FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Who Owns Ikea?

by OLIVIER BAILLY, JEAN-MARC CAUDRON And DENIS LAMBERT

Ikea is not quoted on any stock exchange. There is no way of knowing who really owns the Ikea idea, and still less of obtaining a consolidated balance sheet or a breakdown of investments. It seems that the Stichting Ingka Foundation in the Netherlands owns the limited company Ingka Holding, which embraces all the Ikea companies.

Above all, there is Inter Ikea Systems, which owns the “Ikea concept” and is controlled by the Inter Ikea Foundation of Waterloo, Belgium. Inter Ikea Systems controls the brand name and focuses on making it a lasting success. It controls the image, names and standards that ensure there is almost no difference between an Ikea stores in China, the United States or Kuwait.

Who runs Inter Ikea Systems, with its ownership of the concept and franchise rights? Stellan Björk, a Swedish journalist who investigated it, said: “As far as we know Inter Ikea Systems belongs to several foundations and offshore companies, some of which are registered in the Caribbean” (1). So we know nothing, although the Kamprad family cannot be far away.

This opacity contrasts with the transparency flaunted by the company. During its campaign about Ikea, Oxfam-Magasins du Monde asked to be allowed to monitor five products jointly selected in consultation with the international management. A year later, despite many reminders, it had not received any answer. Ikea made a point of never putting anything in writing when dealing with the Belgian NGO.

Ikea’s supposedly “independent” audits are carried out by consultants who are not allowed to release their findings, less still comment on them.

In the framework agreement signed by Ikea and the International Federation of Building and Wood Workers (2) in May 1998, the union agreed to warn the firm before reporting any failure to comply with the Ikea code of conduct. In exchange the firm “will review the matter and propose appropriate measures” (3). Nothing slips out. In keeping with this rationale it proved impossible to find a single Ikea employee in Belgium prepared to answer our questions. They are not authorized to talk to the media. If mistakes are discovered, though, Ikea communicates a great deal. Each time it reacts in exactly the same way, acknowledging its mistake, playing down its importance and providing “solutions”.

Since the 1990s, in response to campaigns by environmental pressure groups worried about the use of timber, Ikea has developed links with the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace. When other groups accused Ikea of using child labor it launched partnerships with Unicef and Save the Children. Without prejudging the value of such projects, we have to make two observations.

Ikea’s social and environmental policy is merely a reaction to outside pressure. It is not based on any altruistic commitment, but is an attempt to protect its business interests. None of the partnerships offers any form of guarantee. None of the partner NGOs get to supervise production, nor do they visit the factories of suppliers.

The way in which Ikea handled the biggest media scandal involving its founder, Ingvar Kamprad, is revealing. In 1994 a Swedish newspaper exposed a friendship from 1941 to 1950 between Kamprad, then a young man, and a prominent figure from Sweden’s political extreme right of the era. Under attack, Kamprad acknowledged his errors, repudiated all racist and fascist ideas, shed a tear on Swedish television and sent a letter to his employees explaining that this friendship had been the stupidest act of his life.

In his official biography Kamprad openly accused his father of being anti-Semitic, and then concluded that he often wondered when he might be absolved of his “youthful sins”. He asked if it was a crime to have been raised by German grandparents. Kamprad used similar communication techniques to those of his company when he referred to something he did aged 24 as a “youthful sin” (4) and apologised profusely. By occupying any space opened up by critics, and putting a different spin on events, Ikea monopolizes all the versions of the stories in circulation.

The revelations about Kamprad’s past helped to boost the image of its founder that Ikea wants to promote: that he is sensitive, acknowledges his faults and has the common touch. Many stories followed to corroborate this folksy image: how he sold matches when he was five or how, despite being an ageing billionaire, he still compares the price of postcards. Ikea’s corporate communications team and Kamprad himself have built on the image to create an awesome figure, enforcing penny-pinching on the whole workforce. Such tales delight the media. Kamprad is on first-name terms with staff, drives an old junker, waits until the end of the market to buy vegetables at reduced prices and flies economy class just like everyone else.

True, not many ordinary people had two Porsches by the age of 30, own a 17-hectare vineyard or a 435 sq m mansion in Switzerland. Do we really believe he lives the life of a hermit? Despite the inconsistencies between fact and fiction much of the media still love the Ikea story.

