it is corporations’ most powerful weapon against concerned but powerless citizens. Appearing to be "green" gradually became trendy, then moved to being a basic requirement of any company hoping to appear cuddly and friendly to the public. Tesco’s website and other pieces of literature thus describe an ethically and environmentally aware retailer who really cares about its customers and the rest of the world. Recently it has become impossible for supermarkets to continue without announcing some kind of policy on genetically modified (GM) ingredients and organic food. However, this is rarely matched by a real change in attitudes towards ethical and environmental issues. In recent years there has been a huge shift towards buying more organic products, inspired in part by consumer concerns over GM food. Supermarkets have responded to the increased demand for organic and guaranteed GM-free produce, but at what cost to small farmers, communities and the environment? The considerable increase in organic food on supermarket shelves has not been matched by a shift towards more generally sustainable farming methods in this country: 75% of organic produce in supermarkets comes from abroad [39]. Very few items in any supermarket are both local and organic, or organic and fairly traded. Controversy over GM food has received a lot of media attention that concerns over human rights in food production or high carbon emissions in transporting food have not yet had. Supermarkets are therefore responding to consumer pressure rather than acting out of any deeper concern over the impact of GM crops (or any other way of farming) on ecosystems. Changes made like this to protect supermarket profits are never going to be as thorough as changes made out of genuine concern. We can buy organic avocados in supermarkets in Britain all year round; the fact that they have to be flown half way around the world to reach us is ignored, because supermarkets stock organic products because they sell well rather than because they are concerned about the environment. The ‘organic’ or ‘fair trade’ label on a product has become like a badge that says "We’re making an effort to be more ethical…so buy our products and stop asking questions" – concerning only the ethical or environmental question that is receiving the most media coverage at the moment. Tesco has a range of food called Nature’s Choice, which it says encourages "rational" use of pesticides. However, according to Friends of the Earth "details about the scheme are not publicly available." FoE also describes Tesco as "falling behind" other supermarkets in their reduction of the use of certain pesticides in fruit and vegetables [40]. Tesco recycle 85% of their packaging waste, ie. the cardboard and plastic from items delivered to the store. This is good, but it doesn't affect the packaging on individual products. What about looking into reducing packaging – and products – in the first place? Targetting Children and Influencing Education Since 1990 Tesco has been running the Computers for Schools scheme, whereby tokens on certain products (Walkers' crisps, Tetley tea and Mcvitie's biscuits) or with any purchase of over £10 at a Tesco store can be exchanged for computer equipment for local schools. Tesco is very proud of this scheme, which in October 2000 won the Nestle Social Commitment prize (I jest not) at the Food and Industry Awards. However, parents and teachers have expressed concerns over the way in which the scheme encourages children to be brand-conscious consumers at an early age in order to get hold of the equipment their school needs. In 2000 alone the scheme provided £10.5 million worth of computing equipment to over 20,000 schools. However, as Ben Laurence in the Observer points out "The cost to Tesco is modest: customers have to spend £110,000 on groceries for a school to get a basic PC."[41] Most computers provided by the scheme bear the Tesco logo; it must be remembered that companies, whose main purpose is after all to create more profits in either the long or short term, rarely do anything out of pure altruism. Peter Doyle in the Guardian points out that this cause-related marketing (the association of company names with certain "good causes") "enables companies to enhance their brand names"[42]. The provision of school equipment by companies also lets the government off the hook and allows it to spend less money on schools and more on, for example, upgrading Trident, bombing Afghanistan or increasing ministers' salaries. Unions such as the Association of Teachers and Lecturers have voiced concerns, largely ignored by the government, that schools are becoming increasingly reliant on companies rather than the state to provide them with what is generally regarded as essential equipment. The more corporations go along with this attitude, the more the government will encourage it, and the more schools rely on corporations for essential equipment, the less they can do about how the corporations treat their pupils. Aside from the corporate concerns about this scheme is the fact that most of the products blessed with free computer vouchers come into the category of junk food. Children may learn about nutrition at school, but the next day in assembly they will be encouraged to buy as many crisps, biscuits and fizzy drinks as they can to enable them to buy a computer. Tesco's statement on this is profoundly unhelpful: "All products are clearly labelled and if a shopper should have any health concerns they should directly contact the product (sic) concerned."