Corporate Responsibility Mondays.

Here’s a short 1 minute video of Jenrain’s story that I made last week. Forgive the cheesiness of my voice-over reading.

And here’s another story of a worker who makes things she can’t afford and can’t enjoy so that we can have excess. Sadly, this is what would be considered an “above average” work life in an overseas factory.

I don’t share these stories as a pompous detached white boy. But rather to show you how full of contradictions I am. For example check out the first four photos from our Sunday house cleaning session. We have a table full of stuff. Made 2 trips to Goodwill. Threw away 2 garbage bags. And have 7 rubbermaid tubs full to the brim. And that’s just what we cleaned out of our cabinets and closets. That’s just the stuff we don’t use on a regular basis, i.e. 6 months or so. And we only live in a 3 bedroom, 2 bath house. Less than 1500 square feet. Talk about embarrassing gross excess.

Anyway . . .

From Samima.

I cannot support myself with the wage I am getting. I have rice and lentils for breakfast, rice and mashed potato for lunch, and for supper rice and vegetables. I eat chicken once a month when I get paid, and maybe twice a month I buy a small piece of fish.

If we want to use the bathroom, we have to get permission from the supervisor, and he monitors the time. If someone takes too long for any reason, the supervisor shouts at her and humiliates her, calling her names. If someone makes a mistake, the supervisor docks four or five hours of overtime wage, or lists her as absent, taking the whole day’s wage.

In my factory there is no day care, no medical facilities. The women don’t receive maternity benefits. The overtime is mandatory, but we are always cheated on our overtime pay. The supervisor makes us sign two separate payroll sheets. One tells the truth – that we worked four or five hours of overtime each day. The other says that we only worked two hours of overtime each day, as our labor law requires. That is the one they show to the buyers.

Our lives have been stolen. We are treated like animals, and any workers who attempt to get together a union are fired immediately and may be blacklisted. We feel that we have been born only to serve the needs of the owners.

[tags]Corporate Responsibility, Globalization, Colonialism, Sweat Shop Labor[/tags]

Corporate Responsibility Mondays.

I thought I might revisit the idea of Corporate Responsibility Mondays. But instead of focusing on a specific company – which we can dismiss if we don’t typically buy from them – I’ll take a look at the general industry and economic model that globalization and colonialism has built for us. And for which we are usually the sole benefactors of it’s successes and profits. I’ll do this by giving you letters from typical overseas workers who make the things that we enjoy. The things that we typically wear for a few years until it goes out of fashion, at which point it goes into our closet, attic, or thrift store.

People are more important than things.

From Jenrain.

On the production line there are thirty machines with thirty operators and ten helpers. The supervisors give us a production target of 370 caps per hour (college university hats), but we can barely complete 320 caps per hour, so we have to work as fast as we can. But because of this, we sometimes make mistakes, and then the supervisors shout at us and call us bad names, or they slap us, or hit us with a stick or a cap, or jab us with scissors. Sometimes we cry because of this rough treatment, and then they threaten us not to cry.

I have to ask permission to use the bathroom, and they give you only two minutes. The supervisor checks the time. If I need more than two minutes, the supervisor yells at you and calls you bad names.

We only have tap water to drink, which is filthy and makes us sick. The workers often have diarrhea, jaundice, and kidney problems. Because we have to sit on stools with no backs working so many hours, the workers also suffer from backaches.

The factory is cloudy with dust. It is not well ventilated; it is without enough air and light. The air of the factory is polluted with dust from the cloth. This dust goes into our noses and makes us sick with coughs and respiratory problems.

God, may we allow these stories of your children to haunt us. Bring them to mind when we aimlessly or purposefully walk through stores. Stir in us an imagination to dream up new ways of providing jobs and resources for people who have none without making them slaves. Stir in us eyes to see and ears to hear the voices suffering at the margins. In the name of the Father who creates, the Son who rescues, and the Spirit who inspires. AMEN.

