Do you remember Monopoly? If not, it’s an economics-themed multiplayer board game where players buy and trade properties, collect rent from opponents and attempt to drive the other players into bankruptcy.
However, a monopoly is more than a board game – it is a term used to describe a market structure in which a single seller or producer assumes a dominant position in an industry or sector, holding power over other sellers and producers.
Currently, ten companies hold monopolies over most food and beverage products in the United States. These companies are Unilever, Coca-Cola, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Danone, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Mars, Associated British Foods and Mondelez.
This extends beyond the food and beverage industry – seven corporations hold ownership of 182 beauty companies as well. These include Estée Lauder Companies, Johnson & Johnson, Shiseido, L’Oreal, Coty, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever. Ten companies own 41 percent of the clothing industry market share: Walmart, T.J. Maxx, Macy’s, Gap, Kohl’s, Target, Ross Stores, Amazon, Nordstrom and JCPenney. No other company within the clothing industry holds more than 2 percent of the total market share.
The most abominable example is the beer industry – one company owns all the most prominent beer producers. A.B. InBev and SABMiller own 58 percent of the beer industry’s $33 billion global profits after their merger in 2016.
In the case of the food and beverage industry, many of the companies held under one corporation have virtually nothing in common. In addition, they retain their names, giving the consumer the illusion of free will and choice on who they are giving their money to.
For example, while Mars is most recognized for their ownership of chocolate brands such as M&M, 3 Musketeers and Snickers, they also own Wrigley, who own Orbit, Extra, Juicy Fruit, Eclipse, 5 Gum and many other gum brands. Essentially, any brand of gum selected by the consumer ultimately supports Mars.
Monopolies are unfavorable as they eradicate market competition and place all power in the hands of corporations, forcing consumers to purchase from a small pool of companies. These large corporations can raise prices as much as they please – and frequently, if the good is a necessity, consumers have minimal opportunity to boycott. There are few ways for consumers to voice their opposition to unethical labor practices, unsustainable use of raw materials or other unfavorable practices.
“Voting with your dollar” is a common phrase in sustainability and social justice spaces. Its philosophy implies that each dollar a consumer spends (or chooses not to spend) serves as a vote being cast, with the marketplace being the ballot box.
At face value, this is an optimistic viewpoint consumers can look to when making purchases. Many consumers who subscribe to this ideology look for product certifications such as Organic, Non-GMO, Fair Trade and others. However, under these monopolies, it doesn’t all add up – even with these labels, one cannot be sure that a product is being entirely ethically sourced. It is difficult and expensive for smaller brands and businesses to source resources without obtaining at least some of these materials from these corporations, at least in some capacity.
Amazon, for example, is infamous for its unethical treatment of workers. There have been reports exposing the company for shortchanging workers on paychecks and inhumane working conditions. However, Amazon provides an easily accessible delivery service and owns more than 40 subsidiary companies. While strategically planned boycotts can help consumers voice their opposition to a corporation, this abstinence is not sustainable long-term.
Corporations are also catching on to consumer awareness and are trying to perpetuate an image of eco-consciousness and ethicality. This is commonly referred to as “greenwashing,” where companies will try to brand themselves as champions of carbon neutrality and community engagement. This is largely to make consumers feel better about purchasing from them and drive up sales – and often, it works. While some consumers are acquainted with corporations’ problematically vague and unverifiable language citing their sustainability or ethics, others are still swayed by “greenwashed” marketing.
For the government to crack down on monopolies and limit their power, there are a few steps that could be taken.
Antitrust laws are regulative measures to ensure that mergers and acquisitions do not obtain overly concentrated amounts of power. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is a bipartisan federal agency designed to protect consumers and eliminate anticompetitive business practices, including monopolies. Their premier responsibility is to enforce antitrust laws in collaboration with the Department of Justice (DOJ). However, they also investigate fraud, false advertising, congressional inquiries, and pre-merger notifications. For the past few decades, however, the group has been closing investigations and quickly approving mergers without offering any explanation to the public.
In order to hold these coalitions more accountable, there should be greater requirements for merger approval, legislation passed to prevent larger companies from exploiting smaller ones and an increase in national awareness about the existence of the nation’s antitrust agencies.
However, until some of these changes are made, monopolies will continue to exist. The best that consumers can do within current circumstances is to be conscious of their purchases – consume less and as ethically as possible, whatever that means within one’s specific circumstances.