[43] Tesco also points out that customers do not have to buy the marked products to get tokens; rather than spending 35p on a packet of crisps, they can spend £10 on any purchase from Tesco and get a token worth the same amount. Cheers, Tesco. For more details about Tesco's involvement in education, see: www.tesco.com/everylittlehelps Carbon Emissions Tesco says it "fully supports the UK government’s commitments to the Kyoto protocol on climate change". This is all very well and a nice thing to say, but the Kyoto protocol is already pathetic, and is unlikely to make any concrete changes anyway because almost nobody has ratified it [44]. In a situation like this it is easy to say you support the government’s position, therefore looking as if you care, without actually having to do anything. As mentioned above, Tesco is represented in UNICE, which lobbies against binding targets for CO2 reductions, and as such it it part of the problem rather than part of the solution. In 2001 Tesco finalised a deal with Esso whereby Esso would provide all the petrol for Tesco filling stations and out-of-town centres. Esso is part of the Exxon corporation, which has been heavily criticised for many environmental issues, including donating money to George W Bush's election campaign and presumably thereby influencing the US's denial of climate change. See Corporate Watch's Exxon-Mobil Profile at: http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/profiles/oil_gas/ exxon_mobil/exxon_mobil1.html. As Somerfield similarly teams up with BP it seems the largest fuel retailers and the largest supermarkets are joining together to protect mutual interests in the face of increased protest about climate change and other issues which will affect them. Tesco’s website tells us that it is concerned about climate change and committed to reducing carbon emissions – but even if this is true, how much can it do when in partnership with a major oil company, and one known to be particularly environmentally reprehensible at that? Tesco has more out of town outlets than any other major supermarket in Britain. In 1998 Tesco lobbied successfully against government plans to tax the car parks of out-of -town shopping centres. In May that year (already having ‘coincidentally’ given £12 million to the Millennium Dome), Tesco representatives met with John Prescott, who delayed a White Paper concerning the subject, which had been due imminently. When it was finally published in July the parking tax proposal had been dropped. Instead it called for "closer partnership" between local authorities and major retailers to "identify appropriate measures funded by the private sector to reduce car dependence for access to these developments."[45] (See also Lobbying) Supermarkets’ large-scale method of operating massively increases the amount of miles even British food has to travel to reach us. Supermarkets distribute their produce through a few large regional (not local) centres, so even if food is local to an area it will have gone somewhere else before it reaches the shelves [46]. This is ironic given Tesco’s declarations of concern over climate change: it may have fuel-efficient lorries that run on ultra low sulphur diesel [47], but does not appear to be considering doing anything like decentralising its distribution system to reduce its road usage. Embarrassing stupidity: Tesco released a press statement in November 2000 about how global warming would make it easier to produce wine from English grapes [48]. This should have been a major scandal for Tesco. How can any person who calls themselves educated say something so utterly stupid in public? Climate Change is not about a warm climate for Britain, it is about weather chaos for the whole world. The huge storms and droughts which may well plague us in the future will do nothing for grapes nor for any other agriculture. Effect on communities Huge sections of Tesco’s website, and presumably a considerable proportion of their PR budget, is dedicated to convincing customers that Tesco is concerned about, and a benefit to, any community it moves into. The terms "supporting local communities" and "regeneration" are dotted about liberally, but it is sometimes hard to see where this fits into reality. "In 1998 Tesco boasted that it would boost British employment by 10,000. In 2000 it claimed it would create a further 4,000 jobs by opening grocery stores in Esso filling stations and another 7,000 by online sales… "Their refutation comes from the most embarrassing source: one of the superstores' own research organisations, the National Retail Planning Forum…"[49] The NRPF said it had found "strong evidence that new out-of -town shopping centres have a negative net impact on retail employment up to 15km away." - total employment in this area decreased by 5.2%, where retail employment outside this area had risen by 0.1%. NRPF research shows that the opening of a new superstore costs an area an average of 276 local jobs, not only in retail but also farming, distribution, maintenance and so on [50]. Building another supermarket identical to thousands of others all over the country for people to spend money on more things in is hardly a way of regenerating a small community. The jobs it provides are generally short term, unsatisfying and unsustainable, relying