Maciej,
Nestle crisis touching many equally important and quite complex topics (such as brand transparency, social activism, social media as a boycott/protest tool) makes it definitely hard to present my position as coherently & eloquently as you did in the article above.
It will be the question if consumers (or more precisely vocal minority) can raise above the knee-jerking reaction to the video and actually look at the problem from various sides (e.g. hierarchy of animals' and humans' rights, sovereignty of the country in which the multinational company is operating etc.)
Instead, in situations like this one (Nike's sweatshop issue comes to mind) we witness a very linear thinking that results in removing one issue only to be faced with the (sometimes bigger and direr) CONSEQUENCE of the preceding action.
Given that Green-peace won't stick around to see what happens when people lose jobs and a perfectly legal way of trade; the most likely scenario is for another (as you put it) political organization to then step in with a campaign to save impoverished Indonesian and Malaysian farmers. Get ready to buy another Tshirt, recycling bag with a clever tagline or handmade bowl from the region.
Most of us are probably aware of the new Greenpeace campaign against Nestle (KitKat chocolate bars precisely). The issue risen by the campaigners is that Nestle sources its palm oil from producers in Indonesia, which chop down tropical forests in order to set up palm oil plantations, hence depriving the Orang Utan species of its natural habitat (more on the story: http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/443698/nestl_under_fire_for_de... Greenpeace has even put up a clip mocking a KitKat commercial, suggesting that KitKat eaters are responsible for slaughtering or monkeys. Acknowledging the honourable cause taken up by Greenpeace, I can't help the feeling of wrongfulness of the whole campaign.
I'm not convinced by the organisation's arguments that, being the largest food producer in the world, Nestle has enough power to stop deforestation from occurring AND it is Nestle's responsibility to do so. Sourcing decisions are business decisions, and there's a limit to how far due diligence can go (if I was securing a contract for commodity delivery, I don't think I would think of clauses regulating my suppliers' land bank policy).
Secondly, it's a (sad?) fact of life that Indonesia and Malaysia are the world's two biggest palm oil producers. Whereas Malaysia used to be the world's leader some 15 years ago, it's continuous effort to modernize the economy resulted in Indonesia taking over as a leader in 2007 (with nearly 50% of the world's production taking place there). And whereas I still see oil palm plantations every time I look outside my window (I'm situated in Malaysia at the moment), Malaysia's output capabilities might not be sufficient for those of the world's major food producer. Hence: is there REALLY a choice?
There's no doubt that deforestation causes a direct threat to orangutan population in Indonesia, and that other dodgy practices take place there (follow links from The Ecologist article posted above - companies entering into contracts with 4-year-olds, shooting endangered species...), and that those need to be addressed promptly. But isn't it essentially the Indonesian company's fault? Even with Sinar Mas (palm oil producer) left aside, and popular "the government should do something" cry in place, isn't it still the Indonesian government that should do "something"? Does not seem to be Nestle's responsibility in the first place.
Finally, one of the linked articles mentions that rapid expansion of the land bank was a result of expected surge in demand for palm oil for the production of biofuels. Is there something Nestle could be more remotely connected to? I'm pretty sure none of us would subscribe to the view "filling up my car makes me feel like some Cheerios. All the time". Yet, Greenpeace has no doubt: it's there, it's bad and it's all because of Nestle.
All that brings me to finally articulating the question, which lingered throughout the article: why Nestle? Do we really believe that stopping to buy Kit Kats will bring the forests back and change Sinar Mas' ways?
It seems like Greenpeace is more keen on attacking Nestle than actually solving the deforestation problem as such. And I can see the reason for it: Nestle is so much more easy target.
Should Greenpeace protest Sinar Mas? Absolutely.
Would they care about it? Doubtful.
Should Greenpeace protest Indonesian government? Totally.
Would they take them seriously? Why not. Except that the moment the argument of making Indonesians lose their jobs is brought to the table, Greenpeace would suffer a heavy PR blow which it cannot afford.
Hence an attack on a Multinational: we all know they are bad anyway. Easily picked-up appeal gives them much more publicity than petition to the Indonesian government to intervene. Of course it does not tackle the problem, and transfers responsibility away from the source of the issue to the outskirts: Nestle and Kit Kat consumers who might not be at fault, but they are closer to Greenpeace audience.
