Unilever
Influence
/ Lobbying
Unilever’s roots go
back to the latter half of the nineteenth century when the Industrial
Age spawned working-class households with money to spend. Entrepreneurs
began to package products under brand names and promote them to millions
of the new customers. It was the dawn of modern advertising and merchandising.
Lever was one of the firsts to discover the efficacy of mass advertising.
Obviously, the budget for marketing and advertising has grown dramatically
ever since. Advertising has always been a keystone of the business.
(E.g. Unilever Bestfoods UK spends almost £100 million a year
on advertising; The PG Tips chimps family advertising campaign was
first screened at Christmas in 1956. The chimp adverts are now the
longest - running TV advertising campaign of any brand, having featured
in over 100 commercials) [36].
In 2002, Unilever spent an unprecendented amount of money on advertising
-struck the biggest deal in the UK’s advertising history- and
expanded its outreach through TV, billboards and other channels even
further.
Unilever even developed its own house agency, Lintas (Lever International
Advertising Service), which for many years ranked as one of the world’s
largest advertising agencies (Lintas is no longer part of Unilever).
You can imagine that Unilever exerts tremendous influence through
its ads, penetrating the lives of hundreds of million consumers every
day. Its latest strategy to clinch even more customers (especially
women, the majority of Unilever’s customers) to its brands involves
the exploration of e-commerce.
Unilever targets politicians as well, in order to influence, direct
and shape policies. The company takes an active stance, like all other
multinationals with huge market power, aiming to create a more favorable
business climate. The finalizing of the single European market (and
its extension to Eastern Europe) stems high on Unilever’s agenda.
Via lobby groups such as the TEP and the TABD (see below)
Unilever and other big corporations (which are both the main driving
forces behind the ‘European Unification Project’ as well
as the main beneficiaries) try to speed up the unification process.
Another main priority for Unilever is enhancement of its grip on the
food chain. The promotion of GMOs and large-scale, export-oriented
agriculture fit in this project (see below).
Unilever participates in various industry lobby groups (such as the
International Chamber of Commerce, the Confederation of British
Industry, EuropaBio), and undoubtedly has strong connections with
many high ranking politicians. Political lobbying has become more
professional and institutionalized during the 90s. It has been effectively
subsumed into the much wider area of ‘reputation risk’.
Corporate managers increasingly talk about ‘corporate reputation
management’ –that is the big game everyone is now playing.
It involves not only the targeting of politicians, but of other groups
as well (employees, consumers, regulators, but most of all ethical
or environmental pressure groups and NGOs). Companies generally provide
little information about what is actually being said and decided within
lobby groups, or claim it to be a-political. But they all know very
well that their economic weight enables them to substantially influence
policy decision-making processes, be it informally or formally, indirectly
or directly. Economic and political power always come together.
Lobbying
Groups
Unilever is a member of several
influential lobby groups on the national, European, regional (transatlantic)
and the global level, including:
In the UK
British Chamber of Commerce (BCC):
The BCC represents over 135,000 businesses, of all sizes in all
sectors, from all over the UK, and describes itself as ‘one of
the UK’s most powerful business affinity groups.’ About
its influence, the BCC claims the following: ‘at all levels,
local, regional and national, the British Chambers of Commerce provide
a powerful voice for business. Our regular surveys, consultations
and reports provide grassroots business opinion and have strong influence
on governments ministers and officials, MPs, and other decision makers
and opinion formers. This is reflected by our high profile in all
kinds of media; each year we generate thousands of newspaper headlines,
TV and radio interviews, often directly involving our member companies.’
BCC web site: www.britishchambers.org.uk
Confederation of British Industry
(CBI):
The CBI is the representative body for British business as a whole,
and depicts itself as ‘the UK’s leading employers’
organisation; Britain’s business voice.’ Its membership
of 250,000 firms employs about half the UK's workforce. The stated
objectives of the CBI are "to uphold the market system and the
profit motive that sustains it." It works both proactively, in
forming and pushing policies, and reactively, in trying to deflect
government proposals. In fact few policies or bills are written without
extensive consultation with the CBI. It has daily contact with every
level of government, with civil servants, with Ministers (including
the PM), and once a bill reaches Westminster with MPs. The CBI's chief
economist is a member of the independent panel of Six Wise Persons
which advises the Chancellor on the Budget. In addition, the CBI offers
its members ‘a voice on policy in Europe and internationally’.
