Per chi mastica l'inglese (io non molto, mi fido del fatto che chi me
li ha inviati li ha selezionati)un paio di artivoli di cui uno sulla
campagna esso

Volevo chiedervi se qui usate le funzioni del Gruppi di Yahoo
(sondaggi, calendario, documenti) o se la usate come una semplice
mailng list.

Ah, mi pare che non usiate i Tag (i prefissi da mettere davanti
all'oggetto della mail per distinguere gli argomenti) però io li uso
lo stesso per deformazione professionale

a presto su questi schermi
e per oggi basta, che sfioro lo spamming
Giorgia









A little bit of coverage in Todays Business Observer

http://www.observer.co.uk/business/ethics/story/0,12651,905590,00.html

http://www.observer.co.uk/business/ethics/story/0,12651,906071,00.html

Let's hear it for the boycott

Direct consumer action is more effective than ever, writes Faisal
Islam. But big business is hitting back


Sunday March 2, 2003

The Observer

Boycotts are back. The Stop Esso campaign reached new heights last
week when Greenpeace activists abseiled onto the roof of the
company's UK headquarters in Surrey, shutting it down in protest
against the firm's environmental policies. About 100 Esso garages
were closed for a few hours as activists dressed as tigers chained
themselves to the pumps.

It is not just left-wing students who are now involved in consumer
activism now. Everybody is boycotting something, or threatening to do
so. Greenpeace's action sought to plug into the global wave of anti-
war protests that brought a record 1.5 million people onto the
streets.

In the United States, patriotic support for the government has led to
boycotts of French wine and attempted legislation to rename French
fries 'freedom fries'.

The English cricket team is suffering after boycotting Zimbabwe at
the Cricket World Cup.

Iraq and North Korea are boycotting the American dollar.

More amusingly, Italian and Greek consumer associations have been
attempting to boycott the euro after suggestions that retailers used
the changeover from the lira and drachma to raise prices.

Anti-fur campaigners are back invading the catwalks.

Minnesotan pensioners are boycotting GlaxoSmithKline as it attempts
to stop its drugs being sold at the cheaper prices in charges in
Canada.

In the Arab world, Coca-Cola and McDonald's are suffering boycotts
protesting at US support for Israeli actions in the West Bank and
Gaza Strip.

The US even boycotts this boycott: American taxpayers fund a federal
department called the Office of Anti-Boycott Compliance which can
fine companies proved to have participated in any boycott of Israel.

So do these boycotts bite? Esso, the subject of the most high profile
of them, says not. 'The Stop Esso campaign has waged a campaign of
misinformation against our company in the UK for almost two years.
While it has not affected our fuel sales, we are not complacent
because we owe it to employees, customers and all those with whom we
interact to set the record straight,' says a company spokesman.

Greenpeace accuses Esso's American parent company, Exxon Mobil, of
being a driving force behind President Bush's push to invade Iraq by
fostering American dependence on oil, a claim vigorously denied by
Esso. This has prompted a solid response from Esso, which offers a
series of leaflets on its forecourts explaining its line on climate
change. The Stop Esso campaign, however, claims there was a 7 per
cent drop in regular petrol buyers by June 2002.

Greenpeace's 1995 campaign against Shell over its plans to dispose of
the Brent Spar oil platform in the Atlantic, triggered a slide in
sales of up to 70 per cent in some countries. It led to a complete
ban on the dumping of all oil rigs in the North-east Atlantic. In the
Eighties, Barclays, which traded in South Africa, lost 10 per cent of
its student customers because of the anti-apartheid campaign.

Today, Ethical Consumer magazine lists 50 active boycotts of
countries, companies, presidents - and even the singer Janet Jackson.
Recent successes include shutting down the John Lewis staff hunting
club and stopping Focus DIY's sale of birds and small mammals.

Most do not change much, however, apart from making participants feel
better about themselves. A drop in Coke sales is unlikely to lead
radical change in Bush's Middle East policy. What really changes
things is when negative publicity arises from a boycott.

Last December, Nestlé caved in to international pressure following
bad publicity about its attempt to recover a £6 million debt from
Ethiopia. Just a threat of consumer activism made the Swiss company
backtrack.

'Boycotts go in and out of fashion, but they are just about the only
thing that corporations are frightened of,' says Patti Rundall from
Baby Milk Action, which has conducted a 24-year campaign against
Nestlé's marketing of powdered milk in developing countries. 'They
are an instantly understandable signal that something is seriously
wrong with a company. That's why corporations spend so much time
learning the language of NGOs [non-governmental organisations] and
luring them into partnerships. In partnerships everything is behind
closed doors.'

