4 ms·

"Starbucks, PepsiCo and Kraft Heinz are examples. Don’t buy their products until you see results." I don't see how taking money away from these companies and t

"Starbucks, PepsiCo and Kraft Heinz are examples. Don’t buy their products until you see results." I don't see how taking money away from these companies and then telling them to do something more expensive by enforcing more responsible ways of making palm oil is an answer. It seems that if you take away money from these companies, you'd inspire them to cut corners to turn profits. Their shareholders dictate profitability. If you want to encourage good behavior, you should just contact them and tell them you are concerned and ask what they are doing about it to end this problem in a short timeframe. Ask them what you can do to help stop it. They will probably appreciate the help. If they don't respond, write another letter and give them a timeline, like the end of 2016, and tell them if they cannot make a change in the local behavior there by then, you will start a lifetime ban on their products in your family and tell your friends, social media, and the press about your decision. In general though, banning products hurts workers and shareholders. It doesn't enact the change you want.

noja 11y ago
I really am not sure if you are trying to be humorous or just naive. Perhaps you could set up a Facebook action page and we can all click "Like" so that we can all feel better about continuing to buy their products.
- purpled_haze 11y ago
  How about this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-griffith/who-the-chick-fil-a-boycott-really-hurts_b_1729859.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-griffith/who-the-chick-fil... Or this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynda-bekore/why-calls-for-boycotts-al_b_5302209.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynda-bekore/why-calls-for-boy... People should help, but it is unbelievable to me with such smart people here we can't come up with a more realistic way to solve the problem than a boycott.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    I think those articles just show the authors didn't want to think a bit about all the direct effects. Sure, by boycotting a business, the workers of that business (may) see their paychecks lowered. But the workers of the competing businesses where you'll be eating/staying instead will have more customers. In fact, by going to that business instead of the one you'd go if you were boycotting the first, you are in fact doing the same to the later business as the boycotters are doing to the former. So I can see how the boycott might be bad for the workers of the boycotted business, but it's neutral to workers in general.
tbarbugli 11y ago
in your opinion
littletimmy 11y ago
I want to hurt the shareholders of companies that cause environmental destructions.
- purpled_haze 11y ago
  The majority of shareholders have no influence over the decisions made. The companies can work to be more responsible, but if you boycott, you'll give them even more incentive to cut corners, and you'll be hurting low-level workers and many others that have no influence over the decisions that are being made. It is fine to be angry about it and want to help, but choose a path that will work.
  - littletimmy 11y ago
    They still profit from it, and they are ultimately (legally) the owners and controllers of the company. It is ridiculous to say that just because the responsibility is diffused we don't need to think about shareholder responsibility at all. The way to help is to make companies that source palm oil from these terrible places to go bankrupt. That way, we clamp on demand for palm oil.
- ptaipale 11y ago
  Everything causes environmental destruction. The problem with the will to hurt shareholders is that the alternatives - companies that get more business after international corporations have been hurt by a boycott - are worse. Don't be fooled into thinking that Starbucks, Pepsi, Nestle and Monsanto are the ethically worst companies in world. Personally, I buy Nestle and Monsanto whenever in doubt, just because so much of the activism is misguided. Huge-scale environmental damage was caused by state-controlled companies extracting natural resources in the USSR, for instance, but it could be that things like small-scale organic farming or little coal-burning cooking stoves in Africa are even worse (in terms of comparing environmental damage to utility for mankind.)
  - littletimmy 11y ago
    You've got a source for that? We also have to get out of the idea that utility for mankind overall is something to optimize for. It surely doesn't matter that Indonesian have miserable lives - there are 7B+ people in the world and a few less Indonesians are no big deal. However, the Sumatran forest, with all its endangered animals, is a very big deal.
drjesusphd 11y ago
> Their shareholders dictate profitability No, the market does.

noja 11y ago

I really am not sure if you are trying to be humorous or just naive. Perhaps you could set up a Facebook action page and we can all click "Like" so that we can all feel better about continuing to buy their products.

purpled_haze 11y ago
How about this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-griffith/who-the-chick-fil-a-boycott-really-hurts_b_1729859.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-griffith/who-the-chick-fil... Or this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynda-bekore/why-calls-for-boycotts-al_b_5302209.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynda-bekore/why-calls-for-boy... People should help, but it is unbelievable to me with such smart people here we can't come up with a more realistic way to solve the problem than a boycott.
- icebraining 11y ago
  I think those articles just show the authors didn't want to think a bit about all the direct effects. Sure, by boycotting a business, the workers of that business (may) see their paychecks lowered. But the workers of the competing businesses where you'll be eating/staying instead will have more customers. In fact, by going to that business instead of the one you'd go if you were boycotting the first, you are in fact doing the same to the later business as the boycotters are doing to the former. So I can see how the boycott might be bad for the workers of the boycotted business, but it's neutral to workers in general.

tbarbugli 11y ago

in your opinion

littletimmy 11y ago

I want to hurt the shareholders of companies that cause environmental destructions.

purpled_haze 11y ago
The majority of shareholders have no influence over the decisions made. The companies can work to be more responsible, but if you boycott, you'll give them even more incentive to cut corners, and you'll be hurting low-level workers and many others that have no influence over the decisions that are being made. It is fine to be angry about it and want to help, but choose a path that will work.
- littletimmy 11y ago
  They still profit from it, and they are ultimately (legally) the owners and controllers of the company. It is ridiculous to say that just because the responsibility is diffused we don't need to think about shareholder responsibility at all. The way to help is to make companies that source palm oil from these terrible places to go bankrupt. That way, we clamp on demand for palm oil.
ptaipale 11y ago
Everything causes environmental destruction. The problem with the will to hurt shareholders is that the alternatives - companies that get more business after international corporations have been hurt by a boycott - are worse. Don't be fooled into thinking that Starbucks, Pepsi, Nestle and Monsanto are the ethically worst companies in world. Personally, I buy Nestle and Monsanto whenever in doubt, just because so much of the activism is misguided. Huge-scale environmental damage was caused by state-controlled companies extracting natural resources in the USSR, for instance, but it could be that things like small-scale organic farming or little coal-burning cooking stoves in Africa are even worse (in terms of comparing environmental damage to utility for mankind.)
- littletimmy 11y ago
  You've got a source for that? We also have to get out of the idea that utility for mankind overall is something to optimize for. It surely doesn't matter that Indonesian have miserable lives - there are 7B+ people in the world and a few less Indonesians are no big deal. However, the Sumatran forest, with all its endangered animals, is a very big deal.

drjesusphd 11y ago

> Their shareholders dictate profitability No, the market does.