Mercadona and the 2030 Agenda: The supermarket that picks a side

Mercadona and the 2030 Agenda: The supermarket that picks a side

What lies behind an Agenda 2030 flag at a supermarket entrance? On September 25, Mercadona posted on social media its endorsement of the Global Compact and the celebration of the eighth anniversary of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The response was swift: several forum participants announced they were stopping shopping there. The trigger was not the gesture itself, but what many read into it: the suspicion that the SDGs are a cover for an economic and social model change that no one voted for.

What the SDGs are and why they are rejected

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals, adopted by the UN in 2015, include ending poverty, zero hunger, health and well-being, quality education, gender equality, clean water, affordable energy, decent work, industry and innovation, reduced inequalities, sustainable cities, responsible consumption and production, climate action, life below water, life on land, peace, and partnerships to achieve the goals. On paper, several participants consider many of these desirable.

The problem, according to the most repeated analysis, is the method. "Some are not, the rest would be desirable, the problem is the METHOD," summarizes one of the most cited comments. The criticism is not directed at the ends, but at the means: who pays, who decides, and at whose expense they are implemented.

The calculation no one wants to put on the table

One of the most repeated arguments is that the goals are impossible by nature. "They promise things that are de facto and by nature impossible, such as the end of poverty," states one participant, who adds that it was promised to achieve it in 15 years and that, halfway through, the situation is worse than at the beginning. Inflation, war, and rising debt are cited as proof that the model does not work.

Another key point developed is the cost. "To eliminate poverty, someone pays, us, and we have no say on where the money comes from," notes an analysis that links goal 1 with goal 17: partnerships to achieve the goals become, according to this reading, the mechanism to finance the rest.

The dark reverse: what lies behind each goal

The initial message of the debate develops an alternative reading of each of the 17 goals. The end of poverty is interpreted as the implementation of a basic income covering only essentials —food, water, electricity, clothing— excluding cars, vacations, or electronics, with large layers of the population earning salaries close to the minimum wage and buying less due to inflation. Zero hunger is associated with low-environmental-impact diets, with insects and little fresh meat or fish unless one can afford it.

Health and well-being are linked to the continuous administration of vaccines and mandatory requirements to access healthcare services or medical insurance. Quality education is linked to content with ideological bias depending on the ruling government. Gender equality is linked to forced parity in executive positions while ignoring degrading jobs. Clean water and affordable energy are linked to limitations based on climatic availability and renewable production. Decent work is linked to minimum wage jobs with no professional growth. Industry and innovation are linked to projects with low or even negative real impact. Reduced inequalities are linked to the extinction of the middle class. Sustainable cities are linked to limiting private transport. Responsible production is linked to more taxes and prohibitions. Climate action is linked to reducing CO2 without the model being ready. Control of fishing, agricultural, and livestock resources is linked to government management. Peace and justice are linked to the empowerment of supranational entities. And partnerships are linked to the imposition of rich countries over poor ones.

The evolution of the debate: from the flag to the boycott

The conversation quickly shifted to a boycott of Mercadona. "Are there still people who shop there?" asks one participant. "I have never bought there in my life, but certainly now not even if I am dying of hunger," adds another. The criticism mixes rejection of the 2030 Agenda with complaints about the supermarket's quality, variety, and prices.

Some go further and argue that large companies are being forced to join the agenda even if they do not do so willingly. "Large companies are being forced to swallow the 2030 agenda crap even if they do not do so willingly, unfortunately they have to accept," states one intervention describing the situation as a dictatorship. Another participant recounts that their company had to post a photo with the agenda flag because it was imposed by the most important client, a multinational: "orders from above."

The social contract and resistance

The deepest criticism points to the social contract. "The social contract does not exist. I did not sign any contract. No one asked me. I would never sign a contract with such unfair conditions," states one of the most cited voices. The idea that the agenda is imposed without democratic mandate runs through most of the comments.

Others point out that the undeclared goal is to bankrupt self-employed individuals and small and medium-sized enterprises so that large investment funds take everything. "We are seeing in the various pillars supporting our society that they profess betrayal against us," it is stated, in a line connecting the agenda with business concentration.

Resistance is organized through consumption. "I have been looking for local suppliers for some time. There are Telegram groups that even organize lists by community, type of product," explains a participant who combines proximity shopping with their own garden. Another adds that, after moving to the countryside, they have stopped visiting large supermarkets.

The debate on the method, not the ends

The most repeated conclusion is that the problem is not the goals, but what they are known to do to achieve them. "It is enough to cite a noble end to slip in any kind of measure," summarizes an intervention criticizing that politicians sell measures without analyzing whether they meet the goal. The comparison with asking a genie for a wish —"you ask for something that seems good to you, and the genie will grant you something completely distorted from reality and evil"— closes the circle.

Mercadona, meanwhile, continues to fly the flag. And customers who have left, for now, do not plan to return.