Unilever launches a new Sustainable Living Plan

Unilever has set up a plan wherein the carbon, water and waste impact of its products should be halved over a decade, including the impact caused by its suppliers and consumers. Through innovation and efficiency in production they will ameliorate their products.  The plan doesn’t only consist of environmental targets, but also the improvement of social conditions. They will work with fairtrade organizations like Oxfam, which benefits are already explained in Karen’s latest blog. The company will also do an effort to improve the state of health by changing the hygiene habits and purifying the drinking water in the developing countries.  (The Guardian)

I believe Unilever is a role model in business. It tries to operate by the basic principles of CSR-model.  Even though they might only want to obtain competitive advantage, it will lead to nothing but improvement both for the environment and the stakeholders. Contrary to Apple, Unilever does try to stick to its principles and cuts costs by being more efficient and not by exploiting the poor countries.

Evelyn Stalpaert

Fair trade

In conflict areas, fair trade can help to bring peace and to fight against poverty. By giving people a decent price for their work and goods, fair trade organizations try to support jobs, improve living conditions. They also try to take away young men from terrorist organization,...

But there are some difficulties to overcome. For example Afghanistan is too dangerous to send inspectors. Another difficulty is that the people in conflict zones are very distrustful of each other but to succeed, they have to work together. A third problem is logistical, especially in the West Bank.

The Guardian

I like fair trade. It helps people and country on the long term to stand on their own. But fair trade can not help everyone, only a small amount can be helped. I hope it will force other companies to pay a decent price to their workers in third world countries and in conflict zones. In this way a lot of people can be helped.

Karen Van Crombrugghe

Blame the system!

I assume everyone is aware of the impact of the globalization on the environment. Something has to change. Environmental measures need to be taken, and as soon as possible!

 

But should we really consider the actions of facebook unethical just because they use electricity? Would it be rational to invest heavily in clean energy while there are cheaper ways available? And business is all about rationality! Don’t blame facebook, blame the system!

We need to realize that the public opinion and protest actions from some environmental organizations will be far from sufficient. In the article, Greenpeace International’s executive director, Kumi Naidoo, claims that ignoring the company's environmental impacts could damage facebook’s reputation badly. I think it’s hard to believe a statement like that. Would anyone delete his facebook account after reading this article? (The New York Times)

Jolien Nachtergaele

Leading firms: Facebook, the So Coal Network

Leading firms are not only responsible for the social working conditions in a country, they can also have a huge influence on the environment. Facebook, a place to meet friends on the internet, is not as harmless for the world as it seems.  The social networking site’s data centers eat up electricity, which is mainly created with dirty fuels and only for a small proportion with renewable energy.

Greenpeace started a campaign to urge Facebook on choosing clean energy sources.  Nevertheless they  are satisfied that Facebook opted for an energy-efficient location and design for its data centers.  (The New York Times)

Honestly, I was quite surprised that a website could have such a big impact on the environment. But now the I.T. – sector is expanding strongly, one must be aware that this leads to a progressive consumption of electricity which should be fed with renewable energy. Taking care of the environment is very important in the CSR-model and shouldn’t be brushed aside .

Evelyn Stalpaert

Leading firms: Apple

Apple’s popularity has increased a lot the last few years, but nowadays criticism against Apple is also growing. Most people know Apple as a healthy company that produces innovative products, but few people know that these products are being fabricated by Chinese companies. One of these companies is Foxcon. Foxcon is known for not respecting human rights. Reports indicate that Foxcon’s workers are physically punished when they aren’t performing well and that working conditions are often very dangerous. This is why Apple is receiving more and more criticism. Apple claims their supplier code of conduct prevents such things from happening, but it seems like Apple is neglecting their own code of conduct in order to realize more profit.(The Guardian)

Although Apple isn’t acting ethical, they are forced to minimize their costs if they want to stay competitive. This is shown by the fact that Foxcon also manufactures products for other electronic firms. But I think that the balance between profit and ethic should change. In my opinion Apple can afford to reduce their profits in order to create better working conditions.

Cedric Meyers

Sweatshops: a nightmare… or a dream?

I think we shouldn’t just focus on the downside of sweatshops in Third World countries. Let’s consider the point of view of Nicholas D. Kristof:

The local population of the poorest countries could only dream of a job in sweatshops. It might involve not so great labour conditions such as long working hours and extremely low wages, but rather a job like that than no job. How strange it may seem, in the hierarchy of labour in developing countries sweatshop jobs don’t belong to the bottom. 

As D. Kristof mentioned in the article, the existence of sweatshops is a symptom of poverty. Shutting these factories down would imply a chance less for the locals to break the circle of poverty. (The New York Times)

I do realize that minimizing costs by exploiting people is all but ethical. We cannot explain away the use of sweatshops in Third World countries by leading firms. On the other hand there is no denying that the local population wouldn’t be better off without them. I think we can conclude that sweatshops are a temporary solution and a beginning of a long process to escape from poverty. 

Jolien Nachtergaele

Sweatshops

Nike is the favourite example for critism about sweatshops. In the past, Nike got a lot of negative publicity. Their reaction was denial, lash out at critics,...
Now Nike has an other strategy. They are working together with human rights groups, they have a team that inspects the factories,... Most other multinationals, like Wal-Mart, are doing nothing.

Still, Nike is doing little to the most difficult problems. These are low wages and unionization.
They are making progress but not on underpayment of wages and freedom of association.
But they are one of the few that have taken responsibility for sweatshop labor.

Bloomberg Businessweek

I think sweatshops are still a big problem in the world. Almost all big companies are using factories in third world countries.
You can't blame the companies alone, also the governments of these countries should take action to drive back sweatshops.

Karen Van Crombrugghe