Aid for Whom? Distance Caring and Corporate Practices

Abstract

Making the world a better place through simple acts of consumption is a very appealing prospect. It is not surprising that campaigns such as “buy pink” to help curb breast cancer, or the RED campaign to stem AIDS, have taken hold in the United States and beyond. If buying a red toaster oven helps a woman somewhere in Africa get the antiretrovirals (ARVs) she needs, is that not a win-win arrangement? Unfortunately, corporate campaigns—such as the Bono-endorsed RED campaign to channel antiretroviral drugs to those living with AIDS in high-burden countries in Africa through proceeds from product sales—work to obfuscate corporate practices more than they solve global health problems. Unlike some consumer-driven causes such as fair-trade coffee, the RED campaign addresses nothing about the social relations of production behind, or environmental impact of, consuming particular products (Richey and Ponte ⇓). So, while those buying products from participating companies might feel good that profits, however vaguely specified, are going toward buying ARVs, this humanitarian act is contravened by the fact that the majority of multinational corporations today participate to varying degrees in offshoring their manufacturing and assembly operations. They do so because they are able to cut costs—and increase profits—through low wages, lax environmental regulations, and draconian working conditions such as enforced and unpaid overtime, no vacation leave or insurance coverage. Why is this relevant? Because buying a RED product is, of course, not just about contributing a percentage of the cost toward AIDS drugs, it …