tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/pepsi-9194/articlespepsi – The Conversation2023-08-10T15:13:41Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2104752023-08-10T15:13:41Z2023-08-10T15:13:41ZWestern firms still doing business in Russia finance the war – here’s how to recoup the huge cost to taxpayers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541911/original/file-20230809-5449-jcu04a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C31%2C2914%2C1962&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/world-economic-sanctions-force-country-obey-2120624531">eamesBot/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In Russia this summer, you can <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66101852">still enjoy</a> a Cornetto, but you can forget about eating a <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-60625374">Tunnock’s tea cake</a> or a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/12/mcdonalds-restaurants-in-russia-reopen-under-new-brand">Big Mac</a>. This is because Cornetto’s UK-headquarted parent company, Unilever, is still operating in Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, alongside many other western firms such as <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-07/pepsico-mars-see-business-boom-in-russia-after-staying-behind">PepsiCo</a>.</p>
<p>While lots of firms, including McDonald’s and the Scottish confectionery maker Tunnock’s, have <a href="https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/over-1000-companies-have-curtailed-operations-russia-some-remain#:%7E:text=Companies%20totally%20halting%20Russian%20engagements%20or%20completely%20exiting%20Russia...">cut business ties</a> with the country since the war started, the Kyiv School of Economics <a href="https://b4ukraine.org/pdf/BusinessOfStaying.pdf">estimates</a> western companies still operating in Russia made over US$213.9 billion (£168.2 billion) in revenues in 2022. </p>
<p>The resulting US$3.5 billion in taxes on profits paid to Russia is only a small part of their contribution to the war: the income taxes and social contributions of their employees, as well as the VAT on their sales, feed into the state’s budget. The sense of normality they give to Russian citizens also arguably <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64703768">fosters support</a> for the invasion of Ukraine. </p>
<p>Companies still doing business in Russia also hurt the citizens of the countries they come from. By essentially supporting the war, they share responsibility for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/21/energy-crisis-ukraine-war-uk-cost-gas#:%7E:text=A%20study%20by%20the%20Energy,spent%20in%20a%20normal%20year.">higher energy prices</a>, for example. They also increase the cost on western taxpayers of supporting the defence of Ukraine.</p>
<p>Like many western companies that have stayed in Russia, <a href="https://contact.pepsico.com/pepsico/article/pepsico-suspends-production-sale-of-pepsi-in-russia-continues-to">PepsiCo</a> and Unilever (Cornetto’s parent company) have <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/02/business/russia-companies-exit.html">defended the decision</a> by claiming they provide essentials and need to stay for humanitarian reasons. </p>
<p>In addition to detailing donations made to Ukrainian refugees, the statement from PepsiCo said the company “must stay true to the humanitarian aspect” of its business as a food and beverage company by continuing to offer “daily essentials” in Russia “such as milk and other dairy offerings, baby formula and baby food”. PepsiCo pointed out it also continues “to support the livelihoods of our 20,000 Russian associates and the 40,000 Russian agricultural workers in our supply chain”.</p>
<p>Unilever said <a href="https://www.unilever.com/news/press-and-media/press-releases/2023/unilever-statement-on-the-war-in-ukraine/">in a statement</a> earlier this year that, while it’s still selling products in Russia, it stopped imports and exports, all media and advertising spend and other capital flows into and out of Russia in March 2022. It’s not “trying to protect or manage” its business in Russia, the company said, but “exiting is not straightforward”.</p>
<p>Indeed, many of those who provide non-necessary items say they cannot leave because the Russian government would <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/c6108c1a-97dc-4469-aeb3-8b81ab52aaa9">seize their assets</a> and intellectual property if they do. </p>
<p>But every time a business makes the choice to leave Russia or has their assets seized, the ones who stay face lower competition, and potentially make even more profit. As of today, the only price they pay for staying <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/10/business/russia-companies-leaving-putin/index.html">is a tarnished reputation</a> in western countries.</p>
<h2>A tax on the cost of war</h2>
<p>But there is a way to make foreign companies pay the cost they impose on the world, while acknowledging the impossibility of making them completely leave Russia. </p>
<p>In fact, western governments have already designed the two main tools necessary. What it would take is a <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/a9750db3-5d5c-4afb-a33e-e5b960b63a93">coalition of sanctioning countries</a> and a mechanism that’s already being used in other regulations: the “<a href="https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/oecd-releases-pillar-two-model-rules-for-domestic-implementation-of-15-percent-global-minimum-tax.htm">Pillar 2</a>” OECD strategy on taxation, due to come into force next year, as well as the EU’s new <a href="https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en">Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism</a>, due to come into force in October 2023.</p>
<p>The coalition of sanctioning countries must first implement a tax on a western company’s Russian revenues. This is public information available in company financial reports – other <a href="https://leave-russia.org/">organisations already track</a> this information. The tax would cover the company’s sales, based on the goods and services bought by people in Russia. But the tax would be collected by the country in which the company is headquartered.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Hands counting Russian notes, piles of rouble-denominated notes on the table in foreground." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541934/original/file-20230809-29-8o0yyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541934/original/file-20230809-29-8o0yyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541934/original/file-20230809-29-8o0yyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541934/original/file-20230809-29-8o0yyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541934/original/file-20230809-29-8o0yyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541934/original/file-20230809-29-8o0yyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541934/original/file-20230809-29-8o0yyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Doing business in Russia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Andrey Sayfutdinov/Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the case of sales of Cornetto ice creams, for example, Unilever is the parent company and is based in <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/dbaa61b7-e3c6-4e82-9680-9745953a056b">the UK</a>. So the UK government would have the first option to tax Unilever, but if it chose not to, any other country in the coalition could do so instead. </p>
<p>That would mean a country has nothing to gain from protecting its national businesses. If the UK does not tax Cornetto sales in Russia, Unilever could be taxed by the EU or US and the proceeds would go into their government coffers instead.</p>
<p>The OECD’s Pillar 2 tax agreement uses this principle in its aim to end the practice of fictionally <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272722001785">locating profit in tax havens</a>. By the end of this year, countries have committed to charge at least 15% in profit tax to the largest multinational companies <a href="https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/12/12/international-taxation-council-reaches-agreement-on-a-minimum-level-of-taxation-for-largest-corporations/">in the EU</a> and <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introduction-of-the-new-multinational-top-up-tax-and-domestic-top-up-tax/multinational-top-up-tax-and-domestic-top-up-tax-uk-adoption-of-oecd-pillar-2">in the UK</a>. </p>
<p>If some part of a multinational’s profits is not taxed abroad, the country in which the company is headquartered can tax extra, up to the 15% limit. And if that country does not impose the extra charge, other countries in which the firm is active can collect the unpaid tax. </p>
<h2>What about non-western companies?</h2>
<p>Charging the tax on western companies only would disadvantage them in global markets. It may also make it even more profitable for other countries to trade with Russia. To avoid such “<a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-120820-053625">leakage</a>”, non-western companies who trade with the west and continue to do business with Russia should also be made liable for the tax. </p>
<p>This amounts to a form of <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jcsl/article/27/1/53/6528963">extra-territorial trade sanction</a>. The approach <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292120302026">is simple</a>: if a company wants to do business with the west, it must pay a fine for any trade in Russia. The US already does something much stricter to companies trading with Iran or Cuba. French bank Société Générale <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/manhattan-us-attorney-announces-criminal-charges-against-soci-t-g-n-rale-sa-violations">paid US$1.3 billion to the US government</a> in 2018 as a punishment for providing financial services in Cuba. </p>
<p>Taxing foreign companies to level competition is very similar to a <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1093/reep/rey020">border adjustment mechanism</a> for polluting industries. This is what <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988323001718">the EU will begin to do</a> in 2026 under the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. It will charge a carbon tax on certain products or activities, starting with the most <a href="https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en">energy-intensive industries</a> such as cement, iron and steel production, unless a company can prove it has already paid the equivalent at home. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Child with flowers in hair holding sign with Ukrainian flag colours that says " src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541933/original/file-20230809-13146-9hchag.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541933/original/file-20230809-13146-9hchag.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541933/original/file-20230809-13146-9hchag.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541933/original/file-20230809-13146-9hchag.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541933/original/file-20230809-13146-9hchag.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541933/original/file-20230809-13146-9hchag.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541933/original/file-20230809-13146-9hchag.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">shutterstock.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mykola Romanovskyy/Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-ukraine-war-invasion-slammed-russias-global-reputation-poll-shows/">Global public opinion</a> has turned against Russia since the invasion of Ukraine. Just like with global tax evasion and climate change, most countries understand that it is in everyone’s interest that a nuclear power is not allowed to invade other countries with no consequence. </p>
