| |
|
|
GreenMoney Journal - publishing since 1992
Winter 2009/10 issue
|
| |
LETTER TO THE EDITOR (AND RESPONSES): Featuring Paul Hawken, Amy Domini and others [Spring 1993]
We want to thank author, speaker and long time friend of GreenMoney, Paul Hawken for raising
several important issues in his recent Letter to the Editor about our Dec./Jan. 2003 issue on
Natural Products and Organic Foods. With Paul's permission, we're sharing his letter, along with
the responses from the people and organizations that he took to task.
On one level, you'll
see reflected in the letters a tactical debate among leaders of the socially responsible investing
and business communities, each of whom seeks a better, more ethical world.
On another
level, this discussion reflects a healthy and vibrant SRI family that has come a long way from the
earlier boycott days of "buy this/don't buy that."
GreenMoney (GMJ) thanks the writers for
having the courage and passion of their convictions. The debate proves that our socially
responsible investing and business communities as well as the Natural Products industry are,
indeed, making a difference. We hope to have Wild Oats and Whole Foods response in a future issue.
- Ted & Cliff
Letter the Editor from Paul Hawken:
Dear Cliff
I was
reading GMJ (Dec/Jan 2003 issue) last night and was appreciating that you use my quote in the
front and even thinking I should give you a newer, even better one. You are doing great work.
As I was reading it and past issues, a few questions arose that I would like to share with you.
You can publish this if you wish, as these are definitely to the editor.
1. Why would you
run an ad from Chiquita Brands on one hand, and then talk about boycotting Philip Morris on the
other? Excuse me, but Chiquita is a part of a long effort to create a commodity monopoly. Below is
an excerpt from a paragraph on Chiquita from my piece on the WTO and Seattle. In short, they have
been an unjust company that has caused untold suffering for decades. I realize that they are trying
to change, and that is good. But it is bizarre to see them in GMJ.
One recent example of
the power of the WTO is Chiquita Brands International, a $2 billion dollar corporation that in 1998
made a large donation to the Democratic Party. Not so coincidentally and shortly thereafter, the
United States filed a complaint with the WTO against the European Union because European import
policies favored bananas coming from small Caribbean growers instead of the banana conglomerates.
The Europeans freely admitted their bias and policy: they restricted imports from large
multinational companies in Central America (plantations whose lands were secured by U.S. military
force during the past century) and favored small family farmers from former colonies who used fewer
chemicals. It seemed like a decent thing to do, and everyone thought the bananas tasted much
better. For the banana giants like Chiquita, this was untenable. The United States prevailed in
this WTO-arbitrated case and what immediately followed was the dumping of Chiquita bananas into the
EU at super low prices. So who won and who lost? Did the Central American employees at Chiquita
Brands win? Ask the hundreds of workers in Honduras who were made infertile by the use of
dibromochloropropane on the banana plantations. Ask the mothers whose children have birth defects
from pesticide poisoning. Did the shareholders of Chiquita win? At the end of 1999, Chiquita Brands
was losing money because it was selling bananas at below cost to muscle its way into the European
market. Its stock was at a 13-year low, the shareholders were angry, the company was up for sale,
but the prices of bananas in Europe are really cheap. Who lost? Caribbean farmers who could
formerly make a living and send their kids to school can no longer do so because of low prices and
demand.
Chiquita will respond that their business was being "harmed". They say they want
fair trade rules, but this was forced trade, a violent process of wrenching open markets under the
threat of punitive tariffs. All monopolies feel they are harmed when they can't get more. The
question for all of us is what is enough? What is big enough? How much power is too much power?
2. Why tout Whole Foods and Wild Oats and then talk of boycotting Philip Morris when in
fact Whole Foods and Wild Oats continue to buy from Phillip Morris? Why not boycott Whole Foods or
Wild Oats until they start getting their values in alignment with corporate social responsibility?
It is my understanding that Whole Foods would not support a boycott. What does that mean? Is this
neo-liberal economic theory at work? Why not discuss founder John Mackey's views on big box
retailers and why he supports Wal-Mart and other 'category killers' who contribute to traffic,
sprawl, and the loss of union jobs? Why is it that small family farmers are sacrosanct and needed,
but family retailers like the Provender Alliance are not even discussed when it comes to social
responsibility? Do we support industrial or factory farming? If not, why do we support factory
retailing? Is it even discussible?
3. Why not discuss the fact that companies that are
talked about as investments in Natural and Organic Foods are often predatory with very spotty
environmental and social track records, and in the cases shown, with some questionable products as
well? Just because they sell 'natural' products, are we supposed to look the other way? The
companies you featured are on their way to becoming mini-conglomerates muscling out smaller
companies. There is a great confusion in this country between
competition and the ability of
larger companies to externalize costs which is what Horizon is doing with its ultra-pasteurized
milk being sent long distances. What about the environmental implications of all this fossil fuel
use when virtually every state in the union has small diaries that are going out of business
because they can't get a fair price? Horizon has had a devastating effect on small organic dairies
as outlined in Michael Pollan's May 13, 2001 article in The New York Times magazine. What are we
supposed to be investing in? Growth for growth sake? The CEO of Horizon dismisses the "grassroots"
food movement as inadequate to the task. Why is over-the-top growth seen as socially responsible?
4. In this issue, you talk with concern and sadness about the number of overweight
children in America. You might also have mentioned that adult-onset "lifestyle" diabetes is
increasingly being called Type 2 diabetes because it has doubled in American children in the past
ten years and is no longer limited to adults. Blame for it is placed squarely with fast food by the
Natural Institute Health. In a previous issue, you featured comments and 'wisdom' from Amy Domini
whose social index fund holds 357,000 shares of McDonald's. Bear in mind that in addition to the
junk food McDonald's makes, it is also the largest purveyor of Coke, a beverage that has been
called a liquid candy bar. We won't even get into McDonald's union-busting activities, the fact
that it entices small children to junk food by giving away toys, or that it has caused untold
damage to American agriculture by forcing down costs.
So what gives? What does socially
responsible investing mean? Is it a way for upper middle class people to launder their money? Do
the caretakers take their job seriously? Is it simply a way to avoid the real issues? It seems to
me that the first thing we have to look at is the business model if we are to determine whether a
company is socially responsible. Getting kids hooked on junk food doesn't qualify. If the business
model is corrupt, then it hardly matters if a company uses recycled paper or provides daycare.
It is not just what we do, e.g. sell organic foods, but how we do it.
In fact, what
we do always comes from how.
All the best, Paul Hawken
3B Gate Five Road, Sausalito,
CA 94965
(415) 332 6990 phone
(415) 331 0556 fax
The following are responses
from Chiquita, Horizon Organic and Amy Domini of the Domini Funds. Paul Hawken then responses to
them.
January 15, 2003
To: Cliff Feigenbaum, The GreenMoney Journal
From: Jeff
Zalla, Chiquita
Dear Cliff:
Thank you for providing an opportunity to respond to
Mr. Hawken's comments to The GreenMoney Journal about Chiquita. It appears that Mr. Hawken's
understanding of Chiquita's performance is outdated, and we would welcome an opportunity to inform
him directly of our more recent record of leadership in corporate responsibility.
Over
the past decade, we have engaged seriously with numerous concerned stakeholders, including the
leaders of several nongovernmental and labor organizations that had been critical of the company's
history. Even some of Chiquita's harshest critics have become supporters once they began to
understand the company's genuine commitment to achieve rigorous standards of environmental and
social responsibility.
A recent corporate social responsibility profile of Chiquita in the
Financial Times had the headline: "The banana giant that found its gentle side." A recent
benchmarking survey sponsored by the United Nations Environment Programme had the following praise
for Chiquita's environmental and social reporting: "Chiquita sets new standards with detailed
assessments of its farms in Latin America, using a rigorous set of environmental standards set by
the Better Banana Project, as well as ethical labor standards in SA8000."
Times have
changed. And so has our company. I would invite Mr. Hawken and others who may share his views to
review Chiquita's recent corporate responsibility reports at- www.chiquita.com and judge for
themselves based upon current information.
Sincerely, Jeff Zalla
Corporate
Responsibility Officer and Vice President, Corporate Communications,
Chiquita Brands
International
Paul responses to Chiquita:
I have looked at Chiquita's recent
reports and there is a remarkable change afoot to be sure. But I also read the NY Times (January
18) which reported how Chiquita is trying to prevent claims against the poisoning and
sterilization of it workers by the DBCP fumigant, a toxic chemical used by the company on its
plantations for many years after it was banned by the United States EPA. These claims are being
brought to court by plaintiffs in Nicaragua where the injuries occurred. Chiquita has enlisted the
Bush administration to try to prevent these plaintiffs from seeking redress in U.S. courts. A
previous class action suit resulted in $1500 per worker, but it did not cover all workers made
sterile. Chiquita is taking the same stand as Dow with respect to Bhopal victims, that DBCP is a
thing of the past, that it has no further responsibility. The victims feel differently.
Further, Mr. Zalla did not respond to the charge that Chiquita's aggressive banana war in
Europe devastated Caribbean farmers, and how that challenge was brought about by donations to the
Democratic Party which would be called corruption if we didn't live in such corrupt times. I don't
believe that Caribbean farmers or Chiquita's poisoned workers would agree with Mr. Zalla's
assessment, so the question remains, socially responsible to whom?
Horizon Organic
responses to Paul Hawken:
January 10, 2003
To: Cliff Feigenbaum, GreenMoney Journal
From: Kelly Shea, Horizon Organic Holding Corporation
Dear Mr. Feigenbaum,
Thank you for providing an opportunity to respond to Mr. Hawken's comments and the inclusion of
Horizon Organic in The Green Money Journal's Dec./Jan. 2003 issue on shopping and investing with
your values.
In regards to Michael Pollan's article in The New York Times Magazine (May
2001), the author's negative comments about Horizon Organic were not based on fact, and
unfortunately he never visited our dairies nor spoke with any of our producer partners. The
situation was best summed up by one of our organic dairy producer partners in a letter to the
editor following the release of the article. Christine and Art Couperus of Fish Creek Family Farm
in Heuvelton, New York felt "compelled to set the record straight" and said in their letter "Dairy
farmers like us do not have the time, resources, experience or knowledge to market our milk
directly to consumers. Companies such as Horizon Organic enable small-scale dairy farmers to
connect to consumers in a way that we never could on our own - they provide a market for our milk
and enable us to make a living farming organically."
The Couperus' letter concludes: "The
only point in the article that I agree with is that Horizon Organic is the leader in the organic
industry. It's this leadership that has helped hundreds of independent family dairies like mine to
convert to organic production. I support Horizon Organic's goal of bringing organic milk to
mainstream Americans because it allows me and other organic dairy farmers to expand and prosper."
Since its founding, Horizon Organic's vision has been to make a lasting contribution by
encouraging the conversion of conventional farmland to sustainable organic production. The
company's mission statement, "We will expand organic agriculture by building Horizon Organic as the
world's leading brand of organic food products" has always impressed me, in that the goal of
increasing acres farmed organically is the first part of the mission
statement. The way to get
there is the second part, by building the brand.
This cannot be accomplished by negatively
impacting communities and farmers, but rather by developing long lasting, honest relationships with
local organic milk and grain producers, feed mills and processors. There is a local story behind
the national brand. Horizon Organic partners with almost 200 family farms (ranging in herd size
from 12 to 1300 cows) throughout the United States. These dairy farmers in turn purchase organic
feedstuffs from other local farmers who in turn buy supplies from their local stores and make other
purchases that support the local agricultural community. As Horizon Organic grows, every part of
this network grows, spreading the positive benefits of organic agriculture throughout local
communities across the country.
Our company contributes to many local and national
causes, donates its products to food banks and other charities, and supports environmental groups
and farming collectives. As a dedicated steward of the land, Horizon Organic has significantly
contributed not only to building awareness of organic foods, but also to demonstrating a commitment
to sustainability and socially responsible practices. This year we were very proud to receive the
Colorado Ethics in Business Award. This award, founded by The Samaritan Institute, Daniels College
of Business and ColoradoBiz Magazine, recognizes companies that have demonstrated business success
together with a proven record of ethical conduct and socially responsible business practices.
Horizon Organic also earned the Corporate Conscience Award, given by the Council on Economic
Priorities for Environmental Stewardship. The award honors companies that have demonstrated a
commitment to sustainability.
I am personally very pleased with what Horizon Organic has
been able to achieve in cooperation with organic farmers across the nation. Through the Horizon
Organic Agriculture Project (HOAP), we lobby Congress, the USDA, and other federal, state and local
agencies on behalf of our farmers and work together to build the strength of Horizon Organic's
agricultural stewardship and provide research and education for current and future organic
partners. At the former Naval Academy Dairy in Annapolis, Maryland we have built an organic Farm
and Education Center where we are working to educate children and their families about the
important relationships between agriculture and the environment. The Farm and Education Center is
the largest organic farm on the eastern seaboard.
Our record speaks for itself. I was
raised by an organic mom, have worked in the organic industry for over a decade, and I am extremely
pleased to be a part of Horizon Organic.
Sincerely, Kelly Shea,
Director of Organic
Agriculture,
Horizon Organic Holding Corporation
Paul responses to Horizon Organic:
I think this is an excellent response. But again, the justification does not address my
concerns. My concern is the business model. I don't believe that a powerful, one-size-fits-all
organic dairy conglomerate that effectively puts all other organic dairies out of business is the
right way to go. It does have the benefits outlined by Mr. Shea and those are not to be sneezed at.
But nationalization of what was and should be a regional business does not lead to independence in
the farming community, but dependence on a national pricing model that will lead to the lowest
organic standards, not the highest. Diversity is just as critical to economic health as it is to
ecosystem health.
Amy Domini responses to Paul Hawken:
The Power of SRI (and Why
We Own McDonald's)
from: Amy Domini, Founder and CEO, Domini Social Investments
Socially responsible investing is, and has been for 20 years, a
methodology for harnessing
the power of finance, the power of investors, and turning that power to good purpose. The
responsible investor believes that by following simple practices the population of the planet can
enjoy universal human dignity and ecological sustainability. The responsible investor does not
believe that there is such a thing as a socially responsible company to invest in, but rather
believes that there are gradations in the progress a company has made towards becoming more
responsible, and that these gradations are worth emphasizing.
While our industry did grow
out of an older, faith-based approach that focused on the importance of avoiding making money from
sin, that approach was replaced in the early 1980s when the debate over corporate support of the
system of apartheid in South Africa was raging. Nelson Mandela credited the socially responsible
investment movement in the U.S. with giving him his most important lever in convincing the
government of that nation to
negotiate.
Why? What did my industry do? It forced
companies to report in a systematic way each year the data proving their progress towards a more
just society. The Sullivan Principles reports were specific. Questions like "How many blacks
supervise how many coloreds?" were answered and evaluated. In a few short years civil society had
evidence that scandalized decent people, and the fervor that resulted gave Mr. Mandela his power.
That's when I, along with Peter Kinder and Steven D. Lydenberg, began structuring
something that would create comprehensive corporate audits, audits that could awaken the power of
civil society. We formed a company, KLD Research & Analytics, Inc., that had as a goal the removal
of barriers to SRI. Back then the primary barrier was that people were sure that they'd lose money,
so we designed the Domini 400 Social Index, which proved
otherwise. Today the primary barrier
is that people don't think SRI makes a difference. This attitude underlies Mr. Hawken's position
that the Domini Social Equity Fund is defrauding the public or is otherwise a farce because it owns
an unpure company.
Socially responsible investors do three things: (1) We buy better
companies so as to create the conversation about what goes into "better," and so as to create the
structure for tracking "better." (2) We are better owners by raising issues of concern with our
companies, through face-to-face dialogue or through sponsoring resolutions to be voted on at the
company's annual meeting. (3) We are better neighbors through our direct support of community
development financial institutions.
Domini Social Investments does all three things in a
highly successful and highly leveraged way. We buy better companies (more on that later), we have
filed dozens of shareholder resolutions with impressive results, and we have created investment
vehicles that have allowed our shareholders to channel tens of millions of dollars into community
development financial institutions around the country. I do not believe that it is an exaggeration
to say that we have made a difference.
So why do we own McDonald's? First, understand that
we do not look for the best; we look for the better. That's how you build the Sullivan Principles
of today; that's how you build a complex global corporate accountability
structure.
Second, know that we do not punish success; if we were to eliminate beef we would eliminate all
players (just as we eliminate tobacco and for-profit prisons), not just the household names. That's
true of coffee shops, clothing retailers, hardware stores, and a number of industries with a clear
(and controversial) industry leader.
Third, we try to invest in a manner that reflects
what most socially responsible investors want. Despite the health concerns concerning fast food
that Mr. Hawken highlights, including obesity and the increase in Type 2 diabetes, mainstream
social investors have not yet decided that they will refuse to invest in companies that sell fast
food or that make use of factory farming. For instance, although Ben & Jerry's (now owned by
Unilever) has been criticized for selling a high-fat food product, it has still been considered a
forward-looking company by most social investors.
We own McDonald's because we do not
eliminate all restaurants and because we do not eliminate all beef. As a restaurateur and as a
major seller of beef, the company has done a number of very positive things. In 1990, for example,
the company responded to environmental concerns by entering into a partnership with the
Environmental Defense Fund to reduce solid wastes at the company, particularly the company's use of
nonrecyclable polystyrene clamshells.
Our diversity profile shows that McDonald's has
created more successful African American entrepreneurs than virtually any other U.S. corporation.
It has promoted minorities and women to middle and upper management positions in percentages
matched by few U.S. and effectively no European companies.
However, we, like Mr. Hawken,
believe that when a company is the largest, we can expect more of it, and should hold it to a
higher standard. That's why we support initiatives to pressure Starbucks into providing Fair Trade
coffee, and products free of genetically modified organisms. It is why we filed resolutions with
Home Depot to address their record of promoting women and minorities. And that is what led to the
removal of Wal-Mart and of Nike from our portfolio, for we felt that these industry leaders ought
to have taken a leadership position regarding the sweatshop issue. It does not mean that the
companies in their industries that we retained have a spotless record.
By strong
contrast, McDonald's has an impressive record of responsiveness to our concerns. They responded on
the beef sourcing issue, and annually reassert that they do not purchase beef from rainforest
lands. They responded to concerns on the chicken sourcing issue, forcing a sweeping change in the
way chickens are farmed, as farmers were forced to comply with McDonald's stricter standards. They
responded to Domini Social Investments on the sweatshop issue, inviting concerned shareholders to
work with them towards strengthening their social compliance programs, and their level of public
accountability. As a result of this dialogue, McDonald's has produced its first public reports
describing how it works to ensure that the products it sources are produced in decent working
conditions. None of this makes McDonald's a pure, "socially responsible company." It is strong
evidence, however, that McDonald's is responsive to these concerns and is doing a better job
addressing them than many of its competitors.
Accusing me of being inconsistent or
misleading because I own McDonald's is naive and hurtful. It demonstrates that Mr. Hawken would
place socially responsible investors into the same camp as fundamentalists: all about personal
purity and throwing stones. Socially responsible investing is about building a structure. That
structure has demonstrated that McDonald's is one of the better burger sellers. It doesn't address
whether burgers should be for sale at all because, to date, most social investors have not taken
that position. It doesn't address my own position as a non-eater of beef (which I avoid out of
solidarity with the poor and not out of personal health concerns). However, it does address the
need to bring investors - and with them the financial services industry, the most powerful global
institution on the planet -into active dialogue on better defining the role corporations must take
if they are to continue to dominate our lives.
I believe that Mr. Hawken and I are in
complete agreement as to the threats humankind faces and even as to the solutions. I have
tremendous personal admiration for the work he has done. It is my hope that he will learn more
about my work, more about where finance would be taking us were it not for SRI, and more about the
tremendous impact we have already had on corporations. My greatest challenge is that people like
Mr. Hawken, people I think of as struggling toward the same goals I struggle toward, do not see the
important role socially responsible investors as political advocates have played. We are not
applying eco-fundamentalism to investments, we are entering the belly of the beast of the
financial/corporate juggernaut and we are shaping it. That's our role, and that's why I own
McDonald's in the Domini Social Equity Fund.
Paul responses to Amy Domini:
I am
a big fan of socially responsible investing. And it is my enthusiasm for the redirecting of
financial capital that makes me surprised at seeing McDonald's in any portfolio called socially
responsible. What is most noticeable in Amy Domini's response is the Orwellian logic that justifies
McDonald's being granted this standard.
Beef or my personal beliefs about what people
should eat are not my concern. Harming children, workers, and the environment are concerns. What is
at issue is the business model. McDonald's business model is not burgers. The business model is to
entice and lure children with clowns, toys, and advertisements into a lifetime of junk food
consisting of burgers, fries, Coke, and food additives. This diet causes obesity, heart disease,
and type 2 diabetes, a debilitating and devastating disease. If you read the literature, (even the
company's own manuals), the burgers are a low margin come-on in order to sell high margin fries and
Cokes (91% profit). We know that fast food is the number one cause of childhood obesity and
diabetes. We know that McDonald's spends $2 billion dollars a year to convince children to eat
badly. In a survey of nine and ten year olds, half of them said they thought that Ronald McDonald
knew best what kids should eat. And we know McDonald's is aware of the scientific and government
data pointing to their food, promotion, and business model as being a cause of suffering for
children and adults in later life. We also know that they are a client of the Golin/Harris PR
agency who formed the "Global Obesity Task Force" last year so that companies can "withstand brand
trust" erosion from consumers and special interest groups who want to hold big corporations
partially responsible for the alarming rise in childhood obesity.
How can a company whose
mission harms children and its workers be called socially responsible? To call this into question
is not throwing stones, it is asking if the emperor has any clothes on. To say that "mainstream
socially responsible investors" haven't made up their mind about this implies that social
responsibility can be defined by large money managers. Again, who appointed these people caretakers
of the language? Who among them ever worked in a McDonald's? Who among them was fired for trying to
unionize? Who among them worked at the McDonald's at LAX where workers were forbidden to fraternize
with union workers at other restaurants and escorted by Pinkertons to their car? The work at
McDonald's is numbing, stupefying and demeaning by every account.
The vast majority of
workers at McDonald's lack full-time employment, do not have any benefits, have no or little
control over their workplace, and quit after a few months. Ninety percent of the workers are paid
hourly and have no benefits. Fast food pays a higher proportion of minimum wage to its workers than
any other industry in America. You say they offer good jobs, but turnover is 3-400% a year. Workers
have tried to improve working conditions but have been harassed and fired. The only time a
restaurant was unionized recently was in 1997 in Montreal. The restaurant was closed just before
the union was certified. To say McDonald's has actively worked to crush trade unions is an
understatement. McDonald's jobs have been purposely de-skilled so as to be able to hire minimum
wage workers on an interchangeable basis. One-third of fast food workers speaks no English. You
call that diversity, but most people call that exploitation. McDonald's trade organization, the
National Council of Chain Restaurants, has fought hard to prevent enforcement of OHSA regulations
at fast food chains. Ask the workers if I am throwing stones. Ask them if they think well off
people should be benefiting from their working conditions. If Domini is serious about socially
responsible investing, maybe it will start listening to the workers instead of highly paid
executives. Maybe it would be good to talk to an obese child with clogged arteries and diabetes and
get his or her feelings on the subject.
I don't believe I am being purist or
fundamentalist. I think I am being real. I see a SRI movement that has gotten lazy about standards
and meaning. Using money to change practices at a company is called shareholder action. Everyone
applauds that as do I. Selling McDonald's as socially responsible investment is socially
irresponsible. Getting them to stop doing things they never should have done in the first place
(buying antibiotic laced chickens for example) is good, but that doesn't mean they are socially
responsible. If I am hitting someone and asked to stop it, that doesn't make me a gentle person.
The question I have to ask you is when is McDonald's big enough for Domini? Since you
invest, you must think that shareholder money will grow in value. Is it enough for you that one in
five meals in the U.S. is a fast food meal? As a SR investor, do you want that figure to be one in
three; how about every other meal? What about the developing world? Do you want to see McDonald's
help convince the rest of the world to drink the equivalent of 597 cans of soda pop ("liquid candy"
according to Michael Jacobsen) a year, as do Americans? Would you think your investment successful
when 30% of the world is obese just like Americans are? Do you think every third global meal should
be comprised of greasy meat, fries, and
caramelized sugar? I hope you do, because that's
McDonald's mission, and that's the company that is "better" by your standards.
"Sustaining" McDonald's requires a simple unsustainable formula: cheap food plus cheap
non-unionized labor plus deceptive advertising equals high profits. McDonald's recent
sustainability report was a mish mash of generalities and platitudes. A real report to stakeholders
and investors will tell how much it truly costs society to support a corporation like McDonald's.
It would detail the externalities - the societal and environmental costs not counted in corporate
annual reports and accounting documents - borne by other people, places, and generations.
In McDonald's case, these externalities include: the draining of aquifers; the contaminated
waterways; the strip-mined soils; the dangerous meatpacking plants where migrant workers are
employed; the inhumane, injury-prone dead-end jobs preparing chicken carcasses for Chicken
McNuggets; the global greenhouse methane gas emitted by the millions of hamburger cows in feedlots;
the impact of their $2 billion advertising and promotional campaigns to convince young people to
demand their food; the ethics of using toys and dolls to induce girls and boys into their
restaurants. The list is longer than this. Unless the core values of the company are to nourish and
protect children, you cannot make the supply chain socially responsible because the final outcome
is destructive to life. McDonald's should not be sustained by people thinking their money, placed
in SRI funds, is going to a good cause. McDonald's recent initiatives, which you think make them
socially responsible, are best described by Henry Thoreau as "Improved means to an unimproved end."
Email your comments to- editor@greenmoney.com
|
|
|
Home | Archives
| Sponsors |
Links | Calendar
| Contact Us |
Advertising
| SRI News
MISSION
STATEMENT
The GreenMoney Journal encour-ages and promotes the awareness of socially
& environmentally responsible business, investing and consumer
resources in publications & online.
Our goal is to educate and empower individuals and businesses to make
informed financial decisions through aligning their personal, corporate
and financial principles.
“Responsibility from the Supermarket to the Stockmarket.”
The material presented in this news letter is for educational and
informa-tional purposes only. The GreenMoney Journal does not endorse
or recommend firms, products, funds or advertisers.
GreenMoney is a registered trademark.
Copyright 1995-2009 by the
GreenMoneyJournal ®
Green Money is a Registrated Trademark
of The GreenMoney Journal / Cliff Feigenbaum
|
|
|
|
