People now have a more and more environmentally friendly conscious. And they are willing to spend time and effort to protect the environment in the ways they could. So as the companies. And the news exactly reflects this phenomenon, that is, the wills of the citizens and the strategy of LEGO go together and combat with Shell, who is the long term partnership of LEGO and keep laying a negative influence on climate by melting the ice on Arctic.
While, in the other side, turning out such a critical decision from LEGO, that is, stop cooperating with a partnership that has worked together for 40 years, is somehow miserable. LEGO must have benefited from Shell since they have got along well for so many years. Only because the strategy of Shell that melting the Arctic is running in the opposite direction with LEGO, and there is massive protest and intervene from the masses, LEGO has to quit Shell. In my point of view, LEGO is forced to do this since it carries social responsibility. And what it decides actually harms its interest as well because it lose a good and consistent partnership which leads it to seek a new one and adapt to the new one again, though keep cooperating with Shell would not guarantee its profit. What I want to say is that sometimes social responsibility would leave negative effect on the company.