LEDA at Harvard Law School LEDA at Harvard Law School
"Money should never be separated from values. Detached from values it may
indeed be the root of all evil. Linked effectively to social purpose it can be the root of opportunity."
--- Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Professor, Harvard Business School
"Nine-tenths of a businessman's best public service can be rendered by virtue of the way he conducts business...."
--- E.A. FILENE, THE WAY OUT 292 (1924)
"Few trends could so thoroughly undermine the very foundation of our free society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible."
--- MILTON FRIEDMAN, CAPITALISM AND FREEDOM 135 (1962)
Once upon a time, there were two childhood pals turned hippies named Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield who completed an ice cream correspondence course from the University of Pennsylvania for $5. Shortly thereafter, they opened an ice cream parlor in an abandoned gas station in Burlington, Vermont with an investment of $12,000, one-third of that a loan. That day, December 17, 1977, Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc. ("Ben & Jerry's") came into existence. In 1985 the company went head-to-head against the formidable Pillsbury, owner of Haagen-Dazs Co. Pillsbury had forbidden its distributors from carrying Ben & Jerry's frozen goodies. In the quirky style that has come to characterize Ben & Jerry's, the firm responded with its "[w]hat's the Doughboy afraid of?" grassroots campaign and sued Pillsbury.[1] The case settled out of court in 1985 and Ben & Jerry's went on to become the highly successful multi-million dollar venture it is today. With sales in the United States, Canada, Europe and Japan surpassing the $200 million mark in 1998, the enterprise boasts an almost 40% share of the super premium ice cream market. The company owns nearly 200 franchises (scoop shops) as well.
During the course of its incredible journey from small ice cream shop to multimillion-dollar business, Ben & Jerry's created history as the first company to make profits while acting as a non-profit. It also became the first company to employ a double (financial as well as social) bottom line, leading The New York Times to herald its product as "[i]nspiring ice cream."[2] In addition, Ben & Jerry's is a founding member of Business for Social Responsibility ("BSR"), an association of some 1400 or so businesses that aims to furnish "members with innovative products and services that help companies be commercially successful in ways that demonstrate respect for ethical values, people, communities and the environment."[3] Notwithstanding its achievements and cult-like status as a socially progressive enterprise, however, some critics charge "that Ben & Jerry's size and the demands of the business world are chipping away at its down-home, 1960s culture and values."[4]
Part I of this paper will examine the history or evolution of corporate social responsibility. Part II will discuss how Ben & Jerry's came to embrace its social mission. The company's socially responsible business practices in terms of its philanthropy, employees, the environment, and other areas will be described in Part III. Part IV offers a critical view of some of Ben & Jerry's activities. A verdict on Ben & Jerry's is submitted in Part V. A brief discussion of the future of the company with respect to its social mission concludes the paper.
I. HISTORY OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ("CSR")
Traditionally business operated exclusively on the mantra of maximizing profits.[5] As long as "the firm could sell its good[s] or services at prices high enough to make a profit and survive, then its social obligation was fulfilled."[6]
However, shortly after large companies first emerged in the 1870s, debate quickly emerged as to the appropriateness of their conduct. During the 1890s the federal government passed legislation—dealing with the likes of child labor and workplace safety among other issues—in an attempt to reign in these big firms. 1890 also bore witness to the passage of the Sherman Act, the result of a political backlash to the rise in large-scale business trusts established during the 1880s. (The trusts formed in response to cutthroat pricing practices in certain industries including coal and sugar. Labor unions, farmers associations and small businesspeople had argued for legislation to protect them from the economic might of the trusts).
The period from 1900-20 saw more in the way of government regulation for the protection of the public interest, including the passage of the Federal Trade Commission Act (1914). It was during this period that the Sherman Act began to be enforced vigorously, with Standard Oil and American Tobacco, two major trusts (monopolies) broken up in 1911.
The 1930s, upon the heels of the Great Depression, "signaled a transition from a primarily laissez-faire economy with industrial power and might in control to a more mixed economy" with a more activist role by organized labor and the government.7 The New Deal had much to do with this transition. The Wagner Act of 1935 signaled a shift to favoring workers over industry. Pro-business, conservative Supreme Court justices were replaced with (or converted into) more pro-labor and socially oriented justices, giving the government and unions considerable power. Further, the government's creation of various socially oriented programs to ease the country's economic woes resulted in more socially minded Americans. The New Deal also ushered in additional social controls of corporations in the form of banking reform and controls on public utilities. And under Franklin D. Roosevelt over 87 cases charging big businesses with collusion were prosecuted in 1940 alone![7] However, the most important lesson of the New Deal and the Depression for business was the necessity of heightened sensitivity to public views.[8] As Paul W. Litchfield of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company put it, "Lasting success in any industry depends upon public support and confidence. More and more the attitude of the public toward business is going to be influenced by the attitude of business toward its social responsibilities."[9]
Debates as to the appropriate role of business in society sharpened after World War II. Corporate philanthropy was well established by then, but the creation of public interest watchdogs and regulatory agencies such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Sierra Club, and the Federal Trade Commission stimulated "new interest in business ethics, the standards by which to judge corporate and individual behavior within the moral framework of business and society."[10] Social justice movements tackling issues like racial inequality saw business as an amoral institution whereby a small number of avaricious individuals profited at the larger community's expense. Howard Bowen's Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, often cited as the seminal text on corporate social responsibility by those in the field, was published in 1953. According to Bowen, the social responsibilities of a businessman consisted of obligations "to pursue those policies, make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of objectives and values to society."[11] Soon afterwards, all three levels of government starting enacting increasingly detailed legislation conducive to socially responsible behavior by businesses. Such legislation included: the Civil Rights Act (1964), the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (1966), the Truth in Lending Act (1969), the National Environmental Policy Act (1969) as well as the Consumer Product Safety Act (1972). Further, the four key regulatory agencies—the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Product Safety Commission—were established from 1969 to 1972. These developments created "a whole new world for managers.... all of a sudden they're hit with four enormous regulatory agencies making lots and lots of demands for information and for corrective action."[12]
Also during the 1960s and 1970s, "the undercurrent of revisionism about business became a raging river of criticism, protests and hostility."[13] The media perpetuated and reflected such perceptions. One interesting study of the top 100 grossing movies found almost 90% of business characters portrayed positively prior to 1965; post 1965, 67% were portrayed in a negative light, a figure rising to 75% after 1975.[14] In this time of shifting media images and social turmoil, a movement began among a diverse cast of characters (journalists, scholars, activists, and even corporate executives) to reorient the principles and purposes of corporate America "away from profits and return to shareholders and toward the interests of a broader constituency of so-called stakeholders—workers, customers, neighbors and society at large."[15] In 1979 Kenneth Mason, President of Quaker Oats, decried Friedman's business for profits only philosophy and urged instead that:
[m]aking a profit is no more the purpose of a corporation than getting enough to eat is the purpose of life. Getting enough to eat is a requirement of life; life's purpose, one would hope is somewhat broader and more challenging. Likewise with business and profit....The moral imperative all of us share in this world is that of getting the best return on whatever assets we are privileged to employ. What American business leaders too often forget is that this means all the assets employed—not just the financial assets but also the brains employed, the labor employed, the materials employed, and the land, air, and water employed.[16]
The Business Roundtable appeared to have gotten the message by 1981 when it delivered a Statement on Corporate Responsibility. The Statement concluded that making profits and acting responsibly were not incompatible goals for corporations and affirmed the need for more business involvement in social problems.
