By Martin Bayliss
The news that the Australian unions are trying to prevent Woolworths, one of Australia's biggest retailers, selling APP’s tissue he is not really a surprise (see World news, page 9). Nor, in itself, is it terribly worrying, unless you are directly involved. Australian unions – like unions in most countries – are keen to protect their members’ interests. Commercial nationalism is a natural part of this function. And APP has for long been a target of anti-import groups. Not just in Australia, but around the world.
The reasons for the latest discrimination are hard to counter. The unions claim – as many have claimed in the past – that APP does not manage its forests in a sustainable manner. They assert that claims of environmental friendliness made on the packaging of certain tissue products sold in Australia are not true.
This magazine is in no position to judge the veracity of either APP’s or the union’s claims, though in APP’s defence it must be stated that its forestry practices have been resularly audited by reputable organisations. We suspect, however, that truth is far from the determining factor in this case. As in political life generally, an argument is valid if it has popular support, even if it is intrinsically corrupt.
The ethical consumer is a commendable result of improved
information and responsibility. But he is also easily manipulated.
Clearly, an Australian union member whose job is threatened by imports will react against the foreign exporter with whatever arguments he can muster. This is not to suggest that the Australian union in this case is not acting in good faith. Its motives may be as pure as virgin snow.
Perhaps there are doubts over APP's claims of environmental friendliness. No one is likely to provide a definitive answer this time any more than they have done in past cases where sustainable forestry practices have been called into question. For both sides, the key is to sway opinion. Clearly, Woolworths’ decision to take the APP products off its shelves until the company is proved innocent is far more an attempt to prove its green credentials than to see justice done. The retailer cannot risk alienating its environmentally-sensitive – and often nationalistic – customers.
It is a worrying fact of life for tissue manufacturers that the innocent are vulnerable to campaigns of this kind almost as much as the guilty. Those who wish to believe the worst will do so, whatever the facts. Retailers will always accept commercial reality rather than support a questionable supplier. APP is not the first large company to face a campaign of this sort. Quite recently, K-C faced opposition from US environmentalists over much the same issues - without, though, the nationalistic angle that characterizes this battle. The good news is that giants such as K-C or APP can ride local troubles. Unpleasant and costly they may be, but not fatal, as they might be for a smaller victim.
The Australian tissue controversy may be just the tip of the iceberg, however. In recent weeks, the news has overflowed with reports of American authorities rejecting Chinese imports. The motives have always been quite reasonable. Indeed, in some cases, if what we read in the newspapers is correct, then it would have been criminal not to reject the imports of certain Chinese products into America.
Some toys were, according to reports, toxic or in other respects dangerous. No trader can, on legal or ethical grounds, argue against banning dangerous imports. A local producer of the same goods would, rightly, also be prevented from selling them.
There is always the doubt however, that the allegations of malpractice are not entirely founded in fact. Dirty tricks are everywhere in international business. The trade in sensitive goods is no exception.
There is never a bad time to wound your enemies, particularly when they have no chance to fight back. It seems too much of a coincidence however, that the latest wave of anti-import rhetoric in two of the world's richest countries should come just as their economies are feeling the pinch.
For the American consumer, China is a relatively soft target, though America knows it has been heavily dependent on cheap imports from the Asian giant to satisfy its consumers while keeping a lid on inflation. In Australia, APP is vulnerable to righteous green-clad militants.
But there is a huge risk to the mushroom cloud of protectionism, as history has shown more than once. The ethical consumer is a commendable result of improved information and responsibility. But he is also easily manipulated.
By all means, let APP answer the case on its forestry practices. Equally, let China insure that its exports are safe and comply with the regulations current in the destination markets. Let us not, though, forget the principle of innocence until guilt is proved.
So far, to their credit, the governments of the respective countries have not overreacted. We can only hope they will not. These latest examples of incipient protectionism must not be allowed to escalate into a moralistic war against imports that will harm all, from rich country consumers to developing world exporters.
TW
