Strategic CSR - Facebook

The article in the url below covers a lot of ground in a very short space. Ostensibly, the article is about Facebook – it's recent challenges and how it has responded in an effort to revive its reputation:

 

"Over the past several years we've learned a lot about the unintended consequences of social media. Platforms intended to bring us closer together make us angrier and more isolated. Platforms aimed at democratizing speech empower demagogues. Platforms celebrating community violate our privacy in ways we scarcely realize and serve as conduits for deceptions hiding in plain sight."

 

At a deeper level, however, the article is about the extent to which Facebook's response is deceitful and whether it is wise for us to outsource definitions of acceptable speech online to a for-profit firm with little regulatory oversight. This article, in particular, was prompted after Facebook announced it is now in favor of protecting privacy and, as one of its first steps, decided to ban Alex Jones (and a couple of other equally offensive commentators) from its site:

 

"The issue isn't whether the people in question deserve censure. They do. Or that the forms of speech in which they traffic have redeeming qualities. They don't. Nor is the issue that Facebook has a moral duty to protect the free-speech rights of Farrakhan, Jones and their cohorts. It doesn't. … The issue is much simpler: Do you trust Mark Zuckerberg and the other young lords of Silicon Valley to be good stewards of the world's digital speech?"

 

The author argues that, however well-intentioned, Zuckerberg and his colleagues at Facebook do not have the training, let along the moral authority, to be making these decisions on behalf of society:

 

"The deeper problem is the overwhelming concentration of technical, financial and moral power in the hands of people who lack the training, experience, wisdom, trustworthiness, humility and incentives to exercise that power responsibly."

 

Given its track-record in terms of meeting its promises so far, the author accuses Facebook of disingenuous attempts to manage its reputation while it works out how to monetize privacy. Ultimately, by making more things private, Facebook will be encouraging worse behavior (since criminals also like privacy), while pushing ever-greater responsibility on the firm to determine what is allowed on its site. The trouble is that, because more of these decisions will be taken behind closed doors, there will be even less scrutiny:

 

"Facebook has training documents governing hate speech, and is now set to deploy the latest generation of artificial intelligence to detect it. But the decision to absolutely ban certain individuals will always be a human one. It will inevitably be subjective. And as these things generally go, it will wind up leading to bans on people whose views are hateful mainly in the eyes of those doing the banning."

 

The point about censorship, of course is that, ultimately, it favors the status quo. The line between morally offensive speech and ideas that challenge current taken-for-granted norms can be fuzzy. The point the author makes is that we shouldn't be leaving it to Facebook to define the line for us:

 

"Facebook probably can't imagine that its elaborate systems and processes would lead to perverse results. And not everything needs to be a slippery slope. Then again, a company that once wanted to make the world more open and connected now wants to make it more private. In time it might also become a place where only nice thoughts are allowed. The laws of unintended consequence can't rule it out."

 

Ultimately, Facebook cannot win. If it pursues an open policy, where all speech is ok, it will play host to some extremely offensive images, events, and positions. But, if it starts enforcing ever-stringent rules that it makes internally, it will be open to accusations of playing God and determining what constitutes the limits of free speech online. And, since Facebook counts its users in the billions, its rules will be the rules for the internet.

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Facebook's Unintended Consequences

By Bret Stephens

May 4, 2019

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

A19

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/03/opinion/facebook-free-speech.html

 

Strategic CSR - Clif Bar

I like the passive-aggressive tone of the open letter in the url below from the co-CEOs of Clif Bar (Gary Erickson and Kit Crawford) to the CEO of KIND Bar (Daniel Lubetzky). The letter appeared as a full-page ad in The New York Times on March 6, 2019:

 

"Dear Daniel, We would like to issue a challenge: do a truly kind thing and make an investment in the future of the planet and our children's children by going organic. To make it easier, we at Clif Bar & Company will help you. We know how strange this offer sounds coming from a competitor, but more than ever we believe that making the world better means making it organic."

 

In reality, of course, the letter is a way for Clif Bar to emphasize the move they made to 100% organic ingredients a number of years ago and differentiate that from KIND Bar's reluctance to do so today:

 

"Going organic isn't easy, we know. But in 2003, we broke with conventional business wisdom and decided to take what initially seemed to be a huge risk. The investment required more people, time and money. Despite those challenges, this year we celebrated the purchase of our billionth pound of organic ingredients and continue our relentless quest to move from our current 76% organic ingredients to 100%."