CBI web site: www.cbi.org.uk
Institute of Directors (IoD):
Membership of the IoD is individual – each member joins the
IoD in his or her capacity as a director. One of the IoD’s objectives
is ‘to make sure the views of business leaders are taken into
account when the government is reviewing policy.’ With over 37,000
members the lowest common denominator effect ensures that it's far
less influential than e.g. the BCC. In fact its views are more balanced
than those of the CBI, as the IoD is an association of people each
with an equal say - the majority come from small businesses (whereas
the CBI is an association of businesses, some of which are larger
and more influential). While the CBI is split on the issue of the
single currency (euro), the IoD is opposed to it. IoD's biggest recent
success has been the 1995 Budget cuts to both capital gains and inheritance
tax.
IoD web site: www.iod.co.uk
In Europe
European Roundtable of Industrialists
(ERT)
The ERT, founded in 1983, consists of some 45 ‘captains of
industry’ from European multinational corporations with a ‘significant
manufacturing and technological presence worldwide’. The ERT
was formed with the express intention of reviving the EU unification
process and shaping it to the preferences of European corporations.
Unlike most other corporate lobby group in Brussels, the ERT has never
bothered to lobby on detailed legislation. Instead, it concentrates
on painting the big picture, and filling the EU’s agenda with
sizeable new projects. The ERT’s access to European commissioners
is unchallenged, and it also enjoys privileged connections with members
of the European Parliament. In combination with long-standing linkages
between member companies and their national governments, this access
to the Brussels bureaucracy has been a critical element of the ERT’s
lobbying successes. Companies currently represented in the ERT include
Bayer, British Petroleum, DaimlerChrysler, Siemens, Shell, Renault,
Ericsson, Fiat, Philips, Total and Unilever.
ERT website: www.ert.be
European Association for Bioindustries
(EuropaBio)
Virtually the entire European biotechnology industry is united
in EuropaBio, which was created in 1996. EuropaBio is made up of some
600 companies, ranging from the largest bioindustry companies in Europe
(including the European offices of US companies like Monsanto) to
national biotech federations representing small and medium-sized enterprises.
Member companies include all of the major European multinationals
interested in biotechnology, e.g. Bayer, the Danone Group, Novartis,
Monsanto Europe, Nestle, Novo Nordisk (fertilizer and pesticide company),
Rhone-Poulenc, Solvay (an international chemical and pharmaceutical
Group, headquartered in Brussels, Belgium) and Unilever. EuropaBio
lobbies for a stronger role for biotechnology within the EU’s
economy.
Prof. Dr. Eduard Veltkamp, Senior Vice President Business Research
Foods, Unilever, is one of EuropaBio’s Board Members.
The main industrial lobbygroup aggressively
promoting the commercialisation of GM food in Europe, and ever stricter
patent protections for big corporations. Unilever is one of the most
influential members of EuropaBio.
EuropaBio website: www.europabio.org
On a regional/transatlantic level
Transatlantic Business Dialogue
(TABD)
The TABD arguably is one of the most far-reaching and influential
international corporate-state alliances. Through the TABD, EU and
US based corporations develop government policy recommendations, which
the both governments in turn do their utmost to implement. In both
Washington DC and Brussels, the TABD's access to the political process
is remarkably institutionalised. The primary aim of the TABD is to
build an integrated transatlantic marketplace and to develop and steer
EU-US leadership in international trade negotiations such as within
the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The TABD has identified many ‘trade
barriers’ and brought them down, furthering transatlantic trade
liberalisation, e.g. in the field of biotechnology. Monsanto and Unilever
(see section 4) led the TABD’s biotech initiative, intending
that products approved once should be accepted on both sides of the
Atlantic.