The threat of a boycott and its attendant publicity is probably far
more important than the boycott itself. Activists can now deploy an
armoury of extra weapons to act as hard and soft levers on corporate
behaviour, however. Shareholder power is a growing force.

'The worst examples of companies holding their customers in contempt
have perhaps been UK professional football clubs. This has provoked
supporters to form trusts to gain at least the same rights as
shareholders. In some cases this has led to supporter representation
on boards. And even the outright control of clubs,' says Jonathan
Michie of Birkbeck College, London. The scuppering of BSkyB's bid to
take over Manchester United by a small group of shareholder
supporters is the starkest example of what is possible.

The growing ethical-shareholder industry is also affecting corporate
behaviour. Esso has seen how the bad publicity from being a campaign
target can collide with investors' interests. Cindy Baxter of the
Stop Esso campaign says: 'We saw this at last year's Exxon Mobil AGM
where 20 per cent of shareholders ($55 billion - £35m - worth of
shares) supported a resolution against the company on renewable
energy. Major investors supporting the resolution said Exxon's
policies, highlighted by the campaign, had affected the company's
reputation.'

Organisations such as Oxfam have engaged with major investors in
Glaxo SmithKline (GSK) over developing countries' access to Aids
drugs. 'Instead of just publishing a report on their views of GSK's
activities in this area, Oxfam met with a number of responsible
investors prior to publication,' says Jo Johnston, a senior ethical
analyst at Morley Asset Management. 'This led to a series of meetings
attended by pharmaceutical companies, SRI investors, mainstream
brokers and NGOs contributing to high-level and ongoing investor
engagement.'

The carrot-and-stick campaigning route yields dialogue. Governments
are chipping in too. The Overseas Development Secretary Clare Short
used the prospect of Brent Spar-style boycotts to persuade oil
companies to join a global drive against corruption by disclosing
their own payments to governments.

Corporations are hitting back by hiring former campaigners and
targeting opinion formers by funding think-tanks and advocacy groups
modelled on the campaigns against them.

Boycotts have to compete with one another for attention. Driving
becomes difficult if both Esso and Shell are to be avoided. The
popular campus campaigns against Nike led people to Adidas, but the
German company is itself being boycotted by campaigners for usingh
kangaroo skins. And it's hard to boycott both Unilever and Procter &
Gamble, which are both on Ethical Consumer 's list, without
sacrificing at least some conventional standards of hygiene.

'Many boycotts don't work because otherwise sympathetic consumers
believe that "all companies are at it",' said one campaigner.

The internet has changed everything, enabling disparate concerns to
coalesce into a campaigning forces in hours. It is also a tool for
corporations to get their message across more directly. Ultimately,
their biggest weapons are not being the worst offender and a dose of
activism fatigue.


Observer special

Corporate Accountability: Observer special
The globalisation debate: Observer special

The future of protest

02.03.2003: Faisal Islam: Let's hear it for the boycott
02.03.2003: When does protest work?
19.01.2003: Geraldine Bedell: The changing face of the brand
14.07.2002: Mike Bygrave: Where did all the protesters go?

Have your say

Talk: Do boycotts work?
Email us at business@...

Special issue: Who's winning - business or society?

02.02.2003: Views: Caring business or a PR smokescreen?
02.02.2003: Burhan Wazir: Fight the good fight against fat
02.02.2003: Faisal Islam: Oil giants get slick with bid for new image
02.02.2003: Sarah Ryle: Abandoned in the e-waste land
02.02.2003: Sarah Ryle: Big business cleans up in South Pole
02.02.2003: Marc Lopatin: More than a box-ticking exercise?
02.02.2003: Simon Caulkin: Can't say fairer than that
02.02.2003: Nick Mathiason: Inmates learn a trade from the inside out
02.02.2003: Roger Cowe: Sustainable, responsibility... but not
puritanical
02.02.2003: Conal Walsh: The greens who took the corporate shilling
02.02.2003: Roger Cowe: When outrageous optimism meets business
blindness
02.02.2003: David Bergman: Work deaths soar as Labour dithers

Comment highlights

24.11.2002: Will Hutton: Capitalism must put its house in order
Comment highlights: best of Will Hutton
22.12.2002: Nick Cohen: Life in a bubble bath
15.12.2002: Jonathon Porritt: Stop passing the buck to business
01.12.2002: Ella Joseph: We can't just leave it to business to be good
24.11.2002: Ian Willmore: Slick business?

