Points of Analysis - Transnational corporations today are increasingly focused on how they are perceived as socially responsible

• “Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become an important focus of attention among companies. A recent McKinsey global survey shows that 76% of executives believe that CSR contributes positively to long-term shareholder value, and 55% of executives agree that sustainability helps their companies build a strong reputation” (Torelli)
• “Although private enterprise argues that intensive natural-resource development is a "wise use" of nature, most ecological movements claim existing industrial technologies are really an "unwise abuse" of nature.” (Luke 175)
• “These measures are not taken only to preserve nature, mollify green consumers, or respect Mother Earth; they also must enhance corporate profits, national productivity, and state power. The "e-factor" is not simply ecology - it also is efficiency, excellence, education, em- powerment, enforcement, and economics. As long as realizing eco- logical changes in business means implementing an alternative array of instrumentally rational policies, like implementing lower-cost methods of energy use, supply management, labor utilization, cor- porate communication, product generation, and pollution abate- ment in the marketplace, sustainable development will enhance the world economy. Gore's stewardship of sustainable development is not strictly ecological, but his green geopolitics cultivate the mythologies of being deeply environmental or ecologically responsible.” (Luke 181)
• “Why has it become so easy for people to start feel-good campaigns that no one asked for?” (“Dignity”)
• Robyn: TOMS has become a successful company because of its brand messaging and socially conscious mission statement. A pair of TOMS can be viewed as “merely a symbol to the public that their owner is a charitable person” (Hoye). People are buying these shoes so that they can feel good about themselves without risking their own position of power. The “One for one” mission statement is a marketing ploy to sell as many shoes as possible. While founder Blake Mycoskie professes good intentions in donating shoes to children in other countries, the company is still a for profit agency. Doing good is not the primary motivation of companies that appear social conscious. As previously mentioned, TOMS shoes do more damage than good when they are donated. If TOMS wanted to make a greater difference, they could manufacture all their shoes in the countries that they donate to, and then buy other shoes from local vendors there for children. The problem with their current philosophy is that “giving you a pair of shoes would sure be nice if you didn’t have a pair. But a job that allows parents to send their kids to school could change your family tree forever” (Kelsey). Therefore the message that the TOMS company projects creates a false hope for the consumer.
• Kiera: Lee Valley Tools is a Canadian business (not publically traded) specializing in tools and gifts for woodworking and gardening. The company is family-owned. The founder, Leonard Lee, is a recipient of the Order of Canada. He founded the company in 1978, in Ottawa, Ontario. Over the next ten years, the company opened several more stores (Toronto, Vancouver) and started manufacturing its own line of tools (starting with the Veritas Dovetail Marker in 1982). Since then, it has continued opening stores, manufacturing more diverse tools, and selling through mail order and the Internet. 
• Nick: Although Apple does not strive to appear socially responsible, it most definitely strives to not appear as socially irresponsible. It sees the media assurance that the workers involved in making its products live a reasonable life not as a personal duty, but a marketing necessity. The company is connected to too broad a network of suppliers and intermediaries to even begin enforcing a baseline quality of life, and thus concentrates on giving the impression that it does only in the consumer sphere, as that maximizes profits, minimizing loss. The rhetoric involved with Apple’s decision to use aluminum casing in its products was a perfect example of this. Marketed as being an environmentally conscientious decision, my research showed it to be anything but (and likely done equally for the sake of device appearance). In reality, Aluminum is a far from an environmentally friendly material. One has to first strip mine vast tracts of land in order to get at the base ore, destroying the surface foliage that often never recovers. Next, they need to separate the aluminum from the ore by means of huge expenditures of electrical energy, often coming from coal fuelled power plants. As one has to burn the coal in order to run the turbines responsible for producing the electricity, air pollution gets added on to aluminum’s environmental damage. Finally, milling aluminum into a design usable for Apple products introduces particulate matter into the air, further worsening the already bad air pollution factor coming from coal power plants. Aluminum destroys land and life, but is marketed as being friendly for the environment- talk about one hell of a spin- and people buy into it! Marketing at its finest.
• Shauna: In my research, I have found that many clothing companies like to keep the production of their clothes relatively secret, unless they are known to use organic cotton production which relies on natural process of the ecosystem and does not use toxic pesticides (Organic Trade Association). There are a lot of questionable practices surrounding cotton production and there are many clothing companies known to secretly use these questionable ways of acquiring cotton in order to save funds. As long as the customer is happy, it seems that the company does not feel socially responsible. Almost every year, The International Labour Rights Forum creates the “Sweatshop Hall of Shame” which is a list of companies that have been discovered to use sweatshop labour or use companies that violates human rights. In 2010, three companies in particular – Gymboree, Haynes, and LL Bean – were discovered to have been using cotton from Uzbekistan in their products. Uzbekistan cotton is known for its abusive labour practices (International Labor Rights Forum). Instead of using machines to pick cotton in the cotton fields of Uzbekistan’s government uses children. Every autumn, state officials shut down the schools and send students to the cotton fields. Tens of thousands of children, some as young as seven, are forced to undertake weeks of arduous labour for little or no financial reward. Children who fail to pick their target amount of cotton are reportedly punished with detentions and are told that their grades will suffer. Children who refuse to take part can face academic expulsion (Environmental Justice Foundation). As of May 2011, all three companies (Gymboree, Haynes, and LL Bean) have now all announced that they will discontinue the use of Uzbekistan cotton until they stop using abusive farming techniques. The companies announced their ‘stand against child labour’ after over three thousand people sent in letters asking the company to stop. (Kloer). It seems funny that these companies only stopped buying cotton from Uzbekistan because it was giving their products a bad reputation in the eyes of their customers. Many clothing companies only accept responsibility of condoning human rights violations when they are forced to by their own customers. This is just one case using only Child Labour as the subject. There are still many human right violations going on in the cotton production and manufacturing industry, such as the use of Sweatshops in China, underpaid farmers in India and Uzbekistan, and cotton farmer suicides in India. There are a few examples of companies who take it upon themselves to become more environmentally friendly. In 1996, Patagonia, a manufacturer and distributor of clothing gear for outdoor sports decided to use only organically grown cotton for their cotton products. The corporation said, “One day it became very clear to us that one of the primary materials that goes into our line of outdoor clothing products, cotton. . . may be the most environmentally damaging fibre available”(Chouinard, 118). This is an example of a company taking their own social responsibilities and deciding to help the environment by going organic even though they were aware of the risks organically grown cotton had (118).