Acc
ording to an article from Quartz, many people are upset about General Mills buying Annie’s Homegrown, an organic and natural Mac and Cheese company. With a large amount of scrutiny on large corporations such as General Mills, Annie’s Homegrown is expected to lose a few customers.
“I’ll never buy @annieshomegrown ever again! They’ve sold their souls to the devil and let @GeneralMills take over.” are some of the comments online from previous Annie’s customers.
This is likely because many consumers today cherish the “underdog”. They dislike the large corporations that are often considered immoral for their pursuit of profits and domination of the industry. In this case, General Mills. One could consider what seems to be fraudulent competition unethical. Referencing this chart, two companies, such as Ruffles and Lays, both owned by Pepsico, seem to be competing brands yet are part of the same conglomerate. Thus, this false competition is in a way manipulation of the customer.
However, is this unethical?
While one may be against these large companies taking over small, independent companies, it can be argued that the take-overs are beneficial to all stakeholders involved. Being absorbed into a larger company often gives the niche brands an opportunity to grow, “without compromising the quality of their product”, benefiting from the added funding and support. On the other hand, the conglomerate has a new aspect and both the tangible and intangible assets involved in the niche brand. Customers still receive the quality of the product they receive. Stock holders of the conglomerate gain due to the rising large company. Employees can benefit from the experience of working for a more well-known company.
Thus, while belonging to a large “power-hungry” company can have negative connotations, it has the possibility of being beneficial for the stakeholders involved.