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

Online pieces


Observer Comment Extra
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
When does protest work?

Leading campaigners and experts told The Observer what made
campaigning effective - and how companies needed to ensure that
corporate accountability was not simply a PR exercise if they wanted
to protect their brands and reputations.

Lola Okolosie
Sunday March 2, 2003

"One of the most effective campaigns I've seen was the Brent Spar
campaign against Shell, which led to a complete ban on the dumping of
all oil rigs in the North East Atlantic and shook industry. Also the
No to War campaign - the mass mobilisation of 13 million people
across the world on one day has been truly inspiring.

Companies claim to be getting better at corporate social
responsiblity. But the first question to ask of a company is who is
running the CSR campaign - the PR department or the environment
department? Most of them don't get that CSR is not for brand image
(we call that "greenwash"), but rather what the company does to
improve the way it operates. The internet has made an immense
difference to campaigning. It is the ideal tool for campaigning and
mobilising support. Downloadable campaign materials, action alerts,
games and email updates are perfect for keyboard campaigners, and for
motivating people to protest. This can raise the profile of
shareholder action. We saw this at last year's ExxonMobil AGM where
20% of shareholders supported a resolution against the company on
renewable energy. Major investors supporting the resolution said
Exxon's policies, highlighted by the StopEsso campaign, had affected
the company's reputation."
- Cindy Baxter, Co-ordinator of the StopEsso coalition

"I am not really interested in short term successes. Real changes in
corporate policies and practices can take decades. The global
network , IBFAN, that runs the baby food campaign and the Nestle
boycott been 'successful' because it is prepared to do whatever is
necessary for as long as needed - we just want 'to get the job done'.
The baby food issue has also had a huge advantage of the backing from
regularly updated international UN Resolutions. Although the giant
Nestle has not cleaned up - and may never do so voluntarily - the
many laws we have helped bring in are now halting commercial
exploitation on a permanent basis, protecting the health and lives of
millions of children.

The key things about IBFAN are its independence, its clear
objectives , its willingness to speak out publicly and its regular
systematic independent monitoring. IBFAN has learned that corporate
promises mean absolutely nothing unless verified. Words are cheap and
easy.

Boycotts go in and out of fashion, but they are just about the only
thing that corporations are frightened of. They are an instantly
understandable signal that something is seriously wrong with a
company . That's why Corporations spend so much time learning the
language of NGOs and luring them into partnerships. In partnerships
everything is behind closed doors.

Anyone wanting to understand the nature of corporate PR would be well
advised to study the baby food issue".
- Patti Rundall, Policy Director, Baby Milk Action

"As various stakeholders - customers, employees, local communities -
have become frustrated in their attempts to hold corporations to
account, one interesting development has been for them to become
shareholders. By then exercising their rights as shareholders - at
company AGMs, submitting resolutions and so forth - they have at
least made their voices heard. The worst examples of companies
holding their customers in contempt have perhaps been UK professional
football clubs. This has provoked supporters to form trusts in order
to at least gain the same rights as shareholders. In some cases this
has led to supporter representation on the Board. And even the
outright control of Clubs.

The Government is also encouraging employees to become shareholders
in their companies. It might not make much economic sense to put your
savings in the same firm as you rely on for your job. But at least it
gives you certain rights to be heard. At least if the shares can be
pooled to create a collective voice. This is the purpose of the
Employees Direct initiative currently underway with backing from
Birkbeck College, Mutuo, the Work Foundation, the TUC, Unity Trust
Bank, the Co-operative Bank, Cobbetts solicitors and others.. Their
interim report was welcomed by Government. This could lead to a
dramatic improvement in workplace practices and performance.
- Professor Jonathan Michie, Birkbeck, University of London

"Campaigning has been crucial in creating the pressure for business
to take social and environmental issues seriously. While most
companies have reacted through greenwash, using public relations to
defend their corporate reputations, there are a small number of
companies who have substantially changed their business practices.
Inevitably, the crunch comes when it impacts on the bottom line. Few
companies have been willing to sacrifice their competitive position
for an ethical stance. This highlights the need for governments to
regulate, in order to create the incentives for companies to do the
right thing and to sanction those who breach acceptable standards,
especially when their activities destroy communities and their
environments in the developing world. It is the rules that must
change, not just the practices of a few companies. A strong system of
international rules on business is urgently needed.

