One Pack = One Vaccine = One global motherhood? – A feminist analysis of ethical consumption

Hawkins – GPC, One Pack = One Global Motherhood

1

Gender, Place and Culture (2011)

One Pack = One Vaccine = One global motherhood? – A feminist analysis of ethical consumption

Roberta Hawkins, Clark University Abstract:

This article is inspired by a recent television commercial for Pampers (a brand of disposable diapers) that announces that by buying this brand of diapers ‘you can help the world’s babies in need, because, one pack of Pampers equals one life saving vaccine.’ This commercial promotes the One Pack = One Vaccine initiative between Pampers and UNICEF, a cause-related marketing (CRM) campaign, that supplies a tetanus vaccine to a woman in the South, with each purchase of Pampers in North America. In this article I critically examine the way that CRM (and the One Pack initiative in particular) links individual consumption choices to development while simultaneously delinking consumption from environmental degradation, health risks and global inequalities. Taking this argument further, I use a feminist perspective to examine the ways in which the narratives of ‘first world’ and ‘third world women’ are depicted and used in the One Pack initiative, to make certain North-South power dynamics invisible, while highlighting others. This is accomplished through a discourse of an imagined community of global motherhood. Drawing on insights gained from key informant interviews and discourse analysis, I argue that the One Pack initiative discourses constrain North-South connections to those based on capitalist and colonial power relations. This limits the potential of CRM to promote more engaged, responsible and just terms of connection between the North and South.

Keywords: cause-related marketing; ethical consumption; third world women; development; North-South ‘Helping the world’s babies in need’ – An introduction to the One Pack initiative

In the following analysis, I draw my inspiration from a Pampers commercial shown on television in North America for the One Pack = One Vaccine initiative. By doing this I am taking the everyday act of consumption seriously as a means for gaining insight into broader political, social and economic processes (Nagar et al. 2002; Dyck 2005). The One Pack initiative provides an excellent case study on the increasingly common partnerships between businesses and development aid organizations. It represents a type of ethical consumption referred to as cause-related marketing (CRM), where a product and a social cause are simultaneously marketed and the purchase of the product by consumers triggers a donation towards the cause (Berglind and Nakata 2005). Examining this initiative as an example of a broader trend in ethical consumption-development linkages provides an opportunity to reflect on the ways in which, through CRM, some North-South1 connections (such as those between consumption and development) are highlighted, while other connections (such as those between consumption and waste) are rendered invisible.

After briefly describing the details of the commercial and initiative, I discuss some of the work undertaken by geographers on ethical consumption and highlight the distinct nature of CRM initiatives. I then argue that feminist geographers have a unique contribution to make in this field because of their aim to understand personal, local acts as broader political ones (Katz


2

2001; Nagar et al 2002) and because of their attention to the important material and everyday consequences of discursive boundaries and imagined geographies (Pratt 2004). Following this I briefly discuss some of the more common debates surrounding CRM, as they apply to the One Pack initiative. I specifically focus on how consumption is framed as an individualized, capitalist solution to broad development issues hiding some of the consequences of consumption.

Next, inspired by the work of feminist geographers like Pratt (2004) and Wright (2006), I move beyond these more common CRM debates to investigate how the One Pack initiative discourses constitute subjects in certain gendered and racialized ways, focusing specifically on the narratives of ‘third world’ and ‘first world women.’ Following Pratt’s (2004, 19) claim that ‘discourses produce subject positions that not only regulate but are the medium for power relations’, I argue that the One Pack initiative’s emphasis on individual consumer action, combined with the reliance on a discourse of an imaginary global motherhood, seriously limits the potential of CRM to enable change or to foster responsible and just terms of connection between ‘distant others’ (Ahmed 2000; Massey 2004). The One Pack = One Vaccine initiative

The commercial for Pampers that inspired this article is entitled: ‘With Your Help’ (it can

be viewed online at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYfJfx220lo). It depicts a white woman pushing her baby in a stroller along an up-scale city street, window-shopping. A black woman dressed in traditional African clothing with a baby strapped to her back walks past, the baby waves at the white woman, she smiles. Next a woman, with a headscarf, apparently from India, passes by holding her baby, again the baby waves. Subsequently an Asian woman in a straw ‘rice farmer’ hat appears and her baby runs up and hugs the white woman, followed by a baby and mother dressed in what appear to be stereotypical indigenous, Mexican ponchos. While the white woman smiles to herself, the voice over (by the famous Mexican-American actress Salma Hayek) informs the viewer that: ‘When you buy specially marked Pampers, you can help the world’s babies in need, because one pack of Pampers equals one lifesaving vaccine.’ ‘Together,’ Hayek tells us, ‘we can help give babies a brighter tomorrow.’ The commercial ends with the Pampers and UNICEF logos side-by-side on the screen while underneath them we see the words: ‘1 Pack = 1 Vaccine’ (Pampers 2008a; Zammit 2008). Without the ability to pause the commercial and quickly read the long disclaimer that is flashed on the screen for four seconds, the only way to find out the details of this initiative, including seemingly crucial information (such as what the ‘lifesaving vaccine’ is for), is to read the fine print on the ‘specially marked packs’ of Pampers in your local store, or to log onto the UNICEF or Pampers websites. With relative ease and internet savvy I was able to find that between April and August of 2008: ‘For every specially marked package of Pampers sold in the US or Canada, Pampers will donate US $0.05 to the US Fund for UNICEF to help provide one tetanus vaccine to pregnant women in the developing world’ (Pampers 2008a; UNICEF 2008b).2 According to Procter and Gamble (the parent company of Pampers) and US Fund for UNICEF representatives,3 Pampers donates five cents for each package purchased during the promotional period to the US Fund for UNICEF, which then pools the money at their international headquarters and uses it to purchase tetanus vaccines, which are then distributed to local partners for administration. While five cents covered the cost of the vaccine in 2008, UNICEF used separate funds to cover the costs of vaccination (the actual transport and administration of the


