Greenlandic broccoli.

Organic Food / Corporate Ownership

Cornucopia Institute, an organic food thinktank, links to a chart of corporate ownership of major (American) organic food producers. Some of these brands (Celestial Seasonings, Rice Dream, Ben & Jerry's, Kellogg's) are also available in Finland; you'll get a nice view of who owns what in this growing industry.

• Industry structure in 2002
• Industry structure in 2006
  

The trend towards consolidation is quite clear.

The chart is developed by Dr Phil Howard, a professor at Michigan State University.

Cornucopia Institute's blog is here.

The Guardian taps into the case of supermarkets and female workers.

EU seeks to fight climate change with taxes

The Commission will on 28 March present ideas for “green taxes” to save energy and cut greenhouse gas emissions. It says that such an ‘ecological tax reform’ could increase the bloc’s competitiveness by shifting the burden away from labour taxes.

EU heads of state and government, meeting in Brussels on 8-9 March 2007, committed themselves to reducing European CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020 compared with 1990 levels – a bold promise, when one considers that Europe is already struggling to meet its current target, under the Kyoto Protocol, of cutting these emissions by 8% by 2012.

Currently, the EU’s principal tool to reduce emissions is its carbon trading scheme, but the EU will have to find new ways to discourage pollution if it is to reach its ambitious goal. Taxation could provide an answer as it can be used to orient producers’ and consumers’ behaviours to non-environmentally friendly goods.

From http://www.planet2025news.net/ntext.rxml?id=4261&photo=

Member states urged to take action on 'e-waste'

Consumer electronic manufacturers including Sony, Nokia and HP, and NGOs ranging from Greenpeace to Friends of the Earth, have called on the Commission to take action against 11 member states that have transposed the WEEE directive without making producers fully responsible for the recycling of electrical and electronic products.

The Directive on Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) aims to increase the reuse, recycling and recovery of waste from a variety of consumer products ranging from light bulbs to PCs. Electrical equipment is one of the fastest- growing waste streams in the EU.
The Directive aims to create incentives for producers to take the initiative to improve the design of their products and make them easier to recycle.

From http://www.euractiv.com/en/environment/member-states-urged-take-action-waste/article-162349


Snack-maker aims for green consumers with carbon labels
By Fiona Harvey,Environment Correspondent, Financial Times

Packets of Walkers crisps will appear on the shelves today carrying the world's first "carbon labels", enabling customers to gauge the effect of their buying habits on the climate.
The labels will show that 75g of carbon dioxide are emitted to produce and transport 34.5g of Walkers crisps "from seed to store".

Tom Delay, chief executive of the Carbon Trust, thegovernment-funded body that helped to develop the labels, said: "This will be a driver for businesses starting to compete on their carbon footprint as much as on price."

The carbon labels come as companies try to impress their green credentials on environmentally conscious customers. Walkers has been working with the trust for five years and other -companies, including Boots, the retailer, are expectedto launch similar labels soon.
Innocent, the maker of smoothies and fruit juices, will include information on the "carbon footprint" of its products on its website initially, although in the future these could appear on the juice packaging.

Marks and Spencer said yesterday it was also working with the trust on carbon labels for some product lines. Separate from the Carbon Trust's work, Tesco announced earlier this year it would put carbon labels on all of its products, although this could take several years.
Mr Delay said the idea was likely to be adopted more widely: "This is a little beginning to something that could be very big." He said the labels would explain to consumers the CO2emitted from the products, which would enable people trying to buy ethically to choose between different products.

Ben & Jerry's, the ice-cream brand, welcomed the initiative but said it would not put carbon labels on its products until an international standard had been set.
Fiona Dawson, chair of the Food and Drink Federation's sustainability and competitiveness steering group, said: "A single methodology for industry as a whole is essential. This is a complex issue. To be effective, the methodology must be practicable, based upon sound science and easily understood."

Coca-Cola's ethics put to the test in European-wide study

Coca-Cola's performance as an ethically conscious global brand has come under scrutiny in a 15 nation, European-wide study into the soft drinks giant's involvement in social causes and environmental responsibility.

Over two-thirds of respondents questioned whether the company makes a positive contribution to society.The study, which was commissioned by Vlerick Leuven Ghent Management School in Belgium, looked at the Socially Responsible Trading performance of Coca-Cola across 15 major European markets and eight separate consumer groups.

According to the report, more than 40% of respondents felt Coca-Cola was not making a positive contribution to society, with over-three quarters of those polled stating they were prepared to pay more for ethically produced goods.

Additionally, 86% of people surveyed said companies should speak about their charitable work, but a proportion of respondents said "virtue is its own reward".

