In the past I have had opportunities to spend money at Carrefour, but due to a conflux of circumstances, I am happy to say that I have never bought a thing from this large French supermarket chain. And now I never will.
Via Tim Blair.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Corporate dhimmitudeFebruary 13th, 2006 |
 58 comments to Corporate dhimmitude |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
All together now:
I’m almost sorry there isn’t one around here so I could organize a boycott.
Has no one explained to these losers that Danish cheesemakers have nothing whatever to do with the publication of the cartoons???
woud you have expected any less from the cheese-eating surrender monkeys?
To be fair, many in France have been quite robust in their defence of Jyllands-Posten… but yes, fuck Carrefour, I will never give them a penny. Anyone know what other companies are part of the same group?
In my unaccustomed role of the voice of moderation, Carrefour has issued a statement that some of its partners in the ME judged this a wise move. We should remember that in many Third World countries, and there is nothing more Third World than Islamic “thinking” country, multinationals (and anyone else) are only allowed to do business there with a local “partner”, who gets to share in the profits. What he brings to the parade is, personal friendships with government ministers and ability to make lightning shortcuts through red tape.
All clear now?
That said, fuck Carrefour for not standing up for what’s right.
Damnit – forgot to close the backslash again.
Here’s the same post reformatted:
South Korea has the same form of legal extortion.
I hadn’t thought about that – thanks for pointing it out. No doubt you’re right and this goes a long way to explaining it.
I’m still never buying anything from them.
I was a little suspicious as to why a supposedly ‘French’ supermarket chain is openly boycotting Danish products. Why? Whatever happened to “Liberty, Equality, & Fraternity”? That got me thinking.
I did a little search via Google, and low an behold, (surprise, surprise) I found that Carrefour is actually OWNED by the Al-Futaim Group, a 70 year old UAE (United Arab Emirates) based company. To put it bluntly, the ARABS own Carrefour. There’s your answer to the boycott… The Arabs, not French are at fault here.
Viet Nam has the same deal. And I believe all Arab countries have it, and, as we certainly know, most of Africa. I agree, I will not be buying from Carrefour. Our voices are as nothing to the money they make in the ME, but it’s just a tiny spike of a reminder that they have no honour and that we know they have no honour.
Samsung – Now that is very interesting! Most French people certainly do not know that! Would it change attitudes? People are funny. Does anyone refuse to enter the doors of Harrod’s because it’s owned by Mohammad Fayed? (Well me, for one, but I’m not in England so it’s quite an easy choice to stand by.) Would French people refuse to shop in Carrefour if they knew the connection? I don’t know. For sure, the French do not like the Muslims.
Just to be clear… it is entirely within the rights of Carrefour to make whatever biz choices they think are in their interests. And it is entirely within our right to not do biz with them on the basis of said choices.
Had they just quietly ‘disappeared’ Danish products until this blew over, I would be less inclined to be irritated but as they decided to make a marketing virtue of siding publicly with the forces of Islamic intolerance, I feel it well worth trying to make them pay a economic cost elsewhere for doing that.
Was this picture taken in an Arabic country?
Terrible thing to do. Somebody wrote (on this blog or on an annother) that if Carrefour surrenders so easily then for the same thing, they would have told the nazis in WWII that there products were pure aryan.
Nicolas, Carrefour has not “surrendered” to Islam. They are not a French company. The Arabs OWN Carrefour. That’s why Carrefour are so openly supporting th boycott. The company bosses are Muslims.
I think “Carrefour”means “crossroads” en francais. Looks like they took the left turn.
Verity, You do not SHOP in Harrods
You SHOPLIFT.
Now anyone out there want to buy a diamond encrusted baby alligator called Elizabeth? or is it going to have to be EBay again?
Carrefour the successful international grocer.
In order to more closely identify with its affluent and new Middle East customer base and its young and growing European Muslim group of clients, the Carrefour management has recently decided that the name of the company and the company’s stores should echo this evolution.
Therefore beginning of April next the company’s name will be ‘KHARFOUR’. The management expects that this multicultural statement of respect will reflect favourably on the company and its shareholders. However in the territories of former Anglo-Egyptian Sudan the outlets will continue to carry the old name ‘Carrefour’ or ‘Crossroads’. This to avoid any association with the Khartoum government’s civilisation policy in Darfour.
