CFA - part three? (Page 2)

Quick.....name a corporate boycott that has been successful.

~crickets chirping~

Quick.....name a corporate boycott that has been successful.

~crickets chirping~

He meant Cathy the CFA CEO.

Quick.....name a corporate boycott that has been successful.

~crickets chirping~

2010

The John Lewis Partnership has taken a stand against mulesing. In a letter to campaign group PETA they said, “John Lewis... will require all suppliers of  merino wool products to satisfy us, through declarations, that the wool used in their products comes from non-mulesed sources”.

Nestlé gave in to pressure from Greenpeace and promised a zero deforestation policy in its palm oil supply chain. After just 8 weeks of intense campaigning and meetings with the company Nestle came come up with what Greenpeace described as a “comprehensive policy” that will be monitored by the Forest Trust.

Nearly 1.5m saw Greenpeace’s spoof Kit Kat advert, over 200,000 emails were sent and activists demonstrated at Nestlé HQs worldwide. Greenpeace said “We didn’t expect Nestlé to come up with this policy so quickly.

Fruit of the Loom crumbled in the face of pressure from the largest ever student boycott. In an incredible about-face the company re-opened a Honduran factory it had closed after workers had unionised. Furthermore, it also gave all 1,200 employees their jobs back, awarded them $2.5 million in compensation and restored all union rights.

The campaign started in 2009 when United Students Against Sweatshops started a campaign that led to 96 US colleges severing their contracts with the company. Ten British universities followed suit. The campaign was estimated to have cost the company $50million.

Reyna Dominguez, who worked at the factory, told New Internationalist that “without this pressure the company would never have come to the negotiating table. There has never been an agreement like this in Honduras or the world.”

2009  

Kimberly-Clark announced a new paper procurement policy that would reduce its impact on ancient forest in North America that were being destroyed for tissue brands such as Kleenex and Andrex. You can read more about the successfull Greenpeace campaign here.

2008

Donna Karan and the DKNY brand are no longer on our boycott list because of a welcome campaign success from the National Mobilization Against Sweatshops and the Chinese Staff and Workers Association. US workers in supplier factories came to a settlement with the company over their claims of discrimination and failure to pay minimum wages or overtime.

2007

May - The De Beers boycott has been called off by Survival International after the company sold its diamond deposit at Gope on the lands of the Kalahari Bushmen. The Bushmen have been forced from their ancestral homelands.The campaign had made Gope ‘a problematic asset for De Beers’.

Whether there is a just outcome for the Bushmen remains to be seen. De Beers sold the Gope deposit to Gem Diamonds for $34 million and will not benefit from the estimated $2.2 billion-worth of diamonds there.

New owners Gem Diamonds says it is currently formulating its policy regarding allowing the Bushmen back onto their land and obtaining free and informed consent before mining goes ahead. Survival is monitoring progress.

2006

June - The Burma Campaign UK announced that sustained pressure had led to Austrian Airlines, Eastravel andFromersGuides joining the growing exodus of companies ending their promotion of tourism to Burma. Austrian Airlines subsidiary Lauda Air was the only airline in Europe with direct flights to Burma, and the regime had welcomed the flights, hoping they would boost tourism and investment.

Gill Clothing formally pledged to stop sourcing from Burma.

2005

October - The Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT) stated that Inditex Group, which owned fashion chain Zara, had decided to withdraw fur from all the group's 2,064 stores in 52 countries. The fur was phased out over a period of several weeks and Inditex ceased sale of fur in its shops from 31 December 2004.

Inditex stated in a letter to its customers that a formal policy had been established and as of 1st January 2005 no fur was to be used in Inditex Group clothes or other products. The policy was announced 3 days before a planned international day of action against Zara.

August - Snow+Rock announced it would no longer be selling real fur garments following a campaign by Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT). The managing director, Dion Taylor, said: “We feel there are enough man made equivalents to satisfy the needs of our customers.” More info on CAFT's other campaigns on 0845 330 7955.

Aon Corporation informed the Burma Campaign UK it intended to terminate all business in Burma. The company had appeared on the Burma Campaign's ‘Dirty List’ of companies directly or indirectly funding the regime in Burma. The campaign group welcomed the decision: “Aon have acted responsibly by ending their involvement in Burma,” said Director John Jackson.

July - The Captive Animals’ Protection Society (CAPS) claimed that the Automobile Association (AA) had told them “no wild captive animals will feature in future AA advertising.” This was in response to a customer furore, following an AA ad featuringAnne, an elderly Asian elephant on loan from Bobby Roberts Circus.

2004

October - Marine campaign group Oceana's boycott of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd led to the company installing Advanced Wastewater Purification technology (AWP) on all its ships. Oceana campaigns to stop the release of toxic chemicals and waste from cruise ships, and feels that the AWP systems will ensure that each vessel meets strict quality standards. Oceana reported that Royal Caribbean will have independent, third-party auditors monitoring the new equipment to ensure performance targets are met.

March - PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) confirmed its decision to pull out of Burma. The company had featured on Burma Campaign UK's boycott list of companies directly or indirectly funding the regime in Burma.

September - In response to a three-year Animal Aid campaign, Focus pledged to end the sale of all animals, including fish, in its stores throughout the UK. The massive DIY chain promised that animal sales would stop over the next two years.

March - The Stop Staples Campaign declared victory following the office-supply giant’s announcement that it would meet the campaign’s goal of moving the company towards environmentally-preferable paper sales.

Staples pledged to achieve an average of 30% post consumer recycled content across all paper products it sold. It also pledged to phase out purchases of paper products from endangered forests, create an environmental affairs division and to report annually on its environmental results. More information. 

2003

April - The Focus store group announced to Animal Aid that it was to cease the sale of all birds and small mammals. Animal Aid began its Focus campaign in February 2000, originally concentrating on the company’s sale of reptiles. Following hundreds of demonstrations at the company’s stores around the country, Focus' reptile sales ended in October 2000.

February - Triumph International was the subject of a boycott call over its manufacturing operations in Burma. The company announced that it would be closing down its Burma-based manufacturing site, located on a military-owned industrial estate north of Rangoon. The company had been listed on the Burma Campaign UK 'Dirty List'.

2002

April - The four year boycott run by the National Anti-Hunt Campaign (NAHC) over John Lewis' staff pheasant shoots finally ended in victory, with the closure of the company's Shooting Club. The campaign gained a higher profile in 2000 when Animal Aid added its voice and membership capacity to the boycott.

The NAHC/Animal Aid victory comes despite John Lewis trying 'every trick in the book' according to NAHC's Niel Hansen, including libel writs and attempting to have one campaigner jailed for distributing leaflets on company property.

2000

December - The Rainforest Action Network (RAN) has called off its long-standing boycott of Mitsubishi. The two main companies targeted by the boycott, Mitsubishi Motors and Mitsubishi Electric, signed an agreement with RAN committing themselves to making important changes to their wood and paper purchasing policies, and the rest of the Mitsubishi group is also said to be looking at ways of improving its environmental management. 

April - Following a long campaign of protest, Mitsubishi surprised campaigners by announcing that it was pulling out of an industrial salt project in Mexico for environmental reasons. The project to extract salt from sea water in evaporation ponds was to be located in a World Heritage Site - the Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve. Potentially covering 116 square miles, it threatened a breeding ground for whales and other endangered species.

A 'Mitsubishi: Don't Buy It' campaign was launched, more than 40 Californian cities passed resolutions condemning the company, and over 700,000 letters of objection were sent. Homero Aridjis, one of the campaign's leaders was reported as saying: "It has been a tough fight for five years with one of the richest corporations in the world and the Mexican government."

From Ethical Consumer.

He also mentioned that hey were all married to their first wives, so that means he hates divorce people too!

He never said gay marriage either, he said "Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized."

And that quote was taken from your link you provided earlier.

He never said gay marriage either, he said "Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized."

And that quote was taken from your link you provided earlier.

Quick.....name a corporate boycott that has been successful.

~crickets chirping~

as a "church" person who dearly loves my sheltered "church" people, while i know that most of them don't support gay marriage rights, i know that they went to CFA to "support a Christian brother defending his beliefs."  i really have no problem with that.  i truly believe that most of them are COMPLETELY unaware of some of the things winshape does...the posters in the store only advertise the college scholarships and wilderness camps for inner city kids, and who can't get behind that?  i think they have convinced themselves it is a free speech issue, because they don't know more than what the blurbs on their talk radio tell them.  (and yes i'm aware there are many people that went that DO hate homosexuality, i would just like to point out that not all evangelicals went for THAT reason)  now, if they were aware of some of the things being funded by winshape and their chicken sammich money, i'm not sure how that would change their opinion.

as a "church" person i am very torn on the issue, to be honest.  i love gay people.  and i love chicken sammiches.  but any christian should be appalled at some of the things that are going on (in other countries, true injustices and crimes are happening).  unfortunately, i will admit to being a bit of a "slacktivist."  i purposefully avoided cfa wed, not wanting to send the wrong message.  but i was running late for school on tuesday and bought a #5 meal.  i tend to be VERY discriminating with where i put my targeted money for charitable donations.  not so much with my general purchases.  does this mean i need to re-evaluate all the companies i spend at?? 

not answering your question, i know.  just working through my thoughts as a person that does see both sides of the coin.

OK, I've heard a lot of mention about all the bad things Winshape does, but I honestly can't find anything reliable by googling because the data seems to be pretty tainted with misinformation and spin.

So, for you and the others.  What exactly is Winshape doing that's so bad?  I'm actually asking this because I am curious not because I'm saying they're not doing anything bad.

I do know they give money to christian charities which also support traditional marriage, but I don't think that's a shocker.

no, i don't either.  they do donate to organizations (i can't recall the names right now or i would tell you and google them for more support) that actively campaign to perpetuate laws in other countries where homosexuality is a crime, sometimes punishable by death.  i couldn't track down the sources for you right now, and as far as i have read, WS does not directly participate in this work.

i am sure a super duper tiny fraction of CFA/WS money goes to this direct cause, it is through some of the traditional marriage groups they support.  so it is understandable that this gets missed, because there are a few degrees of separation here.

no, i don't either.  they do donate to organizations (i can't recall the names right now or i would tell you and google them for more support) that actively campaign to perpetuate laws in other countries where homosexuality is a crime, sometimes punishable by death.  i couldn't track down the sources for you right now, and as far as i have read, WS does not directly participate in this work.

i am sure a super duper tiny fraction of CFA/WS money goes to this direct cause, it is through some of the traditional marriage groups they support.  so it is understandable that this gets missed, because there are a few degrees of separation here.

DanielG - 2012-08-03 10:08 AM

Left Brain - 2012-08-03 10:28 AM

Quick.....name a corporate boycott that has been successful.

~crickets chirping~

 

Montgomery Bus Line may be one you might have heard of in passing at some point in your life

Sure......and that's the problem with the CFA "boycott".....unless you're looking to marry a chicken, you're basically barking up the wrong tree.  In the examples given, it looks like boycotts have been successful in getting an entity to change some specific practice........not so easy to change a belief, or idea.  As in "OK, you quit eating my sandwiches, I changed my mind, gay people can marry."

ETA - I don't give a rats arse who marries who.

The strangest part of that whole video is that fact that he feels the need to point out that he's straight at the end of the video.  It's almost as if he's being homophobic in that he doesn't want anyone to think he's gay.