 

As they continue to gloat:

 

"So much more still needs to be done. Despite our success, organic food represents only about 5% of retail food sales in the U.S. It's become a mission for us to champion the power of organic and move that needle, and not by a little. That's why we're also the largest private funder of organic research in the country and why we're issuing this challenge—we can't do it alone."

 

The passive-aggressive approach continues:

 

"If Clif Bar and KIND—the two largest nutrition bar companies in the country—joined hands, the impact would be that much more powerful. And if we then got RXBAR (Kellogg's), LÄRABAR (General Mills), and all the other non-organic brands to go organic, the benefits to people and planet would be exponential. Maybe a move to organic would even inspire your part-owner Mars to take its entire line of candy organic. Stranger things have happened."

 

It seems the feud between the two firms is long-standing and only escalating:

 

https://nypost.com/2019/03/13/kind-escalates-clif-bar-feud-as-companies-fight-over-ingredients/

 

Of course, the key point to understand is why these other bars have not yet gone to all organic ingredients. Could it be because they are not progressive enough to understand the (largely perceived) nutritional value of doing so? Or, could it be that their stakeholders are not willing to pay the higher costs to reduce the damage large agricultural companies do to the planet? In this light, is Clif Bar's exhortation as philanthropic as they suggest or a somewhat desperate attempt to raise the costs of their competitors?

 

"If you commit to this challenge, we will share our expertise, including all the things we have learned about going organic. Think of it as 'Open Source Organic.' To sweeten the deal, we will even throw in 10 tons of organic ingredients. Are you in?"

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

An Open Invitation to KIND Bar from Clif Bar

By Gary Erickson & Kit Crawford (Founder and co-CEOs of Clif Bar & Company)

March 6, 2019

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

A24

https://www.clifbar.com/article/an-open-invitation-to-kind-bar-from-clif-bar

 

Strategic CSR - LEED

The article in the url below tracks the rise of the industry around the certification of buildings. One area of particular interest has been sustainability (environmental efficiency), the argument for which seems clear:

 

"Developers and landlords have for decades sought green certification to help them attain a level of sustainability that can make their buildings more efficient, and cheaper, to maintain in the long run. In turn, the buildings can fetch premium rents and achieve higher occupancy rates."

 

The most prominent of such certifications is the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification:

 

"One of the best-known certification programs is run by the United States Green Building Council, which began rating the sustainability of buildings in the 1990s through its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program, or LEED. The program rates buildings on how their design and systems affect energy and water efficiency, carbon dioxide emissions and other 'green' performance measures. Some 100,000 commercial properties worldwide are either LEED certified or going through the process, according to the council."

 

But, the success of LEED has led to a proliferation of alternative third-party certifications and a growing industry that is expected "to reach $254 billion by 2020." This growth has left landlords struggling to keep up with which certifications will help differentiate their building in the marketplace:

 

"But as the industry for independent review grows, some organizations have started to offer verification in other areas, like digital infrastructure, landscaping and human wellness. The crowded field has left some wondering which ones are necessary and which ones are just marketing gimmicks."

 

One certification that has done particularly well is WiredScore:

 

"The company, based in New York, grades the digital infrastructure in buildings in several categories, including its ability to provide uninterrupted internet connectivity throughout the building and its capacity to integrate future technologies. … In less than six years, the company has certified more than 1,800 properties totaling some 500 million square feet in the United States, Canada and Europe. Its four levels of digital capability mirror LEED's."

 

And, these certifications are not cheap:

 

"A typical WiredScore certification contract, which lasts two years, costs $12,000 to $15,000 and includes a digital assessment and road map for improvements. WiredScore also provides marketing support for the property once it achieves certification. … By comparison, the cost for LEED certification averages around $3,500 to $5,000."

 

As such, the key is to know the real return on these certification investments, as opposed to their perceived returns:

 

"So far, the decision to pursue a wired rating appears to be paying off. Rental rates for WiredScore office buildings in Manhattan, for example, increase an average of nearly 7 percent with each level of certification, according to a study by CoStar, a commercial property research firm. … [In contrast, for LEED the] average premium for rent was found to be around 3 percent over buildings without the certification, according to a study published in The Journal of Portfolio Management in 2015."