TABD web site: www.tabd.org
On a global level
Bilderberg Group (an international
elite forum)
The Bilderberg group is one of the oldest and most impenetrable international
groupings in which major corporations play a significant agenda-setting
role. The first Bilderberg gathering of politicians, military strategists,
bankers, business leaders, academics, media, trade unionists and other
opinion shapers took place in 1954 in the Bilderberg Hotel in Oosterbeek,
the Netherlands. This initial meeting was paid for by Unilever and
the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Today, approximately 120
global elite from North America and western Europe meet annually under
the aegis of the Bilderberg Group. There is no fixed membership, but
a number of large corporations have taken part over the years, including
BP, Exxon, Ford, General Motors, IBM, Rio Tinto, Shell and Unilever.
The Bilderberg agenda remains fixed upon current issues within the
neoliberal, free market discourse. It is widely believed that the
consensus reached within this forum is a basis for international policy
developments [37].
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
The ICC is the most effective global business organisation. On its
website the highly ambitious/pretentious ICC introduces itself as
being ‘the only representative body that speaks with authority
on behalf of enterprises from all sectors in every part of the world’.
The ICC is very clear about its tremendous decision-making power and
declares: ‘Because its member companies and associations are
themselves engaged in international business, ICC has unrivalled authority
in making rules that govern the conduct of business across borders.
Although these rules are voluntary, they are observed in countless
thousands of transactions every day and have become part of the fabric
of international trade’.
ICC was founded in 1919. Today it groups thousands of member companies
and associations from over 130 countries. The business organisation
was modernized and relaunched in the mid-1990s. It has succeeded in
reproducing the privileged position established by corporate lobby
groups within the EU, the United States and Japan on a global level.
The ICC has long been a triumphant lobbyist for global economic deregulation
in fora such as the WTO, the G8 and the OECD. Within a year of the
creation of the United Nations, ICC was granted consultative status
at the highest level with the UN and its specialized agencies. The
ICC is currently trying to increase its influence within the UN. The
UN –undergoing an ideological transformation and eagerly embracing
corporate groupings- entered into different partnerships with the
ICC, resulting in several joint projects between business and various
UN agencies (see below).
ICC website: www.iccwbo.org
Unilever was one of the 450 multinationals
taking part in the Geneva Business Dialogue, a meeting, taking
place late September 1998, which marked the beginning of a growing
(increasingly formalised) relationship between the UN and the ICC.
The Geneva Business Dialogue was convened in order to ‘bring
together the heads of international companies and the leaders of international
organisations, so that business experience and expertise is channelled
into the decision-making process for the global economy’ (according
to ICC President Helmut Maucher, CEO Nestle).
The dialogue between the ICC and the UN is an ongoing one, and includes
regular meetings at the highest level. And while the ICC appears to
have consolidated its hold on the UN’s activities in the economic
realm, another global lobby coalition has long been an active partner
in the UN’s work on environment and development. The World
Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), which describes
itself as ‘the pre-eminent business voice on sustainable development’
was the first corporate lobby group to force an institutionalised
partnership with the UN [38].
Unilever is one of the 150 multinationals taking part in the WBCSD.
Practical cooperation between business and UN agencies like the UN
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the UN Development
Programme (UNDP) is also becoming routine.
WBDSD web site: www.wbcsd.ch
The UN-private sector seized momentum
on 26 July 2000 when the Global Compact -basically a set of principles
on the environment, human rights and labour rights which multinationals
agreed to act on- was launched. In the words of Unilever’s chairman
FitzGerald: ‘The UN Global Compact is a symbol of leadership
in a complex world, and of the potential for mutual understanding
as we enter a new century. It provides a forward-looking forum in
which the United Nations, companies and civil society organisations
can come together in open and transparent dialogue. It offers the
opportunity to discuss practical ways of working together to create
a more prosperous and sustainable world.’ Others perceive the
Global Compact in a totally different way, and consider the Global
Compact as the ultimate greenwash opportunity for corporations (or
call it bluewash, referring to the colour of the UN flag). Obviously,
it is very beneficial for corporations to have their name associated
with the UN and make use of the Compact logo.
Global Compact web site: www.unglobalcompact.org
Wanting to take advantage of the UN’s
receptive stance towards the private sector, lobby groups such as
the International Bioindustry Forum (IBF) increasingly target the
UN. The IBF, an umbrella group of national and regional associations
such as EuropaBio, BIO, BIOTECanada, and the Japan Bioindustry Association,
is concerned by the growing culture of regulation resulting from widespread
public concern and the backlash against biotechnology, particularly
GM food products. By bringing the world's most powerful and influential
biotech companies, such as Unilever, Monsanto, Nestlé, Novartis,
Pfizer, and DuPont together, the IBF lobbies to prevent the adoption
of potentially industry unfriendly agreements in the UN, and to transform
the UN and its agencies into promoters of biotechnology.