A combination of factors propelled the subject of socially responsible business to the frontlines during the 1980s. First, by way of local and national campaigns, the consumer rights movement heightened scrutiny of corporate practices. Litigation against companies increased, thanks in great measure to Ralph Nader devotees. In addition, the environmental movement's efforts led to additional information about business practices. During this era the media also picked up on companies like the Body Shop and Ben & Jerry's, companies that managed to do well financially and do good socially. Further, the Reagan-Bush era, in which government restrictions on businesses were loosened, caused some business leaders to contrast "what appeared to be an alarming array of crumbling institutions—including weakened federal and local government agencies once charged with protecting those institutions—with the wealth they and their shareholders had amassed over roughly the same period, and [to recognize] an inherent imbalance."[17] More significantly, these leaders realized that only business had the requisite expertise and resources to correct the inequity. Ultimately, "[a]ll of this—government's hands-off approach, business's growing impact, the media's and the public's perception of government's role, seemingly excessive profits," along with the unparalleled increases in drug abuse, homelessness, and countless other social ills subtly shifted the public's perception of business.[18]
By the 1990s consumers increasingly began demanding that corporations pursue socially responsible goals other than pure profit maximization. According to a survey by Cone Communications and the Roper Group, 76% of consumers would switch brands to further worthy causes (holding price and quality constant with other goods).[19] Results of another extensive study[20] reveal that:
These days investors, too, are placing increased emphasis on socially conscious corporate practices. In 1999 over one trillion dollars was invested in socially responsible investments in the United States![22] Indeed, socially responsible investment funds performed very well throughout the 1990s. The Domini Social Equity Fund, with an annual growth rate of 28% from 1996-1999, outperformed the Standard & Poor's 500. The Ethical Growth Fund earned the title of Fund of the Year in 1998 for consistently outperforming other funds. And from 1994-99 the Ethical North American Fund took top honors in the equity funds category, beating out 66 competitors.
Today we have multitudes of laws and regulations on everything from consumer protection to antitrust issues. Through such legislation, "we have insisted that [large corporations] be responsible to the entire society, not just to their stockholders, managers or workers."[23]
Today CSR is...a major issue among corporate managers whose deep concerns about corporate image, public relations, environmental liability, lawsuits, relations with governments, and worker morale—and, it should be said, about the many lingering problems in American society...—have melded into a search for a set of ethical and managerial principles to guide economic enterprise in the [21st century] and beyond."[24]
Although no consensus about the definition of corporate social responsibility ("CSR") exists at present, it may be said to encompass "a company's commitment to operate in an economically and environmentally sustainable manner, while acknowledging the interests of a variety of stakeholders.... [A]n organization's policy and continuous action in such areas as employee relations, diversity, community development, environment, international relationships, marketplace practices, fiscal responsibility and accountability [all help determine its corporate social responsibility].[25]
Nowadays, corporations from Mobil to Waste Management tout their horns about improving worker relations, protecting the environment or some other socially progressive act. Many companies unquestionably walk the socially responsible walk because "the role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs in U.S. companies is potentially very important and frequently pivotal to success of the firm."[26] Responsible business can make for loyal customers, improved morale and higher productivity among employees. A recent study by the Reputation Institute also found that companies that demonstrate innovation, vision, social responsibility and appeal to emotions while simultaneously posting strong financial results have the best corporate reputations. Among the 30 companies with the best reputations in corporate America, Ben & Jerry's places a very respectable fifth.[27]
II. On Ben & Jerry's Evolution to a "Values-Led"[28] Business
According to the dynamic duo behind Ben & Jerry's, the most powerful force in society is business; with this power comes "a responsibility for the welfare of society as a whole."[29] It is the principle on which Ben & Jerry's allegedly operates today, but it certainly was not its founding philosophy. Indeed, when co-founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield began their business they did not consciously intend to operate a socially responsible business. They hadn't given much thought at all to the relation of business to society. Instead they saw themselves as operating a homemade ice cream parlor on a short-term basis before they would move on to other things. They claim they were just expressing their true selves when they undertook community-related activities. In 1982 the duo was ready to sell the company they'd started, until Cohen talked to an eccentric artistic friend, Maurice Purpora. When Cohen lamented that business "exploits the community, it exploits employees, it exploits the environment," Maurice shot back: "Ben, you own the company. If there's something you don't like about the way business is done, why don't you do something different?" [30] Cohen decided to do just that and told Greenfield they weren't selling the company. Instead Cohen convinced his partner that they should determine if a business could act as "a force for progressive social change" and still succeed, a path he termed "caring capitalism."[31] The buddies and business partners offered shares for sale in the company in 1984, but restricted the offer to residents of Vermont since they started their business in Vermont, which supported them and "'business has a responsibility to give back to the community from which it draws it supports.' They thought their company should be owned by the same people who lined up for scoops of ice cream whey they first opened their small shop."[32]
Mission
Since 1988 three interrelated areas have comprised the company's mission. First, Ben & Jerry aims to manufacture, sell and distribute top quality products. Second, the company aims to make profits while also "creating career opportunities and financial rewards for our employees."[33] Finally, Ben & Jerry's aspires to operate so as to "actively recognize the central role that business plays in the structure of society by initiating innovative ways to improve the quality of life of a broad community - local, national, and international."[34] In realizing its mission, Ben & Jerry's aims to maintain "a deep respect for individuals inside and outside the company, and for the communities of which they are a part."[35] Moreover, the organization "works to employ its Mission Statement in as many day to day business decisions as possible so that the company is profitable and the community can profit by the way Ben & Jerry's does business."[36]
Ben & Jerry's often practices what it preaches, even if it hurts the financial bottom line. For instance, the company stopped producing its once popular Oreo Mint in 1988 because it disliked doing business with Oreo supplier, tobacco giant RJR Nabisco. Later in 1995, when a Japanese supplier offered to distribute its ice cream in the Japanese market, where rival Haagen-Dazs was raking in revenues in the hundreds of millions, Ben & Jerry's declined. Why? The Japanese corporation had no history of supporting social goals.
Ben & Jerry's, on the other hand, is the recipient of numerous accolades and awards for its "caring capitalism."[37] It made Fortune magazine's Best Companies for Minorities list in 1993. The Council on Economic Priorities recognized it with a Corporate Conscious Award in 1988 for its socially conscious practices while Business Ethics magazine ranked it third (out of 100 companies) on the same dimension in 1996. From 1994 -96, Working Mother magazine featured the company as one of the 100 Best Companies for Working Mothers. And that's not an exhaustive inventory of the company's honors. Even co-founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield personally received the 1999 National Retail Federation's American Spirit Award for their social responsibility and participation in community action programs.
Business Ethics has labeled Cohen, the true force behind Ben & Jerry's being a "values-led" business, "a celebrated entrepreneur and social activist."[38] He deserves much of the credit for Ben & Jerry's reputation for being socially progressive, a reputation built on the company's philanthropy, its treatment of its employees, its environmental practices as well as a host of other activities and policies the company pursues.
A. Philanthropy
Among its socially responsible endeavors, the company is probably best known for its unprecedented rate of giving to charitable organizations in the corporate world—a full 7.5%[39] of its pretax profits as compared to a paltry 1% by the average American corporation. This generous level, which totaled $ 792,595 in 1998, is apportioned between The Ben & Jerry's Foundation, Corporate Giving and Employee Community Action Teams.[40]
(i) Community Action Teams (CATs)
Community action teams are employee-led groups at each of the company's Vermont sites and are given community service grants of less than $1000 to distribute to community groups in Vermont. These CATs contributed over $150,000 to groups such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife in 1998. They also organize community service work for Ben & Jerry's workers in their respective communities. For instance, in 1994 staff at the Springfield plant constructed a recreation area including a playground and picnic area for the local community. In 1998 employees from the St. Albans plant mobilized to clean up two camps in North Hero, Vermont. A CAT covers each county in Vermont.
(ii) The Ben & Jerry's Foundation ("The Foundation")
Co-founder Ben Cohen established The Foundation in 1985 with a donation of stock. Its mission "is to make the world a better place by empowering Ben & Jerry employees to use available resources to support and encourage organizations that are working towards eliminating the underlying causes of environmental and social problems."[41] In short, the Foundation's goal is to advance "progressive social change," a term which denotes "efforts to change the underlying conditions that create social problems such as racism, sexism, economic disparity, and environmental degradation."[42] To accomplish this goal, the Foundation's Grantmaking Committee (consisting of nine Ben & Jerry's employees elected by their respective CATs) provides grants to grassroots organizations in the U.S. working to effect "systemic social change."[43] Specifically, to qualify for grants, projects must: (1) empower constituents to help remedy unfair situations, (2) foster the self-empowerment and leadership potential of traditionally disadvantaged groups, and (3) bolster collective action and movement building.
Between 1994-98 grants ranged from $200 to $15,000. Since its inception, the Foundation has funded a wide variety of social causes such as gay rights, youth empowerment and antinuclear campaigns. Organizations such as the American Livestock Breeds Coalition (to protect rare breeds of various types of livestock from extinction) and Youth In Action, Inc. (to help youth develop as community leaders) shared in over $280,000 of grants in 1998.
(iii) Corporate Giving
Corporate Giving accounts for another part of the company's philanthropic program. As part of its Corporate Giving, Ben & Jerry's established a Matching Gift program in 1998. The purpose of the program is to advance and bolster staff commitment to communities. The company matches each dollar contributed to non-profit, charitable organizations by employees, up to a maximum of $1000 per worker. Ben & Jerry's provides financial support to non-profits like the Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, the Vermont Youth Corp, Business for Social Responsibility and The Social Venture Network under the rubric of Corporate Giving, too. Moreover, the company donates its product to various non-profits such as Youth Service America and the Children's Defense Fund Child Watch Program.
(iv) More Charitable Works
Besides donating 7.5% of its pretax profits to worthy causes, Ben & Jerry's helps make other charitable contributions possible. In several cases, royalties paid by Ben & Jerry's to licensors are contributed, in whole or in part, to charitable organizations. One example is the Phish Food ice cream launched in 1997. That year Ben & Jerry's paid the Vermont-based Phish band $159,000 in royalties, and the band created the WaterWheel Foundation to donate all royalties to environmental causes. The WaterWheel Foundation aims to protect and preserve the Lake Champlain area of Vermont. Doonesbury Sorbet resulted in $40,150 worth of royalties in 1998 for the Pauley Trudeau Foundation, which aids various social causes such as human rights and education.
The firm also earmarks half of the revenues generated from its factory tours to The Entrepreneurial Fund, which provides those starting ventures with a socially correct agenda with low-interest loans. An Employee Community Fund Committee uses the remaining tour proceeds to fund local causes. Further, staff interested in volunteering are encouraged to create their own community service programs and are eligible to receive their regular wages while volunteering.[44] Ben & Jerry's employee, Mitch Curren, took advantage of the program in 1992 by throwing a dog flea-dipping party, proceeds of which benefited a local humane society.
B. Employees
I couldn't ask for a better company.....When you've been treated so well, it's hard not to appreciate it....And I'm not the only one—that's the best part about it. They do it for everyone. They really do go out of their way.[45]
– Julie Labor, Production Line Worker
I worked at a Fortune 500 corporation for 10 years. What attracted me to Ben & Jerry's was that I believe in what Ben & Jerry's believes in. I thought it would be awfully nice to be able to live twenty-four hours a day with the same set of values, not one set at home and a different set at work....The type of thing I feel good about now is when I walk out of Greyston Bakery[46] after one of my visits and I realize, 'Wow what a difference we're making....'[47]
– Todd Kane, Purchasing Manager
Ben & Jerry's operates on the principle that social concerns must be taken into account if it wants to attract and retain the best employees. The company feels that "employees are more motivated—and productivity is higher—when they bring their hearts and souls as well as their bodies and minds to work with them."[48]
Ben & Jerry's human resources policies indicate that the company has gone to great lengths to execute this ideal - and met with considerable success, as testimonials like the above attest. For its creation of a supportive employee atmosphere, Personnel Journal recognized Ben & Jerry's with its 1992 Optimas Award in the Quality of Life category.
Communication is a fundamental feature of Ben & Jerry's. Employees are actually able to talk to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield and they seem to appreciate this direct contact.[49] Moreover, since 1990 the company has conducted biennial Employee Work Life Surveys canvassing worker views on issues such as pay and benefits, the company's stance on farm aid (or other social cause of the moment), how well the company respects home and family obligations, and whether workers are treated with respect and dignity. Annual rate-the-boss surveys are used to gauge employees' perceptions of individual supervisors. Management uses the results of these evaluations to actually meet and talk with supervisors about areas of concern.
The procedure by which the company's Human Resources Department expanded its 401K plan in 1991 also demonstrates the value placed on employee involvement by Ben & Jerry's. During that process the firm's Benefits Administrator, Carol Hicks, solicited feedback from workers on the basic plan through employee focus groups and used this feedback to hone the ultimate plan. When the time came to sign up for the plan, the turnout rate for informational meetings delineating plan options was 100% (with 80-85% signing on). The company used incentives like door prizes (e.g. $50 grocery certificates) to encourage employee attendance at the meetings.
One episode particularly demonstrates Ben & Jerry's genuine concern for its staff. When the second-shift production line at the Springfield facility was shut down during a slow period of about 3 1/2 months in 1991, instead of laying off all 100 workers, over a third were kept on the payroll and given odd jobs at the plant as well as in the community. These workers did everything from organizing a benefit concert for local children's organizations to yard work and painting fire hydrants. Of course, it could also be argued that a socially conscious employer would have found work for all 100 employees.
(i) The Joy Gang
Not only does Ben & Jerry's believe that it is okay to mix business with pleasure, it actively tries to make work fun for employees. Enter the Joy Gang, which with an annual budget of $20,000, strives "to keep work from becoming a grind through a combination of organized events, special purchases and even guerrilla tactics of sorts –like an impromptu assault with a hidden squirt gun."[50] A Grand Poobah of Joy heads the voluntary Joy Gang that meets bimonthly for lunchtime gatherings to plan fun events and to choose grant beneficiaries. The first Joy event was a massage and pizza party that went over so well the company instituted permanent bimonthly massages for workers. Other Joy events include National Clash-Dressing Day (those with the most outrageous outfits receive awards such as glow-in-the-dark religious statues), Barry Manilow Appreciation Day (only Manilow songs were played on the company's sound system) as well as Elvis Presley Day (replete with a trivia contest, an Elvis impersonator and Elvis look-alike contest). Joy grants of up to a maximum of $500 are bestowed on particular departments with the objective of making them "a nicer place to work" by funding specific purchases.[51] The lucky freezer crew obtained a hot cocoa machine with one grant.
(ii) Benefits
Ben & Jerry's offers a very sweet benefits package to employees. First, every one of the 700+ Ben & Jerry's workers is entitled to three free pints of ice cream, sorbet or frozen yogurt per day worked. (Some workers use allotments of their free treats to barter for other goods and services in town such as haircuts.) Beyond the freebies, personnel receive a 50% discount on the company's frozen goodies, a 40% discount on merchandise and a further 30% break on non-Ben & Jerry's foods at company outlets. Workers are further entitled to paid family leave and may take advantage of the Employee Stock Purchase Program to purchase company stock (after six months with the organization) at a 15% discount. Beginning in 1998, 316 stock options are awarded to each worker (excluding directors and officers) and stock is also assigned to each employee's 401K plan at the end of the calendar year. These contributions are intended to achieve the company's goal of linked prosperity, i.e. to assure that future prosperity is widely shared by all employees. Other benefits include:
of regular wages for up to six months
family/marital/personal issues and substance abuse)
company
Moreover, in 1989 Ben & Jerry's became one of the first (then privately held) companies to extend traditionally spousal benefits to gays and lesbians, serving as a model to companies such as Levi-Strauss and Lotus Development Corp who shortly followed suit.[52] The organization also takes pains to use only gender- and sexual-orientation neutral terms in all company documents using, for instance, "partner" in place of the word "spouse."[53]
Recognizing the importance of child care, the company began providing child care through an onsite facility (at its Waterbury plant) in 1989, making availability contingent on a sliding-fee schedule. Both children (kindergarten age or younger) of employees and community residents were able to access the services. While the company closed the facility in 1998 citing "its high costs [over $100,000 annually] and the small number of employees [never more than 20] served", the firm maintains several family-friendly benefits (e.g. flexible spending for child care).[54] Indeed, even after the child care center closed, the company won a spot on the Child Care Counts Honor Roll of Child Care Fund of Vermont.
(iii) Living Wage
When it comes to pay Ben & Jerry's guarantees its workers a living wage. The company calculates the average cost of living in the community taking into account expenses for rent, nutrition, taxes, recreation, health and dental care, utilities, savings, a retirement allowance and transportation. It further consults groups like the Peace and Justice Center (Burlington, Vermont) before it calculates its livable wage. Ben & Jerry's determined that number to be $9.25 per hour (including salary and profit sharing) in 1998. That's considerably higher than the figures (averaging $8.50 an hour) of the various organizations it consulted.
C. The Environment
The company endeavors to act responsibly with respect to the environment, too. Indeed, it is known by some as the "crown jewel of corporate environmentalism."[55] It received the Business Enterprise Trust Award for its endeavors in the environmental arena in 1991 and a Green Globe Award for its Peace Pop packaging in 1995.
(i) Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies ("CERES")
Ben & Jerry's became the first public entity to sign the ten CERES principles in 1992. CERES is a coalition of various groups composed of investors, activists, and religious, labor and social justice groups. Founded in response to the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, the organization advocates for corporate environmental responsibility by businesses and monitors compliance. CERES requires participating companies to submit rigorous environmental reports (the CERES report[56]) on an annual basis. The ten CERES principles that direct Ben & Jerry's environmental management efforts are: reduction and disposal of waste, sustainable use of natural resources, risk reduction, energy conservation, safe services and products, biosphere protection, keeping the public informed, audits and reports as well as management commitment. By endorsing the principles, Ben & Jerry's made formal its "dedication to environmental awareness and accountability" and actively committed "to an ongoing process of continuous improvement, dialogue and comprehensive, systematic public reporting."[57]
(ii) Employee Involvement
Ben & Jerry's actively encourages and relies on workers to help the company act responsibly in regards to environmental practices.
There is an employee Green Team at each company site that (voluntarily) looks into conservation opportunities for fellow workers. These Green Teams sponsored plant exchanges, clothing drives, compost giveaways, and published a company environmental newsletter (Eco-Notes) in 1998. An "Employee (Waste) Awareness" procedure (consisting of a video and written materials) is in place for new hires at the St Albans facility and similar programs exist at other plants.[58] Further, the Employee Orientation Handbook contains an "Environmentally Responsibilities" section outlining the ten CERES principles to provide workers with guidance "on how to help the company achieve its environmental goals".[59] Finally, a company-wide Environmental Awareness Week is held each October.
(iii) Other Environmentally Responsible Actions
Each of Ben & Jerry's manufacturing sites in Vermont has its own Environmental Coordinator, committed to performing and observing environmental practices. Such practices encompass recycling, solid waste management, composting and wastewater management. In 1994 Ben & Jerry's invited the Center for Resource Management and E-Source, respectively, to extensively audit the company regarding its environmental and energy practices. Subsequently, the organization developed several creative technologies to cut down on effluents and energy use such as a "solar aquatics greenhouse," developed "to evaluate the suitability of technologies to treat raw ice cream waste, created any time a production line is started up or shut down."[60]
Other company environmental initiatives include in-house recycling, participation in a ten-week environmental internship program created by the New England Board of Higher Education, waste reduction programs and installing energy-efficient equipment. Ben & Jerry's also publicly opposed a nuclear power plant in Vermont while simultaneously sponsoring a state program that would test vehicles powered by electricity. In addition, the firm requires its contractors to meet its environmental polices and outlines these in the Contractor's Handbook it publishes. Potential suppliers (through the company's Vendor Certification Program[61]) are asked several environmental questions. These concern, for example, whether the supplier is aligned with environmental principles (e.g. CERES principles), whether the supplier has all applicable waste permits, and whether it has an environmental mission statement or equivalent.
In April 1999 Ben & Jerry's began using paper cartons manufactured with unbleached (chlorine-free) paper in its best selling, World's Best™ Vanilla flavor. The new container (two years in the making) is referred to as the Eco-Pint carton and is made from "unbleached brown kraft paper with a non-toxic, printable clay coating on the outside".[62] The company aims to use sell all of its pint and half-gallon goods in these cartons by 2001. The reason for the switch: using chlorine to bleach paper is one of the top causes of toxic water pollution in the United States. This wastewater contains dangerous chemicals known as organochlorines.[63] Included among these chemicals is dioxin, identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as a carcinogen, the dangers of which Ben & Jerry's is working with Greenpeace to raise awareness about. The company offered to share information about the new packaging with other manufacturers, believing that "this is one small step for the environment that can really make a difference."[64]
Even the Ben & Jerry's Foundation, in the interests of Mother Nature, requests that grant applicants conserve resources by using double-sided and recycled paper. Applicants are further asked to refrain from using glossy photos, sheet protectors or plastic covers, to aid the Foundation in its recycling of applications.
(d) Social Responsibility Plus
Ben & Jerry's socially conscious activities encompass a range of areas in addition to those specified above. For instance, it was the first corporation to open itself up to scrutiny about its social practices. Beginning in 1988, Ben & Jerry's has included in its annual report a Social Performance Report completed by an independent social auditor assessing its performance in the following areas: workplace, franchise and retail operations, environment, manufacturing operations, marketing and sales, international operations, philanthropy, and finance and shareholders. The auditor is given full access to company documents and records. Further, Ben & Jerry's has a Director of Social Mission.
In 1998 the company began requiring all prospective licensees to fill out a social performance survey. The Council on Economic Priorities SA8000 (Social Responsibility) standards are used to evaluate licensees with manufacturing operations abroad. It has also had a Vendor Certification program since 1996, but supplemented this with a values alignment screen in 1998. The screen brings up various social issues regarding vendors such as entry-level wages, workplace safety, environmental practices and diversity in management. Ben & Jerry's goal is "to do business whenever possible with companies that share [its] social values, and to learn from them when their practices in these areas could inform [its] own efforts."[65] It's well on its way to accomplishing this objective, making almost 39% of its purchases from businesses viewed as being particularly aligned with its social values in 1998.[66]
One of these suppliers is St. Albans Cooperative Creamery. The company started purchasing the milk and cream for its frozen treats from the group of Vermont family farmers in 1985. In 1991 it resolved to pay the cooperative no "less than a minimum price to bring the price up to an amount based upon the average price...in certain prior periods....[as] part of an effort to foster the supply of Vermont diary products...against the marketplace background of a continuing trend of decreasing family farms" in the state.[67] The firm has further paid the farmers a premium since 1994 for guaranteeing that the milk and cream it supplies are free from the controversial recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH). This premium totaled roughly $430,000 in 1995. The company opposes the hormone for the stressful effect it has on cows, the effect on the wholesome and pure reputation of dairy products and because it threatens the viability of small farms (by increasing the milk supply and thereby lowering milk prices.)
Greyston Bakery in Yonkers, N.Y. has supplied the company with brownies for its Chocolate Fudge Brownie flavor since 1988. Although Ben & Jerry's was forced to modify its production equipment and create a new recipe in order to use the brownies, thus raising the costs of a pint, the company felt the efforts were merited. Greyston is a non-profit that employs the homeless and other low-income people who face many hurdles securing employment. It also runs a child care facility and healthcare and housing center for people with HIV/AIDS. In addition, it offers social services and permanent housing to low-income families and individuals.
Moreover, Ben & Jerry's has a program called PartnerShops whereby it franchises to non-profits (e.g. the YMCA) that employ persons traditionally outside the work stream. And the corporation recently began a program known as Entrepreneurial Shops, the goal of which it is to create jobs and wealth in the nation's inner cities.
Additionally, the company attempts to increase the diversity of its operations in myriad ways. For example, Ben & Jerry's formally established a Supplier Diversity Program in 1998 (involving a database of over 100 businesses potentially owned by women and/or minorities) in order to readily be able to have its supply needs met "with the most ethnic-and gender-diverse array of possible suppliers".[68] Although it fell short of its modest target of having 1.5% of purchases from minority/female-owned source purchases in 1998, payments to this group of suppliers actually rose from 0.10% of purchases in 1997 to 0.73% of purchases in 1998.[69] Ben & Jerry's aims to increase the number of its franchises (scoop shops) owned by women and people of color as well and has made progress in this endeavor, with the number of franchises owned by these groups increasing in 1998. The corporation has fared well in terms of diversity at the senior management and board level, too. In 1998 two of the eight senior managers comprising the Office of the CEO were people of color and two were females. A white female and two African Americans (one female) currently comprise one-third of the company's nine-member Board of Directors. The company is also currently making efforts to recruit minority consultants.
Finally, the company boldly attempts to raise awareness of social issues among consumers. Using its packaging[70] and even annual reports,[71] it prods consumers and shareholders, respectively, to undertake various socially progressive actions. As well, it hosts a One World, One Heart Festival annually, which provides not only entertainment to consumers but also information[72] and invites them to participate in the political process. Festival attendees receive free ice cream for participating in educational games. One game at the Politics Stand at the 1996 festival (in Minneapolis) required players to apportion the federal budget according to their preferences and then contrasted their priorities with those of the government.[73] Further, Ben & Jerry's makes its political views (e.g. opposition to the Gulf War[74] and support for cuts to military spending[75]) known to the nation's top leaders. In 1998 the firm successfully lobbied for an amendment to Vermont's Business Corporation Act. The amendment permits Directors to consider broad stakeholder (e.g. employees, consumers, suppliers, regional economy and societal considerations) concerns when determining the best interests of a corporation. The company further testified in support of a Vermont Bill permitting the state to recoup Medicaid expenses for health problems caused by tobacco and also signed a letter to Clinton urging Congress to invest the budget surplus on basic human needs, education, research and development, infrastructure and the environment.
Overall, it appears that Ben & Jerry's is making considerable efforts "to do good by integrating 'socially beneficial actions' into their business", though room for improvement exists.[76]
Despite its reputation for social responsibility, there are reasons to question
"whether Ben & Jerry's fully practices the values it preaches."[77]
(a) Union Busters?
In Nov. 1998, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IEBW) sought authorization to represent 19 maintenance workers at Ben & Jerry's plant in St. Albans, Vermont. Given its desire to maintain "a deep respect for individuals inside and outside the company, and for the communities of which they are a part," the company's response was astonishing, when asked whether it would voluntarily recognize the bargaining unit.[78] Ben & Jerry's refused, a response also at odds with the Ben & Jerry's Foundation which seeks to promote/advance social change by helping organizations that help empower people.[79] It appears this philosophy didn't begin at home, although the corporation steadfastly claims to be pro-union and that it simply wanted all plant employees to vote on whether they supported unionization. Of course, it omits to mention that a plant-wide vote would have spelt union defeat. Ultimately, the Labor Department ruled in favor of the maintenance workers and the workers voted 11-8 in favor of representation.
(b) "Swinegate"[80]
Even with the best of intentions, Ben & Jerry's actions have had socially disastrous consequences. A case in point is "swinegate." In the early 1990s, after runs of various ice cream flavors technicians at Ben & Jerry's headquarters would wash the machines with hot water, resulting in much diluted ice cream (or sugar water). Ben & Jerry's, with its desire to be behave in a socially responsible fashion, decided to give this excess to local pig farmers instead of washing it down the drain. The story made international news wires with people viewing this as "another example of benevolent eccentricity at one of today's most progressive companies.[81]
However, the consequences of this altruistic gesture were anything but. Piglets that consumed the sugar water abruptly died at 200 pounds, never reaching their 600 pounds of adulthood. Additionally the slaughtered pigs yielded fattier than normal pork. While the project may otherwise have been considered a minor catastrophe, what rendered it truly shocking was Ben & Jerry's cover up of the affair. The company's annual report deleted a reference to the incident and nobody, least of all the social auditor, was permitted to even discuss it![82]
C. "Rainforest Fiasco"[83]
Another instance of where Ben & Jerry's reckless idealism has lead is what anthropologists referred to as the "rainforest fiasco."[84] In 1988 Cohen attended a "Save the Rainforest" benefit concert by The Grateful Dead in New York. There he met anthropologist Jason Clay, a research director at Cultural Survival, an indigenous rights organization of international repute based in Cambridge. Cohen mentioned that he was creating a new brittle for an upcoming new flavor and was in search of nuts more exotic than peanuts. Clay saw an opportunity and pointed out "his pet project to make the Amazon self-sufficient by marketing renewable non- timber rainforest products" such as flowers, fruits and nuts.[85] Thus began an unfortunate partnership. Clay founded Cultural Survival Enterprises (an organization under the umbrella of Cultural Survival) to source the fruits and nuts while Cohen set up Community Products Inc. (CPI). Sixty percent of the profits of CPI were designated to go to charity, a third of them to Cultural Survival and a third to 1% for Peace (a non-profit Cohen founded to reduce spending on arms). Another 10% of profits were to be shared by employees. Through CS, CPI would source the Amazon nuts and provide them to others interested in producing rainforest-friendly products.
And so Rainforest Crunch ice cream was born. Cohen believed the project offered indigenous groups in the Amazon alternatives to clear-cutting and mining, viewing "CPI as part of a new world where what counted was 'putting people ahead of profit and passing laws that end up getting more money into the hands of poor people and less money into the hands of richer people.'"[86] Lauded "as a successful experiment in the partnering of American business with Amazon preservationists", the ice cream provided the impetus for hundreds of laudatory articles about how principles and profits can work together.[87] The Orange County Register hailed, "Rainforest Crunch: a Sweet Way to Save the Environment."[88]
But the outlook from the Amazon was far from rosy. For one thing, no evidence supported the harvest's underlying premise that nuts could generate the type of income indigenous groups could receive from selling their offland rights to clear-cutters and miners. Some experts also were uneasy about opening up such a fragile area to the marketplace. Within a year problems with the project materialized. The Xapuri cooperative, the expected source of nuts, could not produce the requisite quantity or quality of nuts needed to meet surging demand. Further the co-op had no native workers; instead its members were white, mainly Portuguese rubber tappers – the same people "whose ancestors had arrived at the turn of the [20th] century to exploit the Amazon."[89]. In the end, Ben & Jerry's resorted to "commercial markets supplied by some of the most notorious, anti-labor agribusiness in Latin America, including the Mutran family, convicted of killing labor organizers" to meet the soaring demand for Rainforest Crunch.[90] To make matters worse, Ben & Jerry's continued purchasing over 95% of nuts for its Rainforest Crunch from these notorious producers over the years! And worse still, these bigger commercial suppliers flooded the market and pushed native suppliers out of the market in Bolivia and Brazil. Nut prices plummeted, leading Amazon native people to sell off more land rights to make up for the drop in their incomes.
The harvest publicly unraveled beginning in 1993 but it was only in its 1994 Annual Report that the company publicly acknowledged the ill-considered venture. In assessing the company's social performance, social auditor Paul Hawken questioned "whether representations made on Ben & Jerry's Rainforest Crunch package give an accurate impression to the customer."[91] Only after this did Ben & Jerry's remove its deceptive label, which stated:
Money from these nuts will help Brazilian forest peoples start a nut-shelling co-operative that they'll own and operate. Rainforest Crunch helps to show that the rainforests are more profitable when their nuts, fruits and medicinal plants are cultivated for traditional harvest than when their trees are cut and burned for short-term gain.[92]
Nevertheless, just days after the release of the 1994 Annual Report, Cohen proclaimed during a speech at a Business For Social Responsibility meeting in Los Angeles that Rainforest Crunch "had made a tremendous difference" in helping indigenous Amazon peoples. [93] When pressed, Cohen asserted that Ben & Jerry's at least initiated demand for rainforest goods and declared, "I would do it just the way I did if I had I had to do it again."[94]
In addition to the problematic aspects of Rainforest Crunch with respect to Amazon indigenous peoples, CPI's handling of its contributions raise concerns. To the media and in packaging Rainforest Crunch, CPI referred to the amounts it gave away as donations. However, for tax purposes from 1990-92, it dubbed these amounts "marketing expenses paid to non-profit entities."[95] Significantly, charitable contributions are limited to 10% of taxable income under the Internal Revenue Code, whereas marketing expenses are fully deductible. Eventually, after prodding by Martha Broad, CPI's co-manager, the CPI Board decided to pay out a percentage of revenue instead of profits as a way to avoid the dilemma and sought legal advice. Although the IRS never questioned CPI's accounting, Broad does concede that CPI's resolution of the problem was not the most clean one.[96]
D. Additional Cause for Concern
There are other reasons to be wary of Ben & Jerry's sterling reputation as a socially responsible enterprise.
Once a cornerstone of its socially responsible identity, the company removed its salary cap on the compensation of its highest paid employee in 1994. The company historically limited the salary of its highest paid employee to no more than five times the salary of the lowest paid worker (though the ratio was revised to seven-to-one in 1993). With the removal of the cap, the gap between the highest and lowest paid employee has risen to unprecedented levels. The ratio was an astounding 16-1 in 1998 and is even higher once the current value of unexercised stock options are factored in! Of course, even under the former stringent salary cap, the ratio was misleading for it did not take into account stock options for executives.
In addition, within Vermont farmers who supply the company's milk and cream are the top users of toxic pesticides, making Ben & Jerry's claim of using only natural ingredients misleading. Ben & Jerry's concedes that its farmers use herbicides for corn feed but insist that they would be forced to go out of business otherwise.
Moreover, some franchise owners and small distributors of ice cream charge Ben & Jerry's with becoming a forceful, unfeeling organization. Several distributors have alleged that the company let its largest distributor, Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream Inc. ram its way into their territories.[97] And non-franchisees such as La Soul Bakery ("La Soul") have also cried foul. Reverend James Carter founded the New Jersey bakery staffed by recovering drug addicts and approached Ben & Jerry's in 1992. Cohen loved the bakery's pies and the minister's socially responsible business vision. Three weeks later the company issued Carter a letter of intent to do business and the bakery started supplying ingredients for Ben & Jerry's Low-Fat Apple Pie frozen yogurt in 1993. In 1995 the company, in response to flagging sales of the flavor, decreased orders significantly. When Carter called Cohen to discuss the situation, Carter says he was assured that the company would stick with LaSoul. Despite the assurance, weeks later Ben & Jerry's faxed Carter a letter praising him for his responsible works but canceling all orders, leaving Carter $500,000 in debt. Carter declared, "[I]t's pretty cute, this social mission. But the bottom line is, Ben & Jerry's buried my company."[98] Cohen retorted: "We told Jim to find more customers. We gave him six months' notice."[99] The minister disputed the issue of notice and sued Ben & Jerry's for breach of contract.
Then there was the 1997 arrival of Perry D. Odak as CEO, formerly of gun manufacturer U.S. Repeating Arms (maker of Winchester rifles) fame, and an especially ironic choice considering Ben & Jerry's strong support for gun control. It was akin to "Greenpeace announcing it had just hired the captain of Exxon Valdez!!!!"[100] Ben & Jerry's counters that Odak has a lengthy history of supporting progressive social change.
Another instance that may give rise to concern relates to the search for a new CEO launched by Ben & Jerry's in 1994 to replace Ben Cohen who was stepping down to assume the position of chairman. The company launched its "Yo! I Want to be CEO" contest that year and solicited poems limited to 100 words on the topic. The contest which received over 30,000 entries, however, was merely a marketing ploy. In truth the company hired Russell Reynolds Associates, an executive search firm in New York, one month into the promotion to come up with its leader. That quest produced Robert Holland, Jr., a seasoned, former McKinsey & Company consultant. He did write a poem as per contest rules, but it was only after Ben & Jerry's offered (and he accepted) the top post. Disheartening is that the company disingenuously proclaimed that it might actually consider someone from the campaign as a contender for the post of CEO when it had no intention of so doing.[101]
Not to be overlooked is the fact that Ben & Jerry's manufactures a (costly) product that may have serious health ramifications. These health effects go beyond ice cream being a fatty food. Researchers at Junkscience.com have found that "a single serving of the Ben & Jerry's World's Best Vanilla Ice Cream tested [is] almost 200 times greater than the virtually safe (daily) dose determined by the Environmental Protection Agency" whereas Ben & Jerry's literature contends that dioxin is harmful at all levels.[102] The company's response is that everything we consume has some level of dioxin in it. Further, the corporation's workforce overall is disproportionately (around 97%) white. Ben & Jerry's downplays this fact stating that it mirrors the population of Vermont where the company has its operations. Finally, according to the company's 1998 Annual Report, among non-executive, senior managers pay equity remains troublesome. Women in that group earn an average of 12% less than their male counterparts.
Thus, while Ben & Jerry's continues to espouse that profits and social responsibility must go together, certain of the company's own experiences and practices give one reason to pause.
V. The Verdict on Ben & Jerry's for Its Performance to Date
Ben & Jerry's deserves kudos for its efforts to do good and do well. On one hand, it is apparent that the enterprise has achieved some degree of success as "[a] company which creates profit-making activities [while] at the same time helps to bring about a more just and equitable society."[103] On the other hand, it is evident that the company is far from being a paragon of virtue with some of its actions seemingly at odds with its articulated social mission. And some of its actions demonstrate the tension it has experienced between maximizing profits and fulfilling its social agenda. However, what cannot be ignored is that Ben & Jerry's set itself an ambitious agenda with:
lofty goals, high standards, and great expectations....When a company is as different as Ben & Jerry's, the larger society tends to be both fascinated and impressed. But there is also a subconscious desire to see it fail at being different. The reasons for this are complex, but basically if a company like Ben & Jerry's can succeed in its direct and outspoken effort to help humankind through 'caring capitalism', it questions many old assumptions about the real task of business. Ben & Jerry's can be criticized for not succeeding in several areas, but what they cannot be faulted for is their steadfast commitment to beliefs about how business can and should interact with the greater community. Here, they continue to be on solid ground, a constant and fun-loving reminder that business can do things differently, even brilliantly.[104]
--- Paul Hawken, Social Auditor (1994)
Caring Capitalists Ever After?
For Ben & Jerry's and its brand of "caring capitalism," it may well be that "one
era is ending and another is beginning."[105]
On April 12, 2000, following a suspenseful bidding war, Ben & Jerry's announced its approval of an offer (valued at $43.60 per share) by Unilever. Under the agreement, Ben & Jerry's is to operate as a subsidiary of the largest ice cream company in the world. It will have its own "independent Board of Directors which will focus on providing leadership for Ben & Jerry's social mission and brand integrity."[106] Furthermore, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield will serve on the board.
Such factors may provide some reassurance to those concerned with the consequences of the buyout on the company's social policies. Still, the fact remains that the Ben & Jerry's will now be part and parcel of a multinational corporation and one of the largest consumer products corporations in the global market with operations in 88 nations at that! It's hard to imagine that its social agenda will not suffer any harmful consequences as a result. Nevertheless, despite selling out to a traditional corporation, Cohen & Greenfield are optimistic that they have not sold out their social mission. Commenting on the deal, they stated:
Neither of us could have anticipated, twenty years ago that a major multinational would some day sign on, enthusiastically, to pursue and expand the social mission that continues to be an essential part of Ben & Jerry's and a driving force behind our many successes. But today, Unilever has done just that. While we and others certainly would have preferred to pursue our mission as an independent enterprise, we hope that, as part of Unilever, Ben & Jerry's will continue to expand its role in society."[107]
In addition, the company maintains that its current social mission "will be encouraged
and well-funded" thus leading to "improved performance in this area" as a result of the
transaction.
Ultimately though, only time will tell if the ice cream company will stay true to [its] roots, true to [its] soul, true to [its] dreams for the common good."[108]
[1] Carolyn Friday, Has Ben & Jerry's strayed from its hippie roots?, NEWSWEEK, July 5, 1993, at 40.
[2] Hanna Rosin, The Evil Empire, THE NEW REPUBLIC, Sept. 11, 1995, at 22.
[3] Business for Social Responsibility, Business for Social Responsibility, ¶ 1 (visited Apr. 3, 2000) <http://www.bsr.org>.
[4] Maria Shao, Ben & Jerry's Grows Up, THE BOSTON GLOBE, July 3, 1994, at 65.
[5] Milton Friedman, The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profit, N.Y. TIMES MAGAZINE Sept. 13, 1970, at 32-33, 122-26.
[6] RICHARD N. FARMER & W. DICKERSON HOGUE, CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 2 (1985).
7 JERRY W. ANDERSON, JR., CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: GUIDELINES FOR TOP MANAGEMENT 83 (1989).
[7] THOMAS C. COCHRAN, AMERICAN BUSINESS IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY 176 (1972).
[8] MORRELL HEALD, THE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF BUSINESS: COMPANY AND COMMUNITY 1900-1960 193 (1988).
[9] Id. citing Paul Litchfield, The Trend in Industry, in Vital Speeches of the Day (III), 146-49 (Dec. 15, 1936).
[10] JOEL MAKOWER & BUSINESS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, BEYOND THE BOTTOM LINE 29 (1994).
[11] HOWARD R. BOWEN, SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE BUSINESSMAN 6 (1953).
[12] Id. quoting Professor Donna J. Wood, University of Pittsburgh, Katz Graduate School of Business.
[13] JOHN M. HOOD, THE HEROIC ENTERPRISE: BUSINESS AND THE COMMON GOOD xiii (1996).
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] MAKOWER & BSR, supra note 11, at 31.
[17 ]Id. at 38.
[18] Id. at 40.
[19] Daniel Kadlec, The New World of Corporate Giving, 149 TIME No.18, ¶ 20 (May 5, 1997), <www.time.com/time/magazine/1997/dom/970505/business.the_new_world.html>.
[20] Bill Tielman, Counterpoint: Ethical Investing a win-win situation for investors, FINANCIAL POST, Oct. 11, 1999, at C07.
[21] Id.
[22] Barbara Krumisiek, Investing with a conscience can build client trust, INVESTMENT NEWS, Jan. 31, 2000, at 14.
[23] FARMER & HOGUE, supra note 6.
[24] HOOD, supra note 13, at xiv-xv.
[25] Canadian Business for Social Responsibility, What is Corporate Social Responsibility? (visited Mar. 11, 2000) <http://www.cbsr.bc.ca/FactsAboutCSR/>.
[26] Keith B. Murray & Christine Vogel, Using a Hierarchy-of-Effects Approach to Gauge the Effectiveness of Corporate Social Responsibility to Generate Goodwill Toward the Firm: Financial versus Nonfinancial Impacts, 38 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH No. 2, Feb. 1997.
[27] Author unspecified, The Best Corporate Reputations: American Public Picks Top 30 Companies in U.S., BUSINESS WIRE (available through Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe), Sept. 23, 1999, at ¶ 1.
[28] BEN COHEN & JERRY GREENFIELD, BEN & JERRY'S DOUBLE DIP: HOW TO RUN A VALUES-LED BUSINESS AND MAKE MONEY, TOO 29 (1997).
[29] Id. at 44.
[30] Id. at 23.
[31] Id. at 23, 42.
[32] Murray Raphel, What's the Scoop on Ben & Jerry, 57 DIRECT MARKETING MAGAZINE No.4 , Aug. 1994, at 23.
[33] BEN & JERRY'S HOMEMADE, INC., 1998 ANNUAL REPORT 2 (1999).
[34] Id.
[35] Id.
[36] Id.
[37] COHEN & GREENFIELD, supra note 29, at 42.
[38] Ben Cohen: Interview, BUSINESS ETHICS, Sept./Oct.1994, at 19.
[39] This amount is exclusive of corporate sponsorships intended partly for marketing ends and contributions from incidental operations such as admission fees from plant tours. See infra Part III.A (iv).
[40] BEN & JERRY'S HOMEMADE, INC., supra note 34, at 27.
[41] Id.
[42] Id.
[43] Id.
[44] The program is restricted to five workers performing a total of 50 hrs of community service work each year. See Jennifer J. Laabs, Ben & Jerry's Caring Capitalism, PERSONNEL JOURNAL, Nov. 1982, at 55.
[45] Id. at 55, 57.
[46] See infra Part III.D.
[47] COHEN & GREENFIELD, supra note 29, at 85.
[48] Id. at 48.
[49] Laabs, supra note 45.
[50] Shelley Reese, Happiness Matters, 17 PERSONNEL JOURNAL, No. 9, Sept. 1999, at 21.
[51 ]Id. at 22.
[52] Susan J. Wells, A Benefit Built for 2, 44 HR MAGAZINE No. 8, Aug. 1999, at 40.
[53] Laabs, supra note 45, at 52.
[54] BEN & JERRY'S HOMEMADE, INC., supra note 34, at 16.
[55] Mitch Curren, Ben & Jerry's Scoop on Environmentalism, 9 FORUM FOR APPLIED RESEARCH AND PUBLIC POLICY, No.2, Art. 6 (Summer 1994) <http://forum.ra.utk.edu//forum9-2.htm>.
[56] The Report is "designed to stimulate changes at companies which complete it - lowering pollution, improving management and stakeholder responsiveness." Coalition For Environmentally Responsible Economies, Environmental Reporting, ¶ 5 (visited Apr. 8, 2000) <http://www.ceres.org/reporting/index.html>.
[57] Coalition For Environmentally Responsible, About CERES - Background, ¶ 5, (visited Apr. 8, 2000) <http://www.ceres.org/about/index.html>.
[58] BEN & JERRY'S HOMEMADE, INC., 1998 CERES REPORT 5 (1999).
[59] Id.
[60] MAKOWER & BSR, supra note 10, at 146.
[61] See infra Part III.D..
[62] BEN & JERRY'S HOMEMADE, INC., supra note 34, at 4.
[63] Released in water, they build up in the fatty tissues of fish and work their way up the food chain to us. The same is true of airborne organochlorine pollution carried on the winds.
[64] BEN & JERRY'S HOMEMADE, INC., Press Release, Ben & Jerry's Announces Environmentally-Friendly Packaging Innovation, (Feb,22, 1999) <www.benjerry.com/pressrel/unbleached.html>.
[65] BEN & JERRY'S HOMEMADE, INC., supra note 34, at 17.
[66] BEN & JERRY'S HOMEMADE, INC. Transcript of the 1999 Annual Company Meeting, (June 26, 1999) <http://lib.benjerry.com/fin/transcripts/1999trans.html>.
[67] BEN & JERRY'S HOMEMADE, INC., 1998 ANNUAL REPORT (SEC FORM 10-K) 2, (Mar. 26, 1999) <http://euphoria.benjerry.com/fin/1998/BIJCA10-K.html>.
[68] Id.
[69] Id. at 17-18.
[70] See Appendix A.
[71] See Appendix B.
[72] See Appendix C
[73] See Appendix D.
[74] See Appendix E.
[75] See Appendix F.
[76] Alex Taylor III, Yo Ben! Yo Jerry! It's Just Ice Cream!, Fortune, Apr. 28, 1997, at 374.
[77] Shao, supra note 4.
[78] Corporate Watch: The Watchdogs on the Web, USA: Labor Organizers Battle Ben & Jerry's, (Nov. 17, 1998) <www.corpwatch .org>.
[79] The Ben & Jerry's Foundation, Foundation Guidelines, ¶ 9, (visited Mar. 14, 2000) <www.benjerry.com/foundation/index.html>.
[80] Jon Entine, The Messy Reality of Socially Responsible Business, BWZ MAGAZINE, ¶ 4 (1997) <www.betterworld.com>.
[81] Id. at ¶ 2.
[82] Id.
[83] Id. at ¶ 6.
[84] Id.
[85] Id. at ¶ 9.
[86] Edward O. Welles, Ben's big flop, INC., Sept. 1998, at 40.
[87] Marianne M. Jennings & Jon Entine, Guest Writers: Business With A Soul: A Reexamination Of What Counts In Business Ethics, 20 HAMLINE J. PUB. L. & POL'Y 1, 42 (Fall 1998).
[88] Quoted in Welles, supra note 87, at 47.
[89] Rosin, supra note 2, at 22.
[90] Id.
[91] BEN & JERRY'S HOMEMADE INC., 1994 ANNUAL REPORT (1995), <http://lib.benjerry.com/fin/1994/social-audit-1994-1.html>.
[92] COHEN & GREENFIELD, supra note 29, at 149.
[93] Jeff Glasser, Dark Cloud: Ben & Jerry's Inaccurate in Rainforest Nut Pitch, ST. LOUIS POST DISPATCH, July 30, 1995, (page references unavailable on Westlaw).
[94] Id.
[95] Welles, supra note 87.
[96] Id.
[97] Shao, supra note 4.
[98] Rosin, supra note 2.
[99] Andrew E. Serwer, Ben & Jerry's: Corporate Ogre, FORTUNE, July 10, 1995, at 30.
[100] Andrew E. Serwer, Ben & Jerry's is back: Ice Cream and a Hot Stock, 140 FORTUNE, No.3, Aug. 2, 1999, at 267.
[101] After being asked if the contest was merely hype or whether someone really would land a job via the contest, company spokesperson Rob Michalak responded: "Yes, somebody could actually be included in the process that comes to us by way of the poster campaign essay contest." Associated Press, Thousands in Quest to Get Real Cool Job, L.A. TIMES, July 20, 1994, at D2.
[102] Steven Milloy, Unsafe Levels of Dioxin Found in Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, Study Says, ¶ 4 (Nov. 8, 1999) <http://www.junkscience.com/nov99/bjpress.htm>.
[103] BEN & JERRY'S HOMEMADE, INC., 1997 ANNUAL REPORT, (1998) <http://lib.benjerry.com/fin/1997/1997ar/founrsletr.html>.
[104] BEN & JERRY'S HOMEMADE, INC., 1994 ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 92.
[105] Shao, supra note 4 (quoting Ben Cohen at the 1994 Annual Shareholders Meeting).
[106] Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Inc., News Release: Ben & Jerry's & Unilever to Join Forces, ¶ 3 (Apr. 12, 2000) <http://lib.benjerry.com/pressrel/join-forces.html>.
[107] Id. at ¶ 5.
[108] Shao, supra note 4 (quoting Ben Cohen at the 1994 Annual Shareholders Meeting).