 

This makes sense because, in terms of sustainability certifications, there is research out there that suggests the perceived benefits are exaggerated:

 

"John Scofield, a professor of physics at Oberlin College in Ohio, has over the last decade challenged claims that LEED buildings typically used 25 percent to 30 percent less energy. He has conducted subsequent studies, including one in which he has compared the electricity consumption of properties in New York and Chicago, and has concluded that little or no real difference exists in LEED and non-LEED office buildings."

 

There is also evidence to suggest it is unclear that consumers ultimately care:

 

"Few people think green buildings help the environment, the organization found in a survey."

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

If Your Building is Certified Green, Does it Matter?

By Joe Gose

April 24, 2019

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

B5

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/business/commercial-real-estate-leed-certification.html

 

Strategic CSR - Dick's + Guns (II)

In the grand scheme of things, the article in the url below is not a big story, especially for a large corporation with over two billion dollars in annual sales. Nevertheless, it seems like a meaningful statement and, as such, something worth sharing with you all:

 

"Edward W. Stack, the chief executive of Dick's Sporting Goods, said in an interview this week that his company had destroyed over $5 million in military-style, semiautomatic rifles and was reviewing whether it would continue to sell guns in its more than 720 stores."

 

As such, this story is a follow-up to the announcement last year that Dick's was going to remove all guns from sale in its stores (see Strategic CSR – Dick's + Guns):

 

"In April 2018, Dick's Sporting Goods, one of the largest firearms sellers in the United States, said it planned to destroy the military-style rifles it had agreed to take off its shelves weeks after the shooting [in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida]. … Previously, the Pennsylvania retailer had also agreed to ban the sale of military-style rifles at its 35 Field & Stream stores, and to stop selling firearms and ammunition to anyone younger than 21."

 

This was not an insignificant decision by the company:

 

"Mr. Stack [said] that the restricted sales cost the company a quarter of a billion dollars."

 

But, it looks as though the decision may now be resonating with key stakeholders:

 

"Despite the shift in strategy, the company has seen signs of improvement. In August, Dick's announced that same store sales increased 3.2 percent in the second quarter."

 

In this sense, Dick's has been rewarded for taking the lead among companies on this controversial issue:

 

"Since the massacre in Parkland, corporations have responded to the public's growing demand for gun control measures. Among them are Walmart, the nation's largest gun seller; L.L. Bean; and Kroger, which said in 2018 it would restrict gun sales at its Fred Meyer stores. Dick's, though, has been one of the most proactive."

 

For Stack, however, the issue is straightforward:

 

"'I don't understand how somebody, with everything that's gone on, could actually sit there and say, 'I don't think we need to do a background check on people who buy guns,'' Mr. Stack said. 'It's just, it's ridiculous.'"

 

Even so, it is refreshing to hear a CEO with the courage to back his/her moral convictions:

 

"Mr. Stack [said] he had already removed all guns from more than 100 Dick's stores and was considering expanding the ban to the rest of them. 'We've got the whole category under strategic review to see what we're going to do,' he said."

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Dick's Destroyed More Than $5 Million in Guns

By Laura M. Holson

October 9, 2019

The New York Time

Late Edition – Final

B8

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/business/dicks-sporting-goods-destroying-guns-rifles.html

 

Strategic CSR - $70,000

The article in the url below follows-up on a 2015 story about a CEO in Seattle who announced that the minimum wage at his company (a payment processing business) was going to be $70,000 a year. The New York Times' original reporting on this story is here:

 

"Staff members gasped four years ago when Dan Price gathered the 120 employees at Gravity Payments, the company he had founded with his brother, and told them he was raising everyone's salary to a minimum of $70,000, partly by slashing his own $1.1 million pay to the same level."

 

Four years later it seems that, despite some turbulence immediately following the announcement, the company recovered and is doing well:

 

"Business has surged, and profits are higher than ever. Gravity last year processed $10.2 billion in payments, more than double the $3.8 billion in 2014, before the announcement. It has grown to 200 employees, all nonunion. The pay raise also helped attract new employees — including some who yearned to join a company with values. Tammi Kroll, a Yahoo executive, took an 80 percent pay cut to move to Gravity, where she is now chief operating officer."

