Multinational Enterprises which are at the forefront of the excesses of globalisation are also rightly criticised for their “contribution to global warming”, “contribution to the erosion of ozone layer”, “depleting fertile soils by industrial production policies”, “contribution to air and noise pollution”, etc (Jere-Malanda, 2007). Many sub-Saharan African nations such as Zimbabwe, Kenya and Mozambique have all been subject to these blatant injustices. In the more prosperous nation of South Africa, the exploitation is not so much through external forces as through the institutionalised slavery of apartheid, until it was dismantled a decade ago. The economic structures of many developing countries are not designed to make business corporations pay for the damages induced by them. While those contributing capital are not affected in a major way as a result of this degradation to the environment, the dependent wildlife and the unsuspecting general population bear the brunt of the consequences. This blatant unfairness on part of the torch bearers of globalisation has gained better awareness over the last decade or so – mainly through the persistent efforts of activists and intellectuals. The efforts of devoted activists are finally having an impact on the regulatory and legislative branches of governments to improve existing standards of accountability and thereby alleviate retaliatory measures in the form of terror attacks (Jere-Malanda, 2007).
In conclusion, it is quite clear that much of the criticism directed at globalisation is justified. The objections related to the expansion of big business operations are part of a broader critique of contemporary industrial societies. These criticisms include deceptive mass advertisements, over-population, environment damage, toxic dumping, corporate greed, etc. The proponents of economic globalisation, who are essentially headquartered in Western democracies, can virtually dictate terms of trade for the rest of the world due to their military and economic superiority. And being the torch bearers of unfettered laissez faire capitalism, the powerful business interests often dictate local government policies. This heady mix of wealth and power has so far led to outcomes that have harmed communities at large and the environment in which they live. The poor people in developing nations are especially badly hit by this phenomenon (Steinbock, 2007). While the rich are getting richer than ever before, the real incomes of the poor have stagnated or declined in most countries across the world. In this way the poor are disadvantaged twice over and adds to their tendencies toward acts of terror.
Baram, M. S. (2004). Multinational Corporations, Private Codes and Technology Transfer for Sustainable Development. Environmental Law, 24(1), 33-65.
Buckley, P. J., & Ghauri, P. N. (2004). Globalisation, Economic Geography and the Strategy of Multinational Enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2), 81+.
Dawson, L. M. (2005). Marketing to Less Developed Countries. 13+.
Doukas, J. A., & Kan, O. B. (2006). Does Global Diversification Destroy Firm Value?. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 352+.