[tags]Corporate Responsibility, Globalization, Colonialism, Sweat Shop Labor[/tags]

Corporate Responsibility Mondays.

Well I know this will sadden all of you who love this daily dose of negativity. But for various reasons . . . this will be the last week of this series for a bit. I think in it’s place I’ll talk about something happy like puppies. Or what I ate for breakfast. Because those things are constructive. Sarcasm implied.

With that being said . . . Ariah and I will be discussing socially responsible investing. Ariah’s thoughts can be found here where he discusses some of the tension that exists within such an ambiguous area like “socially responsible investing”, as well as suggesting some positive investment strategies.

This is a rather tricky subject. One that Ariah highlights very nicely. So I’ll leave it to him to explain the difficulty in selecting a “socialy responsible investment”. But it’s extremely difficult simply because there are not necessarily clear cut lines. Black and white demarcations between “good” and “bad”. Even those that are considered “good” at some point along the social line do things corporately that have a negative effect on the environment, labor, or ethics.

But in the wise words of Nicholas Fielder – something is better than nothing.

The thing that makes investing such a difficult topic is that most of us don’t have enough money or experience to invest with single stocks (companies). We tend to have our retirements tied up in mutual funds and other group investments. So while it is easy to avoid investing in singular companies like Wal-Mart and Coca-Cola . . . it’s extremely time consuming and difficult to sort and sift through group funds.

For example . . . let’s take a look at Playboy. A company that most people would agree is probably not the pillar of family values and ethical behavior. Although I hear the articles are good. Take a look at their shareholder breakdown. Wells Fargo owns 2.6 million shares of stock making it the company with the 2nd highest percentage of stock in Playboy. And when it comes to mutual funds . . . Fidelity’s Small Cap Fund owns 2.4 million shares of stock (which amounts to 27 million dollars).

Now I could probably walk up and down the aisles of my old conservative church. And 99% of the people would be red in the face with anger if I said we should support Playboy. But if I went up and down the aisle and found all the people who had an investment in Fidelity’s Small Cap Fund . . . for most this would be the first time they had heard anything about it . . . and for others they would justify it somehow by extolling the virtues of capitalism.

The point is if you wouldn’t support Playboy as a company by buying their magazines and videos . . . then why would you have a portion of your investments going to a fund or company that owns a substantial percentage of the company? Or better yet 65% of the company is owned by mutual funds. With over 15% of those being owned by Fidelity. So I don’t know what the math is on 15% of 65% (a little help Eric . . .) but it’s probably close to 5% of the company. So technically you have a 5% investment in Playboy.

Do you see how quickly it starts to get tricky? You can easily see how blind many of us (including myself) make our decisions.

And I guess that’s the point of this whole little series. That started with ME wanting to find out where my money was going with the companies that I regularly support. Needless to say it was eye-opening for me.

So despite the perceived negativity that some have found . . . I hope it was an informative and challenging look at what happens when we spend our money blindly. Bottomline . . . we shouldn’t support things with our money that Jesus wouldn’t support with his. And to be even more blunt . . . we should deliberately subvert those things that he wouldn’t support, flipping over the tables if need be.

I want to thank Ariah for taking the time each week to post a topic that provides hopeful alternatives. That is a much more difficult task than me taking one company and ripping all of it’s bad virtues. So for that I am thankful to Ariah for his time and insight.

P.S. What do you want to be that my spam count will go through the roof now that I’ve used the word Playboy within a post?

[tags]Playboy, Socially Responsible Investing, SRI, Fidelity, Wells Fargo, Corporate Responsibility[/tags]

Corporate Responsibility Mondays.

As always . . . remember to check out Ariah’s excellent post on a company that is doing it’s best to practice ethical behavior.

