The article exposes all the problems that must be solved for the success of the Copenhagen Summit. The objective of the summit is to establish new goals and laws in to the way the countries treat the environment. However, all of the ‘offers’ so far are way below what is actually needed to slow down the destruction of the earth. All of the problems are principally related to who should take the responsibility to stop the emissions, and how to do so. In addition, there are also issues regarding the developing countries and their ‘right’ to pollute, and ways to stop deforestation. The article ends by saying that it is very unlikely that a collapse will happen, but it is even more improbable that the meeting will be entirely successful. “A miracle is needed for a triumph.”
The article talks about the difference between the Copenhagen summit and its predecessor, the Kyoto meeting. The Kyoto protocol was source of many issues and it had many inefficiencies related to how to achieve the goals that were set up. Now, we have perceived such mistakes and the people are much more worried about global warming than they were in 1997. In addition, we have acquired much more knowledge about the environmental problems and ways to solve them. Nevertheless, there are still some major questions that have not been answered yet. There are still uncertainties about how to decide who is going to stop the emissions and how, and every country has its own opinion about the different topics to be discussed. The Copenhagen summit has the potential to change our lives as never before, however, we cannot say that it is for better or for worse. “Whether the final chapter…is one of resolution and joy, or confusion and despair, remains unknown. “
History and detailed explanation of the way Unilever works. This website has many interesting facts and numbers about Unilever. I am going to use it to talk about who they are and the corporation’s history
This website gives some of the crimes committed by Unilever . I used it to have a better idea and to start my research. It also has some information about certain crimes that I am going to talk about.
Greenpeace: Unilever accused of destroying rainforest in Indonesia and making it the third biggest polluter in the world. I am going to use this information in one of my slides to talk about what others say about Unilever. The problem involving deforestation and use of palm oil in Indonesia is the most contradictory and popular problem that is related to Unilever.
Greenpeace: A factory of Unilever in India had lots of toxic waste being dumped at the side of the factory. I am going to use this information to talk about other problem related to Unilever. In addition, the fact that it is also from Greenpeace may demonstrate that there is a certain argument between the two organizations .
PETA: Unilever associated with animal testing. Accusation made by PETA (People for the ethical treatment of animals), which is the biggest NGO that works with this problem. I am going to use this accusation in one of the slides to say what others say about Unilever.
Unilever: What they say about animal testing in their corporation. They admit that they do it and that they ae trying to stop it, however, at the same time they say that some testing is obligatory (which is not). I am also going to use this fact to show that Unilever is a company that really cares about what others think about them and any thing that happens against them, they immediately try to fix it. This happens because they are too connected to family, well being and other mages, so the cannot lose that image.
Exploitation of workers and avoidance of trade unions.
All of these websites are from trade unions or other organizations that are related to the topic. Unilever has committed many crimes related to unfair trade and bad treatment of its workers. I am going to use this information to show the fact that there is a lot of bias from trade unions and to present both sides of this issue. In the last one there is also the fact that Unilever buys other companies to create a monopoly in certain regions.
Article about Unilever’s tentative to establish a monopoly in Ireland. I am going to use to show another accusation against Unilever. The website is from the company Decision New Media, which is specialized in providing information to businesses and investors.
Unilever admits that it does not know from where 20% of its palm oil comes. This topic is going to be used together with the opinions of Greenpeace and WWF to demonstrate how contradictory some ideas may be. At the same time, we can use the fact that this website is basing itself on Greenpeace to affirm that there is also some bias there.
Australian Foodnews: There are many companies that say that are sustainable but that actually just work in some isolated regions. In this article, Unilever is praised for being the only one which actually does something
WWF saying that other companies should follow Unilever’s steps ??? I am going to use it to demonstrate the different ideas that exist around the same topic and to show that Unilever is not completely bad
BBC: Fair Trade. The fact that Unilever pays extremely low wages to its tea producers in India as a way to get more profit and be able to lower its price. This information is also connected to the one about the trade unions and I am going to use it in the same slide. The difference here is that it actually comes from BBC.
Being sustainable can be good for companies to have long-term profits. Unilever is one of those companies that perceived and are trying to change. This article shows that Unilever is gaining from the fact that it is trying to become more sustainable. I am going to use it to demonstrate that Unilever also has some good qualities