Critics have recently hit the newly released Human Development Report
(2001) of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for blind
biotech bias, stressing the report presents as facts the unsubstantiated
promises of the genetic engineering (GE) industry while dismissing
the environmental risks and ignoring the real challenges of agriculture
in developing countries. Various civil society organisations strongly
disagree with the main messages contained in the UNDP Human Development
Report 2001. ‘The report taken in its entirety forms an unabashed
pat on the back for the hi-tech bandwagon on which a minority of powerful
elites are galloping to even greater riches, even more power. The
verdict of the report is clear: the hi-tech world of information technology
and biotechnology is the saviour of millions of poor, starving, desperate
people in the "developing" countries’ [39-40].
Most of the information about the aforementioned lobby groups stems
from their official web sites. Another important source is the following:
Belen Balanya…[et al.] (2000) 'Europe Inc., regional&Global
Restructuring and the Rise of Corporate Power', Pluto Press, London.
Other sources used can be found in the reference list at the bottom
of this document.
Influencing
research and education
Unilever claims to have spent 1.2bn euros (£756,4 million) on
research & development in 2000, some 2.5% of the company’s
turnover. But on what kind of research and with what intentions? Is
research being conducted in the public interest, or is it being conducted
solely to meet the companies’ profit driven ends? Unilever sponsors
many projects in the field of education and science (see below). The
dangers involved in this are, amongst others, the loss of the ‘independent
nature’ of education and science (or what is left of this independence),
shrinking academic freedom and a blurring of the line between public
and private interests. E.g. corporations often define education as
a function of the labour market (in order to create ‘appropriate’
future employees who fit in well in corporate structures) instead
of a means to (strengthen) personal development. In addition, corporations
consider schools as fertile ground to target (and create!) young consumers.
Connections with schools and universities, a few examples:
Unilever targets children
Unilever developed teaching materials for schoolchildren. Little
books, titled ‘Dirty and Clean’, should educate children
on hygiene. The message is ‘you can become dirty, as long as
you will become clean again!’ Glorix (a Unilever brand) is the
messenger, but (as Unilever reassures the worried reader who might
think the book is meant as an advertisement!) use of the brand will
be ‘reduced to a minimum.’ The books are being used in 35%
of all primary schools in the Netherlands [41].
Unilever supports the ‘UNEP/UNESCO Partnership on Youth and
Life Styles: The Youth and Sustainable Consumption Research Project’
This UNEP/UNESCO program aims at developing and promoting the adoption
of sustainable consumption patterns among youth [42].
‘For us, the most important thing is to make young and less-young
consumers aware of the power of their choices on companies’ behaviour
and of their right to ask corporations for more sustainable products’,
says Isabella Marras, an associate program officer of UNEP’s
Division of Technology, Industry and Economics [43].
The involvement of Unilever in this project is very dubious, if not
appalling, since Unilever aggressively promotes consumerism, preferably
amongst children (see section four).
The Unilever Nelson Mandela Scholarships
From 1998 Unilever has provided scholarships (enabling South African
students to undertake postgraduate study in the UK) to encourage leadership
development among previously disadvantaged South Africans. Unilever
has committed more than £3.1 million to this project and will
award up to ten scholarships each year until 2008 [44].
Unilever-Cambridge University Partnership for Science
One of the world's leading scientists, Professor Robert Glen,
is to head a new research centre being created through a partnership
between Unilever and the University of Cambridge in the UK.
Professor Glen, the co-inventor of the anti-migraine drug Zomig (TM)
has taken up the post of Unilever Professor of Molecular Science Informatics
at Cambridge University's Department of Chemistry.
Commenting on his appointment, Professor Glen said: ‘This is
the most exciting opportunity of its kind anywhere in the world -
a real chance to shape the way that scientific research will be conducted
in the future.’ He added that the way ahead for leading universities
lies in joint ventures with businesses. ‘Academia and business
need to work together more closely to bring benefits for everyone
around the world. Scientists are no longer divorced from business,
nor should they be, and businesses need cutting-edge science to survive
in our fast changing world’ [45].