on a large company that has come in and will leave as soon as the area stops being profitable. In 1993, the government introduced planning measures aimed at curbing the growth of out-of-town supermarkets. These measures were strengthened in 1996, but in many cases sites had been purchased and planning permission had been granted beforehand so that growth has not stopped. By 1999, the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee felt that these measures were under threat and wrote a report on the 'Environmental Impact of Supermarket Competition'[51] outlining its concerns. These threats still apply. Perhaps the most shocking part of this process is that the Citizens' Organising Foundation has discovered that supermarkets charge higher prices in poorer areas than rich ones. Poorer people are less likely to have cars and are therefore more of a captive market, unable to go in search of cheaper prices [52]. Sainsburys and Tesco "have been fiercely criticised by the Citizen Organising Foundation for charging higher prices in poor areas than rich ones."[53] Relations with farmers and suppliers The price which farmers receive for their produce frequently fails to cover the cost of production, and consequently only farmers which produce on a very large scale and can therefore produce more cheaply can afford to carry on this way. For others, spiralling debt has become the norm and has forced many out of business. Despite the general culture of isolation and despair in farming, several protests have taken place against supermarkets which are seen to have the most influence on the prices paid to farmers. One such protest against Tesco was in March 2000 when farmers blockaded depots at Chepstow and Magor [54]. It is difficult to be precise about the scale of the problems encountered by suppliers in their dealings with supermarkets because farmers are too afraid to lose their contracts to speak openly. John Breach of the Fruit Growers' Association described the risk of being de-listed for raising objections to terms and conditions as 'very real'.[55] Many of the criticisms levelled at supermarkets by suppliers do not specify which is involved, because of a fear of losing contracts. As the government's Competition Commission found, many suppliers will not talk about their experiences, nor even fill in questionnaires. The Commission's report is available at: http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/reports/446super.htm#full Tesco has put forward two arguments to counter these criticisms. The first, outlined in the BBC report of the above protests [56], is that Tesco cannot set prices because it buys from processors not directly from farmers, and it therefore pays market prices, which it is not allowed to fix. This, on one hand, is a result of World Trade Organisation Policy, and shows how unfair these rules are towards small producers who are not allowed to systematically receive a fair price for their products. On the other hand, Tesco can take part in fairly trading tea and coffee, so there is no reason why it could not introduce lines of fairly traded farm products. As the supplier at the top of the chain, and the largest buyer of British farms products, Tesco could, if it believed in a fair price, instigate a fair trade system for farm products. No-one has more power to do so. Its second argument is that the price paid by retailers is not the most important issue, rather that farmers are suffering from the high rate of exchange of the pound, which gives them relatively less subsidy money [57]. This is also a favourite argument of the National Farmers Union, but it is really quite peripheral. The reason why farmers need so much subsidy money in the first place is because they have been paid less and less for their produce over the years. Consumers should pay an honest price which covers the costs of the producers, and then subsidies would not be needed, since subsidies are a symptom of processors and retailers offloading costs onto taxpayers. It should be noted that so-called 'free' trade is not an answer to this because it is basically the same as we have now, except without the cushion of subsidies, and it results in a race to the bottom for standards and prices, which means only the largest can survive. Tesco has outlined measures which it has undertaken to support British farmers, including the purchasing of 'light lamb', and buying British meat even when foreign produce is cheaper. These measures are tokens but are welcome. However, the bulk of products sold in supermarkets are more processed and no notice is taken of their origins at all. No meaningful improvement for farmers in Britain and elsewhere can take place until the imbalance caused by artificially cheap transport has been removed and it becomes consistently cheaper to buy local. Tesco cannot be the saviour of British farming because it cannot deal on a human scale. Tesco can only achieve its much-publicised cheap prices through dealing in bulk and this excludes small producers. Supermarkets do sometimes begin to deal with small producers, but only with a view to making them larger and more 'economical' to deal with. In a much publicised gesture, Tesco donated £600,000 to farmers after the foot and mouth crisis. This is somewhat ironic considering supermarkets’ general treatment of farmers, and especially as supermarket tactics of distribution make epidemics such as the one in 2001 more likely. A few very large regional distribution centres and processors, instead of a lot of smaller local ones, clearly increase the spread of such diseases. Fair trade In 1996 Christian Aid launched a campaign for supermarkets to adhere to better standards in the treatment of workers in the developing world. However, according to George Monbiot, there was little improvement by 1999 [58]. Tesco had said it would commit £2million (0.5% of its half-yearly profits) to ethical trading, but was unable to say how it had been spent [59]. A spokesperson from Christian Aid said "Without clear targets and timetables the supermarkets’ commitment to ethical trading cannot be taken seriously."