(MintPress) — Creating a distraction — it’s a method practiced by anyone aiming to divert someone’s attention away from a not-so-favorable situation. While consumers are well acquainted with this tactic, the efforts by large corporations to ‘fool’ the public with rose-colored distractions, for the most part, work.
Take Nike, for example. Most Americans have run across at least one story in their lifetime detailing the use of sweatshops in developing countries — situations that directly negatively impact the lives of thousands. And while these stories have been heard, most Americans still have a positive perception of Nike as a company that promotes the qualities of determination and perseverance.
It’s no secret that large corporations like Nike and Monsanto that are involved in questionable practices attempt to reverse negative public perception through well-funded public relations campaigns. And while the public generally understands this to be a routine business procedure, it seems the lure of corporate scholarships and community service work, perpetuates an image that is often contrary to the company itself.
The pharmaceutical industry has currently been in the spotlight of this movement. While the prescription drugs touted by businesses are no doubt beneficial to some, questions have recently been raised about practices that are allegedly carried out in attempts to keep generic forms of the drugs on the market, driving up costs for consumers.
While the impacts are felt by the American people, they largely go without protest, thanks to charitable contributions and actions, which give the companies a public ethical perception.
That’s the case with Eli Lilly, according to Natural News, a health-based publication. The pharmaceutical corporation is enormous, with offices in 18 countries and active markets in 125. It’s famous for Prozac, the anti-anxiety medication that swept the nation in the early 2000s. The same medications the company sells in America can be purchased in any of those countries at a fraction of the price, leaving U.S. consumers with no choice other than to comply with the high price tag.
Eli Lilly has branded itself as a company of responsibility. Its website has an entire section dedicated to this, with the slogan, “Responsibility. It’s not a fad. It is at the core of who we are.”
The same goes with a number of other large corporations outside of the pharmaceutical world, including Monsanto, a company that has had its products banned in portions of Europe and has been the subject of lawsuits on behalf of Latin American farmers, who have claimed the chemicals used on their genetically modified crops have caused widespread deformities among children in their community. Nike, a company that is notorious for its sweatshop factories in Indonesia, has also taken part in charity-related campaigns, intended to help the very people arguably suffering because of its presence.
The power of persuasion
Driving down an interstate in the midst of Minnesota farm country, motorists are greeted with green-inspired advertisements for Monsanto, illustrating the happy life of ‘everyday American farmers’ and citizens.
To perpetuate that image, Monsanto has spent a considerable amount of resources donating funds for education and charity. In June, the company issued a press release announcing it had donated $100,000 to Maryville University. The funds were specifically designated toward the school’s program aimed at teaching chemistry in high schools.
“Educators at Maryville University will develop new approaches for teaching chemistry in high schools thanks to a generous $100,000 grant from the Monsanto Fund, the philanthropic arm of the Monsanto Company,” the press release states.
This particular donation could be seen as an attempt to look good within the science community — a place split on its perception related to the health risks of Monsanto’s genetically modified crops. France was the latest country to attempt to block Monsanto’s genetically modified maize seeds, citing the environment as the main factor. The move was blocked by the EU, however, which pointed to its own scientific evidence deeming the product to be safe.
Monsanto isn’t only targeting its U.S. market. Countries outside the U.S. have grown more and more critical of the company and its strongarm tactics. In June, the company announced it was donating textbooks to Indonesian schools, as well as building 20 Habitat for Humanity homes and contributing more than $130,000 toward clean drinking systems for the country’s poorest farming communities. Clearly, Monsanto is attempting to increase its public approval rating — it needs all the help it can get.
In 2005, Monsanto admitted to paying off an Indonesian senior official to get around environmental studies relating to the impact its cotton crop was having on the country and its people. According to the BBC, a former senior manager was at the forefront of the 2002 scandal, giving $50,000 to the official in the environment ministry.
The bribe came in the midst of a tough climate for Monsanto in Indonesia, as farmers and activists were regularly calling out Monsanto and its plans to rollout the cotton crop. The BBC reports the senior manager who issued the bribe attempted to pass the money off under the consulting fee category.
What is true corporate social responsibility?
In that very country, Nike operates a factory that has been given sweatshop status. In the documentary, “Nike Sweatshops: Behind the Swoosh,” Jim Keady and Leslie Kretzu travel to Indonesia to live with the workers of the NIke factory and live off their wages. What they discover is a life of despair — a nine-by-nine cement floored apartment, yards strewn with open sewers, rats and the inability to pay rent and purchase the necessary food and water.
“Without a doubt, we found out in the first week that we were there, there’s no way you can live on $1.25 a day and maintain your human dignity,” Kretzu said in the documentary. “It’s just not possible.”
The documentary shows failed attempts by Keady to discuss the issue of sweatshops with Nike’s CEO Mark Parker and other corporate leaders, which leads to an understanding that there’s little concern for the conditions of workers. But if you’re an average Nike consumer, you’d likely be convinced they care — just this week Nike announced its campaign to aid the health of street kids in Indonesia.
Essentially, the campaign invited runners and volunteers to hop on a treadmill and raise funds for the initiative, in what the company is calling, “Game In, World: Run to Give.” The campaign is taking place in Jakarta, the more modern of Indonesian cities — and separate from factory towns.
Yet in its effort to help the ‘street children,’ Nike continues to push its products. All those who participate are given a free demo of Nike+, a smartphone application that logs miles and pace.
With Nike workers suffering across the country, the charity stunt draws light to a question common among those who see corporate social responsibility as a necessary marketing tool, more so than a real effort to assist and change. If carrying out charitable efforts is truly important to a company, wouldn’t it allow that to manifest in the way it treats its employees?
According to Keady, it’s about one thing: “Nike is in Indonesia for one reason — cheap labor.”
What can be done?
On the surface, bucking the trend is a daunting task. Yet there are plenty of resources out there intended on informing consumers of the truth and offering guidance in methods to shop ethically.
Better World Shopper, for example, is one of them. The website has a few different ‘ethical’ categories it looks out for: human rights, the environment, animal protection, community involvement and social justice. The website touts itself as a resource for providing information on every company on the planet.
The project undergone to put together the research spanned five years and included a hefty amount of research. All the information is compiled into a book, which can be purchased for a mere $10 — it also has a version available for iPod. The website itself also includes information, including a list of the ‘top 20 companies.’
Ellis Jones, the man behind the movement, has a doctorate in sociology and considers himself a social activist for the average citizen. In addition to research and turning out products intended to inform consumers and change the world, Jones remains active in the education scene, touring the country and empowering consumers to put their money where their heart is.