But there is another way, pointed out earlier, to look at this. Traditionally,
universities have been reservoirs of independent thinking where tenured
faculty had the academic freedom to analyse and interpret science
and its implications for society without pressure from financially
interested parties. But as funding ties between private industry and
universities grow, the pool of independent research is shrinking.
Karen Charman (source: Sierra, July/August 2001) examines the growing
sense of intimidation felt by academic critics of the biotechnology
industry in particular [46].
Unilever sponsored Professor Dr. Rolf Birk (61) to hold a special
chair in the field of international entrepreneurial law at the Law
Faculty of Leiden University, The Netherlands. Birk will conduct research
on entrepreneurial practices transcending borders. His research is
supposed to amongst others, support the creation of a European Trading
Partnership [47].
Unilever has sponsored Nigerian academics to attend a symposium at
the Unilever Cambridge Centre for Molecular Informatics. The two professors
will be attending with other top academics from around the world in
the field of informatics [47].
Support for biotech research
Unilever played its part in the ‘Big Biotech Project’
of secretly flooding the food supply chain with GMOs. [Unilever was
the first multinational company that started using genetically modified
(GM) products. Their "Beanfeast" range (which is now being
sold) contained GM soya. A tiny asterisk attached to the ingredient
list was the only mark to warn consumers.] Stakeholders in biotechnology
tried to slip genetically engineered food into the food supply, hoping
people wouldn’t notice or object, until the point of no return.
This strategy has been quite successful. Within just a few years GMOs
found their way to supermarket shelves on a massive scale. No proper
public debate and no assessment of public support for GMOs preceded
the influx of GMOs in the food supply. There was no proper regulation
in place to protect the health of humans and the environment, and
to protect the interests of farmers and consumers.
But even after public opposition to GMOs had grown, Unilever kept
using GMOs in its food products.
Now that the company cannot possibly ignore consumer resistance any
longer, Unilever is taking a country to country position on GMOs.
‘We will continue to respond to demands in our different local
markets to provide products that meet consumer’s expressed needs.
This is why some of our companies have removed ingredients derived
from GM plants from their products.’
Unilever is a major advocate of biotechnology (the company became
the first major manufacturer to put its weight behind the controversial
area of genetically modified foods), and claims to support ‘independent’
research in this field. It’s obviously very convenient for all
big corporations dealing with food processing to purchase standardised,
uniform, easy-to-process products with long shelf lives. The application
of biotechnology in agriculture is a very helpful tool in meeting
this end. In addition, Unilever hopes to boost its profits by producing
so-called functional food products – foodstuffs with enhanced
nutritional value and/or health benefits. A special team within Unilever
is concentrating on a maximisation of the opportunities provided by
functional food products, within all brands and categories.
Niall FitzGerald, writing in Financial Times, stressed the necessity
of ‘state guidance’ of public opinion if Britain wants to
take advantage of the tremendous opportunities offered by biosciences.
Basically, FitzGerald believes that science will eventually convince
(ignorant) people of the benefits of biotechnology [48].
In addition, regulation is considered a very important instrument
to regain and boost public trust in GMOs. (Assuming that the lack
of public support for GMOs in Europe is mainly caused by lack of proper
regulation)
FitzGerald has this future ambition of changing the character of foods
and personal care products through genomics, in order to make these
products suit the needs of every single individual. Speaking at the
opening of a £10 million Biosciences Laboratory at Unilever’s
research establishment in Sharnbrook, Bedfordshire, FitzGerald said:
‘Ultimately, the complete picture of the genome will allow us
to offer people life-enhancing functional foods and personal care
products through their entire lifetime.’ Isn’t this an exciting
prospect! [49-50].