<p>The tools the world has developed to cooperate on international taxation and carbon emissions could now be used to take definitive action on economic sanctions and make the war in Ukraine much more difficult for Russia to sustain.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210475/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Renaud Foucart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Some western companies have continued operating in Russia since it invaded Ukraine, while others have left the country altogether.Renaud Foucart, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1919752022-11-07T13:35:47Z2022-11-07T13:35:47ZYe and Adidas break up: Why brand marriages sometimes go bad<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492643/original/file-20221031-23-ir8tys.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=80%2C67%2C2910%2C1926&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Ye, formerly Kanye West, lost some of his corporate partners after expressing antisemitic remarks. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/YeSportsTerminations/fb53306fd45643e48955537691a04757/photo?Query=Kanye%20west&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=2813&currentItemNo=0">AP Photo/Evan Vucci</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Brand partnerships between seemingly disparate companies or organizations are all around us.</p>
<p>Clothing retailer H&M <a href="https://www2.hm.com/en_us/life/culture/inside-h-m/co-exist-peta-approved.html">partnered with animal rights group PETA</a> in 2021 to launch a vegan fashion collection. <a href="https://www.hyundai.com/worldwide/en/worldcup/goal-of-the-century">FIFA, soccer’s world governing body, and automaker Hyundai agreed</a> in 2022 to run a global campaign that uses soccer to promote sustainability. Meditation app <a href="https://media.wholefoodsmarket.com/whole-foods-market-and-headspace-team-up/">Headspace collaborated with Whole Foods Market</a> in 2021 to create a video series on Instagram’s IGTV video app on mindful shopping, cooking and eating.</p>
<p>The idea of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1050.0153">two brands getting hitched for strategic purposes</a> is a quintessential marketing tactic. When done well, the collaboration helps both partners grow their brands and amplify a shared message, such as the idea of animal-friendly clothing in the case of H&M and PETA. </p>
<p>But just like any marriage, it doesn’t always go well.</p>
<p>Recent examples of this are breakups between fashion line Yeezy – owned by rapper and artist Ye, formerly known as Kanye West – and clothing retailers Gap and Adidas. Ye said on Sept. 15, 2022, that he <a href="https://www.tmz.com/2022/09/15/kanye-west-gap-partnership-done-ends-terminated/">ended his company’s partnership</a> with Gap because the company had “abandoned its contractual obligations.” The New York Times reported that the cited reasons were that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/business/kanye-west-yeezy-gap.html">Gap had failed to sell Yeezy products</a> in its namesake stores and had not opened new stores specifically to sell them. </p>
<p>Adidas <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/25/adidas-terminates-partnership-with-ye-following-rappers-antisemitic-remarks.html">broke off its partnership</a> with Yeezy over Ye’s recent antisemitic remarks.</p>
<p>I’m an <a href="https://www.ou.edu/price/marketing_supplychainmanagement/people/pankhuri-malhotra">assistant professor of marketing</a> who studies <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7RZwe9cAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">user behavior on social media in the context of brand partnerships</a>. Research shows forming <a href="https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2013.0806">partnerships can be valuable for some – but they can also be perilous for others</a>. My recent work on partnerships shows a handy method that companies can use for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429221083668">finding potential collaborators</a>, by analyzing who follows them on Twitter and other social media.</p>
<h2>Why companies form branding partnerships?</h2>
<p>Brand collaborations are strategic partnerships between two or more brands to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429221083668">boost awareness and increase sales</a> by tapping into the partner’s <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700203">existing customers</a>. </p>
<p>This whole idea of companies pooling their resources to boost their own unique value is the epitome of a <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/20110704">win-win situation</a> – at least in most situations.</p>
<p>Research shows that these types of marketing alliances have a variety of potential benefits, such as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.5">increasing a company’s value</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0642">bottom line gains</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0642">access to new products</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299706100403">skills</a>.</p>
<p>For brand marriages to truly work, both partners need to get something out of the relationship. </p>
<p>For example, in 2015, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/nomiprins/2015/05/19/the-spotify-starbucks-partnership-is-digital-co-branding-genius/?sh=117b10e4a7ae">Starbucks began a collaboration</a> with music streaming service Spotify. Starbucks aimed to <a href="https://stories.starbucks.com/stories/2015/starbucks-spotify-partnership">add more customers</a> to its loyalty program by adding a Spotify tab to its smartphone app. And Spotify users were able to earn “stars” for free coffee products if they paid for a premium membership. </p>
<p>Both Starbucks and Spotify <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/nomiprins/2015/05/19/the-spotify-starbucks-partnership-is-digital-co-branding-genius/?sh=15475f014a7a">had something to gain</a> from their partnership.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A sign for Adidas and Yeezy sits behind some shoes of various colors" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492637/original/file-20221031-20-is448u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492637/original/file-20221031-20-is448u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492637/original/file-20221031-20-is448u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492637/original/file-20221031-20-is448u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492637/original/file-20221031-20-is448u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492637/original/file-20221031-20-is448u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492637/original/file-20221031-20-is448u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Adidas said it will take approximately a $250 million hit by ending its partnership with Yeezy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/YeAdidas/074b178f0f324232a7be8686823f2c08/photo?Query=Kanye%20west%20adidas&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=50&currentItemNo=3">AP Photo/Seth Wenig</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Shared values</h2>
<p>But sometimes breakups are bound to happen.</p>
<p>Adidas, for instance, <a href="https://fortune.com/2022/10/25/adidas-cut-ties-kanye-west-after-rapper-anti-semitic-remarks">severed its partnership deal</a> with Ye after the controversial artist <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2022/10/27/antisemitism-kanye-trump-adidas-jews/">made a series of offensive and antisemitic comments</a> in early October 2022. On Oct. 25, <a href="https://www.adidas-group.com/en/media/news-archive/press-releases/2022/adidas-terminates-partnership-ye-immediately/">Adidas said that Ye’s comments</a> were “unacceptable, hateful and dangerous, and they violate the company’s values of diversity and inclusion, mutual respect and fairness.”</p>
<p>The partnership failed – with Adidas even swallowing a loss of about US$250 million – because their values didn’t align. </p>
<p>That reveals another lesson from academic research on the topic: Partnerships work out best when partners share the same values or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2013.0806">similar brand image</a>, which refers to the way consumers perceive the company. When partner brands’ images are not aligned, consumers are more likely to question why the two companies are collaborating – and this can generate <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379803500105">negative views</a> toward the alliance. </p>
<p>A classic example of how inconsistent values can lead to a parting of the ways was the brand partnership between <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/lego-to-end-shell-collaboration-after-greenpeace-campaign-1412845373">Dutch oil company Shell and Danish toy company Lego</a>.</p>
<p>Since the 1960s, Lego has sold toys branded with the Shell logo, such as gas stations and race cars. In exchange, Shell helped distribute Lego products around the world and sold them at service stations in more than 25 countries. The partnership <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/09/lego-ends-shell-partnership-following-greenpeace-campaign">was valued at about $78 million</a> in today’s dollars.</p>
<p>But their brand images weren’t well aligned. Lego, with its colorful bricks for kids, has the <a href="https://www.thebrandingjournal.com/2014/10/lego-end-partnership-shell-current-contract-ends/">image of a “friendly toymaker</a>,” while Shell is an oil giant with complicated associations with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/28/shell-ceases-alaska-arctic-drilling-exploratory-well-oil-gas-disappoints">drilling in the Arctic</a> and <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/25/africa/shell-oil-spills-nigeria-intl-cmd/index.html">oil spills</a>. </p>
<p>That’s why Greenpeace launched a petition in 2014 calling on Lego to end its partnership with Shell, which the environmental group said was operating recklessly by exploring for oil in the Arctic. Greenpeace said it had collected a million signatures when Lego announced in October that year that it would not renew the contract it had with Shell. The <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/220234-lego-to-cut-ties-with-shell-after-greenpeace-campaign">partnership formally ended in 2016</a>, when the contract expired. </p>
<h2>Social media followings can offer partnership clues</h2>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429221083668">My own research focuses</a> more on social media and the role it can play in helping companies determine who might make a good partner. </p>
<p>Several colleagues and I found that when two brands have a lot of shared followers on Twitter or Facebook – especially when they don’t also share them with many other companies – it suggests there might be a natural alignment between them, thus making them good candidates for a partnership. And a separate study found that a company’s base of Twitter followers represents the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0643">tastes and likes of its audience</a>; thus, more shared followers between two brands suggests they also have similar likes. </p>