A few business leaders are waking up to the fact that sound
regulation is in their interests, protecting them from unfair
competition and a massive public backlash. But industry lobbyists,
particularly the industry associations, are continuing to advocate
liberalisation and deregulation at every opportunity. Campaigners are
now targeting the companies such as Enron and Exxon, and the lobby
groups such as the European Services Forum that have excessive
influence over governments and international institutions,
politically and financially. They must be called to account."
- Barry Coates, Director, World Development Movement

"The manner in which responsible investors engage with companies on
areas of risk has evolved significantly over the last 5 years. During
this time, the UK Socially Responsible Investor community has become
involved in several innovative joint engagement projects on issues as
diverse as company's involvement in Burma, Access to Essential
Medicines, Climate Change risk and the need for greater transparency
on payments made to foreign governments by the extractive industries.
Quite often, such group's of investors represent upwards of £400
billion in assets.

Several NGOs, including Amnesty, Oxfam Friends of the Earth, WWF and
GreenPeace have also sharpened up their corporate engagement teams in
recent years- often working closely with companies on contentious
issues. NGOs are recognised by many companies as a vital early
warning radar screen for issues that may affect their brands or
operations management. There is also a growing recognition that such
issues should be tabled for discussions in the board room. I think a
catalyst for these developments has been the significant numbers of
senior NGO and corporate personnel that have jumped ship in recent
years to work on the "other side", each with invaluable insights.

One example of how investors and the NGOs have coincided is on the
issues of promoting Access to Essential Medicines. Instead of just
publishing a report on their views of GSK's activities in this area,
Oxfam met with a number of responsible investors prior to
publication. This led to a series of roundtable meetings attended by
pharmaceutical companies, SRI investors, mainstream brokers and other
NGO's such as Medicine Sans Frontiers, VSO and Save the Children.
This approach has contributed to high level and ongoing investor
engagement with the pharmaceutical industry- a level of attention
warranted by such a complex issue.

I think one of the key differences between responsible investor
engagement in the US and the UK can be found in the approach to
shareholder resolutions on issues of corporate social responsibility.
These are often used as a first resort in the States which can often
lead to an antagonistic relationship with company management. In
contrast, in the UK there is much more in the way of behind the
scenes dialogue with companies and other stakeholders. This approach
may not generate the publicity, but it can often be a more effective
way to achieve meaningful and respectful dialogue with companies."
- Jo Johnston, Senior Analyst, Morley Sustainable Futures Team

Rio Tinto regards it as vital to engage with shareholders, employees,
governments, non government organisations, international
organisations and others interested in our business. The expectations
these entities hold of corporate behaviour have changed over time. We
seek through dialogue to understand these changing expectations. This
change in expectations requires Rio Tinto to be willing to listen and
learn and be committed to respond. We need to try to understand the
issues the group faces, build that understanding into how we manage
our business and provide information on our activities to all those
who are interested. In doing so we seek to be much more open and
transparent than in the past. These partnerships improve our
understanding of the social and environmental issues at both global
and local levels.

One such strategic issue for Rio Tinto is that of biodiversity. We
have formed a number of partnerships with international environmental
NGOs which have helped us to define the company's biodiversity
strategy, and to raise awareness within the Group about biodiversity.
Two current examples of our partnership programmes are:

· a global partnership with Earthwatch, which offers employees the
opportunity to join Earthwatch projects working on biodiversity
projects around the world

· a partnership with BirdLife International, which has involved over
30 Rio Tinto business units in bird monitoring events, and has led to
a range of local initiatives between BirdLife's own NGO partners and
our business units around the world.
- Philippa Roberts, External Affairs, Rio Tinto



Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003



Patti Rundall, Policy Director
Baby Milk Action, 23 St Andrew's St, Cambridge, CB2 3AX
Work Tel: 01223 464420, Mobile: 07786 523493, Fax: 01223 464417
email: prundall@..., Websites:
www.babymilkaction.org www.ibfan.org

Baby Milk Action is the UK member of:
The International Nestlé Boycott Committee
INTERNATIONAL BABY FOOD ACTION NETWORK
- 1998 RIGHT LIVELIHOOD AWARD RECIPIENT-

The information in this e-mail is intended solely for the use of the
addressee(s) named. Any unauthorised use of the email or its contents
is prohibited. Kindly advise me if you have received the email in
error. If so, please delete it; if printed, destroy the document; if
forwarded, kindly advise the recipient of action to be taken.