Mingchi Choo's Blog

“I would never do an advert with a homosexual family. […] if the gays don’t like it, they can go and eat another brand,” declared Guido Barilla, CEO of the world’s largest pasta maker.

So, they did — and weren’t alone.

After the above statement was made on an Italian radio channel, there was a global outcry calling for a boycott of Barilla. Other pasta makers joined the protest as well, taking advantage of the incident being in the public eye to position themselves on the opposite side of the spectrum from Barilla.

“For us the concept of the sacred family remains one of the fundamental values of the company,” Barilla had said, followed by: “I have no respect for adoption by gay families.”

Is it more important for a company to stay true to its own values, offensive as they are in the eyes of many groups, or should they focus on gaining the approval of the general public? It’s an interesting question to consider when thinking about how a brand is trying to position itself. Although Barilla was targeting the ‘traditional Italian family,’ they completely alienated other groups in the process.

Barilla released a public apology afterward, but it was too late. Immense damage had been done to their brand, and the obvious contradiction in their statement became the new center of attention: “I apologize very much […] I have the deepest respect for all the people.”

Narrowing your focus is fine, but when disrespectful words that come across as a personal attack on certain groups come into play, Barilla should have realized they had crossed the line on their own — not after public backlash forced them to retract their statement.

Apparently, money and public approval had more value than “the fundamental values of the company.”

Related Links:

International Business Times: Barilla Pasta Homophobic Rant

Slate: Why the Barilla Boycott Matters to Italian LGBT People

BuzzFeed: The Internet Responds To Barilla Pasta Chairman’s Anti-Gay Remarks

At what point does friendly competition turn into an all-out war? And, more importantly: at what point should ethics be considered when waging that war?

With its first product released in 2007, Chobani could be considered an underdog in the yogurt world, especially when compared to a giant like Danone. However, Chobani became the largest seller of Greek yogurt in the US market within two years — so to retaliate, Danone upped the focus on its Greek yogurt line, Dannon Oikos, launching an aggressive marketing plan. Tactics used included changes to the packaging that emphasized the Greek origin of their product, advertising in men’s fitness magazines, and celebrity endorsements by a Greek-American actor named John Stamos. Coupled with a Super Bowl ad and countless in-store samples, this is a clear example of how a well-established player in the market can employ marketing to greatly impede the progress of newcomers.

Granted, this is something that should be expected in business, but it still highlights an interesting question: when should companies draw the line when it comes to aggressive marketing policies? Is it when they have forced all other competitors out of the market? Granted, the Greek yogurt market has not become a monopoly, but how close does it have to get before it becomes a question of ethics? On the flip side, is it acceptable because they are protecting themselves and their own profits?

Since 2011, Chobani’s market share has fallen from nearly 50% of the Greek yogurt market to 39%. This is a 11% drop, compared to Danone whose share rose from 18% to 29%. Chobani is currently fighting back through price cuts in order to hold on to its customers, and has recently recalled a shipment of moldy yogurt that has caused over 200 reported cases of illness.

Related Links:

Medical Daily: Chobani Recall 2013 Update: 223 Complaints Associated With Moldy Yogurts

Bloomberg Businessweek: A Culture Clash in the Yogurt Aisle

Bloomberg Businessweek: Danone Plots Revenge Against Chobani

Whether through Facebook, Craigslist, or other sources, the sale of U-Passes is a common occurrence despite TransLink’s constant reminders that such activities are illegal. UBC students pay $30 per month (included in their school fees) for U-Passes and resell them for prices typically ranging between $30-$50. It’s a profitable business, especially for someone who rarely uses public transit. However, few stop to consider what their actions really entail.

The U-Pass program has been criticized on several instances, with a certain blog calling it “the height of fiscal idiocy.” The blog in question also describes how U-Passes are more of a detriment to society than anything else, at least from an economic standpoint. Simply put, TransLink loses at least $15 million per year in exchange for an increase in the number of people utilizing public transit.

Looking at this from a different perspective, rather than that of a student needing some spare change, provides some interesting insight. Is it ethical for students to be profiting from a program already designed to give us a huge benefit out of the pockets of other members of society? It’s certainly something to consider next time before you make that ‘Selling U-Pass!’ post on Facebook.

“We have to live. We need money.”

Those ominous words serve as a chilling reminder of the hardships consumers have been turning a blind eye to. We enjoy happy, carefree lives full of gadgets designed to make our lives as easy as possible, while nearly one person is killed every week among the Indonesian labourers who work in tin mines (many of which are illegally operated) on Bangka Island.

Approximately half of this tin will be used for electronics such as smartphones and tablets made by companies including Apple, Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, and LG.

So, is this ethical? Some would argue that we’re providing a living for these people. They’re not being forced into the work, and are aware of the risks. However, it is still exploitation of a vulnerable population. These people are desperate for money, and the mine operators know that. At the very least, it has been suggested that a portion of mine revenues should be used to improve work conditions and safety.

Although it would be far from a perfect solution, I believe that it’s a start. Without a first step being taken, chances are that things could continue as they have for decades without changing.

Related Links:

Bloomburg Businessweek: The Deadly Tin Inside Your Smartphone

Abuse of insider connections, a debt of half a billion dollars owed by companies which no longer exist, and artificial inflation of assets and revenue. These are only some of the operations this company has been accused of. If the allegations put forth by the OSC are true, then Sino-Forest Corp., a Chinese company that was once the largest publicly traded forestry firm in Canada, is guilty of extremely unethical practices.

In June 2011, Muddy Waters Research, a short seller, raised the first allegations of fraud against Sino-Forest. That was followed by a series of investigations by forces including the RCMP and Ontario Securities Commission. Since then, the accused company has filed for bankruptcy protection and its shares have been delisted from the TSX. Additionally, the co-founder Allen Chan has resigned as CEO, and the entire senior executive team was replaced since all of them had been implicated in some way.

So, what is the main ethical issue here? The false inflation of income and revenue is at the center of this issue. To boost their stock prices, Sino-Forest circulated money through companies that were owned or otherwise connected to them, with Yuda Wood being a prime example. Yuda Wood was one of Sino-Forest’s largest suppliers, yet upon closer investigation, it was revealed that the company was controlled by the senior executives of Sino-Forest. However, these insider relations were never disclosed. Lying to shareholders to create an illusion of prosperity is highly unethical, and if proven to be true, this may result in one of the largest frauds in Canada.

To deny the charges of fraud, Sino-Forest has launched a private investigation with PwC. The results are expected to be released at the end of the year, having been delayed due to “data-collection challenges.”

Related Links:

Yahoo! Finance: Securities commission accuses Sino-Forest of fraud

Bloomberg: Sino-Forest Engaged in ‘Fraudulant Scheme,’ OSC Alleges

The Wall Street Journal: Sino-Forest Investigation Extended

The Globe and Mail: Sino-Forest says it is owed millions by companies that no longer exist

Sino-Forest’s Website