NationStates Jolt Archive

So I'm sure this has been discussed before but, hell, I'd like to talk about it so I'm gonna....

I try and live my life in a way which I consider to be ethical: I don't use plastic carrier bags when I can help it, don't buy Coke products, don't buy Nestle or Kraft products, boycott Caterpillar, Marks and Spencers and McDonalds for their involvment in Israeli-occupation of Gaza and the West Bank and boycott Esso (a garage company in the UK). But I've recently been hit with a double problem: first a crisis of confidence in my own ethics and second the fact that I can't afford to buy organic or fair trade produce.

Is there any point to personal boycotts? Can one actually achieve anything from living your life in a way that you consider to be 'good', to a given definition of good, other than making yourself feel nice and warm inside?

As a secondary point I wanted to ask what people think of institutionalised boycotts...For example, my University's Student's Union no longer stocks any Coke/Nestle products and has this written into it's constitution. I truly believe that, whilst it is still a non-existent blow to these multi-nationals in the grand scheme of things it is important for institutions to state exactely where they stand as representatives of the sum of their parts.

Well, those companies are dependent on the purchases of millions of individuals. Every time one person decides to boycott them, that's one less person supplying their revenue, and if more and more people do it the effects add up pretty quickly.

I think it is nice to not think of myself as a hypocrite and that is why I boycott things. For my own soul, not really to hurt a major corporation.

I think it is nice to not think of myself as a hypocrite and that is why I boycott things. For my own soul, not really to hurt a major corporation.

Which I suppose is where the frustration is born. If I can't afford to buy fair trade I'm going to feel pretty f-ing bad about myself even if I wanted to do the right thing...

So I'm sure this has been discussed before but, hell, I'd like to talk about it so I'm gonna....

I try and live my life in a way which I consider to be ethical: I don't use plastic carrier bags when I can help it, don't buy Coke products, don't buy Nestle or Kraft products, boycott Caterpillar, Marks and Spencers and McDonalds for their involvment in Israeli-occupation of Gaza and the West Bank and boycott Esso (a garage company in the UK). But I've recently been hit with a double problem: first a crisis of confidence in my own ethics and second the fact that I can't afford to buy organic or fair trade produce.

Is there any point to personal boycotts? Can one actually achieve anything from living your life in a way that you consider to be 'good', to a given definition of good, other than making yourself feel nice and warm inside?

As a secondary point I wanted to ask what people think of institutionalised boycotts...For example, my University's Student's Union no longer stocks any Coke/Nestle products and has this written into it's constitution. I truly believe that, whilst it is still a non-existent blow to these multi-nationals in the grand scheme of things it is important for institutions to state exactely where they stand as representatives of the sum of their parts.

if it makes you feel good, then yes, it's effective. There is a difference, however, between personal boycotting and organized boycotting. Organized ones tend to hit the companies harder because more people are involved.

also realize that Coke has it's fingers in many drinks and may be tied with other products, so just boycotting Coke but buying items from a subsidiary company that has a different name won't do anythig effective.

As for your clash with Finances and your Ethics... well that's for you to work out.

also realize that Coke has it's fingers in many drinks and may be tied with other products, so just boycotting Coke but buying items from a subsidiary company that has a different name won't do anythig effective.

Fully aware of this: All schweppes produce, Oasis, Sprite, Fanta etc are on my little list. Although this is why I boycott the company rather than it's multi-national status:


There is mounting evidence that American companies are complicit in the persecution of trade unionists at their Colombian operations. In the case of the Coca-Cola bottling plant in Carepa, where Isídro Segundo Gil was murdered, the union Sinaltrainal argues that Coca-Cola knowingly stood by and allowed the plant's manager to bring in paramilitaries to destroy the union. The workers at the Carepa plant had been asking both Coca-Cola and its bottler, Bebidas y Alimentos, to intervene on their behalf for two months before Isídro Segundo Gil's murder. The plant manager, Ariosto Milan Mosquera had announced publicly that he had asked the paramilitaries to destroy the union. His declaration had been followed by a series of death threats from the paramilitaries, which had prompted the union to send letters to both Coca-Cola and Bebidas y Alimentos asking that they intervene to secure their workers' safety.4 And this was not the first time that threats against workers had been carried out. Just two years before, in 1994, the paramilitaries had killed two trade unionists at the same plant.5 It should have surprised no one when two and a half months after the union's plea for help, Isídro Segundo Gil was murdered and the union busted.

