Sunday, June 5, 2011

Nestlé

Today I learned that Toys R' Us donated $26,819 to the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) as part of CHEO's fundraising telethon. I also recently read that Toys R' Us will be installing the largest solar rooftop array in the United States at its New Jersey distribution centre, which will provide for 72 percent of the facility's electrical needs, significantly reduce its dependency on non-renewable energy sources and also reduce its carbon emissions. Sounds great, right? On the surface, perhaps. Yet as I read these things, in the back of my mind, I keep thinking of Toys R' Us broken promise to phase out toys containing lead and phthalates and reduce the sale of PVC-containing products and offer more PVC-free products.Does the payment to CHEO and the investment in renewable energy make up for the negative impacts on the health of children and our environment from the continued sale of toxic toys? I don't think it possibly can, but it does make for good sound bites.Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has been working on numerous projects related to HIV/AIDS. For example, it has an initiative for preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV with the vision of a world where no child is born with HIV. It has also been running a Social Media for Social Good campaign , which included interviewing bloggers at blog conferences about how they are using social media to help effect a positive change in the world. At the same time, J&J is being sued over and over and over again for failing to ensure that the medications they put on the market, like Tylenol and Motrin, are safe. In its article, Johnson & Johnson Becomes the "Plenty of Tears" Brand Due to Loss of Trust in Marketplace , the InjuryBoard's Blog Network listed example after example of recalls and failed promises, concluding that "instead of a sure-footed response, it seems that foot dragging would better characterize the responses taken to ensure that consumers are protected from harm." It isn't just medication where this is happening. As part of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, J&J was asked in a letter signed by almost 50 organizations, to eliminate the carcinogens 1,4 dioxane and formaldehyde, and hormone disrupting phthalates from its personal care products. As Jennifer Taggart, The Smart Mama, points out , "products can be made without the [dangerous] ingredients at a comparable price point. In fact, lots of companies do it already." Instead of acting on those recommendations, however, J&J chose to have its PR firm call mom bloggers hysterical and irresponsible for raising those concerns.Does J&J's investment in improving the lives of mothers and babies stricken with HIV AIDS in Africa give them a free pass on lapse safety standards in the preparation of medication and continued sale of personal products full of toxic chemicals? Does their talk about using social media for social good wipe out their use of social media to put down mom bloggers?These are just two examples. We could go on and talk about Nestlé , McDonald's, WalMart, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and many, many more.Corporations that continue to be scrutinized, sued, fined, and boycotted make nice donations to impressive sounding projects over and over again. But why? Have they truly done the calculation and determined that the impact on shareholder value is greater if they sweep their unethical business practices under the rug and then trumpet the investments they have made in feel good projects? Or is it just easier to do that than to tackle the real problems facing their business?Perhaps the left hand just doesn't talk to the right hand. Maybe these companies hire people with big hearts and smart ideas and put them into their philanthropic or "social responsibility" division and give them a budget to do good things, while at the same time the people working in other areas of the company continue to ignore major concerns that have been expressed about the company's business practices or its products. In my mind, a big part of social responsibility is cleaning up your own house. I don't think that any company that ignores valid concerns from its stakeholders can claim that it is socially responsible.I wonder if there are any companies that are truly interested in improving? I am unlikely to accept an offer to work on a social good campaign of a company that has lots of skeletons in its closet. However, if a company I have a love/hate relationship with approached me from the perspective of truly wanting to know how it can improve (rather than just getting the message out about how great it is), I would gladly accept. Unless, of course, it was a company that has made such offers in the past and demonstrated through its actions that it was not genuine.Julian recently offered to pay me for permission to misbehave. I turned him down. While the real world may work that way, I'm not ready to admit that to my kids. I'm hoping they still have a chance to be inspired to do the right thing because it is the right thing before they are brainwashed by society. I wonder if jail time, community service, fines, time outs and all those things that our society uses to "teach people a lesson" may really be teaching them that you can do wrong as long as you are willing to pay. I'd be more interested and impressed by an individual, societal, and corporate model that required people to take accountability for their actions instead of just buying their way out of them. I don't know what that model is though.In the meantime, I would like to see less applauding of corporations for the good things they are doing when those are obviously intended to help us conveniently forget the evil they are doing. I would like to see more people looking under the rug before they agree to participate in or support a campaign. I would like to see these companies held accountable by bloggers and consumers alike, especially when regulators and courts aren't willing or able to do so.Image credit: HikingArtist.com on flickr