3

vaccines), with a completed vaccination schedule (2 to 3 doses) costing approximately $1.20 per person (UNICEF 2000). While tetanus has been eradicated in most countries, maternal and neonatal tetanus (MNT) is still prevalent in 46 countries (UNICEF 2008d). According to UNICEF and Pampers, pregnant women and babies are particularly at risk for MNT when the umbilical chord is severed during childbirth, especially as many women ‘often must give birth at home in unsanitary conditions without access to adequate health care’ (UNICEF 2008c). Each year approximately 140,000 babies and 30,000 mothers die from MNT (UNICEF 2008d). To prevent women and children being infected with tetanus, two or three properly spaced vaccinations should be given to mothers during pregnancy or childbearing years (UNICEF 2008d). The joint Pampers and UNICEF initiative against tetanus has already run in Europe and Japan and provided over 25 million vaccines to women in 17 countries (UNICEF 2008b). The North American initiative (for which this commercial was made) donated 45 million vaccines during the five months in which it was in operation4 (Pampers 2008b). Simultaneously, in 2008, Pampers became Procter and Gamble’s first eight billion dollar brand, while Procter and Gamble itself netted 83.5 billion dollars (Procter and Gamble 2008). By articulating a feminist critique of ethical consumption in this article, I do not wish to minimize the enormous influence that 45 million vaccines can have over the elimination of MNT. Instead I wish to draw out some of the contradictions inherent in CRM as a process that promotes increased funding for development aid, while simultaneously limiting ‘participation’ in development to consumption choices and (re)producing North-South connections in superficial and troubling ways. Methods I used a variety of research methods to engage with these issues. I undertook a discourse analysis of a number of sources related to the One Pack initiative including: the commercial itself (described above), corporate/organizational reports, press releases and media commentary on the initiative. I also conducted three, hour-long, telephone interviews with representatives of Procter and Gamble, The US Fund for UNICEF, and Cone Inc. (a cause marketing firm) to gain a more in-depth understanding of how CRM works as a process. Finally, I also investigated ‘public’ opinion of these initiatives by analyzing comments on online discussion forums and blogs. These publicly accessible online sources were identified by Internet searches for keywords relevant to the initiative. The online sources included: You Tube (a video uploading and viewing site where the commercial has been viewed over 42,000 times and where 221 related comments are posted5); mothering blogs and discussion forums; news discussion forums; and celebrity gossip blogs and websites (on which the initiative is discussed because the spokeswoman for the campaign is a famous actress). Overall I read over 300 comments related to the One Pack initiative from a variety of anonymous and named Internet users and categorized them by topic. The quotes employed throughout this article from these sources are aimed to represent the main ideas circulating online about various aspects of the initiative and not the extreme points of view. There are some limitations to using online data sources such as these. The first is that when categorizing online comments it is difficult to tell if commentators are being sarcastic or serious and therefore if comments should be taken at face value. To deal with this I removed


4

extreme comments and comments that I was unsure about from my analysis. The second limitation is that the nature of the Internet and the plethora of data available on it make data collection an uncertain process. For example, in this research it is likely that more discussions about the One Pack initiative are available online but were not captured under my keyword-search and therefore are not included in this analysis. Following this, the online comments I draw on here do not represent the opinions of the general public but only those actively engaged in online environments. That being said, I find the online environment extremely applicable and useful in studying CRM. The applicability is evident by the fact that CRM consumers are heavily involved in interacting with corporations and causes online (Cone Inc. 2009). In addition, the Internet is particularly important to the One Pack initiative as Procter and Gamble have actively sought out online marketing opportunities (Adler 2006) which include inviting ‘mommybloggers’ (Douglas 2009) to participate in One Pack conferences aimed at encouraging them to promote the initiative on their websites.6 The usefulness of online data sources is evident in that the information gained from analyzing these sources helped me move beyond my own interpretations to understand how the One Pack initiative and discourse were being interpreted by consumers and audience members (some proponents of the initiative and some cynics).7 Cause-related marketing and ethical consumption Cause-related marketing The One Pack initiative by Pampers and UNICEF is a classic example of cause-related marketing, where ‘a product is marketed by tying it into a social cause…[t]ypically a portion of the sales from the item is donated to the cause’ (Berglind and Nakata 2005,443). CRM is usually one aspect of a company’s broader corporate philanthropy program and has increased tremendously in popularity since it began in the early 1980s. In fact, corporate investment in CRM increased 57% between 1999 and 2004 to 991 million dollars (Gard 2004). As companies move to make their corporate giving programs more streamlined and strategic, CRM is playing a key role in this process due to its reputation as a ‘win-win’ situation for businesses objectives and social impacts (Adler 2006; King 2006). It is perceived as increasingly important by a business community that relies more and more on consumer brand loyalty (over other unique identifiers like superior quality) to sell products (King 2006). Cause-related marketing can vary in its implementation but usually involves a company donating towards the selected cause each time a product is purchased by the consumer. The monetary donations made by the companies can vary. They range from a donation of the percentage of the purchase price, to a percentage of the profit, to a fixed sum. For example, Volvic Water donates 4 cents to UNICEF for each liter of water purchased, whereas Monblanc donates 10% of the retail price of its limited edition UNICEF pen for each one sold.8 Along with variability in the amount donated through CRM, there are also often minimum and maximum dollar agreements in place, meaning that while the organization is guaranteed a minimum donation from the company, if the maximum donation amount is reached before the end of the promotional period no additional money will be donated, regardless of the number of consumer purchases (Berglind and Nakata 2005; UNICEF 2009b). In addition to the variety in the implementation of CRM initiatives is the complexity of the company-organization relationship, which often involves more than these two entities. These


5

relationships may also involve many companies or brands within one corporation, corporate foundations that distribute the promised donations to a variety of charities, large development or philanthropic organizations and small-local organizations that focus on program implementation (Ponte, Richey and Baab 2009)9. These complex relationships makes CRM initiatives difficult to study in terms of being able to trace the flows of money, goods and ideas; not to mention being able to examine the nuanced and power-laden relationships existing between the plethora of people, places and institutions involved, especially since many initiatives only last for a few months. Another difficulty with studying CRM noted by King (2006) in her study on Breast Cancer CRM is that the initiatives are quite resistant to critique, as critical comments can be interpreted as speaking out against the cause itself (for example maternal and child health) rather than the CRM process. As well, CRM initiatives gain legitimacy through consumer participation. Research shows that consumers increasingly want to engage with causes through CRM and in 2007 38% of Americans purchased CRM-related products (Cone Inc. 2008). This makes critiques of these initiatives seem all the more personal (King 2006). Despite this complexity and sensitivity, I believe that it is important to look critically at CRM processes using a feminist geographic perspective because of the way that these CRM initiatives attempt to connect consumers, companies, social issues and products in a complicated web of people, places, global responsibility, and individual everyday action. As I explain below, incorporating a feminist perspective into the work already underway by geographers on ethical consumption and taking discourse and representation seriously in the debates about the pros and cons of CRM will be useful tools in analyzing CRM processes such as the One Pack initiative. Ethical consumption

Ethical consumption is not a new concept to geography and can be broadly understood as: consumption choices based on ethical considerations such as environmental health or workers’ rights (Low and Davenport 2007). Because the decision to purchase CRM-related products is often based on the consumer’s aim to support companies that are donating to social causes (Cone Inc. 2008) CRM can be considered a form of ethical consumption, although, as I describe below, it also differs from the ethical consumption initiatives generally studied by geographers. Of particular interest to geographers studying ethical consumption has been the way that intimate, personal acts can have a political impact on a global level (Hartwick 2000). The use of commodity chain analysis in this work, which traces the path of commodities and aims to link producers to distributors and consumers (Hartwick 2000; Goss 2006) has greatly contributed to illustrating how ethical consumption is a local and global process. A variety of studies exist based on these premises, most of which concentrate on following a particular commodity through the many places and people it encounters in the production-consumption process (Cook et al. 2004; Friedberg 2004; Goss 2006). This work on commodity chains often draws on Marx’s idea of commodity fetishism that highlights how capitalist production of commodities hides the exploitative environmental, economic and social relations that lie behind them (Marx 1867; Goodman 2004). A lot (though not all) of the work on ethical consumption thus far has focused on unveiling this commodity fetish to consumers (in order to change their consumption habits) and on reconnecting the sites of production and consumption, especially with regards to exploitative labor and environmental practices (e.g. Hartwick 2000; Emel 2002). As a result, most of this work focuses on fair trade