Unionists have also been assassinated at other Coca-Cola bottling plants in Colombia, both before and after the incident at Carepa. One unionist, José Avelino Chicano, was killed at a Coca-Cola plant in Pasto in 1989. In 2002, despite the limited publicity surrounding the events at Carepa, a union leader named Oscar Dario Soto Polo was killed during the course of contract negotiations at the plant in Bucaramanga.6 Despite the remarkable courage and perseverance of Colombia's labor activists, the campaign of intimidation has necessarily taken its toll on worker organizing. The president of Sinaltrainal, Javier Correa, reported last year that the number of unionized workers at Coca-Cola plants had dropped by more than two thirds since 1993-from 1,300 workers to only 450.7

Coco-Cola is not the only multi-national company linked to the murder of union leaders in Colombia. Drummond Co., an Alabama-based coal-mining company, has also overseen a series of similar assassinations in recent years. In March of 2001, during the course of a dispute between Drummond and the union Sintramienergetica, paramilitaries took the union's president, Valmore Lacarno Rodríguez, and vice-president, Víctor Hugo Orcasita Amaya, off a company bus and executed them. As in the Coca-Cola case, Drummond had ignored open threats from the paramilitaries, circulated publicly on flyers, and had even refused Lacarno and Orcasito's plea that they be allowed to sleep at the mine for safety. Moreover, many workers, including the next union president, Gustavo Soler Mora, argued that the mine's management had helped the paramilitaries to find and identify Locarno and Orcasita. Seven months later Gustavo Soler Mora was also taken off a bus and murdered.

for a boycott to do anything but make you feel selfrighteous it has to be organized and limited

there is NO sense in boycotting nestle's forever. you organize a boycott, see if you can affect their sales, force their cooperation and STOP the boycott.

the problem is that boycotts get started and never end. once its established that certain people will never ever buy nestles again because its been boycotted, nestles loses its incentive to shape up.

for a boycott to do anything but make you feel selfrighteous it has to be organized and limited

there is NO sense in boycotting nestle's forever. you organize a boycott, see if you can affect their sales, force their cooperation and STOP the boycott.

the problem is that boycotts get started and never end. once its established that certain people will never ever buy nestles again because its been boycotted, nestles loses its incentive to shape up.

Fair point.

But I think the consequence of the continual Nestle issue is that it has turned from a Boycott into a fact that many people who feel that they committed crimes simply don't eat Nestle products any longer...

Fair point.

But I think the consequence of the continual Nestle issue is that it has turned from a Boycott into a fact that many people who feel that they committed crimes simply don't eat Nestle products any longer...

if you object to the practices of any company, its perfectly legitimate to refuse to buy their products. it just wont change them.

if you feel the need to go to organic food (why?) you probably need to change your whole lifestyle.

You think your single SU won't make much of a difference to Coca-cola. Now what happens if a few more SU in the NUS do the same? A motion is mounted and NUSSL is forced to stop purchasing coca-cola products. This means that coca-cola is likely to lose out on the entire student union market it the UK as SU can no longer purchase coca-cola from NUSSL for the wholesale prices they are able to negioate.

Again, the whole point about organised boycotts that other posters have made.

if you object to the practices of any company, its perfectly legitimate to refuse to buy their products. it just wont change them.

if you feel the need to go to organic food (why?) you probably need to change your whole lifestyle.

Organic meat because it is more humanely treated and, whilst I've never been an animal rights kind of guy, I'm still a bleeding-hearted liberal who wants the things that get slaughtered for his benefit to be handled in a way which does not breed disease and mean that they are kept in disgusting conditions.

Organic vegetables are important because of farming subsidies and the way the agricultural industry is headed. The use of chemical pesticides and farmers who turn natural woodland into agricultural land in order that they mass market their produce turns me off non-organic food. This would be bad enough if it weren't for the fact that DEFRA (Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) are currently not subsidising (or aren't subsidising as much) organic farming or supporting organic farming as an environmentally sound alternative, though a more expensive one, makes me a little angry.

That's why organic.

I don't eat at McDonald's, therefore McD's doesn't get my $$$. Yay! :)

You think your single SU won't make much of a difference to Coca-cola. Now what happens if a few more SU in the NUS do the same? A motion is mounted and NUSSL is forced to stop purchasing coca-cola products. This means that coca-cola is likely to lose out on the entire student union market it the UK as SU can no longer purchase coca-cola from NUSSL for the wholesale prices they are able to negioate.

Again, the whole point about organised boycotts that other posters have made.

I agree. I hope (although knowing the NUS it won't happen) that you are right and I'm proud of my SU. However, it feels like running through treacle; we want to accomplish so much through boycott, demonstration, protest etc and yet we are almost routinely ignored. Don't get me wrong I've been protesting all my life - my parents are, for want of a better word, hippies and took me along with them on the Poll Tax riots, lucky little me - this isn't a new crisis of conscience, it's simply that the whole process of living a 'good' existence to be roundly ignored by the wankers is, oftimes, frustrating.

I think it is nice to not think of myself as a hypocrite and that is why I boycott things. For my own soul, not really to hurt a major corporation.

Aye. A personal boycott is more about personal integrity than anything else, I think.