Won’t make any difference to me, I shop at Al Az-Dah.
Wallah-Mart for me.
Money talks and if the protests on this blog are to be effective in any way then Carrefour need to know. Does anyone know their manager’s email address?
Removing Danish products from their shelves may have had some commercial motivation.
Five years ago Sainsbury was forced to wrap up its operations in Egypt after a rumour went round that it was owned by Jews and the resulting boycott of the the store. In the end Sainsbury lost something like £100 million in the venture.
I somehow doubt that the board of Carrefours was unaware of this.
Link
Personally I always shop at Auchan
Dammit, I use Carrefour for all my electronics in Dubai. Now am I not only going to have to not shop there, I’m also going to have to buy exclusivley Bang & Olufsen equipment. This is gonna be expensive.
Thank you Samsung for pointing out some modicum of reason amid the braying of indignant profanity on this post. If a Muslim owns the company surely he has the right to run his company his own way, in the same way that I would hope that if a Muslim insults Judaism (which they do on a regular basis) then I trust that a certain very, very large food chain would reserve its right to show its support for Jews. I do hope that Samizdatanistas are not becoming anti-commerce, simply because of their political viewpoints.
Incidentally I notice no coverage at all in the UK press, or on blogs for that matter, for the fact that places like Partridges now give a lot more prominence than before to Danish products, including Anton Berg chocolates, [genuine] Danish salamis and cheeses etc., a far more worthy topic for commentary than occasional fawning placards outside French stores I would hope.
Julian Taylor – I have absolutely no problem with Carrefour conducting its business in any way it desires. I heartily agree with Perry; it’s acceptable – nay, prudent – for a shop like Carrefour to remove Danish items for sale in its Muslim markets. They’re conducting business in a market with a high ratio of hotheaded zealots and such actions look to me like a commercial reality.
It’s the way they’ve done it that makes me angry – expressing solidarity with the hotheads! Dhimmitude if I ever saw it. Disgusting.
Julian, your comments don’t make sense. When we make commercial decisions, are our own sensibilities not a factor in the decision? Are you trying to suggest that consumer pressure is “anti-commerce”? If so, how do you propose to limit the activities of amoral profit-seeking entities? Government fiat? Sounds very illiberal to me.
Samsung – I was going to ask who owns Carrefour – thank you.
Do Carrefour/their owners own any British businesses?
I fear Samsung may be overstating the case. As has been pointed out, it is often impossible for multinationals to set up 100% owned subsidiaries in the ME. It is however clear that Al-Futtaim doesn’t own Carrefour. Look at this (Link) which shows on page 18 the breakdown of the ownership. 80% is publically traded stock, although about 25% of the voting rights accrue to 3 (French sounding) families. If you look at the Al-Futtaim web site (Link) you will see that they have local interests in a few western retailers (IKEA, Toys R Us, M&S), but nothing about Carrefour. So it would almost certainly come as a shock to the French to discover that the largest supermarket chain in Europe is owned by a Gulf trading organisation. But perhaps my information is old, and Samsung has uncovered the truth; but I doubt it. However, the management of the local ME stores will probably be in local hands. The sign was in Arabic and English, from which I assume that the store was not in France.
How are you lot gonna boycott Carrefour when it pulled out of Britain in the 80s?
K, according to page 136 of the annual report, apparently nothing in the UK
Quite the contrary – the chosen method of protest (refusing to ever buy anything from Carrefour) demonstrates that we are very much pro-commerce. We respect Carrefour’s right to make this decision, and at the same time also reserve our own right to spend our money whereever we choose. No one on this post has called for a blanket boycott of all things French, called for Carrefour’s destruction, made any deaththreats, or staged any riots that resulted in the burning of a Carrefour franchise.
Now a question for Mr. Taylor. Surely you object to Carrefour’s decision to ban all Danish products regardless of whether they are copies of Jylands-Posten? Let’s do keep in mind, please, that the people who make the cheese and chocolates and beer are not the same people who published the cartoons. As has been said on this blog many times: a boycott of Jylands-Posten is a wholly appropriate muslim response for perceived insults to their religion. Blanket boycotts of all products that happen to be produced in the same border is not. (Neither is burning down buildings, makings death threats and armed takeover of third-party consulates, it must be said.)