6

or organic products that are well known for bringing consumers and producers ‘closer’ together (e.g. Hudson and Hudson 2003). Accordingly, there have been recent calls in the field to re-conceptualize ethical consumption more broadly to include the inherently ethical nature of all consumption decisions and to include products in our analyses that are not considered elitist and inaccessible, as highly priced fair trade and organic products often are (Barnett et al. 2005; Guthman 2008; Hall 2009). It is here that CRM initiatives appear unique, compared to the majority of the ethical-consumption covered in the geographic literature. First: CRM initiatives are experienced by a wider audience than traditional ethical consumption initiatives are. Not only are CRM-products generally more affordable than more ‘traditional’ ethical consumption products, despite their brand-names (as discussed below), but also CRM initiatives are aggressively marketed in national/international advertising campaigns (Zammit 2008); meaning that CRM discourses are experienced by large audiences including people who are not necessarily consumers of these products. These distinctions point to a need to conceptualize ethical consumption more broadly in terms of products sold, and also point to the importance of a critical discursive analysis of the messages promoted by CRM initiatives. Second and perhaps more fundamentally: unlike fair trade and organic consumption practices that at least in part act to unveil the commodity fetish by re-linking consumers and producers, CRM discourses completely overlook all aspects of production by focusing on the aid beneficiary and distant people and places. This process does not contribute to defetishization, as many ethical consumption initiatives aim to do, but instead acts to further fetishize the commodity in particular ways. The focus of CRM campaigns on helping ‘distant others’ (like mothers and babies in the South at risk for tetanus) acts to further delink the commodity from its material roots of production obscuring the exploitative and environmentally harmful aspects of the production process. CRM discourses frame their products as ethical, not by linking them to ethical production processes, but instead by linking them to the improved lives of distant people, in many ways (re)fetishizing the product in complex ways. Examples of this (re)fetishization will be developed in more detail throughout the article.

Despite CRM’s uniqueness, the work of ethical consumption geographers is extremely useful in terms of: highlighting consumption as a personal/local and political/global process; illustrating the importance of analyzing the movement of money and products through CRM networks; and demonstrating how the purchase of these products has material, everyday impacts on the lives of producers, consumers and, in this case, aid beneficiaries. Because of the way in which CRM initiatives are simultaneously material and discursive, and the way in which the One Pack initiative in particular is discursively framed as caring for ‘distant others’ through the use of images and conceptions of certain categories of women, I suggest that this work on ethical consumption can be expanded upon by the inclusion of feminist perspectives. Feminist analyses of ethical consumption Feminist geography has an important role to play in analyzing ethical consumption. Feminists have long purported that globalized political economy must be understood to include local, intimate, everyday acts, like consumption (Katz 2001; Nagar et al 2002). As well, on a more concrete note, women in the United States remain responsible for 80% of household consumption (Johnson and Learned 2004) and are specifically targeted by CRM firms who see them as compassionate, caring consumers (Cone Inc. 2008).


7

Thus far there are only a handful of feminist analyses of CRM. Notable work includes Samantha King’s (2006) study on breast cancer CRM and the gendered and racialized access to philanthropy that comes with it. Johnson and Taylor’s (2008) work argues that The Dove Real Beauty Campaign encourages consumption based on feminist ideals (of positive body image for example) while simultaneously limiting the types of action consumers can take towards achieving these ideals. They explicitly note the need for a feminist analysis of key political economic actors, like transnational corporations, because of their ability to reach many people and shape the public’s understanding of (feminist) issues (Johnson and Taylor 2008). Drawing on these insightful analyses, I believe that a feminist geographic perspective on CRM, following the work of Pratt (2004) and Wright (2006) will be especially useful in interrogating CRM processes because of the way that these perspectives have combined discursive analysis of the production of gendered subjects with critical and material analyses of exploitation. These authors look at the way that discursive boundary formation and imagined geographies have material implications in the situated lives of women, constituting the very possibilities of subject formation and political action (e.g. Pratt 1999; Wright 2009). This perspective is useful in examining CRM and specifically the One Pack initiative here because of the way that the initiative constitutes ethical consumers in the North in relation to ‘distant other’ aid beneficiaries in the South in particular racialized and gendered ways. Below I will engage with some of the commonly discussed debates regarding the pros and cons of CRM by examining how ethical consumption in the One Pack initiative is framed through a discourse of development and individual action, while the consequences of this consumption remain opaque; expanding on my argument above about the (re)fetishization process that takes place in CRM ethical consumption initiatives. In the following section I aim to complicate these ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ by bringing a feminist geographic perspective to the discussion to investigate how geographic imaginaries of communities of global mothers are used systematically to connect women across distances, while simultaneously creating and reinforcing boundaries between them. Consumption, development and consequences Consumption, the market and development

One of the main debates regarding CRM is the way that philanthropy is corporatized and the market is framed as the only vector through which citizens have the power to enact change. According to Richey and Ponte (2006) who study Product (RED)TM – the well known initiative promoted by U2’s Bono and Geoffrey Sacks that donates money to The Global Fund to fight AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis – in CRM initiatives, direct philanthropy is substituted with ethical market purchases, removing development aid from the hands of the individual and placing it into the hands of corporations. Bono supports this idea by claiming that there appears to be a ‘certain distrust of aid’ (or what Goodman (2004, 892) terms ‘aid fatigue’) by citizens who are concerned about institutional inefficiency and government corruption (CNN 2002). Bono argues that corporations are best placed to handle development dollars based on their efficiency and ability to market goods (Bishop 2006).

One of the main concerns with this idea is the problematic way in which individual acts of consumption are framed as acts of democratic power. Individual power to change the world is located solely in purchasing power and engagement with corporations. This concept of power


8

rests on the idea that the market is an avenue for democratic expression, stronger in many ways than the political arena (Hudson and Hudson 2003).

The work of Clarke and colleagues (2007) on ethical consumption campaigning in the United Kingdom complicates this view of ethical buying as a substitute for other kinds of political action. They find that many ethical buying guides frame ethical consumption as a supplement not a substitute to political actions already being taken by the consumer/citizen. However, unlike the discourse in these ethical buying guides, the discourse surrounding the One Pack initiative really does appear to focus on the ability of individuals to make a difference only through the market. For example, when discussing the initiative, Hayek (the spokeswoman) states that ‘through this program parents have the power to help supply much needed vaccines through UNICEF simply by purchasing a pack of Pampers,’ implying that without the program and the option to make a change through ‘simple’ purchases parents lack the power to act on these matters (UNICEF 2008a).