I agree. I hope (although knowing the NUS it won't happen) that you are right and I'm proud of my SU. However, it feels like running through treacle; we want to accomplish so much through boycott, demonstration, protest etc and yet we are almost routinely ignored. Don't get me wrong I've been protesting all my life - my parents are, for want of a better word, hippies and took me along with them on the Poll Tax riots, lucky little me - this isn't a new crisis of conscience, it's simply that the whole process of living a 'good' existence to be roundly ignored by the wankers is, oftimes, frustrating.Ah yes, you reminded me. NUSSL does not normally enage in boycotts, rather an idea which it calls constructive engagement. NUSSL claims constructive engagement to have worked in relation to the Coors, GSK and Barcardi. However Nestle refuses to participate in constructive engagement. Whereas the Coca-cola company, whilst to slow to start is now engaged with this form of action. It is formalising the right of workers to join trade unions, apologised for a 'fertilizer' incident in India, has engaged in a voluntary set of ethical and environmental standards, is using questionnaires to monitor its progress in such areas, and so on. Read more at http://www.nussl.co.uk/Files/E&E%20-%20CocaCola_FAQs.pdf

However there are people who say that constructive engagement doesn't work. I think the people and planet society (present in most unions) has views along these lines. http://peopleandplanet.org/

Ah yes, you reminded me. NUSSL does not normally enage in boycotts, rather an idea which it calls constructive engagement. NUSSL claims constructive engagement to have worked in relation to the Coors, GSK and Barcardi. However Nestle refuses to participate in constructive engagement. Whereas the Coca-cola company, whilst to slow to start is now engaged with this form of action. It is formalising the right of workers to join trade unions, apologised for a 'fertilizer' incident in India, has engaged in a voluntary set of ethical and environmental standards, is using questionnaires to monitor its progress in such areas, and so on. Read more at http://www.nussl.co.uk/Files/E&E%20-%20CocaCola_FAQs.pdf

However there are people who say that constructive engagement doesn't work. I think the people and planet society (present in most unions) has views along these lines. http://peopleandplanet.org/


We don't have people and planet but we are generally considered to be a very 'activisit' based university and as a consequence have many different political groups operating within the Union from Autonomous Students to Socialist Workers...

As to the NUS. They won't adopt any policy that doesn't fall into line with the Executive's need to become backbench members of the Labour party - therefore they won't attack big business/address controversy that might have repercussions. In fact my uni is having a referendum as to whether to withdraw our affiliation and therefore our NUS standing. Something I disagree with but can see why we're doing it - especially if you read that article in terms of what they are NOT doing which is to send any kind of clear statement.

Ooo. And I forgot; my Union president was banned from all NUS events because he shouted/swore at and insulted the NUS President....

Fully aware of this: All schweppes produce, Oasis, Sprite, Fanta etc are on my little list. Although this is why I boycott the company rather than it's multi-national status:

true, but I'm talking about a deeper connection. say that Nestle chocolete is supplying their chocolate to Duncan Hines for their cake/cookies mix. so by buying more of those products, you're still supporting Nestle.

Some friends of mine tried to boycott Disney. unfortunatly, they kept going to Miramax and Tristar films which is owned by Disney... get the pic?

true, but I'm talking about a deeper connection. say that Nestle chocolete is supplying their chocolate to Duncan Hines for their cake/cookies mix. so by buying more of those products, you're still supporting Nestle.

Some friends of mine tried to boycott Disney. unfortunatly, they kept going to Miramax and Tristar films which is owned by Disney... get the pic?

Absolutely. In that case given the interconnective nature of globalised, free market capitalism is a true personal boycott ever totally possible?

What if a major shareholder in a company that are implicated in the deaths of sweatshop workers in Taiwan also owns a small part of a fair-trade chocolate maker in Belgium and the consumer does not know?

By that logic you could potentially construct an argument which says all personal boycott's are futile - even on the basis that they are well-intentioned and make said boycottee feel good.

(this may be an unintentional strawman...)

Absolutely. In that case given the interconnective nature of globalised, free market capitalism is a true personal boycott ever totally possible?

What if a major shareholder in a company that are implicated in the deaths of sweatshop workers in Taiwan also owns a small part of a fair-trade chocolate maker in Belgium and the consumer does not know?

By that logic you could potentially construct an argument which says all personal boycott's are futile - even on the basis that they are well-intentioned and make said boycottee feel good.

(this may be an unintentional strawman...)if you read my first post, I stated that Personal Boycotts do nothing but make you feel good. it's organized ones that are seen and felt.

and the interconnectivity of the companies is why boycotts are more showy than effective. the only ones who are hurt by boycotts are the small businesses.

if you read my first post, I stated that Personal Boycotts do nothing but make you feel good. it's organized ones that are seen and felt.

Many apologies.

and the interconnectivity of the companies is why boycotts are more showy than effective. the only ones who are hurt by boycotts are the small businesses.

Which is surely an argument against organized/institutional boycotts?

i would doubt that they change much in the great scheme of things, they are more of a personal achievement to make you feel better about yourself, and why not make yourself feel good. outside of yourself a personal boycott only acheives something if you tell someone about it, maybe giving them the idea to do it too. i would still be using plastic carrier bags if it wasn't for a girl i met last summer who told me she refused to and told me a good reason why (which incidentally i've forgotten, somthing about the environment or oil or something, but i still take a backpack to the supermarket).

So I'm sure this has been discussed before but, hell, I'd like to talk about it so I'm gonna....

I try and live my life in a way which I consider to be ethical: I don't use plastic carrier bags when I can help it
This isn't an ethical issue so much as a pressing need to reduce our reliance on oil.

don't buy Coke products
Good. The Coke boycott is one that has a good chance of making an effect, IMO.

don't buy Nestle or Kraft products
Why?

boycott Caterpillar
Why?