<p>It’s one way companies looking for a partner can avoid going to bed with another business that doesn’t share its values or brand image. </p>
<p>For example, as you might expect, Shell and Lego don’t have a lot of followers in common. Spotify and Starbucks, however, do, which is why their partnership is going strong and <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/nomiprins/2015/05/19/the-spotify-starbucks-partnership-is-digital-co-branding-genius/?sh=15475f014a7a">benefiting both companies</a>. They had 299,000 followers in common when we did our analysis in 2020. <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/nomiprins/2015/05/19/the-spotify-starbucks-partnership-is-digital-co-branding-genius/?sh=117b10e4a7ae">The partnership is also an example</a> of how having common followers could suggest the companies’ customers have complementary consumption patterns, since <a href="https://www.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2015.0968">most people follow a brand because they like its products</a>.</p>
<p>Similarly, a significant share of Starbucks followers also follow beer maker Guinness – about 16% as of 2020 – so it wasn’t a surprise to my colleagues and me that they collaborated in 2016 on a product together: <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2016/05/31/news/companies/starbucks-nitro-cold-brew-coffee/index.html">nitro brew coffee</a>. Another example of a partnership made in social media heaven is the deal between <a href="https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/global/article/detail/T0169486EN/louis-vuitton-creates-tailor-made-luggage-for-the-bmw-i8-forward-looking-travel-bags-for-progressive-driving-made-from-carbon-fibre?language=en">car manufacturer BMW and fashion company Louis Vuitton</a>, who shared over 225,000 followers on Twitter in 2020. In 2014, they created a line of luxury luggage for business travelers. </p>
<p>We don’t know if companies like Starbucks or BMW used social media to determine those tie-ups, but in a recent paper, <a href="https://www.doi.org/10.1177/00222429221083668">we suggest it’s a smart way</a> to find a partner that shares values. </p>
<p>Just like with a marriage, the consequences of forming a bad match can be costly, as <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-09-23/the-kanye-west-gap-breakup-will-be-very-tough-on-adidas">Adidas is learning</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/191975/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Pankhuri Malhotra does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>While corporate partnerships can be ‘win-win’ arrangements, sometimes they don’t work out – especially when values don’t align.Pankhuri Malhotra, Assistant Professor of Marketing, University of OklahomaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1364422020-05-07T17:34:29Z2020-05-07T17:34:29ZPlastic and the art of stigmatisation – is something amiss?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/333127/original/file-20200506-49546-huxwoa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C13%2C1500%2C1089&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://ccsearch.creativecommons.org/photos/6fe39c7d-349f-46f6-a54d-b8ebd28cebb9">Cogdogblog/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>“Plastic-free aisle”, “No plastic straws”, “Plastic-free Tuesday”. Social media abounds with anti-plastic messages and chilling statistics about the quantity of plastic in our oceans, food, clothes and bodies flash before us in quick succession. Shocking images that circulate widely provoke emotions and <a href="https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amj.2017.1488">generate momentum for action on plastic</a>. </p>
<p>While the contrast of a beautiful beach with plastic waste might be striking, focusing our efforts on cleaning the beaches is unlikely to meaningfully impact plastic pollution. Are we missing the bigger picture of plastic pollution? Through a study of traditional media and social media during the most intense period of public criticism of plastic (2017-2018), we observed that stigmatisation – a process of <a href="https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.1080.0367">discreditation and vilification</a> – has focused on a few symbolic objects and corporations, zooming in on the visible, while leaving the majority of plastic production and pollution unexplored.</p>
<h2>Stigmatizing plastic as a strategy to create change</h2>
<p>Plastic is a general name given to a wide range of chemical compounds that are a mix of monomers and polymers. It is everywhere and modern life would be in some ways unthinkable without it. Durable, lightweight and affordable, plastic has many benefits, but there’s another story being told. A 2016 <em>National Geographic</em> article laid the problem bare: <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/06/plastic-planet-waste-pollution-trash-crisis/">“We Made Plastic. We Depend on It. Now We’re Drowning in It”</a>. Plastic has become a contentious issue, stigmatised for its environmental and health impacts, and symbolic of our consumption-centred societies.</p>
<p>Urgent action is required and change in both our production and consumption patterns is necessary. Stigmatising strategies can be a powerful tool for change. This has been the case for whole industries such as armaments and tobacco, which suffered reputational penalties, decreased market value, reduced negotiating power and difficulties in recruiting top talent. Singling out a specific industry or organisation may seem straightforward, but stigma is much more difficult to grasp when the target is a material, that crosses a vast range of uses across many different industries. To unravel this complexity, we sought to understand which objects, organisations and industries were the focus of stigmatisation strategies around plastic and to analyse whether the stigmatisation process had the capacity to create change: namely our detoxification from plastic.</p>
<h2>What are the objects and industries that are being stigmatized?</h2>
<p>We analysed data from four mainstream news organisations in the UK and the Twitter accounts of 19 non-governmental organisations and five NGO heads which were highly active in 2017 and 2018 on the topic of plastic.</p>
<p>Our analysis of both the news organisations and the tweets reveal similar results. The top mentioned object is the plastic bag. The focus on plastic use in the food industry comes next, with highly recurring mentions of single-use plastic: bottles, cups, lids and straws that have facilitated our lifestyles yet litter the planet. The most targeted company is Coca Cola, closely followed by Nestlé, Mars, Starbucks, Pepsi and a number of retailers/supermarkets such as Tesco, Morrisons and Waitrose. Companies from the consumer staples and consumer discretionary sectors are by far the ones that are the most stigmatised.</p>
<p>While almost <a href="https://www.plasticseurope.org/application/files/9715/7129/9584/FINAL_web_version_Plastics_the_facts2019_14102019.pdf">40% of the demand for plastic comes from the packaging sector</a> (followed by building and construction 19.8%, automotive 9.9%, electrical and electronics 6.2% and household, leisure and sports 4.1%), the items which have caught the headlines do not tell the whole story. For example, plastic straws have become strongly linked to marine pollution and a symbol of unnecessary, even frivolous consumerism, yet represent <a href="https://earth.stanford.edu/news/do-plastic-straws-really-make-difference">less than 1% of 150 million tons of plastic littering the oceans</a>. At the same time secondary and transit packaging such as the single-use plastic films that protect consumer products through manufacturing, storage and distribution are <a href="https://www.citibank.com/commercialbank/insights/assets/docs/2018/rethinking-single-use-plastics.pdf">abundant but seldom discussed</a>.</p>
<p>Notable is the quasi absence from the newspapers and tweets of the plastic producers and petro-chemicals giants such as BASF, ExxonMobil, Dow and DuPont. All are powerful actors in the plastic ecosystem that see plastic resin production as an opportunity for future growth.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/333128/original/file-20200506-49556-19km8mi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/333128/original/file-20200506-49556-19km8mi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/333128/original/file-20200506-49556-19km8mi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/333128/original/file-20200506-49556-19km8mi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/333128/original/file-20200506-49556-19km8mi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/333128/original/file-20200506-49556-19km8mi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/333128/original/file-20200506-49556-19km8mi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Plastic is with us everywhere, not only in plain sight, but also deep in the oceans and even in our own bodies.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://ccsearch.creativecommons.org/photos/12a64e0a-29a4-49c6-8282-578216240328">Flickr</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The limits of stigmatisation strategies</h2>
<p>Through the analysis of social media and traditional media’s messages on plastic in 2017 and 2018, we were able to provide an understanding of the stigmatisation processes at play. Stigmatisation, what the industry has named “plastic bashing”, has focused intensively on end-consumer visible symbolic products such as bottles, straws and single-use food packaging. Moreover, the name-shaming has also been concentrated on popular consumer brands such as Coca-Cola.</p>
<p>However, whether stigmatisation strategies have triggered the necessary action to curb the plastic problem is open to question. Plastic production keeps on increasing and industry players are focused on recycling, not on switching to other materials or reducing plastic use. Governments have implemented bans of symbolic targeted objects and legislated on circular economy packages, but recent concerns about Covid-19 have given rise to promotion of single-use plastics as a health-care solution rather than a problem. Indeed, plastic lobbies have asked the European Commission to <a href="https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2020/04/12/a-la-faveur-de-la-crise-sanitaire-le-plastique-a-usage-unique-fait-son-retour-en-force_6036357_3244.html">delay implementation of limits on single-use plastic</a>.</p>
<p>Concentrated and coordinated stigmatisation can result in the ban of a limited range of products. However, research indicates that without education or environmental programs, <a href="https://theconversation.com/getting-rid-of-plastic-bags-a-windfall-for-supermarkets-but-it-wont-do-much-for-the-environment-81083">bans can have limited benefits for the environment</a>. Because stigmatisation focuses on downstream visual and symbolic items and known brands, the reaction is itself visible for the general public and the stigmatisers, but without visibility of the upstream production and supply side, flow of plastic entering our society continues.</p>
<p>Stigmatisation could also be detrimental by causing distraction from the wider landscape of plastic production and the pollution that it creates, which is vast compared to the pollution created by the stigmatized (and now banned) items. While changes in plastic use by consumer brands is a welcome step forward, it will not significantly impact the curve of plastic production and pollution. </p>