Reflecting this focus on the market, there is very little mention in any of the One Pack initiative press documents or online discussion forums of other options for participating in the elimination of MNT; for example by lobbying governments to increase spending on health care training or facilities, or by donating directly to UNICEF to purchase MNT vaccines. In fact, a press release from the US Fund for UNICEF introducing the initiative encourages those without children in diapers to purchase a pack anyway, for a friend or for a charity, ensuring that they too can help to ‘provide a life saving vaccine to UNICEF’ (UNICEF 2008a).

Consumers expressed similar sentiments, stating in many online forums that they wanted to purchase Pampers even though they had no need for them, or that they justified purchasing the more expensive brand because of the One Pack initiative. For example ‘Miss Jen’ stated on a mothering blog: ‘I thought about going cheaper with a different brand but my heart cries out for the little ones who might die because they don’t get a simple vaccine.’ 10 There is no mention here (though many others do make the connection) that purchasing a cheaper brand of diapers and donating the difference directly to UNICEF would actually buy significantly more vaccines (144 vaccines by my calculation).11

This narrow framing of development aid as consumption is also considered problematic based on the fact that not everybody can actually participate in CRM, given that the initiatives only involve brand-name commodities that are generally more expensive than non-branded ones. While arguably not as elitist as fair trade or organic goods (as argued above) it remains that only some combinations of class, education level, race, existing knowledge, etc., can be mobilized ‘for a good cause’ (Goodman 2004; Guthman 2008). This will perhaps make some consumers who cannot afford the branded products feel as though they are unable to participate in ‘giving babies a brighter tomorrow’ (Pampers 2008a). Compounding these issues is the idea that generosity and philanthropy are important aspects of being an American citizen (King 2006), making participating in CRM initiatives a way to engage with an identity as a caring and ethical globalized citizen. Interestingly, a Procter and Gamble representative indirectly addressed this accessibility issue in an interview. He pointed out that if families are not well enough off to invest in charities themselves, then at least by buying Pampers (a product they might normally buy) they can be assured that they are contributing to philanthropic ideals. Consumption consequences

While the first aspect of the CRM debate addressed above highlights the way that development and consumption are linked through CRM discourses, a second concern addresses


9

the ways in which these discourses act to de-link consumption (mainly in the North) from its consequences (mainly in the South).12 Richey and Ponte (2006, 4) claim that CRM initiatives create a ‘world where it is possible to have as much as you want without depriving anyone else’. By this they mean that highlighting the connection of consumption to development, acts to simultaneously obscure the fact that consumption in the North is largely responsible for environmental degradation and increased inequality and poverty (often in the South) (Hobson 2003; Richey and Ponte 2006).

This issue is particularly relevant to disposable diapers, a product well known for its environmental and health risks. It is estimated that 27.4 billion disposable diapers are used each year in the United States, leading to 3.4 million tons of landfill waste (Paul 2008). As well, producing disposable diapers consumes large amounts of petroleum, chlorine, wood pulp and water (Paul 2008). However, through the focus of the One Pack discourse on development, consumers now associate the Pampers brand with UNICEF and with concerns of maternal and baby health as opposed to associating Pampers with the countries and factories in which the diapers are produced, or a production process that results in dangerous by-products (Environment Canada 2004). This link between Pampers and baby health in the South is particularly ironic because of the various health concerns related to the use of disposable diapers. Studies have linked disposable diaper use to excessive diaper rash, toxic shock syndrome, infertility and testicular cancer (Barrow no date; BBC 2000). There are also health risks involved with the disposal of diapers which creates breeding grounds for viruses by leaving millions of tonnes of untreated human waste to leach into soils and water resources (Environment Canada 2004).

This linking of Pampers to improved baby health is evident in campaign literature, for example with the Vice-President of Pampers claiming that Pampers and UNICEF have a similar mission: ‘to support the well being of babies’ (UNICEF 2008a). While information about the campaign is prominently displayed on the Pampers website, information on the health risks or production of the diapers is (not surprisingly) entirely lacking (Pampers 2008b). Richey and Ponte (2006) claim that issues like disease prevention are more easily linked to CRM initiatives because the connection between disease and poverty in the South and over-consumption in the North is less easily identified than something like an environmental issue, where consumers might immediately see the hypocrisy. It is also possible that the linking of Pampers to maternal and baby health is used as a mechanism to mask health concerns related to the product itself, a tactic that, according to King (2006), is commonplace in CRM initiatives (see for example the Breast Cancer Action Network’s critique of ‘pinkwashers -companies that claim to care about breast cancer by promoting its contributions from sales, but manufacture products that are linked to the disease’) (King 2006; BCA 2008). The extent to which the One Pack initiative has further fetishized the commodity of Pampers is demonstrated on online chat forums and blogs for parents where online comments very rarely mentioned the health or environmental risks of producing or using disposable diapers. Most online participants voiced support for the initiative, commenting on how they love the song used in the commercial, think the babies are cute or find the message touching. Others voiced concern over the low (five-cent) donation offered with each purchase.13 Interestingly, one strong strand of opposition to the One Pack initiative did not criticize Pampers’ involvement in the initiative but UNICEF’s. These opponents took issue with UNICEF’s stance on abortion14 and international adoption15 and online commentators tried to get their readers to boycott Pampers because of its partnership with UNICEF and to contact Pampers and persuade them to stop their


10

cooperation with the organization. One You Tube contributor stated disapproval of the commercial saying: ‘I just had to speak out tonight because it makes me sick to think about how they [UNICEF] hide behind a mask of caring.’16 As well, a mommyblogger encouraged her readers to ‘call 1-800-PAMPERS and let them know why they SHOULD NOT team up with UNICEF if their goal is to HELP CHILDREN’17 (capitals in original). The assumptions here that UNICEF is the partner hiding behind a ‘mask of caring’ and that Pampers’ goal is to ‘help children’, rather than make a profit or increase brand loyalty for example, demonstrates the extent to which the One Pack discourse is turning much of the audience’s attention away from the details of the product and producer and towards development, UNICEF and ideas of helping ‘distant others’.

One might counter the above arguments by claiming that obscuring information about the product and producer is actually an irrelevant concern when it comes to CRM, as one of the main goals of these initiatives is to raise awareness about a social cause (Cone Inc. 2008). While it does seem to be the case that awareness is raised about MNT through the One Pack initiative, taking a page from King’s (2006) work, it is important to ask: what exactly are consumers asked to become aware of? The commercial, through which most people encounter the initiative, does not mention MNT specifically. Information on the disease is available through other venues (like press releases), however analysis of online forums reveals that forum participants often misunderstood, or were unaware of, the information on MNT. For example, some participants did not realize that the MNT vaccinations are going to mothers and not directly to infants and others claimed incorrectly that MNT causes children to be born blind.18

Additionally, the awareness-raising in the One Pack initiative focuses on the promise of vaccines for the elimination of MNT, negating important structural economic, social and environmental issues related to the contraction of the disease like inaccessible health care, unsanitary birthing conditions, lack of access to clean water, and women’s inequality. So while it may be argued that the One Pack initiative raises consumer awareness about MNT, it seems that this awareness is not well informed and focuses on narrow, aid-based and individualized solutions to a complex disease.

