Branding of consumers has now come to be a powerful identity that is embedded into the social, political, and moral discourses across the world to the extent that their initial purposes of economic purposes have been multiplied by a huge margin. Among them, Oreo, the famous sandwich cookie, which is eaten by millions of people all across the globe, has unexpectedly become a subject of debate. This is the dispute raised by the corporate website to which the cookie belongs, more specifically, its parent company, Mondelez International. A situation whereby Mondelez owns and invests in Oreo has put the latter in the middle of a complicated debate regarding corporate collusion, geopolitical conflict, and consumer morals, particularly in the cases of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.
This blog aims to provide a deeper and critical perspective to look at the following aspects: corporate affiliations of Oreo, the political geography of Israeli settlements and the occupation, the ethical questions posed by corporate investments in conflict zones, and the growing role of consumer lobbies seeking justice. It is important to be aware of such details of seemingly everyday products like Oreos because the more customers attempt to align their purchases with their principles, the more they need to know. It may be that support has more to do with the economic consequences of the business decisions that made the cookie than with the cookie itself.
Company history of Oreo and Mondelez International
In 1912, after its introduction, Oreo became one of the most consumed snack brands all over the world. Following the restructuring of Kraft Foods, it became part of Mondelez International in 2012. Mondelez is a multinational company on the Fortune 500 list, having various snack and food brands in several countries, it has over 150 countries under its belt, with billions of dollars billed annually.
The destiny of Mondelez at the business level is strategic partnerships, market development, and innovation. These investments include the fact that the organization operates and partners with Israeli companies, especially food technology advancement startups. Notably, international legal organizations such as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice consider such investments to include those that have their businesses based in or those engaging the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and this is against the law.
Another Look at Mondelez’s Involvement in Israeli Settlements
It can be said that the profits made by Mondelez assist in sustaining such settlements through investments that retail and operate such infrastructure in these controversial territories. Because this is an activity that cannot exist without the movement of cash that keeps the economic side of the activity viable, even a tenuous connection such as this should not be dismissed. The international human rights bodies and legal scholars have pointed out that businesses operating in such jurisdictions are both morally and legally responsible for the fact that they are involved in the violations of international law.
Consumer activism: The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement
Since Mondelez financially supports Israeli settlements, the company and its Oreo brand have been targeted. The boycott campaigns urge individuals in every corner of the globe to avoid purchasing their products (Oreo and others produced by Mondelez) as a moral and political statement that may put pressure on companies and governments that wish to change their regulations. The opponents of these campaigns have argued about the effectiveness and fairness of the campaigns, with claims of unfairly targeting Israel and concerns about the economic consequences to the workers. The campaigns are among the key tools that have been believed to be used by the supporters in order to fight systemic inequalities.
Oreo: A neutral brand
It should be mentioned that Oreo is not involved in political dialogue; it does not promote Israeli government policy out in the open as a cookie brand. The marketing and product approach is neutral and revolves around customer satisfaction in all regions of the world in the case of Oreo. Nevertheless, the neutrality of brands does not protect businesses from being involved with the related corporate world of today via their ownership and investment hierarchies.
The Oreo case illustrates the fact that it is hard to separate the politics of parent companies from brand identification. Even though the customers consume Oreo cookies without a specific political agenda, Oreo, as a company, or Mondelez to be more exact, stands within a highly politicized setting, as part of its investments are potentially a kind of side support for the Israeli settlements, and thus the company is an indirect contributor to the current political situation due to its investments.
The Israel-Palestine relationship is one of the longest conflicts in the world and is also the most complicated. Companies that conduct business in or deal with these settlements have thus become the targets of major international scrutiny on whether they partake in the commission of crimes that are considered unlawful on an international scale.
Enterprise Ethics and Business Ethics
Business operations in war zones raise hard ethical dilemmas because corporations argue that providing technical expertise, jobs, and economic development are what they are doing, while, on the contrary, human rights groups and ethical investors assume that such companies are going against international law and are facilitating abuse of human rights.
Mondelez International states that its investments spur creative development and commit to regulatory requirements. Nevertheless, in an attempt to act within the international principles of human rights and avoid the risks of negative reputation, frameworks of ethical investments are making companies reconsider their monetary investments in the controversial regions.
Some of the reasons provided against such campaigns that target companies like Mondelez are that they may cause job losses or bring high economic benefits to local workers, including Palestinians and Jews. Also, the opponents would argue that boycotts have turned stakeholders into opposing sides and would simplify complicated political conflicts, which prevents communication and peace efforts.
Furthermore, others refer to the selectiveness of such boycotts, stating that these boycotts are not equally enforced on various conflicts that occur globally in terms of disregarding international human rights matters. This raises serious concerns regarding equity and uniformity of international lobbying and consumer-based action.
Other Mondelez Scandals and Ethics
Besides Israel-related issues, Mondelez has faced criticisms for many different reasons on the international level. These are union opposition, labor strife, plant shutdowns, and anti-discrimination employment accusations. Such controversies have led to other boycott movements focusing on corporate social responsibility and on the rights of workers. These numerous levels of concern result in a complicated situation where a customer who wishes to purchase ethically has to consider several political, economic, and moral pros and cons involving the global business operations of a company to decide whether either support a product or avoid it.
Purchases in the global economy require a good knowledge of product and issue relationships to be ethically purchased. The Oreo case is illustrative of this problem best of all: a simple product became tied with business investments, moral debates, and geopolitical conflict. When it comes to getting acquainted with the intricate business and political networks that allow ordinary products to be produced, consumers are forced to balance between entertainment and principles.
Critical thinking, exposure to credible information, and communicating with individuals holding conflicting perspectives are required in order to make wise, responsible decisions.
The customers should not simplify this issue and consider it as a complex situation when positioning international law, responsibility in business, and ethical consumerism.
The history of Oreo explains how international companies can get involved in geopolitical conflicts that are far beyond the domain of the products they sell. But Oreo is peripherally connected to economic activity that underpins controversial Israeli policies by the Israeli business presence of parent firm Mondelez International, including the settlement-related activities that are internationally accepted as illegal. Due to this connection, boycotts involving greater conflicts engulfing justice, human rights, and business ethical principles have made Oreo a target.