<h2>Breaking the link between plastic and society</h2>
<p>Deinstitutionalisation – the eradication of widespread practices and products built around a particular substance – is a much longer process. Asbestos and the pesticide DDT were deinstitutionalized when the link between them and human health became undeniable, triggering lawsuits and wide legal bans. To deinstitutionalize plastic, systems thinking would be required, just as with other complex grand challenges. Today plastic use is deeply intertwined with other problems such as food waste, greenhouse-gas emissions, income inequality, waste, biodiversity loss, and oil production.</p>
<p>Stigmatisation is only one of many tactics that can be used to tackle plastic pollution. While it has succeeded in shining a light on the issue, strategies that are both broader and longer term are required. For example, developing a worldwide plastic treaty through the UN – such as that created for ozone-depleting gases – could be an avenue for consideration.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/136442/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur organisme de recherche.</span></em></p>A media study of public criticism of plastic reveals that stigmatisation may result in limited bans, it leaves the vast majority of plastic production and pollution unexplored.Céline Louche, Professor, Business & Society, AudenciaDelphine Gibassier, Professeur Associé de Comptabilité du Développement Durable, AudenciaJennifer Goodman, Associate Professor, Business & Society, AudenciaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/944632018-05-30T10:38:28Z2018-05-30T10:38:28ZMost CEOs aren’t abandoning neutrality on Trump – yet<p>What would it take for the titans of corporate America to rise up against President Donald Trump?</p>
<p>That’s a question that’s been on our minds lately, as we ponder a growing list of reasons for U.S. CEOs to oppose the president or his policies. His <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/dd2af6b0-4fc1-11e8-9471-a083af05aea7">willingness to risk a costly trade war with China</a> is only the latest. Some Trump ideas, like talk of <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/26/donald-trump-nafta-negotiations-217085">abandoning NAFTA</a> or creating a <a href="http://fortune.com/2017/02/27/border-tax-costs-investments/">border tax</a>, would be bad for business. Others are more about social controversies, such as the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/trump-press-conference-charlottesville.html">president’s response</a> to the Charlottesville violence, which led to a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/14/donald-trump-kevin-plank-under-armour-quits-advisory-council-charlottesville">limited CEO uprising</a> against Trump. </p>
<p>In case of a <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-constitutional-crisis-over-mueller-michael-cohen-2018-4">constitutional standoff</a> or other crisis, we believe corporate CEOs are uniquely positioned to stand up to the president, in part because they have historically stayed above the political fray or even <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-01/reversal-of-fortune-500-gop-friendly-execs-choose-clinton-over-trump">leaned Republican</a>. Therefore, a concerted act by CEOs would be somewhat like the 1974 “<a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nixons-goldwater-moment-looms-over-trump-2017-08-09">Goldwater moment</a>,” when those in President Richard Nixon’s camp helped persuade him to resign. </p>
<p>To get a better sense of where American business leaders stand, we recently examined the positions of about 200 prominent U.S. CEOs. </p>
<h2>Stuck in neutral?</h2>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/how-corporate-ceos-found-their-political-voice-83127">Political neutrality</a> has been an American corporate norm for decades. Until recently, it was relatively rare for corporations or CEOs to take public stances on divisive social issues. </p>
<p>While this has <a href="https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to-create-value-for-stakeholders/">changed</a> somewhat, with more <a href="https://hbr.org/2018/01/the-new-ceo-activists">CEO social activism</a>, CEOs generally still tend to shy away from overt partisan politics. In 2016, for example, only a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2016/06/03/why-we-dont-see-more-ceos-endorse-presidential-candidates/">handful</a> supported either major party candidate, with most favoring Hillary Clinton. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, we decided to examine whether there are indications that CEOs will stand up to Trump and perhaps act together as a group to oppose him or even call for his ouster if events warrant it. Trump’s divisiveness has deeply <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/04/06/feature/in-reaction-to-trump-millions-of-americans-are-joining-protests-and-getting-political/">politicized many Americans</a>, and we wanted to see how much it has infected CEOs as well. </p>
<h2>In the fray, a little</h2>
<p>In order to do that, we looked at the 197 CEOs in the <a href="https://www.businessroundtable.org">Business Roundtable</a>, who manage many of the most important companies in the U.S., including Apple, Pepsi and General Electric. Together these businesses employ 16 million people and boast US$7 trillion in revenues.<br>
Using public news, texts, tweets, and occasionally private utterances, we placed each of the CEOs into one of five camps: anti-Trump, soft anti-Trump, neutral, soft supporter of Trump and pro-Trump. </p>
<p><iframe id="W5ljA" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/W5ljA/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>What we found from our unpublished review surprised us: Fewer than a third of the CEOs we looked at have staked out consistently critical or supportive public positions on the president or his policies, while the vast majority have stayed in the middle – walking a tricky tightrope. In other words, most have been careful not to be unduly political in this polarized time. </p>
<p>Our analysis showed that 34 of them have been at least a little critical of the president. Of those, 29 were on the softer side, meaning they came out forcefully on one or more of Trump’s hallmark policies or actions but have been otherwise careful. </p>
<p>A typical case of this soft anti-Trump CEO is NRG Energy’s Mauricio Gutierrez, who opposes Trump on issues such as <a href="http://fortune.com/video/2016/12/14/nrg-energy-ceo-donald-trump/">climate change</a>, tax policy and immigration. For example, referring to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that the president has tried to shut down, he <a href="https://tweettunnel.com/nrgmauricio">tweeted</a>: “Proud to join business leaders in support of a #DACA solution.” </p>
<p><iframe id="EdTXO" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/EdTXO/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Another CEO in this camp is General Electric’s new CEO John Flannery, who offered rather mild criticism of Trump’s steel tariff proposal with <a href="https://twitter.com/JohnFlannery_GE/status/971520010052161536">this tweet</a>: “GE believes in open markets. … We are strong believers in free trade and know that protectionist policies create barriers to trade, innovation and investment.”</p>
<p>The five we deemed outwardly anti-Trump were marked by more consistent criticism. Examples include Pepsi’s Indra Nooyi, a strong supporter of Clinton who is also an <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trump-administrations-new-plan-to-punish-legal-immigrants/2018/05/05/6eb12522-4e51-11e8-af46-b1d6dc0d9bfe_story.html">immigrant</a> and a <a href="https://www.axios.com/a-list-of-trumps-attacks-on-prominent-women-1513303964-8ef61562-4dcc-4cf0-aea6-0ec89457fbc1.html">woman</a>, two constituencies that have frequently found themselves at odds with the president. Another is Aetna’s CEO Mark Bertolini, who at <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/16/aetna-ceo-says-i-am-ashamed-of-president-trumps-behavior-and-comments.html">one point said</a> he was “ashamed” of the president’s behavior. </p>
<p>At the other end of the spectrum, 23 CEOs have voiced support for Trump and his policies. </p>
<p>Some softer supporters of Trump, 16 in all, include David Seaton, CEO of Fluor, an engineering firm that would benefit from the kind of increased infrastructure spending the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/29/trump-promised-1-5-trillion-in-infrastructure-spending-hes-1-percent-of-the-way-there/">president has proposed</a>. Seaton shares at least some elements of Trump’s agenda, for example by complaining about needing to get rid of “<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2018-01-30/fluor-ceo-says-regulatory-morass-is-impacting-infrastructure-video">regulatory morass</a>.” </p>
<p>Another is Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg, who at one point <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/17/news/companies/boeing-trump-dennis-muilenburg/index.html">received</a> a presidential scolding for the costs of building a new Air Force One. Eventually, Muilenburg managed to turn things around, gaining significant influence and meeting the president on <a href="https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=Trump%20OR%20tax%20OR%20infrastructure%20from%3ABoeingCEO&src=typd&lang=en">several occasions</a>.</p>
<p>Among the seven CEOs who have strongly backed Trump are one of his old friends and trusted advisers, Blackstone’s <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/donald-trump-steven-schwarzman-ceo-white-house-advisers-237168">Stephen Schwarzman</a>, and Oracle CEO’s <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/oracle-ceo-safra-catz-replace-hr-mcmaster-2018-3">Safra Catz</a>, who earlier joined his transition team as a part-time adviser and was recently discussed for the role of national security adviser. </p>
<h2>The ‘silent’ majority</h2>
<p>The remaining CEOs – 140 or more than two-thirds of the Roundtable membership – have been either silent about Trump or tend to make trite, careful, balanced statements. They cautiously mix supportive statements on things they like such as tax reform, with occasional light policy criticism in areas like climate change and trade. </p>
<p>Typical is a CEO like Steelcase’s Jim Keane, who supports Trump’s recent tax cut on his business but has been critical of the president on <a href="https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/03/21/steelcase-inc-weighs-the-ups-and-downs-of-trumps-p.aspx">tariffs</a>. </p>
<p>Qualcomm CEO Steve Mollenkopf’s convoluted words exemplify this group’s tightrope balancing. <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/qualcomm-ceo-steve-mollenkopf-interview-2017-7">Answering</a> a reporter’s question about immigration policy, he said: “I think we’ve been pretty clear. The avenue through which we make these arguments is sort of directly to the policymakers, as opposed to through other methods. And it kind of makes sense.” </p>
<p>Finally, we placed in this neutral camp Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase and the influential head of the Business Roundtable. Once a Democrat, Dimon is what we might call a swashbuckling pragmatist: He <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/23/dimon-other-ceos-talk-jobs-and-economic-growth-at-private-white-house-dinner-with-trump.html">interacts with the president</a> but is also <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/13/investing/jamie-dimon-trump-trade-tariffs/index.html">critical</a> of his policies. </p>