To summarize, I have argued above that the One Pack initiative discourses reinforce the link between individual consumption decisions and ‘participating’ in development by portraying the market as the (only) means through which people in the North can gain the power to affect change. In this process the commodity of Pampers is (re)fetishzed by discourses of maternal and baby health that mask the consequences of consuming disposable diapers on the environment, health and global inequalities. In the section below, I take this argument further to look at how representations of women and mothers in the One Pack commercial and initiative reinforce certain North-South boundaries and power dynamics, limiting the potential for more diverse forms of North-South connection and political action. Imagined geographies: Global motherhood

Bryant and Goodman (2004) argue that commodities like green and fair trade products

speak to consumers through the use of political ecology narratives, such as environmental conservation and social justice. In these narratives, a geographic or political ecology imaginary is used to bring the producer and consumer closer together (Goodman 2004). Similarly, the One Pack initiative discourse engages with development narratives and geographic imaginaries (Said 1978; Pratt, 2004) to bring moral and political relevance to the act of consumption. These


11

narratives bring the consumer closer, not to the producer, but to an imagined community (Anderson 1983; Crang, Dwyer and Jackson 2003) of global motherhood. ‘First world women’ and ‘third world women’ The One Pack initiative encourages consumption of Pampers by connecting consumers in North America to a global motherhood, and to a ‘distant other,’(Ahmed 2000; Massey 2004) – a ‘third world woman' (Mohanty 1991). This idea is commonly reiterated on blogs and online forums. For example a blogger known as ‘alphamom’ states: ‘I love this because it is easy and simple to understand and ultimately connects moms in the developed world who want to help moms in the developing world.’19 Another online comment says: ‘Come on Women, mothers, let's help these women out.’20 Hayek herself states of the 2009 launch of the campaign: ‘What really excited me about this was the concept of mothers from around the world working together to protect children.’21 These comments equate individual acts of consumption with a sense of community, working together and global connection. The commercial discourse constructs two different types of women: ‘first world women’ and ‘third world women’, groups that can possibly connect with one another through the One Pack initiative. It does this by playing upon common stereotypes, most obviously by representing the ‘third world women’ and babies in traditional indigenous clothing. The fact that these babies and women are thanking the white woman in the commercial reproduces common constructions of ‘first world women’ as the guardian angels of ‘third world women’ who are often depicted as powerless victims in development and globalization processes (Mohanty 1991). Many online discussion participants picked up on these insinuations stating things like: ‘the subtle undertone is that a white woman is not only the saving force for ethnic communities, but also the face of affluence and disposable income’; or more poignantly: ‘this commercial is racist as hell.’22 The construction of women through the One Pack commercial is a good example of concerns that have plagued many feminist scholars for some time (see Mohanty 1991; Chowdry 1995 for examples). Depicting the ‘third world women’ as backwards, traditional and victims, simultaneously depicts ‘first world women’ as modern, forward thinking and saviors (Said 1978; Mohanty 1991). These representations follow what Kothari describes as racialized colonial dichotomies (such as rational/emotional, traditional/modern, etc.) that are often used as justifications for one group to intervene in ‘developing’ another (2006,13). As well, these discourses perpetuate the idea that women can fall into one of two groups (‘first world’ or ‘third world’, consumers or victims) and that these groups are homogeneous, bounded, place-based, and unequal in terms of the power balance between them (see Sheppard and Nagar 2004). Discursive Boundaries: Who are ‘us’ and ‘them’? The ‘first world’ and ‘third world women’ in the One Pack discourse occupy different spheres in terms of power and are also divided by a distance and separation that is maintained by discursive boundaries of ‘us’ and ‘them’. The ‘third world women’ float in and out of the commercial as if in a dream. This reflects the idea that the only acceptable immigrant bodies are temporary, flexible and ‘ghost-like’ (Smith and Winders 2008,66) and entrenches the message that the only way these ‘distant others’ can be reached by ‘ordinary’ people is through global ethical consumption initiatives, such as this one. A representative from the ad agency who created the commercial explained that: ‘putting [these women and children] in her world shows how easy it is to make a difference…It has really brought [the program] to life emotionally’


12

(Gates-Bonarius quoted in Zammit 2008, emphasis mine). The fact that the ‘third world women’ have no contact with one another, and are only connected to this global initiative through the consumption decision of ‘first world women’, reinforces these ideas. It is possible that maintaining this distance between ‘first world’ and ‘third world women’ in the commercial might be a reaction to common anxieties about security threats, or the spread of disease, which are often closely associated with seeing immigrant women as reproductive agents (Hartmann, Subramanian and Zerner 2005; Hyndman 2005; Smith and Winders 2008). Evidence of the marketing team deliberately maintaining strict boundaries between the North and South can be seen in the casting-call for actresses to play one of the ‘third world women’ in the commercial which calls for a:

[MEXICAN MOM/INDIGENOUS] Lead/Female/Hispanic/25-30 NO MIXED ETHNICITIES. WE NEED WOMEN WITH STRONG AZTEC/INCA/MAYAN FEATURES. THIS IS THE REAL DEAL FOLKS. PLEASE NOTE IF YOU KNOW ANYONE WHO FITS THIS SPEC THAT ISN'T AN ACTOR PLEASE CALL ME. Wardrobe: Tradition garb or casual’ (Newman-Carrasco, 2008, capitals in original).

This casting-call demonstrates how particular physical traits (like ‘Mayan features’) are understood as representing fixed racial categories (like an Indigenous Mexican) (Kothari 2006; Guthman 2008), categories that marketers must feel will be identified and understood by audiences in particular ways. The explicit prohibition of mixed races or ethnicities here can be read as a further attempt to draw a distinction between the categories of ‘first world’ and ‘third world women’ within the One Pack commercial and initiative. These boundaries reinforce the idea that there is a clearly bounded ‘us’ and ‘them’ that is suppose to be self-evident to most viewers (Said 1978; Kothari 2006). These distinctions may be drawn in order to highlight consumption as a means for demonstrating a minimum amount of responsibility towards others while caring at a (safe) distance. In fact a representative from the marketing firm that created the commercial stated that the firm’s goal was to create an emotional bond with the children in need without making viewers feel guilty, or turning them off the program, or product (Zammit 2008).23 An imagined global motherhood While the boundaries between the groups ‘first world women’/‘us’ and ‘third world women’/‘them’ are strictly maintained in many senses throughout the One Pack discourse, one thing is clear: the women involved in the One Pack initiative are depicted as making up a global community of motherhood. This community is joined together through their common identities as mothers. This motherhood identity is constructed somewhat differently for ‘third world’ and ‘first world women’; with the former presumably caring about the well-being of their children but lacking the knowledge and resources to do anything about it, while the latter is assumed to be in a position (through CRM) to care for and protect the children of all ‘community’ members. In many ways the following statement by Hayek sums up this sentiment. She says:

‘The thought of somebody in Los Angeles, where I come from, purchasing the one pack of Pampers ... by doing this that they were going to do anyway, they could ... provide one vaccine for another mother somewhere else in the world, someone they don’t know ... these anonymous women around the world coming together to protect women and to protect children was really exciting.’24


13

The idea that a community of anonymous women (identified only through their roles as mothers) around the world exists, and that these women have similar concerns, mirrors feminist conceptions regarding the existence of a global sisterhood (see Antrobus; 2004). Similarly, this concept of a global motherhood risks making assumptions about women’s needs, goals, ability and desires, erasing the power inequalities that exist between individual women and groups of women and ignoring relevant issues such as race, class and nationality (see for example hooks 1984; Mohanty 1991; Basu 2000). Perhaps more importantly for an analysis of CRM, Hayek’s statement ignores the fact that by consuming Pampers alone in a supermarket, women are not coming together at all; not physically and not even in dialogue. It is therefore, only through the images invoked by the One Pack narrative that the imagined community of global mothers exists. Associated with this imagined community are imagined geographies that are invoked by the actresses playing ‘third world women’ in the commercial and wearing traditional clothing. This encourages viewers to associate the ‘third world women’ with one of four global regions (Africa, South Asia, East Asia and Latin America), increasing the anonymity of the women by drawing on one-dimensional stereotypes of people and places. The results of these imagined geographies can be seen in online comments where participants showed little regard for the specificities of the people or places that they argued they wished to help through their consumption choices often using very generalized terms to refer to aspects of the commercial and initiative, with comments such as: ‘Well, if they need help, we tend to give it;’ and ‘People need to do more for underdeveloped countries. *tear*.’25 The category ‘third world women’ is made even more anonymous by the lack of information on where the MNT vaccines actually go. In the footnote of one UNICEF (2008a) press release a list of twelve countries to which the majority of the vaccines are sent can be found, all of which are in Africa. This makes the representations of women from Latin America, India, and Asia in the commercial seem all the more arbitrary. The geographic imaginary used then in the One Pack initiative is of a global motherhood that is located everywhere and at the same time nowhere. While the construction of ‘third world women’ is particularly damaging, I believe that the co-constitution of ‘first world women’ through the One Pack initiative is also problematic. ‘First world women’ are produced as ethical consumers and mothers in relation to ‘third world’ counterparts who are in need of aid. ‘First world women’s’ ability to engage in environmental and global development issues is represented as limited to superficial acts of consumption, reflecting the first critique of ethical consumption as development noted above. This insinuates that ‘first world women’ are unable to learn about these issues or participate in them through venues other than consumption, such as politics, activism, employment or volunteer work. Overall, through CRM and the imagined geographies intertwined in this discourse, the ways in which women in the North and South can connect to one another are limited to capitalist and colonialist power dynamics. Conclusion: The need for feminist input The increasing popularity of CRM within the business community and the aggressiveness with which these initiatives are promoted to Northern audiences points to a need to critically analyze CRM and ethical consumption initiatives like One Pack = One Vaccine. Taking inspiration from previous work on ethical consumption, I have argued here that the One Pack


14

initiative highlights the links between consumption and development in order to frame consumption as a moralistic and ethical act. This in turn further fetishizes the commodity of Pampers by obscuring links between consumption and production, environmental degradation, health risks and global inequality. Through this discourse, the purchase of Pampers is seen as the most efficient, and perhaps the only, way in which consumers have the ‘power’ to influence global development issues. Using a feminist geographic perspective I add to this argument by drawing attention to the discursive representations of women and mothers in the One Pack initiative. Throughout the initiative, problematic depictions of ‘first world’, ‘third world women’ and a community of global motherhood are drawn upon to encourage consumption. I argue that critically analyzing these discourses highlights how the One Pack initiative is not only limiting North-South connections to those mediated by the market, but is also limiting these connections to gendered and colonialist relations, reinforcing already unequal power dynamics between the North and the South. This limits the possibilities for meaningful and respectful connections and political collaborations between women and more generally between distant people and places. On certain fronts the One Pack initiative can be considered a success. Forty-five million vaccines were donated during its five-month course and awareness of MNT has increased in some respects. Paradoxically, it is simultaneously the case that promoting North-South connections through CRM initiatives, such as the One Pack initiative, reduces political power for change to consumption practices alone and encourages representations of the actors involved in these processes that are stark, inaccurate and problematic. If CRM really is a ‘new frontier’ in development (Richey and Ponte 2006, 1) then it is absolutely crucial that the power-laden discursive and material processes of these initiatives be analyzed closely and critically. As feminist geographers it is important that we look beyond the more traditionally studied pros and cons of CRM and ethical consumption to take seriously the nuanced and complex nature of these initiatives and the way that their discursive boundaries and imagined geographies affect the possibilities of subject formation and political, everyday action in people’s lives. Feminist work on an ethics of care and responsibility (Massey 2004; Lawson 2007); on trans-national solidarities (Mohanty 2003); and the use of counter topographies (drawing analytical contours through places usually thought of as discreet, but experiencing similar global pressures) (Katz 2001); may all be useful in moving forward in this task of identifying and analyzing various ethical consumption initiatives and alternatives that hold promise for responsible, just and informed alliance-building across space and differences. Acknowledgements Drafts of this article were presented at Sexing the Globe: Affairs at Home and A/broad, a conference at the Pennsylvania State University on 21 February 2009 and at the Royal Geographical Society Annual Conference, in Manchester, UK on 28 August 2009. The audience questions and comments at these events helped me greatly in developing my ideas further. I would also like to thank Diana Ojeda, Alex Hughes and three anonymous reviewers for their very insightful and helpful comments.


