Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: 12/1/22

Tuesday, December 6, 2022

Strategic CSR - World Cup

This is the last CSR Newsletter of the Fall semester.

Happy Holidays and I will see you in the New Year!

The World Cup in Qatar, as usual, is a spectacle as much for what happens off the pitch than on it. Of particular interest in this World Cup has been the human/civil rights record of the host country, along with the plight of migrant workers who were central to building the infrastructure required for the competition to proceed. With this in mind, the article in the url below points out that the societal inequity that was essential for the competition to be held is not limited to the host country, but includes the complicit involvement of many who are likely criticizing the host country:

"As the World Cup in Qatar kicked off last week, millions of fans pulled on jerseys costing $90 to $150 that were sold by Nike and Adidas, the official outfitter of this year's tournament. Players, wearing new, brightly colored uniforms, slipped into shiny cleats and shoes that can retail for more than $200. But what did the people who made these items get paid? In the case of 7,800 workers at the Pou Chen Group factory in Yangon, Myanmar, a supplier of soccer shoes for Adidas, the answer is 4,800 kyat, or $2.27, per day."

Apparently, the workers in this Myanmar factory attempted to use the World Cup as leverage to raise the issue of their working conditions, in the hope of securing something better:

"After workers began a strike in October, demanding a daily wage of $3.78, factory managers called soldiers into the complex and later fired 26 workers. They included 16 members of the factory's union, who were believed to have led the strike of more than 2,000 employees."

Workers facing similar conditions elsewhere are utilizing social media effectively to raise their plight, with personal appeals to soccer stars caught in a no-win situation:

https://twitter.com/emelia_yanti/status/1594319979239059457

In Myanmar, and elsewhere, all of these factories are contractors, of course, so the line of responsibility to major sports brands is opaque:

"Most Western fashion and sportswear brands do not own production facilities, instead contracting with independent factories or suppliers, often in the Global South, to make their garments. This means they are not technically the employers of these workers, and therefore are not legally responsible for enforcing labor standards or human rights."

The level of hypocrisy that these major sports competitions expose (whether the World Cup, Olympics, Commonwealth Games, F1, or similar global/international events) is always both interesting and incredibly frustrating. Of course, these contradictions were always there but, while awareness appears to be growing, meaningful action in response is less obvious. Ultimately, organizations like FIFA have felt at liberty to break laws and social conventions throughout their existence (the corruption needed to secure the World Cup in Qatar is only the most recent and blatant example) with few concerns about being held to account for their actions (see also, John Oliver's passionate piece on the World Cup). While regulatory authorities are beginning to take specific legal action, major sponsors remain tied to their long-term contracts (not unwillingly, it seems). Given that these global sporting events are wrapped in patriotism, but driven by money, all stakeholders need to hold these sports organizations to account for anything meaningful to change, including the fans purchasing these expensive replica shirts. While the Qatar World Cup has revealed the faultlines more specifically and completely (as information today travels more transparently than ever before), I don't see any serious consequences for the actions that produce headlines such as the one in the article in the url below.

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (6e)

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e

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

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

Luxury Soccer Jerseys, but Rock-Bottom Wages

By Elizabeth Paton

December 2, 2022

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

B1, B5

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/01/business/world-cup-myanmar-adidas-wages.html

Thursday, December 1, 2022

Strategic CSR - Dr. Bronner's

The article in the url below provides an interesting case of a corporation that is not afraid to stand on principle:

"Dr. Bronner's, the liquid soap company best known for its teeny-font labels preaching brotherly love and world peace, would like you to consider the benefits of mind-altering drugs."

Specifically:

"The sentiment is promoted on limited-edition soap bottles that sing the praises of psychedelic-assisted therapies, and through the trippy pronouncements of David Bronner, grandson of the company's founder and one of its top executives, who is not shy about sharing details of his many hallucinogenic journeys."

Dr. Bronner's has started offering psychedelic treatments as part of its employee healthcare coverage; it has also campaigned for wider acceptance and adoption of such treatments, and decriminalization and legalization of many drugs that are currently banned:

"Since 2015, Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps — yes, that's its official name — has donated more than $23 million to drug advocacy and research organizations, according to corporate documents. They include scientists researching the healing properties of the club drug Ecstasy, activist groups that helped decriminalize psilocybin 'magic mushrooms' in Oregon and Washington, D.C., and a small nonprofit working to preserve habitat for peyote, the hallucinogenic cactus central to some Native American spiritual traditions. Over the years, the company has also spent millions on efforts toward cannabis legalization, including litigation that in 2018 helped reverse a federal prohibition on the cultivation of industrial hemp."

There are many other details about the company in the article that make for fun/uplifting reading:

"But the founder's unconventional approach to business lives on. Top salaries at the company cannot exceed five times that of the lowest-paid worker with five years on the job, which means Michael and David each earn roughly $300,000 a year. Their 300 employees receive an array of benefits, including up to $7,500 in child-care assistance and annual bonuses of up to 10 percent of their annual pay. The cafeteria's vegan meals are free, as are the Zumba classes, back massages and solar-powered electric-vehicle charging stations."

The company is progressive on a number of issues and values its ability to remain independent so it can continue fighting the various causes in which it believes strongly:

"The company regularly spurns the kind of buyout offers that have claimed other independent brands like Burt's Bees (now part of Clorox), Tom's of Maine (Colgate-Palmolive) and Kiehl's (L'Oréal). The offers, the brothers say, go right into the trash. In a good year, the company gives away 45 percent of its profits, or about $8 million, according to the company's annual report. 'If we cashed out, we'd be less effective as a charitable engine,' David said."

Relatedly, in this month's election here in the U.S., CO residents passed a proposition to legalize psilocybin as a medical treatment (along with "psilocyn, DMT, ibogaine and mescaline," see here), with the support of 52% of the vote.