Carrefour’s ownership has nothing to with a UAE family. It is most definitely a French affair, with a British twist.
The company is the world’s 2nd largest retailer and was formed in 1999 by the merger of Promodes and Carrefour. Promodes was a French business run by the Halley family. The family went on to become Carrefour’s largest shareholder owning 12% of the stock and 17% of the voting rights. They have a pact with the Marche group giving them an additional 5% of the voting rights.
Robert Halley is now the family’s representative on the Board, which incidentally is chaired by none other than our very own …
…Luc Vandevelde. Remember him? – he’s the guy who ran M&S into the ground.
If you want to let him know your feelings, his email address is
lvandevelde@changecapitalpartners.com
I think the company probably considers this decision arson insurance. I respect their right to do it; but I think they are cowards for doing so.
Muslim protest spreads to Danish butter
In Dubai branches of French hypermarket giant Carrefour, the shelves were empty of Danish butter and cheese products.
“Carrefour no longer sells this garbage,” said an Emirati employee of the chain owned by local conglomerate Al-Futaim Group – timesonline.co.uk
This is a piece in the London Times that states that Carrefour is owned by the Al-Futaim Group.
(Link)
Thanks, Samsung.
Fortunately, there is a store in town that sells Lurpak butter.
Samsung
Carrefour operate out of the UAE as part of a joint venture with the al Futtaim Group
I’m afraid their actions are none other than sickening dhimmitude.
Write to Luc Vandevelde, Chairman, Carrefour
lvandevelde@changecapitalpartners.com
Andrew Ian Dodge – indeed. However, they should shut up about it. Just not selling Danish produce for a period of time should do the trick.
The despicable behaviour Carrefour engaged in (IMO) was actively campaigning against the Danes to curry favour amongst the zealots and the benighted. That’s treacherous, disgusting behaviour and that’s why I’ll never shop there.
From now on, not a single purchase at Carrefour. I went to buy some food recently, and not a single Danish item. I didn’t know their boycott was including the Vrsovice quarter in Prague where there is hardly any Muslim.
Odd – no message in French. Are we certain this picture is genuine?
Far be it from me to miss a chance to have a go at the French, but….
I would guess it’s from one of their joint venture shops in the UAE.
What’s wrong with Carrefours attitude? They are a commercial company doing what’s best for business. It’s called private enterprise. As a Lurpak lover I’d have to shop elsewhere if I lived in France, but I see nothing wrong with a business trying to please its customers. If the tactic backfires then only Carrefour suffers. If it doesn’t, who cares?
That is truly bizarre that in the ‘Muslim protest spreads to Danish butter’ article in the Times that Samsung posted above. Arla claimed that,
Instead it is ok to lay 125 Danish staff off instead? Forgetting Carrefour’s pointless posturing in the UAE (“wow look Ahmed, no more Carlsberg or Danepak bacon on the shelves – how will we ever survive!”), what on earth possesses Arla to effectively penalise its own staff for this, while presumably permitting 800 contract staff in Saudi to take an extended holiday until sales pick up again?
Unfortunately, there is nothing at all that we can boycott from the Middle East Arab states apart from oil. Their minor foodstuffs exports (i.e.dates) tend to be produced better, tastier and certainly cheaper in California than in the Middle East. Of course the only other export we get from that region is fundamentalist terrorism.
True enough. But doesn’t it bother you that catering to irrational hysteria of this kind is “good for business?” Wouldn’t you prefer that were bad for business?
Neither do I. Nor do I see anything wrong with customers taking their business elsewhere when they are not pleased. I am not AT ALL pleased with this – and neither should you be. The best (only, actually) way to let Carrefour know is not to shop there.
I’d like to do my best to make sure it backfires. Wouldn’t you? After all, we’re talking about banning goods that are guilty of nothing but being produced in the same country as a newspaper they don’t like. Let’s please not forget that the “grievance” these customers have is that the Danish PM refused to arrest the cartoonists for something that both is not and should not be illegal.
Newsflash – thousands are on the rampage in Lahore and Islamabad. Hey, stop that yawning!
Its probably due to different employer/employee agreements: In Denmark its extremely easy to sack workers (the welfare state picks up the tab) – I´m not sure the same holds true if you are a foreign company in Saudi arabia….
