There is an old adage "Statistics don't lie, people do". In today's competitive landscape of corporations wanting to demonstrate that they are leaders in the realm of corporate social responsibility, there is also a preponderance of "don't ask, don't tell!"
In a September 1 article in the Toronto Star headlined "The Fine Print of Ethical Shopping"
shows us how the world of corporate social responsibility can be massaged to a company's advantage.
In this case, they tell of Starbucks who have supposedly embarked on a Coffee and Farmer Equity (CAFE) program to reward farmers with premium pricing if they adhere to environmental and socially responsible standards. In fact Starbucks proudly states that 53% of its beans are now certified under the program.
But what this article clearly points out is that certification and true corporate social responsibility are a game of statistics.
Most regular consumers would look at that statistic and say "wow, that's great!" and assume that a "certified" supplier would meet most of the standards -- at least 80% or more.
Unfortunately the reality is much different. In fact, according to someone who ran the statistics, only 19% fall into the 80% + category, 12% in the 60%-80% category, and the rest -- more than two thirds fall below 60%, which is not quite the pretty picture Starbucks is trying to paint.
In today's market company's seem to be getting in touch with their inner social responsibility, because it provides potential competitive advantage. Perhaps this is a little cynical, and I'm sure that some corporations and individuals within come organizations are truly committed to making the world a better place.
But let's face it -- the better place for most corporate titans is if they get accolades for enhancing shareholder value. If this requires mouthing the tenets of "I care" then so be it. If we get a more environmentally sound planet out of this, that's not a bad thing -- the fear that all should have is that if corporations aren't encompassing social responsibility for the right reasons, it could become a passing fad -- inherently not sustainable.
I give Starbucks credit for their CAFE program, but why leave out critical information and try to boast that you are better than you are? Why not just say it is a work in progress, and state objectives and report and monitor on progress to the consuming public?
For me, at this juncture, I will truly question anything that is reported by Starbucks in the future and look under the covers to where the real facts lie!
In a September 1 article in the Toronto Star headlined "The Fine Print of Ethical Shopping"
shows us how the world of corporate social responsibility can be massaged to a company's advantage.
In this case, they tell of Starbucks who have supposedly embarked on a Coffee and Farmer Equity (CAFE) program to reward farmers with premium pricing if they adhere to environmental and socially responsible standards. In fact Starbucks proudly states that 53% of its beans are now certified under the program.
But what this article clearly points out is that certification and true corporate social responsibility are a game of statistics.
Most regular consumers would look at that statistic and say "wow, that's great!" and assume that a "certified" supplier would meet most of the standards -- at least 80% or more.
Unfortunately the reality is much different. In fact, according to someone who ran the statistics, only 19% fall into the 80% + category, 12% in the 60%-80% category, and the rest -- more than two thirds fall below 60%, which is not quite the pretty picture Starbucks is trying to paint.
In today's market company's seem to be getting in touch with their inner social responsibility, because it provides potential competitive advantage. Perhaps this is a little cynical, and I'm sure that some corporations and individuals within come organizations are truly committed to making the world a better place.
But let's face it -- the better place for most corporate titans is if they get accolades for enhancing shareholder value. If this requires mouthing the tenets of "I care" then so be it. If we get a more environmentally sound planet out of this, that's not a bad thing -- the fear that all should have is that if corporations aren't encompassing social responsibility for the right reasons, it could become a passing fad -- inherently not sustainable.
I give Starbucks credit for their CAFE program, but why leave out critical information and try to boast that you are better than you are? Why not just say it is a work in progress, and state objectives and report and monitor on progress to the consuming public?
For me, at this juncture, I will truly question anything that is reported by Starbucks in the future and look under the covers to where the real facts lie!
1 comment:
We're all getting fairly cynical these days. I blame it mostly on George Bush and Dick Cheney, since recently they always seem to be at the center of any nastiness in the world.
It's also possible to be cynical about cynics and since that's what I do best, here goes:
There are apparently good cynics:
The Cynic's Sanctuary at http://www.i-cynic.com:
"an idealist whose rose-colored glasses have been removed, snapped in two and stomped into the ground, immediately improving his vision."
There are apparently bad cynics:
Webster's Dictionary:
"a faultfinding captious critic; esp. one who believes that human conduct is motivated wholly by self-interest."
There are cynics who are cynical about cynics, like me:
A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin.
-- H. L. Mencken
Then there seems to be a common sense view of cynics in a historical context - and an idea as to what to do with them:
The Devil's Dictionary:
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are,
not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of
plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
Hmmm. What was the question again?
Post a Comment