Category: Social and Economic Justice

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Ethics-International, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Social and Economic Justice

Answer: I just read provocative articles on BNET on these two topics.

First, Stacy Blackman, while supporting cause marketing, notes that these products are often more expensive, because the company has to cover the cost of the donation. However, I commented that a successful campaign would bring in enough extra sales volume that this shouldn’t be an issue.

Second, Jeffrey Pfeffer makes a fascinating case for lowering healthcare costs by improving US workplace conditions and decreasing job stress caused by anticipated layoffs and other factors. He notes lower stress levels AND better working conditions for many European businesses.

Plenty of footnotes for those who want to check his sources and assumptions.

Of course, there are many other factors–not the least of which is that most other industrialized countries have shifted healthcare from a privilege of the wealthy to a right for all, using a single-payer system that in many cases pays doctors on salary rather than fee-for-service. HR 676 in the US would bring this sensible system to our shores as well, and by some estimates slash health costs around 30 percent.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Energy & Sustainability, Media Ethics, Social and Economic Justice, Transparency vs. Secrecy

Very disturbing article on Total Health Breakthroughs about a deliberate campaign by Merck to intimidate, defund ,and otherwise make life miserable for doctors who dared to speak out about the nasty and sometimes-lethal side effects of Vioxx.

I am not in a position to evaluate the claims this article makes, but if there’s any truth to it at all, we’ve got yet another very serious problem in our health care system.

Isn’t it time we put actual healing in front of corporate profits? And isn’t it time that drug companies and others are held responsible for the consequences of their products–and their strategies?

If you’re in the US, tell your representative in Congress to support HR 676, the Medicare for All bill.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Business Ethics, Energy & Sustainability, People Helping People, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , ,

When are sustainability measures real, and when are they a counterproductive waste of time and money?

That was one of a several very interesting questions posed by Dean Cycon, CEO of Dean’s Beans and award-winning author of Javatrekker: Dispatches from the World of Fair Trade Coffee (Chelsea Green, 2007).

Dean’s Beans uses only organic fair-trade coffee and cocoa, typically pays farmers well above the fair-trade minimum while still keeping consumer prices very affordable, and reinvests substantial profits into locally governed sustainability/economic development projects in the communities that supply his coffee. He’s also perhaps the business person with the highest integrity that I’ve ever encountered.

Not surprisingly, his revenues and profits have grown every year, despite the recession.

In a speech to small business owners in Massachusetts, Cycon described how he had decided not to invest thousands of dollars in a more eco-friendly liner for disposable coffee cups, that in a year would keep about a basketball’s worth of plastic out of the landfill on a year’s volume of 100,000 cups. It didn’t make either economic or environmental sense, he said.

On the flip side, Cycon was asked to be the organic coffee supplier when Keurig introduced its wildly popular single-serve coffee makers. He looked at the machine, was disturbed by the large amount of plastic that would be consumed, and suggested to the engineers that they redesign it more sustainably, replacing the disposable plastic containers with biodegradable ones made of the same thick paper used to make egg cartons. When the company declined, he refused to supply the coffee, a decision that cost him millions of dollars, but which still feels like the right decision to him. He’s actually looking to develop a competing model that would be more eco-friendly.

Cycon has also been an agent of change within the coffee industry, challenging companies like Starbucks and Green Mountain to up their percentage of fair-trade sources, and to make much larger donations to village sustainability programs in the coffee lands: $10 million to his $10,000, in one case.
On the fair trade issue, he points out that if a large coffee roaster sources four percent from fair-trade co-ops, that could mean 96 out of every 100 farmers are not making a living wage.

His challenge to business in general? Bring CSR and sustainability “deeply into your business” as an integral part of decision-making, and don’t just tack it on at the end. With that attitude, Cycon believes companies can influence their vendors, their customers, and other stakeholders to take many more sustainability steps: from convincing UPS to use biodiesel trucks in the fleet to biodegradable paper from their label supplier.