<h2>The bully pulpit</h2>
<p>Another reason so many CEOs are staying neutral is that they fear standing on the wrong side of this president, who regularly uses the Oval Office as a <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/many-ceos-scared-out-their-minds-won-t-speak-out-n714126">bully pulpit</a>.</p>
<p>Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos rediscovered this in April, when Trump <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/trump-tweets-fifth-amazon-attack-in-a-week-hits-washington-post.html">repeatedly attacked</a> him, his company and his newspaper, The Washington Post. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-personally-pushed-postmaster-general-to-double-rates-on-amazon-other-firms/2018/05/18/2b6438d2-5931-11e8-858f-12becb4d6067_story.html">Trump even deliberately tried to hurt Amazon</a> by asking the U.S. Postal Service to raise the company’s rates. </p>
<p>Others haven’t been so lucky. Mark Fields, who ran Ford until 2017, lost his job <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/fords-outgoing-ceos-spat-with-trump-highlighted-troubles-1495465162">reportedly in part</a> because he was seen as having put the car company on Trump’s radar by announcing plans to outsource U.S. jobs to Mexico. </p>
<h2>A line he may cross?</h2>
<p>So to answer our original question, we believe our analysis shows two things. </p>
<p>One is that the vast majority are hewing to the neutral line that chief executives have historically taken. And there’s only tepid evidence that CEOs as a group are being more vocal than usual in criticism of the president.</p>
<p>There are two factors that could turn this prediction on its head: the long-term trend of growing <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/opinion/dicks-guns-walmart.html">CEO activism</a> and a presidency that <a href="https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/trump-generates-crisis-and-chaos-former-cia-director-panetta-1209066051858?playlist=associated">generates crises</a>.</p>
<p>Is there a line that would trigger strong concerted CEO action? We believe there is. We just don’t know where it is. </p>
<p><em>Quentin Levin, a student at American University’s School of Public Affairs, contributed to the research underlying this article.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94463/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Despite a growing list of reasons why business leaders might oppose the president or his policies, more than two-thirds have remained steadfastly neutral.Erran Carmel, Professor of Business, American University Kogod School of BusinessChris Edelson, Assistant Professor of Government, American University School of Public AffairsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/496342015-11-02T11:02:30Z2015-11-02T11:02:30ZLook what is being sold to kids when they are in school<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100361/original/image-20151030-16507-18tbzqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How stuff gets sold to kids.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/zac-attack/4010505926/in/photolist-77oTFU-4fzQi7-4EUfLL-grfFSJ-9Mo2Mm-a3Hu5W-7Fvh8L-7CoYhS-auX8UD-MQ4ww-rsyXc-7hhuhV-E1iZV-7k8RZA-totpe-23EEH-5oJid9-agbyQ3-8D79s8-dhXhye-399K1o-aCUYFk-kstFG-gGhkEK-das3oF-9FwxvQ-agbzho-omNvvU-3QEwB-gGgZhj-6NHJ-rsz9e-scoVP-6npouJ-gGgXr5-8gB6Lx-4mAV3D-771u18-5GnKke-ag8KN8-ag952F-i2hRNr-CTvnZ-gGhnMm-9REDzk-doPAbK-9bEWDy-bUSKwr-9TNUqq-9WV2Cu">Zac Zellers</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Students are greeted these days with a <a href="http://nepc.colorado.edu/ceru-home">barrage of marketing and advertising</a> as they enter the school year. And there is no let-up. The ads are all over.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/he00156.pdf">US Government Accountability Office</a> (GAO) found ads in corridors, on scoreboards and vending machines, and inserted in the curricula through supplementary educational materials. They were on school equipment (eg, uniforms, cups, water coolers, beverage cases, food display racks) and on school buses. Ads were also put out through school newspapers, yearbooks and the school radio stations.</p>
<p>What is the impact of such marketing on children? </p>
<p>Our book, <a href="https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781475813616/Sold-Out-How-Marketing-in-School-Threatens-Children's-Well-Being-and-Undermines-their-Education">Sold Out</a>, details the results of our study of marketing and advertising to children in schools over the past 25 years. </p>
<p>We found that while schools often welcome them, marketing and advertising activities in schools threaten children’s psychological and physical well-being, as well as the integrity of their education.</p>
<h2>What is sold the most to children?</h2>
<p>Unhealthy food products are the most <a href="http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/national-survey-types-and-extent-marketing-foods-minimal-nutritional-value-schools">heavily marketed products in school</a>. </p>
<p>In 2012, the Federal Trade Commission reported that 48 major food and beverage companies marketing to children in the US <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/12/ftc-releases-follow-study-detailing-promotional-activities">spent US$149 million</a> on marketing to children in schools alone. </p>
<p>Soft-drink bottling companies, in particular, often enter into multi-year <a href="http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/schoolhouse-commercialism-2012">exclusive contracts</a> that bring product and branded vending machines, scoreboards, coolers and other paraphernalia into the schools. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://cspinet.org/nutritionpolicy/MCPS_foodmarketing_report2008.pdf">2008 study</a> found that the average high school in Montgomery County, Maryland, had 21 vending machines – each one both selling the product and functioning as a lit-up billboard. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.une.edu/news/2012/study-une-researcher-michele-polacsek-finds-junk-food-marketing-still-widespread-maine-schools">Another</a> 2012 study found advertising for soft drinks and other “<a href="http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/foods-minimal-nutritional-value">foods of minimal nutritional value</a>” in 85% of the high schools in Maine. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100362/original/image-20151030-16514-1cx4t8s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100362/original/image-20151030-16514-1cx4t8s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100362/original/image-20151030-16514-1cx4t8s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100362/original/image-20151030-16514-1cx4t8s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100362/original/image-20151030-16514-1cx4t8s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100362/original/image-20151030-16514-1cx4t8s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100362/original/image-20151030-16514-1cx4t8s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Advertising for soft drinks is very common in schools.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/wolflawlibrary/4771093139/in/photolist-8gB6Lx-6hgNNH-vg9KWn-5oJid9-wnAQd-wcnjjQ-8gB6Wn-kstFG-2RxLH4-vfZMVm-vg93wi-a3Hu5W-wd235H-vVppGJ-nyJfA-vVqiWd-vg1GtY-waFMQG-vVqzqE-3kCb81-7VM7TS-6dTBEv-vVoruo-vg4NSx-vg8ikt-wcZEfn-vgaDgr-vVosg1-7qpMVi-Dao9r-wckqEu-98NWmj-CTvnZ-vVmfj1-vVjp8q-4MV39g-4BzY5t-556oT6-7VM7e3-61kRcD-22msuN-2k1JSF-dnpBLj-vjYuCN-3hVe1g-7BQEKV-8gB6ZP-3LvLUX-waDVNQ-7VM6Nd">The Wolf Law Library</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Younger students, in schools without vending machines, routinely <a href="http://www.bridgingthegapresearch.org/research/terry-mcelrath2014_jamap/">receive free coupons</a> promoting food products.</p>
<p>Numerous studies demonstrate that food <a href="http://www.nap.edu/read/11514/chapter/1">marketing influences children’s</a> food preferences, what young children ask their parents to buy for them and what older children buy for themselves. </p>
<p>Although no study ties any specific marketing campaign to poor health, it stands to reason that the more children are encouraged to eat foods that are unhealthy when consumed to excess, the more likely they are to suffer from metabolic syndrome, obesity and the host of illnesses associated with them.</p>
<h2>Impact of marketing</h2>
<p>In one way or another, all marketing promotes the idea that identity, fulfillment, self-expression and confidence are achieved through consumption. </p>
<p><a href="http://commercialfreechildhood.org/sites/default/files/kanner_corporatizedchild.pdf">When children are occupied with consumer-oriented activity</a> (shopping, for example, or thinking about products or fantasizing about purchases), they simply have less time and brain-space for other pursuits, such as creative thinking and play, family and friends, artistic endeavors, or spiritual practices.</p>
<p>Materialistic values have been linked to higher rates of such <a href="http://books.simonandschuster.com/Born-to-Buy/Juliet-B-Schor/9780684870564">psychological problems</a> as anxiety, depression, psychological distress, chronic physical symptoms and lower self-esteem.</p>
<p>Marketing in schools can have other consequences as well. It can take up class time, contradict what children learn in their classes (particularly about proper nutrition) and create an environment that encourages them to uncritically accept sponsors’ points of view. </p>
<p>When children, for example, learn about “energy balance” from <a href="http://www.togethercounts.com/sites/togethercounts.com/files/thematic-unit/pdfs/PROGRAM_OVERVIEW_2014.pdf">curricular materials</a> provided by a food-industry-funded nonprofit organization, they are encouraged to accept the industry’s point of view that individuals are responsible for balancing their “calories in” and “calories out.” </p>
<p>Assumed in this point of view is that all food products are healthy in moderation; excluded is industry’s role in encouraging children to consume food products that are unhealthy when consumed to excess. </p>
<h2>Why do schools allow marketing?</h2>
<p>Given the threats posed by advertising and marketing in school, how is it possible that so many well-intentioned principals, district administrators and <a href="http://onevoice.pta.org/?p=5025">parent groups</a> are eager to embrace it? </p>
<p>It is possible that these stakeholders are unaware of the threats posed through marketing. People tend to <a href="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/1/1.abstract">underestimate</a> the extent to which they are influenced by marketing messages. Many reason that <a href="http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/Schoolhouse-commercialism-2010">children are so exposed</a> to marketing in other settings that adding it in a school setting won’t matter in any appreciable way. </p>
<p>Even if stakeholders are aware of the potential harm marketing can do to children, the immediate need for school funding often overwhelms their concerns.</p>
<p>States have been <a href="http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/new-normal">cutting funding</a> to schools for quite some time now, and school districts across the nation are so fiscally stressed that they are ever more open to the enticements of corporate marketing campaigns, often soothingly billed as “school-business partnerships,” that <a href="http://www.commercialalert.org/PDFs/SchoolCommercialismReport_PC.pdf">promise</a> to yield extra cash. </p>
