Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) released a report recently detailing the evolution of The Coca-Cola Co.'s water management strategy.
The report, "Drinking It In: The Evolution of a Global Water Stewardship Program at The Coca-Cola Company" follows the company's efforts to achieve "water neutrality" across its worldwide operations while facing challenges from global water quality, availability and access.
During the past five years, so it is said in the report, Coca Cola has begun developing a more holistic look at its water strategy because of three issues: it has acquired water brands; communities in India protested as regards to a Coca-Cola bottler there because of appropriation and pollution issues; and it began reporting water issues as a material risk to investors.
The company, Coca Cola, they say in the report, created a survey for its plants and bottlers to gather information on efficiency, compliance, watershed, supply reliability, supply economics and social and competitive contextual information.
By the year 2007, the Coca Cola developed an integrated water strategy focused on plant performance (water use efficiency, water quality and wastewater treatment), watershed protection, enabling access to clean drinking water and working to drive global awareness and action to address water challenges. Its system-wide goal is to return all water used in its operations back to nature. Its mantra: reduce, recycle and replenish.
For the year 2008 Coca Cola has set itself a goal of becoming the most efficient company in the world in terms of water use in the beverage industry. It plans to be fully aligned with global wastewater treatment and reuse standards by the end of 2010. It will support projects and investments that focus on rainwater collection, reforestation, protecting water sources and local access to them and the efficient agricultural use of water.
I am not sure as to whether one should laugh or cry here. This is nothing but GREENWASH of the highest order. One can but wonder how much Coca Cola did pay the so-called researchers who did this report. This about a company who uses tap water and “reverse osmosis” and then sells it at huge profits in cans and from a company whose operations in India have lowered the water table by meters and this lowering of the water tables and other issues are the cause of drought conditions in the area where they have operated.
Anyone believing in Coca Cola's green credentials must have just fallen off the turnip wagon or, alternatively, be the recipient of large substantial hand-outs from the company or its agents.
© Michael Smith (Veshengro), March 2008
Citizen Journalists to be Curtailed
France bans citizen journalists from reporting violence
The French Constitutional Council has approved a law that criminalizes the filming or broadcasting of acts of violence by people other than professional journalists.
This law could lead to the imprisonment of eyewitnesses who film acts of police violence, or operators of Web sites publishing the images, one French civil liberties group warned in March 2007.
The most worrying part here, obviously, would also be how far this would spill over to other countries in the EU and, indeed, elsewhere. This could be the first step to silencing citizen journalists, e.g. Bloggers, altogether. For, only the official media really, can be government censored. When, however, the work of the likes of us on Blogs is outlawed and the writing and publishing of new stories is – back – in the domain of the professional journalists then governments can rest assured that they can control what goes out and what not.
Apparently, so it is claimed, Senators and members of the National Assembly had asked the council to rule on the constitutionality of six articles of the Law relating to the prevention of delinquency. The articles dealt with information sharing by social workers, and reduced sentences for minors. The council recommended one minor change, to reconcile conflicting amendments voted in parliament. The law, proposed by Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy, is intended to clamp down on a wide range of public order offenses. During parliamentary debate of the law, government representatives said the offense of filming or distributing films of acts of violence targets the practice of “happy slapping,” in which a violent attack is filmed by an accomplice, typically with a camera phone, for the amusement of the attacker’s friends. And it was meant to curb the filming of such incidents only.
Right, yes, sure, and why is there a squadron of pigs preparing to take of at RAF Brize Norton?
The broad drafting of the law so as to criminalize the activities of citizen journalists unrelated to the perpetrators of violent acts is no accident, but rather a deliberate decision by the authorities. We must be very concerned that the law, and others still being debated, will lead to the creation of a parallel judicial system controlling the publication of information on the Internet.
The government has also proposed a certification system for Web sites, Blog
hosters, mobile-phone operators and Internet service providers, identifying them as government-approved sources of information if they adhere to certain rules.
The journalists’ organization Reporters Without Borders, which campaigns for a free press, has warned that such a system could lead to excessive self censorship as organizations worried about losing their certification suppress certain stories.
Seeing that this comes from a country that is a “leading light” in the European Union, I am sure, we can see where this may be leading.
