Corporate Responsibility

Well, the wrists aren’t hurting so much anymore. That means anyone reading this is in for a couple-thousand-word treat….And I’m limiting my research to Wikipedia (which I know isn’t really a great source for authoritative information), so some of these details may be messed up.

Today’s topic: Corporate Responsibility….Go!

The Royal Dutch Shell corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Oil) and The Coca Cola Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coca-Cola_Company) have both been the subject of outrage over gross human rights violations. These corporations are by no means alone in their reckless behavior, but I single them out here because I have been made aware of them relatively recently (within the past few years). Personally I feel that I should not support corporations, individuals, or institutions that behave in an unethical manner. So if, for instance, Coca-Cola hires Columbian revolutionaries to intimidate and/or kill workers attempting to unionize, then I would stop drinking Coca Cola products.

However, what is my ethical obligation if another company, say Coca Cola Fomento Economico Mexicano, S.A. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_FEMSA), only 39.6% owned by The Coca-Cola Company, is the guilty party? Coca-Cola FEMSA is not the bottler that distributes Coca-Cola into the United States. In all likelihood I will never pick up a bottle of Coke distributed by this company (although they also distribute many beers that we might easily purchase in the US, such as Tecate, Tecate Light, Carta Blanca, Superior, Sol, Dos Equis Lager, Dos Equis Ambar). What is the obligation of The Coca Cola Company to police its suppliers? Futhermore, what is the obligation of U.S. bottlers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_Enterprises), who are also only partly owned (~30%) by the The Coca Cola Company? So if I decide to not buy a bottle of Coke at the 7-11, and instead pick up a Pepsi (thereby reducing market share for Coke)…and assuming lots of other people do this too….then what happens? Who feels the pinch? Who responds? Who is capable of addressing the issue that concerned me? Well, in this case it is easy…If significant numbers of people respond to something like this and begin to erode the quality of Coca Cola as a brand name, then the entire Coca Cola system is in jeopardy, and the who system needs to respond.

The reality is that when a company behaves unethically, that company’s business partners have a choice to make: 1) continue to do business as usual, 2) abandon that business relationship, or 3) work to remedy/improve the situation. I’m in favor of choice #2, because it sets the bar pretty high for ethical behavior in companies. You act like an ass, we don’t work with you anymore. I’m usually willing to accept #3. Coca Cola has actually done this in some ways before: CFC coolers were in use by a Coca Cola subsidy, in response to a public appeal Coke forced the smaller company to invest in better coolers. A small step, but a step. I usually only feel like I need to make a stand when a company chooses #1.

What is a company saying when they choose step #1? They are saying that unethical behavior is acceptable. And if you support that company, you are telling that company “Hey, it’s ok…I don’t mind.” “Hey, Coca Cola...I’m fine with you hiring thugs to intimidate and kill your union workers.”

What I want to say is “I’m so disgusted by your pitiful response that I don’t even want to talk to you.”

I’m not sure if this went where I wanted it to go. I mean, I’ve got a lot of other thoughts about this. What happens when corporate leadership changes? Do we continue to boycott or work against that corporation or do we give them a chance to prove themselves? How much of the leadership would need to change? How do we respond when ‘brands’ get sold and repackaged by a new company (I’m thinking here of Uniroyal)? Does our distaste go with the brand? What happens when a company responds to controversy by really making an effort to remedy or improve the situation, but just doesn’t seem to be making much progress?

Basically I guess the bottom line is: Coke and I broke up a week or so ago. I came over and got all my stuff, and now I’ve moved out. We’re through. Coke and I got nothing to talk about.

Ok, let’s think about something a little less difficult:

AllStar Game Reserves (2 forwards, 2 guards, 1 ‘center’ and 2 wildcards):

The West:

Carmelo Anthony (F)

Elton Brand (F)

Pau Gasol (C)

Nowitzki (W)

Chris Paul (G)

Tony Parker (G)

Shawn Marion (W)

The East

Ben Wallace (C)

Rip Hamilton (G)

Chauncy Billups (G)

Paul Pierce (W)

Chris Bosh (F)

Dwight Howard (F)

Joe Johnson (W)

A few comments: Yeah…I left Garnett off my AllStar team…Suck it. I would absolutely rather have Gasol, Nowitzki, Brand, Anthony, or Marion before Garnett right now. I mean, I wouldn’t even have to think about it. Garnett looks like an old man out there on the court. Hard to believe he’s only 29, but he’s played 10 long years in the league.

I wrestled tremendously with the East reserves. I kinda think Chris Webber should be on there somewhere, and I think Z in Cleveland is the 3^rd best center. However, I leave no room for gunners who don’t make their team better (I’m looking at you Marbury and Arenas) and I really can’t say I’d rather have one of the Net wingmen over Joe “I made Boris Diaw 30 million dollars” Johnson. And don’t think I didn’t consider Boris in those West reserves. Three Pistons seems about right, although I hate the idea of picking guys for team success…we’re talking about the All-Star game, successful teams have other rewards…but Ben Wallace is still a great center, Chauncy should be second behind Nash for MVP balloting, and I think Rip deserves some credit for his amazing game.

Just for the record, Rip is really the most amazing player. People always compare him to Reggie, and he even seems to be buying into that himself, but what makes him amazing is his control. Reggie twisted and broke free, but he’d take bad shots (maybe I’m just remember him older). Rip has really, really good shot selection. He doesn’t take a lot of threes because he isn’t a great three point shooter. Not many players today care to do that. I can’t even imagine how much better Ben Gordon would be if he would restrict himself to shooting ‘in-range and in-rhythm’. He really could be good.