15

Notes on Contributor Roberta Hawkins is a PhD Candidate in the Graduate School of Geography at Clark University. This article is part of her ongoing dissertation research on ethical consumption-as-development. Her research interests include feminist theory, gender and the environment, development, North-South connections and collaborations, knowledge production, the body and feminist analyses of consumption. Notes: 1 I use the terms North and South throughout this article for lack of better terms, realizing that they are socially constructed and problematic in nature. 2 Another North American initiative was in effect between February and May 2009 where $0.07 was donated to the cause per package of diapers purchased (UNICEF 2009a). 3 Upon request I do not use the interview participants names or job titles in this article. 4, The 2009 initiative resulted in 30 million more vaccines being donated (UNICEF 2009a) 5 As of 21 June 2009 6 Examples of ‘mommybloggers’ invited to attend One Pack initiative events include: www.momspark.net and www.bostonmamas.com 7 I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for helping me frame my analysis of representations in this way. 8 http://www.unicefusa.org/donate/other-ways-to-give/partner-offers.html last accessed: 26 November 2009 9 For example: Product (RED)™ involves lending the Product (RED)TM brand to a variety of products (e.g. Apple I-pods) the sale of which triggers a donation by the parent companies equaling a certain percentage of the profits (different for each product) to The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis (Ponte, Richey and Baab 2009). 10 Posted on 31 March 2009 – discussion board comment on: http://momspark.net/pampers-one-pack-one-vaccine-campaign-giveaway/ 11 It is difficult to compare the price between different brands of disposable diapers because the quantity in each package varies per brand and prices vary per store. One mother blogger who went to the trouble of comparing the prices of the largest box of diapers in size 3 found that Pampers cost 21 cents per diaper, Huggies, 27 cents, Luvs 18 cents and Kirkland (the Costco store brand) 17.4 cents. This means that by purchasing a package of 200 size 3 diapers in the Kirkland brand over the Pampers brand a consumer can potentially save $7.20, which if donated to UNICEF would translate into 144 MNT vaccines. Posted on: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/375319/a_moms_review_of_the_top_diaper_brands.html?cat=25 12 For example see ‘Brazil kicks up stink over British Rubbish’ (Murakawa and Grudgings 2009) 13 For examples see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYfJfx220lo&feature=related and http://celebrity-babies.com/2008/01/13/salma-hayek-tea/ 14 These critics of UNICEF are displeased with what they see as UNICEF overtly promoting abortion around the world. (e.g. http://www.lifeissues.org/UNICEF/unicef.htm; http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/oct/04101201.html) 15 UNICEF takes issue with the way in which international adoptions are conducted in Guatemala in an ex-judicial process they recommend only in-country adoptions (e.g. http://www.familieswithoutborders.com/FWBstudyGuatemala.pdf ). 16 Comment by: Junglee786 (2008) on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAvjWVj12AU 17 Posted 2 July 2008 by Becca Atkins-Stumbo on: http://princessellaruth.blogspot.com/2008/07/pampers-unicef-and-derby-pie.html 18 Comments by nwaka82 (2009) and ChulaKirby (2008) on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYfJfx220lo&feature=related 19 Posted by Kallman, I. on 13 August 2008 on http://www.alphamom.com/mmb/2008/08/pampers_unicef_connect_moms_ar.php 20 Comments by 177Cooper on 6 February 2009 on: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/comments?type=story&id=6804291 21 As quoted on 5 February 2009 on: http://www.celebrity-gossip.net/celebrities/hollywood/salma-hayek-one-pack-one-vaccine-211185/


16

22 Comments by Arrasando99 (2008) and Nahyacita (2009) on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYfJfx220lo&feature=related 23 Despite these efforts to maintain a strict ‘us’ and ‘them’ dichotomy there are areas of the One Pack discourse where the boundaries are more leaky. For example, the ‘first world woman’ is considered white by most audience members despite her dark hair and the voiceover of Hayek’s Mexican-American accent. The fact that she is perceived as such is likely related to the fact that she is affluent and depicted as the savior of traditional-looking ‘third world women’. Linking this to King’s (2006) argument that donating to charity is an important part of being a ‘proper’ American, and that fact that the 2009 One Pack initiative is directed at an audience of Latina mothers in the US, could indicate that a subtle message embedded in the CRM discourse is that through helping ‘distant others’ non-white consumers can demonstrate that they themselves are no longer part of the category ‘other’. These slippages between ‘us’ and ‘them’ highlight the complex entanglements between race, class and gender that I plan to explore further in future work. 24 As quoted on 5 February 2009 on: http://www.celebrity-gossip.net/celebrities/hollywood/salma-hayek-one-pack-one-vaccine-211185/ 25 Comments by sophie264 (2008), edielicious (2008) and hilarybillery (2009) on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYfJfx220lo&feature=related


17

References Adler, S.D. 2006. Cause for concern: Results-oriented cause marketing. Ohio: Thompson South Western. Ahmed, S. 2000. Strange encounters: Embodied others in post-coloniality. New York: Routledge. Anderson, B. 1983. Imagined communities. New York: Verso

Antrobus, P. 2004. The global women's movement: Origins, issues and strategies. London: Zed Books.

Barnett, C., P. Cloke, N. Clarke, and A. Malpass. 2005. Consuming Ethics: Articulating the subjects and spaces of ethical consumption. Antipode 37, no. 1: 23-45 Barrows, M. no date. Are disposable diapers dangerous? http://www.landfill-site.com/html/disposable_dangers.html (accessed September 25, 2008). Basu, A. 2000. Globalization of the local/localization of the global: Mapping transnational women’s movements. Meridians 1, no. 1: 68-109. BBC. 2000. Nappy ‘link to infertility.’ Sept, 25. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/941174.stm BCA. 2008. Breast Cancer Action targets Yoplait in ‘Think Before You Pink’ campaign; Calls for yogurt without artificial hormones. September 24. http://bcaction.org/index.php?page=080924-2 Berglind, M., and C. Nakata. 2005. Cause-related marketing: More buck than bang? Business Horizons 48, no. 5: 443-453. Bishop, M. 2006. ‘View from Davos: Bono marketing his red badge of virtue.’ Daily Telegraph, January, 27. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2930938/View-from-Davos-Bono-marketing-his-red-badge-of-virtue.html Bryant, R.L., and M.K. Goodman. 2004. Consuming narratives: the political ecology of ‘alternative’ consumption. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographer 29, no. 3: 344-366. Chowdry, G. 1995. Engendering development? Women in development (WID) in international development regimes. In Feminist/Postmoderism/Development, ed. Marchand, M.H., and J.L. Parpart, 26-41. New York: Routledge. Clarke, N., C. Barnett, P. Cloke, and A. Malpass. 2007. Globalising the consumer: Doing politics in an ethical register. Political Geography 26, no. 3: 231-249. CNN. 2002. Gates, Bono, unveil ‘data agenda’ for Africa. http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/Industry/02/02/gates.bono.africa/