 

In spite of some concerns expressed by the author about the generalizability of such a decision, it is clear that the firm's employees appreciate their CEO's investment in them:

 

"The gasps when Price announced his $70,000 initiative were echoed in 2016 by his own, after grateful employees led him to the parking lot and presented him with a new Tesla that they had all chipped in to buy, replacing his ratty old car."

 

The point of contention I have with the article is that the author describes this as "proof that capitalism can have a heart." In general, I find the rhetoric around good intentions and emotion to be unhelpful. In reality, this is just an example of an entrepreneur who has worked out how to create more value for his employees and, reciprocally, that the employees recognize this value and are rewarding the entrepreneur's progressiveness/creativity with higher productivity and loyalty. In short, it is not capitalism with a heart, but capitalism working exactly how it is intended to work.

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: http://studysites.sagepub.comstudy.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

The $70,000-a-Year Minimum Wage

By Nicholas Kristof

March 31, 2019

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

SR13

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/30/opinion/sunday/dan-price-minimum-wage.html

 

Strategic CSR - Nuclear

What is "the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions" while providing sufficient energy for the world as it continues to seek higher living standards? The article in the url below thinks it has the answer – one that is controversial within the sustainability community:

 

"Where will this gargantuan amount of carbon-free energy come from? The popular answer is renewables alone, but this is a fantasy. Wind and solar power are becoming cheaper, but they are not available around the clock, rain or shine, and batteries that could power entire cities for days or weeks show no sign of materializing any time soon. Today, renewables work only with fossil-fuel backup."

 

In dismissing renewable sources of energy as simply not being able to scale sufficiently quickly, the authors present Germany as their case in point:

 

"Germany, which went all-in for renewables, has seen little reduction in carbon emissions, and, according to our calculations, at Germany's rate of adding clean energy relative to gross domestic product, it would take the world more than a century to decarbonize, even if the country wasn't also retiring nuclear plants early."

 

In contrast, the authors suggest relying on a proven energy source that has data to suggest it can make the conversion in a much quicker time:

 

"… we actually have proven models for rapid decarbonization with economic and energy growth: France and Sweden. They decarbonized their grids decades ago and now emit less than a tenth of the world average of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour. They remain among the world's most pleasant places to live and enjoy much cheaper electricity than Germany to boot."

 

Specifically:

 

"They did this with nuclear power. And they did it fast, taking advantage of nuclear power's intense concentration of energy per pound of fuel. France replaced almost all of its fossil-fueled electricity with nuclear power nationwide in just 15 years; Sweden, in about 20 years. In fact, most of the fastest additions of clean electricity historically are countries rolling out nuclear power."

 

Of course, there remain issues with nuclear power stations (construction time and waste management) but, primarily, these barriers are presented as political, rather than technical. As with many of the problems we face, we have the knowledge to do much better but the willpower is lacking.

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: http://studysites.sagepub.comstudy.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Nuclear Power Can Save the World

By Joshua S. Goldstein, Stefan A. Qvist & Steven Pinker

April 7, 2019

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

SR4

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion/sunday/climate-change-nuclear-power.html

 

Strategic CSR - Sesame Street

Sesame Street has to be one of the best programs on TV today. Not only is it educational and fact-based, but it tackles challenging social issues in a way that can be appreciated by children. The goal is always to raise awareness without any unnecessary judgment. Recently, for example, Sesame Street introduced a muppet with autism (in 2017) and one whose family "experiences homelessness" (in 2018). Exposing children to such sensitive information, during a formative period, increases the likelihood of informed decisions later in their lives, which has to be good. Now, the article in the url below announces the program's decision to tackle the opioid crisis in America. It does so via the introduction of a muppet whose mother is dealing with drug addiction:

 

"Sesame Street is taking a new step to help American kids navigate the thornier parts of life in America: the opioids crisis. Sesame Workshop is exploring the backstory of Karli, a bright green, yellow-haired friend of Elmo's whose mother is battling addiction."