Marks and Spencers and McDonalds for their involvment in Israeli-occupation of Gaza and the West Bank
Well I wouldn't be buying at Spend & Spenders anyway so I suppose I'm "boycotting" them along with you.

I boycott McDonalds for promoting obesity and cultural imperialism.

boycott Esso
Why? Boycott Shell and Statoil instead.

But I've recently been hit with a double problem: first a crisis of confidence in my own ethics and second the fact that I can't afford to buy organic or fair trade produce.
Organic is unimportant. Either grow your own, or don't worry about it. It's not hard to find reasonably priced food that isn't practically laced with poison, and eat a healthy diet on conventionally farmed food. Except for meat, but I recommend vegetarianism. Wash your vegetables with water before you eat them.

Fairtrade is not as expensive as people tend to think. In supermarkets, for example, the prices are similar to the standard sweat-n-tears fare. For example, Tesco's Fair Trade tea and coffee are cheaper than the brand name versions. Bananas are also cheap.

Is there any point to personal boycotts? Can one actually achieve anything from living your life in a way that you consider to be 'good', to a given definition of good, other than making yourself feel nice and warm inside?
Of course, look at the 1980s boycott of South Africa.

As a secondary point I wanted to ask what people think of institutionalised boycotts...For example, my University's Student's Union no longer stocks any Coke/Nestle products and has this written into it's constitution. I truly believe that, whilst it is still a non-existent blow to these multi-nationals in the grand scheme of things it is important for institutions to state exactely where they stand as representatives of the sum of their parts.
I fully support that, and my university does the same.


I generally boycott China and Israel. - although that's not very hard because I don't want to buy much from them anyway.

somthing about the environment or oil or something, but i still take a backpack to the supermarket).


LOL

I generally boycott China and Israel. - although that's not very hard because I don't want to buy much from them anyway.So you're not another incarnation of The Holy Womble?! damn, I thought he was back.

Which is surely an argument against organized/institutional boycotts?

well done boycotts get the message to the companies. It won't kill the company (unless they are small) but it does let them know what the public thinks of them. should they continue, then the hurt begins when Other Corporations are pressured to boycotting that company/brand name. once that gets started, then the hurting begins. but the small person still suffers.

which is why it's important to weigh your convictions vs the people caught in the crossfire.

So you're not another incarnation of The Holy Womble?! damn, I thought he was back.
No. He was certainly not pacifist. The middle word of my name is serious. My last incarnation was Ardee Street, deleted for inactivity.

This isn't an ethical issue so much as a pressing need to reduce our reliance on oil.

Which is an ethical issue....

Why?

Nestle (http://www.babymilkaction.org/pages/boycott.html)

Kraft is a subsidiary of Altria which used to be called Phillip Morris. Altria was the biggest single donar to George W. Bush, see here (http://www.boycottbush.net/consumers.htm#altria)

Why?

Caterpillar. (http://www.catdestroyshomes.org/index.php)


Why? Boycott Shell and Statoil instead.

Esso is related to the Bush financing question, Exxon Mobile are a much less ethically viable compan than Texaco or Shell:

TOP 10 UK BRANDS TO BOYCOTT
(taken from Republican donors list)

1 Esso
2 Maxwell House
3 Microsoft
4 MBNA
5 ASDA
6 Lucozade
7 Budweiser
8 AOL
9 Texaco
10 Walkers crisps

As to fairtrade, I do think across the board it is pricier especially when I'm living on the budget that I am....


Of course, look at the 1980s boycott of South Africa.

Excellent example in some ways, but it was an organised boycott in that it was pushed through by like-minded academics and politicians, rather than us norms....

We don't have people and planet but we are generally considered to be a very 'activisit' based university and as a consequence have many different political groups operating within the Union from Autonomous Students to Socialist Workers...

As to the NUS. They won't adopt any policy that doesn't fall into line with the Executive's need to become backbench members of the Labour party - therefore they won't attack big business/address controversy that might have repercussions. In fact my uni is having a referendum as to whether to withdraw our affiliation and therefore our NUS standing. Something I disagree with but can see why we're doing it - especially if you read that article in terms of what they are NOT doing which is to send any kind of clear statement.

Ooo. And I forgot; my Union president was banned from all NUS events because he shouted/swore at and insulted the NUS President....*ponders which university you're at* I figure you must be at one of the following: SOAS, Middlesex, Queen's University Belfast, Leeds, Bristol or Oxford.

As to the NUS all it takes is for students who care to get their unions to mandate their delegates to NUS conferences to vote for certain motions. I believe the NUS functions in this order of primacy - Referendums, NUS conference, the Exec. It is in this order because this is believed what will be closer to the wishes of students. Referendums don't happen as there isn't enough support from students to make these feasible or not a waste of time. Conferences do happen, but tend to be dominated by Labour Students. Most of whom are aspiring politicians and want to please the party. A friend of mine who is barely 20 has been offered to a place to contest a marginal seat in the next general election. He lurches back and forth from being a socialist and a Blairite.

Anyway, so if the NUS conference actually passes a motion banning NUSSL from ordering coca-cola then the exec can't do shit about it, other than try and get a counter motion passed.