Award-winning author of Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First and seven other books, Shel Horowitz writes and speaks on driving success through environmental sustainability, business ethics, cooperation (even with competitors), attitude, and extreme service. He is the founder of the international Business Ethics Pledge.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics: General, language, People Helping People, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , ,

Bad enough that Arkansas State Senator Kim Hendren called Chuck Schumer ‘that Jew’–but even worse is the anti-Semitic trash talk from so many readers of the New York Daily News story about it.

Eeeew! In 2009, we should be better than that! In fact, that kind of racist crap should have been unacceptable in 1809. No matter what ethnic or racial group is being denigrated, the message needs to go out that this is unacceptable. I’m not blaming the Daily News for having an open comments page, but I wonder about these narrow-minded bigots who are posting.

Mind you, I’m one Jew who does NOT believe in “Israel right or wrong.” But I do believe in treating every person civilly, and in condemning racist behavior.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Ethics in Government, General Commentary, Marketing Trends/News, Media Ethics, Politics, Shel's Personal Life, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , , ,

Been spending some time on Huffington Post this morning, always a fascinating place. Here’s some of what I’ve been reading:

Oregon’s Senator Jeff Merkley on Republican strategist Frank Luntz’s plan to derail health reform. What he doesn’t talk about is single-payer, which I believe could engage the strong support of the American people and roll right over all the roadblocks put there by industry lobbyists–while piecemeal “reform” would gain no such support. I do not understand why mainstream Democrats aren’t pushing this issue. It’s key to a raft of economic boosts that would help, for instance, both US automakers and labor. It’s little-talked-about that because most governments around the world, at least in developed nations, provide a real health care service, foreign competitors to GM, Ford, and Chrysler aren’t stuck with that enormous cost.

Robert Borosage on the general climate of business corruption in Washington. And on how that corruption has caused us to fail in such areas as mandatory sick leave, which then in turn makes the “stay home” response to swine flu impractical for those at the bottom of the ladder, who might lose their jobs and would certainly lose their pay.

Apparently some right-wing pundits have nothing better to do than attack Obama as elitist because–are you sitting down?–he likes Grey Poupon or Dijon mustard on his burgers! Give me a break! You can buy the stuff for two dollars a bottle at a discount store, and it sure does taste a lot better than the yellow glop that’s largely turmeric. I say unto them: get a life!

Stephen Colbert’s very funny video spoofing the big too-big-to-fail bailouts; no commentary necessary from me

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Ethics in Government, Ethics: General, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Shel's Personal Life, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , ,

Although I’m a strong advocate of same-sex marriage, and have attended a number of gay and lesbian ceremonies long before they were legal in any U.S. state, I am very disturbed by a ruling of New Mexico’s Human Rights Commission that a photography studio, Elane Photography (owned by Elaine Huguenin and Jonathan Huguenin, was not within its rights to decline a job photographing a same-sex wedding. (That link is to the NPR story–scroll down–and in the midst of the coverage is a link to download a PDF of the actual decision.) And the photography studio is to pick up $6,637.94 in plaintiff’s legal fees!

The decision quotes the actual e-mail correspondence, which was civil, measured,not the least bit threatening, and simply stating that the couple did not choose to photograph same-sex weddings.

When someone contacts me regarding my copywriting/consulting services, I send back an e-mail response that includes the following:

Please note that I reserve the right to reject a project if I feel I’m not the right person for it. This would include projects that in my opinion promote racism, homophobia, bigotry or violence–or that promote the tobacco, nuclear power, or weapons industries–or if I do not feel the product is of high enough quality that I can get enthusiastic about it.

In other words, I am putting out my values and stating clearly that I will not accept projects in conflict with my values. I have in fact occasionally turned down projects because they were promoting causes I actively disagree with. And in my award-winning sixth book, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First, I even have a section called “When to Say No to a Sale.”

While the values of these photographers are not my values, I think they, too, should have the right to turn down projects that violate their particular beliefs. I feel this on both ethical and practical grounds: the truth is, when someone takes on a project in conflict with deep internal values, that person won’t turn in good work.

I support their right to not be hired to perform their art for a cause they disagree with; this is not a public accommodation, such as a restaurant or hotel denying service. It is not a job discrimination issue, but a self-employed couple in the creative arts choosing not to be hired by a prospective client.

