Sunday
Jun052011
Does Good Cancel Out Evil?
Sunday, June 5, 2011
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
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
Nestlé
Reader Comments (31)
I don't think that "feel good" efforts from corporations do enough good to cancel out the bad.
They need to make substantive changes in order from me to be comfortable with them. Handing out some tiny percentage of the profits, when these profits come from hurting people, doesn't work for me.
That being said, I think it's great that they're starting to make positive changes. Let's hope that it's the start of something real, not just a bit of damage control.
Have you watched "The Corporation". It's a great documentary that analyzes corporations from a psychological viewpoint, as though the corporation itself was a patient being diagnosed. It makes it a little more clear as to why corporations behave as they do. Canadian-made documentary as well.
I've worked in finance for a very large corporation. There is no good or evil at all. It is just about the money. That is literally it. If they do donate significantly to causes then it's either a marketing opportunity or because their CEO or some other high level executive likes the cause personally.
I find this topic endlessly fascinating because I don't believe there is any one right answer. I believe in holding businesses accountable for their harmful actions, but applauding the positive changes no matter how small. Does it matter what the intentions are? Yes and no. Sometimes the end justifies the means and sometimes it is just bs for the sake of publicity.
I feel like I sound wishy washy here, but I don't feel that is the case. I simply like to really examine the merits of each corporations practices as a whole to decide if the good is really good and if the evil is really evil. Sometimes it is clear to me and sometimes it isn't. I have a few corporations that a do a lot of things that others say are really great, but I don't feel is enough to counter their awful behavior in other areas. I think everyone has to decide for themselves what that line might be.
I was JUST talking about this with my husband in the car today! We were talking about McDonalds and Wendy's. McDonalds has Ronald McDonald House and they are the worst because their products directly harm the health of the same kids they help. You're right, it does make for a good sound byte and I'm sure people will buy food from them, telling themselves their money going to a good cause.
I don't like the idea of corporations donating to charity at all. Does anyone really believe it's anything other than a marketing ploy?? I'd much prefer to see that money put into the hands of the employees of the companies and into developing better products. What if instead of spending that money on the children's hospital, Toys R Us gave all their cashiers a raise, so they could afford better food and clothes and toys for their own families?
I can't help noticing a parallel between the behaviour of corporations and a political party in government. They are all accountable (or should be) and will do whatever it takes, usually legally, to keep the shareholders and voters happy.
I think a lot has to do with the fact that the companies understand their market way better than we do. It's sad, but most parents don't even know what pthalates are, let alone have any idea they're in baby products or are harmful. So any money the company spends taking them out will be wasted because their main customers don't care.
Those of us who DO care probably won't be major Toys R Us shoppers even if they fix those things because we're also probably the parents who don't want our kids to be surrounded with superfluously branded, gender-specified toys. We won't be buying the Big Mac with rainforest friendly beef either (if they ever make one) because those of us who would care about that probably aren't McD's shoppers for a whole host of other reasons.
Those companies know this about us, and they know that their regular customers do respond to the soundbite-sized social responsibility endeavours.
KrissyFair:
Yes and No (in my case anyway).
I prefer not to shop at Toys R' Us most of the time and opt to go to other stores instead. One reason is the branding/genderizing of the toys and the other is the toxins. However, my kids now have their own pocket money and I would like them to be able to spend that where and how they want. I think they'll learn to make good decisions over time by being given the leeway to make their own decisions, but doing so within the context of the usual critical discussions that we have in our home. So, if they do want to go to Toys R' Us to do that, then I would take them there. However, I'd like to be assured that they are not going to be exposed to excessive amounts of toxic materials when I do so.
Alex:
I haven't seen that documentary, I'll have to check it out.
I know that is the way that most corporations make their decisions. Honestly, if they were making good money, not harming people, and making donations as a marketing opportunity, I'd be fine with that. But when they do these "feel good" projects while simultaneously ignoring concerns about their own products or misleading consumers, that is when I get upset.