But keep at it. I mean if I can get a motion passed that removes nestle products from all prominent locations (incl vending machines), prevents their promotion in any way or form and does the opposite for fair trade products, then anyone can do much more than my feeble attempts. (I happen to believe in positive choice or something like that. ie. I won't engage in the 2nd of power and prevent people from buying nestle products by removing them from sale completely. I want to be people to be aware of the choice they are making and why they are making it)

*ponders which university you're at* I figure you must be at one of the following: SOAS, Middlesex, Queen's University Belfast, Leeds, Bristol or Oxford.

*thinks about playing elaborate guessing game and decides against it*

I'm at Sussex actually. Although, as with all University's, the vast majority of students are quite horribly apathetic it still lives up to its billing as a radical university in many of its actions.

Hmmm, I wouldn't consider Bristol, Leeds or Oxford particularly Activist-y unis....


As to the NUS all it takes is for students who care to get their unions to mandate their delegates to NUS conferences to vote for certain motions. I believe the NUS functions in this order of primacy - Referendums, NUS conference, the Exec. It is in this order because this is believed what will be closer to the wishes of students. Referendums don't happen as there isn't enough support from students to make these feasible or not a waste of time. Conferences do happen, but tend to be dominated by Labour Students. Most of whom are aspiring politicians and want to please the party. A friend of mine who is barely 20 has been offered to a place to contest a marginal seat in the next general election. He lurches back and forth from being a socialist and a Blairite.

Anyway, so if the NUS conference actually passes a motion banning NUSSL from ordering coca-cola then the exec can't do shit about it, other than try and get a counter motion passed.

But keep at it. I mean if I can get a motion passed that removes nestle products from all prominent locations (incl vending machines), prevents their promotion in any way or form and does the opposite for fair trade products, then anyone can do much more than my feeble attempts. (I happen to believe in positive choice or something like that. ie. I won't engage in the 2nd of power and prevent people from buying nestle products by removing them from sale completely. I want to be people to be aware of the choice they are making and why they are making it)

I supported the ban on Coke and Nestle but was deeply saddened that the Daily Mail - banned for many years - has returned to blight our campus shops. As to the NUS; yes we can do that, however, as far as I am aware, it very rarely happens. I believe that we can change the NUS but it requires direct action in terms of staging demonsrations outside of the Camden office or threatening in a coalition of twenty-thirty Higher Education institutions to withdraw...the sad thing about Sussex having a campus-wide referendum to consider withdrawel from NUS is that we are losing a nationwide connection with 5.3 million other students and taking our voice away in terms of making a concrete change to the stifling, Blairite system that exists now.

Which is an ethical issue....

Maybe you don't understand the oil problem, but it's really more about self-interest than anything ethical. If we don't reduce our consumption of oil, our economy will collapse before we find sustainable alternatives to it.

Nestle (http://www.babymilkaction.org/pages/boycott.html)
Thanks for the info. I'll keep it in mind.

Kraft is a subsidiary of Altria which used to be called Phillip Morris. Altria was the biggest single donar to George W. Bush, see here (http://www.boycottbush.net/consumers.htm#altria)
I'm as anti-Bush as anyone, but I don't see the point in boycotting companies that gave him money. He's a has-been.

Caterpillar. (http://www.catdestroyshomes.org/index.php)
What do Caterpillar make that you and I can boycott. I probably will never buy a tractor.

Esso is related to the Bush financing question, Exxon Mobile are a much less ethically viable compan than Texaco or Shell:
www.shelltosea.com

Read all about it.

As to fairtrade, I do think across the board it is pricier especially when I'm living on the budget that I am....
I've already made clear that Fairtrade is often quite affordable. You're just making excuses.

Excellent example in some ways, but it was an organised boycott in that it was pushed through by like-minded academics and politicians, rather than us norms....
Anyone can do it. In Ireland, the boycott was kicked off in 1984 by one supermarket worker who refused to unpack a box of oranges that were grown in South Africa.

Maybe you don't understand the oil problem, but it's really more about self-interest than anything ethical. If we don't reduce our consumption of oil, our economy will collapse before we find sustainable alternatives to it.

The point was that using less plastic bags was something that I did out of my own ethics. I believe - ethically if you will - that we owe it to ourselves and the planet to, as you say, use renewable energy sources. However, that does not stop this being an ethical decision in the slightest. In addition there is the fact that plastic bags are non-biodegradable and therefore I, ethically, don't wish to contribute to the landfill/litter issue that is a major problem in this world of ours...if worrying about the finite resources of the planet and the state that the planet is in is not an ethical concept then I clearly have no concept of ethics to begin with.

Thanks for the info. I'll keep it in mind.

My Pleasure

What do Caterpillar make that you and I can boycott. I probably will never buy a tractor.

This is, perhaps, one example where 'boycott' may be the wrong word: I protest and demonstrate against Caterpillar may have been what I should have said. However, you may not want to buy any of this (http://www.shopcaterpillar.com/caterpillar/default.asp)having read about the use of the bulldozers in Gaza.

www.shelltosea.com

Read all about it.

This appears to be about something Shell is doing in one specific, localised area; I'm not putting that down, what I'm saying is that Esso, globally, is probably the single biggest evil against the environment, (http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/climatecriminals/esso/) AND it supports George W. Bush more than any other company does.