Christ you people are hysterical.
– Josh
Nick M. wrote:
‘I think “Carrefour”means “crossroads” en francais. Looks like they took the left turn.’
Looks like they remembered what Robert Johnson did when he got to the crossroads.
llater,
llamas
Cor.
I was about to go out and buy something French in honour of those fine gentlemen at ‘Merde en France’.
But I saw this post just in time.
Thanks, chaps.
The supermarket company has, of course, the right to not sell Danish products in its stores. The company also has the right to “express solidarity” (i.e. suck up to) with Islamic radicals who would gladly enslave the nonmuslim shareholders and staff of the company.
However, everyone else has the right to point out that the managers who gave the order to not stock Danish products (in order to complain about cartoons that were in no way connected with these products) are total scum.
Hopefully, the majority of Muslims are decent people who will now stop shopping in these supermarkets.
The managers of this company have done three bad things. They have attacked freedom of the press (the cartoons) in Denmark (and, by extention, everywhere else), they have chosen to attack all Danish exports (whether connected with the newspaper or not), and they have chosen to support the worst elements of Islam (the terrorists and rioters) who have organised a campaign of threats, violence and murder (about the cartoons) in many nations of the world.
As I have said, I hope that decent Muslims will refuse to shop in these supermarkets and I hope that non Muslims will “show solidarity” with these decent Muslims by also refusing to shop in these supermarkets.
I suggest that your article, and the comments about it, be e.mailed to the managers of the company (and to its shareholders – and the relevant trade press).
“I see nothing wrong with a business trying to please its customers”.
This is the “economic man” argument first used (as a straw man) by J.S. Mill.
Basically Mill created a straw man concept (in his “Principles of Political Economy” 1848) of a person with only money profit maximising concerns – and then used this straw man as a justification for government interventionism.
Human beings do not and should not stop being human beings when they organize a business enterprise.
What is dishonouable for a man to do is dishonourable for a businessman to do.
And a businessman without honour is someone to avoid.
A person who will pull off something like the “no Danish goods here” stunt, is also the the sort of person who would cook the books and rob his share holders. Or someone who would cheat his customers (by selling them dodgy goods) in the hope that he would not be found out.
A man can not put his mind in different boxes and think “these people I will treat like shit, but I will be decent to my stockholders and customers” – it does not work that way (not in the long run).
A businessman without pride (without honour) is, in the end, a bad businessman.
Buy as much French stuff as you like. Just don’t buy it from Carrefour 😉
A group of jews demonstrates the proper response to a public insult – or “why Judaism is generally cooler than Islam pt. 32,456.”
Because Jews are more intelligent, wittier, have contributed vast amounts more to human knowledge, are more fun to be around – and are stronger friends when you really need one – than the Islamix?
The supermarket in the photo is almost certainly the Creek Carrefour, City Centre Carrefour, or Mall of the Emirates Carrefour (all are in Dubai).
Carrefour, as with any other company out here, foreign behemoth or otherwise, is part owned by a local company (one of only a few with whom they must partner up). In this instance, all the UAE operations of Carrefour are part owned by Al-Futtaim (who also part own Toyota in the UAE, for example), but outside the UAE Al-Futtaim have no holding stake in Carrefour or presumably any other international company.
Paul
Thankyou for providing an answer to Simon’s question of “what is wrong with Carrefour’s atittude.”
I have long been of the view that a company’s sole objective is to maximise returns for its shareholders. Companies do not exist to provide welfare for employees or to engage in government led ‘social responsibility’ programs. That returns must be maximised legally goes without saying, but should profit be maximised ethically too?
A pure capitalist will say that ethics matter not. If the company operates in ethical times, then it is economical for it to behave so. But what if there is no profit gain by behaving ethically? Or even a short term cost?
Pure capitalism can only be found in illegal businesses that face no regulation e.g. prostitution, drug trading, people trafficking. The shareholders of these enterprises (usually a patriarchal structure with narrow ownership) act purely to maximise profit. Their employees do not care if their company acts ethically.
For legal regulated businesses, it does matter that they behave ethically. However, it is up to individuals to punish those companies that fail to apply ethics. Hence i completely agree with Paul’s suggestion to distribute this picture as widely as possible and to complain vociferously to management. Otherwise there are no consequences.