Brenna:
"I simply like to really examine the merits of each corporations practices as a whole to decide if the good is really good and if the evil is really evil."
That is exactly the point that I want to make. That is what I think more people need to do. I see too many people simply applauding the positive aspects without looking at the corporation as a whole.
Maman A Droit:
I like corporate charity programs when the employees have an opportunity to get involved. I think it can be a good team building activity and opportunity for them as a group to give back to society. However, I do agree that paying them a living wage and giving them decent benefits should come first. I do think it is a slap in the face if they are being treated unfairly, but the corporation is then giving away tons of cash as a marketing ploy.
I wonder if thinking of "corporations" being good or evil, or making good or bad choices, might not be a slightly off-target approach? (A question, not a criticism--I really don't know!)
Fact is, the "right hand" and the "left hand" of any company or organization are going to be represented by people, and the people may or may not be on the same page or looking to accomplish the same thing. If you have one really good person in a department over here whose big project/mission is to bring new awareness of social and environmental responsibility to the people s/he works with, and there's not a parallel person over in some department over there on the other side, that could be the very simple cause of some of the disconnect we see.
Again, I don't know, but I'd bet that those Johnson and Johnson campaigns are led by passionate project heads who believe in what they are doing. But they may or may not have ANY control whatsoever over product formulation and quality.
Not that this makes any real difference in ANSWERING the question, just maybe reframes it a little...
--J
I think the bigger the company gets the harder it is for them to really make meaningful consistent change. The marketing department is given some amount to serve the people and improve the image. The other departments see no reason to change suppliers/formula/product that has done so well and thinks the marketing and advertisement department shouldn't be affecting them. One of the many reasons why I think the corporations get to big. They are an unwelcome seven headed creature who doesn't know what the tails are doing.
I think what Jenn says may well be the case. The left hand and right hand are very likely completely separate entities. Nonetheless, there's still corporate accountability. Somebody or some corporate board is in charge and oversees direction, mandate and mission.
If a company does social good while producing products that cause harm, it's not okay. Period. It amounts to a photo op or public relations, not corporate responsibility.
I work at a corporation with a very split reputation. On the one hand, it has a reputation for being an excellent place to work (we win local awards for being the best place to work in our city), does quite a bit for local charities, and is in the educational field, where it allows people who otherwise wouldn't have access to higher education to complete degrees. On the other hand, it's an industry that has been recently vilified for the excessively dishonest practices of a few other companies in the industry, and while my company is certainly not a blatant offender, there are some practices here that make me quite uncomfortable (just not enough to leave my job. We still do a lot of good, the iffy practices are still in a gray area and not illegal, and I'm not asked to directly do anything that I feel violates my ethics). What bothers me is that my son will be old enough soon to understand where I work and to make assumptions about our values as a family that may be based on my employment. This place doesn't mirror my values--not by a long shot! But it does keep my family fed, housed, and insured (the latter being the biggest factor for why I stay). I don't mean to be off-topic, but the question of whether to engage with a corporation--either as a consumer or a worker--is definitely one we face on a regular basis. And I don't have an answer, other than watching for opportunities to move to another position where my values more closely align to the company's. I think Annie's assessment that we need to make these decisions mindfully is important. Of course, that doesn't resolve the vague uneasiness I felt when I swiped my pass at the office door this morning.
I come from a small-business family...and I have to say that conflicting good/evil occurs even on small levels. It all comes down to money. Sometimes it's not that the existing practice is better or more efficient - it's that changing it takes more money than not changing it and they're about comparable practices in terms of money it takes to run them, so it's hard to be the CFO in that situation saying to the CEO, yeah, I know you want to do xyz with this money (give bonuses, have officer pay increases, change retirement plans, invest in new tech, charitable giving, WHATEVER), but instead? Instead let's spend a bunch of money re-training people, marketing a new image, and overall changing things. No, it isn't going to save us money long-term. BUT WE'LL BE MORE ETHICAL, YAY!
If being more ethical could guarantee more money, it'd be a different story.