See also: Corporate Watch briefing on functional foods (GE briefings,
at: www.corporatewatch.org.uk/publications/list.html).good
for Monsanto's health.’), at:
www.corporatewatch.org.uk/publications/list.html
In the UK, Unilever Research is one of the corporate sponsors of ERBI
--Networking in Cambridge and the East of England bio-community. ERBI
Mission statement: ‘Our role is to enhance the growth and development
of biotechnology in the East of England, thereby asserting the region
as a world renowned centre of excellence’. Biotechnology is a
key knowledge-based industry and the East of England (Essex, Norfolk,
Suffolk, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire) has the highest
concentration of bio-business activity in Europe [51].
On a global level, Unilever participates in the International BioIndustry
Forum (IBF).
[See section three above]
Links with the UK government
• Niall FitzGerald has warned Tony Blair that if he continues
to delay a decision on the euro their could be serious repercussions
for business investment in the UK. Unilever is a major advocate of
the single European currency. FitzGerald explains: ‘the single
market will only be properly completed when it is governed by a single
currency. That gives you the ultimate transparency that you need.’
• Lord Brittan of Spennithorne was appointed advisory director
to Unilever in May 2000. Lord Brittan was a Member of the European
Commission from 1989 to 1999, also serving as Vice President. During
the negotiation of the Maastricht Treaty in the 1990-1991 Intergovernmental
Conference, Leon Brittan was Competition commissioner. At a later
stage he became Trade Commissioner and was completely devoted to the
commission’s free trade crusade, working in close harmony with
UNICE (the European employer’s organisation) and other industrial
lobby groups. Although Leon Brittan is officially no longer part of
the European Commission, his strong ties with Brussels must be very
convenient for Unilever.
• Unilever was part of the ‘committee on medical aspects
of food and nutritional policy’ 1999-2000, an advisory committee
part of the UK Department of Health.
• Unilever co-operates with the UK government to promote the
use of biotechnology/GMOs in agriculture/food through various advisory
groups and institutes, including the Institute of Food Research (IFR)
and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA):
The IFR is an UK centre for ‘research of international quality’,
a company limited by guarantee, with charitable status, sponsored
by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC).
IFR has extensive contacts with universities and research institutes
in the UK and overseas.
‘The IFR Business Development Section directs its efforts towards
identifying where the scientific expertise of the IFR can bring the
greatest added value to our industrial partners.’
IFR has a broad customer base that includes UK government departments,
European Commission, research councils, industry and consumer groups.
Its fully owned subsidiary, IFR Enterprise, undertakes research involving
industrial support, commercialises IFR innovations and has launched
the Food and Health Network.
* The Food and Health Network bridges the gap between fundamental
food-related research and the needs of the food and drink industry
and aims to improve industrial competitiveness. ‘The Food and
Health Network represents one of IFR’s commitments to technology
transfer in the support of UK and European food and drink industry’,
said Ian Lester, Head of Business Development at IFR.
Web site: www.ifrn.bbsrc.ac.uk
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) depicts
itself as a ‘sponsor department for the UK food and drink manufacturing
and retailing industries’. DEFRA underscores the need to secure
competitive improvement and works closely with individual sectors
and key businesses to ‘foster and promote greater competitiveness
and to remove obstacles to growth. The Food Chain Group is part of
DEFRA. The pro-biotech Food Chain Group was set up in 1999 in order
to help make the government’s science funding ‘relevant
to our colleagues in food chain companies’.
Web site: www.defra.gov.uk/foodrin/fdchain/fdchain.htm
• In the aftermath of the foot and mouth disease outbreak of
2001, the UK government launched (August 2001) the Policy Commission
on the Future of Farming and Food, ‘an independent policy commission
looking at the future of the farming and food industries in England’.
Its terms of reference are: ‘To advise the Government on how
we can create a sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and food
sector which contributes to a thriving and sustainable rural economy,
advances environmental, economic, health and animal welfare goals,
and is consistent with the Government’s aims for Common Agricultural
Policy (CAP) reform, enlargement of the EU and increased trade liberalisation’.
Members of the commission include Sir Peter Davis, Chairman Sainsbury's
plc and Iain Ferguson,
Senior Vice-President Unilever plc [52].
Homepage: www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/farming/index.htm
• Unilever, like all other big multinationals with firm roots
in Britain, seeks to profit from the new business opportunities opened
up by the government’s Private Finance Initiative. The initiative,
started by the Conservatives and developed by Labour, has become the
means by which many, even most, of infrastructure projects in Britain
are now built.
