How do you define success? How do you decide what it means to “succeed” in a place as varied and filled with choice as college? Not only that, but what does it mean to fail, and what is the stress placed on students who do so?

Every year, thousands of students enter universities and colleges across Canada. There, many struggle with stress, depression, and mental illness. According to a Globe and Mail article, 9.5 percent of the 30,000 university students surveyed endured suicidal ideation at one point. Mental health, not only in universities, but as a general health issue, currently is at the forefront of public consciousness.

This summer, UBC won first prize in the CAOBO productivity awards for their Thrive program, which has steadily grown from its introduction in 2009 to have over 10,000
participants across the campus. By all accounts, it’s a marvelous success, creating a greater awareness for mental health and a more welcoming community. But is it actually helping those most in need?

I would argue that it is not. In fact, I would say that Thrive is yet another method by the University of British Columbia to place style over substance. The truth is that most people are already aware of mental health, and in a place as liberal as UBC, the social support is either already there or is not being aided by the program. In 2010, Cheryl Washburn at UBC wrote a study titled “Campus Suicide Prevention and Intervention: Putting Best Practice Policy into Action.” In it, there are 9 methods advocated to helping prevent suicide and placing students into a better state of mind and more closely-knit community. While the Thrive program functions excellently as a piece of social marketing, it doesn’t affect what I would consider to be the most important part: Mental Health Service (MHS), or counseling and therapy.

While UBC spends 100 million dollars on a brand new student union building and places orange signs all over campus, the counseling department has been on the back burner. It’s very hard to get an appointment and takes time that students who are struggling might not have. UBC tries to shuttle students to off-campus, more costly therapy as soon as possible, and has ran out of room for counselors at Brock Hall, moving them all the way towards Marine Drive. In a sense, there’s a desire to focus on the glossy presentation of the school to attract new students instead of making sure that the services that students who are struggling with mental health issues need are well-supported. Thrive is essentially a nice marketing campaign, but doesn’t actually give much help and support to those who need it, and mainly gives a morale boost and allows people to practice further “slacktivism” when it comes to mental health and actually reaching out.

For a school of 60,000, being able to connect with students on a more meaningful level and show that there is a level of care beyond a student number or tuition check is extremely important. The Thrive campaign is a surface-level social marketing initiative that gives UBC an award while not permeating the organization as a whole. As Jacquie Ottman states, the whole philosophy of an organization must be devoted to something, bottom to top, for authenticity and meaningful progress to be made. Surface-level environmental or social initiatives might do a bit of good, might raise a bit of awareness, but won’t get to roots of problems, and more importantly, might not make a bit of difference for those who cannot see the light.

Do you know where your supply chain leads? According to a new Amnesty International report mentioned in Forbes, tech giants like Apple and Microsoft have been linked to child mining of cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This isn’t new, though. Over the past five years, there have been building collapses and extensive use of child or sweatshop labor throughout industries from shrimp to clothing and now tech. A large part of this comes about through improper auditing and lax management of suppliers and overall supply chain.

Cobalt Mining by children in the DRC

For the most part, any large multinational corporation will hire auditors, essentially creating a burgeoning industry. However, for the most part these auditors will dig only as far as the company wants them to go. There’s a general belief that as long as the problem can be ignored, it might as well not exist. However, as consumers become not only more aware of the products that they are buying, but where they are starting to come from, this is becoming an untenable proposition.

Simply put, the age where a company could excuse itself from blame with a half-hearted apology and claiming that they had no knowledge of the sourcing of suppliers is over. Even today, many still equate Nike with sweatshop labor. While this sourcing of cobalt from child miners will probably not destroy or even make a large dent in the profits of Microsoft or Apple, it goes to show how prevalent it is for large companies to truly have little control over their suppliers.

Sooner or later, consumers will wonder what goes into it

So what can companies do? Well, instead of using private company-hired auditors, use one’s from neutral third-parties who will have incentive to dig deep and examine the entire supply chain, all the way back to ingredient sourcing. Then, actually use the data instead of sitting on it or making small claims. Consumers respond much better to company actions than words. Multinational corporations have the power to demand better labor treatment and environmental care from their suppliers, and they need to use it.