Open Letter: Merrell Take Back Your Outdoor Image!

Last summer my partner and I had the opportunity to paddle and wonder through the world's oldest old growth pine forest (fortunately located in Northern Ontario -- near Temagomi).

Due to the trip, and based on my stellar recommendations, Mark bought a pair of Merrell sandals. I had waxed on about how comfortable, durable and sturdy my sandals were and he, a believer in paying for quality, had no problem forking over the $100+ for the footwear.

The outcome was less than desirable. Not only did we need to perform an emergency repair on BOTH sandals (if we had ignored these repairs Mark would have been unable to wear them as they would have literally fell off his feet), we also were absolutely astounded by Merrell's lack of concern or attention to our ordeal.

In July of last year -- while preparing for our West Coast (Pacific Rim) Trail trip and, faced with purchasing new sandals, Mark and I sat down and composed a letter of concern and complaint to Merrell.

Now, we certainly did not expect them to stop production lines, bolt to our abode and solicit our design brilliance...but at the very least we did expect some acknowledgement to our concerns and compliants.

Nothing.

Not even a "thanks for writing" form letter.

So, it is to my absolute dismay that I am removing Merrell from our outdoor gear purchases. I find it simply unacceptable for a company to entice purchasers with equipment touted for one use, only to ignore complaints if this equipment does not live up to these standards. It leaves me questioning: What other defects will I run into...out in the wild...when I'd like to take comfort in the idea that one CAN purchase quality products.

As such, I am posting our letter of complaint as an OPEN LETTER to Merrell...asking them to reexamine their values and ideals and return to their roots as a producer of outdoor goods that CARE about their clients' experiences.

OPEN LETTER:
July 29, 2008

To whom it may concern:

I am quite disheartened at the lack of response from your corporate office, with regards to an online letter/compliant I filed at the beginning of July.

My partner and I are weekend warriors. We work hard all week and look forward to our nature retreats. Last year we vacationed in a beautiful section of Northern Ontario – where Canada boasts the oldest pine growth in the world.

During that vacation my partner – a very able and athletic man – asked me to recommend a sandal manufacturer. Over the years I have used (and abused) Merrell with very little discomfort or dissatisfaction. With that in mind, I confidently recommended a pair of Merrell sandals (model/type enclosed).

To our dismay the sandals absolutely and completely fell apart during our trip. The Velcro – a silly addition to active sandals – lost all ability to grip and, by day three, we found ourselves cutting line in order to create makeshift sewing kits. We ended up having to reinforce the heel straps on the sandals, on both sides (and on both sandals). With three more nights of hiking and portaging we were truly and utterly discouraged by the experience.

As a result, we are no longer 100% comfortable with Merrell equipment. Considering we are about to leave for our Pacific Trail hike (at the end of August), I think this is a shame. As a Canadian couple, who enjoys the outdoors and the purchasing good quality Canadian products, it’s a shame we can no longer rely on a brand I once had no trouble promoting.

Even worse, is that my compliant went completely unacknowledged. No courtesy email, no letter and no follow-up phone call.

This prompts me to continue my proactive consumer stance – happy to promote products I am pleased with…and just as happy to publicly and openly dismiss products that I am not pleased with.

I would hope that in the future Merrell would have the decency to acknowledge and address a consumer complaint.

Sincerely,

Romana King

Green Numbers: The Inspiring Stats

Want to read something inspiring? How about a few stats on how green, social and ethical issues are being implemented in corporate Canada (and global multinationals) every day?

Here's a few inspiring stats:

• What are 88% of companies willing to try?
  Nearly nine in 10 companies are currently undertaking carbon offsetting activities or would consider offsetting in the future, according to a survey of carbon management trends.
• What can increase a company's value by 80%?
  Tackling climate change could boost company value in six sectors worth a total of $7 trillion, according to a new report by the Carbon Trust.
• What has the possibility of cutting CO2 by 20%
  PLENTY magazineTom Casten, founder of Recycled Energy Development (RED) posits the US can cut 20% of its CO2 emissions if companies capture the wasted heat from their industrial processes and turn it into electricity. The idea of capturing wasted heat-–particularly the steam that billows from industrial stacks—and converting it into energy is again gaining buzz.
• Who is expecting 160% ROI on climate spending?
  Cleaning products giant JohnsonDiversey has joined the U.S. EPA's Climate Savers program, pledging $19 million toward emissions reduction efforts that the company expects will save $31 million over the next five years.

Interest peaked? Want a few more stats? Go to: By The Numbers

Corporate responsibility is the new black

A few years ago only a couple of hundred multinationals were concerned enough with corporate responsibility to include this aspect of their conduct in annual reports.

This year analysts expect close to 2,000 such reports.

Bluntly put: this is exponential growth.