And now the question to readers: is such tactic of scapegoat-whistle-blowing and brand threatening (we know the stakes - Nestle cannot afford brand image damage and will go long miles to protect it, hence the green peacekeepers trying to exploit the weakness), rather than prevention, a sustainable way of functioning? Or is Greenpeace destined to be tagged as troublemakers and as such removed from environmentally-conscious public's interest? Whereas high-publicity stunts let them stay at least near the limelight (demonstration in Copenhagen, now the Kit Kat commercials), lack of visible sustained effort proves, at least to me, that Greenpeace is more than ever a political organization (as compared to business organization), oriented on achieving its own publicity goals and ensuring its own survival, rather than solving problems it promises to deal with. With emergence of initiatives such as Virgin Green Fund (and other by Sir Branson) and the whole CSR movement, ie a tendency towards sustained effort and initiative for more eco-friendly functioning, Greenpeace might find itself out of work (I firmly believe people will finally see the difference between shouting and doing) and, possibly, with libel lawsuits lined up.
Greetings Maciek Kokot
Madison
With the issue being as complex as it is, it gives even more opportunity for inputs from all of us at MD IEC. And I have to say you make a very good opening comment :)
Agreeing with your point on linearity of thinking, what I was wondering about was: isn't this outcry an end in itself? It seems to me that Nastle was only chosen as a scapegoat for Greenpeace to be talked about, rather than to make any difference for the apes. Because once you make the public cry, all the sustainability efforts are forgotten, and all that's left is a very bad aftertaste of every KitKat you munch on.
And, transiting from it, is there a possibility for future sustainability movement (talking here of Green Marketing, Green Communications and CSR efforts) to render such guerilla-like attacks useless?
[Note: I had to edit the article, as Nestle is THE LARGEST food producer in the world, not the 3rd. It only makes the point stronger, I believe.]
Greetings Maciek Kokot
UPDATE: As predicted, Indonesia and Malaysia took action and decided to cut supply to the US and EU if negative campaigns continue. And on top of that, Indonesians plan to... boycott Nestle products, if they stop sourcing from Indonesia!
http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0322-hance_nestle_boycott.html
And the question, again, is: who gains? Clearly, it's only Greenpeace who gains on this mess. The losers are: Nestle (negative campaign), Indonesia (likewise), Nestle customers (potential price increase). No change for: Orang Utans.
I do hope that in the future such stunts will be impossible/useless. It's probably all in Innovation Agencies' (such as MD) hands to come up with solutions to such threats. I'm working on one as we speak.
Greetings Maciek Kokot
I think this is a useful tactic. Palm Oil production has exploded because it is a key ingredient in what? Unhealthy processed foods. These unhealthy, unnatural, and processed foods are made primarily by huge Western corporations. Greenpeace's campaign is attempting to stem the demand for such products. If the demand for the products goes down, the demand for the raw product goes down. It's a horrible thing that most incredible ecosystems on our planet are being ravaged so people can eat fast food and processed junk. I think boycotts are a worthwhile endeavor. Kudos to Greenpeace.
I'm not affiliated with Greenpeace, and don't even donate to them. I do however agree with their new campaign.
Good article. It definitely captures well the complexity of some of the issues which surround environmental activist, raw resource business development, and multi-national companies. The one big thing that is at the heart of this incident are the monkeys, or specifically the clash of ethics and cultures.
Greenpeace has a mission to protect biodiversity (a global scientific paradigm) and ultimately sees the monkeys as equals to humans in having a right to existence.
Nestle and Indonesia don't necessarily have those concerns. It is the question that Madison pointed out, who has the priority of existence? the apes, the culture made up of apes, or the big organization made of apes.
Yes I oversimplify the distinction to make the biological commonality between us. The apes are on the verge of extinction, the Indonesians are trying to survive out of poverty, and the multinational is trying to stay cost competitive. I think that there is a wide view that captures the simple fact that everyone lost, including the monkeys.
I generally do not support international empty activism such as this GreenPeace incident because in practice, it results in nothing more than a public statement that supports their world view. They do actively target the largest corporations because they are the easiest targets. I wonder if they could do this kind of act with a private company.
BIG SKY THINKING ALERT: If this problem was handled in different way, conversation about the issue could have developed new programs and jobs for the Indonesians to protect their natural resources and turn that monkey into the basis for educational programming, tourism, or some other service. I wonder what would happen if GreenPeace had set out on that approach what would happen. Would all the people involve listen? Could there be practical business value for these kinds of partnerships?
- member since: 12/29/2009
- rank: 3 of 7372
- 2 articles authored
- 18 blog entries posted
- 13 forum threads started
- 33 comments
Super interesting post. Thanks for sharing.
Some fair criticisms, but in terms of raising awareness about the orang-utan's plight -- a key objective after all -- the campaign is a big success. Greenpeace directly affected Nestle on the consumer engagement front. Nestle's response has been panned as a massive social media failure. Have a look:
http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/991636/NestlE-faces-Facebook-crisis-Greenpeace-...
http://socialmediainfluence.com/2010/03/19/nestles-no-logo-policy-triggers-fa...
There are lessons here in terms of how brands manage their image in a web 2.0 world, and I might humbly suggest there is a lot to learn from the "activists."
Does a massive social media failure equal business failure (in this case or always)?
Whose perception of Nestle has been changed by the PR crisis?
Since companies/brands are not per se in a business of finding foes & attacking them (which is solely the area of activists) I don't believe that can learn from/duplicate some of Greenpeace's tactics. The only strategy that appeared to weaken the nonprofit advocates of any sort (including GP) is to drag to the sunlight how similar those organizations are to the businesses/brands they are protesting (e.g. I believe Greenpeace was accused of accepting bribes for suspending their protests)
See April 5th NYT article on the tactics employed by businesses 'attacted' by law school non profit legal clinics
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/us/04lawschool.html?src=me&ref=us
I really like the quote below; a lawyer comparing the actions of some non-profit activists to the machinations of Wizard of Oz
"Like the hapless Wizard of Oz, the clinics want all attention directed elsewhere, while they struggle mightily to keep concealed their actual use of public funds," Kevin Kelly, the lawyer for the developer, Sussex Commons, wrote in his brief.
In the end, what I am expecting from Nestle is even less transparency on their side aka learning to hide their tracks BETTER (see the outcome of Nike/GapÂ's child labor crisis)
Thanks for the insights!
It has to be admitted, that Nestle mishandled the issue on Facebook (synonymous to "social media" on its own), and that conclusions need to be drawn from it. Repercussions of it might be wider than we think: in a discussion last week, my interlocutor (bank executive) - asked whether he would consider increasing his bank's presence in social media, said reluctantly that it is a double-edged axe (FB fanpage) and that he might consider Twitter eventually, but not Facebook. I don't know how spread it is and to what extent it is the result of Nestle's PR crisis, but what was once a "PR no-brainer" starts to be approached more cautiously.
But this is the lesson from Nestle, and I have to agree with Madison that I don't see anything to be learned from Greenpeace as such. What ascertains me is the realization I made last weekend: MALAYSIANS ARE UNAWARE OF THE CAMPAIGN, including environmentally-sensitive ones. Hence, I keep on raising the question: is there a way (a system design, company strategy or management approach?) in which malicious (yes, that's what I think) attacks could be prevented? Of course I don't mean concealing your wrongdoings, but rather immunizing yourself to campaigns which impute guilt just for the sake of self-interest?
Raff, Mark, Madison, senior MDs: perhaps you could shed some light? I'm aware that it is one of this framework-principle-policy discussions, yet I believe that only major innovation can prevent such situations from happening in the future.
Greetings Maciek Kokot
Just some thoughts from a layman:
The interesting factor in many 'boycotting/social media attack situations is that a company/brand in a sense allows for the fight to take place ON ITS TURF. I wonder how efficient the discussion on orangutans/YouTube censorship would be if carried out exclusively on Greenpeace website/FB page & not on the Nestlé's site. That leads to a question why a company would allow for such unrestricted potential damaging exchange to take place.
For that reason, I believe that one of the actions that should be undertaken by all parties is to RE/WORK and CLARIFY the much used/ever-encompassing definition of 'conversations' that brands have with customers.
Social media are all about number of followers, creating "engagement"/"communities"; "re-organizing around the customer" and, of course, the ever-popular "blowing up silos." (paraphrasing a quote from Ad Contrarian: http://tinyurl.com/yk2f2fw)
What are the FINANCIAL benefits of such practices? What comes first: a brand that is loved by many ending up selling lots of products OR a brand that sells a lot ends up being loved by customers?
As I stated in one of my blog's postings (http://tinyurl.com/yzeswnn) it much reminds me of the changes of relationships between parents and children: parents don't want to be set in strict authoritarian roles, they now want to be their kids' friends.