 

The evidence suggests that, unfortunately, addiction is very much a part of many children's lives:

 

"Sesame Street creators said they turned to the issue of addiction since data shows 5.7m children under the age of 11 live in households with a parent with substance use disorder. America's opioid crisis has grown steadily worse in recent years. The Department of Health and Human Services reported 10.3 million people misused opioid prescriptions last year, and an average of 130 people die every day from opioid-related drug overdoses."

 

Of course, such vulnerable children may also be in households where they are less likely to watch Sesame Street. But, the hope of the program's staff is that more exposure on this topic is better than less, and that if addressing these issues aids just a small number of children/families, it is worth it:

 

"'There's nothing else out there that addresses substance abuse for young, young kids from their perspective,' said Kama Einhorn, a senior content manager with Sesame Workshop. It's also a chance to model to adults a way to explain what they're going through to kids and to offer simple strategies to cope."

 

In the show, the topic is raised in discussion between Karli and a child whose parents are suffering from addiction. As always, there is science and considerable thought behind the way the issue is introduced:

 

"The segment leans on carefully considered language. Creators prefer 'addiction' to 'substance abuse' and 'recovery' to 'sobriety' because those terms are clearer to children."

 

Also interesting is that the muppet, Karli, had been introduced on the program earlier this year as being in foster care. This latest narrative, therefore, is designed to provide Karli with a backstory that helps explain "why her mother had to go away for a while." Needless to say, I am a big fan of the show – it began in 1969 a few months after I was born and forms a vivid memory from my childhood:

 

"Sesame Street has a long history of masterfully tackling sensitive issues. The show broached the subject of death in 1982, after one of its stars, Mr Hooper, passed away. The show has also touched on racism and adoption and introduced a muppet on the autistic spectrum during its 50-year run."

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Sesame Street takes on opioids crisis as muppet's mother battles addiction

By Guardian staff

October 9, 2019

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/oct/09/sesame-street-karli-addiction-opioids-crisis

 

Strategic CSR - Warren Buffett

I am not normally a fan of Warren Buffett as I think many of the companies he invests in (e.g., Wells Fargo, Coca-Cola, Kraft/Heinz, Dairy Queen, See's Candies, etc., etc.) and even the companies he partners with (e.g., 3G Capital) are hurting, rather than helping, society progress. I also think his investment decisions are luck as much as anything else, given his ill-judged support for CEO pay policies at Coke (that do not reflect performance), his strong support for the train company BNSF (when some 40% of rail freight in the U.S. is coal), or his aversion to investing in IT stock (he only got into Apple by mistake). All of this might somewhat explain why the WSJ recently noted that "Berkshire Hathaway Inc. has underperformed the S&P 500 for a decade … during a historic bull market." Like many executives that have run out of ideas, his main response appears to be to buy back his own firm's shares. But, that is not to say that the man has no idea what he is talking about. In the article in the url below, at least, he is on solid ground by proudly advocating in favor of capitalism:

 

"The most prominent face of capitalism — Warren Buffett, the avuncular founder of Berkshire and the fourth wealthiest person in the world, worth some $89 billion — appeared to distance himself from many of his peers, who have been apologizing for capitalism of late. 'I'm a card-carrying capitalist,' Mr. Buffett said. 'I believe we wouldn't be sitting here except for the market system,' he added, extolling the state of the economy. 'I don't think the country will go into socialism in 2020 or 2040 or 2060.'"

 

The author notes that this frank statement stands in contrast to some business leaders who profess statements on controversial issues that go with popular sentiment, only to quickly reverse their position when the spotlight has moved on:

 

"Some billionaires agonize about inequality and the education system, for example, but don't push for higher taxes on the wealthy to help pay for fixes (one of Mr. Buffett's preferred remedies). A raft of chief executives who boycotted going to Saudi Arabia after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi last year quickly returned to doing business with the kingdom when the headlines died down."

 

I am not convinced that Buffett thinks any more about the detail of advancing society than other business leaders—he is simply convinced that capitalism is the most direct way of getting there:

 

"… at his core, [Buffett] believes that the pursuit of capitalism is fundamentally moral — that it creates and produces prosperity and progress even when there are immoral actors and even when it creates inequality."

 

In this sense, he is following a strategic CSR perspective. In his investment decisions, however, he consistently veers off-track.

