3 ms·

I think you might want to read up on this history of Cadbury and the Quakers in general. They were some of the most ethical companies around.

by rleigh 8y ago

hrktb 8y ago
I got through the whole wikipedia article, and I don't see anything related to anything ethical they did related the products they are buying. I think your point is they were very serious about treating well their company workers. I totally agree, it's just in the current perspective we would also care about supply chain and how the products are sourced. > Cadbury was established in Birmingham, England in 1824, by John Cadbury who sold tea, coffee and drinking chocolate. All their main businesses come from imported raw materials with heavy slavery involved. That's the times, it's no use faulting them for that retrospectively, I just don't agree calling them "ethical" now.
- rleigh 8y ago
  Not just the workers though. Read more about Quaker businesses, rather than jumping to conclusions. They were responsible for treating their customers and suppliers ethically and fairly as well. For example, the reason we have standardised pricing on all consumer goods is entirely down to 19th century Quaker ethics, which required not overcharging based upon how much they percevied one could afford, and treating everyone equally required to ask the same fair price for everyone, regardless of class, race or whatever, in line with their Christian philosophy and beliefs. This also extends to treating your suppliers on the same terms. While slavery was in existence for a very short period at the start of the company's founding, it's not something which the founders of the company would have countenanced, and I don't think it plays any particularly significant role in the company's history. Their fair and ethical business practices set the standard for how good companies should operate. Cadbury would be horrified by the practices of Kraft/Mondelez. Both are capitalist enterprises, but there are good reasons Cadbury was held in high regard, and Kraft is not. The way Kraft have treated Cadbury and its workers is contemptible. I've not bought a single product from them since the takeover, and I'm by far from the only one.
- smackay 8y ago
  While it's likely there were problems in the supply chain. I don''t think you can fault Quaker ethics, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers_in_the_abolition_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers_in_the_abolition_movem... However I guess it's hard to fight a war on all fronts simultaneously.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

I think you might want to read up on this history of Cadbury and the Quakers in general. They were some of the most ethical companies around.

by rleigh 8y ago

I think you might want to read up on this history of Cadbury and the Quakers in general. They were some of the most ethical companies around.

hrktb 8y ago

I got through the whole wikipedia article, and I don't see anything related to anything ethical they did related the products they are buying. I think your point is they were very serious about treating well their company workers. I totally agree, it's just in the current perspective we would also care about supply chain and how the products are sourced. > Cadbury was established in Birmingham, England in 1824, by John Cadbury who sold tea, coffee and drinking chocolate. All their main businesses come from imported raw materials with heavy slavery involved. That's the times, it's no use faulting them for that retrospectively, I just don't agree calling them "ethical" now.

rleigh 8y ago
Not just the workers though. Read more about Quaker businesses, rather than jumping to conclusions. They were responsible for treating their customers and suppliers ethically and fairly as well. For example, the reason we have standardised pricing on all consumer goods is entirely down to 19th century Quaker ethics, which required not overcharging based upon how much they percevied one could afford, and treating everyone equally required to ask the same fair price for everyone, regardless of class, race or whatever, in line with their Christian philosophy and beliefs. This also extends to treating your suppliers on the same terms. While slavery was in existence for a very short period at the start of the company's founding, it's not something which the founders of the company would have countenanced, and I don't think it plays any particularly significant role in the company's history. Their fair and ethical business practices set the standard for how good companies should operate. Cadbury would be horrified by the practices of Kraft/Mondelez. Both are capitalist enterprises, but there are good reasons Cadbury was held in high regard, and Kraft is not. The way Kraft have treated Cadbury and its workers is contemptible. I've not bought a single product from them since the takeover, and I'm by far from the only one.
smackay 8y ago
While it's likely there were problems in the supply chain. I don''t think you can fault Quaker ethics, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers_in_the_abolition_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers_in_the_abolition_movem... However I guess it's hard to fight a war on all fronts simultaneously.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]