Does a company mistreat it's employees? Is the company damaging the environment? Is the company backing a repressive regime? Can the company be trusted? These are increasingly questions asked by consumers rather than by politicians. While governments have allowed the interests of corporations to take precedence over the public interest, the public, through the market place, is reclaiming its interests for itself. Consumers constantly make decisions about how and where to buy, and business, at least successful ones, have learnt to react swiftly to their consumers' desires. Ethical values are now a factor in the buying decisions of a significant proportion of the population. A Mori poll in 2003 found that 74% of UK consumers said information on a company's social and ethical behaviour would influence their purchasing decisions. And, another Mori poll in 2000 found that 44% had boycotted a product or company for ethical reasons within the past 12 months. If this many people are prepared to use their consumer power in this way, business has no option but to listen.

In the age of the logo, where millions are spent on marketing and advertising, reputation and brand image are paramount. Therefore, many businesses are fearful of adverse publicity. The cost of rebuilding a negative reputation or brand image is high, in fact, once lost, a good reputation may be impossible to regain. Because of this fear, consumer pressure does seem to work. For example, nearly all the companies targeted by the actions of the 'Free Burma Coalition' pulled out of Burma. Before governments proved willing to take action against the repressive regime, consumers themselves applied sanctions with some success. Phillips, Heineken, C&A, Ralph Lauren, Motorola and Kodak were just some of the multinationals who decided that the potential attractions of the Burmese market were not enough and left the country, fearing a damaging boycott were they to remain.

Politicians, unable or unwilling to take corporations to task, are paying lip service to the demands of consumer activists. But the requests and urgings of politicians via the issuing of guidelines etc are rarely backed up by the power of the law. Companies are not compelled to enforce labour standards in their overseas operations despite politicians' rhetoric. External verification of environmental or 'corporate responsibility' programmes and reports are not required, (reducing them to PR status, or 'Greenwashing'). Governments talk of ethical foreign policies and insist they pressure trading partners behind the scenes to improve human rights. However, in the face of any possible loss of trade such talk falls by the wayside. The only financial penalties faced by companies that trade with countries such as Indonesia, Burma, Israel and Columbia are consumer boycotts by us.