Task 3: Cohesion within paragraphs
There are four paragraphs below. For each one, complete these three steps:
1) Read the paragraph.
2) Highlight the theme, the main verb (or main verb phrase), and the comment for each
sentence within the paragraph. Use the colour code you have seen in this lesson to
help you.
3) Decide and make a note of which of the four theme and comment patterns best
describes the structure.
Paragraph a)
One of the main reasons people accuse big brands of being ‘evil’ is because of the belief
that they exploit workers, especially those in developing countries. This is because wages
per hour are significantly cheaper and taxes and regulations are less stringent in
developing countries (Madeley, 1999). For example, Thai labourers’ wages are about 56
pence per hour, so instead of hiring high cost English labourers, companies hire cheaper
Thais (Madeley, 1999). In this way, given the often weak enforcement of wage and safety
laws in developing countries, “…the large corporations […] have used their power to
effectively cause hardship for millions of the poor in developing countries” (Madeley, 1999,
p. vii). Such accusations have been one of the primary factors that have led people to
argue that big brands are ‘evil’.
Paragraph b)
Developing countries clearly see the advantages of local workers being employed by big
brands and often compete for contracts from multinational companies. Unemployment is
reduced and non-skilled work created by the presence of large corporations. This provides
opportunities for people with limited education and therefore contributes to the economy of
a developing country. Competition between developing countries to attract multinationals
can be seen in the proliferation of free-trade zones. While this policy does not necessarily
bring large amounts of tax revenue to the governments involved, it is nevertheless
pursued extensively in many parts of the developing world.
Paragraph c)
The concept of ‘glocalisation’, fast gaining currency, is an important one in this respect.
Glocalisation refers to the way in which global brands often take on a distinctly ‘local’
flavour and, rather than brands homogenizing culture, culture localizes brands (Craig and
Zeynap, 2004). The notion is a counterpoint to simplistic negative criticisms of
multinational companies, since rather than destroying local culture, big brands can
become a part of it. This verifiably real phenomenon would appear to demonstrate that, far
from being ‘evil’, big brands can be part of a process of economic development.
Paragraph d)
There are three important examples demonstrating the ethically questionable role Britain
has played in globalisation. British Aerospace were present in the Indonesia under
Suharto, and so dominated the arms market that Britain became the dictatorship's biggest
arms supplier - at the height of the genocide in East Timor. Premier Oil were one of the
biggest foreign companies invested in by Burma, whose regime had probably the worst
human rights record on earth. Similarly, Unilever, ICI and many others hold dominant
positions in developing economies and have been accused of ethical compromises. The
Department for International Development provides a certain cover for this ‘free trade’ by
offering ‘aid-for-trade’; however, this is essentially little aid at all.