<p>Parent groups, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/PTOToday/videos/10155975642160224/?fref=nf">eager to provide needed resources</a> for their children, also seek out corporate fundraising “partnerships.” </p>
<h2>Who gains?</h2>
<p>Studies examining financial benefit to schools find, however, that marketing actually brings schools <a href="http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/national-survey-types-and-extent-marketing-foods-minimal-nutritional-value-schools">negligible financial returns</a>. </p>
<p>In a 2006 nationally representative study, we found that 67% of US schools engaged in marketing activities did not make any money at all from them. Another 19% of US schools made less than $5,000 over the course of the entire school year.</p>
<p>The self-interested commercial goals of corporations and the public interest goals of schools are in fundamental conflict.</p>
<p>Since corporations are <a href="http://aer.sagepub.com/content/45/2/343.short">legally mandated</a> to prioritize profit to their shareholders over any other goal, by definition, their activities in schools must also serve that purpose.</p>
<p>Cash-strapped schools are a perfect resource for companies that recognize that students are a captive market of <a href="http://www.nap.edu/read/11514/chapter/1">great value</a>, a source of immediate business and/or a lifelong customer base.</p>
<p>If we’re honest about the real value and costs of marketing and advertising to children in school, we will find that corporations are the ones emerging as the big winners. Schools make little money even as the well-being of their students is threatened. </p>
<p>It is past time to declare schools ad-free zones.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49634/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>I have received funding to support my commercialism in schools research from Consumer's Union and from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Faith Boninger does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Unhealthy foods are the most heavily marketed products in school. Why do we allow it?Faith Boninger, Research Associate in Education Policy, University of Colorado BoulderAlex Molnar, Research Professor, University of Colorado BoulderLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/322552014-10-01T05:32:07Z2014-10-01T05:32:07ZSpeak up and eliminate forced labour – business can be ethical and profitable<p>When Indra Nooyi, chairman and CEO of PepsiCo, was speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January this year, <a href="http://www.weforum.org/news/business-leaders-davos-urge-policy-changes-encourage-long-term-value-creation-and-restore-trust">she called on business leaders and industry captains</a> to change the dialogue from “what we do with the money we make” to “how we make the money”. The idea was that companies can run in an ethical way and be profitable at the same time. Even better, we think, if companies tightly focus their energies to concentrate on areas where genuine change can be made.</p>
<p>This may sound like old wine packaged in a new bottle – after all, many organisations have been practising corporate social responsibility (CSR) for a long time, <a href="http://www.corporatewatch.org/content/whats-wrong-corporate-social-responsibility-arguments-against-csr">with very little real impact</a>. This is not that surprising. Such efforts are often a response to external pressure and are designed to enhance a company’s reputation, rather than re-orient a firm to make social benefits a part of business decisions. The CSR departments get a budget, but it is not being put to good enough use.</p>
<p>Businesses that truly care about wider society should be taking aim at particular examples of social injustice and using their corporate muscle to eradicate it. Sadly, there is a lot of social injustice to choose from. Here, we would like to pinpoint one of the biggest ones: human trafficking and forced labour. Most of us associate trafficking with human trafficking for sexual exploitation. Yet, according to the latest <a href="http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/human-trafficking/global-report-on-trafficking-in-persons.html">UN report</a>, there is more forced labour than any other form of human exploitation in Africa, the Middle East, South and East Asia as well as the Pacific. </p>
<h2>Out of sight</h2>
<p>Human trafficking is an issue that we don’t see and therefore it is remote to many of us – so far removed from our daily lives that we are mostly unconcerned with it. Nevertheless, we are all implicated. We all have mobile phones that contain an ingredient called coltan. Coltan is only available from mines in Democratic Republic of the Congo <a href="http://www.laborrights.org/in-the-news/plight-african-child-slaves-forced-mines-our-mobile-phones">rife with slavery and child labour</a>. While we may be surprised to read this, there is a good chance that products that fill our shops in the developed world are the result of forced labour. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60404/original/ssgzs9rd-1412075138.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60404/original/ssgzs9rd-1412075138.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60404/original/ssgzs9rd-1412075138.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60404/original/ssgzs9rd-1412075138.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60404/original/ssgzs9rd-1412075138.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60404/original/ssgzs9rd-1412075138.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60404/original/ssgzs9rd-1412075138.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60404/original/ssgzs9rd-1412075138.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Trouble beneath the skyscrapers of Singapore?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/109937875@N07/15083670366/in/photolist-p298Qn-oFujT5-oQCsKn-pjXm9b-p4iSNM-pjXbG5-oZD77g-opHBLb-ooyf3j-onPN9f-oVFiDY-o6SJwW-oVrq7V-onR4K5-oDhJnT-oEjjh3-oj4xgN-p3GQ4W-oLmyDp-oVMipF-oUthrw-oYTKGb-e7H5oP-dfVxiv-5sFaYQ-EgG3-e7Hv3R-3ZpDHn-7xhvzK-dZ3NXy-oze8Y-5PA7FN-4sPBZ6-fiqGp7-53L8JY-oVKvqL-oVK44s-oTKqYW-oRmr8W-oonGQs-oFgEqC-e7ryAa-g5L35J-e7P4Rs-K2jV-dZ6Ba4-dwCAPL-dZcjcW-8U7sFt-a9SQJH">wave.function</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Human trafficking happens everywhere, even in supposedly well-developed countries. Take, for example, Singapore. <a href="http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2014/index.htm">The US State Department</a> points out that many foreign workers in the country have assumed debt associated with their employment to the recruitment agencies, making them vulnerable to forced labour, including debt bondage. There were also reports of confiscation of passports, restrictions on their movement, illegal withholding of their pay, threats of forced repatriation without pay as well as physical abuse. </p>
<p>Certainly, <a href="http://www.ituc-csi.org/new-ruling-from-un-on-forced?lang=en">NGOs</a> have called for tougher penalties against errant companies and governments. However, legislation against human trafficking still varies widely from country to country. In addition, many politicians may prefer to look away from the issue, fearing that they would upset businesses. Indeed, even when the political will exists, NGOs and governments are often unable to turn it into action. Therefore, we would urge companies and consumers alike to take the initiative themselves.</p>
<h2>Taking responsibility</h2>
<p>The financial crisis has shown us that our brand of shareholder capitalism can be detrimental to our societies. Of course, the argument runs that businesses pay a lot of taxes, keep people employed and make new investments; companies are already making significant contributions to society. However, this view effectively assumes that anything that is outside the scope of the firm is not the firm’s responsibility. Companies cannot, and should not, be responsible for taking care of society as a whole, but they should do their utmost to eliminate and prevent social harms and problems linked to their activities. Sadly, while many firms have been addressing human trafficking, many more have not.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/tragedy-is-inevitable-when-bangladesh-competes-on-its-own-citizens-poverty-25955">Rana Plaza Tragedy in Savar, Bangladesh</a> in May 2013 provided a tragic illustration of the problem. The products for many world-famous brands were manufactured under the roof of the collapsed factory. One would imagine that that these companies would have sufficient processes in place to preclude labour exploitation. Yet, in addition to being paid only €38 a month, labourers had to work in dire conditions. Poverty drove them into situations where they couldn’t say “no” for fear of losing their jobs. Young people and children effectively work in <a href="http://orphantrust.co.uk/page/2/">forced labour conditions</a> – these young “helpers” earned 12 cents an hour, while “junior operators” took home 22 cents an hour or $10.56 a week <a href="http://www.globallabourrights.org/alerts/rana-plaza-bangladesh-anniversary-a-look-back-and-forward">and senior sewers received 24 cents</a> an hour or $12.48 a week. </p>
<p>Perhaps more incredibly, it was reported that at least <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/04/benetton-bangladesh-factory_n_3216045.html">one famous brand</a> was unsure whether or not its products were made there. Companies may pride themselves on their ability to manage complex supply chains and outsourcing. However, very often, they lack the necessary processes and routines to check whether their contractors are exploiting labour. </p>
<h2>Consumer power</h2>
<p>Responsible companies would be asking what steps they are taking to ensure that their entire supply chain is free from unfair and unethical labour practises, especially those outsourced abroad. But it is an open question of how far brands go to monitor suppliers and whether they take full responsibility for the conditions in which those employed by third-party contractors are working? This needs to be discussed publicly. Otherwise, companies that believe they are working for the good of society may have inadvertently supported some forms of exploitation in distant parts of their value chains.</p>
<p>And of course, we, as consumers, should start to question our ceaseless demand for dirt cheap products. We are feeding companies’ drive to source as cheaply as possible. The extra pound, dollar or euro in our pocket could easily come at the expense of someone’s suffering, or as the disaster in Savar shows, someone’s life. </p>