I've already made clear that Fairtrade is often quite affordable. You're just making excuses.

So if I go to the Co-operative Supermarket tomorrow to spend my twenty pund shopping budget for the week you are assuring me that the fair trade produce will fit my budget? If that is the case then fantastic, all I'm saying is that it is harder to live on a tight budget and shop for fair trade. If you don't believe me then try it.


Anyone can do it. In Ireland, the boycott was kicked off in 1984 by one supermarket worker who refused to unpack a box of oranges that were grown in South Africa.

Yes but the worldwide boycott was started by the actions of the ANC and in the Sixties as the Academic Boycott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_boycott_of_South_Africa) (sorry to use Wikipedia but I couldn't find another source...)

I refuse to shop at certain stores because I disapprove of their corporate practices--like Wal-mart, for instance. But I don't necessarily consider that a boycott.

Organized boycotts, however, can be effective, but not in the sense of harming the bottom line. They're effective when they cause bad publicity and start affecting the brand. McDonald's makes changes in their business model in order to keep the brand positive--that's why they moved away from supersizing, and started demanding a better quality of meat from meat processors, for instance. (I still don't eat there, but only because it's unhealthy, not because of their business model.) But it was organized, loud boycotting and protest that got them to listen and change.

The point was that using less plastic bags was something that I did out of my own ethics. I believe - ethically if you will - that we owe it to ourselves and the planet to, as you say, use renewable energy sources. However, that does not stop this being an ethical decision in the slightest. In addition there is the fact that plastic bags are non-biodegradable and therefore I, ethically, don't wish to contribute to the landfill/litter issue that is a major problem in this world of ours...if worrying about the finite resources of the planet and the state that the planet is in is not an ethical concept then I clearly have no concept of ethics to begin with.
This is interesting, but ultimately pointless. Environmentalism is probably the most important paradigm in the formation of my political views, but I have always considered most environmental problems as problems that humans have constructed which will ultimately harm humans. I believe that the Earth will no be significantly harmed by anything we do, though we may wipe ourselves out.

My Pleasure

This is, perhaps, one example where 'boycott' may be the wrong word: I protest and demonstrate against Caterpillar may have been what I should have said. However, you may not want to buy any of this (http://www.shopcaterpillar.com/caterpillar/default.asp)having read about the use of the bulldozers in Gaza.
Definitely, that's stuff I will boycott.

This appears to be about something Shell is doing in one specific, localised area; I'm not putting that down, what I'm saying is that Esso, globally, is probably the single biggest evil against the environment, (http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/climatecriminals/esso/) AND it supports George W. Bush more than any other company does.
OK. I don't drive at all (and don't plan to), so I'm probably boycotting all petrol companies.

So if I go to the Co-operative Supermarket tomorrow to spend my twenty pund shopping budget for the week you are assuring me that the fair trade produce will fit my budget? If that is the case then fantastic, all I'm saying is that it is harder to live on a tight budget and shop for fair trade. If you don't believe me then try it.
If you can afford to buy tea and bananas at all, you will find a place where you can buy them as cheap as the general brands.

No one ever boycotts diamonds. (well hardly anyone).

No one ever boycotts diamonds. (well hardly anyone).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/600475.stm

For all you activist students: what the hell gives you the right to decide what brands I should and not buy!?

I'm not an unethical person, but I do believe that sweatshops are an inevitable stage of developement (people work in sweatshops so that their children don't have to, if you close their sweatshops then their children have to find food in rubbish tips), and I support Israel's right to exist. So why should you get to tell me what I can eat or drink based on your own opinions?

How is it fair that you should dictate policy to the SUs based purely on the fact that you are the loudest? The majority of people do not agree you, its just that they have more important things to concern themselves with than student politics (like, you know, their degrees).

So yeah, enact your own personal boycotts if you wish, but don't force them on me by limiting what can be sold on my campus, because then you are no better than the corporate-funded cartels in Columbia or Burma.

(sorry to use Wikipedia but I couldn't find another source...)

You should use Wikipedia more often, as your constant referral to clearly biased websites does little for your credibility.

What's wrong with Coke and Nestle?

Kreynoria;12027517']What's wrong with Coke and Nestle?

coke cast a blind eye over the assassination of union representatives in india. or something.

nestle marketed some powdered milk to starving poverty striken mothers in africa as a 'better' alternative to breast milk. or something. can't remember that one exactly. look it up. google is your friend.

*thinks about playing elaborate guessing game and decides against it*

I'm at Sussex actually. Although, as with all University's, the vast majority of students are quite horribly apathetic it still lives up to its billing as a radical university in many of its actions.