Of all companies . . . this is the hardest for me to critique and question. Coca-Cola is my coffee. Or it was. I used to drink over 10 glasses a day. I was such a big addict that I can tell you which fast food restaurants have the best fountain mix. I can even tell you (blind-folded) which Coke is in which glass (plastic, paper, or glass) and what kind of ice is used. I even have an imaginary chart that puts together the best Coke mix based off of a Trinitarian model . . . glass, ice, mix. My favorite of course being Styrofoam, with crushed ice, with the Coke coming out of a can. With that being said . . . I continue the long line of posts critiquing a product I use.

Coca-Cola is known the world over for producing a variety of tasty beverages from carbonated sodas to water. Promoting the company philosophy to “make every drop count,” Coke officially encourages people to do the same in their own lives. Unfortunately, Coke continues to work against human rights, the environment, and the health of consumers, showing few signs of meaningful change. In Colombia, working at Coca-Cola bottling plants has cost lives and the personal safety of those trying to unionize. Eight union organizers have been murdered by Colombian paramilitaries and at least 100 others have been detained and beaten, and Coca-Cola has yet to conduct a full investigation of the claims. Coke’s bottled water operations have made it the focus of at least two international water rights campaigns, as the company continues high-volume pumping in areas such as Kerala, India, where extreme shortages of potable water are already a problem. Coke signed onto the United Nations Global Compact, which aims to make companies more responsible corporate citizens, but the soft drink giant has taken no concrete steps toward remedying abuses currently tallied against it. Coke continues to reject the call to use its wealth and international status to set new standards for sustainability and respect for human rights in the countries where it operates.

CONTAMINATION: The Centre for Science and Environment’s (CSE) comprehensive study, covering 25 different manufacturing plants over 12 Indian states, found dangerous levels of pesticides in all samples of the Coca-Cola and Pepsi products tested. On average, Coca-Cola drinks contained 27 times higher pesticide residues than the standards outlined by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). According to CSE this poses serious health effects; even small doses of pesticides such as lindane, chlorpyrifos, and heptachlor, are known to cause cancer, neurological problems, and other health disorders.

According to the India Resource Center’s June 2006 report “Ground Water Resources in Plachimada,” there are harmful long-term effects to Coke’s operations, such as extreme water shortages, harvest shortages contamination of soil and groundwater, and serious health problems for local villagers and former workers. All 9 water samples, collected within a one kilometer radius of the plant, failed to meet the safety standards for drinking water as outlined by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) as the samples contained excessive levels of dangerous toxic chemicals. Coca-Cola has avoided answering to the Indian government and people on the issue of water contamination due to cadmium in the Plachimada plant’s sludge. Two previous orders by the Kerala Pollution Control Board were ignored: one called for Coke to build an effluent treatment facility to deal with wastewater, the other required the company to pipe potable water into communities for residents most vulnerable to water shortages.

HUMAN RIGHTS: In July 2001, the International Labor Rights Fund and United Steelworkers filed a lawsuit against two Coca–Cola bottlers in Colombia accusing the plants of hiring paramilitary groups to kill labor union organizers. In 2003, the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the case due to a lack of jurisdiction. The ILRF and USW brought a new complaint against Coca-Cola and its Latin American Bottler, Coca-Cola FEMSA in June 2006. The US District Judge Jose E. Martinez dismissed the case stating a lack of evidence linking the murders of union leaders to an alleged conspiracy between paramilitaries and bottling plant officials in September. Sinaltrainal, the major Colombian labor union involved in the allegations, is appealing the ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Legal proceedings against Coca-Cola in Colombian courts have all been shelved; no entity has yet been held responsible for the killings.

WORKER RIGHTS: Coca-Cola workers in Turkey and Indonesia have had to face mass firings for their efforts to improve labor conditions. Employees of at least two of Coke’s bottling facilities in Turkey have found themselves jobless after openly working to initiate union activity. When workers protested the firings, they were met with police violence. Turkish laborers and their family members were attacked by police again while in the midst of talks with the management at one plant.

