Nike contractor found running sweatshop in Kepong, Malaysia
Australia’s Channel 7 investigative journalist Mike Duffy has uncovered a Nike contractor putting workers in sweatshop conditions in Kepong, Malaysia.
Kepong is about an hour drive from Kuala Lumpur.
The journalists at Malay Mail have come down hard on the remarks made by the Malaysia Human Resource Director.
Wrote Frankie d’Cruz and Francis C. Nantha of the Malay Mail,
OUR Human Resources Minister apparently has not seen the Australian Channel 7 television report on “forced labour and appalling working conditions” at a Nike contract factory in Kuala Lumpur.
Otherwise, Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam would not have lashed out at Nike, the athletics apparel giant, for interfering in the internal affairs of Malaysia.
He had also said it was not appropriate for Nike to impose its own standards on a local supplier here.
Nike sweated out a reply saying “it is unsuitable and not up to Nike’s standard..”
Marketing Communications Is Not ALL About (short-term) Profits
Having my left ear somewhat adjusted to the disturbing frequency of Advertisement world, sometimes tends to give me an headache.
I have understood that Nestle is a company particularly concerned about integrity of their brand (at least when it comes to display campaigns). That’s a good thing, especially when you have multi-billion dollar brands such as Nescafe under your wings. The boys and gals at Swiss based Nestle wouldn’t really be doing their jobs if they didn’t make sure Nestle’s brands were displayed in a strictly positive context.
This is not always simple.
In display campaigns, companies traditionally enjoy only a limited level of control over context. This could mean anything from a roadside billboard witnessing a deadly accident to having your banner ad eyeballed in a ChikBlog after a hard night out.
This is advertising, and it’s not that much of an big deal. You control the message and it’s up to you how your brand is perceived. Good message (with integrity) and a shining brand will take context driven blows with a smile, where as BS message and questionable perceived image will make you look bad even in the best of contexts.
So what can a brand do to improve their perceived image? Well, it all comes down to the image the brand portrays of itself. And especially to the part in which the brand has full control in. The message.
The simple concept of doing good coming back to you applies well here. But first, let’s look what Wikipedia says about CSR or Corporate Social Responsibility:
“Corporate social responsibility (CSR, also called corporate responsibility, corporate citizenship, and responsible business) is a concept whereby organizations consider the interests of society by taking responsibility for the impact of their activities on customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders, communities and other stakeholders, as well as the environment.”
Basically social responsibility of a corporation is somewhat equal to that of a human being. We like to build relationships with those that seem to add positive value to our lives and do it with integrity.
What’s great about this from a brand’s point of view, is that when company has its’ social responsibilities in order, they will have a tendency to communicate in ways that will translate in to positive brand value. A company with social responsibilities in order, has no choice but to communicate with integrity.
And this is something every brand owner can and should think about. See for yourself, which one feels better for you:
a) Having a socially responsible message displayed in a negative context such as together with your competitors products
b) Having a socially irresponsible message displayed in a context that maintains your brand integrity
For having an instant increase in sales, ´b´ might be the one driving greater returns (at least when the social irresponsibility is not obvious). But as a marketer, I would always want to look beyond just boost in sales, and I´d be inclined to go for ´a´ as the winning choice. I dearly hope that if you’re in marketing (any field of it) this is obvious to you.
Not being sincere and responsible, is one of the easiest way to market any product. At the same time it’s one of the surest way to long term brand damage and customer dissatisfaction. And always remember, there is no value in customer relationship like the lifetime value.
So let us look how this works in the real world.
Examples of Bad Marketing - “Dude, Where is My Social Responsibility?”
Brand communication is everywhere. Just take a look around yourself right now and see. I have Dell, Apple, Sigg, Royalex, Microsoft, Logitech, Misfits and Unicorn on my rather Spartan desk. And this is ok, I chose these brands (at least some of them I did). But what I don’t really take well is when they try to educate you through the products you have paid for. Poorly disguised as ‘added value’, you best see this in a breakfast table. Below an cutout from a cereal box as courtesy of Nestle:
Vitamin C plays a significant role in human health throughout our lifespan. Many nutritionist agree that it is one of the most important nutrients in maintaining good health (and curing from illness). It is safe to say that a steady supply of readily available Vitamin C is vital to everyone.
Orange has 50 mg of Vitamin C per 100 g where as cow milk has 2 mg per 100 g. In other words, orange is 25 time more potent in Vitamin C. And as if that alone was not enough, nutrients in fruits are in a much more bio available form opposed to that in animal products (e.g. cow’s milk), so they are delivered to your bloodstream in much more efficient way.
Cow’s milk also has plentitude of residue from antibiotics, hormones and pesticides used in growing their feed. None of which are beneficial to human health, and of which two (antibiotics and hormones) are never found in oranges. And the fact that by some estimates 50% of the adult population of our planet suffers from a disorder which prevents the digestive system from breaking down the consumed milk in the way healthy workings of our tummy requires. This alone would make promoting milk as a primary source of any nutrient questionable.
These are commonly known facts, backed up decades of scientific research.
Nestle tells in it’s website that it has “Over 135 years of dairy expertise”, so I don’t feel that I’m actually going on a limb when I ´assume´ that they’re aware of the facts presented here.
As an marketer and as an consumer, I feel that it is safe to conclude, that by no means cereals with milk offer a viable choice for oranges (or in general) as a source of Vitamin C.
As an marketer and as an consumer, I feel that it is my responsibility to conclude, that Nestle has not understood what Corporate Social Responsibility is about, so in the fortunate case in which someone from Nestle or working with Nestle reads this, a brief summary of what I believe CSR is all about:
- Realize that the short-term profits are not the only measurement for successful business (after all, Milton Friedman is DEAD)
- Remember that We’re all responsible for our actions within our company, our customers base, our community and the earth
- Accept that sometimes communicating strictly ‘fact’ based can be even more irresponsible than telling outright lies (like is the case in this example)
My challenge to you, Nestle or not, is can you look at your own brand and sincerely answer “Yes I Do” to all three accounts.
This story will be continued in the coming weeks with another article touching the same topic titled “Responses to Social Irresponsibility in The Social Web”. If you enjoyed it, why don’t you get the feed here.