Hmmm, I wouldn't consider Bristol, Leeds or Oxford particularly Activist-y unis....Well the ones I listed had banned Coca-cola from their premises as of 2004.
I supported the ban on Coke and Nestle but was deeply saddened that the Daily Mail - banned for many years - has returned to blight our campus shops. As to the NUS; yes we can do that, however, as far as I am aware, it very rarely happens. I believe that we can change the NUS but it requires direct action in terms of staging demonsrations outside of the Camden office or threatening in a coalition of twenty-thirty Higher Education institutions to withdraw...the sad thing about Sussex having a campus-wide referendum to consider withdrawel from NUS is that we are losing a nationwide connection with 5.3 million other students and taking our voice away in terms of making a concrete change to the stifling, Blairite system that exists now.The NUS is a bloated organisation. It needs to have the fat trimmed. I'd probably like to see it reduced to just a campaign based organisation with a committee that deals with campaign issues. I'd like to see all this crap about NUS Extra dropped. It's just an attempt to turn NUS into a cash cow for unions. The amount of paid staff that the NUS has seems ridiculous to me.

In all honnestly I wouldn't care if the NUS fell apart and a new association/union was rebuilt in its place, having to fight tooth and nail for any major powers.

For all you activist students: what the hell gives you the right to decide what brands I should and not buy!?

I'm not an unethical person, but I do believe that sweatshops are an inevitable stage of developement (people work in sweatshops so that their children don't have to, if you close their sweatshops then their children have to find food in rubbish tips), and I support Israel's right to exist. So why should you get to tell me what I can eat or drink based on your own opinions?

How is it fair that you should dictate policy to the SUs based purely on the fact that you are the loudest? The majority of people do not agree you, its just that they have more important things to concern themselves with than student politics (like, you know, their degrees).

So yeah, enact your own personal boycotts if you wish, but don't force them on me by limiting what can be sold on my campus, because then you are no better than the corporate-funded cartels in Columbia or Burma.

If you care about that then debate. What I find is that when I say I want to boycott caterpillar, here is why, most people say 'that doesn't affect me, piss off.'

If what you're saying is that you want the freedom of choice then I'd say you have a valid and much-needed point to make. Although I'd ask if you read the article pertaining to the deaths in Colombia? And if you would still want to drink Coke afterwards.

As to Wikipedia, it is by far the least reliable website to use as evidence, whilst it is very good (look at the comparisons with Encyclopaedia Britannica) it is always lacking something and also runs the constant risk of being utterly wrong. I quoted from websites that are involved in certain campaigns, true, but they were merely stating facts: Esso are a massively irresponsible company, so Greenpeace are right; Caterpillar do supply bulldozers that are used to knock down people's houses in Gaza; there is suspicion about Coke's involvment with Trade Union deaths in Colombia and India etc etc etc none of this is particularly inflammatory or unfactual. I choose my websites carefully, I don't just type shit in on google and use it as evidence.

In all honnestly I wouldn't care if the NUS fell apart and a new association/union was rebuilt in its place, having to fight tooth and nail for any major powers.

Yes. Just as long as there were a sufficient amount of Unions involved in the new system, not just one or two activist universities.

Kreynoria;12027517']What's wrong with Coke and Nestle?For Coca-cola
In relation to Colombia, it is alleged that, between 1994 and 1996, the management of an independent factory manufacturing The Coca-Cola Company’s brands under franchise colluded with paramilitaries, inciting them to use violence and murder to de-unionise the workforce. In relation to India, it is alleged that, between January 2003 and February 2004, a part-owned bottler has extracted more than its fair share of water from communal aquifers, resulting in lower, and poorer quality, well water in the surrounding settlements. It is also alleged that the same bottler distributed solid wastes that contained dangerously high levels of toxins to farmers in the surrounding community.on page 2 of http://www.nussl.co.uk/Files/E&E%20-%20CocaCola_FAQs.pdf

And for Nestle. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9#Criticisms_of_Nestl.C3.A9.27s_business_practices
And from my own research last year (unfortunately I no longer have links, but I think such infomation would be relatively easy to find)
(b) In 1999 the UK Advertising Standards Authority ruled against Nestlé's claim that it markets infant formula 'ethically and responsibly'.
(c) In January 2004, the UK Trading Standards Office asked retailers to stop displaying and selling US parenting magazines containing advertisements for infant formula including Nestlé brands.

If you care about that then debate. What I find is that when I say I want to boycott caterpillar, here is why, most people say 'that doesn't affect me, piss off.'

If what you're saying is that you want the freedom of choice then I'd say you have a valid and much-needed point to make. Although I'd ask if you read the article pertaining to the deaths in Colombia? And if you would still want to drink Coke afterwards.

As to Wikipedia, it is by far the least reliable website to use as evidence, whilst it is very good (look at the comparisons with Encyclopaedia Britannica) it is always lacking something and also runs the constant risk of being utterly wrong. I quoted from websites that are involved in certain campaigns, true, but they were merely stating facts: Esso are a massively irresponsible company, so Greenpeace are right; Caterpillar do supply bulldozers that are used to knock down people's houses in Gaza; there is suspicion about Coke's involvment with Trade Union deaths in Colombia and India etc etc etc none of this is particularly inflammatory or unfactual. I choose my websites carefully, I don't just type shit in on google and use it as evidence.

If corporations do something wrong (such as assassinating a union leader) then I will denounce that, but overall, the impact of corporations in third world nations is positive, they provide a way for people to work themselves out of poverty. And so, honestly, it is not on my list of things to care about. And of course, there are many other people who do not care at all, so why should they be dictated to. Imagine if a group in your university called for a ban on the union's complicity in the trade and dealership of pillows, you probably wouldn't waste your time on a pre-emptive defence of pillow-ownership, but you would probably be quite annoyed when the exec comes in to take away your pillows. Morals are subjective, you should never force people into moral decisions.