In Indonesia, Coca-Cola is PT United Can Company’s largest and most important customer. Therefore, when the packaging company decided to intimidate 48 workers for openly forming a union, Coke could rightfully have intervened, using economic incentives to get PT to act ethically. The 12 leaders of unionization efforts have been fired, and the other continue to be harassed by PT management. Coca-Cola has yet to take action or make a statement regarding the ill treatment of workers.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION: In 2005, E. Neville Isdell, Chairman and CEO of Coca-Cola Company, earned $12,350,336 in compensation including stock option grants from the Coca Cola Co.

DISCLOSURE: In March 2004, Coca Cola admitted the UK version of Coca-Cola’s Dasani brand bottled water is really treated water from London’s public supply.

Sources: Responsible Shopper

[tags]Coca-Cola[/tags]

Corporate Responsibility Mondays.

Time to take out the maker of one of the best fast food dessert . . . the Hersey Pie . . . and it’s provider Burger King. And again . . . just to reiterate . . . I’m only highlighting companies that I use and am big fans of. This is an overflow of my own personal research for my purchases. I’m not just arbitrarily calling out companies I don’t like.

As always make sure to check out Ariah’s post where he highlights another company that is attempting to do a better job with the products and service that they offer. This week he’s bragging on Chipolte (courtesy of Eric’s recommendation).

TOXINS: “In August 2005 California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed suit against nine producers of potato chips and french fries concerning toxic contents in their popular foods. Lockyer is seeking a court order requiring the companies to warn consumers that some of their food products are made with acrylamide, a chemical identified by the state as a human carcinogen. Plaintiffs in the case include McDonald’s, Burger King, KFC, Frito Lay, H.J. Heinz, Proctor & Gamble and Wendy’s.”

WORKER RIGHTS: “The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed a lawsuit on behalf of about 511 current and former workers at about half of the 351 Burger Kings run by franchisee Carrols Corp. This is the biggest sexual harassment suit ever filed by the agency. Most of the alleged victims are girls or women. According to the suit female employees tell of managers or co-workers hugging and kissing them or fondling their breasts or buttocks. Some supervisors made suggestive or vulgar comments to female workers; others pressured them to have sex or go out on dates, according to court records. At least one co-worker allegedly exposed himself to a female employee. Sometimes, Carrols’ management fired or suspended offenders. In other cases, victims’ complaints to managers resulted in little or nothing being done.”

In another case . . . “In February 2005 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Burger King on behalf of a 16 year-old former employee who claimed she was fired after refusing the store manager’s repeated requests for sex. According to the lawsuit, the teenager started working at a Milwaukee Burger King in January 2003 and refused the store manager’s requests for sex. In September 2003, she was fired after making plans to complain about the harassment to some of the company’s managers who were scheduled to visit the restaurant, the lawsuit said. The manager who fired Merriweather is in his mid-30s and still works at the restaurant, Kamp said. ”

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: “In March 2005 Burger King agreed to pay civil penalties of $170,000, plus $35,000 in costs, to settle a lawsuit over an abandoned store in Sacramento County California. The suit alleged that the fast-food company illegally maintained the site of an abandoned drive-in and allowed it to become a blighted property. According to the suit Burger King destroyed the building in 2004 but left the site open and accessible and filled with solid waste and hazardous materials.”

HEALTH & SAFETY: “In February 2005 Burger King agreed to pay part of a $4 million settlement in a case where a former employee was burned severely when a grease filter exploded at a Burger King restaurant in West Seneca, NY. The woman, who now is 24, suffered burns, five surgeries and permanent scars after a grease machine exploded in 1997, spraying her with 350 degree oil According to her attorney the grease filter was defective, and the restaurant lacked proper training and operating procedures for the device, which exploded after an aerosol canister fell into the machine.”

Sources: Responsible Shopper, Consumer Affairs

[tags]Corporate Responsibility, Fast Food, Burger King, Responsible Shopper[/tags]