Similarly, brands now want to 'befriend ' customers and be befriended. The companies seem to signal that 'being liked' is MORE important that actual sales.
Maybe brands do have to look closer at the tactics the parents employ when preventing trouble with their children; those usually involve balancing between 'constant checking on their offspring (aka. monitoring brand perception for a company to look for signs of trouble) vs involving a child in a decision process and taking a minor's suggestions and wishes into consideration (crowd sourcing; changing company policies due to unfavorable feedback). All that WITHOUT a guarantee that a crisis can be always prevented.
Hi there
A news item to close the topic, sourced from the Environmental Leader
Nestle announced it will cease buying palm oil from suppliers linked to deforestation after a two month campaign by Greenpeace.
The campaign highlighted Nestle's relationship with the Sinar Mas Group, an Indonesian chemical and lumber products conglomerate which Greenpeace has accused of illegal deforestation practices. Last year, Greenpeace successfully lobbied Unilever to cease using Sinar Mas as its palm oil supplier.
According to Nestle's press release, the food conglomerate will partner with The Forest Trust to "focus on the systematic identification and exclusion of companies owning or managing high risk plantations or farms linked to deforestation." The Forest Trust is a non-profit organization that works with companies to establish sustainable supply chains.
The Greenpeace campaign used a shocking YouTube video that compared eating Kit-Kat bars to feasting on orangutan digits, while overwhelming Nestle's Facebook page with comments about its sourcing practices.
Greetings Maciek Kokot
Greenpeace needs a very good lawyer specialized in economical law to go against such big companies like Nestle. I saw yesterday an article about Jonathan Dickstein, he would be good for this, actually I think that Greenpeace would do better persuading the government not only a company. Nestle can stop their usage of palm oil but this won't stop other companies to use it, and finally the trees will be cut at the same rate. The idea is good but the implementation has some flaws.
Wow, this is a really interesting conversation. So many different angles and things to think about.
Maciej, I do not think there is a way to stop attacks or campaigns by activists on the Internet. It is why so many PR people fear/are reluctant to adopt social media or maybe secretly wish Facebook did not exist.
A few years back a company I worked for had a similar attack but it was with PETA. This was before Facebook or right before Facebook blew up. We had chimpanzees in our commercials which aired on super bowl. I was trying to send out contracts and fax machine flooded with letters from PETA about mistreating chimp actors and long hours on the set.
What ended up happening was that we stopped using chimps. And in this case, Nestle is changing their palm oil supplier. Reading this thread is making me hungry for a kitkat. Even bad news or bad press is still a way to spin it all into a positive for a big brand like Nestle. By acknowleding that there is something to learn from the activists rather than having an us against the greenpeacers, Nestle will still come out ahead.
Big brands and big groups like Greenpeace could have a lot more to learn from each other than one would think. Attacking a popular brand and gaining e-signatures and fb 'likes' galore over the subject of exploited mammels closest to human dna and a popular candy bar is brilliant. And nestles name and kitkat bars were everywhere on those internet stories. I would be curious to see what sales of kitkats were before campaign began and after.
Oh and Max, lawyers are not the answer. Even really good ones. I can't remember the name of book but there is a NYT bestselling business book about how innovation comes from crowds and crowds are always more genius than a single person. Or lawyer. In social media and facebook you are dealing with collective thinking in real time all the time. Greenpeace doesn't want to sue or invest in lawyers. They just want lots of attention. Like Micheal Moore whom I have mixed feelings on. He gets attention and raises awareness but one must wonder what his true motivations are. He has built a media empire on being the little guy calling out the big guys. And I bet he eats a lot of kitkats.
It's nice to go back to one of these blogs after some time has past to reflect on the decisions made in the past. While everyone on this thread is predicting we can clearly see the impact that Greenspan has made and how hard he's made Bernake's job. As an owner of Dallas CPR - a company in North Dallas that offers CPR training, I agree with Ron Paul. Who gave the power of half our economy to a small group of government employees to determine the interest rates and money flow? It doesn't make sense to me how government can be allowed to intervene that much.
We are now seeing the effects of failed policies by the Fed to try to regulate the market. We now have a huge hole to get ourselves out of.
Add Your Reply
Copyright © 2012
Maddock Douglas, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
RSS |
Privacy Policy |
Terms of Use |
Contact Us |
Site Map