Speaking of which, you know what would be cool? I don't have an iPhone, but what if people had an app on their phones that gave you an ethical rating of companies? The companies ratings could be based on all sorts of criteria such as environmentally-friendly practices, community involvement, compliance with national health initiatives, sustainable business practices, charitable giving, academic promotion, officer pay, etc.
I know it isn't perfect, but I would love something like that, some sort of handy dictionary where I could type in a shop and see "rated 8, points taken away for child labor" ...you know?
Anonymous:
I think having ratings is a great idea. The challenge is not so much the app itself, but figuring out what the criteria would be, how it would be measured, and who would measure it.
It's a bit depressing. It stems from the owners ... the shareholders ought to demand more good citizenship. As far as not harming people: I view it as a continuum. Pretty much every corporation harms something because they transform resources into outputs. They exploit. The specific threshold is "what can you personally stomach?"
For example, if one person in the world was allergic to and killed by a medicine that saved thousands, then many would find that acceptable. Should the company take that medicine off the shelves and spend millions to eliminate that threat? Maybe not. But what if the ratios were different? Company executives are probably in a different place along that line. Also, it might be less expensive to simply pay or fight those harmed than fix it, so they might do strange things like leave the defects in (as you noted).
Probably also a little like the famous Twilight Zone story where one can press a button to get a million dollars, but someone else they don't know gets killed. Tempting for many many people.
"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."
Amen sister. Me too.
It's interesting that both of the companies you mention happen to be in/related to New Jersey. Johnson & Johnson does a lot for the local area (the arts, jobs, commnity, etc.). And as far as the Toys R Us location in Flanders... thank GOODNESS they'll be contributing to LESSENING of the greenhouse gases & other toxic emissions in that part of our state. Have you smelled it up by Newark, recently?
While I'm certainly not happy about these corporations continuing to produce products that are potentially damaging, I do also recognize that change in large corporations cannot come all at once, without affecting large numbers of people (and I'm not just talking bottom line - Johnson & Johnson is integrated with the Central NJ community as I'd imagine a distribution center the size of ToysRUs is in North Jersey). I don't see Big Corporation as evil incarnate. I think that small steps are better than none at all, and perhaps I'm an optimist, but I don't believe that building a solar array on the top of their distribution center is an attempt at drawing fire away from their misfires re: PVC/lead. Solar makes sense, particularly if the State of NJ & USA offers tax incentives, AND if you happen to have your headquarters in one of the states with the highest number of Toxic Superfund Sites (go New Jersey!).
All that being said, of course, there are strides still to be made in the arenas of product safety, moving to more natural, non-toxic ingredients, and fair trade/labor standards. But, I'm not sure that one cancels out the other. When you're a big corporation, you simply have a lot more to do than if you're one small handmade toy company selling at a local farmers market. Consumers do have a lot of power though, and we should continue to send messages to these companies regarding the products we want at the prices we need in order to see change.
Fantastic article! It amazes me that small companies comply (without hesitation) as required with legislation designed to safeguard our children (it never crossed my mind NOT to comply) but large corporations try to find ways around the issue even if what they are doing is illegal & dangerous to the health of their consumers! Shame on them. Glad you see you taking them on with your words and the power of social media.
I struggle with this one a lot myself. Most recently I've been frustrated by the P&G "Future Friendly" campaign, which I think is greenwashing at its worst. The company may be making small steps, but the worst attributes of its products are still going strong! I think people and products should be applauded for making small green steps and for doing good in their communities. However, when they pump themselves up as green pioneers for reducing 10% of the packaging on some toxin-laden cleaning products...well, I just cant keep my mouth shut! ;)
[...] But the question, as posed by the blog PhD in Parenting, is “Does Good Cancel Out Evil?” [...]
I actually talk more about this and reference your post here: http://www.spitthatoutthebook.com/?p=482
I haven't been here in awhile, and I'm so glad I stopped by. Such good food for thought.