It would be a sad day indeed if someone were to compel me to write propaganda for, say, a homophobic organization, or a company whose primary product is nuclear weapons.

I don’t know if there’s any appeal process for the New Mexico board, but I certainly hope there is. Something is very definitely rotten in this decision.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Business Ethics, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , ,

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. It’s in incredibly bad taste to give out 7-figure bonuses to the execs who drove your company (and the whole economy) to ruin while holding your hand out to collect billions in government bailouts. Worse than the auto CEOs flying separate corporate jets to go begging in Washington, at about $20K a pop. This is simply an outrage. Bonuses are supposed to reward performance. This performance is not worth rewarding, and taxpayers shouldn’t be funding these bonuses.

President Obama ordered Secretary Geithner to use “every single legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole.” I totally support his call. And I look forward to seeing these thieving and clueless pretenders to the throne of economic wisdom grovel before Congress tomorrow.

Of course, if the execs are smart, they’ll donate their huge bonuses to the recovery effort. And if they’re not, it wouldn’t surprise me if they find themselves the victims of physical attacks on their homes or their persons. I don’t condone that kind of violence (in fact, I don’t condone violence at all), but it would be a predictable result of this kind of class warfare mentality, and they should not be shocked to see angry mobs at their gated communities. People have lost their homes, lost their jobs, because of the incompetence of these executives and the companies they operate. To take home bonuses several times the size of the typical American paycheck under these circumstances has no positive benefit, it only serves to incite.

This is OUR money these companies are squandering, after all.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Ethics-International, Social and Economic Justice

Editor’s note: Holly McCarthy submitted this provocative guest post, and I’m running it in the hope of starting some dialogue. I share some of Holly’s concerns about outsourcing (particularly about using it to duck around environmental laws), but also believe there can be ethical ways to do it, and that when done properly, it can be an important leg up to the hardest-pressed communities at the bottom of the world’s pyramid. Curious as to what others think.
–Shel Horowitz

Guest post by Holly McCarthy When we talk of business ethics, we’re generally referring to the right way to do business, the moral way that leads to principled profit. But the advent of globalization has brought on a new kind of ethical value that we must bow to, but one which we tend to ignore because it doesn’t concern us directly. I’m talking about the process of outsourcing, a practice that’s pretty common these days because of the low cost of labor in countries like India, China and the Philippines.

Issue number one: The first unethical aspect of outsourcing is that we’re ignoring our own talent and paying people overseas just to cut costs. Our people are languishing without jobs and yet we’re shifting more and more jobs overseas. There are times when we even tend to hand over sensitive information to unknown faces who are connected to us through just a computer and an Internet connection, thus putting at risk our customers’ privacy and identity. Besides this, we are closing down offices in our country only to open new ones in other countries, thus effectively contributing to development on foreign lands and stagnation in our own.

Issue number two: We’ve also taken to shifting our manufacturing operations overseas, not only because of lower costs, but also because these countries do not have effective anti-pollution laws. We are luring them to ruin with huge amounts of money, and the sad part of this whole shady situation is that those who gain from this venture are not the ones who are affected by the effluents that result from the manufacturing process. It’s the poor and indigent people who live off the land who are hurt the most – they cannot afford bottled water like the rest of us and so must still drink from the stream that’s been polluted; they cannot afford to sit inside air-conditioned rooms and so must breathe in the polluted air; they cannot afford medication, and so they must suffer respiratory illnesses and other ailments in silence.

Outsourcing is and has always been a sore point with developed nations like the USA and the UK. The burgeoning of talent in developing countries, talent that is available at a fraction of the cost incurred in hiring local labor, had made organizations take the easy way out. Of course, when there’s money to be made, it’s understood that you want to be among the profits. But there’s an ethical line that cannot be crossed, and it’s up to you to decide where you want to draw it.

This post was contributed by Holly McCarthy, who writes on the subject of online universities. She invites your feedback at hollymccarthy12 at gmail dot com

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Frugality/Frugal Fun, Social and Economic Justice

Some random thoughts about the economy and ethics today.