However, the report warned that brands must be seen to be engaging in social and environmental programmes to remain successful.T

From http://www.planet2025news.net/ntext.rxml?cust=1001&id=4306&url=http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/645693/Coca-Colas-ethics-put-test-European-wide-study/&photo=

Cargill Shuts Down Soy Plant in the Amazon; "Whole Foods" Arrives in Britain; Itella, Nutella, Risella, A Rose by Any Other Name

Environmentalists and local politicians and activists celebrated, as local authorities in Brazil shut down a soy distribution plant in Santarem (here's where it is on the map.) The rainforest region has lost 20 percent of its trees and environmentalists claimed that it would lose more, if the plant was allowed to continue distribution.
---
US organic food mega chain Whole Foods arrives in Britain.
---
Now, apologies in advance, if I get a bit political on this next topic.

Established in 1638, Suomen Posti is changing its name to Itella in June. This begs the question, and just one question -- WHY? (Why on earth?) "Itella" is a publicly owned corporation that delivers mail, and as taxpayer-shareholders, wouldn't we all want to know:

a) How much does "Itella" rebranding cost? How much does it cost to redo all post office logos in stationary, vans, post boxes, office buildings? How much does it cost to advertise "Itella"? I don't mean "cost" with "unrealized gains" and hot air, I mean, how much does it really cost?

b) Who were the consultants, how were they chosen, and how much did they get paid -- and for what?

c) Who suggested this and who approved it? Did management actively solicit this brand change, or were they approached by "consultants"?

d) When will the investment bankers walk in, talking synergies, "strategic alternatives", "ownership structure", outside financing, leverage, IPO?

Is this paving way to privatization? It sure sounds more fitting to do a public offering of "Itella", as opposed to creating a primary market in the shares of Suomen Posti, which just sounds ... wrong. Because for almost four hundred years Posti- ja telelaitos, later Suomen Posti has belonged to, that's right, Sweden, Russia and finally Suomi. The name says so. I'm dreading that someone actually approves the privatization of postal services, which means Itella will then be majority owned by mostly US institutional investors (represented by a guy in a Brooks Brothers suit sitting in front of a computer terminal in Boston, Westchester, or Midtown Manhattan) who couldn't care less about whether the guys and gals in Jämijärvi get their morning paper before their afternoon coffee.

Here's an idea: why can't you just make it a better run business?

Why couldn't the company be well run and make nice profits even as Suomen Posti owned by the state of Finland?

A lively discussion on the Helsingin Sanomat website continues about Itella. Someone chose the username "Nutella" and I realized that's it -- my mind had frantically tried to recall what I was associating with the name Itella. Yes. Nutella. That's why it sounded wrong. Synesthesia means that names do matter. Why not use an X in the name? FPX? (Finland Post X -- for no other reason than the fact that X as well as Z sound speedy and cool. Sort of. American Express, Fedex, Rizzo, Zio, Cazze, Mexx, Jamie Foxx, taxpayer money, what have you.)

All in all, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. When rap star Puff Daddy changed his name to P Diddy, it sounded pretty stupid (really stupid), but apparently the guy was still cool. Postal services aren't cool even if they're called Itella. They're just ... postal services. Maybe they're just more privatizable (just coined a word.) Think TeliaSonera -- TS reminds me of two things: how my stock broker friend north of Boston made a killing with the Sonera IPO money left on the table and how Sonera used to be a part of Posti- ja telelaitos. Most importantly, there are precedents; this has been done before, in Shakespeare country, and it didn't work out.

Who is making money off of real public corporations and who is paying the bill? If someone out there actually considers future privatization a viable strategic alternative, please answer me this: Why would it be better to have a bunch of nameless, faceless US shareholders presumably running the show (especially when they'd probably rather be golfing in the Carolinas) as opposed to continuing to employ local people that represent 5 million Finns who care about getting their mail safely and on time? If you consider the countryside, there are many old people out there who hope they could get their mail delivered to their front door, because they're too tired to walk to their mailbox. Those are the people who this business ought to be answering to.

This corporation used to be subsidized by the government. It was built up with government money, our money. On one hand we have potential government profit centers (such as "Itella") and on the other, we have cost centers (such as old people's homes and city hospitals for the elderly.) Everyone and their second cousin seems more interested in these profit centers.

I appreciate the fact that while considering these highly charged issues one is supposed to remain credible, cool, calm, collected and analytical, but sometimes I don't think it's halfway human. Even in business schools, I wish people took more stands. Why is it any less normative and any more credible to rely on some of the dogma that economics and business books spew out, including the dogma that private = better? Milton Friedman got a Nobel prize. My personal opinion still remains that he was wrong about CSR, with or without the prize. Was his opinion really more credible because he appeared unaffected while speaking, or did he merely wear, on that issue, the cloak of intellectualism like the emperor's new clothes? Do we all when we focus on snazzying up the "Itellas" of the world, as opposed to doing what's gotta be done and running lives and businesses better and more sensibly?

Rant over. Thank you.