<p>Human trafficking of any sort, and not just forced labour, is modern-day slavery. We should not allow it to perpetuate any further. A good first step is to not shut up about it. Speak up. Because in the end, we, companies and consumers alike, are responsible for everything we do – and everything we don’t. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article was co-authored with <a href="http://www.weforum.org/young-global-leaders/eunice-olsen">Eunice Olsen</a>, founder and chief executive officer of <a href="http://womentalktv.asia/">WomenTalkTV.asia</a>, a portal for video interviews about empowered women from all over Asia.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32255/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When Indra Nooyi, chairman and CEO of PepsiCo, was speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January this year, she called on business leaders and industry captains to change the dialogue from “what…Terence Tse, Associate Professor of Finance / Head of Competitiveness Studies at i7 Institute for Innovation and Competitiveness, ESCP Business SchoolMark Esposito, Senior Associate at University of Cambridge-CISL, & Associate Professor of Business and Economics , Grenoble École de Management (GEM)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/312082014-09-19T13:51:47Z2014-09-19T13:51:47ZCoke Life lands a blow against sugar, but its worthy credentials could still be trouble<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59045/original/vvm8qrz4-1410791465.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=306%2C324%2C1621%2C797&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Greeener than thou?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/riveranotario/12962976023/in/photolist-oWXR6F-if3NCb-oWixvy-kKw639-6FoD8K-9Q3h84-oDQGwC-kKuD9B-gaM3t8-kLQ2Y1-kLP9y7-kJ6HgB-f11EB7-ahi9XP-fGPHR7-p2GTRN-kiFvht-hQR4cF-f4aFdn-js8HyJ-eyprhv">RiveraNotario</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Coca Cola has begun carefully <a href="http://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/lower-calorie-coca-cola-life-to-launch-in-great-britain">rolling out its green-labelled “Life” brand</a>, filling its iconic hour-glass bottles with a new fizzy drink which has nearly a third fewer calories than Coke Original. It is a useful win for anti-sugar campaigners but the strategy brings all kinds of risks for the Atlanta-based soft drinks giant.</p>
<p>There is a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/dietandfitness/10634081/John-Yudkin-the-man-who-tried-to-warn-us-about-sugar.html">rising tide against sugar consumption</a> and its links to obesity and ill-health. Mexico – one of the leading soft drinks markets, but a country where 9% of the population <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2013/04/diabetes-mexico">suffer from type-2 diabetes</a> – has already implemented a sugar tax. </p>
<p>Euromonitor’s Howard Telford noted that western European and North American markets are increasingly mistrustful of sweeteners, and this is coupled with a health agenda that is trying to limit calorific consumption. Market researchers Mintel UK support this assessment, with a quarter of respondents in a survey saying they now consume fewer carbonated drinks than six months ago. Although not measuring actual behaviour, this does suggest that health campaigns such as <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/change4life/Pages/change-for-life.aspx">Change4Life</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/actiononsugar">Action on Sugar</a> are influencing consumer demand.</p>
<p>According to Telford: “The introduction of Coca Cola Life is a slick, high profile example of the company publicly seeking to address its role in public health through innovations.” He’s right: this is a clever move on Coke’s part that should be applauded, though also a modest one that is not without problems.</p>
<h2>Bitter experience</h2>
<p>Coke’s executives have clearly learnt the lessons of <a href="http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1913612_1913610_1913608,00.html">the New Coke</a> debacle in the 1980s. Back then, market research suggested the younger Pepsi generation would prefer a sweeter taste, and the new product was duly born. Alas, the researchers had bungled the study and unintentionally created a future marketing case study of how not to launch a new brand.</p>
<p>What taste-test research actually tends to indicate is that consumers struggle to differentiate between variations of brown fizz, regardless of sugar content. Instead, it is product branding that influences.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59171/original/qfgvr739-1410869756.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59171/original/qfgvr739-1410869756.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59171/original/qfgvr739-1410869756.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59171/original/qfgvr739-1410869756.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59171/original/qfgvr739-1410869756.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59171/original/qfgvr739-1410869756.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59171/original/qfgvr739-1410869756.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59171/original/qfgvr739-1410869756.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Original Coke near a tipping point?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinomara/3529868846/in/photolist-6nVv2G-3hst6B-fCA5Zc-4TN45e-81txkz-4TSi1s-4TN3Sr-4TN2Ux-4TSgwq-4TN3vX-4TN36K-4TN3ET-9n5Kjd-przC-nWUf1-oGhnpP-7kNo9n-JMjSj-q2EAP-t3Zk6-6btsR8-5cYddC-5cYdtw-5cTTYV-5cYcWf-4q3abj-ojYQzc-oD9ks5-6GdcZD-9KuQts-ECja2-2d1Xhn-6YuyCr-8K3LSP-jMvrHe-57Ty9S-eibS34-83Gn2h-b7Miy2-8ujo2-5uXbYs-87qvGu-94tCcR-76cPF8-FDnWT-77GqdA-kihat-5A37AF-5mpDPg-6dFoPS">Kevin O'Mara</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The three main Coke brands – Original, Diet and Zero – are currently running a simultaneous, heavy spend, mass-market TV campaign that offers consumers personalised bottles. By contrast, the Life advertising is an outdoor-focused, push campaign. The green packaging extends the familiar red, silver, black and gold product line offerings in a way that is easily understood. </p>
<p>The company has adopted a cautious, incremental and geographic launch strategy. Life’s global launch was in Chile and Argentina, which boasts one of the highest per capita soft drink consumption levels in the world. Substantial markets such as the UK, France, Mexico and US are following. </p>
<p>There is a background to this too. Western beverage firms are experiencing significant global drops in market share as consumers increasingly choose branded water and Chinese beverage brands grow stronger. Nonetheless, the Coca Cola portfolio leads with a 21% share of the market (far ahead of second-placed PepsiCo, which has 10% of volume). Coca Cola is valued at US$79 billion and was ranked for many years as the top global brand by Interbrand (<a href="http://www.interbrand.com/en/best-global-brands/2013/Best-Global-Brands-2013.aspx">deposed in 2013 by Apple and Google</a>).</p>
<h2>A sour aftertaste?</h2>
<p>One risk for Coke is that the lower-sugar Life sub-brand may be an extension too far. Phil Caroll, a drinks sector analyst at investment firm Shore Capital, has <a href="http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/sectors/food-and-drink/news/coke-brings-coca-cola-life-to-the-uk/4010784.article">suggested that Life sits in a no-man’s-land</a> between core propositions that already serve customers well. However, substantial regional differences suggest that there is indeed life in Life. The slow take-up of Zero in the UK compared to a rapid market penetration in the more dynamic market of Australia is a useful case in point. In short, there appears to be some potential for the Life brand to do well. And even in the UK, success in reducing salt intake – <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2604761/Salt-intake-falls-15-heart-deaths-fall-40-eat-it.html">15% lower salt consumption over a decade</a> as consumer tastes adjusted with time – suggests that firms can change their products to the benefit of society while bringing their customers with them; a key commercial imperative.</p>
<h2>Social and environmental impact</h2>
<p>Coca Cola is a major producer of soft drinks: ultimately unnecessary products which use large amounts of finite resources, often in regions that can ill afford their loss. This is the <a href="http://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/nero.htm">main charge of the “Nero” criticism</a> – that Coca Cola is fiddling at the edges with Life, without addressing the problem of burning up the planet’s resources to make it.</p>
<p>A simple internet search for “Coca Cola”, “water”, and “controversy” provide ample illustration of the criticisms. By positioning the brand as a green alternative – regardless of the health focus – Coke is in danger of being seen to mislead customers (see the <a href="http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/">useful Sins of Greenwashing tool</a>). Also, sugar’s enemies will not be satisfied with incremental change when many are pushing for <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29212780">ever greater cuts to recommended consumption</a>. </p>
<h2>Supply chains and sugar substitute</h2>
<p>A supply chain issue hinges on the question of how Life is able to contain a third fewer calories. The answer <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22758059">is Stevia, a sugar alternative</a>. Secondary Coca Cola brands Lilt, Sprite and Fanta switched completely to Stevia in 2013, without the use of a shadow brand. Did you notice? And Sprite and Fanta are respectively ranked fifth and sixth in the off-trade Euromonitor global rankings, each with 1.5% volume share: these are high net worth brands in their own right.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59169/original/dqrny79k-1410869328.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59169/original/dqrny79k-1410869328.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59169/original/dqrny79k-1410869328.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59169/original/dqrny79k-1410869328.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59169/original/dqrny79k-1410869328.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59169/original/dqrny79k-1410869328.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59169/original/dqrny79k-1410869328.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Substitute for sugar: Stevia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/rosasay/14277894055/in/photolist-nKFWta-6xTq2C-8GdcLJ-6ypXqW-nvTYbg-6ykPL2-nu8476-ncCBx7-nvTXUz-ncCvU2-bBtfim-aS1M1Z-fDeSju-oT6gPU-gkbcbt-cDWYB9-cvBG17-78BBym-7xNcJE-8KMX6R-k85GSd-dU9dqd-9yDSEX-dqZXF3-dqZMJc-dqZLrF-dqZWkG-dqZMdz-dqZVsb-8EdQBN-kFMxZ-be7KEc-6xPhaz-9JBwiz-arKQdY-5ncJMy-88NkDT-5Y7mWz-rn6ap-4xW7Hd-4PWRc3-aS1LET-bsC2Bi-PQUyh-4ZJnNx-4U1ZGM-nBqe9U-66kXzP-ccvjLs-aBa98s">Rosa Say</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Stevia is a plant-extract originating in South America. It has reportedly been used as a sweetener in Japan since the 1970s, and was more recently approved for use in the US and EU. Its emergence leaves many open questions: What are the social and environmental conditions of the agricultural workers involved? Is the manufacturing process environmentally damaging? Is there sufficient supply to meet the demand if consumers buy it in droves? What sort of land is required to grow the plants (lessons from palm oil should sound warning bells)? What is its impact on the body? And will the anti-Stevia activists (<a href="http://institutefornaturalhealing.com/2012/07/is-stevia-bad-for-you/">for they exist</a>) remain fringe groups, or will their arguments gain traction? </p>
<h2>Security of supply</h2>
<p>Finally, there is also a potential issue around security of supply: in the longer term, companies like Coca Cola may need to develop complete alternatives to traditional sugar. Climate change presents a threat to many aspects of life, and agriculture is one of these. Sugar is not immune to the changes. For example, KWS – the world market leader in sugar-beet, with substantial interests in corn/maize – <a href="http://www.kws.de/aw/KWS/company_info/Company/Research_and_Breeding/Challenges/%7Eevmz/Agriculture_and_climate_change/">has included climate-related breeding objectives</a> as a key element in its research and plant-breeding work for some time.</p>