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: http://studysites.sagepub.comstudy.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Warren Buffett's Case for Capitalism

By Andrew Ross Sorkin

May 6, 2019

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

B1

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/05/business/warren-buffett-capitalism.html

 

Strategic CSR - Anthropocene

This website contains a trailer for a recently released movie that might be a useful resource in discussing climate change, 'Anthropocene: The Human Epoch':

 

https://theanthropocene.org/film/

 

The photography in the trailer is beautiful – art in the service of depicting the majesty and destructive nature of human progress and its consequences for the planet. As the review in the url below concludes:

 

"As a work of cinema, Anthropocene: The Human Epoch can seem a bit torn in its approach, caught between a desire to spread a message to mainstream viewers and more cryptic, artistic aims. At times, more information would be preferable; in other scenes, images speak volumes without words. But as advocacy, the movie is potent and frequently terrifying."

 

Take care 

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


This is How You Destroy a Planet

By Ben Kenigsberg

September 25, 2019

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

C6

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/movies/anthropocene-the-human-epoch-review.html

 

Strategic CSR - Mattel

In a sign of the times, the article in the url below reports Mattel's decision to launch a gender-neutral doll:

 

"Mattel is a 74-year-old company slowly taking on Gen-Z values. The maker of Barbie and Hot Wheels has announced the release of Creatable World, its first series of gender-neutral dolls."

 

This reminded me of the department store, John Lewis,' decision in the U.K. a couple of years ago to remove gender specific labels from its children's clothes sections (see here). Clearly, Mattel had similar concerns in mind:

 

"The dolls differ from Mattel's gendered Barbie and GI Joe dolls in subtle but significant ways. The dolls are a blank slate. No broad shoulders, no full hips, no long lashes. Children of any gender identification are encouraged to play with them."

 

The article reports this is a recent trend in toys and other children's games, evolving to reflect the contemporary expectations of consumers. The goal for the dolls is for them to be "relatable, rather than aspirational":

 

"Toy companies are vigorously retooling their products to align with advancements in representation, inclusion and diversity that Gen-Z children – not their millennial parents – are largely responsible for. … Just this month, numerous conversation-starting toys and board games have come out. Hasbro released a gender-swapped version of Monopoly entitled Ms Monopoly, where women players earn more than men."

 

Of course, it hasn't all been plain sailing:

 

"Mattel released a slew of culturally diverse Barbies (including a "Día de los Muertos Barbie" that garnered accusations of cultural appropriation)."

 

As critics note, there is a fine line between reflecting the values of the societies in which the firm is based and trying to profit from social topics that may be recently formed and, as such, still raw for many:

 

"The response hasn't been unanimously positive. Hasbro and Mattel have been accused of attempting to profit off culture wars."

 

On the other hand:

 

"Mattel's gender-neutral doll has won over some in the LGBTQ community. 'So many children and parents never saw themselves represented in toys and dolls, but this new line raises the bar for inclusion thanks to input from parents, physicians and children themselves,' the LGBT advocacy group Glaad wrote on Twitter."

 

What I did find funny, however, is the pains to which Mattel went to stress that this was not a political decision:

 

"'We're not in the business of politics,' Mattel's president told Time Magazine, 'and we respect the decision any parent makes around how they raise their kids. Our job is to stimulate imaginations. Our toys are ultimately canvases for cultural conversation, but it's your conversation, not ours; your opinion, not ours.'"

 

In other words, while engaging in the "culture wars," no doubt primarily for profit (no problem there if the firm is creating value for its stakeholders), the firm goes out of its way to say that the decision was apolitical. So, what are we to believe – that the firm made a random decision without any sensitivity to the broader cultural discussion? Why didn't the company simply embrace a capitalist argument – that it is sensitive to the needs and evolving expectations of its stakeholders and responded accordingly? In other words, Mattel has evaluated the evolving social discussion and it picked a side. How can it not be political? But, equally, there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, if Mattel knows its stakeholders well, it is the recipe for success in the marketplace.

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

'It was time': Maker of Barbie launches line of gender-neutral dolls

By Andre Wheeler

September 25, 2019

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/sep/25/barbie-maker-gender-neutral-dolls-release