And as for Wikipedia, although it occassionally features the odd factual error, this is rarely an article that is ENTIRELY wrong, and more importantly, the structure espouses neutrality. Unlike an organisation like Greenpeace, which is known to lie through its teeth if it helps its argument, Wikipedia is constantly removing biased remarks and language. And so while I would agree it would be best not to use Wikipedia in a debate over (for example) the nature of photons, in debates over very subjective ethical issues Wikipedia is preferable to any of the specifically orientated sites you have referenced.

Do "personal" boycotts do anything?

Well, can you tell me of any boycott that ISN'T personal? They all are! Some just do it in groups after long-winded meetings, and some do it on their own. But each person's decision has exactly as much weight as any others at the same income level.

The fact that you choose for yourself who to buy from may or may not make you work in concert with some larger organized groups (with or without your knowledge), and on it's own it probably doesn't matter a damn.


But when enough people start shopping their conscience - damn right it makes a difference!

If corporations do something wrong (such as assassinating a union leader) then I will denounce that, but overall, the impact of corporations in third world nations is positive, they provide a way for people to work themselves out of poverty. And so, honestly, it is not on my list of things to care about. And of course, there are many other people who do not care at all, so why should they be dictated to. Imagine if a group in your university called for a ban on the union's complicity in the trade and dealership of pillows, you probably wouldn't waste your time on a pre-emptive defence of pillow-ownership, but you would probably be quite annoyed when the exec comes in to take away your pillows. Morals are subjective, you should never force people into moral decisions.

I agree. I support the ban on the basis of my morals. Others don't. (Warning: this is going to sound glib and perhaps underdeveloped because I am tired) We voted in our AGM to ban coke, if they want to preserve their choice to support the killers they can; but they have to come to the debate and speak-out and if they don't care then it's their fault as far as I'm concerned; they have been let down by their education and are apathetic but I can't fix them: university used to be about political debate and continual questioning of the facts of society. Whatever happened to that.....(Told you it was underdeveloped and glib, *yawns*) As to your point about conglomerates being positive in the third world, needless to say I disagree but I'll save that for another time....



And so while I would agree it would be best not to use Wikipedia in a debate over (for example) the nature of photons, in debates over very subjective ethical issues Wikipedia is preferable to any of the specifically orientated sites you have referenced.

I disagree. I was justifying why I "boycott" certain companies using information from websites that propose that boycott. Better that than Wiki. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caterpillar_D9)for example is the page on Caterpillar. I find it less helpful in understanding the point of the boycott than a page explaining WHY we boycott caterpillar...

How is it fair that you should dictate policy to the SUs based purely on the fact that you are the loudest? The majority of people do not agree you, its just that they have more important things to concern themselves with than student politics (like, you know, their degrees).
In my university the ban was voted on democratically by students. So in fact, most people do agree with me.

In my university the ban was voted on democratically by students. So in fact, most people do agree with me.

Only if everyone voted. Plurality does not equal majority.

Only if everyone voted. Plurality does not equal majority.
Not everyone votes in the country where either us lives. That doesn't mean that the people who didn't vote are having their rights violated, or that they are living in a dictatorship.

If you don't take advantage of your right to vote (don't give me shit about ppl not having a chance either) then how can you complain when things don't go your way?

if it makes you feel good, then yes, it's effective. There is a difference, however, between personal boycotting and organized boycotting. Organized ones tend to hit the companies harder because more people are involved.

also realize that Coke has it's fingers in many drinks and may be tied with other products, so just boycotting Coke but buying items from a subsidiary company that has a different name won't do anythig effective.

As for your clash with Finances and your Ethics... well that's for you to work out.

Boycotts, both organized and personal, are perfectly legitimate. Anyone who wants to avoid buying from any source for any reason should go ahead and do so.

I've been boycotting Muslim-owned/operated establishments since 9/11. So have many of my friends and acquaintances. Works for us ;)

OTOH, when I hear of a particularly silly boycott, like boycotting Coke or Nestle, I am motivated to go out of my way to buy the target products :D

I've been boycotting Muslim-owned/operated establishments since 9/11. So have many of my friends and acquaintances. Works for us ;)

Oh wow. Not even worth rising to really.

Boycotts, both organized and personal, are perfectly legitimate. Anyone who wants to avoid buying from any source for any reason should go ahead and do so.

I've been boycotting Muslim-owned/operated establishments since 9/11. So have many of my friends and acquaintances. Works for us ;)

OTOH, when I hear of a particularly silly boycott, like boycotting Coke or Nestle, I am motivated to go out of my way to buy the target products :D
I'm just remined when there were people boycotting Import cars here in the USA.

a reporter went to a Honda corperation and asked the maintenance crew where did these parts come from?

the answer was the USA. Parts were manufactured here, and the car was assembled here.

the reporter then went to GMC and asked the same question.

the reply was outside the USA. infact, after careful consideration, the side mirrors were the only things he could find that was manufactured in the USA.