Articles: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05/greenpeace-mattel-barbie-deforestation_n_996291.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/06/greenpeace-campaign-targets-mattel.html

While deforestation is certainly a serious environmental issue today, the methods used by Greenpeace in “shaming” Mattel into dropping its destructive rainforest packing are questionable in terms of ethics as Mattel was targeted for its standing as the largest and most influential toy company in the world. Despite Greenpeace’s campaign video of Ken “breaking up” with Barbie being proven effective in garnering an outcry of 500,000 emails by the public, one should not forget the tone of mockery employed in the video. Even though this can be attributed to Mattel’s active online marketing (2.2 million followers on Facebook), one must wonder if this would be the “downside” of being a powerhouse brand name in the industry and perhaps if other powerhouse brands should have to “take precautionary measures” should they be targeted by the rising number of environmental activist organisations who are willing to use radical campaigns and methods along with the ever environmental conscious consumers (from a business standpoint – under Threats and Weakness of a SWOT analysis). Along with their new global policy whereby Mattel’s suppliers are instructed to avoid wood fiber from controversial sources, comes a message sent to other companies that “to be a responsible business, [one] must be vigilant about keeping deforestation out of their products”.

This post is in response to Jessica Lao’s post on Sweatshops

It is no surprise that outsourcing production to factories in developing nations have been a practice of multinational corporations (MNCs) that rise and base in developed nations. While there are certain benefits for the MNCs such as cheaper production costs, this is also said to be able help developing nations out of poverty and unemployment. This may be the case in terms of goals but in reality, there is much to take into light; when exploitation has come into picture – worsening of the already low standard of living as well as the negative associations of countries seen as hubs for outsourcing (e.g. China and India). While Milton Friedman states that the only social responsibility of business is to “earn profits while following the law and basic ethical customs”, I would definitely argue that the disregard for working conditions have crossed the line in terms of ethics. Even though many developing nations fail to have laws regulating working conditions and compensation, attributing to the possibility of such cheap labour costs and why so many MNCs take advantage of such outsourcing “benefits”, I believe there is a need for those of us in developed countries to recognize that perhaps our laws in protection of human and workers’ rights should follow the MNCs to the countries they are blatantly exploiting.

Article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24026228

Retailer Abercrombie & Fitch (A&F) was found in yet another discrimination dispute for firing a Muslim employee for wearing her headscarf, claiming it would cause “undue hardship” to accommodate her. While initially allowing her to wear her headscarf in Hollister (A&F’s surf-inspired clothing label) colors, Ms Hani Khan was suspended for refusing to take off her covering and was soon later fired for “refusing to comply”. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit on behalf of Khan and found that the brand had not in fact faced any issues in sales in having to accommodate Khan and faced “deviation from its ‘look policy’ “.

This comes after the scandal A&F faced earlier this year where CEO Mike Jeffries had to apologize after an article for remarks he made in 2006 about the company’s exclusionary marketing strategy in avoidance of “unattractive individuals” went viral via social media. This was evident in that Abercrombie did not produce women clothing larger than size 10 where Jeffries claimed that “A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong.”

Both scandals that the company has been involved in is extremely unethical to me; in trying to create a brand image that was “luxurious” and “exclusive”, the company had to practice discriminatory acts to not only those of religious backgrounds but also those of certain body types. As said by Zahra Billoo of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), “no one should ever have to choose between their religion and work” – it is at the core of business ethics and ethics in general that no one should have face derogatory characterizations so as to fit a certain “brand image”.