Unfortunately most shopkeepers in the Arab states probably now have to expect the local kerbside radical coming into their shop and screaming that it’s found Danish products on the shelves. In the Times article referenced above by Samsung the Danes mention that they have had their product pulled from 50,000 shops in the Middle East. Certainly in these times finding out that you can’t buy Lurpak, mascara or water pump parts (Denmark’s main exports to the Arabs) can’t really affect consumers’ choice that much, can it?
I’m still puzled as to why the rent-a-mullah mob in Iran attacked the Austrian embassy on Monday, is it because their flag just has similar colours to the Danish one in the same way that they also attacked the Swiss embassy? At the very least can these ignorant people start looking up flags of the world before they attack diplomatic missions?
Tim Newman – It looks as though it’s in Egypt. Otherwise why would they write that they were expressing solidarity with the Egyptian people?
Strange, Julian Taylor. While the Swiss flag is, as we all know, a red cross, the Austrian flag doesn’t have a cross on it. God, these people are stupid.
Until a deal was done at the 11th hour Austria steadfastly rejected Turkish EU membership negotiations. Could this be linked. The nullahs think very out of the box and hold grudges for an eternity. I wouldn’t be surprised if it even went back to the famous “Gates of Vienna”. I always suspected the Madrid train bombings had as much to do with the reconquest as Spanish troops being in Iraq. Some Islamic forums rattle on about reclaiming the lost lands of Al-Andalus for the Caliphate! It’s the Battle of Tours all over again, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Of course, there’s another way of looking at this. The cartoons had nothing to do with the Danish government or Danish cheesemakers so, logically attacking the embassy of Togo or banning Argentinian beef makes as much sense as attacking things just because they’re Danish.
Appolgies to Matthew 5:9 and Monty Python
Fine. However, a brand is perhaps the single most valuable asset a multinational company has. At some stage they will have decided who to take as their local partner. And said multinational’s local partner decides to rape the corporation’s brand (by using their corporate logo in an effort to show “solidarity” with a bunch of islamofascists, for example) well that is an error of judgement on the part of the foreign firm. Perhaps they shouldn’t have entered such a market. Perhaps they should have chosen their partner more carefully. Any which way you look at it, the owner of the trademark is responsible.
Adam Smith made many mistakes in his “…. Wealth of Nations” of 1776 (for example he fell into the “paradox of value” trap even though he had understood many years before [in a lecture] that people do not value “gold” more than “water” they value this bit of extra gold more than they value this bit of extra water in a certain set of circumstances).
However, one mistake he did not make is to think that human being are just money profit maximisers. Certainly it is from the self interest of the butcher that we get good meat (he does not wish to poison his customers – “public health” types please note) and competition will weed out butchers (or other tradesmen) who do not value the long term.
But it is not just about maximising money income – otherwise people would work all the hours that God sends and never do anything without payment.
J.S. Mill’s economic man or Homo Economicus (or whatever one wishes to call the creature) is not a useful thought experiment.
A man who runs a supermarket is still a man. And a man who says “no Danish goods here” or “no blacks in my shop” – is not a man I wish to do business with.
Partly on moral grounds, but also partly for crude self interest – because if treats other people lkike shit he is likely to treat me like shit to (for example try and con me by selling substandard stock – hopeing I will not find out).
pommygranate asks an important question about the corporate form.
Well if my shareholders demand that I must act dishonorably the honourable course is to resign.
However, the moders corporation often has a majority of its shares owned by institutions.
I can not make a speech before the Annual General Meeting and say “We should allow black people in the store” because the people, with the power, there are not shareholders – they are fund managers (who control the majority of the shares).
What is the duty of a fund managers? I suppose the cyncial reply would be – “to their annual bonus”.
However, they are supposed to care about the long term interests of the shareholders.
I believe that the long term commerical interest of a company lies in honourable trading – i.e. even if money is the only measure (which it is not) more money will be made, in the long term, by honourable trading than by being a shit.
“What do you know, you are not a businessman” – good point.
But I still believe what I have said. For most business enterprises over the long term.
I feel so proud of our robust British press – steadfast in the face of threats to our freedom of speech! True, they didn’t run photos of the Islamoloony cartoons, but today I see The Times fearlessly ran photographs of Americans “abusing” prisoners in Abu Ghraib.