The council chose an unfortunate anniversary to publish its decision approving the law, which came exactly 16 years after Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King were filmed by amateur videographer George Holliday on the night of March 3, 1991. The officers’ acquittal at the end on April 29, 1992 sparked riots in Los Angeles.
If Holliday were to film a similar scene of violence in France today, he could end up in prison as a result of the new law. Anyone publishing such images could face up to five years in prison and a fine of €75,000 (US$98,537), potentially a harsher sentence than that for committing the violent act.
© Michael Smith (Veshengro), March 2008
The French Constitutional Council has approved a law that criminalizes the filming or broadcasting of acts of violence by people other than professional journalists.
This law could lead to the imprisonment of eyewitnesses who film acts of police violence, or operators of Web sites publishing the images, one French civil liberties group warned in March 2007.
The most worrying part here, obviously, would also be how far this would spill over to other countries in the EU and, indeed, elsewhere. This could be the first step to silencing citizen journalists, e.g. Bloggers, altogether. For, only the official media really, can be government censored. When, however, the work of the likes of us on Blogs is outlawed and the writing and publishing of new stories is – back – in the domain of the professional journalists then governments can rest assured that they can control what goes out and what not.
Apparently, so it is claimed, Senators and members of the National Assembly had asked the council to rule on the constitutionality of six articles of the Law relating to the prevention of delinquency. The articles dealt with information sharing by social workers, and reduced sentences for minors. The council recommended one minor change, to reconcile conflicting amendments voted in parliament. The law, proposed by Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy, is intended to clamp down on a wide range of public order offenses. During parliamentary debate of the law, government representatives said the offense of filming or distributing films of acts of violence targets the practice of “happy slapping,” in which a violent attack is filmed by an accomplice, typically with a camera phone, for the amusement of the attacker’s friends. And it was meant to curb the filming of such incidents only.
Right, yes, sure, and why is there a squadron of pigs preparing to take of at RAF Brize Norton?
The broad drafting of the law so as to criminalize the activities of citizen journalists unrelated to the perpetrators of violent acts is no accident, but rather a deliberate decision by the authorities. We must be very concerned that the law, and others still being debated, will lead to the creation of a parallel judicial system controlling the publication of information on the Internet.
The government has also proposed a certification system for Web sites, Blog
hosters, mobile-phone operators and Internet service providers, identifying them as government-approved sources of information if they adhere to certain rules.
The journalists’ organization Reporters Without Borders, which campaigns for a free press, has warned that such a system could lead to excessive self censorship as organizations worried about losing their certification suppress certain stories.
Seeing that this comes from a country that is a “leading light” in the European Union, I am sure, we can see where this may be leading.
The council chose an unfortunate anniversary to publish its decision approving the law, which came exactly 16 years after Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King were filmed by amateur videographer George Holliday on the night of March 3, 1991. The officers’ acquittal at the end on April 29, 1992 sparked riots in Los Angeles.
If Holliday were to film a similar scene of violence in France today, he could end up in prison as a result of the new law. Anyone publishing such images could face up to five years in prison and a fine of €75,000 (US$98,537), potentially a harsher sentence than that for committing the violent act.
© Michael Smith (Veshengro), March 2008
Berry Nutty – Product Review
Berry Nutty are a new range of Fairtrade certified Peanut & Raisins and Salted Peanut snacks that were launched at the Fairtrade Fortnight Fairground a couple of weeks ago at the Southbank of the Thames in London; on Sunday, February 24, 2008, to be precise.Having had the opportunity to test both the Peanut & Raisins (the raisins are Fairtrade from South Africa, by the way) and the Salted Peanuts I can but recommend both. The Peanut & Raisin more so, probably, but then that is my personal taste, I should guess.
I must say that I was a little apprehensive and reluctant at first as to the salted peanuts when Iain Paiton, the Marketing Director of “Trigon Snacks Ltd” suggested I give them a try because normally I find salted peanuts of whatever brand simply too salty. I must say, however, that, having tried the Berry Nutty version, I am most pleasantly surprised and could become a consumer of salted peanuts again, as long as they were the ones I have had a chance to test.
“Trigon Snacks” is probably known to most of us more through their more “usual” brands, such as “Planters”, “Big D”, “Vermont Gold”, and others. The Berry Nutty range which, so I believe, is going to hit the stores and especially the pub scene shortly, are a nice addition and especially as this range is Fairtrade certified, meaning that it gives back to the growers a decent living price for their produce.