Andrew Brengle, senior analyst with Boston based KLD Research & Analytics, says that only 15 to 20 percent of these reports will be worth reading. He believes that only this small fraction of reports are thorough and comprehensive enough to provide a clear overview of corporate responsibility.

But the fact remains, more and more businesses realize the importance of ethical and responsible corporate decision-making. In otherwords responsibility and full disclosure is actually good business sense (que the choir, I feel a allehuai moment coming on!).

More and more businesses are attempting to communicate with employees and stakeholders through full disclosure. This move towards transperancy, then, forces companies to examine their decisions; this, in turn, provides impetus for making more responsible, ethical and sustainable decisions.

While Brengle may be right -- that the majority of these reports are simply surface attempts to appear responsible -- the fact still remains: consumers demanded, corporations responded; we care about the process not just about the outcome.

For more information on Brengle and the plethora of corporate responsibility reports go to:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1204/p25s01-wmgn.html

Oxfam and Starbucks: Head to Head with a mug of jo'

It's multi-national non-profit VS. multi-national corporation -- each vying to control the coffee; each vying for a piece of Ethiopia's growing coffee trade.

Last week Oxfam and Starbucks went head to head (via press releases) regarding Ethiopia's bid to trademark coffee names. Oxfam accused Starbucks of urging the National Coffee Association (a trade association for the US coffee industry) to oppose the Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office (EIPO) applications to the US Patent and Trademark Office to trademark the "Sidamo," "Harar" and "Yirgacheffe" names. Starbucks countered with statistical evidence of its support for Ethiopian coffee farmers; the conglomerate noted that it favors a certification program as a better means to "protect geographically descriptive terms and ensure they represent quality products." Oxfam's response: Starbucks, stop being "disingenuous" and acknowledge your role in opposing the trademark application.

Now this is highstakes Corporate Responsibility in action. Starbucks built its brand and its image on socially responsible business practices. It was one of the first (and still one of the few) corporations to offer part-time employees health benefits; Starbucks markets its coffee based on better business practices (practices they determine and they enforce) and it pumps hundreds of thousands back into the community continent wide. Corporate responsibility is an important aspect of the Starbucks brand-image.

Enter Oxfam.

Oxfam is a confederation of 13 organizations that work together in more than 100 countries. Their mandate is to "increase worldwide public understanding that economic and social justice are crucial to sustainable development." That purpose is motivated by the fact that Oxfam wants to make equity the same priority as economic growth. From this rubrik, Oxfam has taken up the Ethiopian fight for rights and ownership. According to the non-profit, if Ethiopia secures the rights to the coffee names than the economically repressed country would capture more value from the trade -- this is because Ethiopia would have more control over the use of their names in the market, which enables farmers to receive a greater share of the retail price. Oxfam suggests that this shift (giving Ethiopia the trade name rights) would provide the Ethiopian coffee industry and its farmers an estimated $88 million (USD) extra per year.

The very public fight between Oxfam and Starbucks is reminiscent of earlier exchanges the two multi-nationals had over Fair Trade. A few years ago Oxfam and activists criticized Starbucks for insufficient support of Fair Trade. At that time, Starbucks pointed out that it was the largest purveyor of Fair Trade in the USA. At that time, Starbucks also stated that the primary factor holding it back from only using Fair Trade coffee was lack of supply. The coffee conglomerate also pointed to its numerous policies and actions in social and environmental standards to plantations that are not covered by Fair Trade standards.

The rhetoric, facts and opinions are rampant on both sides -- as this is confrontational activism. Rather than collaboration, Oxfam (and partners) have chosen to attack Starbucks. While questions still exist (such as, how will the patent ownership actually help Ethiopian farmers) they are being ignored in favour of positioning.

Corporate responsibility is important -- not only for the purposes of branding and image, but in terms of developing and fostering worldwide equity. However, corporate responsibility is still immersed in the school of confrontation -- a school that we know all too well (just look at any election, anywhere). This style of activism often ignores poignant and important questions in favour of quick and snappy sound bites. As such, facts get lost and lines are drawn and little is done to find a solution.

Regardless of your opinion on Starbucks, this mega-coffee-brand is the Wal-Mart of coffee companies in North America. As such, their buying power is an economic force in the coffee industry -- a worldwide industry that accounts for six-million tonnes of picked beans every year. If we are to create an equitable solution (that benefits farmers, companies and consumers) we will need to include Starbucks and other coffee companies in the debate. Oxfam's tactic of shaming is an old tactic and a good tactic, but in the end, it's good old fashioned discussion and compromise that will result in a responsible and equitable solution.

Until then, make mine a dark, Grande. Fair Trade, of course.

For more information on Oxfam's position on Ethiopian trademarked coffee go to:
http://www.oxfam.org/en/news/pressreleases2006/pr061026_starbucks

For more information on Starbuck's position go to:
http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/pressdesc.asp?id=714