18

Cone Inc. 2009. Consumer New Media Study. Boston: Cone Inc. _____. 2008. Past. Present. Future. The 25th anniversary of cause marketing. Boston: Cone Inc. Cook, I. et al. 2004. Follow the thing: Papaya. Antipode 36, no. 4: 642-664. Crang , P., C. Dwyer, and P. Jackson. 2003. Transnationalism and the spaces of commodity culture. Progress in Human Geography 27, no. 4: 438-455. Douglas, A. 2009. Web 2.0: Meet the Mommyblogger. In Freidman, M and S.L. Calixte (eds). Mothering and blogging: The radical act of the Mommyblog. Toronto: Demeter Press. Ch 11. Dyck, I. 2005. Feminist geography, the ‘everyday,’ and local-global relations: Hidden spaces of place-making. The Canadian Geographer 49, no. 3: 233-43. Emel, J. 2002. The green disciplining of capital. Environment and Planning A 34, no. 5: 827-843. Environment Canada. 2004. What are the environmental benefits to using cloth versus disposable diapers? EnviroZine: Environment Canada’s On-line News Magazine, 45. August 5. http://www.ec.gc.ca/envirozine/english/issues/45/any_questions_e.cfm Friedberg, S. 2004. French beans and food scares: culture and commerce in an anxious age. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Gard, L. 2004. We’re good guys, buy from us. Business Week 3909: 72-73. Goodman, M.K. 2004. Reading fair trade: political ecological imaginary and the moral economy of fair trade foods. Political Geography 23, no. 7: 891-915. Goss, J. 2006. Geographies of consumption: the work of consumption. Progress in Human Geography 30, no. 2: 237-249. Guthman, J. 2008. ‘If they only knew’ Colorblindness and universalism in California alternative food institutions. The Professional Geographer 60, no. 3: 387-397. Hall, S.M. 2009. “Deconstructing Ethical Consumption”. Royal Geographic Society Annual International Conference Presentation. Manchester, England. August 28, 2009. Hartmann, B., B. Subramaniam, and C. Zerner. 2005. Introduction. In Making threats: Biofears and environmental anxieties. ed Hartmann, B., B. Subramaniam and C. Zerner, 1-24. Roman and Littlefield. Hartwick, E. 2000. Toward a geographical politics of consumption. Environment and Planning A 32, no. 7: 1177-1192. Hobson, K. 2003. Thinking habits into action: the role of knowledge and process in questioning household consumption practices. Local Environment 8, no. 1: 95-112.


19

hooks, B. 1984. Feminist theory: From margin to center. South End Press. Hudson, I., and M. Hudson. 2003. Removing the veil? Commodity fetishism, fair trade and the environment. Organization and Environment 16, no. 4: 413- 430. Hyndman, J. 2005. Migration wars: refuge or refusal? Geoforum 36, no. 1: 3-6. Johnson, L., and A. Learned. 2004. Don’t think pink: What really makes women buy – and how to increase your share of this crucial market. New York: American Management Association. Johnson, J., and J. Taylor. 2008. Feminist consumerism and fat activists: A comparative study of grassroots activism and the Dove Real Beauty campaign. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 33, no. 4: 941-966. Katz, C. 2001. On the grounds of globalization: A topography for feminist engagement. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 26, no. 4: 1213-1234. King, S. 2006. Pink Ribbons, Inc. Breast cancer and the politics of philanthropy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Kothari, U. 2006. An agenda for thinking about ‘race’ in development. Progress in Development Studies 6, no. 1: 9-23. Lawson, V. 2007. Geographies of care and responsibility. Annals of the Association of Geographers 97, no. 1: 1-11. Low, W., and E. Davenport. 2007. To boldly go…exploring ethical spaces to re-politicise ethical consumption and fair trade. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 6, no. 5: 336-348. Marx, K. 1976 [1867]. Capital: Volume One. England: Penguin Books. Massey, D. 2004. Geographies of responsibility. Geografiska Annaler 86, no. B: 5-18. Mohanty, C.T. 1991. ‘Under western eyes’: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourse. Third world women and the politics of feminism, ed. Mohanty, C.T., A. Russo and L. Torres, 51-80. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. _____. 2003. ‘‘Under Western eyes’’ revisited: Feminist solidarity through anti- capitalist struggles. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28, no. 2: 499–535. Murakawa, F., and S. Grudgings. 2009. Brazil kicks up stink over British rubbish. July 16. http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE56F7AR20090716 Nagar, R., V. Lawson, L. McDowell, and S. Hanson. 2002. Locating globalization: Feminist (re) readings of the subjects and spaces of globalization. Economic Geography 78, no. 3: 257-284.


20

Newman-Carrasco, R. 2008. Commercial actors wanted: Only the ethnically ambiguous need apply. Advertising Age. May 3. http://adage.com/bigtent/post?article_id=125501 Pampers. 2008a. Pampers commercial for One Pack = One Vaccine campaign. www.pampers.com/UNICEF _____. 2008b. To thank you enough we’d have to say it 45 million times. Message on Pampers homepage. http://www.pampers.com/en_US/unicef_homepage.do (accessed September 21, 2008). Paul, P. 2008. Diapers go Green. TIME. January 10. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1702357,00.html Ponte, S., L.A. Richey, and M. Baab. 2009. Bono’s Product (RED) initiative: Corporate social responsibility that solves the problems of ‘distant others’. Third World Quarterly 30, no. 2: 301-317. Pratt, G. 1999. From registered Nurse to registered Nanny: Discursive geographies of Filipina domestic Workers in Vancouver, B.C. Economic Geography 75, no. 3: 215-236. _____. 2004. Working feminism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Procter and Gamble. 2008. Designed to innovate: 2008 Annual Report. http://www.pandg.com/investors/annualreports.shtml Richey, L.A., and S. Ponte. 2006. Better (RED)TM than dead: ‘Brand aid’, celebrities and the new frontier of development assistance. DIIS Working Paper, no. 2006/26 Said, E. 1978. Orientalism. London: Routledge. Sheppard, E., and R. Nagar. 2004. From East-West to North-South. Antipode 36, no. 4: 557-563. Smith, B.E., and J. Winders. 2008. ‘We’re here to stay’: Economic restructuring, Latino migration and place-making in the US South. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 33, no. 1: 60-72. UNICEF. 2000. Maternal and neonatal tetanus elimination by 2005: Strategies for achieving and maintaining elimination. UNICEF, WHO, UNFPA. November 2000. _____. 2008a. Actress/producer Salma Hayek launches the Pampers® ‘One Pack = One Vaccine’ program to benefit UNICEF. http://www.unicefusa.org/news/releases/salma-hayek-joins-with.html _____. 2008b. Pampers and the U.S. Fund for UNICEF team up again to provide lifesaving vaccines. http://www.unicefusa.org/hidden/pampers-usfund.html


21

_____. 2008c. Salma Hayek joins with Pampers® and UNICEF to help mothers and babies in need. http://www.unicefusa.org/hidden/salma-hayek-joins-with-pampers.html _____. 2008d. Why tetanus? quick facts. http://www.unicefusa.org/hidden/why-tetanus-quick-facts.html _____. 2009a. Pampers® together with actress Salma Hayek helps UNICEF move closer toward goal of eliminating deadly Tetanus through global ‘ONE PACK=ONE VACCINE’ Campaign. http://www.unicefusa.org/news/releases/pampers-together-with-actress.html _____. 2009b. Partnership proposal submissions. Online portal. http://www.unicefusa.org/partners/corporate/partnership-proposal.html Wright, M.W. 2006. Disposable Women and Other Myths of Global Capitalism. New York: Routledge. _____. 2009. Justice and the geographies of moral protest: reflections from Mexico. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 27, no. 2: 216-233. Zammitt, D. 2008. Ideas that inspire: Cash injection – Pampers and UNICEF partner to give children the vaccines they need. Adweek. November 3,. http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/esearch/e3i63073cda9189a10c0cafe63a91b696ff

Documents

One Pack = One Vaccine = One global motherhood? – A feminist analysis of ethical consumption