A striking example was the interview Kamprad gave this March to the Pardonnez-moi program on Swiss-French television. The presenter aggressively questioned him at length about his stinginess (“You fly economy class? Staff must write on both sides of the paper? Did you really drive an old Volvo for years? You haggle over lettuces at the end of the market?”) and spoke openly about Kamprad’s past. The interview seemed courteous yet pointed. However, it was exclusively personal. Though they talked for almost 20 minutes there was no mention of Ikea’s environmental performance or the working conditions of 90,000 employees and the hundreds of thousands working for its subcontractors.

As usual Ikea had decided the agenda. By maintaining a trickle of self-criticism, occasionally revealing minor failings, Ikea is determined to monopolise debate, positive or negative. It hopes to pre-empt any publicity that might harm its sales.

Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair write: This article, along with the piece on Ikea we published yesterday, first appeared in the excellent monthly Le Monde Diplomatique, whose English language edition can be found at mondediplo.com

This full text appears by agreement with Le Monde Diplomatique and CounterPunch will feature one or two articles from LMD every month.

Translated by Harry Forster

(1) Oliver Burkeman, “L’empire d’Almhult vous veut du bien’, in a feature “Ikea: la secte mondiale du kit”, Courrier International, n° 722, Paris, 2-8 September 2004.

(2) Now called Building and Wood Workers’ International.

(3) “Revised agreement between Ikea and the IFBWW”, December 2001.

(4) Bertil Torekull, Leading by design: the IKEA story, HarperBusiness, New York, 1999.

 

 

June 30, 2016
Richard Moser
Clinton and Trump, Fear and Fascism
Pepe Escobar
The Three Harpies are Back!
Ramzy Baroud
Searching for a ‘Responsible Adult’: ‘Is Brexit Good for Israel?’
Dave Lindorff
What is Bernie Up To?
Thomas Barker
Saving Labour From Blairism: the Dangers of Confining the Debate to Existing Members
Jan Oberg
Why is NATO So Irrational Today?
John Stauber
The Debate We Need: Gary Johnson vs Jill Stein
Steve Horn
Obama Administration Approved Over 1,500 Offshore Fracking Permits
Rob Hager
Supreme Court Legalizes Influence Peddling: McDonnell v. United States
Norman Pollack
Economic Nationalism vs. Globalization: Janus-Faced Monopoly Capital
Binoy Kampmark
Railroaded by the Supreme Court: the US Problem with Immigration
Howard Lisnoff
Of Kiddie Crusades and Disregarding the First Amendment in a Public Space
Vijay Prashad
Economic Liberalization Ignores India’s Rural Misery
Caroline Hurley
We Are All Syrians
June 29, 2016
Diana Johnstone
European Unification Divides Europeans: How Forcing People Together Tears Them Apart
Andrew Smolski
To My Less-Evilism Haters: A Rejoinder to Halle and Chomsky
Jeffrey St. Clair
Noam Chomsky, John Halle and a Confederacy of Lampreys: a Note on Lesser Evil Voting
David Rosen
Birth-Control Wars: Two Centuries of Struggle
Sheldon Richman
Brexit: What Kind of Dependence Now?
Yves Engler
“Canadian” Corporate Capitalism
Lawrence Davidson
Return to the Gilded Age: Paul Ryan’s Deregulated Dystopia
Priti Gulati Cox
All That Glitters is Feardom: Whatever Happens, Don’t Blame Jill Stein
Franklin Lamb
About the Accusation that Syrian and Russian Troops are Looting Palmyra
Binoy Kampmark
Texas, Abortion and the US Supreme Court
Anhvinh Doanvo
Justice Thomas’s Abortion Dissent Tolerates Discrimination
Victor Grossman
Brexit Pro and Con: the View From Germany
Manuel E. Yepe
Brazil: the Southern Giant Will Have to Fight
Rivera Sun
The Nonviolent History of American Independence
Adjoa Agyeiwaa
Is Western Aid Destroying Nigeria’s Future?
Jesse Jackson
What Clinton Should Learn From Brexit
Mel Gurtov
Is Brexit the End of the World?
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Alabama Democratic Primary Proves New York Times’ Nate Cohn Wrong about Exit Polling
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail