______________ Case Analysis of PepsiCo in relation to the environment In today’s society, people are now more aware and concern about the products they purchase. So much so that many big corporations can no longer disregard their activities that may or are already causing massive harm to the environment (Success of Palm Oil Brings Plantations Under Pressure to Preserve Habitats 2009). Moreover with the power of the media, it is made easier for both the corporation itself and the environmentalist to publicise the activities corporations are involved in and the impact of these activities, be it positive or negative (Aaron 2008). An international corporation like Unilever, which is also the largest food company in United States (Greenpeace 2008), can affect the environment and its people both positively and negatively. An analysis was conducted on Unilever, detailing the impact of their actions in relation to the environment. Two cases for and against Unilever were examined. ____________________________________________________________
Palm oil is an economical and widely used ingredient for food and cosmetic products (Greenpeace 2008; The other oil spill; The campaign against palm oil 2010, 71) that is highly targeted by Greenpeace, recognised as the ‘protector’ of the environment (Greenpeace n.d.), in 2008. Many palm oil suppliers were conducting deforestation of Indonesia’s rainforest and peatlands to make space for palm trees (Greenpeace 2008; The other oil spill; The campaign against palm oil 2010, 71). This is due to the rising demand of palm oil, which is expected to be double that of 2008 by 2030 (Greenpeace 2008; Paul 2008). Owing to deforestation, Indonesia is now the third largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions (Greenpeace 2008; Greenpeace Campaign Forces Unilever U-Turn on Palm Oil 2008), next to USA & China. She has contributed 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions (Greenpeace 2008; Greenpeace Campaign Forces Unilever U-Turn on Palm Oil 2008), which is expected to rise by 50% in 2030 (Greenpeace 2008). This deforestation not only contributed to the greenhouse gas emissions, it is also some wild animals, such as orang-utans to be extinct (Greenpeace 2008; Greenpeace Campaign Forces Unilever U-Turn on Palm Oil 2008). Unilever is one of the major consumers of palm oil. Not only is Unilever one of the founders of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), it is also chairing the RSPO (Greenpeace 2008; Paul 2008; leads major brands in new palm oil coalition 2008). RSPO, founded in 2004 (Unilever n.d.; Unilever makes palm oil pledge 2008) consists of members ranging from suppliers to manufacturers (Liz 2009). It sets criteria for the production of sustainable palm oil. However, RSPO did not certify any palm oil since its establishment till 2008, even after setting up a certification scheme (Greenpeace 2008). As a result of its prominent role, Unilever inevitably becomes the obvious target of Greenpeace’s activists (The other oil spill; The campaign against palm oil 2010, 71). In April 2008, Greenpeace organised a series of activities right at the door step of Unilever’s various HQ (Greenpeace 2008; Aaron 2008). Activists dressed as orang-utans distributed flyers and hung banners at Unilever’s HQ (Aaron 2008). This was done with the intention to mock Unilever by creating parodies on the advertisement on Dove (Aaron 2008). Dove is a product under Unilever. During that same period, Greenpeace produced a report, ‘How Unilever Palm Oil Suppliers are Burning up Borneo’ (Greenpeace 2008), claiming that Unilever was responsible to the environmental damage in Indonesia with their ongoing relationship between these suppliers and choosing to stand by and watch Indonesia’s rainforest obliterate (Greenpeace 2008). Unilever was not the only corporation to suffer from Greenpeace’s protest. Three other corporations, who were Unilever’s public relations agencies (Kate 2008; Unilever leads major...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document