Last week we touched upon the importance of the need for congruence between the public’s perception of a company’s intrinsic goals and their social/environmental initiatives, specifically decreased product usage. Patagonia’s ‘worn wear’ campaign was brought up as a prime example of this. It was mentioned that a ‘don’t buy this jacket’ campaign was launched on Black Friday, where an advertisement urging consumers to NOT buy a jacket was displayed on screens in Times Square.

It is a popular stereotype that all companies exist to make a profit, regardless of the cost; especially companies that can afford a billboard at Times Square. Personally, as a consumer unfamiliar with Patagonia’s company goals, my initial reaction to this campaign was indeed slightly negative as an incongruence between the message and my perception of the company’s profit goals came to mind. I felt a sort of subtle reverse psychological manipulation was being played. Something about the idea of a for-profit business genuinely trying to do good didn’t add up for me. Perhaps we are all defaulted to assume the worst and have too little faith in businesses. Extending this idea of congruence further than in the case of decreased product usage, we can also observe reactions to congruence in companies that have undertaken other sustainable practices.

Taking a look some of the companies that have received recognition for their work towards sustainability, we can touch upon General Mills’ pledge to sustainable agriculture. They work in collaboration with suppliers of 10 of their main ingredients, representing 50% of their total raw material purchases,  to place less of a negative impact on social and environmental surroundings. This enables them to sustain the resources needed for the business to continue its operations. Another company we can observe is Walmart and their commitment to increase efficiency in their truck fleets, in turn decreasing their operation costs as well as benefiting the environment.

Both of these initiatives demonstrate an obvious congruence between their commitments and company goals, and perhaps as a result these companies received more recognition from the public and mass media. But should companies really have to demonstrate congruence to garner public support? And does the motivation behind this matter so long as they are improving conditions in the name of sustainability?

References

Confino, Jo. (2014). Best practices in sustainability: Ford, Starbucks, and more. The Guardian. retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/best-practices-sustainability-us-corporations-ceres

Following our in class conversation on the topic of McDonald’s search to find sustainable beef, I thought it would be interesting to widen the scope of this topic to other livestock. This brought my attention to the idea of the sustainable egg. Last year, California approved a regulation that required egg-laying hens to “only be confined in ways that allow them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely” (Westervelt, 2014). Although this appears to mark success for animal rights activists, researchers have pointed out several problems related to this new regulation.

Researchers attribute the industry’s decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, despite its massive growth since the 1960s, to effective manure management and feed efficiency; something attainable through the use of caged egg production systems. (Westervelt, 2014) Other researchers identify this new regulation as an inhibitor towards food safety, arguing that through the caged egg system, farmers were not only able to sustain sanitation through the efficient removal of manure, they were also able to keep contact between eggs and manure to a minimum. (Rothman, 2015) Furthermore, specialists deny the claim that these larger cages improve the welfare of hens. They state that these hens will establish a pecking order which translates to more stress and cannibalism, as well as higher chances of bone breakage for the inhabitants of these larger cages. (Westervelt, 2014) More details regarding this topic can be found here, and here.

This significant change in the industry will affect all the farmers who reside in, and import their eggs into the state of California. However, as we have discussed in class, corporations who monitor environmental trends and seek to change their practices before regulations are approved sustain an advantage. A prime example of this in the egg farming case can be found in San Diego where they have anticipated and prepared for this regulation for as long as five years. (Jones, 2015)

Although the idea of chicken exercising their right to roam free is pleasant and exciting, one cannot help but wonder if this very idea was planted in our heads through marketing means to justify higher priced eggs. If not, are hens really better off roaming free while being endangered by predators and other hens? What about the easier transmission of pathogens through unkempt spaces? Ultimately, these questions lead us back to the conversation of, what is ‘sustainable food’?

References

Jones, J. Harry. (2015). New Rules Create ‘Chicken Disneyland’. U-T San Diego. Retrieved from http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/jan/01/chicken-eggs-hilliker-farm-ranch/?#article-copy

Rothman, Lauren. (2015). Do Bigger Chicken Cages Do More Harm Than Good. Munchies. Retrieved from http://munchies.vice.com/articles/do-bigger-chicken-cages-do-more-harm-than-good

Westervelt, Amy. (2014). Ethical Farming Dilemma: should we be helping the chicken or fixing the egg?. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/eggs-environment-farming-health-cage-free