I think that this issue is closer to home than we think. We all struggle with aligning our lives to our core values and we usually don't accomplish this all at once. I am from the camp that good and evil in many cases is not clear cut. I am certainly intentional in my choices, and I think that as always, it falls on the consumer to take ownership of their buying decision. This kind of marketing works because companies know that we all have a tendency to be lazy and hand over that ownership to others. And so it it looks good, it must be good. I've done it myself and it's an ongoing process of really being consistent to what I hold true for me and refining what good really is. Clarity is hard work, for both consumers and businesses..heck for us all.
I love what you are doing here, and I hope that through your articles such as this, more people will be forced to find that clarity for themselves so they can make good choices through all the hype.
Got to this post via Paige Wolf, we submitted a comment there and don't want to completely retread our thoughts here, especially since most of them have are already reflected in your post and the comments so far.
The only thing we would add is that it is always striking to note the tendency to over value the actual level of corporate largess and action.
We read about corporate donations and the dollar amounts seem significant to any working family. But there is no "giving ’til it hurts" happening here. The typical family gives bigger share of their income to the charities they care about than any corporate entity – not to mention that the vast majority of this individual giving is done without fanfare, certainly without press releases.
On the action side, it is fair to celebrate the baby steps that any business makes toward environment and social justice goals. But it is also fair to expect them to stop walking and start running - and to do it soon.
Great post! Let's not forget to mention the insurance companies out there....
I used to work for....ehhh hemmm....United Health Group and I will tell you that the way they talk and act are bass ackwards. They are a health insurance company-providing health coaching, care and medical equipment...but they instructed us (as nurses) to DENY DENY DENY claims over an over and over again...why....because it all amounts to MONEY! If a patient needed a procedure done to better their life or even save it and it ended up being a cost burden then it was denied! Meanwhile the former CEO sits on his padded nest egg in one of the most expensive homes on Lake Minnetonka. He, as a physician, took an oath to do no harm and care for people...but at the end of the day if his wallet wasnt padded he didn't care and that is exactly how he ran the company until he "stepped down" because of investigations of fraud.
For a company, ANY company, to preach the greater good they should walk the walk and talk the talk.
Great post -- I wish I were going to BlogHer because I know we could stay up late discussing this endlessly!
My viewpoint of the good vs. evil has evolved. After years of online activism and associations with some incredible leaders in the green movement, I've come to realize that the problems facing us are so dire (particularly from the climate change perspective) that ANY movement toward "good" should be celebrated, regardless of the need for continual change. So ToysRUs and the Solar array? GREAT!!!! Do they still have work to do? Yes! I don't think activists' energy is well spent tearing down those who are making positive steps.
Re your specific questions about a split personality within companies - yes, most definitely. I've had employees of several of the companies you mention in your post, as well as others, approach me to say that the online green activism practiced by you, me and others is most definitely causing the companies to make change in the positive direction. Bloggers speaking up enables employees to point to us as examples of consumer pressure and to force change from within. No doubt.
As for the specifics of the toxins issue, I believe it is so loaded - and literally billions of dollars are at stake - that major companies simply do not want to know the answers. I have worked in corporate marketing for Fortune 500 firms, I'm a marketing consultant by profession - and I recognize doubletalk when I see it. J&J ignored my questions for a reason.
I've asked the same questions of other senior level executives at major consumer and pharma brands and have been met with stony silence or professed lack of knowledge. I am dumbfounded at the lack of intellectual curiousity.
And lastly, in some of these big brand name firms, there is still very much an "us versus them" attitude with regard to NGOs and non-profits.
What they've been slow to recognize is that they've pissed off consumers in the process as well.
I realize that this is sort of missing the point of the post, but I do have to say that if Julian were my kid, a small part of me would be mightily impressed by his ingenuity and initiative. Although I would have declined the arrangement, too.
[...] paper and recycle all their plastic, it feels empty. PhD in Parenting asks the question Does Good Cancel Out Evil? For companies that have damaging business practices yet make pr-friendly donations and activities. [...]
[...] I wrote a blog post questioning whether good cancels out evil. There is no question that the $50,000 that Babble will be giving to inspirational moms will go to [...]