© Michael Smith (Veshengro), March 2008
Fairtrade and other Ethical Labels
The blue & green though often just black & white, though very distinct, Fairtrade label in the only one, as far as I can see, that guarantees a minimum income to the producers, the farmers and the workers. Other labels in what is slowly but surely becoming confusing array of “ethical” labels, that have followed in the wake of the Fairtrade label, cannot be seen in the same light. In fact, the cloud the issue, rather. Consumers are being bamboozled by the proliferation of bewildering labels claiming to be ethical, without, often, further explaining this. What, for instance, do those other labels stand for?Why did not Kraft – with Kenco Coffee – go with the Fairtrade label? Because, no doubt, the Fairtrade rules are too rigorous for its liking. So, instead, they opted for an easier one; one that does not benefit farmers and workers, at least not in the same way as Fairtrade does. To the likes of Kraft, it appears to me, it is a matter of profit, yet again. At least Nestle, whatever one may like to say against it, and there are many things, went the whole hog with the Partner Blend instant coffee in that the product got the Fairtrade label. While this may, so far, only be one product of the Nestle range, it is a step in the right direction. Why, though, I would like to ask, is Nestle chocolate not all, by now, Fairtrade? If the Co-Op can have great Fairtrade chocolate at a very reasonable price why can not all Nestle's chocolate products be Fairtrade by now without any increase in price. A company the size of Nestle can do it. Profits and shareholder dividends, however, yet again seem to get into the way. Shame. But we all know that Nestle can do more and at the same price as they do it without Fairtrade and this is where consumer power comes in.
The same is true with other companies, such as Kraft, in the case of Kenco Coffee. If the consumers stopped buying Kenco because it is not Fairtrade and opted for those that are instead the message would be received soon loud and clear at Kraft HQ. Many local governments in the UK, for instance, buy Kenco Coffee, often because of the ethical label that it now has, seeming to think that they are doing their part, that they are doing good buy buying that brand. It is again down to us, in this case as residents, as local tax payers, to tell the town halls that we are not happy with the brand of coffee or whatever else that they are using. Education of the councillors here is the key and of council leaders and officers. We can do it.
Let me please stress at this point that I do not get paid in any way, shape or form, though chance would be a fine thing, by the Fairtrade Foundation, nor do I work for them in any way. I believe, however, that we must make the distinction clear to all as the differences between the labels. As far as it is public knowledge the Fairtrade label is the only one that actually guarantees a minimum income to farmers and workers who grow the cocoa, the coffee, the tea, etc. and by means of this guaranteed income Fairtrade enables those people to better themselves without the need of charity and aid.
It would appear to me that someone needs to write a guide of sorts – for the consumer – to all those “ethical” labels, be they “Rainforest Alliance” certification, or whatever. Without such a definitive guide, I believe, that the consumer will get confused, and this could be a confusion to such an extend even that he or she will become disillusioned with it all and no longer bother looking for or demanding Fairtrade.
Part of the success of Fairtrade has been to put social and environmental issues and the plight of farmers and workers on to global agendas, encouraging companies to see that consumers are not only concerned with price – that instead of always competing to offer the cheapest commodities, they can put real value back into our food and drink (and other goods). So, obviously, any and all improvements that benefit producers, e.g. farmers and workers, are welcome. But there is a flipside to this coin.
We must ensure that the gains the Fairtrade Movement has won by fighting hard and serious battles are not chipped away and undermined by companies opting for this previously mentioned proliferation of labels that confuse the public ; none of which carry the same guarantees as the Fairtrade label.
Some of the alternative schemes have a lot attraction: many of them are addressing issues such as the environment that are very important indeed and are sometimes doing a good job in many ways.
However, in most instances it is the companies, and NOT the producers, that are in the driving seat. Those schemes make fewer demands on the companies; usually even the largest plantations can enter and – most importantly – such schemes do not cost the companies much, as said already, because there is no minimum price to pay; no guaranteed income for the growers and/or workers.