<p>Coca Cola may have some scope to develop organic, eco and natural-brand dimensions – maybe the green labelling and Life brand suggest this is under consideration. But the company needs to tread carefully. Coca Cola seems to have made a modest and potentially useful contribution to the problem of sugar over-consumption, but Life will not deflect critics’ fire – and may be storing up problems for the future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31208/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Coca Cola has begun carefully rolling out its green-labelled “Life” brand, filling its iconic hour-glass bottles with a new fizzy drink which has nearly a third fewer calories than Coke Original. It is…Professor Justin O'Brien, MBA Programme Director, Royal Holloway University of LondonStephanos Anastasiadis, Lecturer in Sustainability, Royal Holloway University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/237522014-02-28T13:12:18Z2014-02-28T13:12:18ZBrand history shows marketing is the second oldest profession<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42680/original/y8tcfrmq-1393518423.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1%2C3%2C1020%2C676&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Reputational risk</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/52935953@N03/5010744932/in/photolist-8CMnU1-8Ex1pB-9PWYMR-9FzJKc-bVFua6-8wecsF-bsWy7F-dpcNMw-bsWyF2-9ZPgaR-7Q3yUx-dVBMkg-bexKW2-aDRawT-9DtHwV-b4rCDr-9eApet-7NfxcR-9gxVrG-9wTjer-abUw3b-dAQS2Y-e36BNA-9hrGLn-c3gASq-8zYxYZ-b1fpzn-gtLSEw-efVgap-eozGYX-i9SQUn-i7k3Zo-jJnHEG-euPNvS-7FsjGx-8jeuKU">Ernesto Pletsch</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Oxfam has announced the latest set of results from its <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/26/us-food-oxfam-idUSBREA1P00F20140226">Behind the Brands project</a> to influence ten leading food and beverage companies to reform their supply chains. The charity’s efforts are only the most recent in a long and lively history of campaigns to reform business practices across a number of industries.</p>
<p>Rather than encouraging boycotts, Behind the Brands urges companies such as Coca Cola, Danone and Kelloggs to improve by regularly monitoring their performance and providing that information to consumers. <a href="http://www.behindthebrands.org/en-us/campaign-news/turning-the-way-food-companies-do-business-upside-down">The latest results</a> reveal that, during the past year, there has been an improvement in the condition of women in supply chains and in the attention paid by companies to land rights. Oxfam has responded positively to these developments, but has emphasised that the campaign will continue.</p>
<p>There are precedents for campaigns tackling Oxfam’s themes of transparency at the corporate level and improvements for workers from as early as the medieval period. But how was this encouraged and why?</p>
<p>Transparency in business operations was a key concern even for medieval consumers. They wanted to be assured that traders were consistently honest in their business dealings, would treat customers fairly and would sell goods of the correct quality and quantity. Manuals instructed businesspeople to “cherish the honour and the good welfare of your city” and “always act according as is right”. Honesty and integrity in business were principles that also guided the Quaker firms of the eighteenth century onwards, including the chocolate manufacturers Cadbury’s and Rowntree’s.</p>
<h2>Paved with gold</h2>
<p>Transparency can be communicated in a variety of ways. In the medieval period engagement with the local community was crucial. Successful merchants like Richard Whittington made donations to infrastructure projects which reinforced their ties to their local community. Craft organisations in York performed plays of biblical tales related to their professions – the fishmongers performed Noah’s Ark. Long-term investment in the area and codes of behaviour were both emphasised.</p>
<p>Failure to adhere to these standards had serious consequences for firms. Informally, manuals warned medieval merchants of the risk of losing “their trade contacts” if they behaved deceitfully. Formal regulations also governed how firms could operate from around the beginning of the 13th century – and breaking those regulations could result in a large fine, imprisonment or physical punishment. Opportunities for reform and to learn from mistakes were provided. However those who persistently broke the rules were banned from trading for at least a year. There was therefore an incentive for businesses to comply.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42681/original/mzwbt638-1393518844.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42681/original/mzwbt638-1393518844.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42681/original/mzwbt638-1393518844.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42681/original/mzwbt638-1393518844.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42681/original/mzwbt638-1393518844.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42681/original/mzwbt638-1393518844.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=572&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42681/original/mzwbt638-1393518844.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=572&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42681/original/mzwbt638-1393518844.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=572&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Shiny happy people.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/betsyweber/9233322258/in/photolist-f4Vc2m-8yCcfD-9iQdvd-9iM66B-9iM5ZV-95B12A-95xXqZ-dRPdfJ-95xXCp-95xXHa-9uYNQj/">Betsy Weber</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Oxfam’s desire to improve working conditions also has earlier parallels. Some contemporary companies, such as Nike, now provides consumers with data on the different factories in its supply chain <a href="http://nikeinc.com/pages/responsibility">on its website</a>. But factory inspections have been used in many instances to promote transparency in the treatment of the workforce. Cadbury’s promoted its <a href="http://www.cadbury.co.uk/the-story">factory in Bournville, Birmingham</a> as “the factory in a garden”. Publicity material from the 19th and early 20th centuries, produced for visitors, promotes the amenities for workers, including recreational facilities and housing. </p>
<p>William Hesketh Lever, whose company eventually became part of Unilever, also integrated the treatment of workers at his <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2009/jun/09/walk-guides-port-sunlight-merseyside">factory and village complex Port Sunlight</a> into the broader promotion of Sunlight Soap. The firms benefited from the positive publicity and the workers benefited from improved conditions relative to other factories at the time. The irony of now being one of the targets of the Oxfam campaign won’t be lost on Unilever. </p>
<h2>A sour taste</h2>
<p>The Behind the Brands campaign has developed as consumers are increasingly separated, by both the supply chain and by geographical distance, from those who supply their goods, and there are echoes of that in the arrival of the railways in Britain and the US. </p>
<p>Milk and meat could, for the first time, be prepared and packaged in one location and then transported some distance to another location for sale. In his novel, <a href="http://www.shmoop.com/the-jungle/">The Jungle</a>, Upton Sinclair recounted some of the dangerous practices, including the sale of meat from diseased animals, that occurred in the Chicago meat plants in the early 20th century. He also highlighted the poor working conditions of the employees. </p>
<p>In the UK, the medical profession highlighted the increasing amounts of dangerous chemicals that were being added to milk to preserve it during the train journey from the Home Counties to London.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42683/original/zgs93fmf-1393519109.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42683/original/zgs93fmf-1393519109.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42683/original/zgs93fmf-1393519109.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42683/original/zgs93fmf-1393519109.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42683/original/zgs93fmf-1393519109.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42683/original/zgs93fmf-1393519109.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42683/original/zgs93fmf-1393519109.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42683/original/zgs93fmf-1393519109.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fresh from the farm?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/24920925@N05/3682425202/in/photolist-6BpoHG-6BSQc7-6Tskyk-6TwmwL-72BxUi-76wphH-77aGHz-7b9yvq-7g6BUd-7x7hWA-7x7i5W-9qBSxo-cjr6zW-cJKFGq-cJKG1j-cJKGrS-cJKGMQ-9bYNwa-9c2TjE-9bYP1Z-8C5bYU-7yuMD6-e8r4na-fmPDQN-7QZLcN-aFtwFv-ce6abf-7Y5t4e-9LufhR-ccrtZC-9oLrPo-gsd5Do-gse8Z8-gsdv7n-9qySiv-9qyRUD-9qBTio-caawbo-k6wLQx-9Lx42N-9uJJ5x-f5EYFx-7QWt7n-9Lx5Eb-cpBanS-867u8J-9LugAe-c6bTAy-aWDzEZ-8naRhp-7zfF3x">Adam Edmond</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Media attention was drawn to these issues, and consumers were educated through cartoons and rhymes about how to detect such defaults in their foodstuffs. Although no immediate changes were made in either industry, the presence of problems was highlighted. It is a route that Oxfam acknowledges, choosing to focus on consumer education in its campaign, while accepting that the process of change may be gradual.</p>
<p>And any campaign in the corporate world, especially one as focused as Oxfam’s, brings an element of reputational risk, making a firm’s desire for a positive brand image a hugely important element in any attempts to force reform. Numerous references exist in medieval trade regulations to the “damage” and “scandal” that could occur to a business that broke regulations or failed to meet consumer expectation.</p>
<p>Working with businesses can also encourage action on the part of other stakeholders. Local governments in medieval towns recognised that the business practices of firms in their city reflected on the economy of the city as a whole. In 1344 in London, for example, local government took direct action to ‘maintain the reputation of the skinners’ trade and in 1379 in Leicester the local government appointed inspectors in response to poor business practises amongst the weavers. </p>
<p>One crucial difference between these historical examples and the situation today, of course, is that highly local changes are no longer enough. Throughout history, consumers have had certain expectations of how businesses should behave both towards customers and towards employees, but the shift to a “global market” has changed the ways that consumers and firms can interact. Oxfam will hope it can continue to harness those medieval instincts on a far grander scale.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/23752/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catherine Casson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Oxfam has announced the latest set of results from its Behind the Brands project to influence ten leading food and beverage companies to reform their supply chains. The charity’s efforts are only the most…Catherine Casson, Teaching Fellow in Business and Society, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.