[60] Tesco (along with most of the major supermarkets) has now signed up to the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), a coalition of NGOs, trade unions, companies and government departments describing itself as "a ground-breaking initiative…with the aim of helping to make substantial improvements to the lives of poor working people around the world."[61] Established in 1998, it has drawn up a base code which all members have to sign up to which discusses working conditions, wages, hours, child labour and discrimination. Christian Aid describes the ETI as "a three-year learning process" attempting to improve conditions for workers in developing countries and "develop and implement industry-wide standards for ethical trading." These are admirable sentiments, but what is it actually doing? Christian Aid is optimistic for the ETI’s future but warns "as yet the ETI has not delivered any change in conditions for overseas workers…It’s crucial the ETI doesn’t become a diversion, or a talking shop which delivers no real change on the ground."[62] The ETI covers supermarkets’ own-brand products – but what about the towers of jars of Nescafe on supermarket shelves? Every step towards fairer trading is important, but this seems like a token gesture on the part of the supermarkets, signing up to an agreement written by other people without having to take any initiatives of their own. Supermarkets are beginning to stock more ethical products, but they have not stopped stocking unethical ones. Seen in this light, the supermarkets are expanding their range of products rather than changing anything in their attitudes towards anything. It seems they are trying to keep everyone happy and failing. Brainwashing A lot of people have argued that it is the business of large companies to brainwash consumers into thinking they want or need more and more things. Looking through the leaflets available in your local Tesco gives this view some credibility, as you find yourself being offered insurance, travel insurance, car insurance, pet insurance, and bank accounts. There are also leaflets advertising children’s and toddlers’ clubs (incidentally offering the fruits of an alliance with our favourite animation company Disney). Tesco clearly feel the need to rope their consumers in young. Big Brother Along with several other major retailers, Tesco has agreed to pilot a sinister new scheme whereby customers will be able to pay without cash or credit cards, merely by giving their fingerprints. All the customer will have to do is press a finger on a sensor, then enter a password which will call up pre-registered information and transfer payment from their bank account. Phil Gioia, head of biometric systems company Indivos, said "The new technology is inevitable in multi-lane retailers", stressing the "speed, convenience and security" of the system and its use as a protection from fraud. The trial is expected to start within a year, and if successful could be used for airport security [63]. The Orwellian implications of this technology are not hard to follow.
|
|||||||||
| Footnotes [39] www.organic.aber.ac.uk/stats.shtml [40] See: www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/real_food/index.html for details of FOE's supermarket campaign [41] The Observer March 7 1999 [42] The Guardian 30 June 2001 [43] Quoted in The Guardian April 1st 2000 [44] For a brief overview "What’s wrong with the Kyoto Protocol" see The Corporate Watch newsletter 4, July-August 2001, p3 [45] George Monbiot Captive State p175 [46] Sustain "Local food sourcing – PR or the real thing?" April 2001 [47] Details of Tesco’s environmental commitments can be found on the website at: www.tesco.com/everyLittleHelps/ [48] Tesco Press Release 14.11.2000 [49] George Monbiot Captive State p171 [50] ibid [51] http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/ pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmenvtra/120/12006.htm [52] George Monbiot, Captive State, p. 186 [53] The Guardian, Tuesday 4th September 2001 [54] http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/wales/newsid_683000/683759.stm [55] George Monbiot, Captive State p.184 [56] http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/wales/newsid_683000/683759.stm [57] ibid [58] George Monbiot, Captive State p. 184 [59] ibid [60] Christian Aid, Taking Stock: How The Supermarkets Stack Up On Ethical Trade, February 1999 http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/indepth/9902stoc/stock1.htm [61] http://www.ethicaltrade.org/_html/about/faq/framesets/f_shell.shtml [62] http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/campaign/supermar/ethictra.htm [63] http://just-food.com/news_detail.asp?art=43666&app=1 18 October 2001 |