They are not, I know, and have never claimed to be either, Fairtrade programs. In comparison Fairtrade must seem hard work and expensive to companies. But Fairtrade is THE ONLY scheme that works to address the root causes of farmers' and workers' poverty and it is the only one that has an organized global movement behind it. The movement's years of campaigning has given the mark an immense recognition to the extend that eight out of ten people in Britain know about the mark and about Fairtrade and what it stands for. This, in turn gives great power to the Fairtrade Movement to persuade traders and supermarkets to act, and this is what gives the Fairtrade Label its legitimacy, as well as its strength and makes it very special.
© Michael Smith (Veshengro), March 2008
Child Labor
The Portuguese magazine, Expresso, has alleged that top Spanish fashion group Inditex, probably best known in the UK for its Zara brand, was exploiting child labor.
Child labor is endemic in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. However, the allegations that young children are being exploited closer to home can be seriously damaging to the reputation of manufacturers and also and especially retailers
A spokesperson for the Portuguese Footwear Union claimed that children were paid less than 30 Euro per day and that such "miserable" pay was often the sole family income.
In 2001, the Portuguese government estimated that 7000 children were employed by third parties, some for several hours a day, six or seven days a week.
Inditex responded quickly to the statements denying evidence of child labour in Portugal and the company requested the establishment of a working table with the Portuguese Labour Ministry and with Trade Unions in order to assess the "social and labour reality of the Felgueiras area".
Nike and Gap have sustained consumer backlashes after revelations of using child labour and Oxfam believes that most Nike goods are still manufactured in countries where independent trades union representation is outlawed.
It does not seem to matter much what the European Union legislation says to this, it would seem. Those companies, in the perpetual hunt for more profits for less payouts could care little about this.
There is only one way to deal with this and that is “consumer power”, in the same way as the consumer demand has brought products with the Fairtrade label into the big supermarkets. If we, the shoppers, refuse to buy brands associated with bad practice, be this the exploitation of children, the exploitation of workers, the exploitation of animals, of the environment, or whatever else. It is the power of the consumer, of the user, that can change the attitude of the manufactures and retailers.
Labels, even “ethical” labels, mean little if the consumer does not know what actually stands behind it. With the Fairtrade label we all know. With others we do not, in fact, know. What are the criteria that allow this or that product to bear this or that “ethical” label, must always be the question. Anyone wishing to know the Fairtrade deal can learn that best from the book “Fighting the Banana Wars and other Fairtrade Battles”. Do we have the same chance to know how the worker benefits, or the environment, with all the other, by now very confusing, schemes that claim this or that?
© Michael Smith (Veshengro), March 2008
Child labor is endemic in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. However, the allegations that young children are being exploited closer to home can be seriously damaging to the reputation of manufacturers and also and especially retailers
A spokesperson for the Portuguese Footwear Union claimed that children were paid less than 30 Euro per day and that such "miserable" pay was often the sole family income.
In 2001, the Portuguese government estimated that 7000 children were employed by third parties, some for several hours a day, six or seven days a week.
Inditex responded quickly to the statements denying evidence of child labour in Portugal and the company requested the establishment of a working table with the Portuguese Labour Ministry and with Trade Unions in order to assess the "social and labour reality of the Felgueiras area".
Nike and Gap have sustained consumer backlashes after revelations of using child labour and Oxfam believes that most Nike goods are still manufactured in countries where independent trades union representation is outlawed.
It does not seem to matter much what the European Union legislation says to this, it would seem. Those companies, in the perpetual hunt for more profits for less payouts could care little about this.
There is only one way to deal with this and that is “consumer power”, in the same way as the consumer demand has brought products with the Fairtrade label into the big supermarkets. If we, the shoppers, refuse to buy brands associated with bad practice, be this the exploitation of children, the exploitation of workers, the exploitation of animals, of the environment, or whatever else. It is the power of the consumer, of the user, that can change the attitude of the manufactures and retailers.
Labels, even “ethical” labels, mean little if the consumer does not know what actually stands behind it. With the Fairtrade label we all know. With others we do not, in fact, know. What are the criteria that allow this or that product to bear this or that “ethical” label, must always be the question. Anyone wishing to know the Fairtrade deal can learn that best from the book “Fighting the Banana Wars and other Fairtrade Battles”. Do we have the same chance to know how the worker benefits, or the environment, with all the other, by now very confusing, schemes that claim this or that?
© Michael Smith (Veshengro), March 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