1. President Obama took a small but welcome step toward curtailing corporate abuses yesterday, restricting CEO pay for those companies taking government bailouts to a “measly” half a million dollars. Tom Peters, author of In Search of Excellence, endorsed the idea but said it didn’t go far enough, noting that the myth of the irreplaceable CEO was just that, a myth. He’d like to max out CEO pay at the same level a top general or admiral receives. Not a bad idea!

2. For those CEOs who can’t imagine living on that amount, I assure you that it’s possible to live comfortably, even luxuriously, on far less. I remember when $10,000 per year felt like an enormous sum of money to me. I actually had a job in New York City as recently as 1980 that paid $82 per week of hard work–that was part of the “research phase” for my e-book on having fun cheaply, The Penny-Pinching Hedonist: How to Live Like Royalty with a Peasant’s Pocketbook. In fact, if you’re a CEO who finds this new “limited” income a hardship, contact me. I’ll give you a free copy of the e-book, and the $8.50 you save will be your first step toward frugality. ;-). It’ll save the typical reader between $500-$2000 per year. In your case, it might save you a million or so.

3. Talk about sleeping at the switch! Whistleblower Harry Markopolos not only claims (and, I understand, documented during his recent testimony) that he gave the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enough info to break up Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme as far back as 2000, but also laid it out for a Wall Street Journal reporter who was interested, but couldn’t get the go-ahead from brass, back in 2005. Markopolos had some pretty harsh words for the SEC:

I gift wrapped and delivered the largest Ponzi scheme in history to them and some how they couldn’t be bothered to conduct a thorough and proper investigation because they were too busy on matters of higher priority.

4. The left-of-center political action group MoveOn is jumping into the fray with a petition opposing the use of bailout dollars for executive bonuses. This is from the message you can send to friends after signing, which you can do at https://pol.moveon.org/bonus/?r_by=15503-5426570-ynLMRyx&rc=comment_paste:

Did you hear that Wall Street gave out $18.4 billion in bonuses in 2008? $18.4 billion to the people who crippled our economy with their recklessness and greed and then took $700 billion of our money. Outrageous, right?

Not only did I sign, but I feel any company that took our tax money and then paid even a dollar in bonuses should be made to pay it back. Just because the Bush administration was too incompetent to specify how this money was spent does not mean we have to tolerate this outrage. And forgive me for being out of touch, but I always thought bonuses were something you earn through stellar performance–not for running your company, and the economy, into the ground.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Social and Economic Justice

Can’t say I’m surprised that the Bush bailout program lacked safeguards for ordinary people. It’s only the people’s money, after all. But I am a bit surprised at how blatantly the recipients are ripping us off. After the serious public relations fallout and public outrage around AIG’s lavish parties and the CEOs of the Big Three car companies begging from the cockpits of their individual private jets, you’d think they wouldn’t be so quick to rub it in We the People’s collective face.

Yet a big chunk of our money, supposedly designed to free up ultra-tight lending, found its way into huge executive bonuses–$18 billion worth–and to rolling up acquisitions of other banks. Credit doesn’t seem to be any looser. So when an institution is “too big to fail,” you let it swell even bigger so if it does collapse, it pulls down even more bricks of the economy? Dumb!

If I were Obama, I’d be issuing an executive order that demanded some accountability. Bailout money needs to be earmarked to bail out ordinary people trying to make it on 10 or 20 or 50K a year, not the fat cats with eight- and nine-figure compensation packages that got us into this mess in the first place through their bad management.

Surely there must be a way he can say, “look, the purpose of this bailout was clearly not executive bonuses and acquisitions. Money used for those purposes will be considered a temporary interest-free loan, and no payment will be forthcoming until that money has been repaid.” It doesn’t take any more chutzpah than it did to award those bonuses in the first place. (And whatever happened to the idea that bonuses are earned by high performance–and digging a ditch and pouring your company’s assets into it doesn’t qualify IMHO.)

Let’s see the bailout go to fund green jobs, antipoverty programs, and other ways to jumpstart the economy that bypass the greeditarians entirely, and put money in the hands of the people who’ve been hurt.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail