I hear fear from many people over how a company grows and sets up shop in another state half way across the world. It's a new form of colonialism some way, yet so many products get to people that make lives easier. So, should McDonalds and Starbucks be in Bangkok? What about Johnson & Johnson, Proctor & Gamble? Is their a difference between selling culture shattering cheeseburgers and dandruff fighting shampoo and conditioner in one?

Is their a difference between selling culture shattering cheeseburgers and dandruff fighting shampoo and conditioner in one?

Is there a difference between solving white spots on a persons shoulder and cutting down large swathes of rain forest to graze your beef herd?

I sit firmly on the fence of yes, there is.

Moss

Is their a difference between selling culture shattering cheeseburgers and dandruff fighting shampoo and conditioner in one?

Is there a difference between solving white spots on a persons shoulder and cutting down large swathes of rain forest to graze your beef herd?

I sit firmly on the fence of yes, there is.

Moss

And fill them full of growth hormones that are not yet proven to stay in the beef and not affect the consumer - obese children being far more prevalent among the MacD eaters than non-MacD eaters (quick survey taken outside the local dog-eating restaurants in Ca Mau)

We have the UN to control rogue nations - whether they do a good job or not is irrelevant here - but there seems little control over these multinationals. Local law-makers can be persuaded that there is a case for relaxation of many laws, people in less-developed nations do not have the infrastruture to inform them of the drawbacks of some consumer goods, major chemical plants, refineries and so on despoil vast areas of land and sea, paper mills use many thousands of hectares of plantation trees every year, usually where there was virgin forest before. Now it's all bamboo and eucalypts. (Managed forestry!)

If such products / lifestyles were truly abhorrent to local cultural sensitivities no one would like the products or buy them, yet they are generally accepted...

What does that tell you?

It tells me that humans universally crave comfort (be it in food, sex, or shelter) over all other things, to the point where cultural differences are left on the side line and are fast becoming little more than outdated novelties.

The MNC's just give people what they are prepared to pay for. Some are responsible, some are not. It would be wrong to say that all MNC's are evil.

There are many SFI books whose premise goes along the lines that in the future all national identity and countries themselves will be superceded by giant corporations.............It's coming !!

Caveman One: "Eh knobber what's that "

Caveman Two: " I call it fire "

One: " What's that do then "

Two" " Dunno, but if you put your finger in it hurts "

One : " Bloody he-ll it does........That'll never catch on "

Humans need food and shelter and crave sex.

To secure these resources 10,000 years ago one required hunting/gathering skills and the attributes that made one attractive to the oposite sex, history is littered with same-sex 'relationships' just to include a pre-history aware PC gay factor.

These forces still direct our actions today, money is the basic unit of power for accessing food, shelter and sex. Although the trade may or may not be direct and traded in kind instead, call it what you will but it is barter.

Having established that to get finer lobster, a better highrise cave/remote estate or more partners, the tool of money has proven more efficent than a seasonal passing of buffalo and flint spear. Gathering money is probably the best tool for all to use so you can expect that once a successful business had developed it's domestic market it will seek new customers for it's product?

This is true for Pizza, Red Bull, Ford Trucks, Hollywood Movies and Instant Coffee.

The driving force is the desire for lobster, cave & partners - but the tool is selling products.

Once you have enough of the basics - you can develop your personal higher layers.

Should a country be allowed to spend it's money on Starbucks or MTV when some of it's people live without basic needs, why should they be deprived access to these things?

The main force behind the MNC's is there overwhelming fire power when it comes to marketting and sales tactics. Local products, where there are any, just cannot compete. The advertising campaigns from television through magazines to giant billboards have bugets that would cripple smaller local businesses. Then there is the advertising targetting to take into consideration. The likes of MacDonalds used to (don't know about now it's a long time since I saw a Maccy Dees advert) shamelessly target childeren with their advertising and marketting, often offering free collectible toys as incentives. For anyone who is or has been a parent you'll know the drawing power of such tactics.

Additionally the MNC's have sufficient financial clout to buy up local raw products at a discount not available to smaller concerns and then further use that financial backing to sell the final product at a loss merely to grab a sizable corner of the market. They have the money to offer loss leaders at a very low price just to get people into the store who then purchase other goods without noticing the higher prices over other local stores. My Thai missus never could understand why the price of rice was lower in Tesco-Lotus than anywhere else but just about everything else was more expensive.

Overall are MNC's good or evil? Well if they are offering goods that are either not available in the local market or goods that provide benefits like antiseptic creams then it could be argued the answer is yes. But if they are just offering food, albeit in a different format, that is not nutritionally better than local produce and may even be worse then the answer should be no. However here you are up against the Asian (and other regions) sucker punch, in addition to the practice of targetting children. Western products by their very "source" are viewed as better quality than locally produced goods. Here young Vietnamese who want to look chic and cool drink Heineken . Why Heineken and not Tiger? Well Tiger is seen as an Asian beer whilst Heineken is seen as European despite it being brewed locally under licence (btw it's only local bums, hobos and Phil that drink Bia Saigon ).

Local food products can easily compete against imported food produce like McD's etc - the difference is that very few local firms have been able to package food / drink produce and sell them as a brand overseas.

Yet that is changing too with the rise of Singha, Blue Elephant, Red Bull etc. Its early days but I think we will see more new brands from Asia enter the West as time goes on.

Interesting thread bops. I think the question of good v evil, right v wrong, whilst being a good discussion, is irrelevant. We can not, or should not, like or dislike a company because of it's sucess. The world is now a global market place. I may dislike seeing a McD and a Starbucks on Samui, but it's what the market will bear that will survive. We can't prevent it, time will tell.

So, it seems that what the company is selling and how they are selling it is what determines their 'evil' factor. Yet, is demand really what drives some companies? Like Starbucks in Thailand. My misses always says only the rich can buy lattes. So, hi sos in Bangkok and tourists are the main customers of Starbucks? Outside of jobs how does this benefit the Thai people? Did the Thai people really demand over priced Americanized cafe drinks?

I've always (well, not always, but since I've been there) wondered why the world's largest BEEFburger chain has so many branches in India.

And WHY the Indian Gov't could conceivably allow the biggest murderers of the Holy Cattle to set up shop in their country.

Chicken tastes good, but not from their"restaurants".

I've always (well, not always, but since I've been there) wondered why the world's largest BEEFburger chain has so many branches in India.

Chicken tastes good, but not from their"restaurants".

Great point Kayo! Did the Indians really ask for that food or is the company trying to force open a market where there is none?

Chicken tastes good, but not from their"restaurants".

Although I have eaten there - their chicken does not even look like chicken - surely mechanically reclaimed meat?

I would assume that beef is generally off the menu in India; they would promote pork burgers - the exact reverse of any McD in the Middle East. They are selling fast food - the exciting bright colors with high fat, sugar & salt foods that the human taste buds adore.

Would SubWay stores do so well around the world if they only sold 100% healthy subs with salad only lean meat and no fat laden sauces?

The people get what the people want seems to be an overriding sentiment but how do the people originally want something they don't know about? Advertising and marketting creates the demand often through non advertising media like product placements in movies. It is only the multinationals that have the clout to do this so inevitably it is they who reap the rewards (plus the fact that a shot of Pim's noodle stand in a James Bond movie is unlikely to change the eating habits of the entire UK). Fair or not? A good question, an investor in anything is entitled to his return on his investment but this particular investor has invested in Hollywood (or Bollywood) not Thailand but part of his payback comes from Thailand. Further to that a demand for the product has been created that will provide even more payback.

A similar case can be made for advertising in foriegn magazines, there is no chance genuine Thai brands (i.e. not those produced under licence) will ever grace the pages of Vogue et al even though these mags are imported into Thailand.

Whatever we think the onward march of the MNC's, as has been said, is inevitable. We are free to like or dislike it as we wish but the interesting question is are we free to complain about it in a foriegn land? In our own country we can protest all we like but overseas we are open to the usual "if you don't like it go home" responses.

The one thing that bugs me with the likes of Maccy Dees is their gross cultural insensitivity, they make absolutely no efforts to integrate in their host society. Sorry I am forgetting those plastic clowns, not those ones they are the policemen, outside MacDonalds each now moulded in a wai-ing position. I don't know which makes me madder the clown or the facetious wai, either way it makes me wish I carried an axe when out shopping.

Of course advertising and marketting have taken their toll since time immemorial. It was not an spontaneous mass decision that taking a bunch of dried leaves, setting fire to them and breathing in the fumes made us look cool and was a real babe magnet.

Bit of a rambling load of old bolleaux, I know what I am trying to say but the bluddy words won't come out.

The one thing that bugs me with the likes of Maccy Dees is their gross cultural insensitivity, they make absolutely no efforts to integrate in their host society.

My point was that they do - the pork 'Samurai' burger - and the use of rice patties in place of the wheat buns that I've seen in Singapore, don't think I've seen it in Thailand.

With KFC the use of chilli laced products could be argued the same way.

What's most interesting to me is that average citizens form the bulk ofshareholders ofmany of these corporations. Their primary concern is how much leisure in my retirement will owning shares inthis company buy me? Then they make rationalizations about it being inevitable and unstoppable. Of course, that's what they would say isn't it?

Mc Donalds in India serve mutton(sheep) burgers, not beef burgers as far as I remember

Should laws form the companies home country be applied to it's operations in other states?

Should laws form the companies home country be applied to it's operations in other states?

I think it depends. For example, health and safety laws/rules, cleanliness rules, should apply universally. If the law/rule is a good idea in the home country it's most likely to ne a good idea elsewhere. The company does also need to be customer driven. The mutton burgers instead of beef cited above is a good example. Cultural differances must be catrered for as well.

Mc Donalds in India serve mutton(sheep) burgers, not beef burgers as far as I remember

neither are pork burgers served but a lot of vegetable burgers.

addendum: "mutton" served in India is nearly always "goat". even when ordering "lamb" you might not get sheep but young goat.

Should laws form the companies home country be applied to it's operations in other states?

I think it depends. For example, health and safety laws/rules, cleanliness rules, should apply universally. If the law/rule is a good idea in the home country it's most likely to ne a good idea elsewhere. The company does also need to be customer driven. The mutton burgers instead of beef cited above is a good example. Cultural differances must be catrered for as well.

So, here is the shadey area......health laws in the UK say the MNC can't do (fill in the blank). Country that MNC is operating in doesn't have this law. If MNC ignores the UK health law in state in question, they save big bucks! So, they do. Should the UK, being the state that this MNC is representing, whether they like it or not, step in to enforce UK health codes upon the UK based MNC?

Does that all make sense?

neither are pork burgers served but a lot of vegetable burgers.

I believe that the veggie burger is the least healthy of their product range due to the high levels of fat required to make it taste good enought to eat.

Should laws form the companies home country be applied to it's operations in other states?

Hmmmm, so Thai hygenie standards for a Thai based food outlet in America/Europe ? Interesting image.

Should laws form the companies home country be applied to it's operations in other states?

I think it depends. For example, health and safety laws/rules, cleanliness rules, should apply universally. If the law/rule is a good idea in the home country it's most likely to ne a good idea elsewhere. The company does also need to be customer driven. The mutton burgers instead of beef cited above is a good example. Cultural differances must be catrered for as well.

So, here is the shadey area......health laws in the UK say the MNC can't do (fill in the blank). Country that MNC is operating in doesn't have this law. If MNC ignores the UK health law in state in question, they save big bucks! So, they do. Should the UK, being the state that this MNC is representing, whether they like it or not, step in to enforce UK health codes upon the UK based MNC?

Does that all make sense?

Shadey indeed! I would say that it should, if it's the right thing to do at home, be done abroad. But I can appreciate that for money saving purposes a company will 'cut corners'. I don't think the home country can step in to enforce legislation that's not actually extant in the new venture. Of course when something goes wrong the company is disovered and castigated but I suppose they have saved a bundle in the interim!

Multinationals aren't evil per se, i.e. their primary intention is not to be evil. Their intention is to create as large a profit as possible, because the generation of profit is any commercial ventures main reason for existence. A company that does not generate profit is rarely useful unless it is somehow used as a front to mask or buffer other activities - if the company generates none, or too little profit, it is better to put one's money in a bank account and let it generate interest.

The problem is when the drive to generate profit is not sufficiently guided by morals and/or the consideration of negative impacts.

I do think multinational shops and restaurant can be an eyesore, simply because of their uniform and universal design that usually do not blend in with the surrounding environment.

The Pizza Hut opposite the Sphinx in Egypt is a case in point. It really feels out of place and destroys the feeling of awe one should experience when being close to the monuments of an ancient civilization.

If they had just placed the Pizza Hut around the corner that would have been enough... all in my opinion of course. And I recognize that it is the local authorities who need to say stop, which they sometimes do not, possibly because they are offered large amounts of money to disregard aesthetics and ambiance.

neither are pork burgers served but a lot of vegetable burgers.

I believe that the veggie burger is the least healthy of their product range due to the high levels of fat required to make it taste good enought to eat.

Should laws form the companies home country be applied to it's operations in other states?

Hmmmm, so Thai hygenie standards for a Thai based food outlet in America/Europe ? Interesting image.

Whoa! Didn't think of it that way.

Multinationals aren't evil per se, i.e. their primary intention is not to be evil. Their intention is to create as large a profit as possible, because the generation of profit is any commercial ventures main reason for existence. A company that does not generate profit is rarely useful unless it is somehow used as a front to mask or buffer other activities - if the company generates none, or too little profit, it is better to put one's money in a bank account and let it generate interest.

The problem is when the drive to generate profit is not sufficiently guided by morals and/or the consideration of negative impacts.

I do think multinational shops and restaurant can be an eyesore, simply because of their uniform and universal design that usually do not blend in with the surrounding environment.

The Pizza Hut opposite the Sphinx in Egypt is a case in point. It really feels out of place and destroys the feeling of awe one should experience when being close to the monuments of an ancient civilization.

If they had just placed the Pizza Hut around the corner that would have been enough... all in my opinion of course. And I recognize that it is the local authorities who need to say stop, which they sometimes do not, possibly because they are offered large amounts of money to disregard aesthetics and ambiance.

Yes, I was not happy with the Starbucks that put up near the Forbidden City, or in it can't remember.

I do think multinational shops and restaurant can be an eyesore, simply because of their uniform and universal design that usually do not blend in with the surrounding environment.

The Pizza Hut opposite the Sphinx in Egypt is a case in point. It really feels out of place and destroys the feeling of awe one should experience when being close to the monuments of an ancient civilization.

If they had just placed the Pizza Hut around the corner that would have been enough... all in my opinion of course. And I recognize that it is the local authorities who need to say stop, which they sometimes do not, possibly because they are offered large amounts of money to disregard aesthetics and ambiance.

This was the cultural insensitivity I was referring to not the pseudo meat products they put in their products. Besides which using lamb/goat/pork or whatever has absolutely no basis in cultural sensitivity. It has everything to do with the fact that they wouldn't sell their burgers with the original ingredients.

The Pizza Hut opposite the Sphinx in Egypt is a case in point. It really feels out of place and destroys the feeling of awe one should experience when being close to the monuments of an ancient civilization.

I was unaware of this particular example, do we feel that the problem is that there is a restaurant so close to the site or that it is an international 'brand' rather than Khun Egypt's one off family run pizza shop est. 2007.

Should such food outlets sell Coke Cola or only a local/national brand? We are past the point where world travel gave us new experiances - we generally travel within a familiar bubble of Coke, Heiniken. McDs and pizza. Where do we feel we should draw the line? OK to have only local foods but not to be driven in a Toyota or Merc taxi - even if it is 'locally' made like the coke.

I'm surprised that Pepsi isn't more popular in Thailand - they have the logo color advantage over Coke.

Multinationals aren't evil per se, i.e. their primary intention is not to be evil. Their intention is to create as large a profit as possible, because the generation of profit is any commercial ventures main reason for existence. A company that does not generate profit is rarely useful unless it is somehow used as a front to mask or buffer other activities - if the company generates none, or too little profit, it is better to put one's money in a bank account and let it generate interest.

The problem is when the drive to generate profit is not sufficiently guided by morals and/or the consideration of negative impacts.

I do think multinational shops and restaurant can be an eyesore, simply because of their uniform and universal design that usually do not blend in with the surrounding environment.

The Pizza Hut opposite the Sphinx in Egypt is a case in point. It really feels out of place and destroys the feeling of awe one should experience when being close to the monuments of an ancient civilization.

If they had just placed the Pizza Hut around the corner that would have been enough... all in my opinion of course. And I recognize that it is the local authorities who need to say stop, which they sometimes do not, possibly because they are offered large amounts of money to disregard aesthetics and ambiance.

Yes, I was not happy with the Starbucks that put up near the Forbidden City, or in it can't remember.

Ah but the MNC's will bend to the will of local governments if forced to do so. The famous golden arches of McD's being silver on the Champs Elysee, Paris is an example, albeit an extremely rare one, but whose fault is that the MNC or the lazy local governments?

Multinationals aren't evil per se, i.e. their primary intention is not to be evil. Their intention is to create as large a profit as possible, because the generation of profit is any commercial ventures main reason for existence. A company that does not generate profit is rarely useful unless it is somehow used as a front to mask or buffer other activities - if the company generates none, or too little profit, it is better to put one's money in a bank account and let it generate interest.

The problem is when the drive to generate profit is not sufficiently guided by morals and/or the consideration of negative impacts.

I do think multinational shops and restaurant can be an eyesore, simply because of their uniform and universal design that usually do not blend in with the surrounding environment.

The Pizza Hut opposite the Sphinx in Egypt is a case in point. It really feels out of place and destroys the feeling of awe one should experience when being close to the monuments of an ancient civilization.

If they had just placed the Pizza Hut around the corner that would have been enough... all in my opinion of course. And I recognize that it is the local authorities who need to say stop, which they sometimes do not, possibly because they are offered large amounts of money to disregard aesthetics and ambiance.

Yes, I was not happy with the Starbucks that put up near the Forbidden City, or in it can't remember.

Ah but the MNC's will bend to the will of local governments if forced to do so. The famous golden arches of McD's being silver on the Champs Elysee, Paris is an example, albeit an extremely rare one, but whose fault is that the MNC or the lazy local governments?

Really? Why would Paris care if the logo was silver or gold?